³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

bbc.co.uk Navigation

Phil Harlow

Scotland ratings v New Zealand (155)

Edinburgh - I was at Murrayfield on Sunday as Scotland went down to the mighty but misfiring All Blacks.

Here’s how I rated each individual Scotland player’s performance. See whether you agree and give us your own thoughts.

Hugo Southwell - A mixed bag from Scotland’s full-back. A fine try-saving tackle on Sitiveni Sivivatu caught the eye, but his charged down clearance ended up costing his side points and one head-down charge, after which he was turned over, summed up the lack of fizz in Scotland’s backline. 5

Nikki Walker – Did the best with the minimal ball which came his way, but handling errors at key times proved crucial. Could not quite adjust quickly enough to collect a loose ball with a try beckoning, and knocked on in midfield – albeit from a poor pass – to allow Dan Carter to score. 5

Marcus di Rollo – Not a day for any member of Scotland’s backline to shine. Di Rollo improved on his poor display in the first game against Portugal, but it was a case of constantly fighting fires. Next to no chance with ball in hand. 5

Andrew Henderson – Showed good hands on occasions, but part of an over-run Scottish midfield that had almost zero possession. Tackled bravely all day long, nevertheless. 6

Simon Webster – Good early take from an up-and-under and a fine tackle one-on-one with Doug Howlett, but not a day to remember for another player on starvation rations in terms of possession. A handling mistake in the dying moments to give New Zealand a line-out in Scotland’s 22 capped off his day. 5

Chris Paterson – A miserable afternoon for one of Scotland’s more experienced players. Two horribly sliced clearances, a missed drop-goal and a kick-off out on the full were his most noticeable contributions before struggling off injured after 20 minutes. 4

Chris Cusiter – Not the most comfortable of afternoons behind a brave but outgunned pack, but the scrum-half cleared up as best he could. Had to put up with ball so slow, it was almost impossible to do anything constructive with it. 6

Alasdair Dickinson – First scrum set the tone as the All Blacks surged into the Scotland pack, and forced them on the retreat. Battled bravely against Carl Hayman but a tough day at the office. 6

Scott Lawson – Kept the line-out functioning, more or less, but part of a front-row unit which struggled to contain their opposite numbers in the scrum. The set-piece held up better after the break, although the All Blacks seemed to have taken their foot off the pedal a little. 6

Craig Smith – Will have learned plenty against Tony Woodcock, and had to raise his game after a real going over in the early scrums. Showed good spirit to end the game just about in credit. 6

Scott MacLeod – Did more than his fair share of the unseen work in the rucks and mauls, and battled manfully to the end. 6

Scott Murray – Did his job in the line-out for the most part but some sloppy handling errors in the loose did his side no favours. 5

Kelly Brown – Failed to lay a finger on Richie McCaw when the All Blacks skipper scored off the back of a scrum, but thereafter tackled his heart out as Scotland forced New Zealand into numerous uncharacteristic errors. 6

John Barclay – Surely there are easier ways to introduce a 20-year-old to Test rugby than put him up against McCaw and co? Showed some signs of promise and can celebrate his 21st birthday on Monday knowing he gave everything to the cause. Scotland did win four turnovers, and he had a hand in that statistic. 6

Dave Callam – A torrid afternoon at the back of a scrum going backwards at the rate of knots, but was among Scotland’s better performers with some dynamic runs with ball in hand providing something for a distracted Murrayfield to get excited about. 7

Replacements:

Fergus Thomson – The game was already lost when he came on with 22 minutes to go and there was little the hooker could do to change the momentum of the match. 6

Gavin Kerr – Conceded a penalty at the scrum soon after coming on. Otherwise stuck to his task well in a struggling front row. 5

James Hamilton – Too little time on the pitch to catch the eye.

Allister Hogg – No time to make an impression.

Rory Lawson – Did his best to add some spark after replacing Cusiter, but was fighting behind a beaten and tiring pack. 6

Dan Parks – Initially provided some much-needed stability after replacing Paterson on 20 minutes, but handling errors undermined his efforts with one early in the second half handing the initiative back to New Zealand after hard work from his forwards had won him the ball. 5

Rob Dewey – No time to make an impression.

Phil Harlow is a ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Sport journalist based in London.


Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 07:20 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • XLS wrote:

From the ratings you would have never guessed they lost by 40 points without scoring.

  • 2.
  • At 07:26 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • DK wrote:

Shockingly high scores, are you sure you were watching the game?

Craig Smith, 6??? try 2. He's also incredibly lazy and does no work in the loose, trying his best to walk around the pitch avoiding the ball.

  • 3.
  • At 07:29 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Scunnert wrote:

You have nothing very much good to say about any of the players, but all get 5, 6 or 7.

Ridiculous!

Only Callam should get a pass mark out of 10.

And of course Captain Haddock is not given a note at all: make it -10!

He gave up the game for lost before it had even started.

Shameful!

Disgraceful!

I would happily trade the possibility for reaching the Quarter-finals (and then what?) for having scored one try against the ABs.

It is better to have honour without ships ...

  • 4.
  • At 07:33 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • HutchCW wrote:

Rather generous giving Paterson a 4, easily his worst game in a Scottish jersey. The injury either saved him more blushes or stopped him redeeming himself.

Dan Parks has shown in the past few games he should be at 10, with Paterson on the wing, or fullback, but definitely on the park to kick the points.

It was dismal that this game was such a non-event.

  • 5.
  • At 07:35 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • DK wrote:

Shockingly high scores, are you sure you were watching the game?

Craig Smith, 6??? try 2. He's also incredibly lazy and does no work in the loose, trying his best to walk around the pitch avoiding the ball.

  • 6.
  • At 07:39 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Scunnert wrote:

You have nothing very much good to say about any of the players, but all get 5, 6 or 7.

Ridiculous!

Only Callam should get a pass mark out of 10.

And of course Captain Haddock is not given a note at all: make it -10!

He gave up the game for lost before it had even started.

Shameful!

Disgraceful!

I would happily trade the possibility for reaching the Quarter-finals (and then what?) for having scored one try against the ABs, if indeed there is any reason to think that both things are incompatible.

It is better to have honour without ships ...

  • 7.
  • At 07:39 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • HutchCW wrote:

Rather generous giving Paterson a 4, easily his worst game in a Scottish jersey. The injury either saved him more blushes or stopped him redeeming himself.

Dan Parks has shown in the past few games he should be at 10, with Paterson on the wing, or fullback, but definitely on the park to kick the points.

It was dismal that this game was such a non-event.

  • 8.
  • At 07:44 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Scunnert wrote:

You have nothing very much good to say about any of the players, but all get 5, 6 or 7.

Ridiculous!

Only Callam should get a pass mark out of 10.

And of course Captain Haddock is not given a note at all: make it -10!

He gave up the game for lost before it had even started.

Shameful!

Disgraceful!

I would happily trade the possibility for reaching the Quarter-finals (and then what?) for having scored one try against the ABs, if indeed there is any reason to think that both things are incompatible.

It is better to have honour without ships ...

  • 9.
  • At 07:47 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Eamon wrote:

Could not comment on Scotland or New Zealand individual performances as I had not a clue as to who was who given that their strips were almost identical. Gave up after 20 minutes and watched the football instead. Who is running this world cup? The Scotland/Wales home games fiasco is bad enough but surely someone should pick up on clashing strips (there aren't that many teams in world rugby). Got the impression the crowd didn't know when to cheer or jeer.

  • 10.
  • At 07:51 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Thomas Willson wrote:

I cant see how you could give the scottish front row Sixes when they were tottaly dominated by the New Zealand front Row, and you gave the Scottish backs Fives? So you saying the Front row were better then the scottish backs? I dont think so?

  • 11.
  • At 08:01 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • derek belm wrote:

The Scots were fortunate that NZ was so off-key today.
I can't think of any NZ player who merited anything above a 6 (possibly a 7 - Howlett).
So how can you score the Scots so highly?
I thought the Scots back-row did the best they could and were the pick of the side. But no-one else was worth higher than 5.
Patterson looked p****d off that he was only being given a chance at OH against NZ.
If NZ had upped their performance level a few notches, they would have strolled to a 70 or even 80-point winning margin. The Scots defended stoutly at times, but it was forward passes, dropped balls and wrong options that cost NZ another half-dozen tries at least.

I'm not sure what positives the Scots can realistically take from this display. They need to raise themselves considerably for the Italian game now.

  • 12.
  • At 08:03 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • peter fellerman wrote:

I started watching the game on TV during the second half but gave up due to them all wearing the same kit.

Maybe that's why they were given such high ratings?

  • 13.
  • At 08:09 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • BigAlCrash wrote:

I thought Callam and Carclay played well but the others were woefully outclassed (as was always going to be the case to be fair once Hadden picked the side).

They certainly never lacked guts or fighting spirit but it takes alot more than that to beat the big guns. In many ways the AB's were more disappointing and poor handling and ball retention (normally great strengths) prevented them from scoring a barrowload of points - they will not win the RWC playing like they did today!

  • 14.
  • At 08:10 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Richard Dixon wrote:

I couldn't tell which team was which. Who picked those stupid team kits???? Rubbish, All Blacks should be All Blacks.....

  • 15.
  • At 08:13 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Jack Healy wrote:

Originally I was enraged by the decision to field a B team. However that rage abated to be replaced by my disgust of the Scotland strip! Whoever designed and decided to put the team out against the All Blacks in that truly awful kit should be shot. Power Rangers, comic cartoon super heroes! What is with all the grey and white patches? Let us please return to the the simple honesty of an all blue shirt. The result today was a confusing visual spectacle. Shame on all involved.

Dr Jack

  • 16.
  • At 08:16 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

I hang my head in shame. A pathetic performance that is made so much worse by the fact it was on home soil. Where was the pride? I would rather we had put out our strongest side out and lost to Italy than this! A black day for Scottish sport and I don't care about the fact it was New Zealand - we were playing at HOME!

  • 17.
  • At 08:18 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Howard wrote:

I agree with DK - were you watching?

It's all well and good to say that we battled hard but the All Blacks were awful today and thank god for that.

A victory against Italy will not make up for that surrender by FH. At home in front of a full house why not give the ABs a proper game.

  • 18.
  • At 08:19 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Trystan Prys Davies wrote:

I was at the game and I dont think any of the Scotland players deserve more than 5 and that is generous.
Second string or not they are professional players and should have played with scores six or higher - especially at home!

  • 19.
  • At 08:20 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Robinski wrote:

You must be joking!!! Nikki Walker got 5 when his contribution to the game was dropping the ball every time it came to him. I can't remember him having a good game ever in a Scotland jersey.

