Why did the all blacks lose to france?

Question

serious answers from strong supporters/followers ie people who know about the game as to exact detail in why the all blacks lost and why it went horribly wrong

Answer 1

Because the referee was blind. Apart from this the All Blacks are not as good as they and everyone else seems to believe, their front row is more like a rugby league front row, Tony Woodcook the best tighthead in the world I dont think so, he was made to look a clown by a Scotsman playing in his first international, I played in the front row for 31 years admittedly not at that sort of level but they are a joke.

Answer 2

Forward pass................but, if the AB's are as good as they claim to be, that pass should not have counted............they should have had the game in the bag way before then...........so the French defence and determination!

Answer 3

Poor decisions by the ref didn't help but they just choked like they have done previously in world cups.

Answer 4

it s because they believe their stupid haka dance makes them invincible.like poking tongues and looking ugly makes a real man shiver and tremble in the challenging team.

all blacks should have played more rugby and danced a little less.

what kind of booga booga dance are springboks gonna come up with?hooga booga bonga africa voodoo ballony!get out of here witch doctors and send in some real men.

i support the french team but my revrerence to the mighty english team who beat em and played a real mans rugby.and will win the world cup.

just as a little reminder , the french have won for eternity all rugby feats as the english inventor of rugby is buried in france at menton on the riviera.

so you english guys go and get that title and kick some down under *** and show these booga booga witch rugby haka players what europe can do and that we are not over and done with.

Answer 5

because the french wanted it more....i also think the group stages did not help the bigger teams, not being tested at an early stage makes them complacent, thinking that they do not need to try hard to score....then come across harder opposition they have forgotten how to challenge hard...same is true for australia....they only had to play wales in the groups, and that wasn't much of an opposition.....

Answer 6

1: Underestimated France, therefore to less intensity.

2: Carter not 100%.

3: Could'nt handle pressure situation, because of easy build-up log.

4: Forward pass, ref, said enough.

Answer 7

I think the question should go deeper and ask why - even though they have spent most of the last 20 years ranked number 1 in the world - have they not appeared in a RWC final since 1987? It's not just France - every RWC someone beats them, seemingly against the odds.

Here's my take on it. If you watch the All Blacks play, they just don't seem to be enjoying themselves. They are a very well drilled and effective side but they lack passion, spirit and dogged determination. They are rarely put under pressure outside the RWC and when they do come up against it, they have no experience of how to deal with it. It has nothing to do with individual players or referee calls. It has to do with collective passion for the game. By that I mean real, human passion, not something manufactured by the public's expectation of them winning or the team's arrogance in believeing they have some God-given right to win.

Other posters have quite rightly pointed out that NZ should have won this match quite easily if the form book was anything to go by. But in the RWC, the form book is out the window and survival comes down to who wants it the most - at this level, any team can beat any team in a one-off game.

Answer 8

The Kiwis were too arrogant. They regard rugby as their paricular province. They got put down in the same manner as England did with Oz and France and Argentina did with Ireland and France.  France can always beat anybody on their day. Unfortunately their day rarely seems to come round for more than two games in a row. I don't know if any French rugby fan would like to comment on that, but LaPorte got it exactly right against NZ, f***ed up badly against England. It is 20 years since NZ won a WC. Yet they are still No 1 in the ratings. Explain that and you explain why NZ lost to France. If they don't get it sorted then sides like Argentina and Italy will be stuffing them in a few years time.

Answer 9

Because of Wayne Barnes. A plague on thee.

Answer 10

Linking on from the last answer I'd say the biggest reason was that France and England went into the game with nothing to lose as the whole world new they were playing two of the best teams in the world. New Zealand and Australia, just like the last world cup assumed they'd turn up and win. but France and England took the game to them, they were more hungry for it and got the result.

Answer 11

The all blacks had the same problem as they did in 03, they had an inexperienced backline and werent even willing to throw it wide in the end, Mauger and Howlett were left out for newcomers sivivatu and toeava who both had really average games, it didnt help either having the kicker injured and then his replacement 20 minutes later falling to the same fate leaving the 3rd string kicker to kick all the crucial points.

Of course their was the other problem of the abs thinking they could muscle there way through the middle, at one stage making 50 metres without sending it wide but it never esulted in a try so it became the biggest waste of time throughout the game.

Answer 12

in this one particular case France were the stronger side i suppose you could ask the same question why England beat Australia.

