>I concur with the various comments that have been passed in this note.
>England did resort back to their 'boring' game, a game they must change
>if they want to become 'world beaters'. If they hadn't resorted to that
>type of game then they would have been a distinct possibility of them
Oh *** off Rob - we stuffed the jocks fair and square. England played
various types of rugby during the game, all of it what was needed to win and
none of it boring to an English fan. What is boring is the Scots yet again
conceding penalty after penalty in an effort to disrupt Englands flow.
>As for the Scottish handling in the backs .... if it had been half
>decent in the first half then they 'may' have got a couple of tries ...
>the game of 'if only!'
Yes, "if only" somebody non-English could admit that there are more reasons
than incompetence for handling errors - punishing tackling by your opponents
and retriction of the quality of your ball.
>I thought, through blue tinted glasses, that Adam Roxburgh was a
>revelation for Scotland and could be one for the future.
> Scott Cameron
>also looked sharp when he came on at centre.
>As for the English .... Grayson resorted to kicking tactics from the
>beginning but Guscoot and Healey looked good (what a waste of talent
>playing in the English back division).
Oh change the boring, bitter and twisted celt record. If you want to comment
on Grayson, try acknowleging the quality of his try. If you want to slag the
England backline, best do it when they're not running in tries all over the
Do also check Max Ratcliffe's pearl of a posting on this subject today.