QF2: New Zealand v France, 17 October

First topic message reminder :

           
NEW ZEALAND v FRANCE

17 October 2015
KO: 20:00 BST (UTC+01)
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff

Live on telly

Ref: Nigel Owens (Wales)
ARs: Jaco Peyper (South Africa) and John Lacey (Ireland)
TMO: Shaun Veldsman (South Africa)

A. Head to Head

55 Played 55
42 Won 12
1 Drawn 1
12 Lost 42
1,345 Points 713

B. Recent Form

9 November 2013
Stade de France, Saint-Denis
19 – 26 to New Zealand

22 June 2013
Yarrow Stadium, New Plymouth
24 – 9 to New Zealand

15 June 2013
Rugby League Park, Christchurch
30 – 0 to New Zealand

8 June 2013
Eden Park, Auckland
23 – 13 to New Zealand

23 October 2011
Eden Park, Auckland
8 – 7 to New Zealand

24 September 2011
Eden Park, Auckland
37 – 17 to New Zealand

28 November 2009
Stade Vélodrome, Marseille
12 – 39 to New Zealand

20 June 2009
Westpac Stadium, Wellington
14 – 10 to New Zealand

13 June 2009
Carisbrook, Dunedin
22 – 27 to France

6 October 2007
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales
18 – 20 to France

C. TEAMS:

NEW ZEALAND

Ben Smith; Nehe Milner-Skudder, Conrad Smith, Ma'a Nonu, Julian Savea; Dan Carter, Aaron Smith; Wyatt Crockett, Dane Coles, Owen Franks, Brodie Retallick, Sam Whitelock, Jerome Kaino, Richie McCaw (capt), Kieran Read.

Replacements: Keven Mealamu, Joe Moody, Charlie Faumuina, Victor Vito, Sam Cane, Tawera Kerr-Barlow, Beauden Barrett, Sonny Bill Williams

FRANCE

Scott Spedding; Noa Nakaitaci, Alexandre Dumoulin, Wesley Fofana, Brice Dulin; Frederic Michalak, Morgan Parra; Eddy Ben Arous, Guilhem Guirado, Rabah Slimani, Pascal Pape, Yoann Maestri, Thierry Dusautoir (capt), Bernard Le Roux, Louis Picamoles.

Replacements: Dimitri Szarzewski, Vincent Debaty, Nicolas Mas, Damien Chouly, Yannick Nyanga, Rory Kockott, Remi Tales, Mathieu Bastareaud

An English rugby fan implies the ABs are chokers.

That's gold that is

We did choke a bit against Wales, but lost our 2 best players on the day as well. Ah well.

That's the way 7.5, you're progressing well. The ABs choked in 2007 and 1999. It feels good right?

ebop wrote:An English rugby fan implies the ABs are chokers.

That's gold that is

Only once in Englands history have they been "World Champions" and they have never, or rather not that i can remember have they been expected to win Every World Cup that they have played in.

Unlike New Zealand, who are expected too "WIN" not just every World Cup, BUT every game they play. and before 2011 RWC they did not. did they?

I don't understand what the big deal is? 07 NZ did definitely choke. Well on top made poor decisions. 99 was a bit before I got into rugby so I'll pass there. I don't hold it to be true thatthey've always choked but they did then as England did against Wales towards the end of the match.

majesticimperialman wrote:

ebop wrote:An English rugby fan implies the ABs are chokers.

That's gold that is

Only once in Englands history have they been "World Champions" and they have never, or rather not that i can remember have they been expected to win Every World Cup that they have played in.

Unlike New Zealand, who are expected too "WIN" not just every World Cup, BUT every game they play. and before 2011 RWC they did not. did they?

But who expected NZ to win every world cup?  I haven't met any NZ fans who think NZ were favourites for every tournament.

1999 and 2007 absolutely agree on the choking. Although in 1999 they weren't expected to win the thing. I think a lot of people looking back (especially who weren't following rugby 20 or 30 years ago) do so through the prism of the much more recent and more impressive win rate of the ABs.

New Zelanders. Was it not Grant Fox, who after one loss in in one World Cup not sure which one it was said. New Zealand ( The Country) will now go into 4 years of mouning for not winning this rugby world cup?

