The NZI Sevens website tells me that the competition kicks off in 2 days and 23 hours. That guarantees that the next 5 days in the capital will be 25-35 degrees without a cloud in the sky. This will be the third straight year I've boycotted the live event and watched at home. Well, when I say boycott I mean 'this'll be my fourth year as a student, and the third I can't afford to go'. Since I actually watch and enjoy the IRB series, I figured it'd be a help to profile the teams for those who're watching - either at the Caketin or at home.

The Structure

First you'll need to understand the way the NZI Sevens work. There are 16 teams, spread across four pools [so four in each pool]. There are four trophies on offer - the Cup, Plate, Bowl and Shield. The 8 teams who finish third and fourth in their pool will contest the Bowl. The four teams which lose their first match in the Bowl tournament will drop down to contest the Shield, with the two winning teams in the first game going on to the Shield final, while the four teams which remained in the Bowl do the same. This process is identical for the Cup - the top two teams in each pool move on, those which lose their Cup game drop down to contest the Plate.

Pool A

Pool A consists of New Zealand, South Africa, Wales and Niue. New Zealand have opened the season with wins in both Dubai and George, while defending IRB Sevens winners South Africa have not made a Cup semi or final to date - losing 21-17 to eventual finalists Fiji. Keep an eye out for Mzwandile Stick, who slotted a massive dropkick from the sideline to tie their match with Kenya in George. Wales are only 2 points behind South Africa, as they have won the Bowl in both competitions, while SA has lost the Plate final in both tournaments. This will be the first time in the current tournament that Niue have fielded a team.

Keep an eye out for;

It'll be hard to miss a single NZ player, but Kurt Baker [he'll have the raggedy looking mullet, which is all the other teams ever see of him as they chase him down the wing], Ben Souness and Sherwin Stowers have been exceptional to date, while DJ Forbes has looked like he's enjoying himself once again. Forbes has been the most physical player on the tour this season, as that picture shows... and let's not forget the aforementioned Mzwandile Stick of South Africa.

Prediction: The Cup winner will come from this group. Either NZ or SA.

Pool B Pool B has Fiji, Australia, Papua New Guinea and Scotland. If I may be so bold, I'm going to refer to this group as the 'also rans' as none of the teams have shown sufficient ability so far this season to make them Cup contenders. Fiji made the final in George, but only after being pushed by Argentina and South Africa. In that match against NZ they looked extremely tired, possibly due to their focus on muscle and brute force. Australia were out of their depth in George, getting a thorough hiding from England in the Plate semifinal [though they won it in Dubai], while Scotland are yet to make a semi this year. The Scottish team have won won game - against Tunisia - and drawn against Zimbabwe, but haven't even looked close against anyone else. Like Niue, PNG have not fielded a team yet.

Keep an eye out for; Bernard and Shaun Foley from Australia - they're not the best players in the world, but they're committed and work well with each other. Clinton Sills is their best attacking weapon, and he should be good for 3 or 4 tries in Wellington. But in terms of talent in Pool B, it's impossible to look past William Ryder. He is simply a meast and the whole package - speed, finesse and strength in one tight-fitting Fijian shirt. He's an intense player and gives everything to his team - and definitely plays 'til the whistle blows. Here he is telling Stick how much he enjoyed his mother's baking. He's leading the points scoring so far this season and probably my favourite - either he or Stowers, who is leading try scorer.

Prediction; Unfortunately, this group has a rough ride. The team which tops it [Should be Fiji] will face the 2nd side in Pool A - so either NZ or SA. If Fiji can get over that hurdle, they'll be a shoe in for the final. Their best chance of winning the Cup will be to play SA in the final. Australia, Scotland and PNG will be contesting the Bowl or Shield, realistically, since the 2nd place Pool B team plays the 1st placed Pool A side.

Pool C Tonga, Kenya, England, USA. That's the way I'm picking this pool too. Tonga's first tournament of the 2009 series, but they're always a tough side. Kenya, if they progress as I've picked them, will be the NZ media darlings. Traditionally, the team which 'punches above its weight' is picked up by the national media and the commentators forever repeat that they are 'fan favourites' - usually this is the US. Kenya's development over the past few years has been excellent. While they've retained the slender frames that allow them to run so effectively, they've also learnt how to handle contact. Broken tackles are not as abundant now as they once were. My favourite part of watching Kenya though is the intelligence they utilise on field. They don't simply resort to set plays, they create them on the fly. It's hard to describe until you see it. England have been as disappointing as Australia so far, but if they can beat Tonga or Kenya, they'll get a big confidence boost. One of these three teams will be my dark horse to make the final, and one will definitely take out the Bowl. The US get an honorable mention, and will be Bowl contenders.

