Comments on: France need more than a Grand Slam to prove they are the real deal

By: Stuart

Stuart — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:03:15 +0000

My point is James that they still haven’t built up any degree of consistency. They were excellent against NZ one week, awful against Oz the next; then strong against SA one week, woeful against NZ the next. If you do that in a World Cup, you are stuffed and they are yet to put together a sustained string of good performances (I’m talking 10 in a row).

I take your point about the NZ line-up but losing by 20 points at home to anyone is not the stuff of a world class team. If anything this fact proves my point further as it devalues the wins last summer because they were against half a team.

They will have to be competitive in the summer in SA and then into the autumn for me to be convinced.

By: James Mortimer

James Mortimer — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:52:26 +0000

Good article Stuart, but have to disagree on two minor points.

First, I think a Grand Slam is enough of a statement for World Cup intent. Wins over the AB’s and Boks last year followed by a Chelem would be enough evidence in most peoples eyes.

What more could they do to prove otherwise?

Methinks that if they down the Boks in South Africa, then we have our early World Cup favourites.

As for you comment – surrender to the same All Blacks they had troubled so much in the summer – that isn’t technically correct, as the AB’s didn’t have Dan Carter, Richie McCaw, and were missing their two first choice centres and had two locks in the 22 that were newly capped.

The NZ team that rolled up in Marseille was considerably stronger.