Agree with other comments about Smith.

40 points to nil is arguably not bad a result for a second string side against the best team in the world. I would say it's not as bad as England or Ireland's results vs SA and France. Still, there's a big gap between north and south hemisphere.

  • 20.
  • At 08:26 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • derek belm wrote:

The Scots were fortunate that NZ was so off-key today.
I can't think of any NZ player who merited anything above a 6 (possibly a 7 - Howlett).
So how can you score the Scots so highly?
I thought the Scots back-row did the best they could and were the pick of the side. But no-one else was worth higher than 5.
Patterson looked p****d off that he was only being given a chance at OH against NZ.
If NZ had upped their performance level a few notches, they would have strolled to a 70 or even 80-point winning margin. The Scots defended stoutly at times, but it was forward passes, dropped balls and wrong options that cost NZ another half-dozen tries at least.

I'm not sure what positives the Scots can realistically take from this display. They need to raise themselves considerably for the Italian game now.

  • 21.
  • At 08:26 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Trystan Prys Davies wrote:

I was at the game and I dont think any of the Scotland players deserve more than 5 and that is generous.
Second string or not they are professional players and should have played with scores six or higher - especially at home!

  • 22.
  • At 08:30 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • JG wrote:

I give the Canterbury shirt design team zero points for coming up with a shirt which made the match very difficult to watch. Good going since they also ran away with the prize for the least attractive rugby shirt (several times over if you include Australia and SA).

  • 23.
  • At 08:34 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Robinski wrote:

You must be joking!!! Nikki Walker got 5 when his contribution to the game was dropping the ball every time it came to him. I can't remember him having a good game ever in a Scotland jersey.

Agree with other comments about Smith.

40 points to nil is arguably not bad a result for a second string side against the best team in the world. I would say it's not as bad as England or Ireland's results vs SA and France. Still, there's a big gap between north and south hemisphere.

  • 24.
  • At 08:37 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • JG wrote:

I give the Canterbury shirt design team zero points for coming up with a shirt which made the match very difficult to watch. Good going since they also ran away with the prize for the least attractive rugby shirt.

  • 25.
  • At 08:42 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • realist wrote:

did anybody in their wildest dreams think that we could be within 7 and survive the next game... ( even with 'give the ball to Rory' )?
wise up and play the odds, the final score was not an embarrassment, re:the SA match against our south of the border neighbours. It was always going to be the Italy game, so take what happened today and move on.

  • 26.
  • At 08:50 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Tricia Harris wrote:

What a disgrace!
It's the World Cup and Scotland are given special dispensation to play at home against the mighty All Blacks, which should be a 'Once in a lifetime' opportunity for fans and players alike! And what do they do?
Field a reserve team due to their defeatist and cynical attitude. They forget that rugby is a spectator sport! People paid good money to watch this. It is this 'Win at all costs' mentality that I find depressing.

  • 27.
  • At 08:59 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • realist wrote:

move on, it was always about Italy, although not the embarressment it might have been, what did we lose???

  • 28.
  • At 09:04 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Hunter M wrote:

NZ were not quite firing on all cylinders, to be sure. The wry smiles on Dan Carter´s face made it clear that this was just a glorified training session with quite a lot going askew. I was frightened throughout that some of the Scottish boys were going to get seriously hurt. It was manifestly clear that they were no match physically for NZ and one winced as the Scots went back yards on every contact. Not good with mismatches of this type in any sport.

  • 29.
  • At 09:20 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Mike Clark wrote:

I was a big fan of Frank Hadden but this gutless display of putting out a side to lose and not even trying to beat the AB's while at home fills me with disgust. Friends of mine paid £164 each for their tickets and for that they got a shadow Scots side just trying to minimise the damage. A full side would have at least pushed the AB's hard and against the stuttering blacks side today would have been in with a slight chance of beating them. Writing this game off and not even trying to win is not the way I was brought up, where is the pride and playing from the heart. Frank Hadden for the bullet even if they get to the semi's, the man can't be trusted to honour the jersey.

  • 30.
  • At 09:23 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Mark Stanfield wrote:

I totally agree that the modern professional rugby game akin with soccer has developed a penchant for fielding understrength teams in big tournaments. Has everyone forgotten what sport is about? This is the World Cup for chrissakes!! So when do you play your best team?? If it's not against the best team in the world in your home capital city in the sports' biggest tournament of all?!! I hope Italy thrash Scotland next week. That'll team 'em!

  • 31.
  • At 09:23 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • r hart wrote:

Shame on Hadden and the Scottish RFU for bringing the game into disreute by fielding a second string side AT HOME. I really hope they get what they deserve - a drubbing by the Azurri.

  • 32.
  • At 09:31 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • ??? wrote:

that is alot of crap they played well

  • 33.
  • At 09:39 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Mark Stanfield wrote:

If NZ can travel half way around the world and put crucial players like Dan Carter in front of the paying Murreyfield crowd and watching world audience, then it's an insult to them to have to play an understrength Scottish team who have no hope of winning the World Cup anyway!

  • 34.
  • At 09:40 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • cmeechan wrote:

Opinions are split.

Posts before have pointed out that either A) this would be a decent strategy by FH fielding the picked team due to resting for Italy or conversely B) wouldn't it be great (and fair to all paying Murrayfield supporters) that we put our best muscle into the AB match?

I was in the B camp before kick off. Now, and despite some luck, I'm back in the A camp and surprisingly think the tactics were right. We didn't get trounced on the scoreboard (England's best 15 for 0-36 anyone?) with the team we played. Yes, back foot, yes nothing created, but yes also a committed display of kinds.

We've got quality players to come back in now. Back us now to beat Italy. Then back us to play a big quarter final and from there on... well, there's no pi***ng around with who we play now.

  • 35.
  • At 09:42 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Malc wrote:

Overall I wasn't suprised. It was definatley a second string scottish team we played anyway. Scotland hardly have the depth for a starting 15 nevermind a different set of 13 players from the last match!!!

Nikki Walker had a nightmare, again. Is he really the only backup we have to Lamont? Don't really get annoyed by many players, but he's one. Totally useless in an attacking force, made a couple of tacles but so what! Lamont is not just better, he's two classes up!

Lets hope patterson recovers from a nightmare game in time for Italy. At least one questions been answered, Patterson is not a 10!! But we NEED him in the team, somewhere! He is the quickest member of the team and his goalkicking is superb.

  • 36.
  • At 09:43 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Tom Flynnnnnnn wrote:

Barclay only got 6! He was the best Scotish player on the pitch.
NZ were dissapointing, despite the result.

  • 37.
  • At 09:53 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Jack Healy wrote:

Originally I was enraged by the decision to field a B team. However that rage abated to be replaced by my disgust of the Scotland strip! Whoever designed and decided to put the team out against the All Blacks in that truly awful kit should be shot. Power Rangers, homo-erotic, comic cartoon super heroes! What is with all the grey and white patches? Let us please return to the simple honesty of an all blue shirt. The result today was a confusing visual spectacle. Shame on all involved.

Dr Jack

  • 38.
  • At 09:54 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • The Continental Op wrote:

Hadden should have made 6 or 7 changes along the lines of Henderson, Cusiter, Brown etc but not taken both Lamonts out of the back line and certainly not completely neutered our front 5. Hard enough for Dickinson to face Hayman, but might have helped to have had Hamilton or Hines shoving rather than both Scotts. Picking MDR at 13 was another choice purely about resting other players as he struggled v Portugal.

Hopefully, the side that plays Italy will play with power and passion and get us through. If they do and we are in a position to consider a QF v Arg then Hadden may be partially vindicated.

Just as an aside, I think the side who will suffer most from the scheduling and selection of this group are the All Blacks. Their group games will basically have been v two complete minnows, a desparately dissappointing Italy and Scotland's 2nd XV. Their next game will be v the host nation France, most likely , and their sloppiness today won't be tolerated.

  • 39.
  • At 10:01 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Ed Lees wrote:

Why no comment about the sheer hypocrisy of this game. A French World Cup with home games for Scotland and Wales and then Scotland field a second team to play the All-Blacks.
It is difficult to think of a more obvious two fingered salute to all those who paid good money for seats at Murrayfield to watch a one-sided training session.
I wonder why the Scottish RFU is having difficulty filling their stadium.

  • 40.
  • At 10:14 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • paddy wrote:

Hey, how's about getting behind the scottish team? A game we were never expected to win, but managed to contain the damage. Better teams on paper have fared worse against lesser teams than the all blacks

  • 41.
  • At 10:20 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Trystan Prys Davies wrote:

Im no expert but arent the best Scottish players usually in the forwards? I can remember some great ones in the 1990s who could out muscle the oposition.

  • 42.
  • At 10:24 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Turbinator wrote:

Hmmmm. A lacklustre display from Scotland although they defended bravely against what was clearly a far superior side.

The ratings I feel are very inaccurate. The only Scotland players who deserve better than a 4 are : Barclay (7-coped admirably against World class opposition) Callam (6 solid display) and Henderson (6 solid defensively, no chance to attack).

I guess the jury is out until next weekend as to whether Frank has made a good decision here but I can see his logic - 3 games in 11 days and all that. We have to be realistic and know our limitations, unlike Brian Ashton who came to this World Cup thinking England could win it - take a reality check man for god sake.

I also think there has been some benefit to todays game - Italy will hit us mostly through the forwards and the second half certainly gave us plenty of practice defending against this!! I only hope we don't toss them 21 points in the first 7 minutes this time.....

  • 43.
  • At 10:27 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Turbinator wrote:

Hmmmm. A lacklustre display from Scotland although they defended bravely against what was clearly a far superior side.

The ratings I feel are very inaccurate. The only Scotland players who deserve better than a 4 are : Barclay (7-coped admirably against World class opposition) Callam (6 solid display) and Henderson (6 solid defensively, no chance to attack).

I guess the jury is out until next weekend as to whether Frank has made a good decision here but I can see his logic - 3 games in 11 days and all that. We have to be realistic and know our limitations, unlike Brian Ashton who came to this World Cup thinking England could win it - take a reality check man for god sake.

I also think there has been some benefit to todays game - Italy will hit us mostly through the forwards and the second half certainly gave us plenty of practice defending against this!! I only hope we don't toss them 21 points in the first 7 minutes this time.....

  • 44.
  • At 10:32 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Gruff Rhys Jones wrote:

Well Dr Jack,
I wasn't going to mention the strip but yes, what was that all about? They were obviously trying to sabatoge the NZ game plan by dressing in the same kit! There seems to be a tradition in Scotland of wearing bizarre strips at major tournaments in both soccer and rugby. Do you concur Dr Jack?!