Keep an eye out for; If you hadn't guessed already, Kenya are my favourite team aside from New Zealand. Collins Injera [L] and Humphrey Kayange [R] are superb players and seeing them lope down the field, looking like they're not even trying, is awesome. Injera is only 3 tries behind Stowers and second on the try table this year. From England, who have the most horrid uniform on the circuit - honestly, the back makes no sense - veteran Ben Gollings and 20-year-old Dan Caprice are their best hopes.

Prediction; I've laid it out. If Tonga stumble, it'll come down to Kenya v England. Whoever wins that will be the best hope. If demoted, Kenya should lick their lips at the prospect of taking home the Plate, but England are not Cup challengers.

Pool D Here it is: The cliched 'pool of death'. Except in this case, it's four mediocre teams. Argentina and Samoa can compete in the Cup ranks, but none of these sides even look like winning it - but they are all around each others level, and it'll create excellent pool matches, that's for sure.

Keep an eye out for; Mikaele Pesamino of Samoa - He was basically born to hit you hard, steal the ball and run it back for a try. He is hugggge and has been around for years. If you haven't heard of him, it's a safe bet you're not going to the Sevens to watch rugby - rather to perve and get pissed.

Prediction Samoa and Argentina will top the group. Samoa can make the semis, but Argentina will play for the Plate. France will contest the Bowl and Canada the Shield.

The IRB have announced their nominations for the 2008 player of the year:

• Scotland scrum half Mike Blair
• New Zealand fly half Dan Carter (2005 IRB Player of the Year)
• Italy captain Sergio Parisse
• Welsh Shane Williams*
• Welsh Ryan Jones*

*yes I could look up their positions but I'm too lazy

Well fuck!

IRB announces global Trial of ELVs [IRB] 

When did the IRB become cool?

They have just opened voting for the Rugby Hall of Fame 2008 inductees. And that's public voting!

­The stuffy old panel of experts has narrowed the field down and now you (yes, you!) get to vote for six entrants: two from the 1800s, two from the 1900s and one from the 2000s. Interestingly Jonah Lomu is nominated in the 2000s (or 21st century) category; wasn't his peak in the mid to late 90s?

So how do you vote?

Rugby followers around the world can now vote for a maximum of two candidates from both the 19th Century and 20th Century and one from the 21st Century, simply by noting down the reference number(s) of the candidate and emailing halloffame@irb.com.

Alternatively you can also nominate a player, team or an organisation for consideration. To do this you must email giving the reasons, including full background information on the proposed candidate. If the Induction Panel approves the proposal then this candidate will be added to the relevant Century list.

This stage of the voting will close at the end of July 2008, when the results will be forwarded to the IRB Induction Panel for consideration. By the end of the summer a shortlist of six candidates from each Century will be published on the IRB Hall of Fame website.

So the stuffy old panel gets the last say but we get a good go at it first.

But, wow, if you can pick the two most worthy from the 20th Century list, then good on ya:

• The 1905 All Blacks "Originals" and David ‘Dave' Gallaher (New Zealand)
• William (Lord) Wavell Wakefield (Harlequins and England)
• George ‘HGM' Nepia (New Zealand)
• Frederick Richard ‘Fred' Allen (Linwood, Canterbury and New Zealand)
• Jean Prat (Lourdes and France)
• Dr. John Wilson ‘Jackie' Kyle (Queen University and Ireland)
• 1950 British and Irish Lions
• Clifford (Cliff) Isaac Morgan CVO OBE, (Cardiff and Wales)
• Lucien Mias (Mazamet and France)
• William James ‘Willie John' McBride (Ballymena and Ireland)
• Sir Brian James Lochore (Wairarapa Bush and New Zealand)
• Cameron Michael Henderson ‘Mike' Gibson (North of Ireland, Ulster and Ireland)
• John Peter Rhys (JPR) Williams MBE, FRCS (Bridgend and Wales)
• Hugo Porta (Banco Nacion and Argentina)
• Serge Blanco (Biarritz and France)
• Jean-Pierre Rives (Toulouse and France)
• Mark Gordon Ella MA (Randwick, NSW and Australia)
• David Ian Campese (Randwick, NSW, Milan and Australia)

Why only five inductees!

The IRB has launched the annual Rugby Photograph of the Year competition. The winner gets a trip for two to the Dubai Rugby Sevens at
the end of November!

The competition, which aims to capture the spirit of Rugby, is now in its third year and is open to both professional and amateur photographers. The judges will be looking for a stand out picture that depicts Rugby’s unique blend of qualities, including team work, camaraderie, fellowship and skill and fair play.

