Well they did, hence how they stole three(?) lineouts.

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.

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.

No, I meant that NZ didn’t seem to counter jump at all. They did today, however, and look what happened.

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.

Jonker really is a crap ref.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

“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.

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.

“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…

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.

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.