First things first. The best team in the tournament, and as it happens in world rugby for the last two years, won the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament.
The All Blacks were the only team in the tournament that was undefeated in all its matches. It would have been a savage blow to the integrity and credibility of the tournament if France had won the final.
France would have been acclaimed as World Champions, despite the fact that in the tournament they lost to New Zealand and Tonga.
This would have made a nonsense of the event.
With the All Blacks winning, just, by the closest margin of any final, the precedent of every tournament winning side in Rugby World Cups since 1987 winning all their matches has been preserved.
And this goes to the heart of the matter about how the teams performed throughout the tournament.
The All Blacks played with their hearts and guts in every match. They scored 37 tries leading up to the final. They had a very tough finals draw, having to play Argentina, a physical side in the quarter-finals, and Australia, a side with huge potential in its back line and (in my view, the second strongest side in the tournament), in the semi-final.
Contrast this with France.
They coasted through their pool rounds, taking hardly any energy out of themselves. They contested against the All Blacks in their pool round for about 12 minutes and then gave the game away, threw it to put it bluntly, to get access to the easier half of the finals draw.
Then they lost to Tonga.
They played a strong opening 40 minutes against a poorly-coached England side in the quarter-final. They almost lost to Wales, who played with 14 men for much of the match.
When it came to the final, France had many more reserves of energy left in the legs of the players than the All Blacks.
France surprised everybody (probably including themselves) by coming so close to victory. But coming close, having a chance to win as they did with two penalty attempts in the second half of the match, is not the same as deserving to win.
The French are concocting a myth that somehow they were cheated out of victory by the referee, Craig Joubert.
Let’s kill this snake right now.
The penalty count was 10 to 7 in favour of the All Blacks. Four of the All Blacks penalties were at the breakdown, two at scrums and one for collapsing a maul.
Seven of the French penalties were at the breakdown, two at scrums and one for offside.
From a diligent watching of the match, it seemed to me that these penalties reflected the outcome of the play.
The All Blacks got most of their penalties in the first half when they were dominant. Many times throughout the match, the New Zealand halfback was clearing the ball with bodies of French defenders lying around him.
Both sides played a very flat defensive wall. And the packs seemed to be evenly matched at scrum time.
The All Blacks made 121 tackles (missing 13) and France made 129 tackles (missing 16). The All Blacks had 13 turnovers and France had 18. The All Blacks won 14 of their 16 lineout throws and France won 15 of their 17 lineouts.
These statistics, which come from the New Zealand Herald, suggest a very even match, with the statistics slightly, ever so slightly, favouring New Zealand, as did the scoreboard.
Throughout the tournament the New Zealand Herald has been running a very informative column by the former Test referee, New Zealander Kelvin Deaker, analysing the performance of the referees. His judgment on Joubert is a judgment that I endorse: “If Sunday night proved one thing, it is that the right man was in charge. Craig Joubert was the referee of the tournament by some distance …”
Deaker went on to note that the breakdown was policed slightly more leniently than in previous matches, with Joubert choosing to use verbal warning on the run rather than the whistle. This “allowed both sides to re-cycle possession … I liked the fact that the game was there for the players to lose or win.”
Between the 71st and 74th minute, France put on 15 phases inside the New Zealand.
It was clear that they were playing for a penalty, the northern hemisphere way possibly, rather than actually trying to score a try or even set up a drop goal situation. It was noticeable, too, that the All Blacks kept diligently to Joubert’s instructions about hands in the ruck and keeping behind the off-side line.
Here was a classic situation where France could have won the match and become World Champions if they had tried to play more positively. They were content, though, to smash up in the hope of forcing a penalty.
This was the moment when their cynical and (let’s face it) rather lazy approach to their matches in the pool round and the semi-final against Wales came back to bite them. They had not extended themselves in their matches.
Now when they needed that little bit extra, they could not find the energy or the inspiration to do it.
Practice makes perfect, the cliche runs. The French had not practised for that moment when everything was on the line, when their lungs were bursting and legs wobbly, to match that final, gut-busting, inspired play that is the mark of champions.
Instead, it was the All Blacks who had played with passion and energy every match of the tournament, who defended as splendidly as they had attacked in previous matches and who forced the mistakes from France when turnovers were gold.
It now seems that France may have succumbed to the disease of trying to eye-gouge their way to a victory in the final minutes of the match.
There is television evidence that suggests a French player might have eye-gouged Richie McCaw. This was the incident when McCaw went down and needed treatment.
Again, this incident, like the tactic of playing for a penalty, goes to the character of the side.
In my view, as splendidly as France played in the final (with the exception of the foul play towards the end of the match), it would have been a travesty of what a World Cup tournament is about if they had snatched the victory.
The win by the All Blacks, which was ‘a close run thing’ (The Duke of Wellington’s summary of the Battle of Waterloo), was a victory for the credibility of the World Cup tournament and, therefore, a good thing for the world of rugby.
kai
Guest
This is all opinion and interpretation in the end. Not to mention redundant:0) Personally feel that NZ got the all important benefit of the doubt, and being a referee I certainly know what that means. 2-3 penalties against france were clearly wrong (ex 1st penalty of game where tackler is still holding tackled player after penalty is called.) One clear NZ hands in ruck to prevent scrum half from clearing ball, then france called for hands (second infringement.) also, NZ clearly came in with tactic of kicking high and then interfering with catcher. Got away with 2-3 clear and obvious infringements in this regard with change of possession as a result. Joubert did look at AR for one of them, so I guess they both missed it. TO me it was subtle, but the penalty count could have easy be reversed.
