Are Scottish Clubs retaining enough players?

The latest Scottish rugby related news was today’s announcement that Richie Gray, one of Scotland’s brightest prospects, will move to Sale at the end of the season. Sale already have two members of Scotland’s World Cup squad in Alisdair Dickinson and Richie Vernon. Max Evans recently made the move from Scottish club rugby to play for Castres in France, and the concern is whether these moves reveal a difficulty for Scottish pro teams in retaining their most talented and high profile players.

There are some players integral to the Scottish team who have remained loyal and stayed in Scotland throughout their careers, but there does seem to be a trend in the direction of the careers of young players who have had a great impact when introduced at International level. Scotland have been successful in terms of retaining key players such as Mike Blair, Chris Paterson (for the most part), Allan Jacobsen, Graeme Morrison and John Barkley over the years, but as mentioned there does seem to be a trend in which once players gain recognition and status at International level they are quickly lured overseas or down South.

The trend I am talking about is one in which a player joins the pro ranks in Scotland, and works his way up the ladder gaining a call up to the Scotland squad. Many of the players who have done this and impressed once they have reached the International scene, have moved on and decided to play their club rugby in another country. In many scenarios it is as if the Scottish pro teams have acted as a stepping stone for players, and if this continues it is a very worrying trend.

Looking at specific players who have climbed the Scottish pro ladder and moved on once they have gained International status, there are many examples. It is not so much the fact that players leave, as this will always happen, but it is the value of the players who are starting to leave, and the fact that they at the height of their career at the time which is concerning.

There are lots of examples, too many to name, but there are certain players who outline what could become a problematic trend. Big names such as Euan Murray, Kelly Brown, Nathan Hines, Richie Vernon and Richie Gray are all forwards who come through Scottish pro rugby and moved on in their prime. In the backs there are the Lamont brothers, Hugo Southwell, Rory Lawson and Max Evans. There are many members or players of the fringes of the Scotland squad who are now playing out of Scotland, but ones named are all significant names and vital members of the squad.

We cannot expect to retain all of our players in Scotland, but it is important some of the core of the International team remain home bound. If we are to compete with the top Nations then we must compare ourselves to the top Nations. Looking at the rugby Nations ranked above us, with the exception of Tonga and Argentina as they do not have professional rugby teams, most are all successful at keeping the majority of their top players in their country.

The question which needs to be asked is why are some players deciding to leave? I struggle to believe all these decisions are purely financial, so what else is there, and can anything be done? Do players see the Aviva Premiership and Top 14 rugby as more challenging than the now named RaboDirect Pro12 League, and as competitions which will allow them to compete at a higher level week in week out? On the flip side we don’t see many top International players outside the Celtic countries and Italy play in the RaboDirect Pro12 League.

I mentioned that Nations ranked above us are fairly good at retaining players, but Wales seems to be going through a similar problem to Scotland at the moment. Many of their top players are leaving their National district teams to play abroad also, so does the League need to be looked at more closely? It could be argued that teams in the RaboDirect Pro12 League  also have the Heineken Cup and potentially the Amlin Challenge Cup in which they will come up against stiffer competition, but is this enough?

The English Premiership is full of tough matches every week, but can the RaboDirect Pro12 League boast this same statement? I feel Scottish pro rugby clubs need to have more tough matches more regularly, and I also feel they need to play English teams more often. If some players knew these changes were to be made would they agree to stay in Scotland? These changes may not be possible right now, but they need to be looked into happening and be attempted, as Scotland cannot afford to lose too many top players to clubs in other countries.

Lurking with lack of intent

Throughout the World Cup there were instances in which one rule was allowing teams to produce rugby which was useful to their cause, but detrimental to the spectacle of the game. The issue in hand could, if not dealt with, become a major problem in rugby, and is one in which I feel a rule change needs to be enforced in order to eradicate.

I recently read a stat that in the final of the World Cup, New Zealand captain Richie McCaw stood over a motionless ball at the back of a ruck for 16 seconds before doing anything. The All Blacks were in the lead, the clock was running down, and for the sake of ball retention and turnover prevention he was simply running the clock down. Ball retention, possession, whatever you want to call it, this style of play cannot be described as anything but stifling the game. This is just one instance, and New Zealand were one of the teams least guilty of this.

This tactic has become more and more utilised since the game was played in two 40 minute halves with no extra time. It has been used more, and it has also started to come into play at an earlier stage, and there is big concern of where it will lead. What is to stop a team drilling this ball retention, regardless of where is it taking them on the pitch and what they are planning to do with the ball, and winning games by simply not allowing the opposition to compete in the form of playing rugby? Are inferior team in terms of attacking and all round rugby ability being able to use a rule to their advantage to win games, and is it right?

