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.