The All Blacks and their second RWC Trophy

There has been a number of articles lately on other websites on whether the All Blacks can win the RWC and whether Carter is any good, to injury niggles to Carter and McCaw will reduce the All Blacks chances this October. Then of course the usual article about the All Blacks choking or “bottling it”.

As far as the “choking” or “bottling” issue. The two main rivals for the All Blacks over the past years SA and Australia have both during the Tri Nations won 29.41 percent of their matches, this is clear proof that NZ is in fact quite a bit better than SA and Australia.

Coming to the RWC, New Zealand’s biggest rivals in RWC are firstly Australia who have won 2 out of 2 matches, SA who has won 2 out of 3 matches and France who has won 2 out of 4 matches. These are the only nations that have beaten the All Blacks in RWC history. The others thus far have had no success.
Additional teams with realistic aspirations to beating New Zealand in New Zealand would most likely be England as Ireland has never beaten New Zealand and Wales haven’t done that either for over 50 years. Here is England’s record against New Zealand at the RWC.

England lost 18-12 at Twickenham in 1991
England lost 45-29 at Newlands in 1995
England lost 30-16 at Twickenham in 1999.

Looking at the losses New Zealand has had against France, SA and Australia, you could argue that the matches against France was “debatable”, in the case of Australia in both matches New Zealand was outplayed, names such as Campese, Horan etc springs to mind.

Against SA in 1995 both teams had fly halves who employed the drop goal and Joel Stransky was the difference. During the 1999 RWC, I doubt whether the All Blacks had much motivation for the third place play offs and let’s be honest, the Springboks had a rather good team who lost on a drop goal to Stephen Larkham of all people during their semi final clash against Australia.

So that brings me to the 1999 match against France and the 2007 match against France.

There are too many events that conspired against the All Blacks in 2007 to call that a choke. A forward pass in a knock out match, an inexperienced captain, injuries and a few decisions allowed the French to take that match. Yes, I would think the 1999 loss against the French was a case of Rabbits in the headlight syndrome after France went on a scoring spree during the second half.

I get the feeling that the continual insistence by some posters is more subliminal method to convince themselves there are cracks in the All Black armory than anything else.

As far as injuries go, that is the same for any team, it is often the luck of the draw whether you have a full compliment of first choice players, but inevitably all teams are open to that. Do I believe the All Blacks will struggle without Carter and McCaw? No, I am not convinced that the All Black performance is affected so badly by the possibility of losing Carter or McCaw. They are both great players, but any team will adjust their game play to a certain extent depending on who plays in pivotal positions. As long as the replacement player plays to his own strengths and not try to emulate the injured player.

What is most important and is often the deciding factor in any match is what happens on the day. The All Blacks are the leading team in world rugby, and has been for a long time, but yet they are not invincible, and a team going into a clash against them need to use the right tactics to negate the All Black strengths.

As shown in statistics earlier there are a few teams who have a greater statistical advantage to beat the All Blacks, but they still have to do it on the day.

You could most likely categorise two ways for teams to put one over on the All Blacks, I would think for Australia and France to beat New Zealand, they will have to outplay them in attacking running rugby, and thereby test All Black defences.

In the other category I would put SA and England, both will be more effective in slowly strangling the life out of the All Blacks by using forward domination and living off mistakes. They will however need to restrict the All Blacks with possession.

I believe the All Blacks will win this RWC trophy, perhaps then two statements won’t see the light of day anymore. Firstly the choking tag can be canned, and also the statement made by many All Black supporters, that the RWC doesn’t mean much to them.

Both of these are false.

Well written piece - thanks

The only part that I don't agree with your views on are key injuries. I do agree that every top team has to be able to manage injuries to key players if they want to mount a serious challenge but Carter and McCaw are, for me anyway, the best players ever to play in their respective positions and any team couldn't help but become reliant on them. Especially when you consider just how long they have been the backbone on this current AB team. I just can't see how they could be replaced if injured and could be the difference that allows someone like SA to use the forward dominance tatic to push them off the park.

I have to say from the outset that I expect the All Blacks to win this one, but it is interesting how people are saying that McCaw is irreplaceable.

I remember them saying the same about Josh Kronfeld before McCaw...............and Michael Jones before that.........................

The All Blacks have ALWAYS had a world class player to step into the 7 shirt. I dont expect that to change anytime soon.

Hey Biltong

Can't seem to get on the other site soon to be laid to rest so thought I'd check this one out.

I think the thing that will undo NZ is heroic defence. It's very difficult to outplay NZ at the running game. France did it in 1999 when Dominici took the stuffing out of the ABs. But normally it's heroic defence and punishing AB errors that have undone us in the past.

Certainly home advantage is a big plus. I don't believe as some have said that there will be more pressure at home. NZ doesn't lose many tests at Eden Park and if the crowd gets behind the boys it's like an extra man. No doubt there will be pressure but I don't think pressure is new to the ABs. I'm certainly confident but know that it's far from given. That's what makes this tournament special.