  • 45.
  • At 10:37 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Cerys Matthews wrote:

Hear hear Ed!!

  • 46.
  • At 10:38 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

'40 points to nil is arguably not bad a result for a second string side against the best team in the world. I would say it's not as bad as England or Ireland's results vs SA and France. Still, there's a big gap between north and south hemisphere.'

No its not, its appauling. Our pride was at stake and what does Hadden do, put out a weakened side. Where was the passion for playing our best on our HOME soil, there is something seriously wrong with our national phyche if we are happy for our boys to rollover on home soil and lose by 40 odd points. You should defend your nation's pride at home like your life is on the line no matter who the opposition are! William Wallace will be turning in his grave!

  • 47.
  • At 10:39 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Ally wrote:

I'd agree with Hadden's choice to preserve the main team, although Chris Paterson had a nightmare short game. The chosen team did pretty well against an All Black team that were clearly superior in strength and skill, they did look in danger of serious injuries though. NZ were definitely not playing their best, we'd have been slaughtered if they were.

Whoever let the two teams play in those strips needs shot though - they were far too close in colour and style.

  • 48.
  • At 10:41 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • michael cameron wrote:

i was at the game today, total mismatch,if this was a boxing match it would have been stopped after 20 mins. shame on you scotland

  • 49.
  • At 10:41 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Guto wrote:

Ed love, read the previous comments!We concur! you are so right!

  • 50.
  • At 10:44 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Daf wrote:

If rugby be the food of love play on ...give me excess of it...but only the A teams!!

  • 51.
  • At 10:46 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • peter preston wrote:

Having watched the game I find it difficult to see how any Scottish player scored more than 2 points at best - It is not surprising that Scotland have never beaten the All Blacks rarely have I seen a more pathetic display. The masters of International rugby deemed that Scotland should play at home even then they rarely if ever managed to get into the opposition's half.

  • 52.
  • At 10:55 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • CT wrote:

We should give more credit to the boys who played today, NZ are professional players and are cup favourites for a reason, to compaire a scots b team result against them, to say an england full team result against SA. Just watch the haka again and tell yourself that the NZ team were "on a training day". Sure they dropped balls and missed passes, no wonder, look at all the possesion that they had...
To the people who are angry at the b team being played in Scotland.... Id be angry too,was this not a world cup meant to be held in france?? On the subject of the organisation of the tournament, glad to hear that i was not the only one who could not make out which team was which (except in the scrums and field position), why in gods name were the all blacks not in black???
We should stop giving FH and the team such a hard time, lets concentrate on Italy and then... Scotland have a golden opportunity here and the fans and the country should show a little more faith in Hadden and this team.
p.s. Anyone know where i can get hold of a Tonga jersey???

  • 53.
  • At 10:55 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • peter preston wrote:

Having watched the game I find it difficult to see how any Scottish player scored more than 2 points at best - It is not surprising that Scotland have never beaten the All Blacks rarely have I seen a more pathetic display. The masters of International rugby deemed that Scotland should play at home even then they rarely if ever managed to get into the opposition's half.

  • 54.
  • At 10:58 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • wrote:

I was very dissapointed with this game for a few reasons
1. I couldn't tell which team was which. Why weren't the all blacks in black?
2. It is ridiculous that Scotland didn't field their first team and at least try to give the all blacks a game. They should be docked points for this so that they can't qualify.
3. the all blacks (or whatever colour they are) made more mistakes than they normally do in a whole year! If a better team were facing them they might have even scored against them.

  • 55.
  • At 11:00 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Canadian Scot wrote:

I would have to agree on two fronts:

1) The schedule really required that the best players be rested enough for the Italy game, which was always, always the key to getting out of their Group and moving ahead. Hadden was correct and will be proven correct for the Italy game.

2) The home fans got ripped off as a result. That isn't Hadden's problem. It's someone else's problem.

Really, the marketers should have recognized this was going to be the strategy and done something accordingly. Drop the ticket prices, for goodness sake. Have special pre-game events and post game activities, something to tell the fans that you KNOW that the product on the field will be second-rate. Some straightforward honesty and appreciation for the fans, please. And help them to buy in to the Hadden strategy. Don't rob them blind and beg forgiveness.


Valiant and victorious will be better than brave but beaten. The "A" side needs to be healthy for their crucial game, and now the proof will be in the pudding.


  • 56.
  • At 11:05 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • wrote:

Reading post 41 and looking back on the game with all the the mistakes- maybe NZ were hoping for Scotland to win so they don't have to face France in the quarters!

  • 57.
  • At 11:11 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • wrote:

Reading post 41 and looking back on the game with all the the mistakes- maybe NZ were hoping for Scotland to win so they don't have to face France in the quarters!

  • 58.
  • At 11:22 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Malcolm wrote:

40-0 with a reserve XV against the best team in the world? I'll take that.

I think Hadden has made a smart move fielding that XV - we were going to get beaten anyhow and I'd much rather have them fresh to face the Italians on Saturday, because that determines who will go through, not the NZ game.

Besides, I'd put money on Argentina coming top of their group now, the way Ireland are playing, and we'd have to fancy our chances against them in the QFs.

As for Paterson, even though he picked up a knock, he won't be at outside half of the Italy game.

  • 59.
  • At 11:25 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Muldoonigan wrote:

I guess the case has been made but in all my years of watching Scotland this has to be the low point.

How much do thes guys get paid to be on easy street week in week out?

No guts, no passion...making a farce of rugby's show piece tournament and having the cheek to charge £100 plus pounds to be "entertained".

SRU hang your head in shame.

  • 60.
  • At 11:28 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • David wrote:

The NZ haka, I have never seen that variation before, anyone know what it was about? I think NZ were upset with Scotland and seemed to want to pummel our forwards into the dust at all costs.
Hadden was right, NZ would have beaten us today no matter what. If we put out our best side NZ would just have stepped up. I'll take 40 to zip with a smile (England 0 - SA 36)and call it mission accomplished. Italy is the game we need to win to make the quarters why waste the chance to give NZ a try out. Has everyone in the tourney fielded their best 15 for every game? No, so why should NZ get special treatment.

If we had fielded our best 15, say we scored 2 tries and still got pummeled by 30 points, then lose to Italy (through depresion) what have we achieved? Nought, except for others to tell us how dire our rugby has become. Well wake up boys and smell the roses cause we finaly ended the delusion and recognised where we really are and what we need to do to move on. For my part, no matter what happens next, Hadden made the right choice and has given us the best chance of progression.

  • 61.
  • At 11:31 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Miles Sinclair wrote:

Can we have an inquiry into the strips?

How can you offload to a player using peripheral vision if your opponent is wearing the same strip as you?

And it was even worse for us - you know, us - the paying punters.

Jim Rosenthal managed the only decent comment of his career today when he said, With the strips being identical, the only way to tell them apart is "New Zealand are the ones with the ball"

m

  • 62.
  • At 11:34 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Rugby observer wrote:

Quite frankly the SRU are taking an awful risk with the tactical capitulation against NZ today.

If it all goes belly up v Italy then Sottish Rugby should give up professional contracts altogether since the standard has actually dropped since the move to such contracts.

Professional rugby implies that the players have reached a required technical standard of physical fitness, strength and the basics of catching kicking and passing. All were missing from the fielded Scottish side today and I am least surprised by Paterson's performance considering that he was clearly "bricking it" even before the game began during the anthems.

Nicky Walker and Marcus Di Rollo?! Who told them they could play Rugby?

Each one of the Scotland players (barring Barclay) should hang their head in shame for the performance they put up in front of their own supporters, who paid a lot of money to see a spiritless display against a shoddy NZ outfit, who only had to turn up to win.

  • 63.
  • At 11:52 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Mike Fletcher wrote:

cmeechan (34) - agree with most of what you say, and I'm pretty sure if Hadden had fielded the first XV today and your RWC ended next week he'd be getting slagged for that. Just one small point - England's best 15? Without any fly-halves? We're crap but we're not that crap! Look forward to the next Clash Of The Minnows next Spring!

  • 64.
  • At 11:54 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • James Brough wrote:

I cant believe there is so much stick here at Scotland...i thought 40 points was a relief and the ratins were spot on. Look at the first NZ try...that undoubtedly showed the difference in quality, there back row forwards performing moves our backs would be proud of. They are the best team in the world and had it not been for an excellent defensive performance we would have gone down by 80. top marks for defence, absolutely lousy with the ball, equals out to and average 5 wouldnt you say?

i thought Rory lawson put in a stunning shift when he came on, he took some big hits but didnt miss one tackle.

  • 65.
  • At 11:58 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Donnyballgame wrote:

INEXCUSABLE

How can Scotland lay down against the ABs by not playing the first choice team? And they want us to take them seriously as a top tier team?. I don’t disagree with the ratings, but how can the ratings have any meaning in this context? If you play in a World Cup, pick your best team and want to take your best shot at winning. Then there can be no recriminations. Instead there will be excuses.

Scotland certainly has quality players. But Scottish rugby is a total mess, which is primarily due to the SRU. Sadly, until the SRU is rebuilt from the ground up the Scotland Rugby will never succeed.

  • 66.
  • At 12:00 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Owen Mann wrote:

Ratings don't reflect the result. Scotland were totally overawed by the All Blacks. If New Zealand hadn't dropped the ball 20 times the score would have been 60 plus. Terrible uniforms, marketing over common sense.

  • 67.
  • At 12:06 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Brucey wrote:

How on earth can the scottish front row be getting even 5 or 6?!?! they were DEstroyed by the all blacks today and their performance ensured that even if we were awarded a scrum following a all black mistake, we would still end up under intense pressure!

Only some excellent tackling and defending by our backs (and the fact that the all black's finishing skills were a bit off today) meant the score was under 60 or 70!

  • 68.
  • At 12:17 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Maccoy/Paris wrote:


A confusing game, tactally and visually, so the thing is we both win the AB ran some timing problems while the Scots where giving out caps to everyone....and now the match is Scotland v Italy for our group! All has been planned!!!

  • 69.
  • At 12:23 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Nick Lay wrote:

Don't agree with comment 14. Why should NZ get special dispensation to always wear their black in every match? Scotland nearly always seem to have to change from their dark blue when playing against NZ, so glad to see a change in this routine.

Most of the rugby jerseys are turning into disaster zones now anyway. Why have Nike given France an all navy blue kit, and Canterbury provided Ireland with a holly/ivy green shirt? I'm all for changes but rugby, if it's not careful, will continue to break all its links from its proud traditions.

