7s coach Mike Friday admits top 15s talent can bring value to Olympics level 7s with 3 weeks conditioning

For about the last decade 7s people (coaches, specialists, other enthusiasts of the format) have had a strong scepticism over 15s players dropping into 7s as a narrative formed that the sport has in their view become far too specialised, and in particular has such gargantuan fitness demands relative to 15s, that it would require a lengthy many month transition impractical to nearly all top 15s professionals unless they effectively took a season off from their career.

However, as pointed out in a recent article on the post-Olympics state of 7s, some of the motivation behind this narrative was down to self-interest of the 7s people who feel insecure at their lower status next to 15s ....

In 2017 Science of Sport podcast host Ross Tucker (formerly of the South Africa 7s camp) accidentally let slip the real motivation to why there became such strong scepticism and even hostility to the idea of 15s stars going to 7s and doing well.

Tucker said: "when 7s was accepted into the Olympics, there was a fear (me and a few others) that what countries would do is to insert their 15s stars into their teams for the Games only, dominate, smash everyone, and [...] if that were to happen, then it would potentially irreparably damage 7s, because it would reveal the gulf between 7s and 15s".

The 7s specialists (who in Tier 1 nations at least are very often players those who failed to make it in 15s) over the years since 15s players stopped appearing at event had grown to really feel their generally lower status in the rugby world next to the bigger stars in 15s. So they really invested in a narrative emphasising how the demands of 7s are not merely tough coming from 15s (which sounds fair, as mentioned, not best arena to throw in old or injury ridden players) but almost otherworldly and that a seemingly simpler version of the sport had transformed into something so different it requires a long period of specialist focus.

This narrative was pushed in extremely hyped up terms partly out of 7s specialists fear of losing their spots at an Olympics to a 15s player of course, but also in order to boost the self-esteem of the sport, which they felt 15s players taking to with ease would make a mockery of.

In reality most of their fears were misplaced, as even in the days when many more 15s players switched over, there were always still specialists like Rush or Serevi widely acknowledged as the greatest in 7s. So the best 7s team is never going to correlate absolutely perfectly with best in 15s, and having 15s stars turn up for the Olympics, whilst unlucky for a few who will miss out, actually only increases the status and interest in 7s and prestige of winning Olympic Gold.

7s coach Mike Friday

Among those sceptical include the experienced 7s coach Mike Friday, so was curious listening to his interview with the Eagles Overseas Rugby podcast, where he says it is "a 6-9 month transition" for a 15s player.

As has been pointed out Fiji, who tend to ignore this 7s narrative for big events, drafted in three 15s players to their Olympics squad with what can't have been much more than 3 weeks preparation which contributed a strong boost to their squad on the way to reaching the final (which they hadn't reached all season on the circuit), is a bit awkward for the widely pushed idea of 15s players being quite so distant from 7s conditioning (as does their 2016 Gold medal winning team that did the similar with Nakarawa and Tuisova too). 

If going by what 7s people have long said then those players conditioning ought not to have been anywhere even near the required state to be fully competitive at the elite level. Yet they looked more than capable of adding value to the squad. Iosefo Masi played 79 of a possible 84 minutes and Selestino Ravutaumada beat the most defenders in the competition.

Friday was kind and friendly enough (big respect for that) to take time to reply on Twitter to queries on this and it proved an interesting discussion (he also had the similar discussion with Fijan Drua CEO Mark Evans who also pointed out that "maybe this line of “completely different conditioning” is not so accurate").

His view is that Fiji, and only Fiji, can select players without so much specialist conditioning as they play a "tempo" style (assuming this means somehow "slower"). Evans found this reasoning "dodgy", and indeed to be blunt it comes across as a highly unconvincing attempt to wave away the countervailing evidence to the widely pushed 7s specialist narrative.

Fiji 7s head coach Osea Kolinisau explicitly made
fitness his priority on taking the job but was still
happy to add three 15s players to his starting team

Certainly the Fijian camp themselves do not appear to view their style as tempo which is more accommodating of poorer fitness. On the contrary, Osea Kolinisau taking on the head coach role last March stated it is "a high tempo game that we are known for" and it "can only be achieved through fitness" and then went on to keep emphasising in further interviews "improving fitness levels" would be a priority.

It does not seem from those quotes like fitness was less of a priority for Fiji than other sides. Rather it sounds more like they were backing Josaia Raisuqe, Masi, and Ravutaumada to still be able to play 7s at that high tempo, and simply don't view 15s fitness as so far off that kind of talent can't come in and quickly add value (surely they would have even better still had they an entire season in 7s than only 3 weeks, but just as 15s camps know when selecting players on short preparation after tough slogs in Top 14 or Pro D2, not much can ever be perfectly ideal preparation wise for most Tier 2 nations).

This is nothing new, in 2018 successful former coach Gareth Baber was talking about how the side "will be playing with pace" to execute "the high tempo game we like", and also noted how the players coming from 15s (Nakarawa, Tuisova, Kunatani, Radradra), had "handled all the conditioning sessions we have put them through". In 2016 another former coach Ben Ryan talked about how Fiji "plays a very high-tempo game that requires enormous amounts of fitness", and in a more recent interview this year said "fitness" is key "to allow the Fijian team to do their thing".

This appeared to be illustrated in the quarter final against Ireland, which Fiji managed to win with just 28% possession, with the match finishing with them successfully making a three and half minute defensive stand into overtime. Incidentally the only two Fijians who played that entire game were Masi and Ravutaumada from 15s. It does not seem plausible to have much hope of winning a 7s game with that much defending at the elite level if those players had insufficient fitness. It is hard to see how a side can simply style out three and half minute defensive stands into stoppage time either.

Fiji beat Ireland in the Olympics 7s QF after
a 3 minute plus defensive stand in the last play

Friday then said "if these 2 playing for Ireland they not lasting anymore than 8/9 mins".

Again, it sounds highly dubious that players who lasted an intense full 17 minute plus match against Ireland where Fiji survived on 28% possession and made 5x number of tackles would not be capable of playing a full match if they were on the opposing team. But it is nonetheless a seeming acknowledgement from Friday, that unlike he and others have claimed, fit prime age 15s talent of this level probably doesn't need that 6-9 month transition.

