It was a marginal forward pass but hey... shit happens, no ? Like Umaga's forward pass to leading to a try by Rocokoko in the first Lions test for example By the way, Michalak's run and pass were superb. The AB's were reffed as the game should be I think. They were prevented from remaining deliberately offside and applying their own rules in the ruck -especially MacCaw- thanks to a good refereeing. The ref had a particulary good game, keeping out of the way, letting the two teams play. Fact is, I've said this before: this is the fittest Fre team ever and, IMHO the best defensive team in this RWC. The real question was could France still play rugby and parts of the 2nd half answered that. As for their game only limited to kicking, it was a deliberate strategy. The French wanted to keep the AB far from their try-line and to avoid counter-attacks. This explains why Beauxis played at 10 and Traille at 15 -they both have huge boots- instead of Michalak and Poitrenaud. The fact is that it worked except on a few times in the first-half when MacAlllister succeeded to break the line.
Ah... I forgot a point : Carter's pass to McAlister that set up the AB's first try (to McAlister via JC). NEWSFLASH - IT WAS EQUALLY AS FORWARD !! So it's all equal there then...
actually that was a line ball, the french one was miles foward but thats not really the refs fault the assistant should have picked it up since he was closer or at least should have been closer but in this day and age most are to gutless to make those calls and the ref gets left high and dry
it was a foward pass that basically divided both teams, thats kinda different to a foward pass that was missed in a test match where one team ran all over the other, dont you reckon? no argument there actually thats where the problem lies, he failed to penalise the french for stuff that the the abs where punished for, some within kicking distance that my friend is not good refereing how are the french any better defensivly than the argies or abs? the ab line was crossed once when we were with 14, we crossed their line twice when they were with 15 and if anything the argies have been pretty solid defensivly they were limited to kicking because they knew they couldnt play us any other way great strategy but one the coach had to use because of his limited attacking options but hey shit happens the french played their game and won good luck to them thank god Barnes dosnt get another game
About Traille's pass... Yes, it was a forward pass I thought they were allowed in NZ , so it is somewhat ironic . Seriously, how many tries have NZ scored from forward passes over the years? More than any other country and I didn't hear any complaints from the AB fans then. Yet again, you can argue against the french defensive effort but neither the NZ defense or the Argentinian one were tested as the French one was last Saturday. Despite having some 60% possession and something like 70% territory NZ only scored 2 tries... that is not a lot. Why ? The French made... 178 tackles and were penalized only twice ! You could have expected NZ to adapt their strategy but they couldn't. On the other hand NZ only made... 36 tackles. That is low, even with more than 60% of possession. Still worse : they missed 25% of their tackles thus France succeeded to score too tries despite having so few possession... So which defence is the best ? Those stats also tell us one thing that i've already noted with the ABs in the past: they are far more comfortable when the opponent team have more possession (guess they are far more comfortable when they have to counter attack than when they have to dictate the play) than the contrary. It's not that France have limited offensive options as you say -France probably have the second best backline in the world behind NZ- but it's just that their defense would have been much more exposed if they had played a flowing rugby with Michalak at 10 for example. Still, over a Test series, the All Blacks would beat anybody else in the world... but that isn't the format.
Hum... about Carter's pass, get a look at that. http://www.dailymotion.com/relevanc...5coj_100-nlz-fra-coupe-du-monde-essai_extreme Anyway, forward pass or not, it was a great try.
not the greatest camera views to get a definite answer but it looks like a line ball to me not a clear fwd pass like french one i actually thought Luke had blown that try
everyone gets those call not just us and the french, but i cant recall a fwd pass winning us a match, thats what sucks about it not denying it was a heroic performace, just arguing the fact that it was infringement free i mean a French team not infringing at ruck time? come on one of those tries was with 14 men thats a telling fact surely Australia would have something to say about best backline in the world thats true NZ would have been better off with Michalak starting, that plays way more into their game NZ likes being attacked thats a fact, which is why they probably kicked it back so much hoping the french would run it at them under Henry yeah no doubt now with quite a few players going and a new coach who knows for 2008
Does it make the ABs long term plan of giving experience to a large number of players so that they'd have essentially 2 teams rather than have a settled team look like a flawed one? I'm not the biggest club rugby follower, but i did play it at school and i do watch the 6 nations, i could have got it wrong but that is my impression.
