"French inconsistency a myth"

[Big Ewis]

Hey guys !
Some of you must have stumbled across this article some time ago...I'd read it like a year ago, but came across it again and thought I'd share it...
I'm not saying I believe our inconsistency really is a myth entirely, but it certainly makes an interesting read, with some good factual data.

CAUTION: please don't take this as arrogance or self-importance, I've only posted this out of interest and curiosity for the forum as I (hope !) don't think it's been posted before.


http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/152628.html

 

[Zed]

They are a good side and have been for years. They are a bit of an enigma really, they do things like beating NZ, but then lose to Italy. They lose to Australia at home by 60 pts then thrash them by 30 pts 2 years later. Lose to Tonga in the WC then beat England etc. Possibly their Achilles heel is their mental strength. They give up when the chips are down, hence the reason Australia managed to put 60 pts on them. Australia didn't play amazingly well and they didn't have a team that was 60 pts better than France, but when the game was over, some of the French players just gave up.

 

[Big Ewis]

Yes, there is clearly that "inconsistency" at times...it's mental for sure though.
Losing to Italy was a long time coming honestly, we played them a million times and they got us twice overall...I'm not too concerned about that, Italy came really really close to beating each team in the 6N...

To me, the mentality thing though is yes, things like being tied 16-16 all at home against Australia and then seeing the visiting side go to 60 while staying at 16. I'm not sure wtf that was, but it ain't normal. Some said the French players weren't used to such a physical rate, that the Aussies were more fit and conditioned for longer efforts ??...I dunno.

Or 2006 6N FRA IRE:
we're waaaayyyyyy up, highest point is just after HTime when the score's like 37-3 or smt...and then Ireland just pours in 4 tries in a row. That's obviously France releasing its foot from the pedal.
A side like England would be like "alright, we're up so high on the scoreboard, EXCELLENT !! Let's put some more on them !!", and that's the AB's mentality too. France tends to slow down when in the lead often...

But that's the point really: "France is inconsistent" is a shortcut to saying smt longer like "France may sometimes show psychological irregularities, or play with different gears". There are reasons each time to our big defeats/big victories; but ppl will tend to conform all that and make an amalgam of the whole output.
It's not that randomly France will produce, and then won't show up the next game. And that's what this article shows. On the long run, we're actually more consistent than the other teams in the 6N for e.g.
But then we get caught up in underestimating teams, not playing with all the intensity we can...etc...but that's not inconsistency, that's just our occasional foolishness...

 

[nickdnz]

The thing that has always really described the French teams inconsistency for me isn't just in terms of result. When people claim they aren't consistent - it's more a case that they don't maintain a prolonged period of dominance. Their team is always up there as either the best or second best in Europe at any given time - but they haven't produced a team which season to season is extremely dominent. They're always there or there abouts which I suppose is consistent, but they never seem to get a team which you could look back on as a dominent team. They also tend to lose games they should win, and win games they should lose - hard to quantify that as a statistic though.

For me the reason I think of France as inconsistent has been as much to do with selections as anything else. I look at some players which are class players such as Nyanga, Bastareaud and Michelak who have all looked good/great in a French jersey, but then seem to fade quickly into obscurity until 3-4 years later when they resurface. Now part of that is because France has great depth - but what always dismays me is that they've always thought 'this player is playing the best rugby in the top 14 at the moment, so he should be in our national team'. Which is fine, except instead of picking the best player in the team from the last season, select the consistently best player over the last few seasons and then show a bit of faith in them. France never seems to grow as a team because the individual components of the teams change so often.

 

[Big Ewis]

hah, interesting points there man.
Yes, the selection is often criticized, esp. under Lievremont as we all know of course...

Yeah, nobody can say France is "consistent" internationally, that would be ridiculous. But like I said, I think it's less about 'inconsistency' as it is other little things here and there, whether it's the selection/coaching/mindsets...

As for the not consistent for an entire year, I agree with you. We've never had a year like England's 2002-03 for e.g., and sure the latter was fantastic, but one would imagine France could achieve it at least on one good year. However, 9 Grand Slams for a team that late to catch up with the home nations is pretty impressive for e.g., but for wtvr reason (some times technical, other times just the wrong state of mind I suppose) we'll do great during the 5N/6N and then mess up during the mid-year or EOY tours...

Of course a great example of that yearly fluctuation of form is 1998 and 1999.
* We get past everyone in impressive fashion to say the least (except a close one against ENG) in 98, hands down Grand Slam.
* 1999 our worst showing in yeaaaaars during the 5N winning just one match (!), and then that crazy upset during the RWC semifinal in Twickenham a few months later.
I'm not sure how many changes were made to the team from 1998 to the 99 RWC, but talk about inconsistent results !...

But you're right. On an entire year's season, we haven't been 'dominant'. Shorter stretches, yes, but not a year. And that, in itself, sure speaks volumes on France's case historically.

While certain things, I just cannot explain: that 'incident' of a defeat to AUS in 2010, and that whole year altogether.
A nice Grand Slam to start the year. Then a big defeat in SA. Then, notably, another 40 on us in Argentina...a couple of victories and then that 16-59 FRA-AUS; 13-13 at HT...

Honestly, the only sincere thing I can think of is fatigue. Coz one may call me sore and make up excuses, but think about it. 13 all at half, and then Australia puts an extra 50 in one half, AWAY, and in France, I mean, this isn't Namibia...
Strange....

 

[McTallshort]

The French can truly beat anyone on their day....they are just a bit tarty about when that day is.

 

[Big Ewis]

wow...what a compliment......ahem.