2014 Six Nations: France vs England (Round 1)

[ratsapprentice]

My comment bears little relation to the opinion in your post.

There are threads already started that you can opine in... feel free to do so.

Understand, though, that after a lot of games people sign up make one post saying how ****ty their team are or how **** the ref was and then never post again.
If you aren't one of them - welcome. But reconvene in the appropriate thread please.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Can't see Burns adding anything to England after 2 very poor games with the Saxons...

Yeah, what's the deal with that?
If they're trying to kick start his form by having him in camp then that's silly.
If Farrell broke his arm on Friday I'd rather have Myler in the 23 than Burns.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think they were only ever using Myler as cover, now Burns is that cover.
I don't think they have any intention of actually using him.

 

[Amiga500]

Why on Gods earth did he substitute Danny Care,

There is a world cup next year.

He has to build a squad for it. That necessitates taking the risk of disrupting teams in winning positions by bringing on substitutes to give them game time.


There is a bigger picture.

 

[trev]

Ratsapprentice
this thread was started by me and should I wish to reconvene
I will do so in this thread
And not where you tell me to

 

[nickdnz]

Ratsapprentice
this thread was started by me and should I wish to reconvene
I will do so in this thread
And not where you tell me to

Thread moved to an existing thread. Please use a match thread when discussing the conclusions you draw from a match. Thank you .

 

[FrenchFan]

what a game ..some clash in the forwards it was full metal jacket test rugby as it should be !!
enjoyed every minute of it...didn't see any evidence of the so called lack of fitness among french players, on the contrary.

 

[Patchey]

I'm still a bit flummoxed at how England managed to lose that game.
After the poor start, then the big comeback, then the lead, and it should have been game over.
The French fans went very quiet there for a while.
The last ten minutes saw Englands management equally flummoxed.
They may well have had a plan before the match as to injuries etc but Owen Farrell should have been tugged as soon as he was injured and get a fresh player out there.
It didn't seem like there was a cohesive design from the coaching staff to deal with the end-game as it unfolded.

Because there was no replacement left. The inbalance on the bench meant that with May's early injury, Goode, covering both 10 and 15, was already on the pitch. Had we not felt the need to put a specialist centre on the bench to cover Burrell one assumes Ford woud have been on the bench to come on for Farrell.

In one sense, on the day there was nothing else the coaches could do than bring on Barritt and shift Burrell out. However they effectivly forced us into a grave of their own digging by picking such an odd bench.

 

[Big Ewis]

what a game ..some clash in the forwards it was full metal jacket test rugby as it should be !!
enjoyed every minute of it...didn't see any evidence of the so called lack of fitness among french players, on the contrary.

stamina was good, but we need to inflate our guys. Especially the flankers. I don't know what state Dusautoir is going to be in when he returns, but if we could get a couple of guys in the 110kgs at 6 and 7 we'd really be very hard to beat. If we had even that dimension in our game. Lightness in the rucks has been a problem for us our last two matches, most clearly. Dusautoir and Lauret are great tackler/fetchers but are just simply too light, and had a very hard time against the Boks last November. Is B.Le Roux a solution ? Nyanga was awesome, but isn't the tackler-fetcher specialist type flanker. Chouly isn't the grunty type we need either, and Picamoles is amazing but in a different quality.
Like, I don't know wtf England did to Joe Marler, but he looks literally pumped up, inflated. Muscles sticking out from his arms, shoulders, pecs...
As I've been saying, we're constantly, constantly under-weight, and it has and will continue to catch up to us despite our laudable ability to fight through it.

What if we meet the Boks in the RWC ? We just don't have the grittiness/ruggedness that, say, the 2009 France vs Boks side had. And you praise the "couillus" a lot. We need more sheer weight at the breakdown in the rucks, and more roughness around the edges. I think with a bit of that, our team solidifying, and our attack cementing gradually, we'll really be one hell of a team. But I don't know if we'll ever get the power needed in the third row. PSA had eluded to that before though...

Bernard Le Roux, being a South African, if the only one who fits that image so far: tackler-fetcher, weighty flanker (115kg) but besides that good game against the Auckland Blues, I haven't seen much of him that's impressed me. And maybe Burban if he returns to form. It's just not in the French style, and thank God for Picamoles, and I'm impatient to see how Gillian Galan from Toulouse turns out.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Because there was no replacement left. The inbalance on the bench meant that with May's early injury, Goode, covering both 10 and 15, was already on the pitch. Had we not felt the need to put a specialist centre on the bench to cover Burrell one assumes Ford woud have been on the bench to come on for Farrell.

In one sense, on the day there was nothing else the coaches could do than bring on Barritt and shift Burrell out. However they effectivly forced us into a grave of their own digging by picking such an odd bench.

It's a fair cop, I like that answer, cheers Patchey.

 

[FrenchFan]

stamina was good, but we need to inflate our guys. Especially the flankers. I don't know what state Dusautoir is going to be in when he returns, but if we could get a couple of guys in the 110kgs at 6 and 7 we'd really be very hard to beat. If we had even that dimension in our game. Lightness in the rucks has been a problem for us our last two matches, most clearly. Dusautoir and Lauret are great tackler/fetchers but are just simply too light, and had a very hard time against the Boks last November. Is B.Le Roux a solution ? Nyanga was awesome, but isn't the tackler-fetcher specialist type flanker. Chouly isn't the grunty type we need either, and Picamoles is amazing but in a different quality.
Like, I don't know wtf England did to Joe Marler, but he looks literally pumped up, inflated. Muscles sticking out from his arms, shoulders, pecs...
As I've been saying, we're constantly, constantly under-weight, and it has and will continue to catch up to us despite our laudable ability to fight through it.

What if we meet the Boks in the RWC ? We just don't have the grittiness/ruggedness that, say, the 2009 France vs Boks side had. And you praise the "couillus" a lot. We need more sheer weight at the breakdown in the rucks, and more roughness around the edges. I think with a bit of that, our team solidifying, and our attack cementing gradually, we'll really be one hell of a team. But I don't know if we'll ever get the power needed in the third row. PSA had eluded to that before though...

Bernard Le Roux, being a South African, if the only one who fits that image so far: tackler-fetcher, weighty flanker (115kg) but besides that good game against the Auckland Blues, I haven't seen much of him that's impressed me. And maybe Burban if he returns to form. It's just not in the French style, and thank God for Picamoles, and I'm impatient to see how Gillian Galan from Toulouse turns out.

yes Galan is one for the future. He is like a white Vunipola. Same physique. Huge power. Very impressive with Toulouse and when u think that he is competing with Picamoles.
Le Roux our national Safie had an excellent game. His performance has gone unnoticed because NYanga was H-U-G-E. There were 3 Yannick on the park. But Le Roux very good. More imports like him please. Net import. Prime Safie beef )))

 

[Big Ewis]

I've read so many times about French players, not necessarily pro, who had gone to England or played against England kids and constantly both praised their musculature, and blamed the fact that it's totally fine in Anglo-Saxon culture to use protein products at a very young age (15yo and forth) already, which isn't in the culture at all in France.
And they do anyways have a much more dense, thorough culture of working at the gym anyways in England. We'll just always seem lazy compared to them, but Rugby is just turning into a contest of weight. Just look at the popular loosies today: Sean O'Brien, Willem Alberts, Louis Picamoles, Billy Vunipola...

I've made that point already, but I'm just afraid world Rugby will turn into a contest of sheer mass, especially the third rowers, if not for the still popular and much lighter Nyanga, Dusautoir, Michael Hooper...Kieran Read is imposing physically, but he plays a velvet style so he counts here too...but he's the best player in the world, so can't exactly count on him as reference.
So far, France has managed to counter sheer mass from the opposition with high individual competence, and good technique. Even against the Boks we did alright, and they were hell of a lot heavier than us...but we were definitely subjected to their imposing rhythm in the rucks.

 

[Tony Manx]

Sorry do not have permanent internet connection so this point may have been made before......the reason England lost is simple....Management!

Why did they make the substitution that they did other than to throw caps away like confetti......Youngs and Dickson took over from Hartley and Care and there really was no need but that gave the game away together with no one telling farrell to take control and shut the game out.....

Over and out!!

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's not about our players being bigger.

Most people over here are of the opinion that the S&C standards in France are much lower than elsewhere.

 

[FrenchFan]

It's not about our players being bigger.

Most people over here are of the opinion that the S&C standards in France are much lower than elsewhere.

that's another myth about French rugby. There is no evidence of a lack of fitness among french players. Its a myth some foreign media like to peddle. If Eng and others were really fitter, Fra would not even be at the races in any of their Intl games, the game has got so physical, they couldn't compete for 80 mn at that pace.
Look at the pace and width of the moves before that led to Fickou's try. They ran the ball and covered the width of the pitch back and forth and Eng defense was all over the place when Fickou went in. That passage came after 75 mn of a hugely physical game. Yes our bench was on, but so was Eng's bench. Its a 23 men game.
Had they kicked the ball for touch instead of running it, they would have lost. Had to run it. Plisson said after the game he wasn't going to kick, they said they had to run it or lose.
Did Farrel not have cramps at one stage and Goode i think had to take a penalty kick

 

[ratsapprentice]

I'm not saying it's true... I'm just saying that is the general perception of a lot of coaches.
It may or may not be - I can't say definitively either way.

It was a response to Ewis.

I also completely refute that the game is anymore about size that it was in the 60's.
It was just as advantageous to be massive back then - it's just that they were in terrible condition.
They were amateur and S&C was in it's infancy.

 

[FrenchFan]

I'm not saying it's true... I'm just saying that is the general perception of a lot of coaches.
It may or may not be - I can't say definitively either way.

It was a response to Ewis.

I also completely refute that the game is anymore about size that it was in the 60's.
It was just as advantageous to be massive back then - it's just that they were in terrible condition.
They were amateur and S&C was in it's infancy.

i agree. Scrum domination for isntance is all about technique. Look how a small Domingo can get underneath his opposite number and scrummage the s*** out of him. Not size. Technique

 

[FrenchFan]

I've read so many times about French players, not necessarily pro, who had gone to England or played against England kids and constantly both praised their musculature, and blamed the fact that it's totally fine in Anglo-Saxon culture to use protein products at a very young age (15yo and forth) already, which isn't in the culture at all in France.
And they do anyways have a much more dense, thorough culture of working at the gym anyways in England. We'll just always seem lazy compared to them, but Rugby is just turning into a contest of weight. Just look at the popular loosies today: Sean O'Brien, Willem Alberts, Louis Picamoles, Billy Vunipola...

I've made that point already, but I'm just afraid world Rugby will turn into a contest of sheer mass, especially the third rowers, if not for the still popular and much lighter Nyanga, Dusautoir, Michael Hooper...Kieran Read is imposing physically, but he plays a velvet style so he counts here too...but he's the best player in the world, so can't exactly count on him as reference.
So far, France has managed to counter sheer mass from the opposition with high individual competence, and good technique. Even against the Boks we did alright, and they were hell of a lot heavier than us...but we were definitely subjected to their imposing rhythm in the rucks.

in the scrum technique is more important. We dominated Eng in the scrum. There was parity in the line-out but we had the edge in the scrum. We won 2 penalties. We close the gap to 2 points (19-21) with a winning scrum.

 

[Big Ewis]

in the scrum technique is more important. We dominated Eng in the scrum. There was parity in the line-out but we had the edge in the scrum. We won 2 penalties. We close the gap to 2 points (19-21) with a winning scrum.

I never talked about the scrum...I'm obviously talking about the breakdown, rucks the whole time...

And about French fitness, it's not a myth. The English have a much more thorough culture for working out. Just look at what they look like for proof. Like I said earlier, players, pro or not, make mention of that often. We're not as intense with our gym sessions, bottom line. We do have the endurance to keep up and even surpass them, but that's another thing. They still work out like crazy over the Chanel, in comparison to us. We were ridiculously behind before the pro era, and we still are now though the gap is a little narrower.
I couldn't give you stats, hard evidence like number of hours at the gym, specific workouts or anything, but hearing/reading all those stories, looking at the bodies, knowing the English and the French in general, watching England workouts on YouTube and then French workouts (on DailyMotion), there's a clear difference.

