I know your game France. You're not fooling anyone...

I can see why so many dismiss France in the NH. They should challenge every year for top honours in the 6N and yet so often turn hot and cold. They looked threatening and solid in last year's Autumn Internationals but so far this 6N they have looked lethargic, bereft of ideas on attack and disorganised. Is this a result of too many players in the Top 14 and not enough preparation together as a test squad? The same might be said for Wales and it was not a match to remember. The night game and the state of the pitch obviously didn't effect things but both sides looked out on their feet and scared to try to take this game by the scruff of the neck and do something with any positive intent. In the end, a bit of enterprise from Biggar and Wales take a deserved win but not much else to write home about.

Then it dawned on me. The French are touring NZ next June and play three tests in NZ. The ABs will be without Richie McCaw and no doubt the French will arrive in NZ dismissed as wooden spooners and French management will eagerly collect up all the foam-mouthed clippings from the Herald and make a nice papier mâché doll likeness of Joubert out of them and place it slap bang in the middle of the dressing room for each test. The players will be made to kiss the feet of the likeness of Joubert before stepping out onto the field and during the haka the players will wear earpieces and be played damning pieces from all over the world and then they will unleash hell as soon as the whistle blows.

The NZ media must be warned. Rattue should be forced to write sickly praises of the French squad and how they are a force to be reckoned with, and isn't it a shame they should have to play such rabble all the time (note this is not the opinion of the author of this OP but we have to fight fire with fire). The French team should no longer be referred to as Les Bleus but Les Buttercups (Les Tasses de beurre) and we should build them up like no other team has been built up before. They will be so flummoxed at the kindness of the NZ media that their intricate preparation will be thrown out the window and they will have to resort to plan b and when they step out onto the field they will realise that they don't have a plan b and really there wasn't much of a plan a to be begin with.

In all seriousness, what has happened to France? Playing at home and facing a Welsh team that are at rock bottom. Where was the fire and brimstone after being humilated in Rome? As well as the Italians played, shouldn't such a result be seen as such? Where was the sting of criticism in the French players tonight? Why did everything seem so spectacularly predictable and meek? I expect so much more from a team with such depth and talent in their players. Is club rugby affecting the test team so much? How can they have looked so solid last autumn and so average so far this year?

I don't know kia.

They just go into hibernation or bouts of introspection and self-doubt.
Personally I was pulling my hair out in despair during today's game. Mind you the Clancy scrum lottery didn't help.
This week the knives will be out and there will be a cull of the most culpable. It can be half-expected that normality will be restored at HQ tout a coup.

Strange animal yer frenchman.

It should've happened after last week's loss in Rome. Why do they play with such lack of focus when the pressure is off them and play like possessed demons when they are written off?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMpu8jH1LE8 In which Ermintrude's been at the poppies again, but it's Dougal who ends up high as a kite.

The Magic Roundabout is French - Le Manège enchanté.

Any attempts to rationalise the French psyche are futile.

Kia you think the ABs should bring some Germans in to make sure of the June series?

"what has happened to France?" -- They have a coach who gets his selections wrong. Fofana on the wing? Michalak at 10? Basher Baster in midfield? -- all that was a clue as to how France would play. France have great players and a large pool to choose from.

But don't take anything away from Wales' very gutsy defence. It was a always going to come down to some pieces of magic or individual skill to win the game. Wales' problem, like France, is that it relies on too many bashers in midfield -- both sides were unbalanced, but at least Biggar is a 10 and regularly plays there, unlike Michalak, who was awful again today.

You'll see a different France when they get their selections right. They could start with picking a 10 at 10 and Fofana in midfield. Those two changes alone would result in changes to the way they play.

The French back three is so one paced it's baffling. They have so many exciting speedsters in their league, add that to the ponderous Mermoz and you have to wonder what's going on. Fofana or Ficku should be at 12.

Have you not heard NZ are yesterdays news. Who Cares

I don't wish to take anything away from Wales. Getting a win in France at any time is not to be dismissed and I agree Ospreydragon it was a great effort in defence. But where was the venom, the sting from France after last week's defeat in Rome? I don't think it's just a case of selections. The whole team looked flat and lacking ideas.