Photographs can be submitted from all levels of the Game, including local club Rugby and the full Test arena.

To enter the competition photographers must email a jpeg of no less than 300 dpi of their chosen photograph to dominic.rumbles@irb.com or send a 15” x 12” print to Dominic Rumbles, Communications Manager, International Rugby Board, Huguenot House, 35-38 St Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2, by no later than August 8 2008.

The photo shown here is last year's winner called "Commitment" by Andrew Orchard

So we've already given you eye-candy, now here's some brain-candy 

Today the NZRU put out its Independent Review of the 2007 Rugby World Cup Campaign (pdf). It seems to be pretty much what you expect: We didn’t win because we weren’t good enough.

However, as directed by one of our readers, Jimmy, I have now read the IRB’s analysis of the 2007 Rugby World Cup (pdf). These reports are commissioned by the IRB and are always (such as the Six Nations, Tri-nations and complete analysis of test rugby) a fantastic read and this is no exception.

So will these two reports (the IRB’s and the NZRU’s) be in synergy or conflict?

Here is the IRB’s assessment of why we lost in the quarterfinal:

Before RWC 2007 started, there appeared to be a clear favourite. New Zealand’s record over the last several years had been outstanding. They had done all this through pursuing a clearly identified approach that was not replicated by their rivals. New Zealand saw all their players as distributors of the ball while most other countries saw forwards as providers and just the backs as distributors. The result was that New Zealand were highly successful with their many tries coming from all parts of the field and from all available sources of possession.

There is, however, a risk in the 15 man distribution approach – or at least there is a perceived risk. Passing from all parts of the pitch requires a solid platform as well as skill and pace. It also requires confidence since it is thought to heighten the risk of losing possession when compared to a tight kicking and rucking game. Successful as the New Zealand approach had been, the one question that was critical therefore was whether an expansive approach would stand up under the pressure of a winner take all knockout competition. It did not – and this has never been more dramatically illustrated than in the France v New Zealand quarter final game. In order to understand the immensity of this game, it is necessary to go back to November 2006.

In that month, New Zealand defeated France – in France - by 47 points to 3. This suggested that New Zealand seemed to have found the right formula for beating one of their major world cup rivals. They scored 7 tries, creating just 43 rucks and kicked the ball 29 times. They made few passes – just 91 – but were clinical in their execution. This formula disappeared however in their RWC quarter final match against France. Instead of creating 43 rucks, New Zealand created 165 or almost 4 times as many. This was around 100 more than a normal New Zealand game; was around 50% higher than the next highest in the tournament and is almost certainly the highest figure ever seen in an international match. It was at a scale that New Zealand had never remotely experienced before with an often seen expansive approach being replaced by forward attrition. The successful formula of recent years had been abandoned for some reason and New Zealand found themselves out of the competition.

And here is the NZRU’s report on the quarterfinal:

We were not required to reach a conclusion on the factors immediately relevant to the loss in Cardiff but we comment briefly on them to ensure we do not give an incomplete impression.
Factors outside the control of the All Blacks contributed to the loss of the quarter final. The performance of the referee and touch judges had a significant adverse impact on the All Blacks. An unusual combination of injuries was also a critical contributor.

The officials, the combination of injuries, along with the performance of the French placed huge pressure on the All Blacks leadership model. The leadership model failed to deliver what was its most important objective - decisions which give the best chance of winning the game. The team failed to ensure that the right decisions were taken at critical moments.

As an aside if the leadership model “failed to deliver”, what should we do? The NZRU report says:

The leadership and mental preparedness approach by the All Blacks must be part of an overarching framework that provides a common and systematic approach to holistic player development. It must be integrated across all levels of professional rugby – All Blacks, Rebel Sport Super 14 Franchises and age grade national sides.

Join with me in saying “what?”

So the NZRU report says we lost due to the officials, the injuries and the leadership breakdown. The IRB says it was because we didn't stick to our usual gameplan (or were forced out of it).

But then there is this (from the NZRU report):

The coaches did, however, send a message out to the team with 10 minutes to go [in the quarterfinal], to set up for a drop goal. The on-field decision was made to continue with the tactic of attempting to score a try or to get a penalty. When making this decision the players were unaware of a vital piece of information - that the All Blacks had not been given a penalty in the entire second half and were therefore probably unlikely to get one, notwithstanding their pressure, possession and territory.

The players didn’t know they hadn’t been given a penalty in the second half? I think that is a serious gap I their knowledge to not know stuff about what is happening on the field.

