WHEN peering into the darkness of defeat, with the only shining light the lamps of an approaching train in the shape of England, it is somewhat difficult to focus on details or even on the 14.30 express leaving St James Park, Newcastle, on October 10.
Yet that is precisely what Scotland have to do. The matches against England and Ireland that will surely deliver a wooden spoon to Scotland now lie as priorities in terms of immediate challenges but they are dwarfed in significance by that match against Samoa on Newcastle United's home turf.
It is that contest that holds the key to progress in the World Cup and as a team. Progress in the RBS 6 Nations is now limited to almost certainly salvaging performances rather than results out of a visit to Twickenham and a home match against Ireland.
There was the predictable suggestion by some players on Saturday that they would use the defeat to Italy as a motivation to beat the English. There are two major flaws with this argument: spirit alone will be greeted brusquely by defeat at Twickenham and, second, the motivation within the squad is already high.
It was not a lack of will or a deficit in desire that has cost Scotland in this campaign. Vern Cotter, sitting like a particularly taciturn Sphinx in the media room at Murrayfield on Saturday, put it simply: "We know we can't get through without being at our best."
The statistics show how Scotland conspired to take defeat from superiority. They had more possession, had territorial advantage, more line breaks, beat more defenders, won more rucks and mauls, had more lineout steals, had more ball carries, made more yards and had greater success in the tackle.
Curiously, given Italy's perceived superiority in the scrum, statistics show that the Scots had 100% scrum success, losing none on their put-in and stealing two against the head. So what went wrong against Italy when the most important statistic shows Italy scored 22 point to Scotland's 19?
Vern Cotter's side were undoubtedly outmuscled in certain areas. The scrum was a problem, despite the stats, but one hesitates to point the finger with certainty. This set-piece is becoming laughably absurd as its purpose has been corrupted over the years and its refereeing becomes subject to an almost individual interpretation. More relevantly, Scotland could not defend the maul.
This was the weapon that inflicted the lethal blows but Scotland bled profusely throughout the match as a result of "friendly fire". The most spectacular in the latter category was Peter Horne's missing of touch with three minutes to play. Sergio Parisse, the Italian captain, said that if the stand-off's kick had produced a lineout then the visitors would almost certainly have lost.
The missed kick was emblematic of a performance that just fell short. Scotland were initially bright, regularly enterprising, but they never drew away from the Italians. Every Scottish score was followed by an error that allowed Italy the chance to maintain a touching distance to their increasingly hospitable hosts.
There was a distressing lack of direction and communication at significant moments. It will be lost in the mist of recrimination but there were long periods in the match when Scotland seemed almost certain to win but could not mark domination with points.
Cotter now must find a way to combat an English pack who will view the maul as an unstoppable march towards the Scottish and will look to shove the Scots back at the scrum.
But he may have to take stronger control of the backs. The message coming from Scottish ranks is that the coach allows a certain latitude in play, encourages the players to make decisions as situations unfold. All this is laudable when advantages are pressed home, when opportunities are exploited.
But Scotland had much more of the ball in good areas than the Italians on Saturday yet the visitors scored three tried to Scotland's one. Cotter may have to be dictatorial on when to kick in possession or when to run .
Scotland, too, have to find a composure and a relentless efficiency. This takes time. It may yet be in place for Samoa but Twickenham may be a step too near.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article