New Zealand 30-0 France

by t1000advancedprototype Sat 15 Jun 2013, 12:38 pm

The frogs justify their bottom place in the Six nations with an emphatic defeat to NZ.

The myth of a hot or cold France or which France will turn up is no more. They suck.

Superclubs like Toulon, Racing, Clermont and Montpellier are sending the French national team into the abyss.

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 15 Jun 2013, 12:43 pm

Currently, the coaching staff is the biggest problem. If PSA still can't see that selecting Michalak is seriously weakening the team, then I have no idea what is going through his head. He is not a test level coach by any stretch of the imagination. They look utterly clueless in attack and defence. No structure whatsoever.

Decent coaching staff would do the team wonders, they still have so much talent at their disposal.

by t1000advancedprototype Sat 15 Jun 2013, 12:45 pm

Also there are international players from the home nations playing all over the place, but you rarely (if ever) see current French internationals playing club rugby outside France so a lot of talent is being blocked.

by 123456789 Sat 15 Jun 2013, 12:46 pm

I'm not so sure they do have a lot of talent at their disposal. The only players from their current team that would get in the Lions squad would be Parra, Fofana and Trinh-Duc, maybe Dusatoir, Picamoles and Clerc at a push

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 15 Jun 2013, 12:58 pm

123456789 wrote:I'm not so sure they do have a lot of talent at their disposal. The only players from their current team that would get in the Lions squad would be Parra, Fofana and Trinh-Duc, maybe Dusatoir, Picamoles and Clerc at a push

Dusautoir and Picamoles would easily start. Trinc-Duc, not so much. That is the main positional weakness for France, their 10. However, on the international stage it is rare you would notice their talent because they are so disorganised as a team. Horrendous one dimensional coaching that is destroying them.

They still have one of the most dangerous back-lines in world rugby potentially. Especially if Medard comes back into the frame at 15, and if they find a decent 10. Lopez looked impressive.

by whocares Sat 15 Jun 2013, 1:06 pm

Yawn...
Rory just said it all. Clueless , stutborn coach that has no leadership is the short term problem. At the same time this is the only NH team that has trashed australia recently with the same rubbish 10.
Fofana , Dusautoir and Picamoles would walk in this Lion team btw. Fritz offers a lot as well not to mention domingo with all the LH injuries.

Long term something has to be done about the calendar. Some French internationals play 35 games in a season !

by **profitius** Sat 15 Jun 2013, 2:59 pm

Worrying times ahead for France. Their clubs are bringing very little through and its going to come back and bite them on the ass.

by GloriousEmpire Sat 15 Jun 2013, 3:16 pm

Typical French arrogance to continue with the inept Michalak despite continuous evidence that he can't play to save his life.

by Shifty Sat 15 Jun 2013, 3:19 pm

They have 14 professional clubs, and another professional division below that.

In nearly all the squads at least half of the players are French, that still gives them a huge talent pool! Take the time to actually look at the squads of the top 14, using Wiki if need be, you will see there are many French players.

Attitude seems to be the biggest problem in French rugby these days, not talent or player numbers.

by Lowlandbrit Sat 15 Jun 2013, 4:39 pm

I think the main problem with France is that their domestic season seems to go on forever. Throw in the European and International matches and it's no wonder French clubs feel the need to bring in so many players.

by **profitius** Sat 15 Jun 2013, 6:11 pm

Shifty wrote:They have 14 professional clubs, and another professional division below that.

In nearly all the squads at least half of the players are French, that still gives them a huge talent pool! Take the time to actually look at the squads of the top 14, using Wiki if need be, you will see there are many French players.

Attitude seems to be the biggest problem in French rugby these days, not talent or player numbers.

Doesn't matter. They're not bringing through enough quality French players. Look at all the foreigners they're capping. Why develop players when you can poach them..

by **rodders** Sat 15 Jun 2013, 9:34 pm

Superlative try by Barrett, one of the best I've ever seen.

by Taylorman Sat 15 Jun 2013, 9:43 pm

Hopefully we get to turn out some new playersin the third test otherwise they wont feature until the AI's.

Luatua is one we need to get on to the field. He's the only option at 6 that has potential to overtake all of Vito, Messam and Kaino. No other 6 in NZ rugby will do that between now and 2015. He has the height, pace, exceptional range of skills and needs to be given the chance early to explore whether he'll bring this to the test level.

A must selection next week, even if only on the bench.

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 15 Jun 2013, 10:00 pm

Luatua is a real monster, equipped with a great footballing brain. Can't wait to see him get his chance.

by nganboy Sun 16 Jun 2013, 10:34 am

People been talking about Brad Shields for a couple of seasons - not sure why myself.

by The Great Aukster Sun 16 Jun 2013, 10:51 am

rodders wrote:Superlative try by Barrett, one of the best I've ever seen.

It was good - pity about the forward pass (es).