In a sport where matches are 14 minutes and 5 of the starting 7 players are usually subbed, contributing for 8-9 minutes is basically similar to your average 7s player. So if they would have been capable of that on any team with about 3 weeks preparation since the end of the Super Rugby season. That is not at all bad.

How good would a talent like Immanuel Feyi-
Waboso probably be going from 15s to 7s?

When asked if he was Great Britain coach and two of the finest young athletic rugby talents in the country Immanuel Feyi-Waboso or Louis Rees-Zammit became available but only with around 3 weeks to prepare conditioning wise (like the Fijians roughly had) Friday reckoned they might have "7 minutes in them".  For that calibre of talent and at that age, this seems a conservative estimate, but still in a sport where over 70% of starters usually get subbed, a player who contributes strongly for 7 minutes is still well worth its place in the squad (it should be noted though that whilst the Fijian example questions the fitness narrative of 7s specialists, in terms of adaptation skillset wise Fijians are particularly unique, so probably advisable other nations do have potential 15s players hoping to be Olympians appear in a couple series events as trial runs in the run up beforehand to acclimatise to the format more, similar to what Great Britain did with 15s players in low key Rugby Europe events in 2016).

So overall Friday ended up almost acknowledging that plenty of top 15s players probably could in fact contribute and add value to Olympics 7s squads significantly quicker than the 6-9 month conditioning transition he was initially claiming.

As noted in a previous article on 7s after the Olympics, Dupont's presence "has brought more prestige to a 7s gold medal than there was before", and how big a deal 7s becomes "depends on to what extent 7s specialists want to gate keep against 15s stars (by demanding too onerous a commitment) entering as guest players ahead of the Olympics on quicker timeframes".

Could a such a huge 7s enthusiast like Friday (who is so enthusiastic about 7s he also reckons such a highly difficult format to follow could achieve the seemingly impossible and gain a year round fanbase) seemingly here moderating his position from a "6-9 month transition" be a sign that the 7s specialist narrative may be softening and LA 2028 on men's side could have a lot more star power (or even just more James Davies and Mark Bennett level 15s players like Great Britain silver medallist team had in 2016) involved?

Your post-Olympics guide to Rugby 7s future in the sport

Rugby 7s for the first time got a chance to be played at the Olympics in a rugby country and in front of record crowds. The combination has been described by as 7s "coming of age" moment as an Olympic sport. This moment has also brought a lot of myths about 7s back into the light so it is worth giving some basic information about the sport and it's role in rugby's future.

Why has Rugby 7s been so successful at the Olympics?

The Olympics is the world's biggest platform for sports that do not tend to get huge attention from year round fanbases or have any other prize as coveted as an Olympic Gold medal. Things like diving, hockey etc do not typically get large audiences, but once every four years at the Games, there is a general Olympics sports fan who can grasp the high stakes, and at least momentarily be captured by sports they are less familiar with.

Also 7s has an advantage in offering more exhilarating style of action compared to a lot of the other sports (race walking, dressage etc) that has more instinctive appeal to many.

In addition to this early August (outside of RWC warm up years) usually falls in one of the lowest activity weeks of the rugby calendar. So most rugby fans, many of whom will be tuning into the Olympics as general sports fans as well, will also for that one week altogether be focused and commenting on the 7s.

So will 7s outside the Olympics grow big?

There are inherent problems with the 7s format that are difficult to overcome and severely limits its potential of ever being a well followed sport outside the context of the Olympics.

First of all the days on the circuit can be very long, 8 or 9 hours of match after match, and only maybe 28-42 minutes of that involving a home team.

At an Olympics (where men's and women's events combined are spread over 6 days so individual sessions are not actually quite as long) the casual fan can grasp the narrative and importance of going for an Olympic medal. But the same doesn't apply to say, the Perth 7s, and fans have little reason to much care about relatively low stakes games between two neutral teams of players they've mostly never heard of.

The main solution that has been found is to sell 7s as an extraneous background product to a fancy dress beer party. However this comes with other problems attached. Namely giving the sport an unserious aesthetic (the opposite of the Olympics) which does not induce fans to ever start caring about the actual matches, and some issues with grossly drunk behaviour which tends to be a turn off for the mothers and children demographics.

An ad for the Perth 7s this year where the fancy dress party is
the main character rather than the actual sport

Secondly even if you just want to follow your own team. You can't always reliably know their kickoff times which could be scattered anywhere across the long day. Then to follow them across a season on the circuit is even harder, with them being scattered across the day, and scattered across the time zones of five different continents.

A sizeable year round following usually requires fans adopting a familiar sort of weekend routine. The 7s circuit works in almost exact opposite direction of this principle and thus particularly unsuited to building a large fan community. It for these reasons, despite the success of the sport at the Olympics, the circuit loses money, and World Rugby reportedly are looking "to lessen the financial risk" of its "very costly" 7s programme.

But some people say 7s is rugby's equivalent to T20 cricket?

This has long been lazily repeated, but if you think for a few seconds, it is really a totally bogus comparison, where people confuse a format of merely reduced length of match, to one that also has a reduced number of players as the main feature.

A standard day at the cricket before T20 was around 7 hours long, compared to the 2 hours at a football or rugby match. The point of a shortened T20 cricket match was to make it closer to a standard football or rugby match and a suitable evening out. Whereas a shortened rugby match becomes too short to bother travelling to, so has many matches, and a day ends up closer in length to .... a standard day at the cricket before T20.

Rugby 7s is in fact more comparable to what 5-a-side football variant is to the main sport, or for a better cricket comparison the "Hong Kong cricket Sixes" 6-a-side event. All of these are reduced player (not just length of match) variants that are much like 7s two or three day events with many matches per day.

So no, 7s is not going to be for rugby what T20 was for cricket, and it is high time the actually quite stupid comparison died. It will be what 5-a-side is for football (which by the way, may also be better as an Olympic sport than the current version of football).

Can 7s sell without being marketed as a fancy dress beer party?

The alternative would be of course aim to get people to care more about the actual matches. However when neutral teams are involved, the only way to do this (outside the Olympics) is involving the sport's big stars.

