Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

The glaringly obvious problem in Scotland's game plan that has to stop

By Ben Smith
Scotland's game plan has one glaringly obvious problem. (Photos/Gettys Images)

Scotland have had every opportunity under the sun to frequently beat their Home Nations rivals over the last two Six Nations but the same problems keep persisting.

ADVERTISEMENT

Again, in treacherous conditions at Murrayfield against England, they were there in the contest at 3-all and faded in the last 10 minutes on the back of a critical kick coverage error.

Last week against Ireland, a mountain of possession could only yield four penalties and a losing bonus point in a 7-point loss in Dublin.

In both of these losses, there are similar skeletons buried in the grave, and if you rewind to last year’s tournament you will find they existed then too.

Continue reading below…

Video Spacer

In particular, red-zone attacking efficiency (points converted from possessions inside the 22) is diabolically low.

Last week in Dublin, Scotland had Ireland on the ropes multiple times in the first half only to be scuttled at the breakdown as CJ Stander, Caelon Dorris and James Ryan forced costly turnovers.

Six entries into Ireland’s 22 in the first half yielded just three points at a measly rate of just 0.5 points per entry. Even worse, at Murrayfield, three entries into England’s 22 in the first half yielded zero points.

ADVERTISEMENT

The first key problem to this issue is Scotland’s persistent but unproven desire to score tries from lineout mauls.

It cannot be ignored any longer that Scotland’s lineout maul is a massive anchor on their red-zone attack. It is a malfunctioning mess that coughs up crucial possessions and turnovers at the worst times.

Their lineout maul from five metres out was sacked and turned over nearly every time it was used in last year’s Six Nations, leading to many wasted opportunities. If it wasn’t sacked and turned, it was severely disrupted, creating messy ball for any strike or phase play afterward.

Just one pushover try has been scored from a lineout maul from inside 10-metres over the last two and a half Six Nations campaigns, with John Barclay’s try against Italy in 2018 the only success. This is not for a lack of trying as it has been deployed regularly without success.

ADVERTISEMENT

Against Wales last year at Murrayfield, after two failed maul attempts from the five, the backs were finally released on a third maul in the second half. A slick strike play built around Finn Russell as a playmaker resulted in Darcy Graham scoring in the corner to reduce the deficit to 15-11.

They used a similar play at Twickenham on another majestic Russell pass that again resulted in another try to Darcy Graham in the miraculous comeback.

There are lessons to be learned from the contrasting returns from the two strategies. One has been profitable and the other is seemingly a money-losing machine.

As Storm Ciara worsened in Edinburgh in the 15th minute against England, Scotland turned down a kickable shot at goal to kick to the corner for a lineout.

The resulting lineout maul from the five was sacked and turned by Tom Curry, foiling what turned out to be the easiest chance of the half to score some points.

Alternatively, when Stuart Hogg was penalised at the other end for holding on down near his own goal line in the 26th minute, England immediately took the shot at goal at the expense of a 5-metre lineout maul that was on offer.

Even with the size advantage up front, England recognized the premium on points the conditions would force and took shots at goal.

With a horrendous track record of converting their maul into points, Scotland turned down a chance for three points so their pack could once again attempt the impossible.

It is at the point now where there is no evidence to suggest that giving Scotland’s pack the ball in the most valuable area of the field to maul is a good idea, and is, in fact, a terrible one.

This year without a playmaker like Finn Russell to lead their attack, they are resorting to using Sam Johnson as a crash option to generate gain line on set-piece platforms and looking to work off the back of that momentum.

In Dublin last week, the closest they come to scoring a try came off a strong Johnson carry before playing back to the short side a few phases later. Hogg’s putdown blunder left the opportunity begging, but it showed the method that best suits Scotland – just use the ball in some way that isn’t a maul.

Preferably, Scotland would work in strike weapons like Huw Jones, who has hardly touched the ball so far, and their best-attacking player and captain, Stuart Hogg. Against goal-line defence, they only need to find weak shoulders to potentially find their way over.

The second pain point regarding converting valuable possessions into points seems to be the tempo of the side when inside the 22, which in the past has ground down to a slow pace as the pack tries to pound the way over.

In the conditions that presented at Murrayfield over the weekend, this is probably not a bad idea. In every other scenario, it has proven to be largely ineffective.

Against Ireland last year at home, the red zone problems became apparent in the first half as wave-after-wave of Scotland’s carry game was repelled. They pounded the goal line and came away with nothing in return on multiple occasions, at one point going over 20 phases before turning over the ball.

Trying to bully the way over with endless carries off 9 just does not work for Scotland.

Often, what gives the side these 22-entries in the first place is a well-worked width game from midfield launch patterns that they actually do very well when they execute. The opening five minutes in Dublin to start this year’s campaign is a testament to that.

But Scotland then go from being super expansive and fast-paced, relatively easily making ground downfield, to becoming narrow and slow and getting nowhere.

If Scotland played to their strengths when knocking on the door more often, you wonder if their key possessions would yield more.

They have lost three games by seven points and another by eight points against the other Home Nations over the last two tournaments. Converting on two or more of these 22-entries would have swung the result in their favour. Yet the strategy has remained steadfast in certain areas despite the evidence piling up that it simply doesn’t work.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Scotland could be institutionalized by this point.

For the love of free-flowing rugby, please, don’t try another maul from five metres out.