Answer 13

Well obviously they scored fewer points, but to go deeper sorry but it comes down to 'rugby arrogance' or attitude the All Blacks had got into the frame of mind that it was their destiny and that they just had to turn up and sides would roll over. France displayed the kind of attitude that England did to beat France (France forgot that they needed to play winning Rugby) The All Blacks have got stuck with the label that they must play 'pure rugby' the expansive game and have forgotten how to 'win ugly'. I remember the All Blacks of the 70's they made sure they had won the game before turning on the style. In fact since winning the 1st World Cup the All Blacks have become 'chokers' in really big games. They have often won as a consequence of poor refeering decisions given in their favour this has fooled them in to thinking that they no longer need to work at full potential on the pitch. To win in 4 years time they need to think about how to beat the opposition they face on the pitch not the headlines in the papers about the style of victory.

England have got bolshi they don't give a toss about the style they just want to win. I am not sure it will be enough on Saturday (I hope so) but South Africa also came to the world cup with an 'ar**y' attitude (if I may put it that way) RSA are an 'angry' team and they want that trophy badly and on balance more of their better players are playing well than England's so far.

Sorry back to the AB's they need to remember that you can only win easily if the opposition surrender, other than that to win big you have to crush them or win ugly.

Answer 14

Very easy question.

But only because they have replays which we watch to keep us awake till 3am waiting on the game (Hong Kong time).

The FRA/NZ game was almost a replica of the FRA/ENG game. The reason NZ lost was because they either disrespected what it takes to win a WC QF, or they really believed that rugby should only be played one way.

But then if that's the case why did they try a desperation drop from halfway after FRA had cleared their lines? NZ could easy have set-up field position for the drop. The had 10mins in the FRA 22, 2 points down.

But no they wanted a try, they wanted to be the best. Well OK they sacrificed the 10 man game for the league game. Because all they did was pick and drive, a couple of short passes, fall over, recycle, repeat 5 times, lose the ball.

The French loved it. 10min to go, 2 points up and the opposition is running at you. No kicks for the corner, no field position, no kicks over the top, no drop goals.

NZ can laugh at us all the want, but if they had set up just one drop goal then they would be playing ENG for a finals berth. A being English I can tell you NZ are our bogey team. So it would propbably have been a NZ/SA final.

Semi's and finals are tight grinding game doesn't matter who's playing. Because it's not about winning. It's about not losing. QF's you can sometimes have fun with. But not when your playing a top 5.

I predicted FRA would win the tournament, but honestly in that game, FRA didn't win. NZ lost.

And that's ignoring the fact that once ahead, NZ let FRA attack. No kicking for territory, no tiring them out with forward play.

Answer 15

Because France scored more points than them!!

But seriously

Everyone thought it was carved in stone that the All Blacks would walk this world cup and I think they started to believe their own press. The French wanted it more, got in their faces and made them lose their discipline. They also got rather lucky with a few refereeing calls

Answer 16

I fully agree with  zwar

Answer 17

Simple answer is this. The All Blacks lost the game completely on their own. With something like 70% possession in their favour, and having a squad that could split in two and STILL beat every team in the world, the All Blacks should've won. Fact of the matter is a very off-form NZ team faced a French team who raised their game well above their normal levels.

Forward-pass or no forward-pass, the All Blacks could've and should've won that match by at least 15 points. But in saying this, the French missed a stack of penalties, and may not even have needed that forward pass to win the match. You can blame the coaches, the trainers and Graham Henry himself. But the only people who can handle the ball are the guys on the pitch. As such, it is the NZ players who lost the game. Nobody else.

Answer 18

We lost to France, because of a very very poor referee. Ok one could speak about the blatant forward pass, but there was a h**l of a lot more in that match, that the referee dismissed. Whilst one could say we should of been ahead by a lot more points, the bottom line is we were duped by an English referee and English touch judges. If you go back and have a good look at the game, you will see why we didn't win.

And believe you me, I am not a poor sportsman. I marely believe in a game being controlled properly. It was a disgrace,and I am not going to just say the best team won.

Answer 19

Too much talent in the backs.

Answer 20

because of the ref, we should get a re-match

Answer 21

They lost their first string halfback and both first fives in quick succession. This was one of two big keys. The other was the one eyed referee and the ridiculous 9-2 penalty count against the AB's despite having 70% of possession. This was bad enough not taking into acocunt the forward pass missed and the over-reaction when binning McAlister. The reffing of the rucks and mauls was appalling. Nobody in their right mind can tell me that under the pressure France was all match they did not commit a single infringement in the 100 or so rucks they had to defend and only committed two infringements all game. All Blacks where robbed by key injuries and pathetic refereeing. Plain and simple.

Answer 22

Some fans did complain about the ref..