You can well imagine the way loyal French fans reacted to the game in Mont-de-Marsan (6-40).
Their comments range far and wide. Few are positive.
Starting at the top: “Is the staff capable of running a successful Division 2 side?” No!
This was evidenced by instructions an assistant offered during a water-break; “Get hold of the ball and jouez, jouez!”
At that rate I could find useful employment.
This was a preparation match. One observer wondered: a preparation for what? All it did was to underline the growing gap between les Bleues and les Anglo-Saxonnes, and prove they hadn’t a chance of winning la Coupe du Monde.
Another critic pointed to the ongoing shortcomings, for example the lack of power to keep the English pack under control and, more technically, the lack of length and accuracy in field kicks. Why resort to penalty kicks (from the reliable Morgane Bourgeois) rather than playing in true French style, with speed and flair?
The great second-half performance at Twickenham (43-42) was just an illusion. Since then the squad has stepped backwards.
And so on.
A more personal view
I was made aware of how much the team depended on a few leading players: Pauline Bourdon-Sansus; Gabrielle Vernier and Romane Menager were all missing, the last-named probably for ever, thanks to that wretched enemy, concussion.
In their absence the side looked rudderless. In sharp contrast, imagine England being deprived of three equally esteemed players, and you could be sure the rest of the squad would carry on as normal.
Incidentally, the FFR has just published a brief note suggesting that Marine Menager has sung her last Marseillaise on home soil. Last May she stated she might well retire post-RWC. The enforced absence of her sister will only have reinforced that decision. Sad times.
Responsibilities
Why did the French side appear so ill-prepared? I place the blame firmly on the people in charge.
First, the FFR themselves. They decided on divided responsibility: two coaches are better than one. I and a few thousand French supporters cannot agree.
Second the quality of the coaching team. That water-break tale offers only a brief glimpse. Why did the pack look so uncertain of its roles? Do I go in and support the breakdown or stand off and prepare for the next phase?
There should be no confusion at this late stage of preparation. They had been training all summer long.
Then an allied topic, selection. No two people will ever agree on the right choice of a 15 (or a 23). But the two coaches had to each time.
Why a new centre pairing against England? Carla Neisen was returning after a four-year gap alongside Marine Menager, who has more often played on the wing.
And why introduce an uncapped player, Khoudedia Cissockho, at this late stage? If she was promising enough, surely she should have debuted earlier.
That takes us to the next oddity. This Mont-de-Marsan match was their sole chance of a warm-up. Interestingly, Menager agreed with the decision, though I admit I couldn’t follow this piece of French logic.
But we still await the games that matter. The authorities may prove justified after all.
Les Bleues face two straightforward outings against Brazil and South Africa, but first they must ensure a clear-cut victory over neighbours Italy. That is not a given. The big day is 23 August.
Then we will discover whether that England match was the right medicine.
European and world rugby must have a strong French side.
I’ll leave comments on the English performance till a later date.
