­Last night on Nightline there was a story about the upcoming film Invictus - a fluff piece about the film and how cool it is going to be, not about the questions being asked about South Africa's progess since the RWC - I had no issue with the story, but I'm pissed off with the lead in which was read by Kate Lynch, anchored with the line

There's no word yet on who's playing Jonah Lomu, but see if you can spot him.

This is the exact reaction from New Zealand I had worried about with this movie. There was something of a legitimate claim when there was the furore about the haka being used, but other than that this is not a movie about the All Blacks, or rugby, or the Rugby World Cup. It's a story about South African politics, using sport as a culturally uniting feature [Marx would have a field day!].

More than this, that line shows that absolutely no research was done. In under 60 seconds I had found out that there is actually someone playing in the role. This has also been reported on Radio New Zealand International, the NZ Herald and the Samoa Observer, just to give a few examples.

In less than half an hour, I managed to find out the following;

In Invictus, Jonah Lomu is going to be played by Zak Feau'nati [here's a picture of him]. Feau'nati's real first name is Isaac, and he is currently 36-years-old. He was born in Wellington and attended Saint Patrick's College [town].

He played for the Wellington Lions 22 times between 1994 and 1997 before playing with the Crusaders. He had two caps with that team in 1997, against the Blues in round 6 [the Crusaders lost, 29-28] and the Highlanders in round seven [Again, the Crusaders lost, 37-29]. Both of those matches were away games.

After that he left New Zealand. He went to England to play rugby. He went to the London Irish for two years, then Rotherham for one, then the Tykes, then Bath. He retired from rugby last year and currently works at Bishop Vesey Grammar School as the Head of Rugby and is involved with the school's first XV. It appears he is not very liked by pupils. He is also conducting a rugby academy next year.

He had a 14-match international career spanning from 1996-2006. He played against Tonga four times [once as a flanker in 1997 in a game which ended with the scores at 6 all], Fiji three times and a match each against Ireland, the All Blacks, Argentina, Japan, Canada, Italy and the USA. He started four of his tests as a reserve and started as a Number 8 in eight games. The match against Argentina was in the 1999 Rugby World Cup, and he scored two international tries - both in June 2000, against Fiji and Japan.

He also has a brother cousin, Dominic, a centre who has five international caps, scoring a try against both Georgia and Uruguay in the 2003 Rugby World Cup. The 2003 RWC accounted for four of his five caps - the other was against Namibia, where he scored three tries. The Namibia game was the only game he started.

He played for Marist St Pats [­photos here], and played 10 matches for the Hurricanes between 2002 and 2004, scoring two tries. He also played for Pontypridd RFC before the Hurricanes. Following 2004 he switched to League, playing for the Leigh Centurions and St Helens. In 2007 [for unknown reasons] he returned to rugby union and has since played for London Irish and Worcester Warriors in England, Rugby Calvisano in the Italian Serie A, and is now in the Top 14 with SC Albi.

How fucking hard was it to come up with a shitload of information on a guy playing a role which supposedly hasn't been announced yet?

The ticket prices for the 2011 Rugby World Cup have been released to a mixed response - some say affordable, some say not. I think there are some gems there if you can get them, depending on what you're after. Wales v Samoa in Hamilton should be close, and good, as will Canada v Tonga, while South Africa v Fiji will be full of tries. The Samoa v Fiji match should be an instant sellout and is very well priced considering this.

I am pondering something though. There are three options for getting along: You can buy tickets to one game, all games at a venue, or all games played by one team. The last two options also get you some rights to getting a ticket in the finals. But aside from that there's no incentive for the packages. Those options are the exact same price as going to all of the matches at a venue - no discount whatsoever. So clearly RNZ 2011 Ltd is confident that most people will want to go to the finals. But if you're just wanting to go to a final [you'd better cross your fingers though, what with that ballot system], you can do it for cheaper than a ticket to a lot of the games. Grabbing a venue pack for Palmerston North, or Nelson, will only cost $80. And both locations are pretty accessible - we're a tiny country after all - or if you can't make it, you can chuck it to a mate.

On BSport this morning, 2011 Rugby World Cup CEO Martin Snedden was discussing the way the Major Events Management Act will help prevent instances of scalping. He was roundly questioned, and rightly so, about this. As it stands, the MEMA has this to say about scalping:

25 Ticket-scalping protections

(1) No person may, without the authorisation of the major event organiser, sell or trade a ticket to a major event activity for a value greater than the original sale price of that ticket.

