RWC: France V Canada (18-09-2011, 20:30)

[LittleGuy]

I think Crowley knew how the game was going and brought people in earlier off the bench, no surprise he kept Monro out for an additional ten minutes to see if they could put a try in. My three stars of Canada's perfromance are.

1. Ander Monro(kept the game alive two brilliant drop goals as well)

2. Ryan Smith(Scored a try and led the team with 12 tackles)

3. Aaron Carpenter(Another terrific game always a threat in attack and defence)

 

[Wally]

this has been the main difference between the 2nd tier and top tier nations, teams like canada, georgia, romania, japan against france are mostly relying on the oppositions mistakes rather than creating their own attack, thats why were able to compete for the first 3 quarters, but once the opposition stop making the needless errors and get their act together they have run away with it.

and craig joubert is the best referee in rugby

canada played great though, they played to their strengths and have shown great defence and forward play, but when they get their attack as good as the rest of their game, then they'll be a force in rugby

On the contrary, I believe the reason why some of the minnow nations have faded in the 4th quarter of the match is more to do with the completely unfair scheduling of world cup matches.

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

Canada will win this one. I guarantee it. If they don't, I will castrate myself. That's how sure I am of this.

Sad for you...

 

[Canucks]

On the contrary, I believe the reason why some of the minnow nations have faded in the 4th quarter of the match is more to do with the completely unfair scheduling of world cup matches.

I agree. The minnows already face the issue of already having to compete harder than they normally as they are playing a superior team. The scheduling has been shocking. The minnows don't have the depth to play with such a short turnaround whereas say England and France wouldn't really effected by playing their 2nd string as they are still better than the minnows.

That's what got France they're tries at the end as Canada had all their subs out and really we just don't have the dept yet.

Canada forces the issue too much on attack right now but I give credit to France as Canada didn't get many quality opportunities to attack. France was excellent at maintaining their possession and rarely gave Canada any decent platforms to attack from.

If we ignore the tries at the end against the 2nd string. France won the game because they kept their own ball and made all the necessary kicks. 2 key things in a tight rugby game that bode well for their chances in the World Cup. Canada lost because they missed kicks and had a defensive misread that lead to the try that made the score 32-19.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Fairhurst went off subsequently France pulled away.

Great rugby played by the Canadians really scared France.

 

[nickdnz]

Canada played really well, but it just seems that as good as the tier 2 teams are, their depth just isn't good enough to close the game out. Shame the goal kicking let Canada down.

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

Not beautiful game, not beautiful result, but I think the objective is reached. Getting a victory, a BP, and have a precise idea of an emerging team.

This way, we have seen good Picamoles and Mermoz. Traille is everything but an insurance. Still not solid under kicks, and bad placements.

 

[Canucks]

Canada played really well, but it just seems that as good as the tier 2 teams are, their depth just isn't good enough to close the game out. Shame the goal kicking let Canada down.

Exactly.

4 missed kicks. 12 points. Before the subs happened, the score could've been 32-31.

 

[elgringoborracho]

France didn't play very well and still managed to score 4 tries under the rain, with 13 players different from the japan game. Canada was in no way impressive, only counted on mistakes under high balls and penalties.
I think France's plan was to ensure victory first and then start playing wide. The first part of the plan has been a bit harder than it should. Once it was done, everything went well. I don't know who said France was scared but that's pure fantasy. Truth is they stayed composed, didn't rush into stupid counterattacking, and ensured the BP at the end.

Good game.

 

[Canucks]

France didn't play very well and still managed to score 4 tries under the rain, with 13 players different from the japan game. Canada was in no way impressive, only counted on mistakes under high balls and penalties.
I think France's plan was to ensure victory first and then start playing wide. The first part of the plan has been a bit harder than it should. Once it was done, everything went well. I don't know who said France was scared but that's pure fantasy. Truth is they stayed composed, didn't rush into stupid counterattacking, and ensured the BP at the end.

Good game.

That's a pretty ignorant post. So if Canada wasn't impressive then how come France needed on to rely on Canadian errors for their first 2 tries and then had to score the last 2 in the last 5 minutes against a weakened 2nd string. Clearly France was the better team and deserved the win but Canada made a few errors to help them along. Namely 4 missed kicks, misread on the 2nd try where 2 players took the support runner and let the actual runner go in untouched.

Yes the conditions play apart but your post is full of arrogance. The score was 32-19, then the 2nd string came on. Canada makes 4 of those penalty kicks they missed and it's 32-31 at that point. Lievremont saw an opportunity to get that BP, on come Imanol Harinodoquoy and France goes for it. France chose to take a scrum on a penalty at roughly the 75 minute mark and France also scored on their very last possession. Good decision to go for the BP as you are in the same pool at the ABs but please don't act like everything went according to plan.