Let's take an example of how a team might use this ploy to beat a better opposition. For the first half possession is the emphasis, and this slow, safe, creeping approach of attacking from the base of the ruck is the platform. If it is working, great, and territory will be gained. If not, territory needs to be gained by another route, and if the team is not strong in attack, this can be resolved by a good kicking game. It's simple, keep the ball, gain territory, and when in distance be patient and wait for a penalty. If this has been drilled and the team can do it correctly they may be able to go into the second half a few points in the lead.

For the second half the same game plan is utilised, but at time goes on, as long as the team are still in the lead, territory becomes a secondary issue, and the emphasis is purely on keeping the opponents from having the ball. As the end of the game is in sight, all other rugby is abandoned, and this clock running and ball retention is all the viewers see. When the 80 minutes is up, the acting dummy half simply kicks the ball into touch and the game is done. But when does it start, this running down the clock? Five minutes from the end of the match? Will this go to 10 15, 20, more?

This is an extreme example of what could eventually happen, but it is one which if possible could ruin the game. In order to eradicate the possibility of this happening, something must be done to the rules of the game. the expression or rule of "use it or lose it" comes into play for mauls, so why not rucks. Picking up the ball from the back of the ruck and going to deck with the mere intention of retaining the ball is not "using" the ball. Fair enough if ground is being made, but if it a team is employing this technique in a negative, suffocating way, it should not be seen as "using" ball. 

Referees need to be aware of this tactic, and be able to recognise the difference of this form of play in terms of good intentions, or stifling the game. The "use it or lose it" rule could come into play, in that if a team has not gained more than a certain amount of ground in say five pick and go's, the opposing team are awarded a scrum or free-kick.

In basketball there is a "shot-clock" and teams must make an effort to score points after a certain amount of time on the ball. could this type of rule come into play? The does not need to be an effort to score points involved, but a team in possession could have a certain amount of time to make an agreed yardage. 

Numbers of passes is another way of looking at it. When a team employs this tactic, there is usually no, or very little passing of the ball. After a certain amount of time it could be enforced that a team needs to employ an attacking pass, perhaps of a certain distance, or to a recognised. The pass would not simply mean a pop to another player close in to use the same ploy, but one in which is seen as an attempt at an attack.

These are just suggestions, there are many ways this potential problem could be solved, but I certainly feel it needs to be done so soon. Rugby is a game made up of many components, and eliminating the majority of them will ruin the spectacle. Ruck ball, and close attack is certainly a part of rugby, but it needs to be recognised when teams are using it in a negative way. Rugby needs to kept a spectacle or viewers and even players may lose interest.

Quade Cooper- time to lay off the guy?

Quade Cooper came into the World Cup as a villain, a traitor to New Zealand rugby. He was born in New Zealand, but he has chosen to represent Australia, and he has arrogance and at times a complacency to his game which rubs people up the wrong way. On top of this, his cheap-shot on New Zealand’s golden boy Richie McCaw in the Tri-Nations made him a serious figure of negative attention.

But the strange thing is that it was not just New Zealanders who booed and hissed Cooper throughout the tournament. Commentators, opposing fans and even Ex-Australian Internationalists were only too keen to jump on the anti-Copper band-wagon. Cooper’s inconsistent, unpredictable play was highlighted constantly, and there weren’t many days there wasn’t a negative article on Copper during the World Cup.

OK, Cooper was playing for Australia, yet born in New Zealand, but he and his family moved when he was 13 so essentially he did not chose his destiny. Being schooled in an Australian school he played for Australia schools. He did so for two years, and became one of three young players to break the record for most Australian schoolboy caps.

After leaving school Cooper was contracted to the Reds and also represented Australia at Under-19 level. He was in the high performance program working with the ARU-funded National Talent Squad, and representing Queensland and Australian Schoolboys. Australia invested in Cooper, and for him to choose Australia at National level, if anything shows gratitude and commitment.

As far as his style of play and persona go, we need players like this in World rugby.  The guy does things no one else can do, and he is willing to try things no one else is willing to try. It might not always come off, and the repercussions can be costly, but when they do come off they are equally costly for the opposition. Quade Copper will win games single handedly, but with this it must be accepted that he will occasionally do things which may cost his team a game.

As I made out in the first sentence Cooper has been New Zealand’s biggest villain for the past month and a half, but there are other players who’s actions have been far less  patriotic and the issue hasn’t even been brought up.