This was most obviously demonstrated in the run up to the Olympics where just one player Antoine Dupont turning up reportedly created "an enormous spike" in interest. It is not exactly hard to understand (just imagine for a football comparison how much sudden interest a futsal tournament would get if a prime Ronaldinho or Messi had turned up).

Arguably 7s peak was the Hong Kong events of the 1990s. These tournaments featured a star name in nearly every team. Most famously Jonah Lomu and Christian Cullen, but also David Campese, George Gregan, Joost van der Westhuizen, Breyton Paulse, Philippe Bernat-Salles, Olivier Magne, Daisuke Ohata, Austin Healey, Brian Lima, Lisandro Arbizu.

If you have a participation lineup showcasing that many highlight reel friendly stars almost any rugby fan anywhere is going to be curious to tune in and your event is going to have some legitimate hype, perceived importance, and in the modern age social media buzz. On old YouTube clips you can see these tournaments were broadcast on BBC with the legendary Bill McLaren on commentary (or later Sky Sports who back then sent their big match duo of Miles Harrison and Stuart Barnes) whereas nowadays 7s struggles to find major broadcasters so is left to be streamed on RugbyPass.tv.

Having this stage also meant more specific 7s stars like Eric Rush and Waisale Serevi both became quite big stars of the sport in their own right despite having lesser 15s careers.

That said, there is a novelty factor to seeing Lomu or Cullen back then, or Dupont now in 7s, which appeals to a curiosity of how they would get on in a different setting. Nobody wanted them to become full time 7s circuit players and watch them play it all year, and without 15s they obviously wouldn't have ever been big names in the first place, so it doesn't really solve the fundamental issues that make the format is simply unsuited to a year round following.

Jonah Lomu and Waisale Serevi battle at the Hong Kong 7s in the mid 90s

Why did 15s stars stop coming?

Increasing demands of the calendar and larger schedules made the 7s side quest no longer possible, not just for the 15s stars, but virtually any full time professional with a club career to look after. That also had the knock on effect of a reduction in prestige to 7s, and it became unappealing, with too much effort for too little reward most high profile players bother with.

It was thought Olympics may change this in 2016, and to some extent it did, but the 7s format is typically an arena best suited for the young, fit, and fresh at the peak of their athletic years. Not ageing ones with many miles on the clock or cumulative injury records (it is stating the obvious that it was prime Lomu in 1995 aged 20 who was basically a cheat code in 7s, not the 30 year old version who played for Cardiff in 2005 after just having two years out from worsening illness).

So considering this it was surprising some of the biggest names who tried out included likes of an older version of Bryan Habana winding down his career, or a 31 year old injury riddled Sonny Bill Williams who failed to make an impact. More recently Michael Hooper tried out despite a combination of being at the backend of career and broken down with injuries. Almost the precise opposite of the sort of 15s star to think of drafting into 7s.

These cases were then cherry picked and seized upon as examples by 7s specialists to push a narrative of it being a supposedly monumental challenge for any player to switch from 15s to 7s. This only further discouraged high profile crossovers happening for the next Olympics.

Michael Hooper, trying out for an Olympics 7s spot at the back end of a
tough 125 cap Wallabies career, was one of the big 15s names not to make it

On the otherhand Fiji of course won Gold at those Olympics in 2016 adding the likes of a prime Leone Nakarawa and Josua Tuisova. Or Great Britain won Silver (in a year none of the Home Unions came higher than 8th on the circuit) supplementing their squad with James Davies and Mark Bennett from 15s (neither who were huge names, but were on good form and in their prime at the time). This all had to be ignored by those pushing their narrative.

So why were the more successful 15s players at 7s ignored?

In 2017 Science of Sport podcast host Ross Tucker (formerly of the South Africa 7s camp) accidentally let slip the real motivation to why there became such strong scepticism and even hostility to the idea of 15s stars going to 7s and doing well.

Tucker said: "when 7s was accepted into the Olympics, there was a fear (me and a few others) that what countries would do is to insert their 15s stars into their teams for the Games only, dominate, smash everyone, and [...] if that were to happen, then it would potentially irreparably damage 7s, because it would reveal the gulf between 7s and 15s".

The 7s specialists (who in Tier 1 nations at least are very often players those who failed to make it in 15s) over the years since 15s players stopped appearing at event had grown to really feel their generally lower status in the rugby world next to the bigger stars in 15s. So they really invested in a narrative emphasising how the demands of 7s are not merely tough coming from 15s (which sounds fair, as mentioned, not best arena to throw in old or injury ridden players) but almost otherworldly and that a seemingly simpler version of the sport had transformed into something so different it requires a long period of specialist focus.

This narrative was pushed in extremely hyped up terms partly out of 7s specialists fear of losing their spots at an Olympics to a 15s player of course, but also in order to boost the self-esteem of the sport, which they felt 15s players taking to with ease would make a mockery of.

In reality most of their fears were misplaced, as even in the days when many more 15s players switched over, there were always still specialists like Rush or Serevi widely acknowledged as the greatest in 7s. So the best 7s team is never going to correlate absolutely perfectly with best in 15s, and having 15s stars turn up for the Olympics, whilst unlucky for a few who will miss out, actually only increases the status and interest in 7s and prestige of winning Olympic Gold.

In Tucker's view it could take as long "a 2 to 3 year transition now" for a 15s player to be good at 7s and "if an opponent did pick someone from 15s, that player was likely to be a weak link". There are plenty examples of others saying similar things, such as former Spain 7s coach Pablo Feijoo once quoted in 2019 saying: "15s players can't play 7s because they wouldn't last more than two or three minutes".

Not quite everyone followed this line however. Most notably Fiji, who had that success in 2016, and this year after failing to reach a final all season on the circuit, added three 15s players to boost their Olympics squad and help them reach the final in impressive fashion.

Selestino Ravutaumada beat more defenders than anyone else in the first international 7s event of his career, and Iosefo Masi who last played a 7s event two years ago came in and played 79 of a possible 84 minutes. Those two played Olympics only a month after the Super Rugby season finished and were among the stand outs of the event. These examples (like Nakarawa and Tuisova before) seem rather inconvenient for the narrative 7s specialists push.