The conditions of the pitch prevented any sort of real attacking from either team. While that favours Canada, it is still impressive that the game was that close.

As well you contradict yourself in your own post. If Canada was good opponent in this game then how come France would need to ensure victory first.
Please come down off your high horse.

 

[elgringoborracho]

That's a pretty ignorant post. So if Canada wasn't impressive then how come France needed on to rely on Canadian errors for their first 2 tries and then had to score the last 2 in the last 5 minutes against a weakened 2nd string.

I didn't say France was impressive either. But a team that doesn't break the line once, makes no back move, doesn't dominate with its forwards and gets 4 tries scored against them can't really be called impressive.

Clearly France was the better team and deserved the win but Canada made a few errors to help them along. Namely 4 missed kicks, misread on the 2nd try where 2 players took the support runner and let the actual runner go in untouched.

Well that kind of makes my first point

Yes the conditions play apart but your post is full of arrogance. The score was 32-19, then the 2nd string came on. Canada makes 4 of those penalty kicks they missed and it's 32-31 at that point. Lievremont saw an opportunity to get that BP, on come Imanol Harinodoquoy and France goes for it. France chose to take a scrum on a penalty at roughly the 75 minute mark and France also scored on their very last possession. Good decision to go for the BP as you are in the same pool at the ABs but please don't act like everything went according to plan.

Once again i don't see how that makes what i said wrong or arrogant. Sorry i just don't see it.

The conditions of the pitch prevented any sort of real attacking from either team. While that favours Canada, it is still impressive that the game was that close.

It didn't. Look at the final scoreline. A professional game of rugby is played with 22 players during 80 minutes. As someone sais before, yes it would be fun to play only for 60 minutes. It just isn't the case. Canada never looked like winning.

As well you contradict yourself in your own post. If Canada was good opponent in this game then how come France would need to ensure victory first.
Please come down off your high horse.

I'm sorry i hurt your feelings. While i enjoy getting psyched for minnows myself, i think speaking of fear on the french side is just fantasy (it has happened before, just not this once).
France needed to ensure victory first because that's what they didn't do against Japan and it almost cost them victory.

 

[Canucks]

I didn't say France was impressive either. But a team that doesn't break the line once, makes no back move, doesn't dominate with its forwards and gets 4 tries scored against them can't really be called impressive.



Well that kind of makes my first point



Once again i don't see how that makes what i said wrong or arrogant. Sorry i just don't see it.



It didn't. Look at the final scoreline. A professional game of rugby is played with 22 players during 80 minutes. As someone sais before, yes it would be fun to play only for 60 minutes. It just isn't the case. Canada never looked like winning.



I'm sorry i hurt your feelings. While i enjoy getting psyched for minnows myself, i think speaking of fear on the french side is just fantasy (it has happened before, just not this once).
France needed to ensure victory first because that's what they didn't do against Japan and it almost cost them victory.

What is impressive is Canada has 6 professionals against France's pick of the litter and kept it close. Canada fought pretty much to the end and France had to play very aggressively against inferior opposition (tired canadian team and 2nd string) to get BP in the last 5 minutes. Yes rugby is a 80 minutes game but please don't act like anything went according to plan just because the final scoreline. I can't fault France for doing that (they need the BP) but I can fault you for acting like this was some game that was not close at any point.
The final scoreline appears to indicate a clear and decisive win, however it does not represent the game accurately and flatters the French. You made it sound like it was never in doubt that the French would win, but as I've point out Canada 4 missed penalties and 1 missed drop (from Monro, just wide) and if those are made, when Canada makes the subs at 13 mins left, you would see a score of 33-32 for Canada.
At that point though, the score was 32-19. I'm saying shouldve, would,ve couldve but only because i'm trying to point where you are being arrogant. As well, we made the substitutions because we just played Tonga 4 days ago and were knackered and essentially conceeded the win to France, It must be nice to have a week off between games. Even after that we still were about 3 meters from your try line.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to ignore how the game actually went and focus on the final score. Hope you enjoy the view from your high horse for another week as the ABs had no issue at all with Japan.

In terms of France being scared. I have yet to see anyone say that. All that was ever said was that Canada was going to be physical and try to frustrate and fluster the French defenders. Well at a few points out there I saw quite a few angry Frenchmen but this was a very big French team that dressed so it wasn't anything more than a miniscule advantage if any at all.

If this game was never in doubt then how come France needed to ensure the win first?

 

[Surefire]

Honestly, France deserved the win but I don't think they deserved the bonus point. 46-19 doesn't really reflect the fact that the match wasn't exactly a blowout.

This does not make sense. Of course they deserve the bonus point they scored the amount of points needed.

Good game for Canada, they played well and should be very proud of their WC campaign so far.