What does that prove? Plenty of English supporters and pundits thought England would win this time.
Are they the WC biggest chokers now? Only team not to win it on home soil twice. As we are constantly told, it's a piece of cake to win a home world cup.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't understand what the big deal is? 07 NZ did definitely choke. Well on top made poor decisions. 99 was a bit before I got into rugby so I'll pass there. I don't hold it to be true that they've always choked but they did then as England did against Wales towards the end of the match.

Watch the 99 game if you haven't. It is genuinely one of the greatest performances by a rugby team of all time. No one could have beaten the French that day (in the 2nd half after Lomu's try anyway). Everything they tried (and they tried everything) came off pretty much perfectly. They were 14 points down and somehow came back from that. New Zealand choked in some ways, but the French were so good!

England were never remotely good enough to be in a position to choke

Now what about France and this revolt? Apparently the players have finally had enough and revolted against PSA and his assistant Serge Blanco. Will that possibly help them deliver a backs to the wall performance tomorrow? I don't think they good enough ball in hand to cause an upset, but maybe now they could at least make NZ work for it? Should be fun to see, but going on the evidence of recent performances then NZ should win this by 25 points.

screamingaddabs wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't understand what the big deal is? 07 NZ did definitely choke. Well on top made poor decisions. 99 was a bit before I got into rugby so I'll pass there. I don't hold it to be true that they've always choked but they did then as England did against Wales towards the end of the match.

Watch the 99 game if you haven't. It is genuinely one of the greatest performances by a rugby team of all time.  No one could have beaten the French that day (in the 2nd half after Lomu's try anyway).  Everything they tried (and they tried everything) came off pretty much perfectly.  They were 14 points down and somehow came back from that.  New Zealand choked in some ways, but the French were so good!

I agree, I was at the game in Twickenham and consider myself so lucky to have seen it first hand. Should be compulsory viewing for all pundits and forum "know it all's" like us. The unpredictble nature of sport at it's best.

I'll get on it then. Ta.

Yeah the French were amazing in 1999. Some of the things they pulled off were flukey as heck but they did it.

Goneagain is right, we were pretty average in 1999 and the choke was losing from an apparently unassailable winning position on the scoreboard. And not because we were the favourites, far from it. The ABs had a poor captain and question marks over the coach that didn't have full support from the NZ public. The exact same scenario transpired in 2003 where we had the biggest space cadet in NZ rugby as coach and controversy over the captain. It kind of parallels with what happened with England in this RWC. In walks Graham Henry and co and it has to be said, despite 2007 and the fall out, we've been very fortunate since.

I'm not bitter about 99 because Australia would have beaten NZ well in the final. That would not have been a choke-just beaten by a better side. Clearly the best side in the world and at the tournament. NZ didn't help themselves by having 3 of the most devastating back 4 of all time out of position but they had a soft pack from 98 to 04 which was exploited time and time again by teams. You can't do much about the bounce of the ball-Dominici's try was ridiculous-but they needed to stand up to the French pack and use a sweeper more for said kicks. All those tries were from kicks.

2003 England were the best team in the world. NZ I like to think would have learned their lessons from Wellington and managed to get over them in the final but bottom line is they were thumped in the semi and didn't deserve to be there. Plus it's hard to take a side closer to the edge than an extra time wrong footed drop kick with 30 seconds to go. Again NZ didn't help themselves by not having Cullen and especially Mehrtens there, and not picking a fit Umaga at 13 where Mortlock had a field day, but the Aussie pack killed it and 12 points I think is too big a margin for those what ifs to have conquered.

If NZ stay focused and win the physical battle they should do the business. But this is France NZ in a knockout match. Which is why I'll be packing a straitjacket for my flight to Cardiff tonight.

Titou Lamaison had the game of his life in 99: everything he tried , all his kicks went right. he never went close to that kind of performance before or after that game. everything was almost perfect during that 2nd half , it was a freak performance from France really, not something I expect to see ever again.

Yeah whocares, that was an incredible performance alright. Most of us kiwis probably remember exactly where we were at the time watching the horror unfolding in front of our eyes (from our perspective anyway) and shaking our heads at the bounces of the ball. Like you say, everything just worked for France.