  • 70.
  • At 12:37 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

That team should never have been picked, it should have been a full strength scottish team. Fans had to pay hundreds of pounds to go to the game and for what? a second xv against the all blacks. Scotland have no chance in the quarter finals so it would have been worthwhile to give the boys a game against the worlds best. Shame on Frank Hadden!

  • 71.
  • At 12:48 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Michael G wrote:

From a Kiwi's Point of view, Scotland did the wisest thing in feilding an under strength side. It is fairly obvious that Scotland cannot beat NZ at the present time, the current all blacks are arguably one of the best sides put out in decades. Scotland did the wisest thing, luckily NZ had an off day (Again!)passes were dropped or thrown forward at crucial times which kept it close. This was inevitable i do however feel for the 65000 people who turned up to see a training match.

  • 72.
  • At 12:56 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Saltire wrote:

Well done today boys, well done Frank. Personally I was delighted with the effort, and no disgrace at all with the scoreline - our first team have been thumped by more in friendlies in the past. I think the marks are fair, since we're judging what each individual can reasonably be expected to achieve - for instance Al Dickinson getting his first cap against Hayman and the might of the All Black pack is a massive ask, so for me he thoroughly deserves pass marks. Craig Smith and Nikki Walker were the only two let downs out there. There are a few question marks for Frank to answer in the coming days though:

Rory Lawson on the bench? Cusiter isn't back to his best yet, Lawson looked sharp when he came on.

Webster or Dewey at outside centre? Dewey's the safer option due to Webster's lack of game time there, but Webster would give us more options in attack. Henderson is a certainty for inside centre.

Patterson or Parks at stand-off? I think we all know the answer to that one now!

Fancy pants suit and tie (a la Portugal) or tracky b's and yellow rain jacket (today)?

  • 73.
  • At 01:15 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • p****d off wrote:

First off, can anyone tell me why NWalker has such good games for his Welsh club (cause he does) and never can repeat that form in a Scots jersey? It can't be that he suddenly becomes a c**p player or cannot take the stress! (anyone who disagrees with that, have you been to Wales recently? One the most stressful places to ply your rugby trade in the world!)Could it be that he is mismanaged?That our dearest Mr Hadden doesn't know how to get his head in the right place?
Could someone also tell me why,o why, did Hadden not put the 2nd team out against Romania and tell them that if they played well enough they could be in with a chance at the AB match and play a full 1st for the AB's???? We would have had a better match from them against the Romanians (it was NOT a good performance from Scotland, just an ok one from us and a very,very poor one from Romania) and at least a half decent match today! And maybe the AB would have picked their game up against a full Scots side too and played to their full potential, then at least those forking out over £100 would have had something to really remember!! Today they got a bad performance from Scotland, and a bad performance from the AB, hardly an experience worth +£100 !!!
Thanks Mr Hadden.
Oh and even if Scotland do beat Italy, it will be in great part due to a) Italy not playing as well as they did in 6 Nations (cause they did play well, not great mind you, but well) b) George Graham and Alan Tait, and c) the lads finally finding their passion for the jersey, how ever awful its design may be currently. It will not, I repeat, NOT be down to Frank Hadden or anyone else from the S(tupid)R(rudderless)U(seless)brigade!!! On this past yrs performance etc, and this pains me to say it as they are a good bunch of guys and it is my country they rep, Scotland do not deserve to go through to the quarters.

  • 74.
  • At 01:16 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Shore Boy wrote:

The story in NZ last week was that the teams drew lots to see which side was deemed to be the Home side and hence had the choice of dressing room and jersey.
Scotland won and indicated they would be wearing blue. As in previous years, NZ would be wearing their alternative gear which is now the so called silver strip, as opposed to the white jerseys they used for many years when playing Scotland "away".
The end result was the shambles we saw. Surely someone in the RWC organisation is responsible for checking jersey clashes like this.It would have been more sensible if the All Blacks had turned out in normal gear,they possibly would have played better!

If that had been football the referee would have made one team change. Perhaps a triumph of jersey marketing over commonsense and consideration of the paying spectator.


  • 75.
  • At 01:32 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • NeilinNZ wrote:

There's some pretty brutal comments coming out about no passion etc. I think that's unduly harsh - I don't think any of the players gave less than their all, it's a quality issue more than anything.
I thought that Callam and Barclay did well, as did Dickenson (most of the problems on the other side of the scrum).
The ABs played in their change strip because of a coin toss to decide who was "home team" (all WC venues are officially neutral). When we play the ABs one side always plays in it's change shirt. The design of the shirt is another issue entirely, but you have to wonder if Canterbury can make green sticky stuff for Ireland and the Boks, why Scotland and Aus have the white?
Lastly, we have a squad for a reason, and the tournament is more important than one game - we have a chance to get as far as the semis. Every team has rotated it's squad - Fiji v Aus, SA v Tonga, ABs v Portugal etc - to achieve what they want from the tournament as a whole. To suggest we get thrown out is a nonsense - if the IRB wanted teams to only play their first XV they wouldn't let you take 30 players.

  • 76.
  • At 01:56 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • luigi wrote:

and I got up at 3:00am to watch that load of ...

probably the worst Scottish performance I can recall.


5 or 6 out of 100 seems about right


  • 77.
  • At 02:02 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

From down here in NZ ~ I awoke @ 3 am with expectations of a victory (its not hard with a 94% win ratio over the last 4 years) and I was aghast at the games (not rugby) that Scotland were playing!! Not only had the home union stated they would wear their "dark Blue" home strip.. but they went to an alternate strip to ensure no paying, watching punter could tell what was happening (the decision maker, CEO of SRU should be financially penalised) on top of this.. we have the indignity of watching swome of the bravest, strongest people on this earth capitulate as they clearly had decided it was lost before the first whistle!!

A shame the AB's made so many errors & left the running game out today.. but the tactics are clear to see ~ The AB's intend to destroy this year by playing power forward rugby.. Scotland B was beaten by forwards today as the lines were run inside the centres, pick & go with some old fashioned field position.. France, Australia, SA you have no idea the moves they have planned.

Yes I'm dissapointed in the lack of running but surely not as dissapointed as a people that have the fighting spirit of Bannockburn

  • 78.
  • At 02:19 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • GorgieBoy wrote:

It's very simple. Beat Italy. You can talk all night about the semantics but its all meaningless chatter. Get to the quarters and take it from there. Or go home if you're not good enough.

  • 79.
  • At 02:29 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • GorgieBoy wrote:

It's very simple. Beat Italy. You can talk all night about the semantics but its all meaningless chatter. Get to the quarters and take it from there. Or go home if you're not good enough.

  • 80.
  • At 02:42 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • GorgieBoy wrote:

Scotland tried their hearts out. It doesn't matter-beating Italy is all that counts. Most people on this thread have such little knowledge of rugby it's frightening.

  • 81.
  • At 03:13 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Kiwi wrote:

I got up at 3am to watch the game..now the Haka that was performed was first used against the Boks but with out the slitting throat gestures..because it was too offensive I guess,however Scotland defended well.Regardless of the scoreline and being a New Zealander myself, I cant say we were all that flash,butter fingers!!!.May the Flower of Scotland bloom more brightly against Italy.Cheers.

  • 82.
  • At 03:33 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • tommym wrote:

NZ have never really played well in their alternate strip, wearing the black kit seems to fire them up more.

What does Scotland do with this prime opportunity to show NZ what they're made of on home soil with a full stadium?

They field a second string team in a kit that resembles a sports bra.

Nice one.

  • 83.
  • At 04:25 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Deviusfeilds wrote:

Why are we having a world cup? Why don't we just put new Zealand Vrs South Africa and let them play it out all this BS about preparing for this match and that match. Why bother this entire thing is just a farce if teams are serious about winning a World Cup test yourselves thats what the haka is about. All these teams are embarrasing themselves by sending second rate teams onto the paddocks. It's a disgrace for the game that all real kiwi's whorship.

  • 84.
  • At 05:04 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Bruce wrote:

The AB's were and still are underprepared for the knockout stages. The backs still lack combination.

And the best team involves McAllister and Toeva in midfield with Mils M at FB and Joe R on one wing.

So selection is confusing.

The relevant QF for group D teams appears to be (will Ireland deny Argentina even a bonus point - which is all they need to win their group).

Scotland vs Argentina and the "AB"'s France (I wonder who will win the toss for "jerseys"?).

France must be at even odds in Cardiff and probably have their best chance of making the final by coming second in their group (the AB's will only at their best for the final). France is also still off their peak and need to improve to beat South Africa (a probable finalist). They might have an easier QF winning their group, but would then face South Africa in a SF they would on current form lose.

One irony is Scotland could well be in one SF and the AB's out of the tournament.

Another is that if the Wallabies beat the AB's in a semi-final, there might be a repeat of the 1991 3rd-4th playoff.

So should auld acquaintance ...

  • 85.
  • At 06:35 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Welsh Jim 82 wrote:

I think its a disgrace that some fans on this board are pleased with yesterdays farce. FH and the SRU stuck two fingers up at the whole World Cup ethos by putting out a second string side against NZ, basically admitting that the team aren't good enough to compete with the best in the world. In which case Scotland shoudln't be at the World Cup. Utter disgrace. A team like Portugal who know that they have no hope of beating NZ still put out their full team and give the game all that they have. Scotland could learn a lot from a team like that..namely some national pride and pride in beeing at the world cup finals.
My heart goes out to the Scottish fans who paid all the money for the tickets as well as all the NZ fans who travelled all that way to watch the "game".
I hope Scotland lose to Italy for this and get knocked out of the tournament,because they don't deserve to go any further.
Shame on FH, Shame on SRU.

  • 86.
  • At 07:02 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • FooFoo wrote:

Nobody moans when Australia, New Zealand or South Africa puts out a second team. If the roles were reversed and New Zealand put out a second string XV against a full strength Scotland team would anyone be complaining? I would doubt it, so why should it be any different for the Scotland team?

The reality is that this is the World Cup and the objective is to get as far as possible. For all teams that means keeping players fresh and rotating the squad. If we don't do so, then there is an argument that we are accepting we are minnows, putting our strongest team out every game and assuming that we are not going to get very far! I think Hadden was correct in that we should be expecting to get into the quarter finals and therefore keeping our best players fresh in order to achieve that.

