Scotland v. All Blacks
Discussion
Apart from the drubbing we took, I thought that the team colour choice was a bit dodgy. I had to watch the game at work on a 14" portable and found it a bit hard to see who was who, especially in the rucks. I was hoping one of the teams would come out at half time wearing white shorts.
Lots not good with that match.
Why didnt both tweams play in their normal colours? Madness so hard to tell teams apart.
Scotland not putting out their strongest squad, insulting to the competition.
AB's playing badly and 'only' scoring 40pts, there taking a real drubing over the way they played here.
Oh and someone(in Australia) just put $5mil on the AB's to win the cup...
Why didnt both tweams play in their normal colours? Madness so hard to tell teams apart.
Scotland not putting out their strongest squad, insulting to the competition.
AB's playing badly and 'only' scoring 40pts, there taking a real drubing over the way they played here.
Oh and someone(in Australia) just put $5mil on the AB's to win the cup...
Yes, it would have been good to see a full Scotland side on the park but the team must beat Italy to go through to the next stage and as that is not a certainty I can understand why Frank Hadden too this decision. Having said that I would have been mighty miffed to have paid the ticket prices to see Scotland B vs. NZ A.
I'm still predicting NZ will not win the cup either.
I'm still predicting NZ will not win the cup either.
Odd game. Watched it with my GF who is no rabid fan but knows the rules of rugby (union) reasonably well, she's been going out with me 12+ years and I played it when I met her.
The first comment from her was - WTF, can't tell which side is which. And given we were in a pub with projector screen, and even though I was wearing my glasses, I could see her point. The 'All Blacks' (as said on their shirts) were allegedly 'silver and black' according to the commentators, yet they looked white and blue on the screen we were watching. Of course the Scots were also wearing white and blue. The pattern was different, but at least the Scots had the socks with the spots on the back....
And the ITV commentator said at half time 'if you can't tell the difference because of the similar strips, the All Blacks are the ones with the ball'....
ho ho ho, to be brutally honest the All Blacks should have really walked away with a cricket score.
The Scots were only going to be competitive with a proper team, traditional Scottish rugby weather, serious partisan support, and some passionate, inspired play. The fielded team was weak, their 'world-class' players didn't perform (what the
happened to Chris Paterson??? I didn't see any injury, but his kicking was dire and the few close-ups during the match looked like he was concussed or a Glasgow skag addict) - the weather was good for running rugby, and the crowd were eerily silent.
And the number of unforced handling errors was surreal. I suppose the Scots will use their 'young second team' excuse for that, but the All Blacks had a proper side and needed proper match practice.... their ball handling skills looked bloody shocking, and were a major reason for the relatively low score against the Scots. Especially since the NZ pack simply annihilated the Scottish front 5 from the very start.
All in all the Scots did well to get away with the scoreline given the NZ forwards' dominance. I'm sort of neutral, since even though I'm a quarter Scot by blood my Mum didn't know her Dad (long story) and I still remember the Scots supporting the Iraqis over the English in the football a good few years back, and don't appreciate that attitude (I'm English but will support the Welsh or Irish in general against 'foreign' sides...) - however even with my perhaps-unfounded bad attitude towards Scots fans... I feel it was lame to field a less-than-full-strength side against the famous All Blacks at home in Edinburgh. Especially when the Rugby World Cup 2007 is actually meant to be hosted in France. The Scots got the chance to watch their national team play against the greats in the World Cup without having to travel to France, in their historic stadium, and yet the coach put out a second-string team. If I was Scottish and paid for a ticket I'd be pissed off.
The first comment from her was - WTF, can't tell which side is which. And given we were in a pub with projector screen, and even though I was wearing my glasses, I could see her point. The 'All Blacks' (as said on their shirts) were allegedly 'silver and black' according to the commentators, yet they looked white and blue on the screen we were watching. Of course the Scots were also wearing white and blue. The pattern was different, but at least the Scots had the socks with the spots on the back....
And the ITV commentator said at half time 'if you can't tell the difference because of the similar strips, the All Blacks are the ones with the ball'....
ho ho ho, to be brutally honest the All Blacks should have really walked away with a cricket score.The Scots were only going to be competitive with a proper team, traditional Scottish rugby weather, serious partisan support, and some passionate, inspired play. The fielded team was weak, their 'world-class' players didn't perform (what the
happened to Chris Paterson??? I didn't see any injury, but his kicking was dire and the few close-ups during the match looked like he was concussed or a Glasgow skag addict) - the weather was good for running rugby, and the crowd were eerily silent.And the number of unforced handling errors was surreal. I suppose the Scots will use their 'young second team' excuse for that, but the All Blacks had a proper side and needed proper match practice.... their ball handling skills looked bloody shocking, and were a major reason for the relatively low score against the Scots. Especially since the NZ pack simply annihilated the Scottish front 5 from the very start.