Great Britain's 7s S&C coach James Nolan claimed incoming players required minimum of "at least six months in a sevens programme" to get conditioning up to 7s levels. Maybe some 15s stars are much fitter than 7s people credit them for (Beauden Barrett and Cam Roigard for example have by Nolan's own measure elite 4:12 Bronco test scores), or alternatively top 15s talent can still play 7s to an Olympic standard with a slightly lower CrossFit score than 7s people assume?

Iosefo Masi and Selestino Ravutaumada success for Fiji at the Olympics
this year only a month after starting every match of the Super Rugby
season proved somewhat embarrassing for some 7s specialists narratives

As for transitioning from 15s skill wise, when you think about it, we don't even need big name examples. Because there is no such thing as 7s specialist junior circuit in most countries, almost every 7s specialist begins as one transitioning from being primarily a 15s player. Are they all duds in their first year as Tucker might predict? No, one of the very best like Corey Toole, who scored 43 tries and was Australia 7s player of the year in his one season on the circuit in 2021/22, may find themselves quickly going back to 15s (and Toole returned back to 7s as a 15s player again this year after two years out and did well at the Olympics too).

So if some inexperienced players who haven't yet made it in 15s can quickly transition and make it in 7s, why shouldn't we expect at least some of the best top 15s pros in their prime to be able to do so as well? Carlin Isles famously made his international 7s debut in 2012 only four months after switching to the sport from sprinting, and then kept his place on the circuit for a decade. That this was even contemplated possible suggests 7s actually ought not to be quite such a lengthy and complicated task for an elite 15s player as some suggest.

So will 7s now attract more 15s stars in future?

It's unknown. Dupont, could be a one off at a home games, or may have inspired others as his presence has brought more prestige to a 7s gold medal than there was before (and World Rugby after seeing the increase in viewers he created may even be encouraging this) and it could become a legacy box to try and tick for more elite 15s players from Tier 1 nations who want to say they are a RWC winner and Olympic champion.

Although whether 15s players can do this also depends on whether 7s specialists lock them out by demanding too onerous a commitment (almost nobody is forgoing an entire 6 Nations like Dupont did) or will be okay like the Fijians (or Australians with Toole and Mark Nawaqanitawase) integrating 15s talent on quicker timeframes.

But otherwise outside the context of the Olympics expect big name 15s crossovers to 7s remain very uncommon.

Will 7s grow the sport Tier 2 rugby nations?

One of the big dangers of 7s popularity at the Olympics is that Tier 1 blazers have long patronisingly suggested the extremely damaging idea "7s is the ideal vehicle to grow the game" in non-traditional nations. On the men's side, it is critically important the focus for growth absolutely must fully be on 15s before anything else is considered.

This is format most fans care about, has vastly more potential of growing a year round fanbase and bringing money into the sport, and where there is 25 years of real evidence of doing well at or even just qualifying for a World Cup leaving significant legacies for future progress down the line.

For a Tier 2 nation with lower resources 7s risks being a distraction. To compete seriously in 7s requires a sufficient surplus pool of talent and money that most Tier 2 nations simply don't have (Fiji is a unique exception in having such an abundance surplus of talent). They cannot afford to have two formats essentially competing for same few resources.

Men's 7s glory is a side quest you need to be rich in suitable talent (Tier 1 and Fiji) and money (Tier 1). For Tier 2 nations who do not fulfil either those categories, there is little to be gained from 7s, and in worst case scenarios we have seen some nations most notably Canada, trying to both and ending up with the disastrous situation of not achieving 100% potential in either.

This was acknowledged in a damning 2022 independent review of the Rugby Canada organisation which stated: "There is not a shared belief on which of the programs [15s or 7s] is truly the organizational priority and how to align the organization’s activities and resources to the decision [...] athletes see RC’s unwillingness to be clear on the relationships between 15s and 7s as hurting their career potential."

Canada have become the worst example of a "Tier 2" nation who has split
resources and ended up with confused and sub-optimal efforts in both 15s and 7s 

It is vital "Tier 2" Unions and people who want to see the sport grow understand this point as there inevitably will be some coming off the Olympics 7s high giving bad advice. Please don't encourage anybody to follow the model of Canada men's rugby.

And what about women's rugby?

On the women's side there is a totally different set of circumstances and so needs totally different set of solutions. This risks confusion among some, as they might think what is true for the men applies equally to the women, or vice versa, but it does not.

Contrary the men, for women's rugby the Olympics is closer to pinnacle of the sport and in more countries (notable exceptions are Great Britain and Italy) 7s gets the first pick of best athletes and thus more prestige.

For example Portia Woodman-Wickliffe, widely regarded as one of the best female rugby athletes of all time, only played three 15s matches for the Black Ferns in the years between being top try scorer at both the 2017 and 2022 World Cups. In fact the Black Ferns 2022 World Cup success was helped by the 15s side being boosted by 7s players (five Olympic gold medallists started the final) as opposed to the other way round you'd expect for men.

Whilst the women who is surely the greatest female rugby athlete of all time Australia's Maddison Levi has dominated the 7s circuit and doesn't even yet have a 15s cap at all. Neither does her teammate two time women's 7s player of the year Charlotte Caslick. USA's powerful Ilona Maher only has 2 caps, and Naya Tapper only featured in 15s around the 2017 World Cup where she made an impressive impact but then never played it again.

All equivalent talents on the men's side would all most certainly be fully focused on 15s and rarely play 7s if at all. On the women's side more often it is the opposite, the best most talented athletes (Great Britain the exception) are 7s players who play 15s as the side quest.

Portia Woodman-Wickliffe and Maddison Levi, two of the greatest
female athletes to pick up a rugby ball, have had more 7s focused careers

There is obviously good reason for this, outside of England, there is comparably little domestic semi- professional 15s rugby to speak of, and that is along with an extremely shallow international 15s scene that doesn't generate money (the men's RWC funds a large portion of the entire sport, the women's RWC has only ever operated at a loss), whilst women's 7s meanwhile can access Olympic government funding (in Canada's case this is actually a lot more than the men as they are medal contenders).