Eddie Jones warns against Six Nations expansion:

Video Spacer

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 6

Sam Warburton | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

Japan Rugby League One | Sungoliath v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Japan Rugby League One | Spears v Wild Knights | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 10 | Six Nations Final Round Review

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | How can New Zealand rugby beat this Ireland team

Beyond 80 | Episode 5

Rugby Europe Men's Championship Final | Georgia v Portugal | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

j
john 38 minutes ago
Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?

But here in Australia we were told Penney was another gun kiwi coach, for the Tahs…….and yet again it turned out the kiwi coach was completely useless. Another con job on Australian rugby. As was Robbie Deans, as was Dave Rennie. Both coaches dumped from NZ and promoted to Australia as our saviour. And the Tahs lap them up knowing they are second rate and knowing that under pressure when their short comings are exposed in Australia as well, that they will fall in below the largest most powerful province and choose second rate Tah players to save their jobs. As they do and exactly as Joe Schmidt will do. Gauranteed. Schmidt was dumped by NZ too. That’s why he went overseas. That why kiwi coaches take jobs in Australia, to try and prove they are not as bad as NZ thought they were. Then when they get found out they try and ingratiate themselves to NZ again by dragging Australian teams down with ridiculous selections and game plans. NZ rugby’s biggest problem is that it can’t yet transition from MCaw Cheatism. They just don’t know how to try and win on your merits. It is still always a contest to see how much cheating you can get away with. Without a cheating genius like McCaw, they are struggling. This I think is why my wise old mate in NZ thinks Robertson will struggle. The Crusaders are the nursery of McCaw Cheatism. Sean Fitzpatrick was probably the father of it. Robertson doesn’t know anything else but other countries have worked it out.

14 Go to comments
A
Adrian 2 hours ago
Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?

Thanks Nick The loss of players to OS, injury and retirement is certainly not helping the Crusaders. Ditto the coach. IMO Penny is there to hold the fort and cop the flak until new players and a new coach come through,…and that's understood and accepted by Penny and the Crusaders hierarchy. I think though that what is happening with the Crusaders is an indicator of what is happening with the other NZ SRP teams…..and the other SRP teams for that matter. Not enough money. The money has come via the SR competition and it’s not there anymore. It's in France, Japan and England. Unless or until something is done to make SR more SELLABLE to the NZ/Australia Rugby market AND the world rugby market the $s to keep both the very best players and the next rung down won't be there. They will play away from NZ more and more. I think though that NZ will continue to produce the players and the coaches of sufficient strength for NZ to have the capacity to stay at the top. Whether they do stay at the top as an international team will depend upon whether the money flowing to SRP is somehow restored, or NZ teams play in the Japan comp, or NZ opts to pick from anywhere. As a follower of many sports I’d have to say that the organisation and promotion of Super Rugby has been for the last 20 years closest to the worst I’ve ever seen. This hasn't necessarily been caused by NZ, but it’s happened. Perhaps it can be fixed, perhaps not. The Crusaders are I think a symptom of this, not the cause

14 Go to comments
T
Trevor 5 hours ago
Will forgotten Wallabies fit the Joe Schmidt model?

Thanks Brett.. At last a positive article on the potential of Wallaby candidates, great to read. Schmidt’s record as an international rugby coach speaks for itself, I’m somewhat confident he will turn the Wallaby’s fortunes around …. on the field. It will be up to others to steady the ship off the paddock. But is there a flaw in my optimism? We have known all along that Australia has the players to be very competitive with their international rivals. We know that because everyone keeps telling us. So why the poor results? A question that requires a definitive answer before the turn around can occur. Joe Schmidt signed on for 2 years, time to encompass the Lions tour of 2025. By all accounts he puts family first and that’s fair enough, but I would wager that his 2 year contract will be extended if the next 18 months or so shows the statement “Australia has the players” proves to be correct. The new coach does not have a lot of time to meld together an outfit that will be competitive in the Rugby Championship - it will be interesting to see what happens. It will be interesting to see what happens with Giteau law, the new Wallaby coach has already verbalised that he would to prefer to select from those who play their rugby in Australia. His first test in charge is in July just over 3 months away .. not a long time. I for one wish him well .. heaven knows Australia needs some positive vibes.

21 Go to comments
B
Bull Shark 9 hours ago
Jake White: Are modern rugby players actually better?

Of the rugby I’ve born witness to in my lifetime - 1990 to date - I recognize great players throughout those years. But I have no doubt the game and the players are on average better today. So I doubt going back further is going to prove me wrong. The technical components of the game, set pieces, scrums, kicks, kicks at goal. And in general tactics employed are far more efficient, accurate and polished. Professional athletes that have invested countless hours on being accurate. There is one nation though that may be fairly competitive in any era - and that for me is the all blacks. And New Zealand players in general. NZ produces startling athletes who have fantastic ball skills. And then the odd phenomenon like Brooke. Lomu. Mcaw. Carter. Better than comparing players and teams across eras - I’ve often had this thought - that it would be very interesting to have a version of the game that is closer to its original form. What would the game look like today if the rules were rolled back. Not rules that promote safety obviously - but rules like: - a try being worth 1 point and conversion 2 points. Hence the term “try”. Earning a try at goals. Would we see more attacking play? - no lifting in the lineouts. - rucks and break down laws in general. They looked like wrestling matches in bygone eras. I wonder what a game applying 1995 rules would look like with modern players. It may be a daft exercise, but it would make for an interesting spectacle celebrating “purer” forms of the game that roll back the rules dramatically by a few versions. Would we come to learn that some of the rules/combinations of the rules we see today have actually made the game less attractive? I’d love to see an exhibition match like that.

29 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby? Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?
Search