Jeff
Guest
It is ludicrous to say that the French are concocting some sort of a myth about the referee. It is in France that you hear the least about Joubert's performance. The poor performance was noticed widely by international observers. The penalty count is not showing the fact that Joubert was giving the penalties to France when they were non-kickable And how about McCaw playing off his feet and the high tackles. Here is a proper post match analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XBqetaCfgo
Mike
Guest
Frank, Fair enough, but just because many of us point out that France equally deserved to win this does not mean that we are "sore losers". So please do not imply that! France has been disliked by many sections of the Australian public for many years, and Les Bleus had all sorts of problems in this tournament, but that shouldn't detract from appreciation of their performance in the final - it was stunning, the equal of the All Blacks, but unfortunately one team had to lose. It was fitting that it was only by 1 point.
Jerry
Guest
It's a valid point though, in the context of the level of criticism Joubert has garnered for his performance compared to how Barnes' performance was viewed outside of NZ. Using words like 'deserve' or 'gifting' is obviously fairly inflammatory and misguided, but I think any neutral observer would agree that Barnes performance disadvantaged the AB's more than Joubert's disadvantaged the French, yet the reactions from the international rugby community was markedly different.
Mike
Guest
"French played well in the final, no doubt about it. But they were not good enough to deserve victory. None of the knockers seem willing to accept that it was the chances that France didn’t take cost them the match." Whilst noting your praise of the French, they missed no more chances than New Zealand, nor were they any less inventive. The score line fairly reflected the difference between these team and the level of BOTH sides defence - one try and one goal apiece. "France had offered nothing at this tournament. They had been awful and had been beaten twice in the league stages. They were told they were a disgrace to the romance of French rugby and the World Cup heroics of their predecessors." This is self-contradictory. The French had to overcome obstacles same as New Zealand, one of which was the virtual non-performance of their coach. From that perspective, the French performance was greater than the ABs who had the full backing of their coach. "New Zealand are the first host nation to win the World Cup in the professional era" This is becoming a desperate search for points of distinction...! "And to add to that they did with Weepu playing through the last match with a groin injury." For heavens sake, every team was carrying injuries by that stage. And Weepu's drop in performance appeared to be fundamentally due to the fact that France put him under pressure which he never had to face against the Wallabies in the semi (much as it pains me to say that). Which is not to say Weepu played badly in the final, just that he looked more human when up against a forward pack that contest his own forwards at every opportunity.
Mike
Guest
That doesn't cut it. There are many players in the French team that played fairly. Their lock Lionel Nallet for example is well-known for never stopping to dirty play. Thierry Dusatoir plays it hard, but fair. The correct action would have been to refer to the French during the final speech, and report Rougerie for dangerous play. As it is, McCaw and Henry were wrong on both counts.
Mike
Guest
Fair point. Its a hard call - do you employ that "little invention" or do you keep the pressure on in the hope that the defenders will crack. Sometimes the latter tactic works, very successfully. Whatever, it was a cracker of a game.
Mike
Guest
Moore of course is very aware of the vulnerability of heads to mosquitos, as his own carries no natural protection...
Mike
Guest
"NZ’s 2007 quarter final exit where Wayne Barnes played the opposite game, heavily favouring the French and gifting the French their passage into the semifinals." You are kidding yourself. If the ABs had been on top of their game then, this canard might have some credibility. The ABs might have got through that QF if the bounce of the ball had gone their way, but the fact is that they didn't "deserve" a win. Barnes is as good a referee as any, and his reffing in that match was not particularly bad. its just that ABs needed to do more to secure the win, but they didn't, and the dice went against them.
Mike
Guest
I don't agree with your last part, Wal. France played brusing matches in the lead-up also, and they were also carrying injuries. France played with just as much guts and to suggest that they wanted the win any less than NZ is to look at it 100% from a kiwi perspective. I think either team deserved to win this one because neither held anything back - the skill commitment and the blood were all there. It was an 8-7 score line, which some who didn't see it might say must have been a boring game, but the reality was different - totally absorbing contest.
Ben S
Roar Guru
Great way to back out of misquoting someone. I'm embarrassed for you.
David
Guest
A small point, but one feature of the RWC, was that there tended to be a lot of conjecture over ref decisioning at the breakdown. Inevitably (the mating call of the loser?) there were disputes around consistency of interpretation etc. The stats around the number of tries v goals also lead to the dominance of terrific defensive performances. Is there a debate to be had on rules (Yet again!) at the breakdown?
Mike
Guest
Okay, so now you're telling us that neither the French nor ABs had an "attacking strategy", and since nobody knows what you mean by "attacking strategy", no-one can ever prove you wrong!
andy shearer
Guest
so ... how long after McCaws retirement do we see him as a candidate for PM of NZ?
andy shearer
Guest
thanks mate - i am not ready to bunker down for the cricket season yet
IronAwe
Guest
I dont hate Mccaw I love him.
Brett McKay
Guest
Andy, the Wallabies play the Barbarians at Twickenham on Nov 26, and Wales at Cardiff on Dec 3..
andy
Guest
so - does anyone know if there is an end of year tour to europe ? or is that it till Super 15?
Ben S
Roar Guru
You'er obviously struggling here, mush. Did I say the French had no attacking strategy but that the All Blacks did? Can't actually see where I said that.
Photon
Guest
There has only been one truly shocking refering performance in this tournament, the fella managed to destroy what was supposed to be the marquee quater-final? Every other performance has had aspects with errors, by Bryce Lawrence screwed the pooch, was right up there with Barnes, although Barnes could probably be excused due to a lack of experience. "There I said it" I know you don't like it Spiro and will probably never admit it, but that is the truth!