"But where was the venom, the sting from France after last week's defeat in Rome?" -- Defences cancelled each other out. Very often a game can change because of an incident of brilliance, genius, or simply luck. The French coach picked too many bashers and too many players out of position. Wales has too many bashers in midfield, which reduces the chances they can create. And then there's the game plans and rugby philosophies of both coaching teams, which are too conservative, it seems to me.

I'm sure Wales could play better, more attractive rugby with a couple of changes in personnel (by picking a more balanced team/23, with different players who can change a game) and a change in coaching philopsophy. The same applies to France.

I never think France should be put on this unwarranted cloud which says they are so much better than other NH teams. It is certainly a belief held by SH countries...well New Zealand anyway.

Anyway perhaps (and it is my opinion) that Wales had a superior 'venom & sting' than France, we we the better team.

rainbow-warrior wrote:I never think France should be put on this unwarranted cloud which says they are so much better than other NH teams. It is certainly a belief held by SH countries...well New Zealand anyway.

Anyway perhaps (and it is my opinion) that Wales had a superior 'venom & sting' than France, we we the better team.

In the same way that NH teams (probably) think that the Abs are better than most other teams- because they beat them more than anyone else- same with France- they beat us more than other NH sides- theres no unwarranted cloud, theres just the fact that they do. so on that basis alone, in our view, France are the best NH side- the only exception being probably the English side of 03, and that is one huge exception, no other NH side coming within miles of that side, including England itself.

the ab's are clearly the best SH side. However I doubt there can be any definite feeling about france being better than england ever for long spells.. England are clearly the better side overall!!

52 wins against 37!! it tells the story.. france have never ever consitantly beat us! If the kwiws want to say france are better because they knocked them out of two wc's -= fine- however england will invaribly beat france after!!

Many celt nationals would rather tag the french as the best- it hurts them to much to say its england..


I allways try and get you guys back on a level after all the france hyperboyle.. I have offcourse been prooved right again..

Any team can look good v AUS- they are not a consitant enough side..


Last year- France end up beating AUS., England Beat NZ!!

France become favs by the majority of this board.. ermmm.. how strange.. There are allways excuses for the other team when england win. When france win its allways about them.. This is a genitc issues with many celts..

We dont here many France fans on here- but eI would bet my last pound they would put england above them!

"

In the same way that NH teams (probably) think that the Abs are better than most other teams- because they beat them more than anyone else- same with France- they beat us more than other NH sides- theres no unwarranted cloud, theres just the fact that they do"


ermmm.. you beat france 75% of the time(38 out of 51)- you beat england 77%(27 out of 35), of the time!!

england have the far superior win record v france..

can this 2% really prove france are the better team- even though England have won a world cup, and beat other teams more and have the much superior head to head, and that farnce have played you so much more which can scew the results.!!

Actually the ridiculous stat now is how come we have played France 16 more times than England????

I dunno but i would like to play NZ more!! _ all it would take is a couple of wins out of 2 tours to get our record v you better than france!

France are gonna play you lot even more this year!

mystiroakey wrote:the ab's are clearly the best SH side. However I doubt there can be any definite feeling about france being better than england ever for long spells.. England are clearly the better side overall!!

52 wins against 37!! it tells the story.. france have never ever consitantly beat us! If the kwiws want to say france are better because they knocked them out of two wc's -= fine- however england will invaribly beat france after!!

Many celt nationals would rather tag the french as the best- it hurts them to much to say its england..

I allways try and get you guys back on a level after all the france hyperboyle.. I have offcourse been prooved right again..

Any team can look good v AUS- they are not a consitant enough side..


Last year- France end up beating AUS., England Beat NZ!!

France become favs by the majority of this board.. ermmm.. how strange.. There are allways excuses for the other team when england win. When france win its allways about them.. This is a genitc issues with many celts..

We dont here many France fans on here- but eI would bet my last pound they would put england above them!

