June Internationals: New Zealand - France, 2nd test

[Big Ewis]

That's a bingo.

:lol:

 

[smartcooky]

Nah choking is a term the Kiw's do in WC's. Cause they would smash teams for almost 4 years and then go lose in a knock out stage when expected to win (normally by the French) comfortably

How many semi final matches have New Zealand been in? SIX (out of a possible SEVEN - missed in 2007)
How many finals have they been in..... THREE (1987, 1995 & 2011)
How many World Cups have they won? TWO! 1987 @ 2011

Now lets look at the French record

How many semi final matches have the French been in? SIX (out of a possible SEVEN - missed in 1991)
How many finals have they been in..... THREE (1987, 1999 & 2011)
How many World Cups have they won? NONE! ZIP! ZERO! NADA!

The choker is firmly around French necks now!

Yeah you only won the first cause South Africa wasn't there

And that is the old BS excuse we hear from butthurt Saffas.

Firstly, South Africa alone was responsible for their absence in 1987 and 1991. They knew what they had to do in order to qualify, lose that genocidal, racist system of government they had.

Secondly, the Springboks were nowhere near good enough to win in 1987 or 1991. They lost eight out of the first ten test matches they played when the came back into International Rugby.

 

[Larksea]

thirty - nill

wow, pretty special. Up there with the 19 - 0 win over South Africa in South Africa a few years ago.

I knew it would be an improved performance but it ended up being pretty comprehensive. Cruden improved out of sight, still dropped off a couple of tackles but man his kicking around the park was epic, as with Dagg as well. Like the put a season of tactical kicking highlights into one game between them.

Beating France 30 - 0 without McCaw or Carter and also without Woodcock or Hore/Mealamu starting should fire a warning to the rugby world. Maybe one of the more significant wins of the Hansen & Fosters era so far.

Ben Smith was epic again, I mean just how good is he? His ball running, Kicks, kick chases, tackles. He's not just replacing Jane he's basically NZ's best and most consistent player and the 14 jersey should be his.

Will be interesting to see the final stats on it but it looked like the AB's destroyed the French lineouts, Read, Whitelock and Romano in combination with their lifters.

Whitelock was awesome back with a broken finger, this has been his best year yet.

france still nailed us at the breakdown till ranger came on and got one back. Defence and workrate was the winner, the forwards were fantastic.

 

[TRF_heineken]

How many semi final matches have New Zealand been in? SIX (out of a possible SEVEN - missed in 2007)
How many finals have they been in..... THREE (1987, 1995 & 2011)
How many World Cups have they won? TWO! 1987 @ 2011

Now lets look at the French record

How many semi final matches have the French been in? SIX (out of a possible SEVEN - missed in 1991)
How many finals have they been in..... THREE (1987, 1999 & 2011)
How many World Cups have they won? NONE! ZIP! ZERO! NADA!

The choker is firmly around French necks now!

And that is the old BS excuse we hear from butthurt Saffas.

Firstly, South Africa alone was responsible for their absence in 1987 and 1991. They knew what they had to do in order to qualify, lose that genocidal, racist system of government they had.

Secondly, the Springboks were nowhere near good enough to win in 1987 or 1991. They lost eight out of the first ten test matches they played when the came back into International Rugby.

Cooky, don't take anything serious that sifplay says, he's just another naysayer the forum don't want or need

 

[admartian]

No Picamoles is bad for France. At least they still have Dusatoir. TBH, that lose forward trio wasn't what cost them the game - if anything it was them that were putting in the most effort.. Lack of imagination on attack was part of it.

 

[Larksea]

it all started with the kicking game, All Blacks dominated the kicking game, which meant the french lost the territory battle big time then when their running game got stage fright in front of the All Black defensive line.

 

[Big Ewis]

How many semi final matches have New Zealand been in? SIX (out of a possible SEVEN - missed in 2007)
How many finals have they been in..... THREE (1987, 1995 & 2011)
How many World Cups have they won? TWO! 1987 @ 2011

Now lets look at the French record

How many semi final matches have the French been in? SIX (out of a possible SEVEN - missed in 1991)
How many finals have they been in..... THREE (1987, 1999 & 2011)
How many World Cups have they won? NONE! ZIP! ZERO! NADA!

The choker is firmly around French necks now!



And that is the old BS excuse we hear from butthurt Saffas.

Firstly, South Africa alone was responsible for their absence in 1987 and 1991. They knew what they had to do in order to qualify, lose that genocidal, racist system of government they had.

