The distance between our two countries may physically only be 2,200km but Shaun Tait, Brendon McCullum and Martin Guptill showed that there's a bigger gap when it comes to celebrating good work.

I can't count the number of times I've engaged in a rigorous debate with a rugby fan about our respective national teams, only to be rebutted [usually by English fans it seems] with the outrageous claim that the All Blacks are only as strong as they are because they 'steal' players from the Pacific Islands and if we only used players from our own country, we'd be, well, fucked.

Take a guess how many players in the All Blacks end-of-year tour squad were not born in New Zealand. If your guess was not four, you're wrong. Jerome Kaino was born in American Samoa, Junior Malili Muliaina is from Western Samoa, Rodney So'oialo is from Samoa and Sitiveni Sivivatu is, of course, a Fijian.

Of the four, Mils moved here when he was two years old, Sivi when he was 17 and it is unclear about Kaino or So'oialo, but all four attended a New Zealand high school. Yes, there is the whole 'scholarship' facade in schools, but that same process is used around the world in all sports. Most of the 'island' players in the All Blacks were born here and raised here. They're ours.

To say that NZ has some form of insidious scheme in place to identify talent and kidnap shows that there is a real lack of understanding about the way our country's citizenship laws have been set in the past, and political problems which have faced it. It also suggests that the NZRU have some form of Delorean time-machine which they use to travel back 20 years and convince people to move to NZ before they have a child, because they know that that kid will be good.

Lets take Neemia Tialata for an example. Tialata was born in Upper Hutt, before his parents returned to Samoa. They came back to New Zealand when he was five. Being born here, he was an NZ citizen. But wait. Neemia was born in 1982. If his parents were born residing in NZ before 1 January 1949, they would be NZ citizens, and he would receive this title by the rule of descent. There's about four different ways he would be an NZ citizen [and so would the other 'islanders']. Read them here.

These people, when told this, will try and switch it back on you. 'The All Blacks aren't the only team doing it' or 'what about in the Super 14 then?' they'll say.

So let's look at that. In the Super 14 there are only 14 players from another country playing for a franchise, whose birthplaces I can solidly identify. That's not even enough to make a team! These are:

Blues: Jerome Kaino [American Samoa], Benson Stanley [Australia], Josevata Rokocoko [Fiji], Isaia Toeava and George Pisi [Samoa]
Chiefs: Sione Lauaki [Tonga], Sitiveni Sivivatu [Fiji] Mils Muliaina [Samoa]
Hurricanes: John Schwalger [Western Samoa], Rodney So'oialo and David Smith [Samoa]
Crusaders: Ben Franks [Australia]
Highlanders: Joe Tuineau [Fiji] and Fetu'u Vainikolo [Tonga]

So what's going on then? David Campese seems adamant in this article that the big nations are plundering the stocks of Pacific Island countries [please, suppress your laughter at the irony of him using a picture of Nicky Little, who was born in Tokoroa, in that article].

In fact, because fair's fair, I took a look at all the tier-one teams and the Pacific tier-two sides. Of the Pacific teams Samoa has the highest number of foreign-born players. 10 of their squad were born overseas - all of them in New Zealand (Junior Polu, Fa'atonu Fili, Seilala Mapusua, Gavin Williams, Cencus Johnston, Justin Va'a, Filipo Levi, Joe Tekori, Kane Thompson and Jonny Faamatuainu). I couldn't confirm the numbers for Tonga because a. the Tonga RFU site is still down [has been for at least a year now] and there was too little information on most of them - but it looked like the majority were from Tonga, and Fiji has two Kiwis; the aforementioned Nicky Little, and Deacon Manu.

When I turned my eyes to the tier-one teams, there were a few surprises waiting for me. I knew Dumpling was from Canada, but didn't know about O'Gara's heritage. I think it's cool that Argentina's only 'import' hails from Belgium. The list of all the nations I haven't discussed in here is at the bottom of this article.

As I've written this piece though, I've started to wonder something. It's really easy to look at a country and say 'you've got a lot of island boys in your side, you steal them'. But even in the case of Sivivatu, who came here when he was 17, I think it's more a case of a player taking advantage of a side than the side taking advantage of them. Think about it. The training staff and programmes available within NZ are of a higher quality than those in the Pacific Islands. The fact we have rugby in two windows which can allow those players to compete in their own club/domestic competition if they so choose is another. Would Ma'a Nonu be as good as he is now if he had lived, played and trained in Samoa all his life? Would Josevata Rokocoko? And by the same token, would Pierre Hola be a great All Black if he'd moved to New Zealand if he was a kid?