(2) In subsection (1),— original sale price includes charges necessary to effect the sale or trade of a ticket including, for example, a booking fee or postage or courier charges sell or trade includes any transaction, regardless of its form, in which a substantial purpose of the transaction is the sale or trade of a ticket to a major event activity for a value greater than the original sale price of that ticket.

Section 26 defines that the penalty for this cannot exceed $5,000. This event is going to be the biggest to date for the modern scalper, and I highly doubt they will be deterred by such a fine. Secondly, a hypothetical situation was raised which got me thinking. What is to stop me from buying a $2 magnet and awarding a 'free' ticket to the RWC for the winning bidder?

Any change to the MEMA will have to be very carefully worded, because the inevitable 'buy [insert product here] and go in the draw to win a ticket' competitions could be viewed in the same light - unless every single company in New Zealand is to go to RNZ 2011 Ltd and be registered?

Secondly, since Trade Me etc do not allow you to set a maximum price, what will happen if you buy three tickets and somebody in your family dies? If you try to sell those tickets online it is highly likely that the price will exceed the original for them - but that may not be your intent, you may simply want to give them on to somebody else.

The second case is highly unlikely - but is a violation of the MEMA reviewed on a case-by-case basis? Will there be a sell-back option to the RWC for pool matches [obviously this plan will be flawed for finals, so shouldn't apply].

In case you missed it, SKY has acquired the rights to broadcast the 2011 Rugby World Cup. If you couldn't see that coming from a mile off, go and get your head checked. SKY is the leading broadcaster in NZ, it is well-managed and does a pretty good job of showcasing the sports it owns rights to [at last count the ones it didn't included V8 Supercars and A1GP [3], NZV8's and Netball [1] and the NBL [Maori TV]].

But keep in mind that if people had listened to Jim Anderton, we wouldn't have had to pay to watch a single match on TV. Which has both good and bad aspects. The reason SKY has gotten these rights is that they've been able to offer the most money. What that is hasn't been disclosed, but you'd imagine it'd be pretty damn substantial. Now, in the current economic climate as the Government struggles to repay its own debt and is chained to its promise of tax cuts, would this have been a viable commercial option? Sure, there's the option of recovering revenue via advertising as TV3 was sure it had, but if the 'advertising free' law still applied, that would take out a significant chunk [especially since the final is going to be held on a Sunday]. There would also have been the issue about which network it would be shown on - Government run Maori TV, which can't be received in all areas? TV1 or TV3 prompting cries of unfairness by the others? Set up a new channel? Put it on Freeview, making people have to buy the boxes?

If it were on free-to-air, a whole nation would be a lot happier. Even though Dun & Bradstreet think that people would rather have SKY than pay their mortgage, if the economic climate continues down its winding path people may not be able to afford 'cable' TV. Which alienates a generation of kids [I remember watching us lose to South Africa in Wales in 1999 at primary school], but also destroys a shitload of momentum the NZRU and RWCL has been struggling to get going about the RWC.

It should be noted that SKY has promised to broadcast up to 16 matches on free-to-air - out of a possible 48 - including the opening match. While it's not likely to happen, there's a possibility that those 16 matches could be affairs like Italy v Europe B in Nelson... Oh and there's no mention of free-to-air delayed coverage. Does this mean it won't happen? Not every household can get Prime either, so please take the into account SKY.

I'm pretty pissed off about this. It seems the only people who are going to benefit from this are pub owners. Hell, I might even head to the bank to get a loan to set my own up before 2011. I understand that SKY is trying to protect its commercial interests, but how about some sort of guarantee that the All Blacks pool matches will be shown? Or that there'll be delayed coverage? Or that it'll be shown on a channel that most of the country can access?

[NZPA via DanNews.co.nz]

So with Nick Evans leaving for Harlequins until at least 2011 (for the lifestyle he says) how many of our World Cup winning attending team are left?

The Forwards:

The Backs:

Well actually, that's not so bad.

BTW Dan Carter's reaction to Evans leaving? "Oh ok, that's nice"

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.

Well, the World Cup is over - with a whimper? or a bang? The Dropkicks discuss the 2007 Rugby World Cup Final and 3rd/4th play-off, as well as the 2007 Air NZ Cup Final, and Athletes and Dicks of the Week.­

Download Episode 40 - Rugby World Cup Final | Air NZ Cup Final

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

The Dropkicks send there sincere congratulations to the South African rugby team
and their supporters. Well done boys.

We hope everything works out well in the future.
 

­

Well it's all come to an end. You probably know the score by now, but this not going to be a post about the game (I had thought about doing a Glog but couldn't be arsed getting my laptop out in the pub). Instead this will be a post about all those brilliant people who made this world cup as fun as it has been: the fans.