Further down the rankings this only makes more sense, as unlike in men's 15s, the World Cup does not carry so much public impact for the teams who can't win it, and it is in the Olympics where this is more the case. Brazil for instance last week had a clip of a try with 1.8m views and 53k likes. It would be a surprise if their participation in the 15s event in 2025 gets much coverage at all.

And of course the USA women got a $4 million donation for their bronze medal at the Olympics, and saw a huge social media star Ilona Maher explode in profile, something their best effort in 15s just could not achieve. Needless to say China's emergence is obviously only relevant in women's 7s as well (they don't even have an active 15s team of either gender).

USA women's bronze at the Olympics 7s achieved an impact
that their best efforts in a 15s World Cup never achieve  

Olympics 7s may not have caused huge change in the men's game (and probably won't in the future either), but may be one of the biggest ever developments in the history of the women's game, which last week gained an audience (both in stadium and on broadcast) of record highs.

So what is the most likely future for Rugby 7s?

The most likely future for 7s is as a popular Olympic sport that is a big deal every four years. On the men's side it will always be a secondary side quest to 15s, and just how big a deal it becomes depends on to what extent 7s specialists want to gate keep against 15s stars entering as guest players ahead of the Olympics. Otherwise unlikely much change from the status quo.

Whilst on the women's side almost every Union that is not flush with Tier 1 cash to fund 15s programs, will look to Olympic government funding to focus on 7s, and there is no reason not to think the success of women's 7s at the Olympics will not continue next time, and if it does continue it is likely to attract a greater number of top female athletes converting to the sport, and grow a wider field of competitive sides.

It won't ever become a mainstream sport by any means with a year round fanbase, but being an increasingly popular big event among Olympic sports is still a pretty cool spot to have.

Uruguay bafflingly push to qualify for the World Sevens Series

In an unfortunate development for "Tier 2" rugby, recently Scotland, Wales, & England merged their 7s setups into a Great Britain side. This opened up a new spot on the World 7s circuit (although the recent Welsh effort was so weak in 7s they were threatening relegation anyway).

7s is basically rugby's equivalent of 5-a-side football. It is useful reduced format for recreational and amateur participation plus fits nicely into events like the recent Commonwealth Games. However the many games over long weekends across different time zones makes it difficult follow closely year round and severely limits its potential to grow popularity as a spectator sport.

A WR employee acknowledged its limits as a product in a recent interview with Rugby World talking about the need for other attractions and a Darts style atmosphere at the events. At 7s most popular port of call in Hong Kong apparently there is a saying "if you ever get bored of the sevens, you can turn around and watch the rugby".

Despite this WR often push 7s as the key to growing game in "Tier 2" countries. This is partly a patronising Tier 1 effort to excuse some historically weak efforts to grow 15s by fobbing off Tier 2 Unions with the version of the game they don't care about. It is partly a delusional idea that 7s is rugby equivalent of T20 cricket which totally misunderstands the format. It is also partly due to the overly hopeful idea Olympic entry is the golden ticket for growing into a hugely popular global sport (unfortunately this idea is not helped of course by the fact the Olympics outside the big few events are mostly a not particularly popular set of niche sports only noticed once every four years).

In reality though, entry to the 6 months 7s circuit has nearly always been a negative drain on the 15s for most low resource "Tier 2" nations (Fiji is a very notable exception for despite being low in money are extremely resource rich for suitable talent and the 7s game being a rich part of their rugby history).

These nations have tended to end up in a muddle. They sort of follow "Tier 1" in that they don't often play 100% with their best possible talent. But take enough talent that it still takes a few players from the 15s player pool which for those "Tier 2" nations is very small comparative to any "Tier 1". As a result they end up in the undesirable situation of achieving 100% of their potential in neither 15s or 7s.

The biggest example of all here is Canada. But also to various different degrees Samoa, Spain, USA, Portugal, Russia have all ended up somewhat muddled. (Japan keep 7s distant enough from 15s but that has just left them with a virtually pointless bottom of the table side full of 5th tier talent).

More 7s focused nations Germany and Hong Kong

There is plenty of evidence of how having a team on the 7s circuit risks for most "Tier 2" nations only negative effects for 15s with little upside. So well informed Unions on the recent "Challenger 7s" who have not drunken the Kool-Aid the Tier 1 WR were selling to them ought to have known this. The question is what Unions really wanted to take that extra Sevens Series spot the most?

The answer was probably Germany, who are led by a credulous CEO who is one of the very few who believes the comically ludicrous fan statistics that Nielsen Sports produce for WR and uses that as the basis for the nonsensical view 7s is the future of the sport. Since the collapse of Capri Sun sponsored 15s team DRV have targeted 7s. Not the a recommend decision (and now a problem for the expanded REC), but to be fair to the Germans, their policy is at least coherent and not confused in same way as others. They have been clear in going 100% for 7s. Avoiding the trap achieving sub-par potential in both codes.

Hong Kong also target 7s more, even resting some players for their RWC qualifier vs Tonga for this event, and have relatively small 15s schedule. Whilst it also makes more sense for Uganda to push for 7s circuit spot considering African sides also play relatively few matches a year. It would have been better if any of these three had qualified considering none appear to progressing anywhere in 15s anyway so can at least devote 100% effort towards 7s (however if rugby is to ever grow in the Asia and Africa regions though to find a decent 24th RWC team it will take a fully focused 15s effort to do so).

However there is a problem. Germany, Hong Kong, Uganda are all nations of not huge strength in rugby. The RWC sides involved Tonga, Uruguay, Chile, Georgia are all stronger rugby nations with better talent pools. If they really cared enough to pick their best talent to beat them at 7s they all could.

As it happens. Tonga did not care enough. Chile even at home did not care to add many top tier 15s talent either. But Georgia and Uruguay whilst hardly loading their teams with big names to be as strong as possible both decided to field stronger sides with more 15s talent than they usually ever would (neither has cared much for 7s in the past). This talent overcame early adjustments needed for the format enough to beat more focused 7s specialist setups Germany or Hong Kong and reach the final.

Uruguay the winner ... but also the loser

So this final ended up being one where the losing side would win by being spared the confusion and hassle of interrupting 15s resources. In the end Uruguay were the winner .... but also the loser.