Simon Danielli is an integral part of the Scotland’s squad, yet he was brought up in England and played for England schools. Shontayne Hape, a vital member of the England squad is not only from New Zealand, but has represented them at rugby league. However, perhaps the most noticeable “exchange” player is Manu Tuilagi. Arguably England’s best and most effective player, Tuilagi is from Samoa. Out of his five brothers four are Samoan internationals,  but being the youngest and having been brought up in England, Tuilagi has chosen to play for England.

For me, the Tuilagi and Cooper situations are the same, yet no one judges Tuilagi. OK the World Cup was in New Zealand, so Cooper was going to get a bit of slack, but a lot of it was unnecessary and over the top. The way I see it, Cooper made the honorable decision to play for the country which invested in him and gave him the most opportunities. The players mentioned such as Danielli and Hape, two of perhaps hundreds, made a choice which suited them best. The decisions made by Cooper, and the decisions made by these players to me are completely different and in my opinion the wrong player is taking the most stick.

There have been rumors that what has gone on has been a huge mental strain on Cooper, but you would not have thought so by the way he carried himself during the competition. He has not retaliated or bad mouthed anyone and has carried himself in a very impressive way.  There has been long standing speculation of Cooper moving to rugby league, and  he is a player who would have a huge impact in the other code. If he is struggling mentally, this may be something he is considering, and perhaps this is understandable.

Cooper has a torn cruciate to get fixed up, and the disappointment of not reaching a World Cup final to get over, but let’s hope these are the only things he is worrying about, as rugby union cannot afford  to lose a player of such caliber to the other code. Let’s put it this way, if I was to promote the sport of rugby union to someone who had never seen is before, the first thing I’d do would be to stick on a highlight reel of some of Quade Cooper’s magic.

Did Scotland Underachieve at the World Cup?

In many people’s eyes Scotland will be seen to have failed in this year's World Cup. For the first time Scotland failed to reach the quarterfinals as they were beaten by Argentina. Performances against Romania and Georgia were fairly uninspiring, and a chance to beat England and turn around the quarterfinal situation went begging. This may seem like underachieving, but is underachievement really a fair assessment?

If we look back to the previous two World Cups, yes Scotland reached the quarterfinals, but in each occasion one could say there has been an been an element of luck involved. In 2003 a late, long-distance penalty from Chris Paterson snatched the lead from Fiji allowing Scotland to progress. Four years later, in the dying moments of the vital quarterfinal qualification match Italy had a penalty which, had it gone over, would have eliminated Scotland. For all accounts that long-distance penalty kick looked to be going over, but fell centimeters short, again allowing Scotland to progress.

The vital game for Scotland this year was undoubtedly the Argentina match. Last year Scotland had a successful summer tour to Argentina, turning the Argentines over twice, so expectations in this year’s World Cup were high. These victories are fact, but the reality is that Scotland went into their Pool as third seed behind both Argentina and England.

At the moment Argentina are ranked 7^th in the World moving up recently from 8^th. At the same time Scotland has moved down to 10^th from 9^th, so is the loss really the disgrace it has been made out to be? It was close and we could have won, and we could also have beaten 4^th ranked England.

As far as rankings are concerned, from 6^th place to around 11th or 12th, it really is a matter of give and take. The positions change regularly, and any game between two teams in this category is going to be close. I don’t think underachievement is the word, perhaps missed opportunities with a pinch of bad luck, but realistically should Scotland have been expected to do better?

Samoa beating Australia, Tonga beating France, Ireland beating Australia, these are far bigger upsets than the losses Scotland suffered from. In the World Cup Scotland essentially beat the teams they were supposed to, and lost to the teams they were supposed to……just.

At the same time, they beat one of the teams they were supposed to in Romania…..just. Scotland came close to beating Argentina and England, but Romania cane close to doing the same to Scotland. Results in the two lost matches may be different in the future, but another consideration is could closely won matches be different in the future? How long will it be before Romania, Georgia and company start edging out higher ranked teams instead of coming close?

At the moment there are five or six clear top rugby Nations, and Scotland are not one of them.  They do seem to be expanding their style of play, and in time this will be key in competing with the top Nations.

The Scotland team are home now while the Nations left in the competition continue to battle it out. Could Scotland have done better.….yes. Should Scotland have done better….not necessarily. 

Can Scotland beat England and stay in the World Cup?

The answer on paper, and that of someone looking at recent performances, results and statistics of the two teams would be no. Scotland do not have a chance of beating England by the necessary 8 points to continue into the quarter finals, and Argentina will take their place after beating them last weekend. However, this is not fact, and Scotland can win. In fact some may argue that Scotland will win should they adopt the correct game-plan, strategy and perform at the top of their game for the whole of the game.

