Scotland blew World Cup game they had won
Scotland can still qualify for the knockout stages in the Rugby World Cup. Georgia can beat Argentina and Scotland can beat England. It's tough, but it's achievable.
But the Scots should have reached the quarter-finals after today's game. They blew a game they had won.
So the problem with blogs is that you have to say what you think about what you've just seen, so here's my honest opinion. The heart rate is back down again - these games aren't good for my health.
I thought Scotland had the game controlled and I saw three things that were the difference between winning and losing. Just three little things.
The first thing to say is that, if you watch that Argentine try again, you'll see a little lesson in rugby. Felipe Contepomi, a player many say is past it, got the ball in front of a Scottish defence with excess players and did something.
What did he do? He motioned to attack the defence himself - he actually ran straight and hard - and then he let the ball along the line. In those four or five steps, he changed the game, because the defence stopped advancing, believing he was the danger man - a Scotsman jumped in one in the defensive line and Argentina scored.
The truth is that Ruaridh Jackson and Dan Parks are great players and move the ball along the back division sharply, but often that's not after attacking the defensive line to stop it drifting. Scottish players were fitter than the Argentines but allowed the defence to drift.
So that's the first thing. Scotland's attack doesn't stop a drift defence, there are few dummy cuts, seldom does the 10 pretend to hit up and pull the ball back behind a supposed first receiver and, in the last few desperate minutes, we saw an attack that went side to side - with a less fit Argentina coping with things.
The second was a little contrast at ruck time. It's a tiny observation and perhaps an inaccurate one, but it was my view. Some players, like Sean Lamont, Graeme Morrison and Max Evans, are superb at viewing a tackler coming in as just a temporary problem.
You can see that, for them, it's a case of getting as far up the pitch as possible. Most players are the same. But it looks to me as though Scottish players are trying to bridge over the ball and that, therefore, forward momentum generated by the player in possession is allowed to slow down. At times, it's as if some ball-carrying players revert to training-ground movement, go to ground a fraction early, get caught presenting the ball, and players in support are trying to bridge instead of blowing the defender away.
Andy Robinson will be furious at what he saw at breakdown. There are only two possible explanations for an opposition player getting hands to a ball. Either the player in possession didn't stay up long enough, or the supporting player didn't get there quick enough.
The Argentine players could all throw their hands up the second before they went for ball at ruck time - just as Richie Dixon's Georgians do - and we don't have that skill going back.
There is work to be done at breakdown to go forward more dynamically and in snaffling the ball going back.
And the third observation is this: why take off your best players? Depending on which rugby analysis website you read, the ball is in play in international rugby union for between 35 and 40 minutes. The rest of the time is hanging around, walking to line-outs, injuries, penalty kicks, or resetting scrums. So, if you replace a player at 60 minutes, he has actually only played three quarters of the ball in play time, which is 30 minutes if you believe that the ball is in play for, say, 40.
I know the hits are huge and that causes exhaustion, but our best players are, well, our best players.
For me, the key men in that Scottish team include Alan Jacobsen, Richie Gray, Rory Lawson and Ross Ford. Jackson forced his way into the XV and, of the two stand-offs, he is the one who attacks the gain line more forcefully.
There were little cameo roles, Jacobsen and Jim Hamilton arguing with every opponent possible. Look, I like that. I really like Jacobsen and his attitude, why take him off?
I thought Ford was key in defence, Gray was probably struggling with a hamstring and that one might be explained away, but why remove the bulk of Ford from proceedings?
It was surprising that, with the game won, Scotland changed the blend of the players on the pitch. I reckon your best players should stay there for the duration.
In the end, if I am honest, it was horrible that Argentina, who hardly ever attacked ball in hand, beat Scotland in a game we were winning and then blew.
Right, Saturday, Scotland to beat England and Georgia to beat Argentina anyone? It can still be done.
Oh, and by the way, you don't drop your captain. Al Kellock should have started.