You could hardly find a nation more ill advised to start a World 7s Series adventure than Uruguay. They are small nation, with a tiny player pool with few genetic freaks, who have to fully maximise their talent to overachieve and punch well above their weight to compete with bigger nations in 15s.

This makes the Uruguayans drafting in half a dozen young players from their 15s setup (Baltazar Amaya, Felipe Etcheverry, Bautista Basso, Tomas Inciarte, Carlos Deus, Tomas Etcheverry) to achieve qualification an utterly bafflingly daft decision from the Union. If they intend to field this team on the full time 7s circuit then they will have reduced strength in depth from a 15s player pool that has precious little. They would also fall into the 7s trap of not achieving full potential in either code.

If on the otherhand they don't interrupt their 15s player pool, then they just qualified with a stronger team than they actually intended to field on the actual 7s circuit, and will likely be totally uncompetitive with all but the lowest of low effort sides on the circuit which would be utterly pointless.

Either way using 15s players to qualify for World 7s Series was an incredibly unwise move from the URU who had been doing such good work to improve over last five years. You might have thought they could have seen other examples of "Tier 2" nations on the circuit and been warned off. But instead appear to have followed the false 7s cliched myths sold by the sports ignorant "Tier 1" leaders.

Why World Rugby is wrong to promote 7s as the key to global growth

World Rugby currently run two different versions of the sport of Rugby Union. The primary 15-a-side format, along with the abbreviated 7-a-side format. This is not dissimilar to another team sport like football, where FIFA alongside standard football also govern 5-a-side "beach soccer" and "futsal".

However unlike football, in rugby the split between different codes has caused muddle headed confusion among many fans, administrators, and unfortunately this is especially relevant to Tier 2 Unions.

Being a huge promoter of 7s has become associated with having modern progressive views and growing the game beyond its established 'Tier 1' nations. Whilst some of these people may mean well, this is a warped viewpoint, that misunderstand reality of rugby across the world, and in fact comes across merely as the Tier 1 traditionalist's idea of how to make themselves appear more modern and progressive.

Most fans do not care as much about 7s compared to 15s

Obviously this isn't to say nobody cares about any 7s match ever at all (the Olympic final for instance). However it is simply stating fact that for the vast majority of rugby fans 15s is the main version of the sport they prefer to follow across most of the year and care about most. It is not even remotely close.

This is a key point. In the UK for instance the World 7s Series gets few mentions in any sports pages. As England were playing Wales in the 6 Nations this year, there were likely many in attendance who not even aware that they were also playing 7s over in Canada that weekend, let alone particularly care deeply about the results. In short for 7s results simply do not mean as much to people as 15s does.

Georgia take great pride in always
beating Russia in 15s and a loss in this
fixture would sting badly yet when it
happens in 7s few fans even notice

Another example is a rugby rivalry such as Georgia vs Russia. This is a huge fixture for the Lelos in particular whose fans take good pride in their long winning run over the Bears and pack stadiums in Tbilisi to watch it. If they were to lose this in 15s it would be a stinging blow (and a tremendous result for Russia) and fans would be furious.

However over the past 4 years in 7s the same Georgia vs Russia fixture has been played 12 times and the Lelos have only won 2. Yet almost no Georgian fan even notices never mind gets particularly annoyed about those defeats (which are played in front of practically no fans in Rugby Europe tournaments). The same meaning and rivalry to the fixture just does not exist as so few really deeply care.

You could say similar for countless other fixtures as well. There are very few 7s matches that will be remembered in rugby history in the same way as the most famous 15s matches.

Wales' 7s World Cup win in 2009 and Aled Thomas' winning try is not remembered alongside Grand Slams as one of the most legendary moments of Welsh rugby history. Samoa's World 7s Series winning team of 2010 is not remembered in the same way as their 1991 RWC team. Brian Lima or Pat Lam remain far more familiar names to rugby fans than Lolo Lui or Mikaele Pesamino. When people remember classic All Blacks moments and matches, it's not their many 7s Series titles that people tend to mention.

Most England, All Blacks, or Springboks fans could name their entire 15s team, but they are far less likely familiar with the entire current 7s team. I could go on and on but you should get the point.

Competition for limited resources of 'Tier 2' nations

Globally rugby is not one the biggest and best paid sports and in only very few countries does it draw the number one pick of athletically gifted talent towards it.

So it is already hard enough already in many countries (aside from the few where it is the biggest sport: New Zealand and other Pacific Islands) to get that first pick of high level talent. 7s adds to the mix some degree of internal competition with 15s (not just for talent, but also crucially for money).

However for Tier 1 this competition for talent between the two versions of the sport is so one sided it is almost non-existent. Wales are not going to be giving 7s any key players from the 15s game to help them out in their current relegation battle for instance. Many of the players on the 7s circuit are in fact either very young, or ones who struggled to make it at a professional level, and have little immediate relevance to a top level professional 15s setup (those that can manage to find opportunity then immediately disappear from 7s). So most Tier 1 7s outfits is based on surplus talent from 15s setups.

This probably more closely resembles who plays the main form of football, and who may instead become a beach football player. However for some Tier 2 Unions the split has not always been so clear cut.

Vladimir Ostroushko was one of Russia's
best players when he was lost to 7s in 2014

Most muddled in this regard is Canada, but also Spain, and previously (but not now) Russia and Portugal both were. In those cases it has not always been unusual for players or potential players from the 15s player pool to have been pinched by 7s call ups.

A notable example is Vladimir Ostroushko, one of Russia's best players who was lost to 7s for 4 years only returning aged 32 ahead of the RWC. This year Martín Alonso was withdrawn from the Spain squad for the REC to play 7s, whilst U20 prospects Juan Martínez or Diego Periel have been removed from 15s unknown if they will return. Connor Braid has disappeared from the selection picture for Canada since he has become a 7s specialist, likewise for the USA full time 7s players Danny Barrett or Madison Hughes cannot be said to have achieved their full potential in 15s.

