As much as it pains me to confess, it’s my opinion that France has slipped out of contention as a real threat in September’s rugby World Cup.
I say this as somebody who grew up in France and spent a long time there watching various iterations of les Bleus. I say it as an Aussie resident who’s seen a lot of southern hemisphere rugby. And I say it after checking with many of my rugby-watching friends in France who are of the same opinion.
The team’s problem is their coach, Marc Lievremont, and selector Bernard Laporte. Jaws dropped all over France when Lievremont announced that Sebastien Chabal would play at No. 8 against England.
He has one of the best eights in the world in Imanol Harinordoquy, but he thought that what didn’t work against the Wallabies would work against England.
He thought that the French pack could hammer the English pack as the Boks did. But apart from an excellent front row, and Imanol, who’s a great lineout jumper, ball carrier and defender, in fact the best player les Tricolores have, team France’s forwards aren’t that special. Not this year.
It used to be that Thierry Dusautoir would tirelessly tackle anything that moved, and he still does but to a lesser extent. In the second row, neither Nallet, Pierre or Thion scare anybody. And Julien Bonnaire, who’ll be 33 in September, has lost a step or two.
Back to Chabal. He’s immensely popular, the craggy face of French rugby, but he shouldn’t have a spot in the run on 15. He’s an ideal bench player to come on in the last twenty minutes as a second row replacement and do some damage. But his charges were easily absorbed by the English as they were by the Wallabies, and he had little affect on Saturday.
But I don’t want to place all the blame for the loss on the forwards. The fact is, the French backs are not up to snuff. Parra/Yachvili and Trinh-Duc are a good enough combo although Trinh-Duc’s attempted drop goal with Haskell right in his face is symptomatic of indecisiveness if not panic.
But he did put through a perfect grubber which Rougerie fumbled in his dive. Poitreneau passed the ball into touch, Clerc and Huget tried hard, Traille did his best, but the net result is a backline that’s lacking punch and penetration.
Can France find new blood to restore them to being World Cup contenders? I believe it’s too late for that. I think Lievremont will continue to tinker with the same 22 he has now, and it won’t be enough to slay any giants in NZ in September.
They’ll be beaten if they come up against England, which has developed a very rugged defence, and they won’t be able to stay with the Wallabies, the All Blacks or the Boks.
Indeed, I would relegate France to the status of dangerous floaters along with Ireland and the Pumas.
Quel damage.
Xemfac
Guest
So France was not going to be a threat in this RWC? Too bad they eliminated England and Wales and I failed to win the final for only one single point. If there is a team out of the top 5, it is probably England.
Ben S
Roar Guru
Hello, Angus?! How very surprising.
Spencer
Guest
You muppet!
Ben S
Roar Guru
Whoever mentioned 'good to watch' or suggested that one style of play is better than another?
Brian
Guest
Yup Andre - the selfsame Scotland team that beat Australia a few months earlier, if I'm not mistaken
Brian
Guest
Choclit_Bear - I like your style boyo.
Jon
Guest
The Boks and the SA super rugby franchises are not on the same page as far as their style of play is concerned. The Springboks are obviously badly-coached, and a bit one-dimensional at the monent, while almost all SA super rugby team possess attacking threat and great backline players, not to mention their usual forward power. I am not a Bok fan but this critic is a lit bit harsh on them. Anyway I'm very keen to see how the Sharks, the Stormers and the Bulls go against the running Tahs.
Suzy Poison
Guest
Ah thanks for that explanation, it all makes sense now!
Ben S
Roar Guru
Somebody give Eddie Jones a call.
Ben S
Roar Guru
I didn't say there was a right or wrong way to play rugby, I simply noted that a handful of teams are playing rugby that is not in sync with the new law interpretations.
Jerry
Guest
In both 99 and 07, the team that was handed the massive thrashing was basically a second string side.