Seeing as there are about 2 games between Wales and England over all these years! Also the same margin between Wales and France. I tag neither are superior to Wales on that history.

the wc is clearly the benchmark thorugh RW..

Its all about them..
]
The top 5 nations have competed.

NZ sa and aus- 2 wins a piece

england 1 win

france 3 RU'






































































































wales1 semi

I just don't understand the French mentality.

I think oakey you're taking the article from the wrong perspective. My reference to the ABs was tongue and cheek. Two high profile losses to France in the World Cups doesn't deter from the fact that we beat them more often than not. When you look at their record of wins in NZ, it may well have to do with the fact that France tour so much more to NZ than England. That's a shame as I'd love a three test series against England in NZ just as much as I'm looking forward to the return match at Twickers. It may, like you say, bring the average down from one win every ten years. Sounds a lot worse when you say how many matches there have been in ten years.

My gripe with France is not really when they play NZ. They are capable of rising to a big game against us every so often. My gripe is when they play teams ranked lower than them like Tonga in the RWC, like Italy and let's face it Wales at the moment. They have the player pool and talent but what indeed were those selections and what was PSA thinking. What gameplan did he have in mind. I think he sees how England are playing at the moment and thinks a power game can overcome these sides ranked lower than France. What England are doing is far more dynamic and integrated than what France tried last night and I'm going to read L'Equipe with interest today to see the French press reaction.

The French problem is social.. It runs through there veins..

It's not gonna just change.. They all have issues with authority..

I love France.. But it's apparent everywhere.

mystiroakey wrote:the wc is clearly the benchmark thorugh RW..

Its all about them..
]
The top 5 nations have competed.

NZ sa and aus- 2 wins a piece

england 1 win

france 3 RU'
Wales 1 semi

Had you down as semi sensible, you do not even know the WC History. Wales 2 Semis (3rd place in 87).

It is only the younger rugby supporter that thinks a Country's history should depend on World Cups, if that was a true given NZ would look pretty silly. Each game is a TEST match, and throughout history England have not had the ability to pull away from little old Cymru, doubt if they ever will.

I knew was gonna come with that one Rw..

Not bothered about pulling away from Wales.. I support em after England.. Always cheer them on..

Lived more than three years in France and have spent time in the UK. Think you can find social problems anywhere in the world so a) not so sure about that general statement and b) what it has to do with their rugby performance.

Some comments from PSA in L'Equipe.

We're not fooling anybody. We need to mount a commando raid to win at Twickenham.

Asked how he explained the defeat to the Welsh: We have to accept that the Welsh ended their losing streak here in Paris. In the first half we had two clear chances and failed to convert them. Then they scored a try against us with a cross kick at the end. Good on them. Now we can only mount a commando raid on Twickenham (does this mean they'll wear black instead of blue?). We can't win the Tournament but we can win back some respect. We were too inaccurate... too one dimensional, but at the highest level you have to know how to lift the head.

Asked if the French team weren't already spent: I'm not going down that road. The 6N is a competition that makes dreams. I came to rugby through this tournament. At the moment we have to accept we're not making anybody dream. We dropped too many balls to be able to win the match. I don't want to get embroiled in the calendar problems but sooner or later there needs to be discussions with the League in June and everybody will have to assume their responsibilities.

Our second phase ball, we didn't play it badly. We massacred it. Apart from the first five minutes, we made the wrong choices, notably in going for the drop. I saw more ferocity in defence but we massacred our second phase ball.

The Welsh defence was able to get up against us. We couldn't free the ball quickly. The Welsh were very present at the rucks and we couldn't get quick ball. The Welsh often tackled us in pairs and prevented us from getting our game in place. We should've got on the scoreboard earlier. But I don't want to get into individual analysis just yet.

When you lose, you have to accept that the opposition were better. We're at the bottom of the table and we must take inspiration from Wales who ended their 8 match losing streak. We have to do everything to ensure we play well at Twickenham. We must not be afraid. It is only a rugby match.

