• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2014 6 Nations: France vs Ireland (Round 5)

absolutely. Parra is the general they need, he is a leader, i've seen him bark at the Clermont pack like there's no 2morow. His game shows vision. He doesn't need a has-been like Lagisquet to coach him. He marshals the backrow well and get the Clermont backs going a lot of the moves come off him. And he is world class kicker. No slouch in defense and a warrior (his discipline record kind of shows!). Clermont fans I spoke to are dysmayed at his omission, my Perpignan buddies were laughing out loud at Vahaamina's selection in the backrow agst Sco. Now Picamoles is a 6. WDF I bet even Noves didn't know that!!
There's 7 players picked that shoudn't even be there. This selection after 4 games in the championship is shocking. With Mach as the 24th man there's actually 3 hookers now in the squad?! weheeee 3 hookers (a blond a brunette and a redhair with huge ***s)

PSA is smoking weed at this stage

You got your point there. Saint-Andre has picked like 11 or 12 different halfback pairings since he became France coach, when it's staring him in the face that the two best French players in those positions playing in France are Parra and Trinh-Duc. He should have recalled Parra for the Wales game (Before he got sent off for Clermont) and I have no clue why he is so reluctant to pick Trinh-Duc at 10. Machenaud and Dussaion do not boss their pack nor have they given their backs any coherent calls or patterns of play. Whilst his goal kicking was good, Machenaud chucked the ball around and ran into opposition players like a headless chicken against Scotland. And Duissan had a terrible game vs Wales. In fairness to them, some of their decision making has also been the fault of Plisson outside them, who has given his team almost no control or direction from 10 whatsoever, except at times against England.
Saint-Andre needs to wise up, drop this Lievremont style policy of chopping and changing constantly, aim to get his best available team onto the field, and work with them from there
 
See how many of the TOP 14 club owners will agree to that, and as far as a TOP 12 who will go down the last ones who came up, thats going to upset 4 teams or no promotion from the Pro D2 and thats going to upset Lyon and another.. its all a little more complicated than that with an awful lot of money at stake, yes there are too many games but reducing the number of TOP 14 games is not the answer, reducing the number of games a player could play would be an idea and that would also help to give the clubs younger players a chance to show their worth. This situation has been going on for years the first thing would be to get the FFR and the LNR to start seeing eye to eye then there would be a base to work from and possibly a way to move forward.

We have known the same talk when we were a top16, no one wanted to lose its place in top 16 because of a top 14... the dog.... the caravane pâssed even...
And I say the solution is simple but I didn't say it was easy...
 
TO KAPman...

The problem is that France hasn't a very talentuous flyhalf... Michalak could have been. FTD is surely NOT... He has had many many chances in blue but have never truly been convincing and worse, has been poor sometimes, he lacked constancy, just he did at the beginning of this top14... The fact he is better LATELY with Montpellier doesn't mean he has an international level.
In scrumhalf, we have more choices, Parra, Machenaud, Doussain, Kockott (yes, I put him here, and I would even pick him first). Due to injuries, and many other reasons, we can't blame PSA. Parra red card isn't (for example) cause of PSA, is it ?
All the french team misses many leaders, to begin by its captain, the black destroyer... Fofana... the 1st line misses also many guys.

The most criticisable choice for me is Bastareaud (called bastagros (bastafat) here)... so slow, out of shape...
 
It's simple : sanction to clubs which doesn't released their internationals...

But before, we have to do a more realistic top 14 with NO play off... a championship in fact : the winner is the one which tops the ranking ! we earn then three match ... and if we do a top 12, we earn more dates... then seven dates a year, it's not that bad.

nope. FFR can't legally punish pro clubs. Not in their power.
 
nope. FFR can't legally punish pro clubs. Not in their power.

FFR can do the rules... they can change them...

IRB has recognised the supremacy of the national federations on clubs... IRB will follow, and even, in the past, IRB has said french clubs should release their internationals (I know, it was for islanders, but we can interprete it the same for european international).

Oh, and if I remember well IRB has supported national fédérations and ERC against clubs... and who won ?
 
Last edited:
FFR can do the rules... they can change them...

IRB has recognised the supremacy of the national federations on clubs... IRB will follow, and even, in the past, IRB has said french clubs should release their internationals (I know, it was for islanders, but we can interprete it the same for european international).

Oh, and if I remember well IRB has supported national fédérations and ERC against clubs... and who won ?

not without agreement from the League and clubs. The clubs don't give a **** about IRB. The top clubs like Toulouse don't even listen to FFR never mind IRB. Bouscatel has resigned from his
seat at LNR he will no longer play ball with the suit at FFR. And Toulon are threatening to sue the FFR. They're not the least intimidated by the Federation.....
 
When I read what you wrote, I understand more why french rugby is so sick and sicker...

Have you ever thought about "why the SH national sides are far better in constancy than NH sides ? "... Yes they have a system of franchises, but it's not the most important reason : the clubs of the super 15 are under orders of their fédérations rules. priority to the national squad, blocked periods and also a shorter championship.

Does the fact super 15 are Under fédérations orders mean it's worse ? SURELY NOT.
 
