I know your game France. You're not fooling anyone...

First topic message reminder :

I can see why so many dismiss France in the NH. They should challenge every year for top honours in the 6N and yet so often turn hot and cold. They looked threatening and solid in last year's Autumn Internationals but so far this 6N they have looked lethargic, bereft of ideas on attack and disorganised. Is this a result of too many players in the Top 14 and not enough preparation together as a test squad? The same might be said for Wales and it was not a match to remember. The night game and the state of the pitch obviously didn't effect things but both sides looked out on their feet and scared to try to take this game by the scruff of the neck and do something with any positive intent. In the end, a bit of enterprise from Biggar and Wales take a deserved win but not much else to write home about.

Then it dawned on me. The French are touring NZ next June and play three tests in NZ. The ABs will be without Richie McCaw and no doubt the French will arrive in NZ dismissed as wooden spooners and French management will eagerly collect up all the foam-mouthed clippings from the Herald and make a nice papier mâché doll likeness of Joubert out of them and place it slap bang in the middle of the dressing room for each test. The players will be made to kiss the feet of the likeness of Joubert before stepping out onto the field and during the haka the players will wear earpieces and be played damning pieces from all over the world and then they will unleash hell as soon as the whistle blows.

The NZ media must be warned. Rattue should be forced to write sickly praises of the French squad and how they are a force to be reckoned with, and isn't it a shame they should have to play such rabble all the time (note this is not the opinion of the author of this OP but we have to fight fire with fire). The French team should no longer be referred to as Les Bleus but Les Buttercups (Les Tasses de beurre) and we should build them up like no other team has been built up before. They will be so flummoxed at the kindness of the NZ media that their intricate preparation will be thrown out the window and they will have to resort to plan b and when they step out onto the field they will realise that they don't have a plan b and really there wasn't much of a plan a to be begin with.

In all seriousness, what has happened to France? Playing at home and facing a Welsh team that are at rock bottom. Where was the fire and brimstone after being humilated in Rome? As well as the Italians played, shouldn't such a result be seen as such? Where was the sting of criticism in the French players tonight? Why did everything seem so spectacularly predictable and meek? I expect so much more from a team with such depth and talent in their players. Is club rugby affecting the test team so much? How can they have looked so solid last autumn and so average so far this year?

So we are agreeing on the same thing. England are better than France from an England point of view. France are better than England- from a NZ point of view.

Its all about your own experiences with both sides. Last years win over NZ was by far the best England has had over NZ...ever. More of those and the tune might just change...

but you think france are the better rwc team??

and you also think they are the better team overall?

forget about from a NZ pespective or an England one!

which is the better side?

also is france better than SA by your rationale

because for my money that is the best attritional team in world rugby!

and not a massively expansive unit and never have been

Better world cup side- England- primarily due to 2003. Outside 2003 Wcup- France.

Overall, in my opinion, France is the better side historically. That is primarily through results against us, the style of play and the talent that has emerged from French rugby over time, and due to the fact that we would rather play England in a do or die match than France- they have the ability to do to us what only Oz or SA are capable of doing.

Until last December, England werent in that category, and until they repeat it at a more important time, still arent.

Don't know if other kiwi posters will be as upfront as me but I'd guess thats the general feeling of most NZers. What we've seen from France on many occasions we havnt seen from another NH side.

Isnt that just because you play them more.(you even keep grouping england with the rest of the NH- i find that abit strange tbh!)

I checked the records between france v sa/aus and england v them as well.

the results are almost exactly spot on..

also the win rates of england and france v NZ are also close to being spot on(2% in it!!)

but england beat france alot more than they beat us, in the important games as well. and have the superior tourny records..

Its a real shame that england have to endure the lions and that we dont seem to play you that much.. but you have to look past what you see due to familiarity

Mysti just look over the last 30 years at Englands matches against NZ. Can you see anything there to get excited about? Even the 2003 side managed to just win twice, regardless of anything else.

We're used to seeing our sides put 30-40 points on NH sides regularly so know a little bit more about what it takes to win matches, and its a big, big deal when we get beaten the way the French have done.

I just think they get bogged down in the NH, having to play a style that doesnt suit them. The fact that they are the more southern country is no coincidence in the style they play.

"Can you see anything there to get excited about?"

No but i also cant from france.. you can big them up because you played them more- thats fine

"We're used to seeing our sides put 30-40 points on NH sides regularly so know a little bit more about what it takes to win matches, and its a big, big deal when we get beaten the way the French have done. "


ermm strange comment here- you have scored double the points v france and slightly under that v england!!

"I just think they get bogged down in the NH, having to play a style that doesnt suit them. The fact that they are the more southern country is no coincidence in the style they play. "

erm so if england actually played you more!!! wouldnt we be better off as well!

and sa are way more southern than france- why dont they play a running game....!!