The players seemed to talk about a lack of confidence and these defeats are hard to swallow. Their mental state is not great and they talk about drawing inspiration from the Welsh players as if 2 defeats was like 8 defeats. It seems the memories of last autumn have gone and they are in the abyss. Is this the mental fragility so often talked about? How can confidence be so rock bottom after two losses. It seems the Italy loss did more to put doubt in their minds than fire and brimstone particularly on attack. When will France learn that they can't win games based solely on defence. They have to attack and from PSA's comments it seems like they didn't react well to Welsh tactics.

I wouldnt say its a social problem- its just the way they are.. We are all different(thats a good thing!!) but the french phscy I think is a reason why there can seem like god like geniuses one day to a team that next game doesnt seem to care.

mystiroakey wrote:the ab's are clearly the best SH side. However I doubt there can be any definite feeling about france being better than england ever for long spells.. England are clearly the better side overall!!

52 wins against 37!! it tells the story.. france have never ever consitantly beat us! If the kwiws want to say france are better because they knocked them out of two wc's -= fine- however england will invaribly beat france after!!

Many celt nationals would rather tag the french as the best- it hurts them to much to say its england..


I allways try and get you guys back on a level after all the france hyperboyle.. I have offcourse been prooved right again..

Any team can look good v AUS- they are not a consitant enough side..


Last year- France end up beating AUS., England Beat NZ!!

France become favs by the majority of this board.. ermmm.. how strange.. There are allways excuses for the other team when england win. When france win its allways about them.. This is a genitc issues with many celts..

We dont here many France fans on here- but eI would bet my last pound they would put england above them!

Bit unnecessary don't you think?
I said France would win it, not because I didn't want England to, in fact by definition England are my second side seeing as I live here, I just thought there was more solid evidence for France winning it. But I, and a lot of others, were wrong. The fact is up until last weekend France looked to be the most consistent side in the NH, and a lot of us genuinely thought they'd turned a corner and were blowing hot but keeping the fire stoked.

It'd seem that's not the case sadly, if France keep playing the way they are a wooden spoon is potentially on the cards, which is very bizarre seeing as most years even when they've not had incredible form coming in they've competed at the top of the table. I figure, like some people have suggested, it's a coaching problem. I really hope France pull it together and get a good game, because they are a very good side and it makes me sad to see them at such a low point. As a Scotland fan I can empathise.

france have never ever looked like a consitant team.. And i honesty mean NEVER!

you cant just flip a switch..

I had france favorites due to their Autum international form. I also had England down as 2nd place, sorry to poo poo your genetics theory there MO.

France will be a much better team when they make the changes like mentioned before.

There is also the little englander attitude that doesn't wanna admit we are a decent improved team,? Always afraid of sounding arrogant..

England's consistancy has been on another level..

We kept it simple from the start of sl s reign. But every game added layers upon layers..

If England had Argentina and francee had SA maybe you lot would have thought different .

Time to believe..

MO, I think England are actually building very nicely, the have started to put together a dynamic young pack and the intensity at the break down and speed of ruck ball is allowing them to play a more expansive game. Its a simple game plan that is working at the moment. I think this years 6N will be between Ireland and England.

I will be shocked if any other team can win this...

Can't wait......

Round 2 and your claiming the tourny is between you and someone else? If England lose today it'll be as everyone expected a very tight tournament, and if England win they're not even half way through so it'll still be tight!!!

Wouldn't worry about sounding arrogant if I were you, that seems to be your default setting!

With respect Mysti RWCs are no criterion except for winning the thing England 2003 was no more convincing than NZ 2011 both won JUST.
France versus England record is flawed because like Italy,France were late joiners of the 5Ns.So it took them time to get up to Speed.
France have tended to play NZ on tours in NZ mostly over 2 or 3 match ones a place where few win.
There record of 12 wins earns them respect there especially the 2 in NZ as to
RWC results they have at least beaten NZ twice there.
France have always flattered to deceive iit really is one match at a time .BUT it can hardly help when your top clubs which you would expect to build your team around.
When in some cases your starting club side has 8 non qualified players with a further 7 on the bench.Especially when that side loses 40-0 to a team hovering in the relegation zone.