But should we have gone for a drop goal? The NZRU report says that the on-field combination, of McCallister, Toeava and Leonard, was untested in pressure situations (mainly due to injuries rather than poor planning). This may mean the attempt wouldn’t have worked and if we look at what the IRB report says it gets less likely:

Attempted drop goals also reflected the difficulty in producing tries at the latter stages of the tournament. As the tournament progressed, so drop goals were attempted far more frequently. Successes however were few and far between. Of the 29 attempted drop goals at the knock out stage only 2 were successful, a success rate of just 7% compared to the more usual 25-30%. What such attempts did however was confirm the view that – for whatever reason - tries are difficult to find at RWC.

And on top of that, as the IRB report said (above), we were involved in a very large amount of rucks and mauls and according to the graph (below, click for larger [and updated!] image) the chances of you scoring a try drop considerably after the second phase.

­

Also in the “what?” category, this statement in the Executive Summary of the NZRU report:

The conditioning programme was a contributing factor to a significant decline in viewership of Rebel Sport Super 14 in New Zealand

is backed up by this in the report proper:

While the commercial impact of the conditioning programme cannot be precisely calculated, various stakeholders represented that it has been significant. The reduction in viewership in Rebel Sport Super 14 (caused in part by the conditioning programme) had the potential to contribute to a broader withdrawal of brewery sponsorship of rugby.

The bold is to show you the contradictions you can make in the space of two sentences. We can’t calculate it precisely but it definitely was a cause. Mmmhmmmm. Heaven forbid you need evidence and not just someone’s opinion.

Perhaps the weirdest parts of the report are the bits that aren’t there. Large sections are redacted (perhaps they are vital for national security). I imagine that most are specific budgetary pieces that don’t need to be in the public domain, but still, it doesn’t engender trust.

But perhaps I bagged the NZRU report too much. It does contain many well thought out recommendations about planning for the next Cup, including hiring a project manager. Huh, put someone in charge, that's a good idea.

The IRB is set to introduce the Experimental Law Variations (or Elves) around the world very soon after it received good feedback on them from coached Robbie Deans and Dick Muir. Perhaps coincidentally these are also the coaches of the two unbeaten teams in the Super 14.

It is unclear what the thoughts of the Highlanders' and Lions' coaches were.

Now not to fuel the fire of Robbie Deans bashing at this site, but do you think that Mr Deans is keen to have his brand-new forwards-lite Wallaby side play under the new speed-friendly Elves?

The Super 14 is under way! And the Dropkicks are there to cast their critical eye over the first round of results, and to make their picks for the second.

Download Episode 06

Subscribe to the Dropkicks Podcast (iTunes users click here).

This morning the IRB told the Tongans that they weren’t allowed to dye their hair green (or rather would have to get rid of any green hair they already had). By itself that sounds ludicrous, however the context is that the Tongans did the dying in order to thank their sponsor Paddy Power, an Irish bookmaker.

Before the tournament even started Paddy Power sponsored Tongan back Epi Taione, who changed his name by deed poll to Paddy Power. The IRB listed him as “Epi Taione”. After both of these incidents the IRB were labeled the “fun police”.

Now the IRB are slow and stupid and not all that good at promoting the game but in this case I believe they were doing the right thing. They have brands to protect at the World Cup and moreover the brand that are sponsoring the Tongans are a betting agency. Gambling and sports mix very well, until gambling agencies start being involved in the sports themselves. The IRB can’t have any of their teams openly involved in a betting agency because that might raise some suspicions. Do we really want rugby to end up like cricket?

It should also be said that the Tongans really didn’t think this through. Green hair with red uniforms, now where have I seen that before?

In the meantime a French choreographer has put together a short interpretive dance performance that pays tribute to the All Blacks and the haka. The dance (which many were calling a ballet, but it’s really not) lasts 10mins and features 15 female dancers wearing stiletto heels and All Black jerseys.

From the retards (and apparently cultural philistines) at Stuff:

[Mils Muliaina, Carl Hayman, Chris Jack and Andy Ellis] sat, like the good guests do and watched (without yawning once), listened as the troupe grappled with the words of Ka Mate and then clapped wildly out of a mixture of relief the Ballet Preljocaj's performance was over and true appreciation for something so out of the ordinary.

The creator of the performance said that he had decided on female performers simply for the reason that if he had chosen men they would not have been able to match the ferocity or masculine emotion of the All Blacks. And the women do put in a lot of emotion as one dancer showed the bruises on her thighs afterwards.

Note that at no point did anyone tell them to stop, say that “women shouldn’t be doing the haka”, or that this was insulting to our nation. Nope, we let it happen, the IRB and NZRU let it happen and everyone had a good time. Well done all.