"Better world cup side- England- primarily due to 2003. Outside 2003 Wcup- France."

if your gonna take one of englands wc's away- can we take one of frances as well

anyway i respect your opinion that france are the better rugby side.

however no stats are gonna back you up on this..

Its all about what you have seen, what you have experienced and what you feel..

And some of it is the way they play the game.

When we win we like to win well and others doing the same will usually get rate higher.

For me England is the SA of the north, France the Oz. Luckily we are a combination of the two, leaning more towards the Oz/ French style.

So preferring the open style of play I rate running and passing rugby over all else. I believe that ultimately the forwards are their to secure the ball, the backs are there to move it and score tries.

Both can do the opposite but fundamentally thats the way I see it.

Hence I get frustrated with both the SA and English styles. Traditionally both are forward oriented and in my view they both neglect the power of true backplay, instinct, moves.

In the last 30 years you can count the number of truly great SA and English backs on one hand. Rarely would more than 4 or 5 backs from either country make the all time lists if we are at all being honest.

The backs will generally be from NZ/ Oz, France, Wales or Ireland probably in that order.

Youre right in that SA play a largely forward based game and that is through choice more than anything else. Theres no reason a country of that calibre cant put together 4 or 5 passes on a regular basis but thats currently the case. And its frustrating to watch. England are largely the same, the NZ match being so unlike any other weve played.

So part of it is preference- I much prefer the French style than the English and I believe the English sell their game short by not being more expansive. They have the resources and its good to see BL heading more in that direction.

The French really do have an undeserved reputation for flair and exciting backs play and have done for a few years now.

Maybe it'll take a while until that reputation dwindles Down South.

taylorman, the Welsh (or Ireland really) don't play like that anymore either.

Taylorman wrote:So we are agreeing on the same thing. England are better than France from an England point of view. France are better than England- from a NZ point of view.

Its all about your own experiences with both sides. Last years win over NZ was by far the best England has had over NZ...ever. More of those and the tune might just change...

That should be from YOUR point of view.

For many South Africa are the best SH team, certainly mine. It took NZ until 1995 to beat them in a test series away, never did it before the age of professionalism, although we all know NZ were 'professional' before then

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:The French really do have an undeserved reputation for flair and exciting backs play and have done for a few years now.

Maybe it'll take a while until that reputation dwindles Down South.

taylorman, the Welsh (or Ireland really) don't play like that anymore either.

Wales play or try to play fast running rugby unlike Englands borefest of 10 man rugby. It was suitably good enough to whoop english asses at Twickers last year

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:The French really do have an undeserved reputation for flair and exciting backs play and have done for a few years now.

Maybe it'll take a while until that reputation dwindles Down South.

taylorman, the Welsh (or Ireland really) don't play like that anymore either.

Wales play or try to play fast running rugby unlike Englands borefest of 10 man rugby. It was suitably good enough to whoop english asses at Twickers last year

I've put the important bit in bold for you. We'll see what happens at the MS this year me old chum

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:The French really do have an undeserved reputation for flair and exciting backs play and have done for a few years now.

Maybe it'll take a while until that reputation dwindles Down South.

taylorman, the Welsh (or Ireland really) don't play like that anymore either.

Wales play or try to play fast running rugby unlike Englands borefest of 10 man rugby. It was suitably good enough to whoop english asses at Twickers last year

I've put the important bit in bold for you. We'll see what happens at the MS this year me old chum

We do it better than you lot even when we are doing it poorly. Can't wait to see a few 1000 Nigel's with sad faces especially if it is a GS that we take off you. It was deep joy last yeras to see 80,000 Nigel's look like that. Some in bold for you too

NIgels- what ya trying to say RW!!!

N-oble
I-nbred
G-entleman
E-nglish
L-icking
S-trawberries

Hope that helps Oak

its my middle name you wrongon!

Nigel from Surrey - now there's a rare one

Thanks for educating me RG

Is it me or is that another thread turned into an anglo-welsh bickering contest?

Ni bickering here just trying to help Oakey out

ermmmm..

mystiroakey wrote:NIgels- what ya trying to say RW!!!

When an Englishman calls me "Old Chum" it deserves a come back. Seems to be a middle / upper class name (to me).

Ergo - Nigel Smarmy-Smith

ok taffy jones

For me theres two schools of thought. Those who actually believe the game can be controlled (and anyone in that camp will base it largely on a 10 man approach) and those that think Rugby is a 15 man game where it actually does take 15 players to contribute 'evenly' to get consistent results.

SA and England are traditionally by far the best in the first school, NZ, Oz and France in the second, NZ has been moving from the forward based game from its peak in the 60's. On occasion the sides flip flop when theyre strengths are in the required area (the current France) but generally, as a philosophy, thats how it usually works.

