RWC - New Zealand v France - 24th September

[FrankLind]

Frank, even Kiwis over on TSF admit Woodcock got found out for some problems with his technique in that second half when he was tired, and the French front row was bolstered by 2 fresh and better scrummagers. Scarfy didn't question whether NZ were better, rather made the point that France weren't crap. They played OK, but NZ played better and made every opportunity count on the scoreboard, which good teams do.

Point taken on Woodcock.
Scarfman didn't say France weren't crap. He said they "played well".

I agree they weren't crap, but they certainly didn't play well.
France are a better side than what was seen last night. To suggest they played well really underestimates them. The ABs are not 20 points better than them - IMO.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

I generally prefer the scoreboard over stats, but that's just me.

Obviously the scoreboard determines who won the match, but it does not tell all about how the two teams played. In the first half the ABs were smashed in terms of territory, possession and time in opposition 22. I think it was 5 mins to 1 min.

 

[Antony]

As an aside (sort of), I actually think we 'cheated' way less than usual.

We've been developing a worrying trend this year of creeping offside close to the ruck when things get tight, but last night we really didn't - even in the first ten minutes when France were bringing all sorts of pain.

Thompson was still a menace, but no more than any decent backrower.

 

[Jay]

time in opposition 22. I think it was 5 mins to 1 min.

That's a misleading stat though. Both teams had attacking opportunities - the AB's held out, the French folded pretty much immediately. If the French had made some tackles in their 22, the AB's would have spent more time there.

Also, according to the stats at half time the AB's had 51% possession & 52% territory. It was 49% and 50% at full time.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

Fair call Jay, but to suggest that France played poorly is off the mark.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

As an aside (sort of), I actually think we 'cheated' way less than usual.

We've been developing a worrying trend this year of creeping offside close to the ruck when things get tight, but last night we really didn't - even in the first ten minutes when France were bringing all sorts of pain.

Thompson was still a menace, but no more than any decent backrower.

McCaw was playing at 8, not 7, wasn't he? Maybe that had somethingt to do with it. :fishing

 

[cyclopath]

Sure France can play better, but the level of play of the opposition shapes how good your own game is. I think France had a good basic game in that they did most core things well, apart from backline defence and scrummage for half the game. I think, with what they brought last night, against another top level team, they'd have done a lot better score wise. I don't think anyone underestimates them. I'm watching it now, and France are doing quite well at the collisions - they are getting over the gain line most of the time, but show little imagination as to what to do from there. And the ABs are absolutely clinical on any scrap that can be turned over. You rarely see a 1-out Kiwi runner, the support players blast the opposition off the ball, but when they catch you on your own, they hit the counter-ruck hard.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

That's a misleading stat though. Both teams had attacking opportunities - the AB's held out, the French folded pretty much immediately. If the French had made some tackles in their 22, the AB's would have spent more time there.

Also, according to the stats at half time the AB's had 51% possession & 52% territory. It was 49% and 50% at full time.

I was referring to the states from the telecast. Anyways I am just saying that France played better than the score suggests.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

McCaw was playing at 8, not 7, wasn't he? Maybe that had somethingt to do with it. :fishing

"developing a worrying trend"
"this year"
ahem

 

[Jay]

I was referring to the states from the telecast. Anyways I am just saying that France played better than the score suggests.

Those were from the telecast - I fired up the mysky & checked.

I thought France actually played pretty well, but didn't show much in the way of penetration from their backline and lack of structure cost them. And deciding not to tackle for 5 minutes in the first half obviously.

 

[Jay]

McCaw was playing at 8, not 7, wasn't he? Maybe that had somethingt to do with it. :fishing

He was packing at 8 on attacking scrums, 7 on defence.

 

[whatty]

I though McCaw once again had a very quiet game, they certainly miss Reid.

France were average particularly in first time tackles. But would add a good AB team only let them play that well.

AB's certainly have the best back line in the comp however Reid aside I would put the forwards no more than average in the top 5 teams.

 

[Antony]

I though McCaw once again had a very quiet game

I disagree. He was rock-solid with ball in hand, particularly in the AB's 22, and made a lot of important tackles. Kaino was also excellent, and I thought Whitelock was pretty sound. Woodcock was even good in general play. The Franks brothers and Thorn on the other hand were pretty quiet.

I'd say the best performed forward pack so far has been the boks, but they've only really looked amazing post-Wales. It'll be interesting to see whether Rossouw is as dominant against a team that can tackle.

After the Boks it's been the ABs/Ireland/Wales (probably in that order, but very close), then Aussie/England/France/Argentina/Italy.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I though McCaw once again had a very quiet game, they certainly miss Reid.

France were average particularly in first time tackles. But would add a good AB team only let them play that well.

AB's certainly have the best back line in the comp however Reid aside I would put the forwards no more than average in the top 5 teams.

Brad Thorn has an unspectacular but significant impact on a game, in my opinion.

 

[Muttonbird]

Australia probably has a better chance of beating New Zealand than beating England. Especially with someone like Barnes as ref.

This is a sad indictment on our game, the same way it was suggested earlier that NZ have a better chance of winning when Rolland is officiating. The destructive controversy will not stop unless the reasons for these sorts of hope and fears are eradicated.

