It’s all grey for the inexperienced All Blacks

Columnist

By Spiro Zavos, 15 Jun 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: All Blacks, French rugby, International Rugby, New Zealand rugby, Rugby Union

Related coverage

French teammates celebrate Maxime Medard try as dejected New Zealand's Luke McAlister in the international first rugby test at Carisbrook, Dunedin, New Zealand, Saturday, June 13, 2009. AP Photo/NZPA, Dianne Manson

France, once again, created a huge surprise when what they thought was their number 2 team on paper defeated an inexperienced All Blacks side on a cold evening at Dunedin 27 – 22.

The scoreline flattered the All Blacks who played more like the All Greys.

Especially in the first half the New Zealand national side was slow and passive at the rucks and mauls, inaccurate with their tackling, lacking in nous at the scrums, leaden-footed and lacking in options in the halves, and seemingly without real pace on the wings.

The grey All Blacks.

Down 17 – 3 at half-time (the same score line, ironically, at Canberra but with the Wallabies in the lead against Italy), the All Blacks focused their play better and struggled their way to 17 – 17, with a strong chance to win a now unexpected – and undeserved up to this stage – victory.

But here a fatal flaw in New Zealand rugby revealed itself once again, as it did at Cardiff in 2007 in the quarter-final of the Rugby World Cup tournament. That flaw is a chronic inability to finish off a side that has been dominate but is slipping in a calm and methodical manner.

Instead of taking charge of the match at this juncture and putting the All Blacks into a position to lay seige on the French try line, Stephen Donald opted for a short 22, and just got away with it with the All Blacks being awarded a fortuitous penalty.

Then when the All Blacks did finally get field position, they did not have any plays to break the French tight, almost-offside defensive line except the risky kick over the top.

The psychology of the moment given the French outstanding defensive effort (152 tackles made, only 13 missed compared with the All Blacks (83 and 17 missed tackles) was to drop a goal. But where was the captain’s call for this? Or the five-eighths call?

And perhaps just as importantly, did the All Blacks have a system for a field goal attempt?

The point about a field goal at this stage of this particular game is that France was essentially living off New Zealand turnovers and mistakes. Once the All Blacks were in front, France would then have to make the game something that was beyond them after the first 30 minutes when they scored 17 points.

As it was France led throughout the match, except when the score was tied at 17 – 17. The All Blacks made mistakes like Luke McAlister’s pass to the French fullback Metard who ran away for a 50m try.

Even at the end of the match, with the All Blacks needing a try to draw and a converted try to win, the wrong call was made with the last lineout throw. Instead of nailing the throw and taking it from there, the ball was thrown long, too long in fact and was knocked on.

Phil Dine, an academic working in Ireland, has written a fascinating essay on French rugby called ‘The Great Exception: Reflection on a Century of French Rugby Genius.’ He argues that there are two strands in the distinctive French approach, le beau jeu (the beautiful game) and le jeu dur (the hard game).

The beautiful game comes from Paris and expresses itself in visionary and daring attacking play. The hard game is basically the style of the heartland of French rugby, the south-west, ‘l’Ovalie,’ the region of the oval ball, where an uncompromising dedication to winning is the means and the ends of victory.

Either of these approaches when played well make France a formidable side on the given day. When these two approaches are meshed as they were in the first 30 of the Dunedin Test, France becomes almost unbeatable.

The merit of the victory, France’s first in New Zealand since 1994 when both Tests were won, is that in the professional era the All Blacks had played, up to Saturday, 37 Tests in early-season matches, for one loss. That loss was a 2-point defeat to England in 2003, the side that went on to win the Rugby World Cup a few months later.

The record for the All Blacks now is 2 losses out of 38, with France getting its best players back for the Wellington Test after their recent club final.

The French have a phrase for it, deja vue – will we have a repeated of 1994?

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (33) | Page 1 of Comments

Bay35Pablo said | June 15th 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment

I would hardly say it was France’s 2nd team. They were only missing the players from the 2 Top 14 finalists, which I don’t believe was 15 or 22 players. In essence they were a French team missing a umber of important players, but that is all. It does mean they can improve.

