New Zealand Player ratings by Paul Ackford

117 out of a possible 160

Israel Dagg
Sees things very quickly and has the pace to exploit opportunities. Scored twice. Many more where they came from. 9/10

Cory Jane
A natural finisher. Scored All Blacks’ second try then went off with a bang on the head. Enter Sonny Bill Williams and fireworks. 7/10

Conrad Smith
The brains in the All Black back line. Missed one tackle and then got back to make amends. Essential. 8/10

Ma’a Nonu
A stunning first quarter, the brawn to Smith’s brain. Massively strong and runs good lines to straighten the attack. 8/10


Richard Kahui
An astute defender. Dealt well with the high kicks and strong on the ball. Went off with a dead leg. 7/10

Dan Carter
What can you say? Wonderfully deft pass made space for Thomson’s try. Controls the game beautifully. Banged over a dropped goal. 9/10

Piri Weepu
Always looking, always probing. Kept French loose forwards close to the breakdown. Nice haka too. 8/10

Tony Woodcock
Came back strongly after indifferent first scrum to dominate that area. Silent but deadly. 7/10

Keven Mealamu
Impressive. Ripped one ball out from the middle of a French maul and his lineout throwing was accurate. 7/10

Owen Franks
Part of a decent scrummaging effort but not that conspicuous elsewhere. Not as athletic as rest of forwards. 6/10

Brad Thorn
Accidentally clobbered Szarzewski with his hip. The engine of the All Black pack but below par. 5/10

Sam Whitelock
Impressively mobile. Got up in French faces to make two charge downs inside thirty seconds. 8/10

Jerome Kaino
A sneaky right arm held back Yachvili illegally but a real predator at the breakdown. Strong on the ball. 7/10

Richie McCaw
Carried first bit of All Black possession superbly and never let up after that. Good speech at the end to acknowledge his 100th cap. 8/10

Adam Thompson
Another supremely intelligent footballer. Gets through a load of work and knows when and where to strike. 8/10

Replacements
Sonny Bill Williams, with a wonderful run off an inside pass by Carter, and Ali Williams, with a stunning catch at a restart, were the pick of the replacements. 7/10

I think some of those are a bit generous. You need to remember that France were woeful and not much of a test at all.

Yes thats what i thought.
The numbers also dont leave a lot of room for improvrment and theres plenty.

Sounds silly but that would have been one of the toughest pool matches weve ever had. So thats good.

Canada wont provide much resistence but i think the coaches will be happier with that run two weeks out from a quarter with the likely winner of todays match- argie or scotland.

If injuries are ok abs are now in a great position..

South Africa in the semi finals, or France in the final will be the only thing that can stop New Zealand now.

I thought Thorn and Kaino were better than 5 and 7 respectively. Kaino in particular was immense and Thorn would get a 7 for me.

Hi,Taylorman made a comment especially for you in the match thread.
Read it and let me know.
I would`nt go with any ratings it was a team effort,Woeful?
if the drop had come off,and the crosskick France would be 10 up inthe first 10 minutes.
They were as good as they were allowed to be,and came back well no doubt there will be claims France threw the match.
It was Marseille part 2.

emack2 wrote:Hi,Taylorman made a comment especially for you in the match thread.
Read it and let me know.
I would`nt go with any ratings it was a team effort,Woeful?
if the drop had come off,and the crosskick France would be 10 up inthe first 10 minutes.
They were as good as they were allowed to be,and came back well no doubt there will be claims France threw the match.
It was Marseille part 2.

To an extent, but they really seemed quite disinterested when they went behind, no passion or power in the forwards and, apart from the first 10 minutes they only started playing (a bit) once the game was gone. Yes, NZ can quickly take the game away from the opposition as they did today but France were very disappointing. NZ can go up a few gears but they didn't have to against a poor French performance.

Kaino definately higher than 7, he was the stand out performer of the pack, immense tackles !. Hope the all blacks get tested in the knock out stages and don't stroll it circa 1987 as today was a bit dull as a contest...don't get me wrong the first 43minutes of nz play was amazing but its nice to have two teams in it at 70 mins.