  • 87.
  • At 07:56 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • DH wrote:


C'mon you Scots - whatever happened to playing one game at a time. You had the advantage of playing at home and playing against a poor performing (by our standards) NZ team, but you chucked in the towel a week ahead of the game by putting on the 2nd team. Had the strategy of putting your number one team on the field been deployed (even knowing that you would lose), it would have enabled you to carry the emotional momentum through to your next game (Italy). The game is not just about winning, but playing to the best of one's ability and knowing that you played your hearts out. The Scots would have been better off losing by 25 points but knowing they fielded their best team and played well. Now the whole squad will be demoralised - 40 zip against a 75% performance AB team. Watch this space - Italy will beat Scotland as they are more hungry for the win. Scotland the Brave!! Scotland the Meek more like. And I have typed this in red so people can see the difference rather than being the same as everyone else (eg 30 people playing with similar strips makes your eyes go funny!!).

  • 88.
  • At 08:11 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Donald Young wrote:

Think many of you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Frank Hadden has a job to do and that's to get as far as feasible in this tournament with the (limited) resources and depth (lack of) he has. I personally feel he was spot on to do what he did and as long as it doesn't back fire against Italy he'll have been seen to be correct.

As far as the game is concerned NZ were not clinical enough to hammer Scotlands multitude of errors however they did show flashes of the power and inventiveness (first try) that will win the the RWC, mind you Graham Henry maybe has the odd selection issue to look at.

Scotland defended as though their lives depended on it and they did well but it was obvious how far behind the first XV most of these players were, Scrummaging was woeful, line out did not take advantage of the sometimes poor line out play of the All blacks. Defence was superb and they blighted a lot of the NZ play.

Parks has to play 10(don't believe I said that) with Paterson at 15, the Lamont boys on either wing and a coin toss at centre but please not Di Rollo, Henderson/Dewey look like the call.

From Hadden and Scotland's viewpoint mission accomplished. We have a fresh squad for the Italians and our first XV didn't get humiliated the same way England did against the Boks; bring on the Italians.

  • 89.
  • At 09:20 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Doggy D wrote:


I've read the comments above and I am amazed at how stupid some people are. Many are living in the past.

To say the squad will be demoralised is rubbish - the first XV will not be too bothered by watching their rivals lose.

For someone to say he'd rather see us score one try v NZ and lose to Italy is the kind of person who is the reason why Scotland struggles to breed winners. That's the attitude of a loser. Glorious defeat is still defeat.

The fact is if Scotland beat Italy we are in the quarters and we don't need to qualify for RWC 2011. If we lose to Italy then FH's job is under threat, no matter what the score was yesterday.

Anyone who knows anything about rugby knew FH would have to pick a weakened team against NZ as Blair, White, Talyor, etc all have a recent history of injuries so could not be risked against NZ.

I was at the game yesterday and I didn't feel cheated or ripped off by the selection, it was the intelligent thing to do. Well done to the guys yesterday (although giving almost everyone passmarks is crazy, they lost heavily) and good luck against Italy.

  • 90.
  • At 09:21 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Phil wrote:

What did we lose? as "realist" puts it. Credibility, my friend, credibility!, both with the Scottish fans and the rest of the rugby world. At home to one of the two best teams in the world, in the best competition in the world, what better opportunity to benchmark yourself and give it a real go. If you want to be the best, you have to compete with the best. Clearly, Scotland let themselves and all rugby fans down by their selection policy. How must the players have felt? Denied a tilt at the Blacks because they must beat Italy. Come on Frank, when will you get the opportunity again to play the Blacks in a World Cup pool game at Murrayfield? You made the wrong call, as we all said before the game. Also, think how much the fans paid, and think back to yesterday the next time you look around Murrayfield and see empty seats in the six nations.

  • 91.
  • At 09:32 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • gordon wrote:

Its dissapointing that when the All Blacks come to Edinburgh for a competitive game there was as many empty seats. I think Hadden should have played his 1st XV and had a go instead of playing the 2nd`s. Its a joke, the punters were robbed.

As for the player ratings, what game were you watching? I think 3`s would have been generous.

  • 92.
  • At 09:46 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • jim wrote:

Think that these marks are way too high for a misfiring side who lost 40 to nothing.
3 or 4 is the average in my book.

Oh and -10 for the management of both teams for playing in the "same" shirts.

  • 93.
  • At 09:56 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Grassy Troll wrote:

Some brill comments esp from our NZ friends (nos 82 & 83).
I'm in the hacked off camp and am particularly tired of the outrageous spin.
For instance Hadden denied it was a weakened team....until his post match comments where he stated that the team for Italy could now start training a day earlier than if they had played against the AB!
George Graham was spouting forth on Friday about how the team would not fall into the old habit of showing too much respect for the opposition....but on the pitch we did that and couldn't even build confidence when we had some decent sorties into their half.

I 've posted comments on previous matches and the simple truth is that our performances continue to be hallmarked by poor handling which are often unforced errors. At least many of the AB's handling errors came from under pressure situations.
Even the B team yesterday could have got points on the board - the fact they didn't was down to the inability to demonstrate basic control of the ball.

One final point - I sat down to watch two consecutive matches yesterday where the team I support was the underdog playing at home (in Edinburgh)against the favourites for the title. The first of these was football - and Hibs got stuck in to Celtic to pull off an unlikely victory despite the commonly accepted gulf in class of players. That was followed by the dismal proceedings at Murrayfield. I wonder which set of players are feeling more upbeat and confident about their next match as they wake up this morning.....

  • 94.
  • At 10:05 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Ron Miles wrote:

Which game were you watching, you rated the scottish front row all 6's, it was the most clinical destruction of an international front row ive seen in 30 years, they all tried hard, but that doesnt count in international quality rugby they should all have less than 3, chris pattreson showed what was wrong with scottish rugby for the last 10 years, no strength in depth, he is way out of his depth at 10, he scored 2, maybe even 1.

  • 95.
  • At 10:10 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Nick wrote:

It's not just that it's lame but also illogical to excuse Scotland yesterday.

Somehow we're expected to believe that a completely different team will turn up against Italy, tell themselves they're so much better than Sunday's mob and beat them. Well obviously!?! Hadden & Co have no idea how well they can play because the first time they face a decent side they throw in the towel and learn absolutely nothing. It's going to be lucky dip against the Azzurri and the SRU may well get what they deserve.

If football teams complain of rotation disrupting momentum, how much more dangerous is this in the more complex world of rugby. Only the All Blacks, Wallaby's et all can do this at all because they do so from a clear position of strength. Is that the delusion of Hadden? Inexcusable.

  • 96.
  • At 10:11 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • GT wrote:

Why is everyone getting hung up on getting hammered. Schedule dictated that Scotland had to rest first XV. Beat Italy and Argentina and we're in the semis which isn't beyond the first team. Yesterday was all but a dead rubber and an opportunity to blood some guys who'll be all the better for the experience.

Well doen Frank, the only question that remains unanswered is who plays alongside Dewey in the midfield.

As for fiasco of games in Scotland and Wales, typical English arrogance that cost them the hosting of this tournament, I guess some people are still pining for all the games to be played at Twickers to have a chance of even getting to the semis - beware of Tonga!!!

  • 97.
  • At 10:15 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

How anyone can rate the players I don't know, the game was spoiled for me by being unable to tell one side from the other in rucks and mauls. Apart from being laughably badly designed the All Black strip was too close to Scotlands.
By the way that's why I think England are playing so poorly, I'd play badly if I was forced to wear that clowns outfit.

  • 98.
  • At 10:23 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Grassy Troll wrote:

Some brill comments esp from our NZ friends (nos 82 & 83).
I'm in the hacked off camp and am particularly tired of the outrageous spin.
For instance Hadden denied it was a weakened team....until his post match comments where he stated that the team for Italy could now start training a day earlier than if they had played against the AB!
George Graham was spouting forth on Friday about how the team would not fall into the old habit of showing too much respect for the opposition....but on the pitch we did that and couldn't even build confidence when we had some decent sorties into their half.

I 've posted comments on previous matches and the simple truth is that our performances continue to be hallmarked by poor handling which are often unforced errors. At least many of the AB's handling errors came from under pressure situations.
Even the B team yesterday could have got points on the board - the fact they didn't was down to the inability to demonstrate basic control of the ball.

One final point - I sat down to watch two consecutive matches yesterday where the team I support was the underdog playing at home against the favourites for the title. The first of these was football - and Hibs got stuck in to Celtic to pull off an unlikely victory despite the commonly accepted gulf in class of players. That was followed by the dismal proceedings at Murrayfield. I wonder which set of players are feeling more upbeat and confident about their next match as they wake up this morning.....

  • 99.
  • At 10:29 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Fraser wrote:

the SRU should reduce the cost of the next six nations match for those that paid to see a 2nd XV. This would go someway to apologising for the loyal supporters who paid the astronomical fees to watch yesterdays match. I cant fault the players in terms of effort, it is not their fault they are picked but Hadden to make 13 changes and try and suggest that we had a chance is a disgrace. At full strength at best it would have been a struggle.

  • 100.
  • At 10:30 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • neil wrote:

it was a disgraceful performance, saying the first 15 couldnt compete with NZ,

why oh why does frank hadden insist on giving marcus dirollo a game for scotlan? he is a disgrace to the jersey after the portugal game he should have been sent home. I see better centres on the school playing field.

a win against Italy is now a must!

  • 101.
  • At 10:31 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Aucklander wrote:

A poor game in terms of basic playing skills - apart from the All Blacks' solid scrum. Made a sad game as well by Scotland's selectorial capitulation, and a farcical one by the appalling designs of the barely distinguishable playing strips.

Nobody came out of this encounter with any great credit. What a shame that future generations of Scots and NZ fans will not feel inclined reminisce over this game while sharing a few beers. The day could have been one of the great occasions in the long history of Tests between our two countries. Sadly, our game is being sold out to media marketeers and coaching strategists who seem set on burying the last vestiges of the code's traditions.

  • 102.
  • At 10:32 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Grassy Troll wrote:

Some brill comments esp from our NZ friends (nos 82 & 83).
I'm in the hacked off camp and am particularly tired of the outrageous spin.
For instance Hadden denied it was a weakened team....until his post match comments where he stated that the team for Italy could now start training a day earlier than if they had played against the AB!
George Graham was spouting forth on Friday about how the team would not fall into the old habit of showing too much respect for the opposition....but on the pitch we did that and couldn't even build confidence when we had some decent sorties into their half.

I 've posted comments on previous matches and the simple truth is that our performances continue to be hallmarked by poor handling which are often unforced errors. At least many of the AB's handling errors came from under pressure situations.
Even the B team yesterday could have got points on the board - the fact they didn't was down to the inability to demonstrate basic control of the ball.

