New Zealand v France tests

First topic message reminder :

Thought I'd set up a thread for the test series.

Test 1:

Date: Saturday, June 9
Venue: Eden Park, Auckland
Kick-off: 19.35 (07.35 GMT, 09.35 France time)
Expected weather: There will be a temperature of around 9°C around kick-off time with a slight breeze. It will be clear with no rain expected.
Referee: Luke Pearce (England)
Assistant referees: Angus Gardner (Australia), John Lacey (Ireland)
TMO: George Ayoub (Australia)

All Blacks: 15. Jordie Barrett, 14. Ben Smith, 13. Anton Lienert-Brown, 12. Ryan Crotty, 11. Rieko Ioane, 10. Beauden Barrett, 9. Aaron Smith, 8. Luke Whitelock, 7. Sam Cane, 6. Liam Squire, 5. Scott Barrett, 4. Sam Whitelock (c), 3. Owen Franks, 2. Codie Taylor, 1. Joe Moody.

Reserves: 16. Nathan Harris, 17. Karl Tu'inukuafe, 18. Ofa Tu'ungafasi, 19. Vaea Fifita, 20. Ardie Savea, 21. TJ Perenara, 22. Damian McKenzie, 23. Ngani Laumape.


France: 15 Maxime Medard, 14 Teddy Thomas, 13 Mathieu Bastareaud (captain), 12 Geoffrey Doumayrou, 11 Remy Grosso, 10 Anthony Belleau, 9 Morgan Parra, 8 Fabien Sanconnie, 7 Kelian Gourdon, 6 Judicael Cancoriet, 5 Yoann Maestri, 4 Paul Gabrillagues, 3 Uini Atonio,2 Camille Chat, 1 Dany Priso.

Replacements: 16 Adrien Pelissie, 17 Cyril Baille, 18 Rabah Slimani, 19 Bernard Le Roux, 20 Alexandre Lapandry, 21 Baptiste Serin, 22 Jules Plisson, 23 Gael Fickou.

Grosso is now in the hospital following what looks like a skull fracture... not sure what it takes to give a card to a thug? Maybe next time they will try to behead someone.

Well I hope he gets better whocares. Not sure the All Black player deliberately tried to hurt Grosso but it was a certain yellow card given the yellow card against France.

Shoulder charge on the head might not be on purpose but it’s reckless , really dangerous and warrants a red card for these reasons.

That was an accidental clash of heads.

Firstly thought Cane should have seen a yellow in that collision. Shot to the chin is a yellow card. Prerogative is on the tackler not the attacker so shouldn't matter that he was falling. Ref gave France a yellow for a much softer lower shot!

Agree with whocares Tu'ungafasi should have seen red as well. Accidental head clash was between the two All Blacks. It was Tu'ungafasis shoulder that hit Grosso's head. Dangerous and reckless play

The captain basteraued, is he really the best 13 in France? Reckon most forwards have more pace than that guy. He’s a humongous unit and surely not made for the backline. McKenzie blitzed through a gaping hole in his D on two occasions for two tries. You have to watch it to believe it because apparently that guy is a back. He’d be 130kg wouldn’t he?

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:Firstly thought Cane should have seen a yellow in that collision. Shot to the chin is a yellow card. Prerogative is on the tackler not the attacker so shouldn't matter that he was falling. Ref gave France a yellow for a much softer lower shot!

Agree with whocares Tu'ungafasi should have seen red as well. Accidental head clash was between the two All Blacks. It was Tu'ungafasis shoulder that hit Grosso's head. Dangerous and reckless play

Reminded me of this tackle in an Exeter vs Saracens game last year. After TMO review, Barrington got a red card for the shoulder charge to the head. The tackler, Brad Barritt received no penalty. On appeal, however, Barrington was cleared, and Brad Barritt banned. The panel decided Barritt knocked Parling out, and that caused him to slump into Barrington's tackle, which made it more dangerous than Barrington had intended.

whocares wrote:Shoulder charge on the head might not be on purpose but it’s reckless ,  really dangerous and warrants a red card for these reasons.

Not seen the game but have seen footage of that incident. Brutal and it could have been worse that it was. Please let them argue it out infront of the citing commissioners

Sgt_Pooly wrote:France are arguably the better side so far, how long for though....Who knows?

NZ missing Retallick and Read, they don't look that good so far.

Ha ha, love it. No idea.

I know Taylor, it was certainly a game of two halfs. France edged the 1st half and certainly looked the better side with some great offloading and getting on top in the set-piece.

2nd half a complete different story and more like the French side that don't travel well. NZ turned on the style and blew them away, fair play to the boys in black, it was an impressive 2nd half showing.