I don't think there will be claims France threw the match. The coach was livid and by going by their reactions theyre either very good actors (and Yachvili showed they certainly arent) or just didnt execute well.

Not many are saying it but this is a huge difference from other world cups. We have had a good enough workout less than two weeks out from a quarter. Weve NEVER had that in 6 world cups. The pool length of time has until now been a waste of time, it has generally REGRESSED the abilities of the team over that period when we would have been better served playing tougher opponents. I think this is significant.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
To an extent, but they really seemed quite disinterested when they went behind, no passion or power in the forwards and, apart from the first 10 minutes they only started playing (a bit) once the game was gone.

That is a typical French performance though. The match went exactly as you would expect. France started well but when the AB's scored those early tries the French just dropped their heads and started falling off tackles, were slow to the breakdown and no one wanted the ball in attack. once they scored the intercept all of a sudden they looked like they wanted to be there again. Nothing unusual or surprising about it and France played the way they always do.

roddersm wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
To an extent, but they really seemed quite disinterested when they went behind, no passion or power in the forwards and, apart from the first 10 minutes they only started playing (a bit) once the game was gone.

That is a typical French performance though. The match went exactly as you would expect. France started well but when the AB's scored those early tries the French just dropped their heads and started falling off tackles, were slow to the breakdown and no one wanted the ball in attack. once they scored the intercept all of a sudden they looked like they wanted to be there again. Nothing unusual or surprising about it and France played the way they always do.

So what you're saying is France are consistant and easy to predict? Actually, I agree with your points. I think the phrase is "they don't like it up 'em".

Yeah France are quite easy to predict actually. If you let the match break up and they get into their stride they are nigh on unplayable.

However If they go a few scores behind they tend to just drop their heads if things are not going their way. The ABs put on a near 80 min performance and it looked like they learn't their lesson from previous RWCs, i.e. the French are dangerous no matter how far in front you are and you can't sit back on a lead against them or let them get their tails up.

roddersm wrote:Yeah France are quite easy to predict actually. If you let the match break up and they get into their stride they are nigh on unplayable.

However If they go a few scores behind they tend to just drop their heads if things are not going their way. The ABs put on a near 80 min performance and it looked like they learn't their lesson from previous RWCs, i.e. the French are dangerous no matter how far in front you are and you can't sit back on a lead against them or let them get their tails up.

Really?
So that explains why they came back from deficits against the AB's in 07 and one fairly sizeable in 99 when Lomu was detroying them?

The only preduictable thing about France is that theyre unpredictable. Thats about as close as you can get.

Thats the point Taylorman once France get a bit of momentum they can come back from a big deficit. Today the AB's shut them out from start to finish.

Carters drop goal was very clever because it took the wind out of France's sails when they were starting to get their tails up.

They go from the sublime to the rediculous but their performances do have a distinct pattern to them. Ireland tend to play right into their hands by coughing up turnovers against them by going wide off slow ball or kicking the ball to them whereas England have their number a lot of the time and bully them up front and don't let them get any momentum going.

I think what impressed me about this performance is that our attitude and aggression were back to their best. I agree that Owen Franks needs to impose himself more in open play and thought he was the least conspicuous. But Brad Thorn was not below par or worthy of 5. Utter nonsense. He was back to his best in terms of meeting out punishment in the tackle. Kaino was my pick of the forwards. He is capable of hits that result in turnovers but he is developing his taking up of the ball quite nicely. Thomson with an 8 is generous but his injury is a worry. Read comes back but I think Thomson is the best of a mediocre bunch in terms of cover.

All in all, you can say what you like about the French performance. But they were bullied off the park, particularly in the backs. The battle is always won up front but sometimes yesterday it seemed like kids vs grown ups in the backs.

so Brad thorn was the worst/least performing All black on the field.

I would have thought Paul Ackford would have recognised an honest 80 minute performance by a lock when he sees one.

aucklandlaurie wrote: so Brad thorn was the worst/least performing All black on the field.

I would have thought Paul Ackford would have recognised an honest 80 minute performance by a lock when he sees one.

Yes, but no-one is as good as Ackford was. (Especially not Martin Johnson )