Do you remember it well? Also, Harinordoquy's dad ran onto the pitch to help him in a fight at the weekend!
Ok, going back to the initial question, let's be scientific and logical about it. NZ are one point better than France, when playing at home, with a biased referee. The Lions are 4 times better than France, because they have 4 times as many teams to choose from (no, scotland don't count). Therefore they'd have scored 28 points in that final. In a neutral stadium, with an unbiased referee, that would translate to about a 50 point win against the all blacks.
I thought you were meaning the lions have more player better then the french, then the french have better players than the lions.
The whole notion that the only possible way the Northern Hemisphere could beat the world champion All Blacks is to combine a group of nations best players together speaks volumes really.
You need to take into account that the French love to play the ABs, the ABs played pretty shit and without Carter. Taking that all into account it makes it a 20-30 point win to the ABs!
Do you mean two countries...Great Britain and Ireland? I reckon GB could give it a good effort on its own. And what would be the alternative, that one country on its own would beat the world champions? Surely the whole point of having a world champion is that wouldn't happen?...
Just me trying to stir shit up, tbh. There was a bad refereeing decision that started a passage of play which led to NZ getting points in the WC final, can't remember what it was though. IIRC, the French deserved a penalty from which they'd have cleared their lines, they didn't get it, got turned over and then NZ got points out of it.
A bad decision is not the same as biased reffing. As an aside, the worst reffing in the tournament was definitely the Aus/RSA quarter.
Oh that match, I'd just put it out of my head I was one of the few that was actually saying we deserved to lose because even though we dominated, we couldn't score points.