Still waiting for Sam Cane to turn into this world class 7 you keep predicting he will become. He was poor yesterday, getting outmuscled by the French backrow and then turning nasty when things weren't going his way. I really don't see the fuss about him, I think he's pretty average tbh.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I know Taylor, it was certainly a game of two halfs. France edged the 1st half and certainly looked the better side with some great offloading and getting on top in the set-piece.

2nd half a complete different story and more like the French side that don't travel well. NZ turned on the style and blew them away, fair play to the boys in black, it was an impressive 2nd half showing.

Still waiting for Sam Cane to turn into this world class 7 you keep predicting he will become. He was poor yesterday, getting outmuscled by the French backrow and then turning nasty when things weren't going his way. I really don't see the fuss about him, I think he's pretty average tbh.

Cane will be player of the year. Hes back after injury and took a knock and besides, which northern flanker played better? None. Pocock then Cane, the rest, nowhere.

Canes a placeholder surely?

I'm not sure what NH flankers have to do with this, surely it's just the opposition that we gauge against?

Pocock didn't play 7 yesterday anyway, it was Hooper, but I get your point.

If we're going on individual performances from opensides in the games yesterday, I'd have Cancoriet, Curry, Hooper, Kolisi. Davies and Savea ahead of Cane personally. I thought Cane overall was quite poor.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Canes a placeholder surely?

Without question, NZ are just waiting for the better option to come along. Cane is 26 now and he's still struggling to make an impact on games with 50+ caps, it's crazy really.

No doubt they'll be another classy operator along soon though, NZ do have a knack at producing them.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm not sure what NH flankers have to do with this, surely it's just the opposition that we gauge against?

Pocock didn't play 7 yesterday anyway, it was Hooper, but I get your point.

If we're going on individual performances from opensides in the games yesterday, I'd have Cancoriet, Curry, Hooper, Kolisi. Davies and Savea ahead of Cane personally. I thought Cane overall was quite poor.

You always do, thats to be expected. Yet hes first pick for a team that thrashed France, something none of the 6 N sides can well, ever do. So excuse me if I dont rate your opinion. You missed the potential of this result and got more desperate as the match went on. It was quite entertaining reading it from the start, the optimism crashing as it went into the match. So cheers for that.

Cane is never the first pick for nz. Retallick is the best player in the world and you look a shadow of the team you are when he's there.

Totally agree Taylor. Perhaps NZ were a bit rusty in the 1st half, they certainly upped the tempo. I thought the intro of McKenzie and Savea really upped your game, that and the yellow that wasn't a yellow.

Taylorman wrote:...a team that thrashed France, something none of the 6 N sides can well, ever do...

England haven't done it for a while (the 2015 scoreline was more a function of the chase for points difference) but we did it twice under Woodward, so it's certainly not a case of "never".

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cane is never the first pick for nz. Retallick is the best player in the world and you look a shadow of the team you are when he's there.

Cane is always first pick at 7, since McCaw retired. Retallick is the best I agree, I just think Cane will win the vote. Maybe he wont, maybe Retallick will. Do you mean a shadow when hes ‘not’ there.? If so, a 50 pointer isnt a bad shadow.

Oh at 7. Yeah a shadow when retallick is not there. Just because there is currently no one better at 7 though personally savea is for me doesn't mean that can is going down as a great or even top level.

When France went down to fourteen men, you just felt it was inevitable NZ would score, and that France would probably find it hard to respond to even a one score difference.

In a sense, you can understand why it might look like that decision, which was debatable, helped determine the match. And yet, New Zealand suffered a legitimate red card in the second Lions Test, and they didn't fall apart. Rather the opposite: they took the match to the Lions, and looked like they were going on to win it.

There's one constant about playing the All Blacks in recent years. To beat them, you need the ref not to make any costly blunders against you, along with the general rub of the green. On the other hand, give those same two advantages to the All Blacks, and they will make a fool of you on the scoreboard.

Other sides lose their composure when things start going against them but, however rattled an All Blacks team gets, they never seem to lose confidence in their ability to beat you.

This is a good run-in to the World Cup for the All Blacks. They get a chance to inflict some mental wounds on France, and then enter a Rugby Championship which promises to be more competitive than last year. If Australia and South Africa can prevail in their own series, then there will also be more bragging rights at stake. The best or all possible worlds will be to claim a Rugby Championship and then see off the NH, including England, on the end of year tour.

It could, of course, go wrong in places but it would be a happy All Black camp if they met all these challenges.

Rugby Fan wrote:When France went down to fourteen men, you just felt it was inevitable NZ would score, and that France would probably find it hard to respond to even a one score difference.