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Sun 16 Jun 2013, 10:58 am

rodders wrote:Superlative try by Barrett, one of the best I've ever seen.

+1

Where's Gibbo when we need him, that wasn't just sexy rugby, it was full on hard core rugby erotica (even if Cruden's pass in the AB's 22 was a half a yard forward Whistle

). It'll be in the IRB tries of the year vote for sure.

For anyone who missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ktnVTwqI9A

by Taylorman Sun 16 Jun 2013, 6:30 pm

yes odd isnt it Pete? They take the time out to specifically look at the pass, and it is obviously forward, then ignore it anyway. Saw it sxv as well. It seems theres an 'interpretation' with forward passes. If momentum is to be excluded then we'd find we'll be reviewing forward passes all the time (i.e if point to point is taken literally) so they appear to be taking a 'blant forward pass' stance rather than an actual forward pass stance.

by blackcanelion Mon 17 Jun 2013, 1:21 am

I watched the game, I thought Crudens pass was forward. I woke up yesterday I thought it was forward, I went to sleep last night I thought it was forward. I read this post and watched it again and I think the referee actually got it right. If you look at Crudens running, where Ranger caught it, the length and time of the pass it would have had to defy the laws of physics to be forward. Because it was relatively flat and long it's looks worse than it was. It's risky though and there is a real chance the referee will call it forward.

by Taylorman Mon 17 Jun 2013, 1:55 am

I agree, but point to point the point at which the ball left Crudens hands, is behind the point at which Randall eventually took the ball. So in a linear sense it was definitely foward.

Its the momentum that changes things.

To illustrate it through exxageration if you were running at 100 mile per hour and passed to someone 10 feet to the left running at the same speed and one foot behind you, and they never got ahead of you but caught the ball, the pass MUST have been forward.

The ball is travelling at 100 miles per hour when passed so to send it 10 feet to the left means its still travelling at near on 100 miles per hour forward across 10 feet to the left.

Same with Ranger- he will have been behind Cruden at all times but the forward momentum of the ball would have meant both players and the ball were well past the point at which Cruden passed it.

by blackcanelion Mon 17 Jun 2013, 2:37 am

My point exactly. Cruden gets the ball runs with it 5-6 metres throws a 20 m pass. Ranger picks it up 1m or so closer to the line. Even if Cruden had been walking a flat pass would have been closer to the French line. Even though it wasn't forward, it's still a pass that seen live could well have been called.

by Taylorman Mon 17 Jun 2013, 11:10 pm

Yep...so I wonder what the protocol is. Ive seen several slightly but not clearly or deliberately forward and the tv ump has come back with 'Theres no clear evidence that the pass...'

For me the unfairness is also about the impact the forward pass has.

take Crudens- 95 meters from the line- maybe a yard forward but no opposition directly around him- still a truckload of work to do.

Then take the pass to Michalak in 07. Passed a yard forward where if passed back would have gone behind the player completely- the act of the forward pass itself made the diff between the try and likely no try. Both forward passes by a yard, one as a result of momentum, one as a result of necessity.

by whocares Mon 17 Jun 2013, 11:17 pm

You gotta love how Kiwis need to justify any potential wrongdoing by the ABs. Inventing the concept of fair and unfair forward pass is classic stuff TAylorman thumbsup

Its not even as if anybody moaned about Cruden so called forward pass!

by aucklandlaurie Mon 17 Jun 2013, 11:43 pm

Whocares, the reason why we have this need to justify is because we are good at it, and the reason why we are good at it is because we get a lot of practise.

by Taylorman Tue 18 Jun 2013, 1:19 am

whocares wrote:You gotta love how Kiwis need to justify any potential wrongdoing by the ABs. Inventing the concept of fair and unfair forward pass is classic stuff TAylorman
Its not even as if anybody moaned about Cruden so called forward pass!

Didnt say they did. I just picked two instances among many- it was clearly a forward pass. It just happened to be an AB doing it. Its happened numerous times with both NZ and non NZ players in the sxv.

The rule is consistently applied to marginal forward passes so the point is valid regardless so go play jump on a kiwi somewhere else.

by nganboy Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:03 am

Actually I think the pass was fine.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 18 Jun 2013, 7:54 am

The ball has to be "thrown in a backward direction" it does not have to travel backwards.

It always makes me laugh when a commentator says "he passed it behind the 22 and its caught in front of the 22 - clearly forward".

It's a gaff comparable to the "did he get downward pressure?" On a try scoring debate when the player is in possession of course he does not not need downward pressure to score a try.

I'd personally like to see some of the pre-game nonsense replaced by short segments by the referees explaining some of the common misconceptions or going through some of the more complex rules. I think it would make interesting watching and prevent a lot of the silly bickering.