Broken Rugby.

 

[teach]

Well, considering that we were playing France, not second tier team like Georgia or Canada, I am pretty happy with the way it is going.
I think the Franks' boys learned a bit last night. Looked like the French LH had a couple of good goes boring in on them. Less impressed with Woodcock. He was not bound as good as he could have been. Doing exactly what the WB scrum did last week. I hope he goes and watches a replay of Japan V Tonga. The Japanese loosehead showed how to bind properly.

I think England is going to come unstuck. I have been to 2 of their games now, and think a decent back line will carve them up. I would love to see the Samoans play them, but that is probably not going to happen.

 

[Lee Grant]

That as a good win by the All Blacks over their bogey team, but since they are the French, if they meet the Kiwis again in the tournament I'll warrant that they will play better than that.


I thought the French played similarly to how they played against us on our 2010 EOYT when we thrashed them at home. They've had some good form since then. In their last 6N match they smacked Wales convincingly and they beat Ireland twice in the trials. The trial games weren't big wins but the played well for long periods.


It wasn't all beer and skittles for the Kiwis; some of their handling, especially in the 2nd half was poor. Their big win on the scoreboard was disguised by 3 tries in about 10 minutes. It was a bloody good disguise that I wish the Wallabies would come up with all the time, but it just goes to show that you have to concentrate all the time against the men in black. If you do, you can beat them as the Aussies have done when they have concentrated in recent Bledisloe matches. If you don't, you get the scoreboard of last night.


Rolland wasn't at his best yesterday compared to the Oz v Italy game when I thought he was very good. That 2nd French try looked dodgy and it was shades of Honiss in an Ireland v Boks game (IIRR) years back. One thing I liked was the reproval of Myth - telling him off like a schoolboy and Myth to his credit copping it sweet. Rolland was not about to listen to a selling job by McCaw either. Let's hope the other refs pick up on the Myth myth the next time we play them.


It was a wonderful night for both the All Black fans and Richie on the occasion of his 100th test match and it was a nice touch to get a brave Jock Hobbs to make the presentation to him.


We all whinge about The Invisible Man on this side of the pond but he is a magnificent player. My whinges about him have not been about what he does that we see with an eagle eye and Kiwis don't. My gripes have always been: if he gets away with what we see he is doing, why can't our guys do it as skilfully - and/or does he get unintentionally favoured because he is the NZ captain (just as our cricketers in their pomp were favoured by umpires, IMO.)


Dagg was very good and I think he should have started in more games when he was healthy ahead of Mils. He wasn't the only good All Black though. There have been a few star performers at the RWC including those for minnow teams, but if he keeps his present form Nonu could end up being the player of the tournament.
.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

Those were from the telecast - I fired up the mysky & checked.

I thought France actually played pretty well, but didn't show much in the way of penetration from their backline and lack of structure cost them. And deciding not to tackle for 5 minutes in the first half obviously.

He was packing at 8 on attacking scrums, 7 on defence.

On both points I agree.

 

[teach]

We all whinge about The Invisible Man on this side of the pond but he is a magnificent player. My whinges about him have not been about what he does that we see with an eagle eye and Kiwis don't. My gripes have always been: if he gets away with what we see he is doing, why can't our guys do it as skilfully - and/or does he get unintentionally favoured because he is the NZ captain (just as our cricketers in their pomp were favoured by umpires, IMO.)

.

I find it strange that he gets so much grief from the Aussies. Richie is quite clear in what he does. He has spoken to the media numerous times. He pushes each ref to see just what he can get away with. Then proceeds to play a balancing act.

It is easy for armchair warriors to call him a cheat, yet I have yet to read of one of his peers calling him a cheat. Phil Waugh is someone who would know better than most what McCaw does. If he came out and said the McCaw is a cheating bastard and should be stopped but he hasn't. He has even praised him

''It's about responding to how the referees interpret the breakdown during the game - and obviously all referees are different,'' Waugh said. ''And the quicker you get the interpretations right for the game the better you're going to perform in the game.

''Richie's a very astute and smart rugby player who picks that up very early in the game, which allows him to push the limits. And that's what he's out there to do.

''He's obviously been a real leader in the game ever since he came on to the scene in 2001 and he's very good at it. He's probably had times and moments during the past few years where he hasn't got away with it as much as he would have liked. But in any circumstance, people in our position push the limits and he's obviously one of the best at getting on the right side of that fine line."

Full article below.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/does-this-man-get-away-with-murder-20100724-10phy.html

I think Lee Grant has hit it on the head. Richie McCaw knows how to read the referees, and is better at it than any of his peers.

If he was such a cheat, why was he named the International Rugby Board (IRB) International Player of The Year a record three times? I am not going to get into a debate about it. I am sure some will want to. I am equally certain that this has been discussed at depth on this site, but I am not going to even bother searching archives to check. All I know is he is a fucken' legend and will be regarded as one of the all time greats.

 

[cyclopath]

Teach, I would have just agreed with your post, but Waugh's quote, for me, sums Richie McCaw up perfectly. That's why he's the best.