When I read what you wrote, I understand more why french rugby is so sick and sicker...

Have you ever thought about "why the SH national sides are far better in constancy than NH sides ? "... Yes they have a system of franchises, but it's not the most important reason : the clubs of the super 15 are under orders of their fédérations rules. priority to the national squad, blocked periods and also a shorter championship.

Does the fact super 15 are Under fédérations orders mean it's worse ? SURELY NOT.

no its not sick. Its actually very healthy. The ongoing wrangle btw clubs and FFR has always been around.

But lets not wash our dirty linen in public (laver son linge sale en public) this is not the right place or thread for it. I will leave it here.

Enjoy the game on Saturday.:)
 
When I read what you wrote, I understand more why french rugby is so sick and sicker...

Have you ever thought about "why the SH national sides are far better in constancy than NH sides ? "... Yes they have a system of franchises, but it's not the most important reason : the clubs of the super 15 are under orders of their fédérations rules. priority to the national squad, blocked periods and also a shorter championship.

Does the fact super 15 are Under fédérations orders mean it's worse ? SURELY NOT.

Absolutely. I don't know the actual terms, but the national squad is a big priority, especially in NZ, and then SA. It doesn't seem that way all too much on the Aussies' side these days unfortunately...

The All-Blacks are really a team. France isn't a team. The AB's have to perform, they have to be great and play with perfect chemistry. There's almost we could say a "club's atmosphere" about them, like it's almost intriguing to think those guys return to their respective teams when the international tours are over.
France, we're just a bunch of mercenaries put together, it's been said many times already. But we're "artificially put together" and the coaches are far too incompetent to both build the chemistry and instill any sort of confidence or unity into the group.

Unlike !....unlike the Irish team we're facing tomorrow. :D
 
Absolutely. I don't know the actual terms, but the national squad is a big priority, especially in NZ, and then SA. It doesn't seem that way all too much on the Aussies' side these days unfortunately...

The All-Blacks are really a team. France isn't a team. The AB's have to perform, they have to be great and play with perfect chemistry. There's almost we could say a "club's atmosphere" about them, like it's almost intriguing to think those guys return to their respective teams when the international tours are over.
France, we're just a bunch of mercenaries put together, it's been said many times already. But we're "artificially put together" and the coaches are far too incompetent to both build the chemistry and instill any sort of confidence or unity into the group.

Unlike !....unlike the Irish team we're facing tomorrow. :D

You're totally right ! and you know why Ireland is so preforming ? because the system of "régions" clubs they have chosen is the nearest to super 15 franchise system. Ireland has not too much players but they play often together, they are not playing only few minutes with their "clubs" because there are not too much clubs too. And more of all, they play for their national jersey with pride.

I see here lots of critics about PSA and his auxiliary coaches. They are not great coach ? just take a look : PSA, he has done great things with a small English side (Sale), Lagisquet has known great things with BO during many years before a harsh last year (l'année de trop ?). Bru has been great with Toulouse. Then I forget to put ALL the responsibility on them three. Players didn't respect consign (if there were some lol ), that's for sure. BUT more of all, look at the match : Les Bleus were dominating English during a half, then suddenly nothing... Against italy, France played on alternative "courant", proving French were "tired". Against wales, it was like a french old senior team over a junior one. (and I didn't find they weren't that bad, they have tried, truly, but they were outmuscled). For all match we can do this analysis : French are total burnout, and more years passed, and sooner the french seems burnout and tired. You can put Graham Henry or Vern Cotter to coach these guys, they won't change too much the things.

Sure, sometimes, the french, against all odds, are able to find incredible and hidden resurces to beat spectacularly a far stronger opponent. But it shouldn't hide the problem.

Against this pretty irish side, if Frenchmen haven't this momentum of surpassing their true possibility, we will be easily beaten. Sure, we will maybe resist the first thirty minutes or the first half, but the shape of the Irish should overwhelmed the French slowly then suddenly Green men should walk over Les Bleus... I hope we will have this great momentum but in a second range, I am fearing that if we have it, we won't have learnt anything.

BTW PSA has selectionned almost the best players, we have for the moment. I am convinced Talès or FTD is almost the same thing. I don't see Parra so above the others (Doussain or Machenaud). Picamoles as Flanker (6) a problem ? I have seen him playing that place three or four times with Toulouse (and was great), Novès is then as stupid as PSA ? Chouly plays exclusively 8, then I am not surprised. And it will be interesting to see if Chouly and Picamoles won't play differently in attack or in defense (reverse position ? ).

I expect an irish win, 10+ points margin. Based on what the 2 sides have shown so far in the 6N, a french win would be a surprise, but, with Frenchmen, a possible one.
 
I see here lots of critics about PSA and his auxiliary coaches. They are not great coach ? just take a look : PSA, he has done great things with a small English side (Sale), Lagisquet has known great things with BO during many years before a harsh last year (l'année de trop ?). Bru has been great with Toulouse. Then I forget to put ALL the responsibility on them three. Players didn't respect consign (if there were some lol ), that's for sure.