Mysti,
In terms of strictly results, England may have an edge over France head to head and may have a slightly inferior % vs NZ.

But its not only the world cup wins theyve had over us- and weve had more over them as well.

Part of it is the quality of rugby they play. NZers respect quality and France have it in spades when it comes to the matches they have played against us.

1979 at Eden park was one of the classics with several tries of sheer brilliance that only France are capable of. Then a hard won victory at Nantes in 86, one of the catalysts for our 87 world cup win- 'remember Nantes' a well used expression up to the Final.

The 87 win over Oz in the smi final- all class.

The stunning long range try in 94- full length of the field stuff. The victories in 99- probably the biggest comeback in World cup history and the 07 win and the Hillary shield win a few years ago in NZ.

England have nothing like those victories over us and although theyve won the odd match, none have been significant either in a Wcup match or a series win. All one offs and until last years win all battle of attrition, with few real highlights of skill or brilliance- where France have had it in spades- albeit away from Europe most occasions.

For me I dont think the 6N suits the French game as its played at the worst time of the year on cold, damp, slow conditions where the French flair gets stifled year after year. They typically play 4 sides prepared to grind it out under tough conditions though I accept some generalisations there, but for me thats the overall impression it leaves me.

I think they would do better in the 4N where the grounds are faster.

Well i got to admit and i say this with certainly england are the much better team over france- over history they have been and have played rugby recently that out classes anything france have recently played.. And if we think about the 4 years before and during 2003 wc- then that level of englands play isnt just better than anything france have acheived but on another planet.. The onloy teams i could ever put above england are aus, sa and NZ..

You have just played france alot more thats all. They may have been set up to play against you better. But sadly and i know this may come as a shock but that isnt the only definition of quality..

By the way.... I think I am just getting fed up of French hyperbole..

I am sure they have played right up there against nz.. And have deserved respect .. But as an Englishman.. There have never looked out of this world good..

Wtf is french hyperbole suppose to mean anyway?
You have a real issue with France I guess ...
France doesnt have a good record against england - fact
France has a better record against NZ than England - fact

See, it is not difficult

Other fact:
- france had 4 wins in a row last year so it is not dowright crazy to have made them co favourites before the 6N. Check your dictionnary, you might find out it is not exactly the same as being over hyped? But maybe you are right: australia are pants while argentina and samoa made fidji look good!

Now feel free to continue devaluating them if thats what turn you on

From memory its France that kept denting Englands run up to 2003 while they were beating all the SH sides.

I just think its your conditions. NH club and 6N rugby is generally played in slower conditions. Most of the best French, SA, NZ and Oz rugby is played on the faster better conditioned grounds.

We cope better than SA and Oz in the NH mainly because we are generally at a higher level than the other two but also because we of the 3 have at times conditions more similar to those of the NH. SA and Oz never have them for any significant periods.

The French I'm assuming also play some of their club rugby in better conditions in the South of France. Their personalities suit the flair, running rugby of the south.

Away from the NH the four home unions generally struggle in the SH. Thats partly because the fast grounds get away on them. Their controlling, attrition based approaches arent so easy to manage down south.

Ireland and Wales to their credit play a more open game but dont have the same resources as the SH sides, nor the experience of the faster pace.

If NZ were to play in the 6N year after year we would probably win it more than most of the other sides but not by a lot. Theyd be dragged into these battles of attrition on slow grounds- a sure deathkneel to our game.

And France have absolutely looked out of this world in key matches against NZ and others...many times.

For us its not just about the result, but the class of the rugby played and in that respect, France top the 6N sides by some distance.

In saying that, 2003 was a better side than any of the French sides we faced, not so much for the 2 one off wins vs NZ (3 and 2 points) but for the level of consistency over the period culminating in the World cup.

No NH side before or since has had anywhere near that sort of consistency. They just werent as flashy, for me an important ingredient.

"France top the 6N sides by some distance."

oh dear - that is ludicrous.

whocares- thats the hyperboyle i am talking about!

mystiroakey wrote:"France top the 6N sides by some distance."

oh dear - that is ludicrous.

whocares- thats the hyperboyle i am talking about!