One final point - I sat down to watch two consecutive matches yesterday where the team I support was the underdog playing at home against the favourites for the title. The first of these was football - and Hibs got stuck in to Celtic to pull off an unlikely victory despite the commonly accepted gulf in class of players. That was followed by the dismal proceedings at Murrayfield. I wonder which set of players are feeling more upbeat and confident about their next match as they wake up this morning.....

  • 103.
  • At 10:53 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • R Webster wrote:

It feels like there are a lot of people in cosy bunkers throwing stones at Hadden's glasshouse, safe in the knowledge they are not responsible for getting Scotland through to the QF's. So easy to write that "I'd prefer one try against the AB's to qualification" - I guess that's why you're not the Scotland coach then.

So, yes, I'm disappointed that Scotland put out a second XV as we don't have the depth to compete with the world's best without our top line out. But I don't blame Hadden at all for this - and think he had little choice.

The fault is in the World Cup organisation. In a hard contact game like rugby the recovery time from a match is not just a couple of days, and Scotland wouldn't have been able to train effectively for the Italy match until the middle of the week. If there are an odd number of teams in the group pools, then every series of matches one side is coming in fresh to play one that has just played - and this is bound to affect selection policy at some point.

And ironically I think the scoreline would have been just as bad with the first XV - as the ABs would have played a simpler more direct game, been less impatient, and had more space to unleash their backs as they would not have spent quite so much time in the Scotland 22.

The ratings I don't understand though - as the front row were destroyed, but the back row did a huge (and passionate) job in stemming the tide.

  • 104.
  • At 10:53 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Scottishwolf II wrote:

Beat Italy and get through and the selection will be shown to be genius.

Go out against Italy and the selection was a huge gaff which cost us momentum.

Its as simple as that.

  • 105.
  • At 11:03 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • nickiefully wrote:

i think everyone's overreacting slightly, yes it was a poor game yesterday, but lets be honest did anyone ever believe that we could beat the all blacks? if we'd put out our first team we'd have injuries for the italy game, and think how demoralised the players would be if we had put out our best team and still got humped (cos thats exactly what would've happened). whereas, now our major players are all ready to train tomorrow and can prepare properly for the italy match. stop crying about it cos it was the sensible option. Spot on frank!

  • 106.
  • At 11:05 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

I still don't understand why some people are still blaming the SRU for the ticket prices. They had nothing to do with it - they were set by the RWC.

Plenty of French at murrayfield yesterdaay - does anyone know if French residents got access to cheaper tickets for the world cup?

Disappointing from Scotland - some good defence at times tho. Happy with Barclay and Henderson. Thought Southwell was good except for the charged down kick. Can he play 13 maybe? I'd still go with Henderson and Webster/Dewey - depends on our strategy.

I was angered by Hadden's attitude in resting some of our stronger players but if that's what needs to be done to get the most out of the competition then so be it. It's disappointing to hear people say they feel sorry for the Scotland fans but at the same time wishing us to get beat by Italy to teach us a lesson.

Hadden owes us a victory against Italy and a damn good quarter-final performace too, he always said we'd do something special, well now it is time to deliver. C'mon Scotland!!

  • 107.
  • At 11:09 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Bruce wrote:

The AB's alternative strip should be a combination of the AB jersey and the old alternate strip the white jersey and black shorts - black and white hoops (with the silver fern on a black hoop).

That would be more "traditional" - it's a possibility that the AB's could play a final vs France in that ghastly and untraditional outfit. That would be less than optimum in a rematch of the finalists of the first Cup final in 1987.

The IRB should have some right of approval/veto over strip "changes" which clash with traditional colours of other teams.

  • 108.
  • At 11:20 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Helm wrote:

"the final score was not an embarrassment, re:the SA match against our south of the border neighbours. It was always going to be the Italy game, so take what happened today and move on."


Hm Yes of course us "south of the border types" weren't playing at home and did in fact get hammered slightly less than you "north of the border types" If you weren't embarresmed by not scoring a single point then you must have more front than Blackpool

Frankly I thought it was a disgrace to every single Scottish fan to roll over and play dead and cheat them of seeing a game worth every penny of the ticket they paid hard earned cash for

  • 109.
  • At 11:24 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Wee man wrote:

Fair scores for players that were lambs to the slaughter, only because their coach didn't have the moral courage to field Scotland's finest.

I really hope that Frank Hadden's huge gamble doesn't pay off. He should be sacked if it doesn't. He should be disciplined anyway, as a capacity crowd at Murrayfield paid over the odds for tickets to watch a weakened side against the ABs. He is a disgrace to Celtic Rugby. Doesn't he realise that it's the money from ticket sales that pay the player's wages and his.

Scottish Rugby has itself to blame in a day and age when one minute they close the Borders, the next they are threatening to buckle Edinburgh (because of the SRU's own mistakes) and Glasgow Warriors struggle to sell 1500 tickets for games at Hughenden.

Do they not realise that all of this will serve to weaken Scotland as a rugby force and will deffo have a huge effect on the national team.

Sack Hadden, he's a charlatan. Dis-satisfied fans should seek a refund from the SRU. I intend to. I bet you they don't pay out. That should show how much they really value their fans.

Disgrace!

  • 110.
  • At 11:27 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Proud Scot wrote:


This should have been Banockburn, instead it was Culloden.

After the 2005 game I thought he really did have a chance of something special with our strongest side... after months of looking forward to it gutted doesn't even come close.

Frank Haddon take note from Mcleish and co!!

This is one fan who'll be putting his pennies towards SFA coffers from now on...... at least they have the right attitude!!

  • 111.
  • At 11:28 AM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • scott g wrote:

Agree with the comments on the playing strips. I also turned off watching the match as I didn't know who was who. What's wrong with the IRB executive to let this happen????

  • 112.
  • At 12:02 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • s wilson wrote:

Sad day when a team is lauded for making a far better winning team "make mistakes" but not score or look like scoring. Hard to give Hadden a hard time though, his pragmatic view is probably right that the Italy match was always going to be the crux. I only hope Scotland play well and beat Italy for everybody's sake. I would rather have seen a full strength team against the All Blacks yesterday, just so another "toughening up" game was under the belts of the first choice team members.

  • 113.
  • At 12:09 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • David wrote:

It was an open secret well before the RWC brgan that we would field a 2nd 15 against NZ. Anyone who bought tickest would have(should have) known that.

Will NZ field the same 15 against Romania next week out of respect for Romania?

We lost credibility? What credibility? Hands up all those who really believed we could have beaten NZ on sunday (before the game started). What we did was show NZ a lack of respect and they did'nt like it. Well, we not here to make them look good.

There is an outside chance we could meet again (yes I said outside chance) and if we do, it will be our first 15, and we will show NZ what it means to us. They come up to stomp on Murryfield, produce an offensive haka and treat us like dirt. Sooner or later we will put their arrogance to bed.

We put out a 2nd 15....LIVE WITH IT!!

  • 114.
  • At 12:25 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • ContinentalOp wrote:

I think Hadden would have been a bit more savvy to have made 6 or 7 changes along the lines of Cusiter, K Brown, Callam etc. These players have international experience and are decent quality - able to give NZ a game but not in our 1st XV at present.

Totally depowering our front 5 was a big surprise. Pretty harsh on our props to have a slimmed down 2nd row and not Hines or Hamilton packing down. Equally, why not play Barclay v Portugal rather than throw him in v McCaw (although JB played well and deserved a 7 for turning ball over from the world's best openside).

I also don't understand playing Webster on the wing when he appears to be our best choice at 13 in this tournament. MDR is clearly out of form so why not give Webster a go vs the best in the world.

A bit more thought from Hadden might have seen the Lamont bros, Hines and Hamilton all getting half a game or so and significanlty improving the side and making a game of it. As well stated above, though, if Scotland perform well and beat Italy Frank's gamble will be justified. A QF v Arg would suit us better than the French anyway so there is clearly a logic in his choices. If we lose, it is a minor disaster frankly because sacrificing the NZ game as a contest will have been a waste.

  • 115.
  • At 12:30 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • billk wrote:

'could have been 80 or 90 points difference' It WASN'T. This is a professional game now lads and FH was totally correct.Does anyone think that the A team would have beaten them.Carry on boys I will roaring for you against Italy

  • 116.
  • At 12:55 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Stephen wrote:

Terrible!

Fielding a pack that was physically no match for the best Front 5 in the world bordered on maddness.

Dickinson - a good prospect - debuting against the best tight head in the game is surely no way to nurture talent and is bordering on dangerous.

Craig Smith is out of shape and has the scrummaging ability of a Fried Egg.

How on earth was Patterson supposed to demonstrate his ability at 10 with the forwards permanently getting knocked back and he has the likes of McCaw hounding after him?

Nothing more need be said about the shirt selection.

  • 117.
  • At 01:14 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Jamie wrote:

Those ratings have to be a laugh surely? Were you even watching the game?

The Scottish pack were an absolute disgrace. I don't expect us to be world beaters but I do expect professional players to apply themselves like professionals. I seem to remember FH talking pre-tournament about how our pack would be able to "front up" with anyone, that lot looked out of their depth and petrified before kickoff.

No heart, no desire, no clue...we were defeated before the game started.

  • 118.
  • At 01:33 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • scots warrior wrote:

wow number 100 has it spot on, i thought i was the only one surprised at di rollos inclusion in the initial squad never mind geting game time in 2 matches. a disgrace to the thistle on the jersey

  • 119.
  • At 01:35 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Graeme wrote:

Perhaps if we have lost hope that even our "A" team could have beaten the all blacks we should throw in the towel now. If we do beat Italy are we really going to "bask" in the glory of making it to the quarter finals when we are willing to disrespect the paying public and the All Blacks by playing a second string team. Its not fair on anyone let alone the players that came in and in all fairness did their best.

This was a home game against arguably the best team in the world, national pride should have dictated that we field our best boys, giving it their all and if we lose then fair play. I dont see any pride in the end justifying the means. If we beat Italy and if we win the QF and if we win the SF we will be playing one of the big boys. If we get there with the attitude of acceptance that we cannot beat the All Blacks, why bother.

  • 120.
  • At 02:02 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Gordon wrote:

Was it not a few short weeks ago that FH had the squad photographed running on the beach with the tops off claiming that they could match the muscle of anyone up front??

That was obviously his first joke! The forwards were continously driven back and it took about 4 or 5 rucks to gain a yard (slow ones at that)

  • 121.
  • At 02:03 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • C Taylor wrote:

Thank you R webster for being the only person here to see sense. Those people talking about preferring having a go at the AB's and then lose to Italy, are you even Scottish?

Frank Hadden made a sensible decision. Anyone who's ever played a half decent standard of rugby knows the toll it takes on the body, and 3 games in however many short days it is is going to have a huge impact on the players' bodies. Better to rest our top 15 for the all-important match against Italy and reach the quarter-finals, which we have a chance of progressing from.

