No major surprises in Robinson's latest Scotland squad but Taylor must be in the reckoning for 2011 World Cup

TIME was when the announcement of a Scotland team would offer some surprises, but these days are long past.

The training squad Andy Robinson named this week might have come with the label "business as usual". The closest thing to a surprise is the absence of Edinburgh's new captain, Roddy Grant, all the more so because with Johnnie Beattie regrettably out of the autumn internationals, there are only five back-row men in the 37-strong squad.

Then, though Robinson said that Jason White is not out of the picture there was no mention of Simon Taylor. At this time last year he asked not to be included in the training squad, and now that he has moved from Stade Francais to Bath, he may still be of that mind and more interested in establishing himself with his new club. So his omission can't be regarded as surprising. Nevertheless I trust he has not been forgotten. In Beattie's absence, and in view of the quality of the autumn opposition - New Zealand, South Africa and Samoa - one would think that Taylor might still be the best replacement, provided he is playing well and regularly in the Bath side. He has played a lot of rugby and suffered two serious injuries. Nevertheless, when the World Cup comes round next year, he will be only a few months older than Lawrence Dallaglio was when he played at No 8 in England's 2003 cup-winning side. Certainly one would assume that, if fit and in form, Taylor with his vast experience would still be a valuable member of a World Cup squad. So I hope he hasn't been written out of the international picture - or written himself out of it, come to that.

No one who has watched the All Blacks in their first three matches in this season's Tri-Nations can be in any doubt about the scale of the challenge that will face Scotland in November. They have been quite outstanding and look like the best New Zealand side of recent years. There is nothing innovative or revolutionary in their game. Quite the contrary indeed. They are playing simple, even classical, rugby, the sort of rugby that, allowing for changes resulting from differing interpretations of what is permitted at the tackle, many of the best teams over the years have played. The essence of their game is the quick transfer of the ball: quick and clean release from the tackle, then quick passing and support of the ball-carrier, preferably on either side, until a player finds himself in space. It would be nonsense to suggest that they have taken kicking out of the game. Dan Carter indeed kicks as often as many other fly-halves. But there is very little of the speculative, boot it high in the air and hope that something happens, sort of kicking. When Carter kicks he does so purposefully.

They are playing as a skilful team can when players trust each other to do things correctly, and when they are not chained to a pattern but are instead, most of the time, responding to what is in front of them. There is of course a pattern to their play, but it is one in which they are free to improvise.

Given the changes resulting from developments such as the introduction of Rugby League style defences that stretch across the field, these All Blacks are playing a modern version of the game which Carwyn James had the 1971 Lions playing or the great Welsh sides of the Seventies.

Their brilliance has, predictably, provoked mutterings about New Zealand peaking again a year too soon, but, given that this is a comparatively young All Black side, one that has been refreshed by the introduction of new talent, there is no reason why this should be so, no reason indeed to suppose that Richie McCaw's men have yet reached their peak. Nevertheless, John Beattie on his BBC blog has put the question: why have the All Blacks repeatedly failed to win the World Cup, when it is generally assumed that they are the top rugby-playing nation?

Certainly it is strange that South Africa and Australia have lifted the trophy twice, while New Zealand haven't done so since the first World Cup way back in 1987. More remarkably perhaps, they haven't reached the final since 1995, have indeed reached the final only twice in the six tournaments, a record inferior to that of Australia and England.

There is certainly no simple explanation, each of their five defeats - and they have of course never lost a pool match - having taken a different form. I doubt too whether the burden of being favourites can be held to account for their repeated failure. After all they start favourites to win most matches, and do indeed win almost all of them. So it's a puzzle, if not half as perplexing a one as it will be if they come unstuck again in their home country next year.