Simple, beat the Pumas, no matter how and we’re through

WELL, we are where we had hoped to be at this stage, and, indeed, where we expected to be. We might, if the conditions had been different, have looked to score tries and get a bonus point against Georgia, but we have always known that we have to beat either Argentina or England to qualify for the quarter-finals. England’s narrow defeat of Argentina has simplified the mathematics. If we beat the Pumas next weekend we’ll be through.

Our two games have been very different. Against Romania, we mixed brilliant attack with sloppy defence and a good deal of poor play in the scrum and at the breakdown. Against Georgia we were defensively excellent, mostly efficient and not very exciting or ambitious. Combine the best of the two performances, and we would be going really well. Combine the worst, and it doesn’t bear thinking on. We touched bottom with the second Romanian try, which put them 24-21 ahead. There were two mistakes. First, having won a line-out five metres from our try-line, we tried to take it on ball-in-hand, instead of having Cusiter or Parks kick for touch. Then a forward knocked it on. Romania got the scrum and scored from it. Desperate.

The best moment came almost immediately afterwards. We surged into the Romanian 22 and were awarded a penalty. This was a test of nerve. What do you do? Put it in touch and hope to score from the line-out, or kick the goal? A team that was rattled would have gone for the first option. Instead Chris Paterson calmly collected the ball, exchanged a nod or a word with his captain Alastair Kellock, and kicked the goal to level the score. I was sure then we would win, because we were still thinking clearly, and two splendid tries duly followed. We had had a scare, but there was nothing lucky about the victory. Some who thought otherwise seemed to forget that it’s the score at 80 minutes that counts. Against Georgia, there were no such worries, except for the possibility that they might snatch an interception try when we were only six points ahead. But this never looked likely. If conditions had been better we would probably have scored a couple of tries. As it was, the players could come off saying, “job done”.

The two matches have, however, left Andy Robinson with selection problems. This is not unexpected. The warm-up game against Ireland and Italy showed that there is no clear-cut first XV, as there had been in previous World Cups. Instead, we have 30 players competing for a start. I would guess that there are only half-a-dozen whose names are definitely written in: Chris Paterson, Max Evans, Graeme Morrison, Allan Jacobsen, Rory Ford and Kelly Brown. The other nine positions are surely going to be the subject of intense discussion – and not only on fans’ websites.

Given the importance of the set-scrum, I would think Jim Hamilton must be one of the locks. In the last couple of years, the scrum has sometimes been fragile when he has been missing, always solid when he has played. But who should partner him: the captain Alastair Kellock, our best line-out player? The wonderfully athletic and skilful Richie Gray? Or Nathan Hines, master of the close encounters? I confess to being always happier when Hines is on the field.

Unless Euan Murray can be persuaded that the New Zealand Sabbath ends after morning Church service, Geoff Cross will start at tight-head against Argentina, but the back row? Anyone’s guess. Andy Robinson may choose to play Hines at 6, with either Kellock or Gray at lock, but I would go for the trio that played against Georgia: Alasdair Strokosch, Brown, Ross Rennie. This would be rough on Richie Vernon who played a notable part in the last two tries against Romania, and on John Barclay, so often the outstanding Scottish forward over the last two years, but Strokosch does more damage than Vernon, and you need a player of his uncompromising directness against Argentina, while Ross Rennie is more constructive than Barclay and his ability to rip the ball out of the hands of an opponent who has not gone to ground, and then make use of it, is invaluable.

For the positions in doubt behind the scrum, it is almost “spin-a-coin time”. Joe Ansbro or Nick De Luca at 13? Sean Lamont or Simon Danielli at 11? As for scrum-halves, it’s a pity there are only two sides to a coin rather than three. Mike Blair looked close to being back to his best against Romania and he is a player who, as Frank Hadden used to say, “makes things happen”. Rory Lawson was solid against Georgia. Yet, if Chris Cusiter is fully fit, it must be tempting to give him a start.

As for fly-half, it must depend on how we want to play the game. If the intention is to attack through the backs, then it makes sense to stick with young Ruaridh Jackson. On the other hand, Andy Robinson will remember how well Dan Parks played when we beat Argentina away, and may well think that he needs Parks to control territory. If the decision goes in his favour, then surely either Blair or Cusiter should be at 9. You must have one half-back who poses an attacking threat, and they both break more sharply than Lawson, while Blair is the master of the slick off-load.

Arguments enough to have Andy Robinson & Co scratching their heads, and most of us occupied for the few days until the team is announced.