Going to the game DC? Awesome man, hope it is a worthwhile trip. I'll leave it at that

Try this NZ were joint favourites 1987,1991 Aus was,1995 NZ [probably THE best NZ team
since the 1960`s],1999 they were rebuilding after 1998 when Fitzy and co retired and
could`nt buy a win.Australia`s last golden period 1999-2001.Definitely not favourites
2003 were bookies favourites which was ridiculous.
2007 favourites,2011 favourites,2015 favourites that is by the bookies.How do you pick
favourites on there test match form.
By that criteria NZ would be favourites mostly because they lose least. In the pro era
playing 14 tests on average they lose 2 per year.
The RC is played on a home and away basis by the best 3 sides in the World usually
IRB 1,2,3,in whatever order.Because of the travel element RC was decided on Home
form only a couple were decided on bonus points.
Since 2007 when Jake White set the precedent it has been customary to cede the RC
to try to win RWC worked 2007,2011.
This year Australia won the RC with home games against SA and NZ,finishing better
than the away teams.They could just have easily lost both games despite being
better team over the match.[there fifth win v NZ since 2008 plus 2 draws]
In a normal year,with home games to come NZ would expect to win RC 5-1after
Eden park.
In 1999 France won by playing there brilliant best and some of the dirtiest most
brutal tactics ever.Including eye gouging and scrotum twisting,Wayne Shelford
had his torn off,had it sewn back on and resumed the fray.
In 2007 NZ lost both Dan Carter and Nick Evans in a second half in which a
rookie Ref allowed France to play offside all game.
It is easy for an England fan to say they should have set up a dropped goal
they would have with JW obliging.
An inexperienced captain asked to use a weapon not in there armoury since
Andrew Merthens losing by 2 points is hardly a "Choke"as is the best team
in the World struggling to put away an average Aus side by a last minute
drop after 230 minutes hardly convincing.
What does all this preamble mean NOTHING in a Cup play match it`s a 50/50
bet NOT a "Choke"

So more accusations of teams throwing matches. Now directed at NZ and SA. Is there any team you think goes out to play rugby properly or do you think they are all fraudulent cheats?

PLEASE credit me with knowing what I`m talking about when it comes to SH Rugby,in 2007. Jake White AFTER losing the
home leg in the 3Ns fielded a weaker team deliberately to protect players from injury Pre RWC.
In 2011 SA in the away legs fielded a weaker team in the 3Ns injuries being quoted as the reason,also rumours were
around they were in a secret training camp.
NZ retaliated by fielding a weakened side in there away leg v SA to avoid injuries,under the rules the Nz contingents
couldn't travel together.For the final match versus Australia nor could they train to gether ironically injuries to
key players were incurred by NZ .
Whether you call that match fixing is up to you,some would call it targeting common practice in a RWC.
Those are FACTS not RUBBISH when Hansen was questioned he said 3Ns "Well we`ve plenty of those"
In the same way as SA and Aus hid Test players in provincial matches on Lions tours.In my opinion
which is as valid as any here you DON`T field less than your best team.IN ANY Test Match it shows disrespect
to your opponents.
You pick teams to win NOT teams not to lose EVERY Tournament and Test is equally important NOT just the RWC.
IRB number 1 ALL BLACKS for almost it`s entire life is more important to any number of RWC`s to me.
In a Cup Tournament ANY side can win GO Scotland,Ireland,Wales and NZ.

Hey if you want to say that teams like france, SA and NZ are deliberately cheating the paying public, fans and sponsors I'll let you have the rope.

We all know NZ as number 1 are important to you as you wouldn't support them otherwise.