Imagine the boost that would give our players and the impact that would have on future generations of Scottish rugby players. Every kid will suddenly want to take up rugby, which will lead to better displays in the future.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the Italy match, and am fully behind the Scottish team and coaching staff

  • 122.
  • At 02:10 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • AHHHHH!!!!! wrote:

We were p1sh! simple as that, Paterson is no 10 and to be honest looked like a wee school boy who just booted his ball through the glass window every time he got the ball he panicked.

Put Paterson to 15 (only reason for him in the team is his kicking) keep Parks at 10 and put the Lamont brothers on the wing's have Henderson / Dewey in inside centre and Webster at outside with Hugo on the bench to cover the whole back line as he is a fairly adaptable player that can slot into many different roles.

y keeping Parks at 10 the whole backline keep there shape and stability in defence and attack Parks plays a good game trusting his pack to win line outs and uses this to our advantage by kicking the lines when needed to put us into a scoring position where the likes of Rory and Sean can do the damage both are good finishers obviously Rory is having a far better W/Cup than Sean but Sean is still a quality player.

The performance against NZ was a disgrace not to score any points is simply not on, i never thought we would win the game form the moment the pool's were announced but i thought we could have given then a far better game and the fans a far better display especially at those prices! Still i hope FH has learnt allot from this shambles and sorts it all out in time for the Italy game on Saturday otherwise were done for!! Scotland have never failed to qualify for the quarter finals and have even once made it to semi final only to be put out by the auld enemy (just thank god they didnt win it that year as well!!)

#119 - be realistic beat Italy YES! win QF doubt it as we would more than likely be up against the Pumas (they are on form) but say we did win that one and that would line up a SF against South Africa. Not a hope in hell are we getting to the SF let alone the final based on that display against NZ.

  • 123.
  • At 02:23 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • ozjock wrote:

Would you all get a life!

Scotland B 0 NZ 40
Italy 14 NZ 76

Put it in perspective. Front 5 were monstered, but defence was good. As for "could have been worse etc if NZ had played better".....they didn't, and who cares why (maybe starting to choke early!)!

NZ and everyone else knew when draw was made that this was the most likely tactic from Scotland. They were using the game to build for quarters, and over use of the scrum suggests they are in fact more concerned with getting refs prepped for semi vs oz.

I'm fed up with glorious failure and excuses. I would rather Scotland opted for the same hard headed attitude employed by the SH. If Hadden thinks resting players will give us the edge, I'm happy with that. All the evidence in professional sport backs this approach, so why not. SH teams are better because they know what it takes to win...on and off the pitch.

  • 124.
  • At 02:24 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Seumas wrote:

With the scheduling as it is it was inevitable that Hadden was going to do this - he would have been irresponsible had he not. Anyone who bought a ticket for Murrayfield must have known this. If we do make it to the QF's then we'll have enough of a break to prepare for that game. We need to get there first though!

  • 125.
  • At 02:55 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • kate wrote:

Well I am not joining the doom and gloom merchants on here. I expected a massacre of epic proportions and when you consider England (the current WC holders) went 36 points down to SA, having the best team in the world take another four off little old Scotland ain't too bad!
If Hadden pulls off the Italy game, it will be worth it.

  • 126.
  • At 03:01 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • roxy n.o 8 baby! wrote:

You can't even rate NZsstye or technique its off the scale brilliance!!(not sure if thets an actual word!!) Scotland played well considering but would have been better staying in bed and saving their dignity!!(no affence if you scotish and support them by all means they are a good team!!) the All Blacks are so far the best team i've seen play although it would be great to see England play with as much passion as the all balcks.

  • 127.
  • At 03:26 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • diarmid.hurrell wrote:

I don't think anybody expected Scotland to beat the All Blacks but World Cups are about having a go and obviously Hadden doesn't think his team are capable of having a go. That's a big shame for the older members of this Scotland team who sat out this game, they would have been better off going out with the intention of thumping the All Blacks (and inevitably losing) than playing this pathetic game of hanging on for as long as possible in a competition they clearly feel they aren't up to competing in.

Rugby should be about doing your best and on Saturday Hadden decided not to do his best. All this talk of keeping players fresh is nonsense - the XV from Saturday could have been entrusted with beating Italy while the 1st XV could and should have gone out to give it their best shot against the world's best side.

  • 128.
  • At 03:53 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Saltire wrote:

Doesn't look like we'll ever agree on the second string strategy! Let's move on now - I don't know where these calls are coming from to move Patterson to 15 and have the Lamont brothers on the wing, because there's no chance Hadden will do that. The team is set apart from outside centre:

15 - R Lamont
14 - S Lamont
13 - Dewey/Webster/Di Rollo (please God no!)/Southwell (in that order of likely starters)
12 - Henderson
11 - Patterson
10 - Parks
9 - Blair
8 - Taylor
7 - Hogg
6 - White (capt)
5 - Hines
4 - Hamilton
3 - Murray
2 - Ford
1 - Kerr

Southwell is unlucky to be out of the team, but he hasn't been tested at outside centre, and so is likely to be used as a utility player from the bench. I would be hugely surprised if, assuming there are no training injuries, Hadden selects any other side than this one to win us a place in the last eight.

C'mon Scotland!

  • 129.
  • At 03:53 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

I don't see how you can give Paterson more than a 2 - he did almost nothing good, and made a lot of mistakes. Barclay, however, was excellent, and surprised McCaw and co. Also, I thought Cussiter did well. Someone should get credit for some good defending too, and I would nominate the back row. And the front five? You cannot give any of them more than 2 for their scrummaging - but they redeemed themselves a little in the lineout.

  • 130.
  • At 03:56 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

WHAT A SHAME!

  • 131.
  • At 03:56 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Alex wrote:

Was at the game yesterday and it proved one thing. Paterson isn't a stand-off.... Mate!!!! stick to the wingers position. Please don't be come the next Townsend!!!!!

  • 132.
  • At 04:00 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Saltire wrote:

Doesn't look like we'll ever agree on the second string strategy! Let's move on now - I don't know where these calls are coming from to move Patterson to 15 and have the Lamont brothers on the wing, because there's no chance Hadden will do that. The team is set apart from outside centre:

15 - R Lamont
14 - S Lamont
13 - Dewey/Webster/Di Rollo (please God no!)/Southwell (in that order of likely starters)
12 - Henderson
11 - Patterson
10 - Parks
9 - Blair
8 - Taylor
7 - Hogg
6 - White (capt)
5 - Hines
4 - Hamilton
3 - Murray
2 - Ford
1 - Kerr

Southwell is unlucky to be out of the team, but he hasn't been tested at outside centre, and so is likely to be used as a utility player from the bench. I would be hugely surprised if, assuming there are no training injuries, Hadden selects any other side than this one to win us a place in the last eight.

C'mon Scotland!

  • 133.
  • At 04:05 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • ContinentalOp wrote:

Clearly, we would all like to have made the NZ match the show case it should have been. However, I agree that Hadden needed to manage his squad carefully and that the priority is our team performance v Italy, not the All blacks.

However, I think he could have rotated the players a bit more skilfully to enable a more balanced side to at least challenge the ABs. For example, Hines or Hamilton could have started instead of MacLeod and Kerr could have started rather than Dickinson. Both could have been subbed after 50mins but would have given us more ballast up front.
Webster probably should have been at 13 - if you are going to play him why not at the likely position he will fill next week? Although I agreed with 6 or 7 of his changes and like the fact that Barclay was deemed good enough (which he is), I don't quite understand why he wasn't give the game v Portugal 2 weeks ago to at least cut his teeth?

All in all, a weird and surreal RWC fixture (France 07 but played in Edinburgh, the strips, the 2nd XV, etc) but our focus is next weekend. The side who may suffer most from Scotland's strategy is NZ of course. They will emerge from a group where they have played 2 minnows, a very poor Italian performance and a scottish 2nd string. Next game will likely be France and I suspect they would have wanted a far harder test prior to that.

  • 134.
  • At 04:18 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Alex wrote:

Was at the game yesterday and it proved one thing. Paterson isn't a stand-off.... Mate!!!! stick to the wingers position. Please don't be come the next Townsend!!!!!

  • 135.
  • At 04:52 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Scott Baxter wrote:

I was at the game and was ashamed and angry. Hadden let his country down, let the paying fans down, let rugby down. The players did their best but were boys against men. I sat amongst Portuguese, Aussie, French, Spanish fans - what value and impression did they get? The jerseys were awful, the fans doing the Mexican wave, even during a rare Scottish attack, were horrendously disinterested - the worst and possibly last rugby experience of my, and probably many others', life. As for points, I'd give Southwell, Webster, Cusiter, Barclay, Dickinson and Callam pass marks, say 6, and the rest 2 or 3. Hadden gets zilch.

  • 136.
  • At 05:10 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • GreatBigTiredOldHector wrote:

One thing that strikes me about many of the comments on this blog is the number of sad individuals who feel it necessary to have a go at England in a discussion about Scotland's Player Ratings?

With regard to the performance on Sunday, I think that for the most part the Scottish reserves performed pretty well against a team that is likely to be crowned World Cup winners. Though I suspect that the marks awarded in the article are more for effort than attainment, there are plenty of other countries whose second 15's would be relatively pleased to not concede a point a minute to the current AB's (England included). It is obviously a matter for Scottish supporters to discuss the relative merits of the players to be included in their team, but I felt that Sunday's team weren't in any way disgraced, or that they suffered from any lack of heart. It is also just possible that some of their efforts may have contributed to a 'relatively' error-strewn NZ display?

The decision regarding whether a second string team should have been put out there in the first place has obviously divided opinion greatly. I personally would not have been happy if England had done something similar, or if I had paid good money for match tickets. There are obviously pros and cons from a Scottish point of view, but as somebody else has already stated, it would have seemed more logical to field some of the weaker players against the weaker nations, keeping the better players on the bench in case of a possible upset.

As for the clashing team strips, those responsible should find themselves in serious trouble (and that's before you even consider how ridiculous the shirts looked!) . It's understandable when it happens at a kid's game in the local park, but absolutely unbelieveable that something like that can happen at such a huge sporting event.

For the record, I and most other Englishmen are fully aware that our current team have little or no chance of competing at the required standard at this World Cup. If we can manage to get past Tonga, then we can more than likely look forward to being humbled by the notoruously humble Australians! No matter what, I will only ever have a go at the players when they display a lack of effort and I will continue to hope and to support my team until the (likely) bitter end.