More importantly was the All Blacks’ weakness. They looked lost in the 1st half before Henry clearly ripped them a new one at half time, and they cam out with more direction. They played much better, but also made some silly mistakes which showed the lack of experience in the team.

The 2nd Test will be very interesting. The French will have a full strength side, but the ABs will not. But the ABs pride will be wounded, meaning they will be a dangerous beast.

Perhaps this was the best thing that could happen to the ABs, as it may rouse the beats for 2011.

It also means the Wallabies Test against France could be very interesting. And here I was not buying tickets because I though it would be the usual 2nd rate side ….

Reply
Knives Out said | June 15th 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment

You are correct, Pablo. That was not the French 2nd team at all. Not by a long shot. Lievremont has never established a favoured xv, but has developed/arrived at a core of 25 players who he rotates. The only guaranteed starter from the injured players would have been Nallet.

Reply
True Tah said | June 15th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment

Pablo – Im with you re: maybe attending the game v the French.

If they can beat the All Blacks next week, then it will definitely make the game against the Wallabies a lot more attractive.

I bet JON is willing for a French win!

Reply
Bay35Pablo said | June 15th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment

I’ve got my tickets for the Bledisloe, so I’m looking forward to it even more now. If the French can knock them off, then we are a good chance. Although by then they will probably have their missing players back and be in better form.

If we do get the Bledisloe back, NZ will get the dirts!!!

Reply
Brett McKay said | June 15th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment

Guys, I’ve seen none of this game as yet, did Henry start McAlister or Donald at five-eighth??

Reply
Hemjay said | June 15th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment

He started Donald

Reply
Jeckerbonds said | June 15th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment

There’s a totally illogical but fun way to score the outcome of a game, and that is to award points to the scoreline corresponding to the talent of the top players on each team who didn’t play.

For example, I’m positing that had a non-concussed Richie been playing on Saturday night it might well have added 2 points to the AB scoreline. And if Carter had been playing, there’s another two. Add one point for Williams, and another for Sivi, and a half point each for Kahui,
Smith and So’oialo and that’s a total of 7 1/2 points in this admitedly suspect system.

The points for France? Tres dificile. But there have been games where Harinordoquy
has been outstanding, so he gets 2 points from me. Para, Bonnaire, Rougerie, Mas and Domingo each get half a point, and I’m giving Skrela a full point for a French total of 5 1/2 points.

So the AB’s win by two points. But France beat them by five points on the score board, so the ABs lose by three points (adjusted).

You buy it?
I thought not.

Reply
Untimelyzapped said | June 15th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment

Excellent post SPIRO – and I recommend Phil Dine’s essay to anybody interested in rugby, specially the French variety. You can Google it at The Great Exception: Reflections of a Century of French Rugby.

After the French win on Saturday night, and the hugely increased interest in the Wellington game, I think the essay will get a lot of hits.

Reply
JamesB said | June 15th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment

2 out of 38 – not bad eh! This loss has exposed one thing – in the professional era with NZ having 100+ players plying their trade in Europe or Japan, they simply do not have the depth within their home based NZ player ranks as they could 2-3 years ago. The other very interesting point to emerge concerned some of the player comments relating to the physicality of Heineken cup versus S14 and lack of rolling mauls in S14. Rolling mauls are back, and the southern hemishere teams will have to “re-learn” this aspect of the game again. Having 3 sets of rules for the past 18 months has certainly been shown up by this match. The odd loss by the AB’s will be a blessing in disguise come 2011, and has allowed NZ to blood some young fresh talent. This may not have been possible if other senior players hadn’t succumed to injury. Barring Carter, all will be back for Tri-Nations, and once again NZ will be at the forefront. It’s early days yet…

Reply
CronullaKiwi said | June 15th 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment

While we have been shown up in the depth department – the side that takes the field in the 3N (injuries permitting) will be a completely diffrent beast. Im not sure why people are making such a big deal of the loss. Yes they played poorly and were out done in all departments but this is a fairly good French side and imagine a Wallabies team without Giteau, Smith, Mortlock, Elsom, Horwill, Palu and their best winger…this is the reality of it. Its still going to take a monumental effort to defeat the AB’s 3 times this year I wouldnt get to carried away yet if I were an Aussie.

Reply