WRONG,think what you like I`ve supported them since 1953 when as a schoolboy
saw them on a school trip.In those 60years I`ve never deviated when Wales,Cardiff,
France beat them,the lucky win against the 1959 team,the dismal 1970`s the chokers
jibes.
I did`nt just jump on the 2003 England bandwagon and IF as I expect they lose
on Saturday.I`ll say well done France and continue supporting them.
I think the Boks will win this one too,DON`t judge me by some petty rules RWC`s
are the be all and end all to some here.
I don`t call it match fixing or cheating it`s called targeting,Scotland fielded according
to some press.A weaker side against the Boks saving themselves the crucial final match
they`ve reached 6 QF`s doing similar things.Other sides did it to try for automatic
qualification.
Tell me it isn`t going on at every RWC to date.in a Cup tournament you do what you have
to to get as far as possible.
THAT isn`t a case of giving me rope it has become a fact of life England losing was`nt
shameful.In that Group 3 more or less equal sides one was going to lose accept it
move on.
Learn from your mistakes if any and correct them hopefuly win 6Ns next year there
was`nt the fuss when Ireland or Wales crashed out at the Group stage.in other RWC`s

Backing out of saying France deliberately lost then? Fair enough.

You still do justify your glory supporting though.

majesticimperialman wrote:I know this maybe nonsence and have no bearing on the match in question, But since NZ won the first world cup they have been called the best rugby team in the world.

And every year after the Rugby World Cup they have been the team to beat. but at the RWC they become known as (chokers) because for one thing or another they "LOST"

It sort of became a kinda we have the right to world champions, and referee's let thm NZ get away with all sorts of things and no yellow cards.

It is almost a conspiracy that( NZ HAD TO WIN) 2011 RWC. and it did not matter who they played they was not going too lose.

No maybes about it, everything youve written in this post is nonsense. By the way you do know how New Zealand got such any easy pool (In the prelimanry part of this WC) and avoided the pool of death dont you?

Partly luck. Even given their seeding they could have drawn the harder teams.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I know this maybe nonsence and have no bearing on the match in question, But since NZ won the first world cup they have been called the best rugby team in the world.

And every year after the Rugby World Cup they have been the team to beat. but at the RWC they become known as (chokers) because for one thing or another they "LOST"

It sort of became a kinda we have the right to world champions, and referee's let thm NZ get away with all sorts of things and no yellow cards.

It is almost a conspiracy that( NZ HAD TO WIN) 2011 RWC. and it did not matter who they played they was not going too lose.

No maybes about it, everything youve written in this post is nonsense. By the way you do know how New Zealand got such any easy pool (In the prelimanry part of this WC) and avoided the pool of death dont you?

Yes. as they do most World Cup's. They all ways seem to get the minnows in their group.

Not sure when it changed but wasn't the seeding done by previous RWC finishing
position.
Incidentally I don`t have to justify who I support to anyone that`s personal

majesticimperialman wrote:New Zelanders. Was it not Grant Fox, who after one loss in in one World Cup not sure which one it was said. New Zealand ( The Country) will now go into 4 years of mouning for not winning this rugby world cup?

Its about setting standards, working hard and trying to achieve those standards, Whereas you see lots of other countries that are more successful than the All Blacks at rugby, because they set lower standards for themselves,and achieve them.

New Zealanders (the people) support the All blacks and embrace the game of Rugby, and would rather support a team that plays quality Rugby, picks up a number of victories, than a team that doesnt put that much into the game, and this is reflected in their results.

Done 2 years ago. You don't have to justify we know why you do, but you do seem to always have to explain yourself emack.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No maybes about it, everything youve written in this post is nonsense. By the way you do know how New Zealand got such any easy pool (In the prelimanry part of this WC) and avoided the pool of death dont you?

Do you actually know how the seedings worked?

The only teams NZ were guaranteed not to face in the pool were SA, Aus and France.

The draw could have given them Ireland, Wales, Fiji and Japan.


England could have got France, Tonga, Canada and Uruguay.



Now we all know England were not good enough, but we have yet to see whether winning, as they have, in second gear could actually end up being a problem for NZ when they meet a sterner challenge. I hope not as they are head and shoulders above any other team, and if any team ever deserved to win Billy it is this one.

Tinfoil hat time?

goneagain wrote:Tinfoil hat time?

????????

goneagain wrote: As we are constantly told, it's a piece of cake to win a home world cup.

By whom?

In general in the modern day, especially if you are the favourites, a home world cup is very hard to win. NZ in 2011 was all about rugby, it was impossible to escape from the all enveloping attention and pressure no matter where in the country you went. The Bs faced a scruting, level of expectation and media frenzy so much bigger than England had to face thatit coudl have been on a different planet.

While this pressure did get to them a bit, certainly more than any opposing team did, that they managed to win through was testament to the character of the team.


