It was the weekend on which the passing of a Long White Cloud cast a huge dark cloud over the prospects of all rivals of the All Blacks who yet again demonstrated just why the word mighty is so often used to describe them.
In both competitive and superstitious terms this was the ultimate examination of the belief of a squad that had come into the World Cup as favourites but whose previous performances had raised some doubts as to whether they were entitled to it in a year that had seen them lose their Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championship title to their fellow antipodeans.
They had begun the tournament against another of their Rugby Championship rivals and, for all that they ultimately prevailed over Argentina’s Pumas they had trailed at half-time and, for the first time since a bonus point system was introduced, they failed to secure one for scoring four tries in a pool match.
The problem for the All Blacks is that their unrivalled historic record of winning close to 80 per cent of all matches they have played, means they are judged by different standards to all other teams and so when, as Steve Hansen rang the changes for the ensuing sequence of one-sided encounters in a bid to test out contingency combinations, generate internal competition for places and generally manage his squad, no allowance was made.
As logical as it was for the head coach to be looking towards the knockout stages in the certain knowledge, a month ahead of the quarter-finals, of finishing top of their pool, the demons of the past were raised from memories of World Cups in which they had lost out because they had not been sufficiently battle-hardened.
Such concerns seemed all the more relevant when the decisive match was played in the pool whose teams they were lined up to face.
‘Les Bleus’ of France had so often saved their best at World Cups for meetings with the All Blacks that there had to be some cause for concern.
It mattered not that the French had been unimpressive but what about 1999, at the last World Cup hosted in the UK, when a Jonah Lomu inspired New Zealand, as tournament favourites, looked to be trampling all over them only for little Christophe Dominici to lead the big man and his team-mates a merry dance thereafter; what about 2007, the last time New Zealand, as tournament favourites, had played a World Cup tie in the Millennium Stadium and been dumped out by the French; what about 2011 when a French squad said to be in mutinous mood just as was the case this time, reached final and got within a single kick of denying the All Blacks their Holy Grail.
When, then, Irish resolve consigned France to the runners-up spot in Pool D, there seemed reason to be fearful and it is in that context that Saturday’s demolition of France must be seen.
After a slightly stuttering opening 10 minutes the quality of every aspect of the All Black play, backs rucking and mauling like forwards, forwards running and handling like backs was of a different order to anything witnessed at this tournament so far. Perhaps most striking was the return to something approaching his finest form of Dan Carter, the play-maker who was long considered peerless but has looked rather more ordinary in recent times.
The imperious nature of his assuredness had much to do with what was going on around him while Thierry Dusautoir and his French team-mates were powerless to do anything about it as nine tries featuring another Julian Savea hat-trick but registered by every department of the team, were run in, Ma’a Nonu just failing to make it the biggest score of the tournament when he knocked on with the line at his mercy in the dying stages.
There was talk afterwards of French capitulation, but both in the try registered by Louis Picamoles in the opening half and the desperate covering that prevented Nonu from resgistering the try that took the tally past the 65 points Australia scored against Uruguay suggest otherwise.
This was all about what the All Blacks did rather than anything France failed to and it was intimidatingly impressive.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here