In a sense, you can understand why it might look like that decision, which was debatable, helped determine the match. And yet, New Zealand suffered a legitimate red card in the second Lions Test, and they didn't fall apart. Rather the opposite: they took the match to the Lions, and looked like they were going on to win it.

There's one constant about playing the All Blacks in recent years. To beat them, you need the ref not to make any costly blunders against you, along with the general rub of the green. On the other hand, give those same two advantages to the All Blacks, and they will make a fool of you on the scoreboard.

Other sides lose their composure when things start going against them but, however rattled an All Blacks team gets, they never seem to lose confidence in their ability to beat you.

This is a good run-in to the World Cup for the All Blacks. They get a chance to inflict some mental wounds on France, and then enter a Rugby Championship which promises to be more competitive than last year. If Australia and South Africa can prevail in their own series, then there will also be more bragging rights at stake. The best or all possible worlds will be to claim a Rugby Championship and then see off the NH, including England, on the end of year tour.

It could, of course, go wrong in places but it would be a happy All Black camp if they met all these challenges.

Em, that would come from lots of experience at beating people.  The more experience you get at beating things, the more confident you get.  I mean to say it's not an inbred trait (confidence) that the Kiwi's simply possess genetically, it's something that they've honed and honed and honed and honed.  The more they've honed the skills required to play rugby better than any side in the world, the more confidence they can exude to believe they can beat anything that comes their way with both hands tied behind their backs if necessary.

The trick in beating that psychology is of course to dish out a series of defeats on them.  Not one or two isolated defeats but perhaps a series of six or seven defeats on the trot.  Then I think we'd see a real serious drop in that omnipotent confidence you speak of.  Players would begin to doubt even their own silky skillset.  And as soon as you start to question your ability...then the whole fabric of a team begins to wilt, from players to coaches to fitness experts.
This is why New Zealanders complain and moan even about wins that don't look confident enough for them.  It's why their media are very tough to please.  They all know the deal.  The excellence of standards MUST be maintained - because if they relinquish them and world Numero Uno position, even for a few months, they might wait a very long time to regain it given how other nations now too have better systems in place to compete at the top and cling in there - relying a lot on confidence levels of win ratios to do so.

But of course....that's the toughest challenge;  beating a side with infinite confidence levels enough times to kill off the smugness.  Hats off to the All Blacks - by far the most potent field sport team on the planet.  In a way we're lucky that our preferred sport has them - the superstars of superstardom - much more legendary than Brazil

Wellthe other part to that is by being innovative. With no one in front to chase they have to find new ways of winning. Others dont, cos theyre so focussed on working on not losing the ones they are.
Its not just about being used to winning because that doesnt work on its own. By the time teams work them out theyve got to be doing something else, always staying ahead. Its mostly small things, new selections, new plays, variations etc. So in order to defeat them again and again and again as you say, you need to be more innovative, more adaptive, and no one ever is. Every loss in the pro era is a glitch, not a levelling out, because regardless of who or how many they lose, they always return to the top, quickly. Might take a week, might take a year, but so far ...its just a matter of time.
Thats the real challenge for others.

In saying that, ABs were rubbish on the weekend, not helped by BBs early exit. DMac was terrible and I think we would have gone close to losing with 15 French on full match.

Hansen wont be happy and we got away with that one. Oz and SA have made better improvements than we have.

Terrible match, both the Ire and Eng matches were more entertaining.

Innovation is all well and good and of course part of the process but innovation is a lab and experiments are never a comfort zone.  So if you're trying out experiments and they are not as slick as you'd like and you feel you have to revert to failsafe ways to get the job done and the win...well then, that's back to confidence levels in the failsafe plans.  Comfort zone stuff but only comfortable because it's being continually successful.  One helps the other.... confidence helps moves stick and be slick, slick moves that stick helps confidence.

But also...I've seen this New Zealand pull off these wounded duck stunts before Taylorman - I think the last WC itself was a demonstration of the ploy if my memory serves me well enough... "Oh our form is off in the pools.... we look useless here.... I think we're in trouble!!!!  - Oh no.... that was all just a bad dream.  We're still sensational "

I'm not buying the newest version of the duck just yet. I'm going to wait a while longer before worrying about Hansen being 'worried'

Whos worried? And Hansen made it clear in pool play that because the competition wasnt strong enough in pool play...it never has been in every single World cup the ABs have attended, not one, that players were restricted from doing certain things. He was very transparent about that. Thats why the scores were low-As soon as the shackles were lifted in the quarters, look at the AB quality then... supremo. 60 odd on france.
This is someone who knows what hes doing.

