The atmosphere in Paris was unbelievable, incredible. I've played at the Stade de France but I'd never seen the whole show because when you're in the changing room you obviously don't get to see what’s going on pre-match. But on Saturday night it was spectacular and I'd love to see Murrayfield take on board some of their ideas. As for the match, I fully anticipated that Scotland would be really competitive and I thought it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility for them to be leading at half-time. And if Tom Jordan’s try hadn't been chopped off, they would have been. I also expected France’s power off the bench would make the last 15 to 20 minutes a struggle. Scotland started at a frenetic pace. Ben White was kicking long, keeping the ball in play and I think that the idea was to tire the French pack out as early as possible. And it worked because Fabien Galthie brought on his bomb squad four or five minutes into the second half and I can't imagine that would have been the plan. I'd think Galthie would have envisaged waiting until 50 or 55 minutes. Now I know that’s only a difference of five to ten minutes but it’s a psychological blow to France. They are going to their bench earlier because they weren't performing as well as they expected in the first half. Scotland were never going to grind out a 12-9 victory. Realistically, they needed to score 25 to 30 points to have a chance of winning. The only way to do that is by taking risks. I've seen a bit of criticism thrown towards Finn Russell - there’s always someone who likes to have a pop-shot at him - over the Louis Bielle-Biarrey try just after half-time. But Scotland had to gamble. Unfortunately, the only team that's better than Scotland on transition attack is France. So the gamble you take is that it could be seven points either way and that Bielle-Biarrey try was a real sucker punch. Scotland probably played about as well as they could have. When you're without the likes of Sione Tuipulotu, Jack Dempsey, Max Williamson, Scott Cummings and George Turner then you're missing a lot of power. I thought it was a fascinating game even if it wasn't the all-out attack-fest that people expected. Tactically, I thought France were excellent in the second half. But the physical effort from the Scotland forwards was outstanding. Zander Fagerson played the full match against what is probably the biggest pack in the world and was as good in the 80th minute as he was in the first. It was a monumental effort by some of those Scottish players, particularly the forwards. Ultimately, of course, Scotland lost and finished the Six Nations in fourth place again. Is that what they deserved? Sadly, if you don't win games, that’s what happens and Scotland only won two from five. They showed throughout the tournament that they have an excellent set of backs. The picture up front is not so rosy. Scotland simply don't have the depth of forwards to be properly competitive at the top of the Six Nations. That's the reality. How Scotland grow their strength in depth in the pack is a problem. Gregor Brown was excellent against France in his first Six Nations start, and there are others like Max Williamson and Alex Samuel who are coming through but I don’t think there are too many more who are ready to step up to Test rugby in the next 12 months. It can be difficult. Paddy Harrison's been in and around the squad but he's got the Scotland No 1 and No 2 hookers ahead of him in the queue at Edinburgh. So how is he going to develop? It’s the same for Will Hurd who doesn't get much game-time for Leicester. And I know Michael Cheika and Gregor both speak very highly of him. But at the same time, he's Leicester's third choice tighthead. Scotland need a tighthead now because Zander will go on the Lions tour and that leaves a gaping hole for Scotland's summer tour. Murphy Walker's been injured and while D’Arcy Rae has been scrummaging really well for Edinburgh, he's not a ball player around the pitch. Ollie Blyth-Lafferty has been playing for the under-20s but he needs 30, 40 or even 50 games under his belt before you consider him for Test rugby. There are more options at second row. I mentioned Samuel and Williamson and there is also Ewan Johnson who came on late against France and threw himself around. Marshall Sykes also came on, while Cam Henderson, who had been in the squad since the start of the tournament, didn't feature. At loosehead, I think Nathan Macbeth could be a really good player but again, it's just about getting consistent game time at a high level and staying injury free. Gregor Townsend's future has come under scrutiny which is natural because he's been in the post for a long time. He is Scotland's most successful coach, statistically. Obviously, I know Gregor very well, having played under him at Glasgow Warriors and then for Scotland, and he's a very good coach. I think the big problem for Scotland is that injuries expose a lack of depth. Do I think if Scotland didn’t have injuries they would be winning the Six Nations? No, I don't. But I think they would have been up towards the top of the table and maybe in contention going into the final weekend. The biggest question mark around Gregor’s team is probably to do with their mental fragility at moments in games. Switching off against Italy, the second half against Wales, not getting over the line in the first half against England and of course, the failure to turn up against Ireland. So there are still question marks around maintaining focus and a ruthlessness for 80 minutes as well as questions around the coaching of those close-quarter skills. Scotland don't seem to be developing them or improving them. But then again, if you don't have the artillery, you don't have the artillery. Scotland play to their strengths. They've got an unbelievable back line. They've got an unbelievable back three. They've got one of the best players in the world at 10. If you change how Scotland play does it diminish the effectiveness and potency of these world class strike players? The other question is, who would replace Gregor if he does go? Is there a ready-made replacement who can come in and instantly make Scotland better? I'm not sure that there is. Lack of depth will still be a problem. Franco Smith is being spoken about as a potential successor. If Franco were to come in, he would have a week to work with the squad before they go on a summer tour Even if Gregor left after the summer tour, Franco would still only have one week to work with players before they play the first autumn international. It’s not like a club. You're not talking about a coach coming in and getting eight weeks across pre-season to really cement his ideas, his philosophy and mould players' mindset. He gets a week to work with what he's got. And as successful as he has been with Glasgow Warriors, Franco is unproven at international level. His previous international job with Italy didn't go well. And that's not me criticising Franco as a coach because he has been excellent at Glasgow, and elsewhere. All I'm saying is, if you were to replace Gregor, you have to have someone better that's going to come in. Then what do you do with the other backroom staff? You don't want to lose Steve Tandy who is one of the best defence coaches around, but does Steve align with whoever comes in? The same applies to John Dalziel and Pieter de Villiers. There's a lot more to it than just saying, we'll get rid of Gregor Townsend, we'll bring in Franco Smith, and everything will be good. I think Scotland have underperformed. But do I think another coach can come in and get more out of this current squad? No, I don't. Some of the rugby Scotland play is blistering. There are question marks probably around Gregor and the coaches because of those ‘switch-off’ moments. But I don't think there's a ready-made replacement that's going to come in and instantly elevate the performance and the results of the group.