I’m not going to go into the selection of the Scotland team, whether it is in my opinion the best suited team to perform the task in hand, but I will discuss how the team can win, and the type of game they should play in order to do so. As of late Scotland have been more expansive in the way they have played. The players picked and the style played has allowed for more running rugby, and this is a positive for the Nation’s game if we are to compete with the World’s elite.

However, this change in style cannot be a success overnight, and if we are honest Scotland had not adjusted to it yet. It is a change adopted to create more tries, but five-pointers have still been few and far between, even against the weaker Nations. Although this development in expansive rugby must continue in Scotland, for tomorrow’s game, it is unlikely it will win the game.

England are a big side. They are a big side who are defensively very efficient having only conceded 22 points and one try in their three opening World Cup 2011 games. In contrast Scotland have scored tries in only one game so far in their campaign, so realistically the game will not be won by Scotland out-scoring England with tries. It may not be pretty, but if Scotland are to win this game they need to concentrate on three things. Possession, territory and kicking.

At first, the omission of Graeme Morrison was a big surprise to me, as Andy Robinson has often stated his admiration and belief in this player. However, with Sean Lamont at inside-centre, we now know the game cannot be too expansive. Lamont, a natural winger has great power and pace and is extremely reluctant, not always to the team’s advantage, to pass the ball. This determination in going forward, if supported and secured well, could be key in ball retention and will offer outside-half Jackson good ball to control the game.

Lamont is a big strong defender also. He may not have the complete knowledge of alignment in defence at inside-centre but his presence and skills in the collision could help nullify one of England’s biggest threats, Manu Tuilagi. If Scotland play a one-out defensive line Lamont needs to let Tuilagi know early on that he is there, and he will be there for 80 minutes and will not take a backwards step. Around him in the midfield, as well as the rest of the pitch, Scotland can afford no missed tackles, and shoulder contact and grounding opponents need to be the emphasis, not grabbing or sticking arms out.

Jackson will need to be thinking of the three vital elements I mentioned, and Blair has the experience and leadership to guide and help him in these aspects. Blair has often produced mesmerising attacking exploits, but his job tomorrow must be in keeping the game tight and controlling the players around him to adhere to the game plan. The half-backs must kick well and at the right time to gain the territory to allow Paterson to gain points from the boot. Poor kicks at the wrong time, will allow Foden and company to counter with potential danger.

The Scotland forwards will know they will be at war tomorrow, and if they can dominate the breakdown, the team are in with a chance. This is no mean feat against a strong, experienced England pack, but against the Auld Enemy, I’m sure the players will be prepared to endure some bodily trauma. Argentina stopped Scotland from playing by isolating the ball carriers and turning ball over, and this is a ploy the Scottish forwards must try to adapt. Any turnover will be huge for the team, and when it happens, the emphasis must be on retaining the ball.

This may all come across as negative rugby, but in the situation, it may be the only option. Sure, if the ball is good, and Scotland are on the front-foot with numbers, players like Danielli and Evans can score tries, but if runs are mistimed Tuilagi and Tindall will take advantage.

There is not much more to be said. England have no pressure on them as they are through, but against Scotland they certainly won’t play with complacency. It is a mighty task for Scotland, and one, which if completed, will remain in Scottish rugby history books forever.  

Parks and Pumas

by Tom Philip


This issue of discussion is one which has concerned me for some time now, and it is was brought to my attention again 70 minutes into the Scotland versus Argentina game on Sunday. After 70 minutes, Dan Parks took to the pitch replacing Ruaridh Jackson at fly-half. Scotland lost the game, but this isn't my first topic of concern. The derogatory comments and negative opinions of Dan Parks which were pasted on Facebook walls during and after the game were not only unnecessary, but quite frankly unacceptable.


The comments which had nothing to do with the outcome of the game took me back to one particular game I watched Scotland play at Murrayfield. In this game Parks was on the bench, but replaced Phil Godman, taking the reigns at fly-half. I was completely shocked and quite frankly disgusted to hear a Scottish crowd actually boo a Scotland player as he ran on to the pitch, and it certainly gave me an insight into the mind-frame of some so called Scotland rugby fans. Even as a former International and passionate Scotland rugby supporter, the experience made me question whether watching the games live was something I wanted to do.


Dan Parks may be Australian born, but since 2004 he has dedicated himself to Scotland and put in performances over the years which have essentially won Scotland matches. I've heard all of the anti-Parks opinions, and I am sure he has too, and I often wonder if they are racially based. Not only are these opinions most often incorrect, but they can have a negative affect on both the player himself and the team. Dan Parks has been through a lot in his career, on and off the park, so why do fans of Scotland insist on bringing him down? He doesn't pick himself, he is selected by the coach to do a job, and in my view he does what he is good at very well.