  • 137.
  • At 07:37 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • davo wrote:

Anyone know why FH persists with MdR. Have yet to see him play a good game for anyone !

  • 138.
  • At 07:38 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Donnyballgame wrote:

Who ever said Rugby players can only play every other week, and even then, against level or weaker opposition only? Oh, the people on this blog. That’s who.

I am really surprised at the number of people who believe if Scotland fielded their top 15 against NZ, a loss to Italy is inevitable. If Scotland wants to be considered amongst the Big Boys, then have a go, then come back next time and have at it again. Forget the silly arguments about health, momentum, confidence, and so on. It will all be fine. Sport is about the confidence to take your best shot, then coming back to do it all over again. Winning will come from that. The fear of losing perpetuates losing.

On the other hand, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Some people here are dreaming Scotland have much of a shot against Argentina. Not really. Not much better than against NZ. Did anyone watch the openning match of this RWC? But that still wouldn't mean they don't throw everything they have at the Pumas.

And while I am at it, the supporters at Murryfield did get taken for a ride, after shelling out the big money. All they saw were a B-grade Haka, All Blacks in grey, and Scots wearing the ugliest jerseys in the history of……..history. But that is another Rant for another day.

  • 139.
  • At 10:03 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Peter LAwther wrote:

How is Chris Patterson going to be available? Clearly concussed on Saturday.
Or is another of those remarkable non concussions that are becoming more frequent now ?

  • 140.
  • At 10:10 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Peter LAwther wrote:

How is Chris Patterson going to be available? Clearly concussed on Saturday.
Or is another of those remarkable non concussions that are becoming more frequent now ?

  • 141.
  • At 10:21 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Peter LAwther wrote:

How is Chris Patterson going to be available? Clearly concussed on Saturday.
Or is another of those remarkable non concussions that are becoming more frequent now ?

  • 142.
  • At 10:43 PM on 24 Sep 2007,
  • Peter LAwther wrote:

How is Chris Patterson going to be available? Clearly concussed on Saturday.
Or is another of those remarkable non concussions that are becoming more frequent now ?

  • 143.
  • At 02:55 AM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • Dr T wrote:

How can Craig smith ever play for Scotland again? He seemed lacking in motivation against the best team in the world. I just don't understand how a professional athlete can look so unfit. And his basic skills are so lacking that his body position was cruelly exposed by Masoe despite Smith's enormous bulk. Surely we must have someone else to waste money watching?

  • 144.
  • At 05:35 AM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • Donnyballgame wrote:

Who ever said Rugby players can only play every other week, and even then, against level or weaker opposition only? Oh, the people on this blog. That’s who.

I am really surprised at the number of people who believe if Scotland fielded their top 15 against NZ, a loss to Italy is inevitable. If Scotland wants to be considered amongst the Big Boys, then have a go, then come back next time and have at it again. Forget the silly arguments about health, momentum, confidence, and so on. It will all be fine. Sport is about the confidence to take your best shot, then coming back to do it all over again. Winning will come from that. The fear of losing perpetuates losing.

On the other hand, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Some people here are dreaming Scotland have much of a shot against Argentina. Not really. Not much better than against NZ. Did anyone watch the openning match of this RWC? But that still wouldn't mean they don't throw everything they have at the Pumas.

And while I am at it, the supporters at Murryfield did get taken for a ride, after shelling out the big money. All they saw were a B-grade Haka, All Blacks in grey, and Scots wearing the ugliest jerseys in the history of..........history. But that is another Rant for another day.

  • 145.
  • At 08:17 AM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • Upset at the strips wrote:

It was impossible to watch this game on the TV. I am sure both of the teams and even the ref had a real problem distinquishing who was who.
That apart Scotland's front 5 were pathetic and we were lucky not to be trashed by at least another 20 or 30 points. We now know for sure that other than his kicking Patterson is not an international class player in any position and Parks watches the man and freezes. The whole team thinks rugby should be played standing still and probably in their dreams while they are asleep as well
Still we have to watch because they are our representatives and should be supported

  • 146.
  • At 09:44 AM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • gman wrote:

I suspect Scotland will beat Italy and who knows... maybe even Argentina? If we get to the semi's I cant imagine any Scotland fan would swap their place for reducing the margin of defeat against the AB's and not even proceeding to the quarters for the first time? That might not necessarily have happened of course but FH needs to maximise our chances of progression to a knockout stage. It's dissapointing but pragmatic and it might just work out, I think it's left us with the best chance of a semi final from all the home nation teams (not bad for 6n wooden spooners)

  • 147.
  • At 10:28 AM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • kotc wrote:

Can someone explain to me why reaching the QF is more important than honour and integrity? Because that's what was sacrificed on Sunday.

Honour, because (as a Welshman in town for the game) it was dispiriting to see a proud nation so resigned to defeat before a ball had been kicked. The players have been in training for months for this, and will have weeks to recover afterwards - why can't they play 2 games in 5 days? The All Blacks aren't even that physical compared to the Boks, they actually prefer to run around teams.

Integrity, because in the entertainment game everyone who paid for a ticket on Sunday has been shamefully let down.

It was a sad day for rugby that the sport can be so cynically let down in the interests of results. I watched Jim Telfer giving the 97 Lions team talk again last night, and I just can't see him doing this to his nation.

  • 148.
  • At 10:34 AM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

I'd say most of the ratings were actually quite reasonable given that it was a largely second string team against one of the best in the game, and yet were still able to hold them for surprisingly long periods of time. The number of NZ turnovers and errors like forward passes indicate that the All Blacks were actually getting a little bit frustrated by the defence of the Scots.

On the other hand, giving Chris Paterson a 4 - how badly do you have to play to get a three? He hardly got to do anything, and what he did was woeful - the only redeeming factor being that New Zealand's Dan Carter missed five out of nine and has complained that it doesn't help that they weren't allowed to train with the same balls as used in the matches.

  • 149.
  • At 10:52 AM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • Sandy wrote:

I can understand both sides of the "second team" arguement, but lets now move on.

Frank Hadden needs to pick the side that will now justify what he did against the All Blacks, and the 15 men that take the field against Italy owe it to a nation of Rugby fans and the World Cup as a whole and go out there and perform out of their skins.That will be the defining factor in this arguement.

New Zealand were dissapointing on sunday and I believe that had we played our first side we would of worried them quite considerably. Jason White must have been gutted that he missed a chance to lead his country out against the so-called best in the world.
The first try would never have been scored if he was on the pitch. McCaw taking a pop left from the ball carrier back into the blind-side channel from the base of the scrum would have been picked up by White any day.

We can beat Italy on our day, and we can make it difficult for Argentina in the QFs. There is no reason why we shouldn't believe we can make the Semis easy

  • 150.
  • At 11:03 AM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • Disgruntled Rugby Fan wrote:

Murrayfield was a disappointment.
The only 2 teams in the world that need alternate colour jerseys when they play each other both decided to wear grey.
Ticketmaster and the World Cups Organising Committee's definition of "adjacent" seats are one in front of the other.
Drink and food facilities were severely inadequate.
The "kiwi" music played after each try was an annoyance.
Why bother with the Haka if the opposing team is a b-team?
The legend of Murrayfield has gone. For Shammmme!!!!

  • 151.
  • At 11:33 AM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • John graham wrote:

From ex-scot living in N.Z. You may be interested to know that the New Zealand Herald, in their 'ratings' for this game, gave walker 1 and Patterson 1 ! The entire Scottish front row got 3 apiece ! Callam got a 7, no-one else passed 5, just about right I'd say. B.T.W they were also harsh on the all-blacks, only Dougie Howlett with an 8 shone from their viewpoint.

  • 152.
  • At 01:07 PM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • hiz wrote:

As someone who bought one of the £160+ tickets, I would have been absolutely furious if Hadden had opted for some misguided 'this is our cup final' approach to the match. That would have been the real defeatest attitude.

Scotland's focus should be on getting as far in the tournament as possible. We were always likely to lose the match regardless of who was played - however, even if we'd won, we'd still be in the position where a loss to Italy could see us out of the tournament.

So as the match was effectively meaningless, why not rest some players before the (only) crucial match in the pool? We don't owe the All Blacks more respect than we owe ourselves. Frank did what was in OUR team's interests - as is his job.

Also to see Scots posters here refer to the Scotland team on Sunday as a 'A' team is very disappointing and downright disrespectful to guys who played their guts out for the country. And while there were some less experienced players included, we also had several mainstays of recent 6N squads, a Lion, Scotland's most capped player, Scotland's second highest points scorer (breifly), a guy who got 30 successive caps from debut, a guy who recently got a hat-trick against a higher ranked side... Although the level of rugby knowledge shown by the most of the whingers here suggests that they'll need Wiki to figure out who those are.

  • 153.
  • At 01:31 PM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • David7 wrote:

#147 there are 3million reasons.

And it isn't 2 games in 5 days its 3 in 11 against 3 of the most physical forward packs in the world.

Some people need to get real here, Some of our main players are recovering from injuries and/or surgery it the recent past:
Taylor
White
Blair
E.Murray

It is also naive to think that we have "cheated" fans - they should have know what we were doing, everyone else did!Other teams do it too.
And we did not put out a complete "B" team.
Lawson, Dickinson, McLeod, Murray, Cusiter/Lawson, Paterson, Henderson, Di Rollo (in his head), Webster and Southwell all in theory were challenging for a "full" team place. And Barclay is the best "proper" 7 we have.

And who is to say that NZ wouldn't have stepped it up if we put them under no pressure.

Competitions are all about progressing through the stages, and we have given ourselves the best chance to do this.

  • 154.
  • At 03:12 PM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • TG wrote:

Di Rollo is an absolute disgrace and should never darken the jersey again. What does the guy contribute?

  • 155.
  • At 04:29 PM on 25 Sep 2007,
  • BartonAlan wrote:

Hiz - agree about getting as far as possible, disagree on giving up game to ABs, which Hadden did. It did not have to be meaningless. It should have been a tester to show how good (or bad) we are against the best in the world. I would never criticise the effort of the team, just the quality of performance. Promise from Callam and Barclay though, but the rest 4 or less. The least experienced players put up the best performances!

And you can't have CP at full back as we have a rejuvenated Rory Lamont there, and he is not a wing, so he is stand off if he is in the team at all (not definite after Sunday).

John Graham - there's no such thing as an ex-Scot! But you're right about the performances, ABs weren't up to cup winning form at all. We should have shipped 80 on our performance.

And the issue of the strips was a total joke and did not help the game. The referee should have sent one team back to the dressing room to change. In usual all black, the ABs would have looked adequately different to the Scots.

The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites