By James Mortimer -
June 19th 2009 @ 1:02am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...All Blacks to rebound against Les Bleus
Les Bleus will be looking to become just sixth team to win a Test series on New Zealand soil, and the first in the professional era, when a confident Tri Colours march on Wellington.
In fact, in the last 23 years, only Les Bleus have downed the All Blacks in a series, with the last team achieving this holy grail of rugby achievements being the Wallabies.
The first team to accomplish this was Phillip Nel’s and the late Danie Craven’s 1937 Springboks.
In 1949, the Wallabies under Trevor Allan and Colin Windon, won the series and became the first Australian team to wrestle the Bledisloe Cup off the All Blacks in New Zealand.
In 1971, arguably the greatest ever Lions team under John Dawes would also record a series triumph.
In 1986, during the “Cavalier tours,” the Wallabies would win a second series. And, of course, in 1994, Phillipe Saint Andre’s exalted Les Bleus team would achieve the unthinkable.
Marc Lievremont’s team stand on the precipice of history, not only claiming the series and knocking New Zealand off the top of the IRB rankings (they will drop to second) should they win, but completing what assistant coach Emile Ntamack describes as a test run for France’s assault on the 2011 World Cup.
The second match of the year, and already the All Blacks are under pressure. They are missing a host of front liners, who boast more tests than the actual starting XV itself.
But, to play devil’s advocate, that acquittal was used last week.
The injury curse struck again in Carisbrook, with Andrew Hore and Adam Thomson ruled out, but this was balanced by the return of two incumbents.
Looking at this Test XV, with 404 Test caps in the line-up (sans the bench), it is not only more experienced than the side that fell 22-27 to the French last week, but one that looks more balanced.
The inclusion of the classy Conrad Smith not only adds to the backline, but to the dreadlocked Ma’a Nonu inside of him. Otherwise the backline is unchanged, a pleasing vote of confidence to the players.
However, man for man, one feels that the French back division is easily the equal of the All Black three quarters.
The Stade Toulousain back three remain from last week. The Biarritz dreadnought Damien Traille caused immense problems for the All Black defensive patterns. Despite the hype, Mathieu Bastareaud had little impact last week and drops to the bench.
He is replaced by Perpignan’s Top 14 winning centre Maxime Mermoz, who offers far more tactical nous to the Les Bleus backline.
In the halves, Stephen Donald remains, with Highlanders captain Jimmy Cowan, who is perhaps lucky not to lose his place to the robust Piri Weepu, who added so much to the All Blacks with his injection last week.
Donald himself was outplayed by outstanding Montpellier number 10, Francois Trinh-Duc, last week, and will need to play the role of a backline general more, rather than forcing play too much on his own.
For mine, this is the second most crucial element – the first being the physical clash – of the game in Wellington.
In the forwards, the All Blacks have allegedly been terrorising each other in training, simulating the trench warfare in which they comprehensively lost in Dunedin, despite fielding a record 907kg pack.
Heralding the need to play a unearth a specialist open side to replace All Black kingpin Richie McCaw, Adam Thomson – a natural blind side – was played in the number seven spot last week, and was found wanting.
The All Blacks played three blindside flankers in the first Test, and it failed spectacularly. More so when considering rugby doctrine prescribes that two of the basic roles of a number six is to defend and to clear out the ruck.
Neither of these was achieved.
The selection of Te Puke born flank Tanerau Latimer sees the All Black paradigm of carrying a fetcher restored, and Jerome Kaino – the 2008 incumbent blindside – returns from injury, and hopefully the Blues flanker will add the necessary mongrel lacking from the first Test.
If anything, the key for New Zealand is to halt the influence of defensive maestro and Captain Thierry Dusautoir, whose brilliant guerrilla tactics, as in 2007, caused immense woe for the home side.
Kieran Read is moved to number eight, based on his statistics from the first Test, despite being a specialist blindside. He must combat Montpellier number eight Louis Picamoles, one of France’s best players last week.
The tight five on paper looks to favour New Zealand, but a few days ago it counted for nothing.
Perpignan prop Nicholas Mas replaces Sylvain Marconnet, who caused the All Black front row issues last week.
The only other change in the tight is at lock, with Sebastien Chabel starting.
No doubt his inclusion is indicative of the reality that the All Blacks were bullied last week – and Chabel ranks among world rugby’s elite enforcers.
Despite all this, there is no more horrifying rugby beast than a wounded All Black team.
The French will not catch New Zealand on the hop again and the All Blacks will prevail in Wellington by 8.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(39)
katzilla said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:57am | Report comment
I wish i could be as Positive James.
Unfortunately i think History is about to be made, and with the way the Lions are building nicely it could be a good Winter in the south for the Northeners.
Mururoa Nukers by 10
Mungehead said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:58am | Report comment
Going to be a nice close game. I expect the ABs to improve more than the French though, so all in all I agree with you James. Smith will be much more reliable in the backline than Toeava, which will give confidence to Nonu, and Latimer showed potential that I think will be visible this week. The new junior forwards will be itching to make up for the last game. No problem with Cowan, but I thought Weepu deserved to start after last week – not sure what’s going on there. And McAlister is still capable of either making or breaking (like he did last week) the game.
Most importantly though, the ABs will have studied hard to relearn this awkward NH game they have forgotten while trialling short arm penalties, and I’m tipping that they will be ready to play it with a decent game plan this time. I’ll be very surprised if they don’t improve substantially. That’s not to say the French haven’t a chance, they have a good one, but they’ll have to pull their socks up. The scoreline was far closer last week than it should have been considering that the French outclassed the ABs all over the park.
Colin N said | June 19th 2009 @ 5:30am | Report comment
Well Henry has might the right calls this time, playing a natural openside bringing back Smith (coming back from injury). For France, the selection of Chabal could be a disaster, even though he had an excellent impact last week. On a positive note, he will add a bit of pace and probably a bit more balance to the pack, but as a Sale fan, I’ve seen him have a pretty average season this year. I’ve never actually seen Mermoz play, so I’m looking forward to seeing him play, as I’ve heard that he’s quite an exciting talent, apparently.
I think the All Blacks will be a lot better than last week, so I’m going for a New Zealand win by 5.
Knives Out said | June 19th 2009 @ 6:03am | Report comment
I can’t fathom why Henry hasn’t selected Messam at 6 to play alongside Latimer, just for their relationship if anything. Granted Kaino is a long-term All Black (in theory) but if Read is unlikely to play 8 for NZ in the future, why not play Kaino at 8? Granted he wasn’t a great success there last season, but neither has his form been that great at 8 this season – so why select him at all? Clearly, Henry wants him involved but why switch Read? The back row seems confused again. That said, NZ didn’t lose because they fielded 3 blindsides, because France didn’t have any traditional scavengers either, they lost because they didn’t attack the French lineout, struggled to break the rush defence and simply didn’t appear to want the game enough. More worrying is the fact that despite the core experience of Woodcock, Mealamu, Thorn, Nonu and Muliania, there wasn’t much leadership evident on the field.
It was interesting, mid-week, to note that Hansen mentioned a lack of physicality, which strikes me as utter rubbish because a) the Super 14 is often lauded in SH quarters as being commensurate with test rugby and b) NZ were easily on a par with, if not better, physically than their European counterparts a few months ago. I don’t see why he couldn’t just admit the selection and tactics were wrong.
France are suddenly being acclaimed as a serious team despite playing a very simple game plan. What happens if they are thrashed this weekend? Frankly, I don’t rate them and I suspect that NZ will do a real number on them. Although, I did suspect that last weekend. It’s interesting to note that the odds have shifted from 1-10 last week (for an All Black victory) to 1/4. Not much value there but I cannot see France winning again. I’d fancy them to take Australia, but not NZ.
N.B. James, I thought the Australia v Baa Baas game proved Chris Jack’s statement about European to be right?
Sam Taulelei said | June 19th 2009 @ 6:39am | Report comment
If the All Blacks had won last week I would have gone into this test expecting the French to win. Now that the roles are reversed an All Blacks win is expected but I’m not so confident, if this side was named last week as expected they would have still got rolled. The loss will certainly change attitudes and desire in the All Blacks camp but there is no disguising the lack of cohesiveness and experience in the loose trio and 9-10 axis which will again come under pressure. The tight five were outplayed badly and if they can’t control the ball and get across the advantage line then the changes to the loose forwards and midfield will make no difference at all.
Jerry said | June 19th 2009 @ 6:54am | Report comment
Knives – you’ve partially answered your own question with this “they lost because they didn’t attack the French lineout, struggled to break the rush defence”.