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

You precisely have to ensure the win first when the game is not in doubt.
Loosing this oftenly lead to a brutal surprise, and it's a strong disrespect of your opponent.

 

[Surefire]

@ Canucks, I re-read the posts here and I think it is important to remember that emotion cannot be typed. I dont think elgringoboracho's post was arrogant and more something you might be reading into. It was a competitive game for a long period, all the way to the 60 or 70th+ minute. You were right in your previous post about the physical nature of the Canada team, and that probably did help them.

The short turnaround is B.S. and I think too much to ask of any of the teams, but especially teams which do not have bench depth. My opinion is that the game is not reflected by the scoreline, but that goes both ways. You mention the missed kicks and try opportunities for Canada, however France missed two clear try opportunities in the game as well. This happens, and you just have to capitalize when you can. In the end France earned the win against a good team.

The next time they meet, I would not be surprised if the result is different.

 

[Rhyer]

Well done Canada, I was actually quite scared at one point, you played your hearts out and did your nation proud. It was only the last ten minutes that France took control of the game and I would say that is to do with fitness because French players play a lot. Canada will beat France one day but they need a better structure with a professional tournament. Can Picamoles finally start a game against big teams? I've been saying this for years but he barely gets an opportunity.

 

[Canucks]

@ Canucks, I re-read the posts here and I think it is important to remember that emotion cannot be typed. I dont think elgringoboracho's post was arrogant and more something you might be reading into. It was a competitive game for a long period, all the way to the 60 or 70th+ minute. You were right in your previous post about the physical nature of the Canada team, and that probably did help them.

The short turnaround is B.S. and I think too much to ask of any of the teams, but especially teams which do not have bench depth. My opinion is that the game is not reflected by the scoreline, but that goes both ways. You mention the missed kicks and try opportunities for Canada, however France missed two clear try opportunities in the game as well. This happens, and you just have to capitalize when you can. In the end France earned the win against a good team.

The next time they meet, I would not be surprised if the result is different.

Ya you appear to be right on numerous fronts. My apologies to Gringo if I was taking anything out of context but it did appear to me that there was a hint of arrogance.

It's the nature of sports. Sometimes the score is accurate, sometimes it's not. You could see were I would get very defensive because I feel that was one of the absolute best performance my country could put out there barring the goal kicking. It is easy to take Gringo's comments as belittling but I see what you are saying.

Kudos to France getting the BP though, it took some very good coaching from Lievremont to pull that out of the game, especially realising they had the opportunity left for it at the end. It's almost a must do because if they manage to the ABs, then they need at the BP they can get.

 

[elgringoborracho]

Ya you appear to be right on numerous fronts. My apologies to Gringo if I was taking anything out of context but it did appear to me that there was a hint of arrogance.

It's the nature of sports. Sometimes the score is accurate, sometimes it's not. You could see were I would get very defensive because I feel that was one of the absolute best performance my country could put out there barring the goal kicking. It is easy to take Gringo's comments as belittling but I see what you are saying.

Kudos to France getting the BP though, it took some very good coaching from Lievremont to pull that out of the game, especially realising they had the opportunity left for it at the end. It's almost a must do because if they manage to the ABs, then they need at the BP they can get.

It is precisely because I respect the Canadian team that I don't choose the easy option of the pat in the back, "good game, better next time". I think their forwards held up well, and their 10 and 13 are good players. I love how rugby is slowly but surely improving in countries like Canada, USA, Japan,... I do think though that France controlled the game pretty well given the weather. And because controlling that match and scoring a BP was never going to be an easy task for France that's why I think France had a "good game".

Now there is something you don't see and that might explain my opinion to you. The french press has been all over the french team for ages now, and even when they win with a BP, there is always something wrong with this or that. I'm quite tired of this attitude, which is a bummer for the players, and really shows arrogance. When we lost to Italy in the last 6N, no commentator or journalist thought about congratulating the Italians, they just went on about how Lievremont is bad, this player is old, etc.
So, this time, we won by a comfortable margin, lets be happy about it ffs.

Pardon the impression of arrogance, next time we meet should be closer, seeing the impovement curve of both countries in the last years. Cheers

 

[LittleGuy]

Canadian fullback James Pritchard had a new addition to his family two hours before kickoff, as his daughter Hayden Emily Pritchard was born. Congratulations James on what is turning out to be a couple of special weeks for you.

 

[formerlyfastwing]

On the contrary, I believe the reason why some of the minnow nations have faded in the 4th quarter of the match is more to do with the completely unfair scheduling of world cup matches.

BING BING BING....we have a winner. I agree completely. Perhaps the RWC should be be scheduled like the NFL. Better teams get tougher schedules. for example, the minnows should be allowed longer recovery times between games as their player pool is shallower.

It will never happen.

Well done today boys