On RugbyIt's a fickle game and no doubt about it. Had Bernard Laporte helped deliver a World Cup final for les bleus he would now be 80 minutes away from immortality and probably immune from criticism.

But a five-point defeat to England and it's open season on him. All the more so in light of his impending appointment as French minister for sport, it's conceivable that he could even bring a government down.

Even if they lost a final, gloriously, he could have pointed to three Six Nations' championships in the last four years. He did do so, but somehow - even though it comfortably exceeds, say, three consolation prizes of Triple Crowns - this didn't cut much mustard.

As with even a couple of closer quarter-finals, the rugby media, supporters and respective Federations and Unions can jump too quickly to widespread conclusions. You think of Damien Traille losing his footing, and Joe Worsley's desperate tap tackle on Vincent Clerc and - no less than injuries to Dan Carter and Stephen Larkham and a host of other little moments - chance has a huge part to play in some of the results at this World Cup.

Of course, whoever wins, it is usually for positive reasons which the coach can partially bask in glory. Whoever loses, some people are at fault, and that invariably includes the coach. It was ever thus.

That said, Laporte has to carry some responsibility, for France did not lose the chance of a lifetime by being true to their rugby heritage. It wouldn't have grated on the French rugby conscience so much if France had truly had a go, ala Toulouse losing in the last minute to Wasps in the 2004 Heineken European Cup final.

Instead, ultimately, the team

that granted far more licence to its players held their nerve against the team that was over-coached and over-programmed. And this, ironically, despite having innately more ability on the ball and pace.

It was perfectly understandable that Laporte wanted to retain the same team that so memorably and brilliantly beat the All Blacks. But that was only achieved, ultimately, by traditional French flair, by the willingness to take a quick 22-metre tap and go through high-tempo phases before scoring at the other end, and then through the brilliance of Damien Traille, Frederic Michalak especially and Yannick Jauzion.

What's more, what was good for New Zealand wasn't necessarily going to work against England. Aside from one wearing all black and the other all white, they were polar opposites. In response to the early Josh Lewsey try, France ran hard, sought to play the ball out of the tackle and used the full width of the pitch. But once ahead, they stopped, and instead retreated into an ill-fitting conservative shell, going through with speculative long-range drop-goal attempts, overcooked up-and-unders or simply kicking long.

France have always had a culture of kicking, but it is inestimably more inventive than last Saturday's dross. Think of the Christophe Lamaison chip for Richard Dourthe's try or Fabien Galthie's box kick for Christophe Dominici (what was he doing on the pitch instead of Aurelien Rougerie, winger of the year in the French championship and their one stand-out player against Argentina) in the 1999 semi-final.

Even Michalak fed into the programme, and badly. He was far better when getting France running again, but by then a palpable sense of panic had set in and England's defence, reprieved, had regrouped.

Hugely powerful after a full eight years in charge, Laporte, who always made too much of Rougerie conceding a try to the All Blacks from a quick line-out in Lyon two years ago, didn't trust his players enough. Sacre bleu.

As a tourist here and a rugby fan, it would have been a memorable, magical weekend if France had won 2007 Coupe du Monde. But it would have been more memorable if they had been true to what has made them unique. In the big games, especially in the knock-out stages, superiority in skills or ability have been more than generally outweighed by factors such as la tete, le coeur et des couilles. England, whatever else, have all of these in spades along with a superb defence and an endgame-winning mentality.

Perhaps, to a degree, the World Cup is becoming too big for its own good. Certainly the teams with the most acute expectancy from their own public and the world have buckled under the ensuing pressure.

Nowhere has this been more in evidence than with the All Blacks, the roaring ante-post, money-on favourites who were representing a country's obsession to end 20 years of hurt and, of course, the host team, who were the subject of their own media's scrutiny and were regularly watched by their country's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, knowing full well that this was a chance for immortality or disgrace.

(Wasn't too much sign of Sarkozy or Bernard Laporte on the pitch post-match in Stade de France on Saturday night, was there?).

It's arguably no coincidence therefore that France's best, most fired-up and ultimately inspired performance was when underdogs against the All Blacks and when playing their one game outside the pressure cooker of their own country.

In this game and the other quartet of aforementioned upsets, if the underdogs have clung on to the favourites' coat tails until the last 10 or 15 minutes, it's clear that they then become the ones under less pressure.

The favourites, be they France in the opener, Wales against Fiji, most obviously the All Blacks against France and then France against England, have become bedraggled by fear of defeat, often becoming disconnected from their brains.

England have created even less than South Africa, who are the best front-runners around if ahead early. But, nothing of not obdurate, if England have a whiff of the game going into the last 20, who will the pressure be on?

Who will be weighed down by the mantle of favourites and who will be the underdogs?

And who will be the team who has proven its ability to come through nail-bitingly tense endgames?