Kaino is very good at attacking the opposition throw to the lineout and is better at creating go forward ball in the tight exchanges – he is substantially better in both these areas to Messam.
onside said | June 19th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
This is the ‘real’ Test this weekend,the one worth watching.Melbournians are shunning Australia v Italy .
They know the ARU is trying to sell them a pup.The Italian Job .Another ARU heist.Why take a faux Test
match to a new market and then blame the locals for not filling the stadium. Thank goodness for TV.
True Tah said | June 19th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
onside
so maybe they should have taken the Italy game to another smaller rugby-deprived area? Darwin/Adelaide/Newcastle?
onside said | June 19th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
True Tah
yeah I know;look, Melbourne are sports savvy.This game would have been better off held
in a mature rugby market , because it is a work in progress exercise. Nothing wrong with
that,but whereas rugby buffs relate to what Deans is trying to accomplish, Melbourne needs
to see the real deal. Newcasle might work ,because its almost a suburb of Sydney and just
up the road for many fans that live in Sydney.What niggles away at me is this deep seated
obsession with the RWC, and that one game every four years.This Test match against Italy
is played against the backdrop of tomorrows dreams.Its a means to an end , but it should be
a stand alone end in itself. End of rant.
Dean Pantio said | June 19th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Knives Out: Messam played like he didn’t expect everyone else at Test level is just as good, if not better than him. He deserves to be dropped. Kaino is a known quality at blindside. He played some great rugby there last year and will provide much improved physicality. Reed managed to be less visible than Reuben at 6. At least he has played at 8 for some games during the S14. With a natural openside in Latimer, the backrow has better balance for this test.
The statement “they didn’t attack the French lineout” is specious nonsense. They won lineouts off the French. They lost because they didn’t win the collision and hence found it extremely difficult to get forward momentum to provide their backline with time and space. When they did challeneg in this area they drew level and the game was in the balance up until McAlister decided to show us all just how much playing up North has improved his skills.
His selection smacks of desperation by the coaching staff, but with such an injury list I can see what they were thinking. As for the mauling aspect, that will be fixed. The All Blacks coaching staff have shown themselves to be remarkably capable of learning lessons quickly. What needs to happen is the tight five showing up and getting stuck in.
I rate the French. They are competitive and did the simple things well. I also expect the All Black coaches will be concentrating on shoring up those elements they were well short in matching Les Blues last weekend. With Kaino and Smith back on the field, the introduction of a genuine openside I expect the All Blacks won’t be walking off the field having lost a series in New Zealand. That said, I do expect it to be a tight one.
BTW, to the OP: The series loss to Australia in 1949 must rank as a complete joke. The Wallabies were touring whilst the All Blacks were in South Africa. That it has Test recognition is incomprehensible.
James Mortimer said | June 19th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Dean, interesting you picked up on the 1949 tour. It must be difficult to class certain era’s over history. The NZRU has been the most proactive of unions in try to declassify matches that were undeserved of test status, but in the same breath, how can you do so objectively.
In 49 and 86 there were effectively two All Black teams. If my history serves me correctly, the Cavaliers returned from SA and were banned from selection in the first test, which the AB’s duly lost. Still, I believe it was a full strength side that did lose to the Wallabies in the third.
In theory, is not this series against France the only “legitimate” test team to have toured the South since England sent a full strength team in 2003. Should we not declassify certain test matches (the wallaby 76-0 over England springs to mind) based on the weakness of such teams in the past?
God I love rugby history.
Frank O'Keeffe said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
James wrote:
“In 49 and 86 there were effectively two All Black teams. If my history serves me correctly, the Cavaliers returned from SA and were banned from selection in the first test, which the AB’s duly lost. Still, I believe it was a full strength side that did lose to the Wallabies in the third.”
James, you’re right – it was a full strength All Blacks side in that third Test. To me, the 1986 achievement was greater than the 1949 achievement. It’s true the Aussies only beat the Baby Blacks in the first Test, but there were certain Baby Blacks that some people felt played better than any of the normal All Blacks did in the 2nd and 3rd Test, such as Mark Brooke-Cowden. Australia were robbed in the second Test with one of the worst refereeing decisions in history. Even All Black players said Steve Tuynaman scored that try.
But to me, that third Test was the real decider on who was better. The first Test didn’t have a full strength All Black side, and Australia were robbed in the second. But that third Test was brilliant and actually still remains one of the best Test matches I’ve ever seen, and if I’m honest it’s because of the entertainment value of New Zealand’s running rugby.
Two things prevented the All Blacks from winning that day. The first was a epidemic of dropped passes, which unfortunately for them, usually occurred just as they seemed likely to score. The second was the quality of Australia’s defence. That was probably ranks in the top five best defensive efforts of any side I’ve ever seen. Topo’s tackle was awesome, but there were other splendid moments as well.
But gosh that was just end-to-end stuff from the All Blacks. I remember Mark Ella on commentary (known for wanting running rugby) saying it was some of the most exciting running rugby he’d ever seen. In hindsight the writing was on the wall after that game – as soon as the All Blacks remedied their dropped pass epidemic they were going to demolish everything in sight, which they did in 1987…
Jerry said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
James – Ireland set full strength squads in 06 and 08. The irony being that in 06, they didn’t face a full strength All Black team with an advance party having been sent to Argentina that contained the likes of Dan Carter and Jerry Collins among others.
Spencer said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Jerry – confirming that Henry’s nonsense has been going on for years!
Jerry said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
Yeah, but most people didn’t complain when it was working.
JamesB said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
James, I agree with most of your views. I remain mystified at how Read deserves the no.8 spot. I would have given Messam another chance, though he did play like he was in a S14 game…. too loose! Test match rugby is obviously a different proposition. I would have dropped Read and replaced him with the incumbant Kaino. I like Read and he appears to have a good rugby brain, but I remain unconvinced he can take the next step up to test footy. He needs a big one on Sat.
NZ clearly needs Carl Hayman back for 2011. NZ’s other props (Woodcock aside) don’t measure up. And as for Tailata stating in the paper today – I seem to get fitter as the season progresses! This is just not acceptable at this level. He should be in peak fitness from round 1 of S14. That to me smacks of being lazy, not to mention unprofessional. I’m saying this as a Canes fan, because he is very fortunate to be there in my opinion after a very ordinary S14 campaign.
On a more positive note Issac Ross looks the real deal, and once Williams and Boric return, NZ have some great depth at Lock, not to mention very mobile. Both Boric and Ross probably need to toughen up, but there is plenty of time for that to happen.
At present NZ look very weak at key positions of Nos. 9 & 10. Cowan was poor last week, and whilst the forwards were going backwards, his speed of ball distribution was poor, and we saw a big improvement once Weepu came on. Cowan looked a game short, and will be better this week, and will have to be, otherwise he’s out once Brendan Leonard returns. As for Donald, I remain unconvinced he is up to it at this level. He has a good running game and is a sound goal kicker, but his kicking game is often poorly directed. I have a feeling Luke McCallister will eventually be the back up for Carter at No.10. He also provides cover at 2nd-Five which is a bonus.
Looking ahead, NZ will be at full strength by the commencement of the Tri-Nations, bar Carter. In my opinion that will be the difference for NZ this year. My prediction, NZ will lose all their away games in the Tri-Nations, but keep a clean sheet at home.
Dean Pantio said | June 19th 2009 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
James Mortimer wrote:
“Dean, interesting you picked up on the 1949 tour. It must be difficult to class certain era’s over history. The NZRU has been the most proactive of unions in try to declassify matches that were undeserved of test status, but in the same breath, how can you do so objectively.”
TBH James, the 1949 series is the most obvious example. For the Wallabies, it should be classed as playing the Jnr All Blacks.
The relative merits of the 22 selected to represent their Union and sent to play is much more difficult. Definitely the flogging the England team received makes a mockery of Test recognition. But then again, you have ~50 point thrashings between the top three teams in the world in recent years.
Frank O’Keeffe wrote:
“But gosh that was just end-to-end stuff from the All Blacks. I remember Mark Ella on commentary (known for wanting running rugby) saying it was some of the most exciting running rugby he’d ever seen. In hindsight the writing was on the wall after that game – as soon as the All Blacks remedied their dropped pass epidemic they were going to demolish everything in sight, which they did in 1987…”
Definitely agree Frank. Despite the loss, it did wonders for the All Blacks in developing one of the best teams I have ever seen.