Well you quoting him out of context. He's entitled to prefer french vintage rugby if he wants. He never said they were the best.

What i find funny as well is that- i have seen plenty of france v kiwi games- and not once have france ended a 20 game no loss streak and beat them by 18 or so points and made them look ordinary..

But offcourse england only won that game cause kiwis were ill.. so lets scrub that one out lol..

as i said before when france win or lose its about them !!

when england win or lose its about the opposition

whocares wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"France top the 6N sides by some distance."

oh dear - that is ludicrous.

whocares- thats the hyperboyle i am talking about!

Well you quoting him out of context. He's entitled to prefer french vintage rugby if he wants. He never said they were the best.

nope i didnt misquote him at all- he has been using the royal we!!

"For us its not just about the result,"

Its also about being away from the NH.
Look at the only neutral matches in the SH vs France- all World cup matches.

Fr vs England (2-1) The England win being the 2003 side.
Fr vs Wales- 1-0.
Fr vs Scots- 2.5- .5
Fr vs Ireland- 2-0
Fr vs Italy 1-0

Only once has a NH side beaten the French away from Europe.

My other point re the win is France have done to NZ sides several times what England did to us in Dec in terms of the way we were beaten- won in style- thats when sides get the greater respect. Except that France have done it in more meaningful matches.

Take away the 6N and France have better results. Why? Because its played in poor conditions that suit them least of all. They play a SH style and show it when playing in the SH. The other NH sides dont tend to.

are you really trying to say that france are the btter wc team- england have won one in AUS FFS.

what the heck are you babbling about Taylor..

and if you think france have beaten england more than once in a RWC you got to go back to the drawing board- the only game they won was in 2011

I don't know that you can ignore the two matches in the RWC that France lost to England in front of their own supporters in perfect conditions.

The England side of 2003 lost a pre-RWC warm-up to France in Marseilles by a single point when fielding a side largely composed of second-stringers. When the roles were reversed a week or so later, England stuck 40 on France.

France have shone against the SH sides at certain points, but it hasn't been often that England have just given up the ghost and conceded 60 at home against Australia, for example. It so often depends on the French mind-set; less often on the playing conditions, as far as I've ever been able to judge.

Mystir, France beat England in Pretoria in 95 (3rd place play-off).

And havent all englands other WC wins been in france!

which by your rationale is the same as playing in the SH!!

why not include them!


(apoligies about the play off- thats not exactly a material game!!)

mystiroakey wrote:are you really trying to say that france are the btter wc team- england have won one in AUS FFS.

what the heck are you babbling about Taylor..

and if you think france have beaten england more than once in a RWC you got to go back to the drawing board- the only game they won was in 2011

All I'm saying is that France is the better 6N side and that its the 6N more than anything else that makes them look anything less.

This year, going by the stats, France in NZ will be tougher than the Lions...

Heres how they've all faired since 1979 in NZ:

France- played 19- won 4- (with 2 WC final losses)
Lions- Played 10- won 1.
England- played 9- won 1 (2003)
Wales- played 5- won 0
Ireland- played 11- won 0
Scotland- played 9- won 0.
Italy- played 3- won 0.

France have won 4 and the Lions and other 5N combined have won 2 from 47 attempts.

Compelling stuff.

So while you are free to use the 6N as the yardstick, it isnt the complete story, from our perspective. France are obviously a better side than their 6N form suggests.

Yes England have a world cup win, and France have 3 finals- 2 against us. England hasnt beaten NZ in a world cup match so the relative records of France and England in World cups is pretty close.

Taylor you think i use the 6nations as the yardstick- i never actually have.. I use the RWC as the yardstick.. And england are the only non SH team to win in the SH..

Not sure what else you want tbh..

who cares about the lions.. The lions are totally immaterial to this.. so are ireland, so are scotland , so are italy and so are wales

England may have only won 1 game in NZ- in that time scale, however they have only played 9 games- france have played 19!!!

and england beat france more often than not,, and have done in 3 out of 4 rwc ' material' games- none of which were at home!!- either in france or Aus!!)