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.... 

Forget the quarters, semis and final, let's watch the Pools

Is anyone else sick of hearing about who will be playing at the quarter-final stages, and who is likely to win and do well in the later stages of the World Cup? The tournament hasn't even started, and already people are gearing themselves up for games which they have decided will happen.


This is World Cup rugby. Every team will be going to war each time they step out onto the pitch, and the old cliche is true; anything can happen. Pundits, former players and so called experts have already picked out the top 2 from each Pool, but let's just watch the games before any conclusions are made.


The supposedly weaker Nations are a lot stronger than they have been in past World Cups. Each team involved in the competition have prepared differently, and we cannot tell who has/has not got it right. The fact is that in rugby the best team does not always win. Tactics and on-the-day performances come into play, and teams perform differently on different stages, so let's see who brings their "A" game when it counts.


How many "experts" predicted that Samoa would beat Australia in their July friendly? How many people thought that South Africa would beat New Zealand in the second of their tests in the Tri-Nations? These are recent games, recent upsets, and the World Cup will produce many more. The first game of the World Cup kicks off on Friday, so let's enjoy the action and stop trying to take away the exitement of the competion by assuming results.








Pool games which have upset potential


(f) = favourit


Every game of the World Cup has upset potential, but these ones which include some of the bigger named Nations.


Pool A


New Zealand(f) vs Tonga
New Zealand(f) vs France
France(f) vs Tonga


Pool B


Scotland(f) vs Romania
Argentina(f) vs Romania
Argentina vs England(f)
Argentina vs Scotland(f)
England(f) vs Scotland


Pool C


Australia(f) vs Italy
Australia(f) vs Ireland
USA vs Ireland9(f)
Italy(f) vs USA
Ireland(f) vs Italy


Pool D


South Africa(f) vs Wales
South Africa(f) vs Fiji
Wales(f) vs Samoa
Fiji vs Samoa(f)
South Africa(f) vs Samoa
Wales(f) vs Fiji


Now some of these upests are highly unlikely, but nontheless possible. The Pool stages of this World Cup may be the most exiting, so it's time to stop the talk, sit back and enjoy the rugby.

Under valued rugby skills

The steal


This is a skill which has been made difficult by recent ruling which enforces a tackler to completely release the ball carrier before he attempts to turn the ball over. However, even with this added difficulty, it is still a skill which can be used and should be practised. Adjustments need to be made due to the new rulings, but there are still opportunities in games for players to steal the ball one on one.


Before the change of rules there were certain players who had mastered this art, and had it down to a "T". Back rowers such as George Smith and Phil Waugh, and centres such as Brian O'Driscoll, were making tackles, regaining their feet and snatching the ball in the blink of an eye. Certain players were getting three or four turnovers a game, and in the modern game, these statistic are massive. Now the emphasis is on the second defender at the the break-down to steal the ball, as the first player is often penalised for not releasing the ball-carrier.

The one-on-one steal is still possible though, but the dynamics have changed. If a defender is strong enough and has the right technique, it is possible to dominate the contact and stay on your feet during the tackle. From here the defender is standing over a tackled player, is in a great position, and there is no reason he cannot get into a position to steal the ball. A split second raise of the hands to show there has been release may be necessary depending on the referee, but there is still a place for stealing the ball from a player.


Stripping


More recently there have players using a ripping or stripping technique in the tackle. During Wales' recent victory over England James Hook got the the ball carrying arm of an attacker and simply ripped the ball loose two or three times. With more and more upper-body tackling and grappling going on in rugby union there is now this option. Why risk giving a penalty away by trying to steal the ball on the ground when it can simply be ripped free when the attacker is still upright.

James Hook is not a massive guy, nor a renowned big tackler, but he has been clever enough to realise there is an opportunity to gain possession using this technique of attacking the ball. During one-on-one tackles the initial aim should be to get the attacker on the ground, but if the option is there, and the attacker is wrapped up why not try to get to the ball before the player hits the ground.


A safer and perhaps more efficient technique is for a second defender to join the tackle while it is still upright and get to the ball and try to rip it out of the attacker's hands. Even if it is not stolen, the nuisance of a player being on the ball will slow the ball down.


There is certainly an opportunity to target the ball during tackles, and teams should be working on techniques and skills which can cause the potential for turnovers.

Under valued rugby skills

2. The one handed offload/pass

We are all taught to carry the ball with two hands in rugby. This is driven home from an early age right up to the professional level, and for the most part it is an essential piece of advice. Carrying the ball in one hand has a much larger risk factor, whether it be a full-back running back a loose kick or a forward taking the ball up keeping the ball in both hands is a much safer option. It is a simple rule, and one which should be followed....most of the time.

To give away possession through a loose carry in rugby is criminal, so we must protect the ball. Yes, usually this means with two hands, but if this rule was followed all the time it would eliminate so many opportunities which players are creating at the moment.

Skillful players with a slight of hand are often able to control the ball with one hand and flick or pass the ball "out the back" to supporting players. In doing so they can use their free hand to fend opposition or gain extra pace in which carrying the ball with two hands would not allow.

In this modern game we have some big men playing. Big and skillful men at that. Physically big players like New Zealand's Sonny-Bill Williams have the advantage of being able to grip the ball in one hand due to the strength and size of their fingers and hands. It may not be as strong as having two hands on the ball, but for men like Sonny-Bill it's not far off. With the rest of his strong, athletic body free to fend, evade and beat players he is able to decide what he does with the ball-carrying hand once he has "had a go" at the opposition. It's almost as if the defender has two things to defend against, the ball and the player, and it is extremely difficult to do so.

For big ball-carrying forwards such as Italy's Sergio Parisse, this one-handed carrying of the ball can also come in handy. At high speed, when a forward is hitting a line and taking the ball up against the opposition, it is near impossible to carry the ball in one, hand, but in close quarters, when a player is looking to offload or set up a rolling maul it can come into play. Players such as Parisse can almost keep defender at "arms-length" until support it gained. From this position, a decision can be made in what to do with the ball.

As stated this is a skill, and is either a natural talent or something which may have been worked on for years. Players should not suddenly start trying to hold the ball in one hand, as it takes the right player with the right skill set. This doesn't mean it should not be practised. As part of warm ups or skill sessions coaches can use drills in which players are only allowed to use one hand, developing their ability to do so. If this is done correctly and not forced, a player may find that during a game a situation may arise in which the skill comes naturally without thinking.

One-handed ball skills are extremely useful in the modern game. They are also only useful at the right times, so trial and error should take place in training, not games. For some players it will never be possible, but for certain skillful or large players it is something which can be looked at to be developed.