It goes beyond merely losing players though. In certain cases where full time 7s players have been switching codes and not been able to produce their best on rejoining the 15s team. The best example is what we saw with Canada at RWC 2015 where they calamitously fielded a pair of 7s half backs vs Romania. Then perhaps most important of all there is the money diverted away from 15s as well from Tier 2 Unions who have far smaller budgets to work with than Tier 1 Unions do.

Mixed and confused efforts

Canada fall to a humiliating thrashing
at home against Russia in June 2018

The overall result of 7s for a nation such as Canada has been mixed and confused efforts. They have backed 7s to the extent it is disrupts 15s and takes resources away from it, but at the same time 15s does still remain their priority, and this leaves their overall efforts and focus as a Union not 100% towards either 15s or 7s.

For a Tier 2 nation to do this is silly. Trying to have a foot in both camps like that is just a recipe for two sets of underachievement. In 7s they are not seriously challenging for a World Series titles, and took losses to nations like Germany and Russia in missing out on qualifying for the 2016 Olympics, whilst in 15s their performances have taken a nosedive and were very fortunate not to suffer disaster in missing out on the 2019 RWC. This is not to say 7s is the only reason for their downfall, or even necessarily the main reason, but when you see their 15s team in such a dismal state it does not make sense for their small resources to be used for secondary side projects.

Canada are the worst for this but are not alone. Spain still seem intent on funnelling several top young backline prospects towards careers in the 7s Series before we even know whether they can make it in 15s (if Samu Ezeala had stayed in Spain it would not surprise if he was destined for the same path). This practice is frustrating and not helping them work towards a more homegrown 15s team in the future.

Ironically established Tier 1 nation Ireland recently deciding to give 7s a bit more effort has actually done the global game a favour in removing a possible spot for another Tier 2 side (like possibly Uruguay or Chile) to potentially lose players from their 15s player pool to the full time 7s circuit.

The pointless lower level 7s

Competing in 7s does make sense for nations who can manage to contend for titles at the highest level on the strict proviso it does not negatively effect or divert focus away from the priority of 15s.

Fiji of course are the most notable example. Although not a wealthy Union, they have such a uniquely deep pool of some of the most incredible natural talent, they can still be world leaders at 7s minus hundreds of players playing 15s professionally abroad. Their success comes with almost no cost to their 15s program and unlike any other nation 7s is also a big part of their rugby history and brand.

It makes a lot less sense though for nations who do not have a talent pool as special as Fiji, do not have the money of Tier 1 for side projects, or the number of surplus players from top level fully pro academy backgrounds, 7s is not a big part of their rugby history, and could only realistically compete seriously in the World 7s Series if resources were diverted specifically towards that at some expense to 15s.

These are nations such as Japan, Georgia, Tonga, Romania, Namibia, Netherlands, Brazil etc. None of whom have gone out of their way to make particularly serious efforts in 7s, but who all nevertheless still field 7s teams but in much lower profile low level competitions.

Italy's very low effort 7s side playing
Poland in a Rugby Europe tournament

However it still utterly baffling as to why exactly those teams still even bother to field 7s teams at all? What exactly is the point of the Georgian 7s team? Or the Romanian 7s team? Or the Dutch 7s team? Or the Brazil 7s team? And other similarly unserious 7s setups?

There are some teams whose lack of effort in 7s has been almost comical at times. Italy is perhaps the most notable example (in the past their 7s teams have recorded losses against some of the tiniest of rugby nations such as Andorra, Croatia, Lithuania, Taiwan, Zambia, & China).

If those nations went truly 100% at 7s they could possibly get into one of the core spots on the World 7s circuit. However doing that would obviously come at the expense of achieving their full potential in 15s setups. But seeing as they (wisely) are not considering that then what is the point of having a 7s team at all if it going to be so low effort? What is the benefit of sides with limited resources sending D-list talent to play in obscure 7s tournaments nobody cares about miles away from home?

The sparse crowd at the recent 7s
Challenger Series event

Some of the same arguments also apply to WR and their use of resources as well. They recently just created a "7s Challenger Series" event which included many of these low effort setups. Very few people turned up, very few from the nations involved cared, and it was a total waste of development money.

How can WR justify financing a tournament which included various nations who themselves don't seem to care about enough to send anything close to resembling a somewhat serious team with any purpose whatsoever?

Promoting 7s is not "the ideal vehicle to grow the game"

One thing that is undeniable about 7s though is there is more chance of a wider range of nations potentially winning on their day compared to 15s. Numerous results are possible in 7s that are implausible in the longer form of the game.

WR Chairman Bill Beaumont: "7s
is the ideal vehicle to grow the game"
and "might be a better vehicle for some
countries than 15s a side"

However this along with the shorter length of a single match often leads people to the wrong idea that 7s is superior to 15s when it comes to growing the sport's popularity globally to new markets. This idea gets stated like fact by 7s advocates and pushed by some influential figures from Tier 1 nations (including key administrators at WR).

Recently on Keith Wood's podcast they had on Giles Morgan, head of HSBC sponsorship, say "if I'm going to take the game into new markets, I'm not taking 15s a side, ever!" (with Stuart Barnes nodding along). Whilst WR chairman Bill Beaumont himself has stated "7s is the ideal vehicle to grow the game" and "might be a better vehicle for some countries than 15s a side".

Incidentally Morgan also was previously behind a "Future of Rugby" report by HSBC and boosted by World Rugby claiming among other things: "the impact of Olympic 7s will be greater than the RWC and mean it will soon rival football as an international game", and that by 2026 "both China and Brazil will be competitive in men's 7s", and "there will be several domestic 7s competitions equivalent to the success to Twenty20 cricket's Big Bash in Australia". Utterly delusional ... but apparently taken seriously by WR.

This general line of thinking hinges around the idea from Tier 1 people that potential new fans from less traditional rugby areas are too stupid to understand 15s so should instead be fed 7s. It is such a paternalistic, patronising, and downright ignorant view of the world of rugby.

The approach from these sorts of Tier 1 people towards Tier 2 nations basically amounts to "go and play 7s, the game we don't really care much about ourselves, as you will be too simple to understand the complexity of 15s which we will keep as an establishment club" (an argument which of course ignores large percentages of casual fans at a 6 Nations match at Twickenham probably don't understand every detail at a ruck or maul and can still go to enjoy the basics of a big scrum, tackle, or run).