Jerry said | June 19th 2009 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
“it did wonders for the All Blacks in developing one of the best teams I have ever seen”
Hmmm,
1986 All Blacks lose home series followed by world cup win and nearly 4 season unbeaten streak.
1994 All Blacks lose home series followed by next best world cup performance, 1st ever series win in SA and only 2 losses in following 3 seasons.
Perhaps Henry & co have decided that a home series loss is the best way to galvanise the team for 2011. The fix is in!
Knives Out said | June 19th 2009 @ 6:58pm | Report comment
Dean, Ouedraogo had carte blanche at the front of the line out time and time again. Servat and Szarzewski are not high percentage throwers and I repeat – NZ did not look to exploit this. What part of that is specious nonsense?
Jerry, I understand that, but Latimer is being blooded, so why not blood him with his team mate and switch Kaino to 8? Neither Kaino nor Read will play much of 8, and it’s unlikely that Read will play 6 ahead of Kaino. Does this suddenly mean that Messam is out of the equation?
James, the previous France squad that toured was their strongest squad, and the previous English side that toured was also their strongest squad. So no, this is not the first legitimate series since 2003.
Jerry said | June 19th 2009 @ 7:50pm | Report comment
Kaino’s not an 8, the S14 proved that and they obviously feel he’s the best 6 in the country. After that, I guess it was a straight choice between who they thought would be better at 8 from Read or Messam (and I suspect which of the two would be better suited to a more tight grinding game which would be Read).
And the previous French team to tour NZ was in no way, shape or form a full strength side. Here’s the lineups from the 2nd test in Wgtn 07 and the side that played the 1/4 final in Cardiff – only Ibanez and Chabal from the Wellington match featured in the match 22 in Cardiff.
http://www.rugbymuseum.co.nz/teamsheet.asp?level1=All_Blacks&Level2=ABC&MT_ID=2140
http://www.rugbymuseum.co.nz/teamsheet.asp?level1=All_Blacks&Level2=ABC&MT_ID=2150
ohtani's jacket, said | June 19th 2009 @ 8:14pm | Report comment
I think Kaino is the right choice for blindside flanker, even if his form and effectiveness without McCaw and So’oialo are questionable. That doesn’t mean that I agree with Read at 8, but we need a proven blindside.
It seems that Henry slipped up like he did last year with the ELVs. Defensively, they didn’t look ready to play under the old laws and according to Cowan they weren’t expecting France to use a rush defence. France are in a great position here. They basically have a license to go for the win. It wouldn’t surprise me they try a few things of their own in this Test. They’ll be a handful, which is a good thing. If we’re to keep any sort of an edge, we need a shock to the system, not the media blowing smoke up our asses ala the Wallabies and Deans.
Knives Out said | June 19th 2009 @ 8:32pm | Report comment
Jerry, half the team had retired, basically. Anyhow, I was referring to the side that toured Australia last summer. My mistake. Although, that was the best France team available. Look at the experience of Califano, Ibanez, Bruno, Mas, Pape, Magne, Chabal and Casteignede. Chouly is in the current France squad, as is Ouedraoago. The rest are makeweights but I don’t know who else you would have expected them to bring?
It’s a moot point of course, but I’d always prefer to see clubmates being played in games like this, especially with the opportunity to play off Donald.
Jerry said | June 19th 2009 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
Uh, maybe the majority of their World Cup squad? I realise that selectors will change their minds about players but no selection panel is gonna dump 80% of a touring squad if they were first choice.
Knives Out said | June 19th 2009 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
Ignore me, Jerry. I’m talking rubbish – confused with the dates. Obviously Laporte was resting players. I admit my mistake once more. I confused the tour with the 08 Australia touring squad. Apologies.
Jerry said | June 19th 2009 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
Fair enough – I do agree that the whole “NH weakened teams thing” is not as pronounced as is often thought. Ireland have consistently sent down first choice teams and England usually have too, bar the ‘tour of hell’ – it’s just that there’s been a lot of injuries and, let’s face it, no real consistency in selection since Woodward left, so people think it’s a B team. France seem to have pulled finger for the most part, though it’s not perfect by any means having the T14 final on at the same time as a test match, at least they made sure the ‘best of the rest’ was available and for tomorrow’s test it will be a full strength lineup.
Knives Out said | June 19th 2009 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
Let’s be honest, the tours simply aren’t necessary. I honestly can’t see who benefits.