PS: When you read Campese's piece, please let me know what you think. I've written this all about union, because I can't find full stats for Sevens. It's hard to find the significant main point in his piece. He begins speaking about Sevens, then switches to discussing Union with the RWC, then blabs on about 'clubs' not releasing players without saying which, moves on to complaining about the rules in Sevens, then he's going on about rucking... What? It's all over the fucking place.

PPS: I loved this pearler of a quote:

Sevens used to be full of guile and skill but now it’s played according to XVs rules with teams kicking for touch and taking the ball into contact.

Campo, I've watched both the Dubai and George Sevens over the past fortnight and the kicking I've seen has either been an attacking effort, or an attempt to waste time when the team kicking is ahead with not much time to go.

England: Matt Banahan [Jersey], Ayoola Erinle [Nigeria], Simon Shaw [Kenya], Steffon Armitage [Trinidad], Paul Doran-Jones [Ireland], Dylan Hartley [New Zealand]

Australia: David Pocock [Zimbabwe], Stephen Moore [Saudi Arabia], Matt Dunning [Canada], Dean Mumm, Digby Ioane and Quade Cooper [New Zealand], Will Genia [Papua New Guinea]

France: Thierry Dusautoir [Côte d'Ivoire], Fulgence Ouedraogo [Burkina Faso]

South Africa: Tendai Mtawarira [Zimbabwe]

Wales: Luke Charteris and Tom Shanklin [England]

Scotland: Ben Cairns, Jim Thompson, Hugo Southwell [England], Thom Evans [Zimbabwe], John Barclay and Graeme Morrison [Hong Kong], Nathan Hines [Australia]

Italy: Luke McLean and Craig Gower [Australia], Carlo Del Fava [South Africa] Josh Sole and Kaine Robertson [New Zealand], Sergio Parisse, Matías Agüero and Gonzalo Canale [Argentina], Manoa Vosawai [Fiji]

Ireland: Ronan O'Gara [USA], Jamie Heaslip [Israel], Tom Court [Australia]

Argentina: Esteban Lozada [Belgium]

The Football World Cup finals are being drawn this weekend. The seedings have been done and the four "pots" confirmed.

1. South Africa (group A), Argentina, Brazil, England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain
2. Australia, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Honduras, Mexico, USA, New Zealand
3. Algeria, Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay
4. Denmark, France, Greece, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland

One team will taken from each pot to make the eight groups of four teams. Simple.

For New Zeland that means that there are 512 possible combinations of opponents. But what's the best one? Based strictly on current world rankings it would be in Group A with South Africa (86), Ghana (37), and Slovakia (34).

The worst would be Spain (1), Cameroon (11), and Portugal (5).

Please Charlise, be nice to us!

Obviously it's impossible to know who we are going to end up playing but we can guess at the strength of the opposition.

The average ranking of Pot 1 is roughly 15, which is like playing Mexico. The problem is that South Africa is the lowest ranked team in the competition which drags down the average. Really Pot 1 is all the best teams (except Portugal and France). A better average is about 6 to 8 (Germany, France, Argentina).

The average ranking of Pot 2 is 43 which is like playing Japan (who happen to be in Pot 2). This is the losers pot and hence the All Whites are also in it. Which is a shame because we might have beaten North Korea.

The average ranking of Pot 3 is roughly 23 which is like playing the Czech Republic. Except the Czech aren't at the Cup and Pot 3 is filled with African and South American nations. So let's say it's more like playing Nigeria.

The average ranking of Pot 4 is roughly 19 which is like playing Uruguay. Uruguay is one of the countries in Pot 3 so let's round up to 20 which is Serbia.

So, my crazy prediction is that one of the groups will be Argentina, Japan, Nigeria, and Serbia. And if I'm right you all owe me a beer.

Before the Cricket kicked off [tipped off? Bowled off? Hit off?] this week, the fellows over at Sportsfreak were focused on the All Blacks' end of year tour, and the lack of tries in their games. The print media also seem to have chosen this as their lead angle ahead of this weekend's match (exhibit a, b, c, d... need I go on?) against France.

You can see my original response over there, where I gave some stats about the tries the All Blacks have scored and conceded in the NH over the past 11 years, but it sparked something in me. At school, I didn't really pay much attention in Maths. If it was something that captured my attention (like graphs and shit) I'd do it, but as soon as I got to sixth form I dropped it. It's never been a problem in day to day life, but this week I've felt completely incompetent. I've been trying to come up with all kinds of mathmatical stats and graphs for this post, and I'm extremely lucky to have Hadyn's patient tutelage to help me. If it hadn't been for him, you'd have all kinds of data here, and it would be presented on an unreadable line graph.