All in all the Scots did well to get away with the scoreline given the NZ forwards' dominance. I'm sort of neutral, since even though I'm a quarter Scot by blood my Mum didn't know her Dad (long story) and I still remember the Scots supporting the Iraqis over the English in the football a good few years back, and don't appreciate that attitude (I'm English but will support the Welsh or Irish in general against 'foreign' sides...) - however even with my perhaps-unfounded bad attitude towards Scots fans... I feel it was lame to field a less-than-full-strength side against the famous All Blacks at home in Edinburgh. Especially when the Rugby World Cup 2007 is actually meant to be hosted in France. The Scots got the chance to watch their national team play against the greats in the World Cup without having to travel to France, in their historic stadium, and yet the coach put out a second-string team. If I was Scottish and paid for a ticket I'd be pissed off.
80Bob said:
Yes, it would have been good to see a full Scotland side on the park but the team must beat Italy to go through to the next stage and as that is not a certainty I can understand why Frank Hadden too this decision. Having said that I would have been mighty miffed to have paid the ticket prices to see Scotland B vs. NZ A.
I'm still predicting NZ will not win the cup either.
It's interesting, I've failed to be impressed by most teams. South Africas performance against Tonga was not great. England aren't there at all IMO. France being beaten by Argentina shows they aren't particularly strong. NZ played with far too many errors in their last match, and Australia v Wales wasn't a particularly convincing performance either.I'm still predicting NZ will not win the cup either.
esselte said:
It's easy,the All Blacks were the ones scoring all the points......
....
Stupid decision on the strip - the usual All Black strip would have been more different. Even the commentator said "If you are having difficulty telling them apart, the All Blacks are the ones with the ball".....80Bob said:
Yes, it would have been good to see a full Scotland side on the park but the team must beat Italy to go through to the next stage and as that is not a certainty I can understand why Frank Hadden too this decision. Having said that I would have been mighty miffed to have paid the ticket prices to see Scotland B vs. NZ A.
I'm still predicting NZ will not win the cup either.
If I were a Scotland fan, I'd rather they did the best they could to get through to the quarter finals - having key players involved in a tough match before the Italy game would be too risky IMO. Unless you're of the opinion that the full Scottish side had a chance to beat NZ...I'm still predicting NZ will not win the cup either.
Was it just me or did the All black scrum consitantly try to bring down the Scottish scrum (opposite side from the referee) ? If their scrum was truly dominant (as the commentators kept repeating adnauseam) then they could have pushed the Scots back and it would have collasped from the second row (and not from the side as was happening) ?
Jinx said:
Was it just me or did the All black scrum consitantly try to bring down the Scottish scrum (opposite side from the referee) ? If their scrum was truly dominant (as the commentators kept repeating adnauseam) then they could have pushed the Scots back and it would have collasped from the second row (and not from the side as was happening) ?
Absolutely.The much vaunted NZ front row failed to perform and I thought the first cap loosehead for Scotland made Hayman an irrelevance by taking him out of his comfort zone. If Hayman were that good surely he would have sorted him out? I was waiting but It never happened.Much of Haymans technique was illegal but he was not punished, all in all a strange afternoon in the front row.
Stuart Barnes commentating on scrummaging is a joke anyway.
Chrispy Porker said:
Jinx said:
Was it just me or did the All black scrum consitantly try to bring down the Scottish scrum (opposite side from the referee) ? If their scrum was truly dominant (as the commentators kept repeating adnauseam) then they could have pushed the Scots back and it would have collasped from the second row (and not from the side as was happening) ?
Absolutely.The much vaunted NZ front row failed to perform and I thought the first cap loosehead for Scotland made Hayman an irrelevance by taking him out of his comfort zone. If Hayman were that good surely he would have sorted him out? I was waiting but It never happened.Much of Haymans technique was illegal but he was not punished, all in all a strange afternoon in the front row.
Stuart Barnes commentating on scrummaging is a joke anyway.
esselte said:
RobDickinson said:
Scotland not putting out their strongest squad, insulting to the competition.
.
Isn't it also cheating the spectators? I'm not just criticising Scotland for this....shouldn't all teams field their strongest squad...just a question....
Scotland fielding a weakened team against the ABs was, in my view, a completely different matter. The team and the coach have one job to do, and one job only - to advance as far as possible through the World Cup. The pressure to do this is obviously increased by the financial requirements of the professional game... "World Cup Quarter-Finalists" is a lot more marketable than "Didn't make it out of the group stage, but golly, we fielded our strongest team when we lost to the ABs"!
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff