June Internationals: New Zealand - France, 2nd test

[ZeFrenchy]

One thing was proved: the breakdown doesn't win games.

 

[Big Ewis]

Neither do scrums. Italy smashed by SA and Samoa, and massacred their set-piece respectively last week and right now...

 

[nickdnz]

Don't get ahead of yourself there. 30-0 is a very flattering score, and should depict that wtvr happened, one team annihilated the other. But in retrospect, 3 tries: 2 off France's ridiculous play; 1 million phases on the NZ try-line, and absolutely no creativity+flair+ the slowest execution in matches.

We were terrible, and yet conceded just 3 tries. And 2 off the counter. And there was no way we'd score a try, unless NZ literally fell asleep on the field (i.e. with blankets and cushions).

At the end of the day, NZ still beat the crap out of France 30-0. That's thirty points, to NOTHING. But having watched the thing, it's still flattering. France were so poor, in everything but the scrum, and on defense somewhat; I thought this could've easily gone smt like 45-6 or smt.

I thought NZ should've gone RAMPANT on us, and yet 3 tries...
This will sound completely incredible, but I'm not ashamed of this loss at all. I'm just very, very tired of seeing France under-perform considering the class players we have, and the depth, and the sort of defense, breakdown dominance and flair we have in stock. Aplenty.

Congrats NZ. In both tests, the AB took advantage of the French incompetence, almost instantaneously, but certainly in a regular fashion.
Clearly, clearly the better team this match. But sorry NZ, not much credit. France WERE terrible.

Huh?

You can't say it was flattering to the All Blacks and then say they should have put more on France. Also - you're dismissing the tries as just French mistakes, but I'd say you're once again not giving credit to how excellent those tries were. None were from intercepts - they were all worked tries. The first was a Nonu grubber in behind the French rush defense, the second was from creating an overlap - and inside ball to Savea and then outwide to Ben Smith - and the third was a magnificent 97m effort which spread the ball wide in the 22 - Ranger bump off and offloads - Conrad Smith catches and kicks - Cruden regathers an unpredictable bounce and offloads to Barrett (who started the move) to run in the last 25m. Yes there were obviously French mistakes - but I beg you to find a try which was scored when the defending team made no mistakes (there are none or the try wouldn't have been scored).

For those interested

 

[big ginger 8]

French fans will be delighted to hear that Michalak will apparently be out of the next test with a shoulder injury.

 

[Tony Manx]

No. You're wrong. Michalak DOES have plenty of flair. Just for some reason forgot who he was, what an oval rugby is and how it reacts on the field...I thought it was fatigue and age, but apparently it's a season/year long slump and he is a very, very sensitive person I take from seeing a lot of interviews, post-game talks on TV, and obviously last but not least, his actual performance on the field..

Beg to differ Yeo.......Michalak may have flair but in the 60 odd internationals that he has played, he has probably only played like he did last autumn in less than 10 of them and that is why most of us feel he should not be playing in the French team.....if you go to the same restaurant on a regular basis, you would much prefer to have a decent to good meal all the time rather than a spectaculor meal occasionally and rubbish the rest of the time....

Yes there were obviously French mistakes - but I beg you to find a try which was scored when the defending team made no mistakes (there are none or the try wouldn't have been scored).

The second try came directly from Michalak taking far too much time on his attempted drop to be charged down and then knocking the ball into the hands of the ABs in the subsequent scuffle that gave the possession to the ABs to enable them to break away and score.....

French fans will be delighted to hear that Michalak will apparently be out of the next test with a shoulder injury.

Sure am!!

 

[Big Ewis]

Beg to differ Yeo.......Michalak may have flair but in the 60 odd internationals that he has played, he has probably only played like he did last autumn in less than 10 of them and that is why most of us feel he should not be playing in the French team.....if you go to the same restaurant on a regular basis, you would much prefer to have a decent to good meal all the time rather than a spectaculor meal occasionally and rubbish the rest of the time....

...are you talking to me in food analogies coz I'm French ?!!! You horrible, hopelessly prejudiced jerk !!

 

[Tony Manx]

...are you talking to me in food analogies coz I'm French ?!!! You horrible, hopelessly prejudiced jerk !!

HaHa.........I am not that xenophobic!!

It simply explains the point I was tryng to make.....besides, you do not like Europe so what do you know about French food and, incidentally, it ain't that great any more!!

 

[dasNdanger]

I am only up to the 55th minute as catching up.....Medard and Michalak must surely have played their last international games...and if not PSA and his side kick, Richard Head, should resign immediately. The kicking has been woeful from Medard, Michalak and Machenaud......whereas the ABs have all found space, the French kick has gone to hand with little or no support running. The way to beat the ABs is to go at them and I have yet to see one decent French back move.....it is just kicked away for them to run back. The whole team has been devoid of attacking nouse and the pummeling on the try line, which the ABs defended very well, was case in point......

Michalak has been charged down, failed with his poor drops, missed a sitter of a penalty, charged out of the line to completely disrupt the defensive line and thrown very poor passes................I can only believe that he is still on in the vain hope that he will be needed as a place kicker?

Picamoles has been outstanding in carrying the ball although some of his ball reception has been poor.......Dusatoir is playing to the ref and been effective...Swar..WTF..ki has been so so bad he could play as hooker for Leicester and England and be called Ben Youngs....or even Rory Best!!

I would have to say, and without tongue in cheek but behind gritted teeth....think Rolland haviing a very good game..............!!

I noticed a shot or two of the French bench before the game was over, when France still had a chance to put a score on the board, and everyone looked totally defeated. If there's no spirit on the sidelines, then it's going to be hard for the players to feel motivated on the pitch. In other words, I think they just gave up.

That's one thing I really miss about Chabal - he was a great 'cheerleader' - a lot of fire and spirit in that man.


das

 

[Draggs]

I played All Blacks commentary bingo and won before kickoff. Thanks Nisbo.

 

[Jaguares]

Amazing defense!!! France couldn't break the black wall in 80 minutes. Rene Ranger should start on the third test, he's flying high!

 

[Sam Owen]

2 big defining moments in that game that showed that the Blacks stepped up a level from last weeks game.

1. Michalaks missed kick at goal which resulted in a metre eating return from Reid, which then lead to a successful penalty kick from Cruden. After that the 1st half was the Blacks.
2. The French putting together 26 phases or so and the Blacks turn it over and score almost instantly.

French played good in the 1st game and I assumed they would lift to another level because thats whats required for the 2nd game but clearly it was only the Blacks that lifted and that was expected. They must lift, play unpredictably and look like they can score a try or otherwise its a 3-0 whitewash.

 

[admartian]

It was hard to wake up for this, I hope it's worth it.

After that result, I feel for ya. That's like me getting up for some not so great performances when we play in The Republic (SA).

Oh 3am games....

REad was froward of the game. With some great defensive work from Owen Franks specifically some scrambling efforts during France's campaigns deep in our 22.

I thought Savea was able to play up after a relatively quiet game last week - back of the game for me (apart from Ben Smith who always automatically gets it ).Too bad he was subbed off a bit early. Though, for Ranger nonetheless.

Loved that last try and charge-down try. The French threatened for big stretches, just couldn't get through. Hard luck. Though if these June tests are anything to go by (recently - see Ireland) there's gonna be an really close game/upset/near-upset next week.

 

[Sam Owen]

New Zealand was clearly the better team today, but the referee did a lot to ensure the All Blacks won by a big margin as well...

I think the French won the penalty count didnt they..

 

[smartcooky]

Huh?

You can't say it was flattering to the All Blacks and then say they should have put more on France. Also - you're dismissing the tries as just French mistakes, but I'd say you're once again not giving credit to how excellent those tries were. None were from intercepts - they were all worked tries. The first was a Nonu grubber in behind the French rush defense, the second was from creating an overlap - and inside ball to Savea and then outwide to Ben Smith - and the third was a magnificent 97m effort which spread the ball wide in the 22 - Ranger bump off and offloads - Conrad Smith catches and kicks - Cruden regathers an unpredictable bounce and offloads to Barrett (who started the move) to run in the last 25m. Yes there were obviously French mistakes - but I beg you to find a try which was scored when the defending team made no mistakes (there are none or the try wouldn't have been scored).

He also takes no account of the fact that sometimes a team plays poorly because of the PRESSURE they are put under.

Many of the mistakes that the French made were forced by pressure; kick-chasers, well timed bombs etc. I thought the kicking games of both Cruden and Dagg were outstanding last night. The accumulation of ground gain by the quality of their kicking applied "territorial pressure" on the French, and had them playing the game in their own half much of the time. When they did get on attack, the uncompromising defence of the All Blacks put defensive pressure on the French and they coughed up the ball through forced (not unforced) errors.

 

[Big Ewis]

He also takes no account of the fact that sometimes a team plays poorly because of the PRESSURE they are put under.

I do actually. And I'm not trying to take anything away from any team that plays France, or the team I'm cheering for. It's just a fact France was poor as shyt, and trust me, it's not a preferred alternative for me to say that....that my national side was poor as shyt.

The only reason we stay in certain games is because we have world class players, and abnormally high quality at certain positions. In some games we actually have nice cohesion and can string very pretty attacks lately...but nothing like November since the defeat to Italy that first weekend of the 6N.

This is the 30-0 (or wtvr big score to nil) that feels the least like we've been crushed. It's NZ taking advantage of the nothing we produced.

NZ didn't heroically resist France's immense pressure during those 50-phase sequences, it's France that just had someone grab the ball and throw himself at the defense. When we went wide, it was after the slowest ball, the most predictable passes. All I can give NZ is props for the effort, but obviously they weren't just gonna let us in, but the defense was just tidy and....there. It was just there...

I knew we couldn't score a try on NZ today, because we SUCKED on attack, ya dig ?
France completely deserved the 30-0 result, but maybe a little 3 or 6 pts were due, for effort.

NZ played well, we played like total shyt in everything but the scrum (and defense most of the way), which are the two things that require no creativity or game plan (well defense a bit...).
That's all. That's all I'm saying. Good win for NZ...and a terribly awkward scoreline for us.....:mellow:

 

[Helmy]

I'm sure that it's already been said, but that last try. Phwoar. If counterattacking were as easy as the All Blacks sometimes make it look, then they probably wouldn't be the best in the world at the moment.

I watched this game with a couple of South Africans who were gunning for the French, and there were never any complaints on their part about biased reffing. However, from watching as much French club rugby as I can, I can understand the suggestion that in a way, the French were as terrible as the All Blacks are good. I don't know what it is about the French game, it's like they have all these good intentions to play in a similar vein to the All Blacks, but for some reason the final offload doesn't stick, or the pass goes forward, a player knocks it on right in front of the goal posts with pressure building... but, then, some days, none of that happens and we see 'upsets' between the ABs and the French.

And, really, when it's going bad, it's going very bad. Michalak epitomised that last night with his knock ons, charge downs etc. Once the rot starts, that's it, the game is practically lost. Yes, the ball is still tossed around in the hope that something will click, but because the confidence is shot, we tend to see more and more errors. The All Blacks were brilliant, but as we all know, the French are so often their own worst enemy. I do think it's a mind thing, when they see that open try line (like last week) and suddenly a pass that they would have held if they were 20 points up is fumbled. There is no reason why professional rugby players who are constantly trying to play the expansive game should fluff it up so often unless it is a mind thing, imo.

Anyway, sorry for that little tangent there and I hope I haven't offended any French fans. Just a Kiwi's views on the French game. :blush:

 

[Umaga's Witness]

The refs the last two weeks were awful. If you penalise a team for holding on when there is a ruck and the opposition has there hands on the ball trying to get it out then you are wrong. Sure they are not allowed to hold onto the ball, but what difference would it make in the middle of a ruck? considering you aren't allowed your hands in a ruck, whether or not you are on your feet! if, after a ruck has formed, the opposition team has driven over the ball such that the ball is then out of the ruck but your player is still holding onto the ball thereby preventing the opposition form getting it, then yes you should be penalised. but if it isi in the ruck the opposition shouldn't have their hands on it.

If the ref was to argue that the opposition player tried to get the ball, while on their feet, before a ruck had formed, then he should have called the penalty before or immediately when the ruck formed (somebody binding to the plyer who was trying to get the ball). Since the refs blew almost all such penalties well after a ruck had formed they shouldn't have penalised the players for holding on, becasue the opposition shouldn't have been allowed to have their hands in the ruck!

Similarly, often the player didn't hold on, and the opposition won a turnover well after a ruck had formed.

One must wonder if the refs know the rules, or can remember them in the heat of the moment. I am sure this is not the case for some of them, as I have seen numerous instances when players or captains complain (pointing out a ruck had formed) and the ref responds that the player was on their feet so they were allowed to play the ball (despite the ruck). Lyndon Bray was the worst in this regard, and now unfortuantely is sanzar referee boss, but still the SANZAR refs seem to handle this situation better than the northern hemisphere refs.

Now I must say that some of the penalties were legit, and it was more the timing of the whistle blowing that annoyed me - in that, if teh ref was to claim he had an issue with a player holding on he should have blew the whistle beofre the ruck had formed, not 5 seconds after because : as previously stated, a player can be guilty of preventing an opposition player from playing the ball ONLY BEFORE A RUCK HAS FORMED OR AFTER A RUCK HAS FINISHED because players aren't allowed to play the ball in a ruck, regardless of whether or not they are on their feet. The fact that the ref almost always made such calls well after a ruck had formed makes it seem as though he thinks players are allowed to play the ball in a ruck, s long as they are on their feet. And, the fact that on several occasions, in both tests, a ruck had clearly formed before the opposition player got their hands on it yet the ref penalised the player for holding on, further adds evidence to the possibility that the ref doesn't know the rules or can't rememebr them in the heat of the moment ( or is blind to what is happening in the heat of the moment).

RANT OVER.

 

[tenpm]

I think the referees are just waiting to see if a turnover occurs before blowing for holding the ball. I haven't noticed any player arriving after the ruck is formed earning penalties/turnovers. And players can continue contesting the ball after the ruck is formed if they initially beat the ruck.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

As for the game, I was mostly happy with the ABs. The kicking game was good, and Dagg showed all his doubters why he is in the All blacks. To all those doubters and Hansen haters let me say this: Hansen didn't select Dagg because he is a better runner than B Smith or Charles Piutau or R Ranger or whoever, he chose him precisely for the things he demonstraed in this test, things that make a HUGE difference at test level. The biggest of which, and the thing he does far better than any fullback in the world, is his kicking game. Particularly, The length of his clearing kicks can make a huge difference, but also his tactical kicking ability. And of course he is excellent on defence and under the high ball, but he is not necessarily as far ahead of his rivals in these areas as he is with his kicking.

But certainly I would agree, that in terms of attack, on recent form, we'd be better off with smith or piutau at fullback alongside savea/ranger/smith as our wingers.

As for the French, Michalac played poorly, so they should bring back the young guy form last week.

As for that try, I'm glad it wasn't judged a forward pass because it deserved to be a try even with one.

I think the referees are just waiting to see if a turnover occurs before blowing for holding the ball.

This is fair enough, good point, but I don't think it's always the case.

haven't noticed any player arriving after the ruck is formed earning penalties/turnovers.

I believe you are lying, or just not watching closely enough. It happens often. At leastt, often a player will be tehre first but hasn't put his hand on the ball before someone is bound to him.

And players can continue contesting the ball after the ruck is formed if they initially beat the ruck.

I was going to call bull**** on this but decided to llok up the rules and it appears you are right, from 16.4

(b)Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed

I would have thought they had to have secured possession and then if they hadn't by the time the ruck had formed they should stop trying.

That certainly changes my perspective. Thanks.

 

[smartcooky]

The refs the last two weeks were awful. If you penalise a team for holding on when there is a ruck and the opposition has there hands on the ball trying to get it out then you are wrong. Sure they are not allowed to hold onto the ball, but what difference would it make in the middle of a ruck? considering you aren't allowed your hands in a ruck, whether or not you are on your feet! if, after a ruck has formed, the opposition team has driven over the ball such that the ball is then out of the ruck but your player is still holding onto the ball thereby preventing the opposition form getting it, then yes you should be penalised. but if it isi in the ruck the opposition shouldn't have their hands on it.

RANT OVER.

Perhaps if your understanding of the Laws of Rugby were better, you would realise why both Wayne Barnes and Alan Rolland were right in their rulings and you are wrong.

[TEXTAREA]16.4 OTHER RUCK OFFENCES
(b) Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.[/TEXTAREA]

This means that if the jackler, who can be;

► a tackle assist, who releases the tackled player and is standing in (or re-enters the tackle zone through) the gate, or
► a tackler who has got back to his feet, or
► any other player (as defined under Law 15.6 Other Players), who arrives at the tackle "through the gate"

and who, while still on his feet, grabs the ball BEFORE a ruck is formed, does not have to let go of the ball after the ruck is formed. That player is allowed to maintain possession of the ball so long as he continues to remain on his feet.


For reference:
jackler = player who contests for the ball with his hands after a tackle.
tackler = player who tackles the ball carrier and brings him to ground, and goes to ground himself.
tackle assist = player who tackles the ball carrier and takes him to ground but remains on his feet.

[TEXTAREA]LAW 15.6 OTHER PLAYERS

(a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.

(b) After a tackle any players on their feet may attempt to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball carrier’s possession.

(c) Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

(d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

(e) Any player who gains possession of the ball at the tackle must play the ball immediately by moving away or passing or kicking the ball.

(f) Any player who first gains possession of the ball must not go to the ground at the tackle or near to it unless tackled by an opposition player.

(g) Any player who first gains possession of the ball at the tackle or near to it may be tackled by an opposition player providing that player does so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to that player’s goal line.

(h) After a tackle, any player lying on the ground must not prevent an opponent from getting possession of the ball.

(i) After a tackle, any player on the ground must not tackle an opponent or try to tackle an opponent.

(j) When a tackled player reaches out to ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try, an opponent may pull the ball from the player’s possession, but must not kick or attempt to kick the ball.
[/TEXTAREA]

The Gate explained