Secondly, the Springboks were nowhere near good enough to win in 1987 or 1991. They lost eight out of the first ten test matches they played when the came back into International Rugby.

well, for a smartycookie, you're pretty vulnerable psychologically; that's quite the exuberant (to not say explosive) post right there to say the least.
OK friend, France are the chokers, not NZ. :air_kiss:

 

[admartian]

well, for a smartycookie, you're pretty vulnerable psychologically; that's quite the exuberant (to not say explosive) post right there to say the least.
OK friend, France are the chokers, not NZ. :air_kiss:

They're only chokers cos they're expected to win. No one bats an eye when anyone else loses as they don't have the same perception...Of winning.

:lol:












(we're allowed to be tongue-in-cheek too right? ...)

 

[smartcooky]

Cooky, don't take anything serious that sifplay says, he's just another naysayer the forum don't want or need

Heine, I'm not one to allow bul kak to pass without comment, no matter who the fokop is who's posting it!

 

[dasNdanger]

Do these threads always turn into p****** matches?

This is how I see it...

First game the ABs underperformed. Scrums were terrible. Sure, they had a couple flashes of brilliance (which they capitalized on), but overall they just didn't have any spark. The French seemed to have more enthusiasm throughout the game, but just couldn't finish the job.

Second match? Well, it appeared to me that the ABs learned from their mistakes and brought a different game (sort of like adaptive robots in sci fi movies ), but the French just did more of the same. Perhaps they thought they were facing the same team they had the week before, or perhaps they *thought* they were themselves a better team than the week before, but whatever it was they just didn't have *it* this time. It was like the ABs were ready, prepared, for whatever the French threw at them.

I'm not sold on the idea of France 'choking'. I do, however, think they didn't have the enthusiasm they showed in the first match. There is a difference. Choking is about trying so hard mistakes are made, or doing just the opposite - freezing under pressure. I really don't think that was the case. I feel that France just didn't bring their A-game by learning (or applying what they learned) from the week before. Instead it was more of the same (drop goal attempt, anyone?), and that meant that the ABs knew exactly who they were playing.

das

 

[admartian]

Do these threads always turn into p****** matches?

This is how I see it...

First game the ABs underperformed. Scrums were terrible. Sure, they had a couple flashes of brilliance (which they capitalized on), but overall they just didn't have any spark. The French seemed to have more enthusiasm throughout the game, but just couldn't finish the job.

Second match? Well, it appeared to me that the ABs learned from their mistakes and brought a different game (sort of like adaptive robots in sci fi movies ), but the French just did more of the same. Perhaps they thought they were facing the same team they had the week before, or perhaps they *thought* they were themselves a better team than the week before, but whatever it was they just didn't have *it* this time. It was like the ABs were ready, prepared, for whatever the French threw at them.

I'm not sold on the idea of France 'choking'. I do, however, think they didn't have the enthusiasm they showed in the first match. There is a difference. Choking is about trying so hard mistakes are made, or doing just the opposite - freezing under pressure. I really don't think that was the case. I feel that France just didn't bring their A-game by learning (or applying what they learned) from the week before. Instead it was more of the same (drop goal attempt, anyone?), and that meant that the ABs knew exactly who they were playing.

das

Yeah I don't think France choked either. But somehow that turned this thread into something else.

 

[dasNdanger]

Yeah I don't think France choked either. But somehow that turned this thread into something else.

When a vastly superior team falls to a fair to middling team, then I'd say the superior team was caught off-guard and choked. But when two teams with equal potential face off and one team wins - twice - then you just have to come to terms with the fact one is just the better team. Is it coaching? Player skill? Something else? All of that is debatable, but claiming it's due to choking is both a cheap shot and a poor excuse - depending on which side is claiming it.


das

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah I don't think France choked either. But somehow that turned this thread into something else.

When a vastly superior team falls to a fair to middling team, then I'd say the superior team was caught off-guard and choked. But when two teams with equal potential face off and one team wins - twice - then you just have to come to terms with the fact one is just the better team. Is it coaching? Player skill? Something else? All of that is debatable, but claiming it's due to choking is both a cheap shot and a poor excuse - depending on which side is claiming it.


das

If you read back through the last few posts in the thread, you will see that no-one, and that includes me, ever implied that France choked in this match.

I was talking in general terms, directly and only in reply to sifplay (and I quoted him) that I felt the French now deserved to be passed the choker's baton previously being held by the All Blacks, purely on the basis of the comparative world cup records -- same win/'loss ratio in quarter finals and semifinals, but they have yet to win the big one.

 

[admartian]

If you read back through the last few posts in the thread, you will see that no-one, and that includes me, ever implied that France choked in this match.

I was talking in general terms, directly and only in reply to sifplay (and I quoted him) that I felt the French now deserved to be passed the choker's baton previously being held by the All Blacks, purely on the basis of the comparative world cup records -- same win/'loss ratio in quarter finals and semifinals, but they have yet to win the big one.