So as far as potential goes, England and SA have the most, as they under utlise back play and still get ok results. Thats why I'm generally harder on those two sides than others. They simply should be better than they are, and only have themselves to blame, most other sides extracting every drop out of their sides with the resources they have.

mystiroakey wrote:ok taffy jones

Ok here's how I look at it, and not just cause I'm Irish and France get the better of us more often that not.

England and France historically are both very good sides. England more of a solid side and France with more flair. England with a better WC record.

Who do I think is the better side overall? Sorry but I have to say France. Don't get me wrong England have been great at times and are much more consistent generally. But when France strike a chord and are on tune then they are ahead of almost everyone in world rugby, they are sublime. The only reason we are having this discussion is because:

a) England have won a WC.

b) France are so inconsitent.

If both sides play to their absolute potential then it has to be France every time. It's just that France seem to reach their potential less and less in modern times, but they do still do it.

Having said that I think that if we - Ireland - actaully played to our potential then we would be one of the best sides in the world so what do I know?

there shoudnt be any discussion england are clearly the better side. thats it!

if you think france could beat england on there day then i am shocked. Even taylor admits that englands play supassed anything farnce have ever achieved in 2003!!

If anyone wants to tell me that france have had a better side than that england side i will be gobsmacked.

So by that rationale- its england that havent(untill recently hit those highs as much as france)

mystiroakey wrote:there shoudnt be any discussion england are clearly the better side. thats it!

if you think france could beat england on there day then i am shocked. Even taylor admits that englands play supassed anything farnce have ever achieved in 2003!!

If anyone wants to tell me that france have had a better side than that england side i will be gobsmacked.

So by that rationale- its england that havent(untill recently hit those highs as much as france)

But England haven't hit those highs half as many times as France. It's just that France fail to do it on a consistant enough/ long run basis. Sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree IMO if France play to their potential then there's nobody outside the AB's (at the minute) who can even attempt to deal with them. If every side in the world was going to play to their current absolute potential then you'd have NZ and France in a final and Australia, SA, England, Wales and Ireland fighting it out for the scraps left behind. Sorry but that's the way I see it and a cpl of inept performances from Fracne ( or even a year or 2's worth) isn't gonna change my mind because I personally have seen France pull it out too many times over the last 20 or 25 years after being woeful

france havent proved any of that ever.. and i mean ever in history- let alone this crop

as i said its a weird hyperboyle about france.. when they win or lose its down to them when its england- its allways about the other team.

you need some proof to your assesment - there really isnt any

If France stop messing around with the selection and play Parra, Trinh-Duc with Fofana at 12 etc then the Twickenham game could be a classic.

If they persist with this experimental XV they'll get obliterated.

This should be fairly obvious, even to a crazy French coach.

castarelli- (and the rest)- rugby is a squad game- engalnd have been playing loads of different youngsers in the main team.. This has to be done.. These days teams need a squad or you will never ever win a RWC..(unless you are insanely lucky)

France have to find these other options or they are odds on done for..

England does it and it doesnt affecet there performance..

France have proven to have no depth.. This is a massive weakness.

Teams are measured on wins and squads and consitancy not a fantasy league of the optimum players playing in the optimum conditions all 100% fit...

This is no good to anyone..

I could tell the world that holland are the best footy team in the world by this rationale- I could say they are better than germany , brazil and spain.. I would be stuck in a mental home if they cared for me enough!


France has also never seemed to have a plan b. Its play well or lose..

If you cant mix it up but play in a way that may beat anyone 1 in 20 times- your not the best team out there- just a stupid one.. Offcourse england or ireland could beat anyone 1 in 20 by playing that way an all!!

So how did a funny comment from Kia about France and NZ turn into a battle between England and Wales?

In my opinion France has often played better rugby vs NZ than England has(last year's game being the first time I feel England have really turned it on against us). On the other hand they have also played some cr*p against us too which England haven't done too often.

I don't remember being amazingly impressed by the English team circa 2003. While clearly better than everyone else I didn't want us to play like that. The top Aus teams for a while were worth aspiring to and the French have had moments of sublime play but I don't remember thinking that about English teams.

Now may be its just the "we hate England" thing but I don't think so. It's probably more to do with the back play stuff.
I have often wondered why England and Ireland have toured here so few times.

you can say you prefer the style they have played - but you cant tell me they are better(well not without a retort anyway!)

France has [had]until recentlythe best overall NHwin stats versus all comers s better than England by about 0.56% it is that close.
Whether either side is better than the other is a matter of record and debate.
It is a fact that periods when France won consistently they used the attritional approach notably .When the Camberbero family father and son were at 10 there is NO correct way to play rugby a win is a win.
Speaking as an All Black fan I respect EVERY side they meet BUT only fear SA or France away.
At home NZ need fear no one such is there record but one off defeats can happen anytime anywhere.France seem to do it more than once every 10 years thats all.