Choclit_bear
Guest
thats simply because teams this year get 4 points for a bye
Suzy Poison
Guest
On a different note and as a Stormers Supporter. I do love the fact that the Stormers got 8 points for thier first game, unlike everyone else, who normally gets 4 points for a win. The joke is on the Super Rugby team, because every site, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all have the table wrong. Hoefully the Stormers get 8 points for the next game as well, at this rate the Stormers will have the home semi wrapped up halfway thru the comp. http://livescores.smh.com.au/rugby/super15/super15-ladder.html http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/scoreboard/super-rugby-standings?label=Super+Rugby+standings
Suzy Poison
Guest
Ok, so you are correct Ben. The Boks really do need to use width a lot more, the Super 14 2009 teams and this year's Super 15 teams seemed quite apt at backline play, that the Boks don't seem to be coached to try. I can't argue with that. However my point is, "enterprising play" doesn't always translate into winning rugby. To win the World Cup, you need to grind out tough defensive games too. In fact I would go so far as to say that "enterprising play" can be a double edge sword, (especially with turnovers) when it comes to risk free World Cup one offs. This is probably the reason why the much maligned boring Boks (together with England) have fared better than most at World Cup in one off high pressure games. Even Argentina got further than the All Blacks and Australia with the same approach (kick and chase) in 2007. It may be boring but when the Boks play a true power defence minded game, but it’s also nearly unstoppable. The power game is how they played against England. This is the point I am making. There is no right or wrong style to play rugby. Some styles whilst, they may seem boring to Australian viewers in particular because they are used to Rugby League, they still have some merit. There is the classic Graeme Henry comment, when asked to respond to Jake White statement that defence wins World Cups. Graeme responded; "Well then we wouldn't want to win to tournament in that way, anyway!" Graeme got his wish.
Choclit_bear
Guest
What I dont understand is where this perception that for a team to be considered "good to watch" or enterprising they have to toss the ball around and have backs that run pretty lines and exploit space in wide areas. Is there some rule that I am not aware of. It is clearly a subjective thing. I for one dont watch the wallabies unless they are playing the Boks coz all that avoiding the set piece and shying away from the physical confrontation is just not for me. I love watching the Boks play precisely because they do the things I love to watch well ,ie physically dominating the opposition and enterprising yes enterprising forward play. I would love to know by what measure the wallaby way has become synonymous with "good to watch". Could it be because the majority of fans think so, ummn clearly not the game is much bigger in RSA and England where the game is based around the forwards. Could it be because of results again no RSA have had the wood on Australia for the better part of the last decade. So what is it then?
Rusty
Roar Guru
Im an avid Bok supporter but Ben is right to a degree. Our backline play is a shambles we rely on upfront domination to bascially pound our opponents to pieces. Thats not to say we arent innovative or expansive except the brain trust seems to stop after the ball leaves the forwards. There is hope though, the Super rugby sides are showing a bit more creativity and expansiveness in play without losing the upfornt game. This is the style we will need come RWC time but it remains to be seen if the Mexican can see that
Derm
Roar Guru
Loftus Ben S didn't say that the top 4 teams are NZ, Aus, England and Ireland. Maybe you should re-read the point being made by him and Stillmissit which was about the style of game being played. South Africa have had their successes playing the game the way they want to play it. No one doubts that. They've also had their losses. What worked for them in 2009 for the Lions and Tri-Nations started to come apart by the end of 2009 when they lost to Ireland and France. 2010 was also a pretty shabby year in the Tri-Nations, and then they went on a Grand Slam tour last November. They barely beat Ireland - a last minute missed kick by O'Gara to draw the match if you recall, and they lost to Scotland. You have to put that into context of their much-vaunted win over England. The point is about whether SA use an enterprising style of play, or whether they still rely on rush, pressure and kick to win matches. On evidence to date, I'd say the latter.
Ben S
Roar Guru
I think you know what I'm talking about, Suzy, so there's no need for the sarcasm. Stillmissit referred to teams currently playing expansice rugby, and I replied - corectly - that certain teams aren't. Unless you're going to claim that SA beat England in a manner that wasn't based around kicking and a rush defence?
Ben S
Roar Guru
You're right, he played against England, which I failed to mention. A typing error on my part. The point remains that the side was basically full strength minus the typical injuries that every rugby nation deals with. Missing a few players hardly makes a side a B team, and it's totally disengenuous to suggest otherwise. No rugby side is ever full strength. So which facts do I need to get straight? Bekker was a starter? Don't think he was. Was Brussow a starter? Not when Smith and Burger were fit.
Ben S
Roar Guru
Please explain to me what my 'rating system' is. What is this rating system?