A DULL AND UNIMAGINATIVE EFFORT Scots were handicapped by an inflexible tactical approach

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33875, 21 June 1975, Page 4

A DULL AND UNIMAGINATIVE EFFORT Scots were handicapped by an inflexible tactical approach

(By

JOHN BROOKS)

The Scottish Rugby team will be remembered as»one of the best behaved sporting sides off the field and one of the most disappointing on it.

Between the opening romp in the sunshine at Nelson and the dismal defeat in the rain at Auckland the Scots failed to develop or adapt their game to meet the challenges they encountered.

Their inflexible tactical approach was vividly illustrated by their dull and unimaginative effort in the international. There was no evidence that they had assimilated the harsh lessons handed out by Canterbury and Otago.

The Scots were the last of the four home unions to embrace systematic coaching in Rugby, but it appears that they have placed overdue emphasis on theory and lost sight of some of the realities of the game.

There is no doubt that the tourists’ coach (Mr Bill Dickinson) ranks high among Rugby theorists, but he seemed to have his men playing by numbers rather than encouraging them to use their skills. Mr Dickinson must have seen the writing on the wall after his forwards had been grilled in the rucks by the Otago and Canterbury packs. It was too much to expect him to correct this vital deficiency in the short space of the tour,

but there were no signs that an improvement was even being attempted. Not surprisingly, therefore, the. Scots were devoured in the rucks by the All Blacks at Auckland, and this meant that they were never in a position to dictate the play. The most surprising feature of Scotland’s performance in this respect was the licence given to the lock, Alastair McHarg, to play .more loosely than the loose forwards. Certainly, McHarg does have his value in broken play, but it was foolhardy of the Scots to allow him to continue with his seagulling when his fellow forwards were struggling desperately but unavailingly against opposing packs. One of the significant sights in the international was of the All Blacks rolling their rivals off the ball in a ruck 25yd from the Scottish goal-line — while McHarg stood mutely beside Doug Morgan, his half-back. The line-out was another area in which the Scots encountered trouble. But, again, they seemed unable or unwilling to tighten up their techniques. They had no problems in winning the ball in the air, but having palmed the ball to their half-back they took no further interest in developments.

Opposing forwards surged through the everpresent gaps in the line, and the half-backs, Morgan and Alan Lawson, often had a battle for survival on their hands.

Morgan and Lawson were both resourceful players, but the lack of even token protection at the line-out reduced their effectiveness drastically. The

better the opposing team, the more trouble the Scottish half-backs encountered, and Morgan had an un-

enviable time in the international. Throughout the tour, too, the Scots hung off the loose ball and seemed to be content to wait for opportunities to fall into their laps. For their own good, they should study film of Ken Stewart’s play in the test. His was one of the finest examples of loose forward play seen for a long time. These forward problems were transmitted to the backs, many of whom were skilful footballers but who had scant opportunities to show their class. The Lions’ ’ test men, lan McGeechan and Andy Irvine, were largely ’ dis-

appointing, although early ! in the tour Irvine revealed ] glimpses of his exciting ! ability. ] Apart from the Nelson ! match and. to an extent J the Wellington game, the • Scots’ back play was ; unimaginative. and the « speed and elusiveness of J Lewis Dick and Billy ] Steele, the wings, was J rarely put to the best pos- ] sible use. ' ! < * 1 < j 5 : 5 5 2

The loss of the fly-half. Colin Telfer, through a leg injury for the latter part of the tour created a problem for the Scots, but it was not an insurmountable one. Telfer’s ball-handling skills were highly developed, but in the Otago and Canterbury matches his outside backs made poor use of the opportunities he gave them. The Scots displayed an ignorance of exploiting the blind-side as a means of attack, and there was not a great deal of sophistication in their open side movements. The scrummaging of lan McLauchlan and Sandy Carmichael, the foraging oil Wilson Lauder, the per-; formance under pressure of] Morgan and Lawson, and; the goal-kicking of Morgan and Irvine were the chief strengths of the tourists. But there were so many; weaknesses that this like-; able band of players earned! sympathy rather than ad- | miration - from New Zealand Rugby followers. The last spectators to leave the main grandstand\ after the test were four! elderly people who sipped whisky and sang plaintively, “Will Ye No Come Back Again.” The Scots will always be welcomed in this country as tourists. But they will have to take a long hard look at their game before they can expect to receive another invitation.