Taylorman wrote:Whos worried? And Hansen made it clear in pool play that because the competition wasnt strong enough in pool play...it never has been in every single World cup the ABs have attended, not one, that players were restricted from doing certain things. He was very transparent about that. Thats why the scores were low-As soon as the shackles were lifted in the quarters, look at the AB quality then... supremo. 60 odd on france.
This is someone who knows what hes doing.

I see that. Any observer with a decent eye for rugby sees that...but still the publicity in the media was that the ABs were struggling in the Pools. Some opposition fans were naively licking their lips...I was having a belly laugh at the bad acting by the Kiwis as they huffed and puffed and tried to look rattled.

What do you think if the changes for this weekend Taylor? Looks like it's expected to be another easy win from what I've seen.

Looking forward to seeing Mackenzie at 10 and the Crusaders 10 getting a run in the shirt.

How has the referee allowed that try when he’s essentially tackled the French scrum half and stopped him tackling the try scorer?! That’s absurd

Lacey's positioning has been awful all game and not just that try - he really isn't a good ref. How did he get this game??

NH refs huh? Hopeless

I feel for France this test series - they've played their best rugby in years by a long way but really haven't been helped by some of the decisions against them.

Good game though!

Yeah good game, France playing well, and accurately. I like this France. Their coach is doing well.

France certainly look a different beast with Fofana in the team.

This could be one of the best test matches I have seen for some time.

Fofana is class, would he be the best centre in Europe? Wheels fall off France now though. They want to play the way they did in the first half but they can’t keep up with the ABs.

New Zealand always seem to have that extra gear, just a quality side and they are running away with it now.

Racking my brain to think of the law lacey could have used against his own obstruction. Is there one?

I really struggle to understand how Lacey is allowed to ref at this level ... although France haven't had much luck with the officials all tour.

Isn’t the law to do with the ‘ball’ hitting the referee? Just an unfortunate position by the referee and the French player hamming it up.

It's a scrum if the ball hits the ref depending on if an advantage occurs. This just looks like a case of the logical conclusion is a scrum but actually not covered at all by the laws. Just wondered if there was a catch all to be able to penalise. I don't know of it.

In the laws you are correct - Lacey is just a plank for being in that position but nothing specific in the laws to say he had to stop play.  However, there is a sort of catch all but it could be a stretch ... Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball.

Law 19 on scrums yes. Any reason not covered by the law. That's probably the one that should have been used.

Yeah that try was silly, ref should have pulled himself up yet dismisses it at a first glance. Mind you, doesnt account for the next 27 unanswered points

Lacey is an arrogant idiot. He isn’t a good ref at club level, so I’m not sure how he is on the international stage. Probably due to a shortage of refs.

I’ve not seen any comments on it, but how is he allowed to put his hand on the French player as well, just after he blocked him? If a player had done it to him, he would’ve been made to explain his actions.

It has been enjoyable watching NZ again though. France were pretty good, but blew up again.

I have to say I feel a bit sorry for Lacy, he actually didnt do anything wrong, sure his positioning could have been better. but as often happens the All Blacks have a win and the analysis is all about the referee/officials, which is a good thing for Hansen.

I was pleased to see a victorious display of tries (7 to 2) and four new test All Blacks all make theirs debuts. lets just hope development and progress continues into the SANZAR series.

If there hadn't been so much controversy over the officials in the first two Tests, the Lacey incident would have been passed over as a footnote.
He got himself in a position where he materially affected the game so should have gone back for the scrum. This has happened before with other refs and no-one batted an eyelid, however World Rugby also have to be careful that teams don't start using it as a tactic with players using interference with the ref as a reason to stop play.

More concerning for World Rugby is the inconsistency in decisions. In the game Priso was deliberately 'handed-off' with a forearm to the throat by the ball carrier with no penalty, yet when Stockdale accidentally did the same to Phipps he was carded.

When a player gets sent off the field via a red card, and the following Monday World Rugby Retrospectively cancels the red card, it doesnt give one much confidence that World Rugby even understand whats wrong with the rules of the game. let alone the position that it puts the officials in.

Whew!  That was a close game for the ABs!  Just got it by the skin of their teeth.

Are they seriously now looking very vulnerable a year out from the Big One????




........................... Thought I'd get the negative fake news publicity started early this time......

SecretFly wrote:Whew!  That was a close game for the ABs!  Just got it by the skin of their teeth.

Are they seriously now looking very vulnerable a year out from the Big One????




........................... Thought I'd get the negative fake news publicity started early this time......

You reckon that was bad, You should have seen the second test! Worst All Black performance in years!

Yes, very well acted in the second test, Laurie. Look forward to more acting master classes from the boys come the next WC pool sessions.