I have played alongside Parks at International level, and I know how he performs and carries himself on the pitch, so perhaps this is why I find the issue is so distressing. As a 20 year old kid I was playing in the centre for Scotland with Dan Parks acting as the outside half. Of all the players Parks was the loudest voice, offered the most communication and was genuinely the most upbeat, encouraging player on the pitch. He made an extremely daunting job for a young player a lot more comfortable, and often gave me confidence when other players were more concerned with their own game.


Supporters and fans often concentrate on the limitations of Parks' game, which I won't deny he does have. His defence can let him down and he is not blessed with athleticism, speed or strength which some fly-half's possess. However, Parks is one of the most gifted ball handlers Scotland have. He may not often take the ball to the line and create multiple options for his outside runners, but if we are being honest do we have a back-line which is consistent enough and of enough quality to be able to play off a fly-half of this style? 

Dan often gives himself space and lies deep, and although this can sometimes eliminate wide attacking opportunities, he can use his kicking game to gain territory like no one else. Dan Parks is the best kicker from hand in the World, full stop. If a team is looking for territorial advantage in a game I struggle to think of a player better suited to doing this. Essentially this is not the rugby people want to see, and it is not always pretty, but the truth is Scotland have struggled to score tries for a long time, and still do. Players in Scotland should be, and I believe are being developed to be able to play a more expansive game i order to score tries, but on Sunday, against Argentina, was picking Jackson ahead of Parks the right decision?


Argentina are renowned for stifling teams, slowing them down and stopping them play, and this is exactly what they did on Sunday. Scotland tried to be expansive, and Max Evans as usual beat the first defender every time. Other players had an element of success in evasive running, but the Argentines got to them before their support, isolated them and caused turnover after turnover. It was a brave effort from Scotland and we came close, but was it the correct game to play?


Ok, Scotland couldn't have predicted the weather, but they did know how Argentina would play, and with the territorial advantage Parks would have given, in a game in which only one try was scored, could his style have caused a different outcome? Don't get me wrong, Jackson is an exiting and promising player, and in some games his style may be more effective than Parks', but the question still lingers, what if Parks had played the whole game?


I realise there will be people who read this and completely disagree, and in some cases I'm sure very strongly, but this is not only an expression of my disappointment in the way Parks is sometimes seen and treated, but a consideration of whether the outcome of Sunday's game could have been different. Scotland now have a huge task at hand in beating England and progressing to the quarter finals, but with two more points on Sunday the story would be completely different.    

Will defence win the rugby World Cup?

There has been a common trait so far in the high profile Pool games of this year's World cup. If you look at the scorelines so far for the matches between two highly ranked teams, there have been little points scored. Not once has a top 10 ranked side scored more than 20 points against an opponent also in the top 10. Defences have been so strong that try scoring opportunities have been few in games between top 10 teams, and with goal kicking still proving to be a difficult task for whatever reason, is it likely that a team will score more than 20 points past the Pool stages?

There are still plenty of pool games to be played, but so far no top of the rankings match has seen one side score more than two tries. Whether conditions or the ball are causing problems for the goal kickers, the points are not being made up much in this department either. Games have been exiting, and there have been a few close encounters and already some upsets, but in general the strength of defence has been the winner.

Ireland upset Australia in a try-less match, and they simply did not allow the Australian backs the ball. The game was dominated and dictated by the Irish pack, and they eliminated the threat of the opposition's wide attack. England only managed one try in their win over Argentina, and two scores were enough for South Africa to beat Wales and for Wales to beat Tonga in Pool D.

There are still several top 10 matches left in the Pool stages so it will be interesting to see if a team breaks this 20 points margin in such a contest. Samoa will do well to contain the Sprinboks if the South Africans perform to their potential on Friday the 30th Sept, and if the French switch off when they face the All Blacks this coming Saturday that 20 points margin could be broken for the first time between two top 10 teams.

From these Pool games, the style of the quarter finals are likely be dictated. If defence is the emphasis, and low scoring games continue, we are likely to see the same when the final eight teams are decided. With even more at stake and with game-plans and tactics conjured up to contain opponents, this 20 points margin will be difficult to break.

However, New Zealand still seem to be on another level when it comes to attack. They have not been tested yet, and have not come up against a strong, defence orientated team, but it is hard to see them failing to score several tries in any game.

Again, there is plenty to come, so all we can do is sit back and enjoy. But in these top 10 encounters, let's just keep this target of 20 points in mind....