The lack of a sufficient replacement for Dan Carter was a problem, they did not look coherent at all when he went off. The only visible Plan B seemed to be pick and drive to the line, no matter how many phases it took. Apart from that I'm not convinced the squad rotation was a negative, it's a squad based game now, not a best 15. England and France for example have hardly had settled teams and a big part of their strategies have been the use of replacements. I think the team on Saturday will be the first time England has had an unchanged team in 2 years. I would say it was more a case of getting too used to winning easily. They were visibly complacent when 13-0 ahead, had a lack of composure when going behind and then a lack of experience in winning a tight game at the death via a drop goal. Really their players needed more experience individually and as part of a unit in hard knockout games. The Tri Nations, Super 14 and then a load of walkover test series games is not the right mix. Not only do England and France have the 6 Nations with the desire to win a Grand Slam (which is pretty much a knockout contest) let alone the title itself, they also have the tournament experience of the Heineken Cup at club level every year. It's a heck of a lot more knockout games.
The Southern Hemisphere really hate being beaten by kicks and I'm not sure why? It's part of the game get used to it.
becaues its so gay... i would like to see either union adopt the scoring for pks and dgs system for league but till that happen we will just have to grin and bear it
for all his rotation Henry never really gave Evans a chance even do he was playing the better rugby in 07 the problem with the abs rotation was that they played hardly any games this year, 22 players missed half the super 14 then some wehere used every two tests not nearly enough game time they looked rusty from the get go in this wc, of course they breezed through their pool which actually caused more damage i think a pool with ireland and argie would have been ideal for the ab to kick into gear they never really got of cruise mode
Nice win by England. I had them for dead after the way they played in the first round, and here they are in the final ready to defende their title. It's hard to pick against them now. Now we have to hope Argentina pulls the upset, or else we get a rematch from the first round, when South Africa destroyed them.
It'll be closer but the same result. England have the same fundamental weaknesses the Boks exploited last time around. IMO the crying shame of this tournament (as with the football WC), is the extent to which the officiating has encouraged negative rugby. England and France discovered it is a mistake to even attempt to move the ball to score tries because the attacking team is at a massive disadvantage. The defence can commit men to the breakdown who can slow it up, play it with their hands, come in from the side etc. Thus when the ball does move, the defenders (frequently offside) have plenty of time to prepare and the attacker risks being isolated. The attacking teams are actually struggling to recycle possession or get to the gain line let alone stretch the defence. I am all for teams playing their own brand of rugby - for instance the england team of 2003 played conservative rugby, but they were an elite outfit that could dictate the game. But it is a shame when games are simply turned into a lottery of PKs and drop goals.
England's main weaknesses against South Africa were a lack of aggression, confidence and leadership. Areas that have been transformed since then, from changing the lineup to have Gomarsall starting at scrumhalf and Wilkinson returned from injury at flyhalf to provide a lot more leadership and decisiveness to the backs. Tait has also been brought in to provide a lot more energy and spark to outside centre and Flood is the 2nd half sub for Catt. In the forwards Vickery is back at prop, Moody who dominated George Smith back at flanker and with Chuter and Stevens as late game supersubs. It is a different outfit to the poor team that played the Boks and it needed to be. Beating Australia and then France in Paris this way speaks for itself. Defences have been on top in the world cup, but it is not accurate to call it a lottery. It's been a test of team discipline, field position and being mentally composed to take a chance when it comes. Penalties are earnt from field position and pressure, drop goals from field position, individual composure and the teamwork to create space for the attempt. Perfectly valid sporting attributes.
Penalties aren't lotteries, they're caused by a lack of discipline, which is a flaw in the team giving them away. Everyone knows the rules, so it's their own fault.
I don't think it's the officiating that is to blame, as much as the rules of the game. Teams in this tournament have been able to exploit the rules. As long as you can kick well, defend well, and control field position, you can beat the teams that bring more flair and excitement. But you can look at it another way, and say that the teams with flair failed to execute well enough to beat the defenses and win when it counted.
Hands in the ruck is not within the rules of the game. Only the first man to the breakdown can use hands if on his feet. Take a look at th elast 5 mins of last nights game This is an age old debate between Northern and Southern Hemisphere. North plays a slower game where it is more legitimate to try to kill the ball, and every ruck is a contest. This was actually how the game was played world over until 1987.
I didn't have time to post this before ASF... Over the 25 years I've watched rugby, fads and theories come and go, but the media myth of this WC is that defenses have been simply "too well organised" for the attacking sides. The key is how much time they have to be organised. Attacking backs want to receive the ball moving forwards, and ideally towards a backline which is still retiring to get onside. If the ball is always taking 10secs plus to come back, then the defenders have more than enough time to reorganise, and are on their marks and ready to leap out of the blocks. While the line is always moving in terms of competing at the breakdown, currently it is far too heavily biased towards the defending side. Tuning in for last nights game i expect to see tries, if no champagne rugby. But it is literally impossible for teams to achieve go forward.