This WC is a much easier proposition for NZ I feel. Firstly they are a better team, but secodnly they are away from the full glare of life in the Kiwi fishbowl.

majesticimperialman wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I know this maybe nonsence and have no bearing on the match in question, But since NZ won the first world cup they have been called the best rugby team in the world.

And every year after the Rugby World Cup they have been the team to beat. but at the RWC they become known as (chokers) because for one thing or another they "LOST"

It sort of became a kinda we have the right to world champions, and referee's let thm NZ get away with all sorts of things and no yellow cards.

It is almost a conspiracy that( NZ HAD TO WIN) 2011 RWC. and it did not matter who they played they was not going too lose.

No maybes about it, everything youve written in this post is nonsense. By the way you do know how New Zealand got such any easy pool (In the prelimanry part of this WC) and avoided the pool of death dont you?

Yes. as they do most World Cup's. They all ways seem to get the minnows in their group.

This tear they have Argentina, who has qualified last three. 2011 they had France, who made the final. We have weak teams yes but not only weak sides.

goneagain wrote:What does that prove? Plenty of English supporters and pundits thought England would win this time.
Are they the WC biggest chokers now? Only team not to win it on home soil twice. As we are constantly told, it's a piece of cake to win a home world cup.

Well I thought England would choke. Said before the tournament the pressure to win at home would be too much to handle for a side that isn't use to winning tournaments, was relatively young and had suspect leadership in both Robson an Lancaseter. In terms of handling that sort of pressure. The Welsh loss was the nail. What ensued over the next week was a complete breakdown in the English confidence under the pressure of media and social media.

By the time they walk out against the Wallabies, they were spent.

Something needs to be done about bestowing that sort of pool on the host country where they are one of the top aspirants. But there's no obvious answer...you get what you get I suppose.

They didn't need it and its a shame all the hard work in putting the tournament together resulted in such a pressure cooker start for the hosts. It will be different with Japan who won't be among the favourites from the outset but they will expect that.

Taylorman, What they could have done was put England in our group, put Argentina in the pool of death, that way they would be fairly confident that England would have made it past the pool stages, and it would reward the loyal English fans who would be paying the big ticket prices. English fans would flock in their thoudands to Twickenham for a pool game against the ABs, especially if it meant that it wasnt the end of their tournament if they didnt win.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Taylorman, What they could have done was put England in our group, put Argentina in the pool of death, that way they would be fairly confident that England would have made it past the pool stages, and it would reward the loyal English fans who would be paying the big ticket prices. English fans would flock in their thoudands to Twickenham for a pool game against the ABs, especially if it meant that it wasnt the end of their tournament if they didnt win.

Hi Laurie, Yeah the logistics of doing that break all the rules but with now nine sides..the 4 SH and 5 of the 6 NH sides all likely to chase qualifying every tournament there's always going to be a pool of death with 3.

Perhaps they place the host as section 1 number 1 every tournament? And seed from section 2 number 1 down? That way it gives the glimmer of hope for a side like Japan and a pretty much certain qualifying for a side like England, Wales etc. it also acknowledges the extra pressure the host side is under. And it also guarantees the best chance of financial success of the tournament, something everyone wants.

It's not 100% fair but I think in this day and age the practicality of given a nation who is willing to take on the tournament should be rewarded in having as much chance to see their side as much as possible.

This has been a fantastic tournament but having been through hosting of it in 2011 here it absolutely sux that the hosts don't get to enjoy what they'd reasonably expect to see, their team playing in the later stages.

I think hosting is a privilege and potentially brings in a tidy profit for the host nation and lots of tourism business and catering/hotel biz etc.

I'm not so sure at all that the rules should be modified to make the hosting even more pleasing to the host Nation by organising a less troublesome Pool for them to go through. The competition itself must ignore the Nation it is in when Pools are chosen.

SecretFly wrote:I think hosting is a privilege and potentially brings in a tidy profit for the host nation and lots of tourism business and catering/hotel biz etc.

I'm not so sure at all that the rules should be modified to make the hosting even more pleasing to the host Nation by organising a less troublesome Pool for them to go through.  The competition itself must ignore the Nation it is in when Pools are chosen.  