1. PSA had reasonable spells as Gloucester and Sale (mind you at the latter he was not the hands on manager but in charge of recruitment and development but nothing at Bourgoin and a failure at Toulon where he had the best players but it was not until Laporte went there that they could play as a team and consistently.

Wikepedia.............
At Gloucester and Bourgoin, 1999-2004[edit]

Saint-André remained at Gloucester Rugby after retiring, and took up the position of Director of Rugby. During his three-year reign, he attracted controversy for, among other things, recruiting a large number of French-based players and coaches.[8] Nonetheless, he turned Gloucester into one of the best clubs in England[9] before parting ways in February 2002, albeit amicably, after two months of negotiations over a pay dispute.[8] Saint-André returned to France to coach CS Bourgoin-Jallieu. But yet again his tenure came to an abrupt end when he was sacked in January 2004 after he admitted that he was a candidate to succeed Steve Hansen as coach of Wales.[10]
At Sale and Toulon, 2004-2011

Two months later, Saint-André again went across the Channel to sign a three-year contract with the Sale Sharks.[9] Unlike at Gloucester, his role as Director would be less hands-on and focus more on recruitment and development.[9] Under Saint-André's direction, Sale would enjoy the most successful period in their history so far. In May 2005 they won their secondEuropean Challenge Cup when they defeated French club Pau 27-3.[11] Almost exactly a year later, after finishing on top of the table during the regular Premiership season, Sale won their first English play-off championship with a 45-20 victory over Leicester at Twickenham.[12] Saint-André was given the opportunity to coach France after the 2007 Rugby World Cup, but turned it down when the French Rugby Federation rejected his request to have Brive coach Laurent Seigne join his staff,[13] and so the job was given to Marc Lièvremont. In December 2008, Saint-André confirmed that he would be standing down as director of rugby at Sale when the season was over.[14] He was succeeded in the role of director by Sale's then head coach Kingsley Jones.[14] After nearly two months of speculation on where Saint-André would go next, French club Toulon announced that they had signed him as sporting president, starting his duties officially on 1 July 2009.[15]
In August 2011 it was announced that Saint-André would replace Lièvremont as head coach of France after the 2011 Rugby World Cup.[2]

2. Lagisquet the successful manager of BO when they won the Bouclier in 2005 and 2006 as a 9 man rugby team that totally ignored their backs other than defence and there was a party on the Tribunes when he left YET he is the BACKS coach of France................what?

3. Bru who was a solid and good player but has less than 12 months experience as a coach and I would argue a national team is not the correct environment for that.

4. Collectively they have been weird in their team selections and substitue decisions let alone being able to manage the players sufficently for them to trust what tactics the coaching team have tried and failed to instil.
 
Axel Foley: "My argument directly contradicts itself."

http://www.espn.co.uk/six-nations-2014/rugby/story/218385.html
And posts an article with quotes from Denis Leamy.... Wut?
I do get your point though. He contradicts himself in this a bit.
That said, Madigan and Murphy's selections (I know Murphy's out ) really don't sit well with me. Neither are better than the men they're ahead of. I don't like the versatility point as from that angle it's either start or you're out on your arse, regardless of performance. Take a guy like Jackson. Barely given a chance but when he does he takes it. What's he supposed to take from that. Also is Madigan the type of guy anyone would want to come on in a tight game?
 
And posts an article with quotes from Denis Leamy.... Wut?
I do get your point though. He contradicts himself in this a bit.
That said, Madigan and Murphy's selections (I know Murphy's out ) really don't sit well with me. Neither are better than the men they're ahead of. I don't like the versatility point as from that angle it's either start or you're out on your arse, regardless of performance. Take a guy like Jackson. Barely given a chance but when he does he takes it. What's he supposed to take from that. Also is Madigan the type of guy anyone would want to come on in a tight game?

Yeah, I done goofed.

Regarding Madigan, I reckon he's being brought so that if we're in the situation where we have to chase the game he can make an impact. Whatever about his game management (which has improved over the last 12 months or so) he's a far better attacker than Paddy Jackson, and arguably more dangerous than either of our centres with ball in hand.

I can understand what you're saying about a tight game circumstance, but if we're being honest Sexton wont be coming off barring injury should it be close, regardless of who is the sub outhalf.
 
I can understand what you're saying about a tight game circumstance, but if we're being honest Sexton wont be coming off barring injury should it be close, regardless of who is the sub outhalf.


...........injury substitution?
 
My guess on Madigan's inclusion is there's a lot of sore bodies in the backs and they're worried about needing to haul people ashore, so they've got Madigan's versatility. I think there's quotes from Schmidt to that effect, but might be wrong. Murphy ahead of O'Donnell on the same grounds might make sense too.

I dunno. I'm just delighted that Paddy Jackson is back with Ulster tbh, digs us out of one hell of a hole!
 
From Schmidt:

We just started to creak a little in England when we got a couple of ****les and ended up not having as broad a coverage as we would have liked. If Johnny was unavailable we probably would've started with Paddy. Ian's ability to cover midfield, fullback and the 10 spot, it's purely that.
 
Top