Here are some images of supporters just from today's game (note the girl with the Aussie flag on her cheek):

And here are some of the most special fans who showed up today (one of whom may have been stoned, shhhh). Note the range of emotions:

­

And some more of the "regular" people: 

­­

I sadly couldn't find many snaps of South African fans, though if you look at the last photo (bottom right), you'll see one right at the bottom.

UPDATE: The Herald has just put up a great gallery of fan photos (click image below)

<<<Caution SPOILERS>>> 

Well here we are for the third-fourth play off. Some people say they don't care, but I do. Why? Because this looks like it will be a better game than the actual final. That and the Argentinean and French supporters look much prettier than the English and South African. (Jokes guys, just jokes). Also the winnerof this game gets a bronze medal, the losers get...nothing. Somehow 4th place is the worst thing in the World Cup. Nobody wants to be 4th.

There is the first of a million shots of Chabal (he's not that good people!). He's got one blood red eye, seriously, not photoshopped or nothing.

Paul Honiss starts the game and is now the world's most capped referee.

Despite Hamish McKay being rested for the final (groan) the English commentators show they can foot it with the stupidist: "this is what we've been waiting to see at the world cup, well we've already seen it once and so now some people want a different result"

The game has only just started but the pace and the flair with which the guys are throwing it around is awesome.

A small tussle breaks out and the Argentineans break it up with hugs and pats on the back. Damn they're good sports.

Jeebus what are they doing! Both teams are playing like it's the dying seconds and they need a try! Argentina have now twice taken the tap in their own 22.

In what might a record for this world cup it is the 17th minute before points are scored. Just looking at the play before the penalty I can see that there will most likely be another fight or two during this match.

The commentators mention that one of the Argentineans has a "huge boot on him". I'm imaging one of those shoes you get if one of your legs is too short.

Try to Contepomi. Good build up, the French didn't actually do anything wrong but it was a good drifting offence beating a not-as-good drifting defence.

A text from Stephen: "I think [commentator] Simon Mannix is dating Contepomi"

Another try to the Argies. The French look tiiiired. And it was Omar Hasan Jalil who got the try, the man who neck is wider than his ears.

OMG the French halfback, Elissalde, just start stomping on an Argentinean lock who was legally playing the ball on his feet. And now he's picking a fight and ... shit, he just tried to head-but the Argentinean. Does he think he's Zidane?

Another "fight". The French seem to love slapping the faces of the Argies, and the Argies seem to love baiting them.

And actual punches have been thrown. Honiss is gonna have to send someone off. But they can't get a number so instead, another warning.

Two yellow cards to end the half. One for Rimas Álvarez Kairelis: constant infringement. One for the French Captain, Raphaël Ibanez: dangerous rucking. In anger Ibanez throws a waterbottle at the touch judge, which I thought was a red card offense (striking the ref).

So that TV3 can show ads we miss the second half kick off.

OK the oranges at half time didn't calm anyone down. Someone is going to lose their head...literally. It won't be Jilal though, his neck's too big for that.

Pichot shows why I would vote him player of the year. Being sneaky around the scrum. A bit later he gets a French knee to the nuts.

Another amazing open field try for Argentina. Their hands are amazing. Hernandez surrounded by four Frenchmen gets a pass away and then it's on!

A massive cheer for Chabal running onto the field. I'm sure it's because he's a caricature. It's like having Obelix on the field. Or rather Mikey Mouse.

Honiss sends off an Argentinean for a high late shoulder charge on Chabal that wasn't any of those. Still that's what happens when you listen to Stuart Dickenson. Note the tackle sends Chabal flying, he gets up crying about his shoulder. Mannix says "yes that will hurt".

Damn! Argentina get ANOTHER break out running try. Frickin heck, this one goes end to end. AND they're one man down!

Pichot meets the "old style" of French rugby as it looks like Harinordoquy grabs his throat on the ground.

A nice try for France that looks like the ones the Argies have been scoring.

The Argies make a sub and when the new man comes on he kisses the man he's replacing. A loverly little peck on the cheek.

After a fairly good period of play by the French, Contepomi scores another one for Argentina. As he puts the ball behind him in celebration he hits a Frenchman, the Frenchman punches Contemponi in the nuts.

In the post-match interview the French captain basically threatens the Argentineans. He says how they should savour this as he doesn't believe they have a generation [of players] to follow through and that they'll be preparing for the next France vs Argentina.

Man of the Match = Pichot. (My partner says he's hot).