Yeah well, try hosting it and see if you still think like that. The financial success of the tournaments sits fairly and squarely with the host. Say Ireland were hosting and because say the Boks regression to sixth spot meant Ireland, NZ and The Boks went into the same pool. Then over the two year period the Boks climbed steadily back to a strong number two or one spot. the local effort in driving the tournament, the energy required etc could be impacted through a real sense of apathy.

I think it's a big enough risk to the tournament to warrant a consideration for the hosts. I think it would be accepted as a practice and it would encourage countries to put their host bids forward, rather than go, well, look what happened to England.

Anyway, wouldn't want common sense get in the way of a good thing.

Has the RWC finished? I've seen more movement in the Irish back line than I've seen on here?

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I think hosting is a privilege and potentially brings in a tidy profit for the host nation and lots of tourism business and catering/hotel biz etc.

I'm not so sure at all that the rules should be modified to make the hosting even more pleasing to the host Nation by organising a less troublesome Pool for them to go through.  The competition itself must ignore the Nation it is in when Pools are chosen.  

Yeah well, try hosting it and see if you still think like that. The financial success of the tournaments sits fairly and squarely with the host. Say Ireland were hosting and because say the Boks regression to sixth spot meant Ireland, NZ and The Boks went into the same pool. Then over the two year period the Boks climbed steadily back to a strong number two or one spot. the local effort in driving the tournament, the energy required etc could be impacted through a real sense of apathy.

I think it's a big enough risk to the tournament to warrant a consideration for the hosts. I think it would be accepted as a practice and it would encourage countries to put their host bids forward, rather than go, well, look what happened to England.

Anyway, wouldn't want common sense get in the way of a good thing.

Oh we're trying, thanks Taylor. And New Zealand owe us a vote too, whilst we're at it And I still say enough tricks go to the host without handing a pool to them on a plate. It's not Christmas, it's a World Cup.

RubyGuby wrote:Has the RWC finished? I've seen more movement in the Irish back line than I've seen on here?

It starts this weekend Ruby.

RubyGuby wrote:Has the RWC finished? I've seen more movement in the Irish back line than I've seen on here?

just stoking the fires............

Vive la révolution!
Vive la France!
Are the French still revolting? Or was that cancelled due to lack of interest?

I think they were pretty revolting against Ireland

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I think hosting is a privilege and potentially brings in a tidy profit for the host nation and lots of tourism business and catering/hotel biz etc.

I'm not so sure at all that the rules should be modified to make the hosting even more pleasing to the host Nation by organising a less troublesome Pool for them to go through.  The competition itself must ignore the Nation it is in when Pools are chosen.  

Yeah well, try hosting it and see if you still think like that. The financial success of the tournaments sits fairly and squarely with the host. Say Ireland were hosting and because say the Boks regression to sixth spot meant Ireland, NZ and The Boks went into the same pool. Then over the two year period the Boks climbed steadily back to a strong number two or one spot. the local effort in driving the tournament, the energy required etc could be impacted through a real sense of apathy.

I think it's a big enough risk to the tournament to warrant a consideration for the hosts. I think it would be accepted as a practice and it would encourage countries to put their host bids forward, rather than go, well, look what happened to England.

Anyway, wouldn't want common sense get in the way of a good thing.

Oh we're trying, thanks Taylor.  And New Zealand owe us a vote too, whilst we're at it  And I still say enough tricks go to the host without handing a pool to them on a plate.  It's not Christmas, it's a World Cup.

Yeah it's an odd one, I just feel for the English as hosts not getting to enjoy the tournament more, and you don't get me saying that sort of thing often!

Good luck with the Argie match Fly, your absentees could really make a diff but Ireland could be the last NH side standing, though I give Wales a chance in their one.

Game on. Boys up, Pancakes, bacon, bananas and maple syrup eaten, onto coffee no 3. Waiting in anticipation. Tense with uncertainty....

It's not gonna be close bcl. France have nothing but brute force.

No one's buying that Notch.

Notch wrote:It's not gonna be close bcl. France have nothing but brute force.

I'm with Ebop. Happy to be proved wrong....

Can understand the nerves given what happened 8 years ago, but I think New Zealand will win by around 25 points.