For instance Wayne Barnes great call on the "taken back" quick throw last week.

by whocares Tue 18 Jun 2013, 8:08 am

Taylorman, where I dont agree with you is that most marginal forward passes are not penalised. It has been the case for ages and long it may continue.
I like your idea GE but let's be honest such refereing indepth analysis prematch will be boring for a large majority of the public. It would also expose some of the pundit lack of knowledge.

by HammerofThunor Tue 18 Jun 2013, 8:14 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:The ball has to be "thrown in a backward direction" it does not have to travel backwards.

It always makes me laugh when a commentator says "he passed it behind the 22 and its caught in front of the 22 - clearly forward".

It's a gaff comparable to the "did he get downward pressure?" On a try scoring debate when the player is in possession of course he does not not need downward pressure to score a try.

I'd personally like to see some of the pre-game nonsense replaced by short segments by the referees explaining some of the common misconceptions or going through some of the more complex rules. I think it would make interesting watching and prevent a lot of the silly bickering.

For instance Wayne Barnes great call on the "taken back" quick throw last week.

That's bull. I heard many referees specifically call a forward pass BECAUSE it was passed one side of a line and caught another. Also I don't think there is a proper ref in the world that wouldn't give a forward pass if that line was the try line.

by disneychilly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 9:03 am

Add Barrett's try to the plethora of others we'd gladly give up for Michalak's pass to have been called six years ago...

by yappysnap Tue 18 Jun 2013, 9:03 am

Don't see what the shock is here.

Last year Ireland went to NZ and gave them a fright, next game out the AB's wake up and hand them their arses. This year France worry NZ in the first game, next game up NZ decide to play and do the same again.

by disneychilly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 9:10 am

I'd like to see Luatua given a game. You really remember how physical McCaw is while seeing Cane and Messam in an AB back row. I'd like to see Ranger given a full game and am not hat bothered by not seeing Saili and Piutau as Ben Smith and Ranger need more exposure in black than they do as they are backups themselves with the chance to establish themselves in the AB succession plan.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 10:22 am

yappysnap wrote:Don't see what the shock is here.

Last year Ireland went to NZ and gave them a fright, next game out the AB's wake up and hand them their arses. This year France worry NZ in the first game, next game up NZ decide to play and do the same again.

In other words, you need more than one game against NZ to prove how good you are against them?

by blackcanelion Tue 18 Jun 2013, 10:47 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:The ball has to be "thrown in a backward direction" it does not have to travel backwards.

It always makes me laugh when a commentator says "he passed it behind the 22 and its caught in front of the 22 - clearly forward".

It's a gaff comparable to the "did he get downward pressure?" On a try scoring debate when the player is in possession of course he does not not need downward pressure to score a try.

I'd personally like to see some of the pre-game nonsense replaced by short segments by the referees explaining some of the common misconceptions or going through some of the more complex rules. I think it would make interesting watching and prevent a lot of the silly bickering.

For instance Wayne Barnes great call on the "taken back" quick throw last week.

That's bull. I heard many referees specifically call a forward pass BECAUSE it was passed one side of a line and caught another. Also I don't think there is a proper ref in the world that wouldn't give a forward pass if that line was the try line.

We'll have to disagree. Most passes in rugby go forward relative to the field. It's hard not to when you are running at 7-9m/s towards one end. There's an Australian referees coaching video that shows it quite well. If you are running forward and throw the ball over you head towards your own goal line momentum still carries it towards the opposition goal line. I think this discussions been had had in the past. Just to remove any doubt here is the IRB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg By the way the passes shown in this video were closer to forward passes that Crudens pass in the last test.

by blackcanelion Tue 18 Jun 2013, 10:48 am

We'll have to disagree. Most passes in rugby go forward relative to the field. It's hard not to when you are running at 7-9m/s towards one end. There's an Australian referees coaching video that shows it quite well. If you are running forward and throw the ball over you head towards your own goal line momentum still carries it towards the opposition goal line. I think this discussions been had had in the past. Just to remove any doubt here is the IRB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg By the way the passes shown in this video were closer to forward passes that Crudens pass in the last test.

by whocares Tue 18 Jun 2013, 10:49 am

SecretFly wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Don't see what the shock is here.

Last year Ireland went to NZ and gave them a fright, next game out the AB's wake up and hand them their arses. This year France worry NZ in the first game, next game up NZ decide to play and do the same again.

In other words, you need more than one game against NZ to prove how ~~good~~ bad you are against them?

didnt you mean that instead Wink

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 18 Jun 2013, 11:29 am

More like he subtly pointed out we sometimes need one more game to prove how good we are. Very Happy

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 1:16 pm

Yeah, guys, I was just wondering where the English win came in his theory. Wink

by Taylorman Tue 18 Jun 2013, 1:58 pm

illness fly, illness...I mean it was so out of character for both sides. Look at England before and after that match...illness. Whistle

by nganboy Wed 19 Jun 2013, 1:28 am

I think it means that to know where you stand in respect to another team you need to have a few games.

by Sponsored content