And about stamina, we did have disasters because of fitness: December 2010 EOYT, Australia. We're right with them at 16-16 around half-time and then all Hell breaks loose. We remain at 16 and they end up going up to.....59. You look at the French players, they're spent, they can't keep up with the Wallabies. Overtaken, completely. And you don't play a competitive 50min with a tied score and then get ANNIHILATED - at home, when your fitness is similar to that of the tourists.
The Top 14 calendar can be blamed most certainly here, but only partially.

We just have this culture in France of "ok, training's important now, let's work out....alright, that's enough."
The "anglo-saxon" cultures, they never stop working. Just some weeks ago, Bastareaud explained it, admiring Wilkinson's work ethic, and saying how guys like Giteau and Wilko just had this culture we don't have in France of working extra hours. First at the gym, last to leave, exceeding the required amount, working overtime...that's English/Australian/NZ and probably SA'can. Def. not French.
After all, there's a saying (in general, not just Rugby): "the French work to live, the English live to work", dunno if it translates well in English but "les Français travaillent pour vivre, les Anglais vivent pour travailler".

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I never talked about the scrum...I'm obviously talking about the breakdown, rucks the whole time...

And about French fitness, it's not a myth. The English have a much more thorough culture for working out. Just look at what they look like for proof. Like I said earlier, players, pro or not, make mention of that often. We're not as intense with our gym sessions, bottom line. We do have the endurance to keep up and even surpass them, but that's another thing. They still work out like crazy over the Chanel, in comparison to us. We were ridiculously behind before the pro era, and we still are now though the gap is a little narrower.
I couldn't give you stats, hard evidence like number of hours at the gym, specific workouts or anything, but hearing/reading all those stories, looking at the bodies, knowing the English and the French in general, watching England workouts on YouTube and then French workouts (on DailyMotion), there's a clear difference.

And about stamina, we did have disasters because of fitness: December 2010 EOYT, Australia. We're right with them at 16-16 around half-time and then all Hell breaks loose. We remain at 16 and they end up going up to.....59. You look at the French players, they're spent, they can't keep up with the Wallabies. Overtaken, completely. And you don't play a competitive 50min with a tied score and then get ANNIHILATED - at home, when your fitness is similar to that of the tourists.
The Top 14 calendar can be blamed most certainly here, but only partially.

We just have this culture in France of "ok, training's important now, let's work out....alright, that's enough."
The "anglo-saxon" cultures, they never stop working. Just some weeks ago, Bastareaud explained it, admiring Wilkinson's work ethic, and saying how guys like Giteau and Wilko just had this culture we don't have in France of working extra hours. First at the gym, last to leave, exceeding the required amount, working overtime...that's English/Australian/NZ and probably SA'can. Def. not French.
After all, there's a saying (in general, not just Rugby): "the French work to live, the English live to work", dunno if it translates well in English but "les Français travaillent pour vivre, les Anglais vivent pour travailler".

Haha! I had to laugh at this, Big E. Let me tell you; here in SA there is also a very definate perception. No cold hard fact but here it is.. I think you'll like it as far as it backs up your hypothesis;

The Western Cape region does not work as many hours and generally our salaries also pale in comparison to those up North. Now there are many factors but we just refuse not too have a lot of time to visit our beaches, wine farms, hike etc etc. Eating out and cooking our own food from our own gardens which we tend ourselves is also big here to name a few. We just don't focus our time as much on work specifically. Now certainly other factors play a part but if you look at distribution of surnames, you'll find the largest proportion of surnames of Frnch origin in the region whereas in the interior you'll find Dutch and German predominantly. So, basically, a microcosm of your own view.

We'll mock the Transvalers that they have all the money but no style or quality of life. They'll mock us that we are lazy with no money and they can come down here in the summer holidays and buy all the 'style' and 'life' they need.