Video: Brazil's record 34,451 crowd (many of whom would be brand new to rugby)

thoroughly enjoy a monster scrum from their team vs Maori All Blacks in 2018. Some at WR

appear to think things like scrums are too complicated for new markets like these and 

would be better off being fed 7s and encouraged to dress up as avocados instead.

If these people paid more attention they would find almost everywhere 15s is the product that has more meaning, more potential to make money, and is more capable of capturing new fans and public imagination (if you ask most fans anywhere of their earliest memories discovering rugby is from watching 15s). Tier 1 people understand all this for themselves, but not so for less established nations. If they didn't take such a paternalistic and patronising view of global rugby they might realise fans in Tier 2 nations and across the globe are not in fact so different to Tier 1 in what they prefer.

Having a larger number of teams (partly owing to the format as well as the fact the big teams have literally hundreds of players focusing on 15s instead) being able to possibly strike an upset on their day, should not be confused with more broadly growing rugby's popularity and relevance globally.

You may get more shock results in 7s but they are simply devalued by how few actually care. For example Spain's upset over New Zealand in 7s last year got so few lines in the NZ Herald you could fit in a single tweet. If they ever beat the All Blacks in 15s it would send monumental shockwaves through the entire sport and be remembered and talked about for generations and generations.

Similarly there are probably many possibly even quite hardcore fans who may not even know that Chile beat France in the Las Vegas 7s last year. What would have been a gargantuan upset in 15s meant almost nothing and barely registered in the rugby world. On the footage the commentators and crowd barely noted anything significant and quickly moved on to the next match about 30 seconds later.

Spanish rugby on the front
page of MARCA in 2018

Even whilst 7s is more unpredictable, everyone also deep down knows that if New Zealand or France really cared enough they could quite easily see to it that the chances of them losing to Spain or Chile were nearly as small as they are in 15s. So 7s upsets like that just do not feel like they are the genuine article.

It is obvious that 15s is the pinnacle of the sport and where actual significant global growth and interest comes from. We saw as Spain were on the cusp of qualifying for RWC 2019 they reached the front pages of MARCA and filled stadium their stadium for matches against Romania and Germany. Nobody needed go dressed up as an avocado or do "DHL Mexican waves" to keep themselves entertained. People actually cared about the rugby and the fans (some of whom may have been new to the game and among those who arrogant Tier 1 blazers think 15s is too complex for) filled the ground with incredible passion which created a memorable occasion and helped their team to victories.

It was scenes like those (or those also seen when Uruguay reached the RWC) and the bandwagon effect that follows which can inspire a new wave of fans dripping down to all levels which can lead to major growth of the sport. Those are the scenes that Spanish rugby and others should aspire to create.

Japan have captured their public's
imagination in the past two RWCs

Also with Japan (although in their case they were already a RWC regular). Their win over South Africa in 2015 was one of the most memorable moments in sporting history and led to suddenly millions in the middle of the night tuning in to watch their later matches. They may actually against the odds have progressed further in the Olympics 7s but it didn't have anything close to the same effect. Similarly Spain against the odds also qualified for the Olympics 7s but it did not capture imagination anything like reaching the RWC would have done.

If rugby is to reach new markets such as Brazil, Chile, Mexico, South Korea, and more areas in continental Europe (I do not mention WR's pipe dreams India and China as both seem so extremely far fetched at this point) the primary progress will come in 15s especially around the RWC.

What is the role of 7s?

Rugby 7s is more equivalent to cricket's
"Hong Kong Sixes" event than T20

For various reasons 7s will never rival 15s in terms of meaning and popularity as a spectator sport. One of the laziest things you will hear from 7s enthusiasts is comparisons between it and Twenty20 cricket. It isn't really equivalent to that at all, but rather is more comparable to the "Hong Kong Cricket Sixes" event, or 5-a-side Futsal in football (numerous teams playing over a couple of days in one location, reduced players per side, negligible domestic game etc).

This is not to say 7s has no role at all in the promotion of rugby. Its format can fit well into the Olympics or Commonwealth Games which 15s certainly cannot. Fewer people on teams means it is far easier to do recreationally, or to organise amateur tournaments which gives opportunities to more teams to have numbers to compete, and for everyone in a squad to play over the course of multiple matches in a day (in 15s you often can get matches where a player only gets maybe 10 minutes from the bench). It also simply offers something if fans just as something slightly different for a change.

In its place as a side event 7s can operate fine alongside the main event of 15s with no issues. The only problem is many in the game including at WR have convinced themselves when it comes to Tier 2 nations it is "the ideal vehicle to grow the game". On the contrary this idea only risks harming global growth by confusing Unions and diverting precious resources away from making progress in 15s which is the form of the game which the vast majority of fans across the world care about.

Canada's trouble in managing both 15's and 7's

The major problems behind Canada's failure to win at the 2015 Rugby World Cup, were not necessarily coaching ones as reaction would suggest. But what the tournament possibly showed was the need to find a better relationship between the 15's and 7's programs.

Pacific Islanders state their positions on eligibility loophole

The Pacific Island trio of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa have now all talked about their positions and views on the new Olympic 7's eligibility loophole to the media in recent days.

Players may now be able to switch nationalities thanks to 7's addition to the Olympics

Following rugby's addition to the Olympics and the requirement to hold a passport of the nation you are competing for there, it is leading to some changes that could potentially see some players now able to switch nationalities through 7's.

Chauncey O'Toole on the comeback trail

This weekend marked a notable return of Chauncey O'Toole to Canadian rugby in the Tokyo Sevens. Can he rediscover his form and return to the force he was in 2011?

Thretton Palamo to return to rugby

Former Eagles centre Thretton Palamo is set to return to rugby and is training with the 7’s side after finishing a stint playing American Football with the Univeristy of Utah.

Sevens star Carlin Isles to make first foray into 15 man code

In exciting news for fans of the USA and rugby in general, it appears that Carlin Isles will be making his first foray into the 15 man code as RugbyMag reports he is to sign for Rabo Pro12 side Glasgow for the rest of the season.