Jerry said | June 19th 2009 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
I’m sure the unions still make some money off them, regardless of whether they’re competitive or not.
Knives Out said | June 19th 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
Undoubtedly, but it’s part of the whole rugby ‘problem’. The tests are bad for player welfare and the games dilute the test brand. But then what do I know, I’m only a fan?
Sam Taulelei said | June 19th 2009 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
There was an article a couple of days ago reporting that during the Super 14 Henry hinted that he wanted to see Read play at no.8 instead of no.6. So naturally I asked the question why? So I thought about the makeup of our trio from 2004-07 and this weeks selection.
Kaino (like Jerry Collins) presents a physical presence, height in the lineout and a ball carrier who can cross the advantage line and worry people with his defence, McCaw (and Latimer) are specialist no.7’s, So’oialo is perpetual motion, he’s not a flashy dynamic player like some of his contemporaries but he’s accurate in his play, a strong defender and can link and maintain continuity. He also competes strongly for the ball and complements McCaw. Read possesses similar traits and in the context of how Henry prefers how his loose forwards operate as a unit he appeals as a better fit than either Lauaki or Messam. The jury is still out on whether Read is the answer as a backup to So’oialo but this is a better balanced trio than last week. I’m expecting the All Blacks to kick the ball out more and attack the French lineout with the added height from Read and Kaino.
Dean Pantio said | June 20th 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Knives Out wrote:
“Dean, Ouedraogo had carte blanche at the front of the line out time and time again. Servat and Szarzewski are not high percentage throwers and I repeat – NZ did not look to exploit this. What part of that is specious nonsense?”
My mistake obviously. I expected that when you said “they didn’t attack the French lineout” you obviously meant they did, but with limited success.
ohtani's jacket, said | June 20th 2009 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
Much better effort from the All Blacks so far in difficult conditions. Donald looks nervous as shit, however. He needs to pick and choose when to kick. Some great work from the forwards.
Jonker really is a crap ref.
ohtani's jacket, said | June 20th 2009 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
Got the win, but lost the trophy. I’m happy France got something out of this series.
Fantastic performance from both forward packs. The counter rucking was immense. I was impressed with our boys. Mealamu led from the front. Thorn was inspirational. Kaino did an outstanding job at blindside and Read didn’t let anyone down at No.8. Hard to find a forward who didn’t contribute. Even Tialata put his hand up.
The French outside backs looked better than us, though they received more of the ball in space. Huge defensive effort from the French again and they gave us a real Test in the second forty. Good stuff despite the conditions.
Knives Out said | June 20th 2009 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
‘My mistake obviously. I expected that when you said “they didn’t attack the French lineout” you obviously meant they did, but with limited success.’
No, I meant that NZ didn’t seem to counter jump at all. They did today, however, and look what happened.
Colin N said | June 20th 2009 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
It was a great game, despite the conditions. The French back three are incredibly infuriating – so talented, yet they kept dropping the ball in the first-half and misjudging the high ball, althought the swirling wind made it very difficult, so perhaps I’m being too harsh on them. It was awesome try from Heymans, one of the best individual tries I’ve seen for a long time. Typical Murray Mexted, refusing to even give a hint of praise to Heymans for the try.
Agreed that the All blacks forwards were very good, the back-row had a much better balance to it, with Latimer there. However, the French pack is still unbalancd.
ohtani's jacket, said | June 20th 2009 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
Yeah, that Heymans try was amazing.
pothale said | June 20th 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Good game. ABs deserved it – though it was a close run thing, despite the commentators’ one-eyed view. Heymans’s try was a thing of beauty. He looks overweight and slow, but seemed to glide past four ABs as if they weren’t there – great stuff.
Italy match was a joke – Mallet is right – they shouldn’t tour south for two or three years again, and choose more balanced competiton – these tours do them no favours. I can’t imagine they’ll be looking forward in any way to playing the ABs – complete waste of time.
Dean Pantio said | June 21st 2009 @ 1:30am | Report comment
“No, I meant that NZ didn’t seem to counter jump at all.”
Well they did, hence how they stole three(?) lineouts.
Knives Out said | June 21st 2009 @ 1:34am | Report comment
I recall those being mis-thrown darts rather than the extensive defensive work that occured today. Bit of a difference.
Dean Pantio said | June 21st 2009 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Then you recall wrongly. Hope that helps.