Something I didn't need help for was gathering the data for this. And it's actually a new feature of the Dropkicks. You can see it here. Currently it features all international test matches from 2006-today, but I may backdate it eventually if I see the need, and I may use it for a post about the Rugby World Cup and whether the 'minnow' teams are becoming more competitive.

The first table to have a look at, because I know you want to see the stuff revolving around the All Blacks, is the 6 Nations. [if this was TV that would be a hook - You would have no choice but to stick with me to find out. But this is a blog, so it doesn't work as well... Fuck.]

There is a real feeling, rightly or wrongly, that it defines us, this game.

Wayne Smith could not have said it better. For himself, Steve Hansen and Graham Henry, this weekend's match against France will be the way this international season is remembered. Forget all that has come before it - Sivivatu's tackle in Tokyo, the switching 'round of the coaching panel, the brothers travelling the country with a spraypainted rooster, the new sponsorship deal with Telecom, the 'are they rushing him back?' return of Dan Carter, the failure to tell the team the amount of points they needed to beat France by in Wellington, the criticisms of Luke McAlister after his first test back in black, the Mathieu Bastareaud saga which forced the country to look at the social machinations of rugby union and its fans [and whether they've changed over the past two decades], the decision to leave Isaac Ross behind and the withdrawal of players from the Air New Zealand Cup - this season boils down to a mirror image of the first game of the season.

This time, we will be playing on their turf. We will be the ones in white. We will be the ones coming off a successful campaign. We are the ones who are prepared.

From this article on Stuff today:

Guys are kicking the ball 60m these days because the ball has improved so much. Kicking is a skill but it is transforming the game and I don't think that was in the original ideas of rugby.

We can't increase the length of the field; there might be opposition to that at places like Twickenham and Eden Park. But on the same size field as long ago, you can now kick the ball 10m-15m further. That changes both the nature of the game and the nature of the penalty.

While I agree with the majority of this article [and for once there's extended quote and not just a reactionary "WHOA GRAHAM HENRY SAID ONE POINT GOALS LETS GET SOME OPINION IN HERE] I just want to raise the point that the 'original idea' of rugby did indeed place the emphasis on the kick.

A bit of history oft-forgotten in rugby union is that a try got its name because that was what it originally awarded - a try to kick the ball through the goal. It was the penalties, drop goals and conversions which got the point.

In any case, kicking today is a strategical decision. To reduce its effectiveness would require both a dramatic shift in the game at every level and would kill the career of some of the most talented kickers in today's game. It would also be a very reactionary, knee-jerk thing to do - after one year where the cream has risen to the top in terms of the Springboks, there are calls to change the rules? No. Maybe after 10 or 15 years if a huge disparity is cropping up between SA and everyone else.

Because while the Crusaders are the exception to the rule, rugby is cyclical. Teams are not dominant. Even the All Blacks, who many look back on with rose-tinted glass and use words like 'invincible', 'proud' and 'mighty' have stumbled on many occasions throughout their history.

And also, why would we make penalties and drop goals one point? Why not conversions be one and penalties and drop goals be two?

I want to put a hypothetical situation to you. Imagine you've worked for a company since you were a teenager. You work your butt off to try and improve, because the better you are the more money you will earn. Payment is sporadic and you have to travel often. Other people rise to the top faster than you, but you soldier on.

Then one day you find out a worker at the company has been caught cheating the system. Let's say it was insider trading. The media and public become interested in the case, but your bosses refuse to tell the media [and public] who the culprit is, although they know, for legal reasons.

For some inexplicible reason the media interest dies down quickly. Therefore the public interest dies down. But, due to some events in the past you are one of the names on the suspect list and have to endure people looking at you sideways. You know it isn't you, your bosses know it isn't you, but the public don't.

This is a real situation, involving the NZ Olympic Committee and NZ olympians. You may remember reports surfaced a wee while ago about an NZ olympian failing a drugs test?

I am not going to identify who the athlete was, what event they are involved with or their sex, and will not tolerate any attempts by commenters to try to.

My questions are; Is this fair on our athletes, particularly those who have had run-ins with the media and law in the past, when it isn't them? How would you feel in this situation? Should the athlete 'come clean' themselves? And finally, does this reflect poorly on the country, as it was one of our athletes which was sent to the games, representing us on the international stage?

Watch the Junior World Cup final live and free with the IRB.

It's England vs New Zealand and kick-off is 6pm (NZ time).

And here's the incident everyone's talking about...