I understand mate. I wasn't pointing any fingers. Just a bit confused on how we ended up here. :lol:

 

[ZeFrenchy]

I agree with smartcooky in that i think it was pressure that made France crack and i'll use a word thats been used against us many a time i felt like France CHOCKED in this game. You could see it in their eyes as the game went on just like us in the semi finals of the WC when things didnt go right for us.

If you read back through the last few posts in the thread, you will see that no-one, and that includes me, ever implied that France choked in this match.

There you go.

I was talking in general terms, directly and only in reply to sifplay (and I quoted him) that I felt the French now deserved to be passed the choker's baton previously being held by the All Blacks, purely on the basis of the comparative world cup records -- same win/'loss ratio in quarter finals and semifinals, but they have yet to win the big one.

Choking refers to underperform under pressure. The French were neve the favorites, so that can't qualify as choking (except in 2007 probably).

They're only chokers cos they're expected to win. No one bats an eye when anyone else loses as they don't have the same perception...Of winning.

:lol:












(we're allowed to be tongue-in-cheek too right? ...)

I actually agree with that. The AB are always expected to win, so their odd loss is registered as a "choke". Perception bias, I'd call it.

 

[RyotoTheDragon]

Rugby is only a game guys, no need to get riled up over a 'game'. Just discuss points and switch to your porn tabs haha

 

[Big Ewis]

They're only chokers cos they're expected to win.

You don't realize it, but you're going in the exact direction as me.
It's a fairly primitive logic really, it goes like this:

NZ win all the time. No other team in any sport wins as much as NZ does at Rugby. The distance between the best and second, third, fourth...etc...best is considerable.

Come the world cups. Out of 7, they've only won a couple; and the first one didn't have their all-time rivals who had political problems at the time, and the last one controversial to say the least.
Those are all facts, you must face them unless you're a tiny little coward, face them and draw the necessary conclusions they provoke. Wake up, see things as they are. Bias is a beautiful thing, but at some point, wake tha fluke up.

And yes, you may be tongue-in-wherever you like

Rugby is only a game guys, no need to get riled up over a 'game'. Just discuss points and switch to your porn tabs haha

What makes you think I don't do that ?! Don't underestimate me, Dragon...

 

[dasNdanger]

Rugby is only a game guys, no need to get riled up over a 'game'. Just discuss points and switch to your porn tabs haha

Dude. Rugby IS my porn.

I mean, come on...I get up at 3:30 am, quietly slip out of bed so as not to wake the hubby, tiptoe into a dark room and sit fixated - my face bathed in the glow of the screen - watching as sweaty, writhing bodies pile on top of each other in the name of sport. If that's not porn, nothing is!!

das

 

[Shaggy]

You don't realize it, but you're going in the exact direction as me.
It's a fairly primitive logic really, it goes like this:

NZ win all the time. No other team in any sport wins as much as NZ does at Rugby. The distance between the best and second, third, fourth...etc...best is considerable.

Come the world cups. Out of 7, they've only won a couple; and the first one didn't have their all-time rivals who had political problems at the time, and the last one controversial to say the least.
Those are all facts, you must face them unless you're a tiny little coward, face them and draw the necessary conclusions they provoke. Wake up, see things as they are. Bias is a beautiful thing, but at some point, wake tha fluke up.

And yes, you may be tongue-in-wherever you like




What makes you think I don't do that ?! Don't underestimate me, Dragon...

... "the facts" 2 out of 7 world cups equals the Australia and South Africa, and is one ahead of England, so that puts New Zealand at at least equal top, doesn't it?

... as for the first RWC, Australia had the better record going into the tournament, having won the 3 match series in New Zealand, the year before, and also several Bledisloe Cup series's over the years preceding it ... South Africa, based on their last visit to NZ in 1981, where they lost the series 2-1, and their record immediately after readmission, were not a force of the same strength as say Australia IMO (based on those facts) ... would it have made a difference to the end result in 1987, my opinion is that I don't think so, but it's a pointless argument, as it can't be proved either way - the bottom line is that New Zealand won the tournament against the best teams allowed to play at the time.

... as for the last one, what controversy are you referring to - refereeing decisions?, just about all of the RWC tournaments have had controversial moments, that have effected the outcomes, and to try to lessen a team's achievements, by using these "controversies", is pretty poor form really.

To apply my line of thinking to the game that this thread is actually about, your earlier comments seem to imply that it was because France played so poorly, that the margin was what it was, not, because the All Blacks played so well ... I would suggest that the reason the scoreline was what it was, is more to do with the way the All Blacks played, than the way France did.

... and Dragon, I don't think anyone is getting upset, we all realize that, at the end of the day,
it's a game

 

[Aristodemus]

Nothing controversial in the WC 2011, the best team won fair and square.