It's very hard to see beyond the All Blacks. Of course there is no guarantee they will win it, especially as everyone will be out to beat them, but you would have to be mad to bet against them.

I really don't like the 'choke' tag. It gives no credit to the opposition.

I have to agree with you on that greybeard. Teams have no problem motivating themselves to play NZ, which must make it harder for them.

Hi Kia, the All Black supporters should be confident. The fact is very few teams win in NZ, from memory the only teams that has won in NZ in recent years are the Springboks and France, can't remember when was the last time Australia won there.

After all is said and done NZ has the odds in there favoour, and only on the day may a team surprise them, but not likely

NZ are the most successful rugby team and generally we expect them to win every game. However they dont. And while we expect them to win that doesn't mean we should disrespect the opposition. They are also men playing for their country.

Expect to win but know that we will lose some. Respect to the foe.

I really cant see the ABs losing one game in this world cup.

other than to Wales in the Final of course

I hope we lose to France in the pool match. We only lose once in the world cup so let it be that game. Yay

A very fair and detailed analysis of the situation to whichI can add little.A 75%
win rate overall,81.6% in the Professional era,85% under Henry and co.
A total of 31 losses in the Professional era,seven in total at home SA 3,Aus2.England 1.France1. Whether they have won more than 1 RWC most teams would kill for those stats.AS to tactics,France and Australia MAY be able to out run them.BUT no side in World Rugby is capable of strangling the current side. They are as good up front as any side in the world now,and pretty useful behind.Without McCaw and Carter weakened certainly any side would be.But they have adequate replacements,if fit for selection.What cannot catered for is injuries DURING a match to lose 4 key players like 2007 including both FH`s.That would have worried most sides,I think they may well do it this time.As a fan I hope they do,though I care little for the format[and that is not False].If not well i`ve been there before the win stars overall ,and IRB number one title will do me !!!!

I don't think NZ are that far ahead of Aus or SA.
Last year against Aus we gave them a bXXXch slapping in the first test 49-28(man sent off) and then it was 20 -10 and then 23-22 (last gasp try for us) and then 24-26 last gasp try for them. The trend is that Aus got closer and then won. BAD trend. If we take out the inflated score of the first test and look at 15 men vs 15 the total points is 67-56.

If we get to the final and meet them I will be blxxdy nervous.

ngan boy,a RWC is a one of things happen there that never happen outside.
Second tier teams produce astounding results and it is usually the only time they fieldthere best sides.All the groups have teams that can spring a surprise.
No one expected Fiji ,or Argentina to do so well,sides like Tonga or Italy are more than capable of springing a surprise.The RWC will come down to luck with
injuries and ref`s decisions as it always has.Whoever wins good luck to them,RWCs mean nothing to me.

But we hate losing. And our lost game against Aus we lost. and if you don't lose then you will win RWCs

nganboy wrote:I hope we lose to France in the pool match. We only lose once in the world cup so let it be that game. Yay

I like your style.

Hey that's what the girls said last night!

Hi Biltong, Emack and Kia,
First post for me for a while here... pterry much sums it up for me too. The added difference is in the echo's of Grant Fox from 1987 where he said quite frankly they were too scared to lose I think that will be the ingredient this time that eliminates all the ghosts of the past- NZ crowds simply wont let them lose.

They'll be so supportive and will ride the team wave as it swept through the country back then,

Losing wasnt an option then and they nnever looked like it at any point of the entire campaign.

Plus NZ have something like 34 out of 35 test unbeaten at Eden Park from memory so provided they get there semis time it will be some achievement for any team to knock them off there.

all wishful thinking of course...

Taylorman wrote:The added difference is in the echo's of Grant Fox from 1987 where he said quite frankly they were too scared to lose I think that will be the ingredient this time that eliminates all the ghosts of the past- NZ crowds simply wont let them lose.

Biltong

For all your statistical analysis of results, you're missing some key ones. Home advantage is less likely to return the winner of the comp, three teams have won as many or more RWC titles than the AB's and two teams have been in more finals. If i were a betting man I'd take nothing less than evens before I put money down on the Kiwis. Our NZ friends don't like this but RWC is the only time they meet teams playing at the same consistent level of intensity they always put on the opposition and the reality of it is they often come up short.

As a previous poster observed, I also dislike the choker tag since it gives no credit to the opposition.

I do not want to disrespect the Abs/Abs supporter at all but if look back since the year 2002/2011 between rugby world cups NZ have the best team no question at all.

If you go back to 2006 leading up to 2007 Rugby WORLD CUP, it was said that NZ will wing the 2007 rugby world cup with out even trying.
Infact i rememberwatching the TV and one Abs fans had a tattoo on his body saying back to back wins 2007/2011 rugby world cup.

I do agree with alot of posters that it will be hard to see NZ not winning this year, but as with in the past every team raising their game in the RWC.

They do this not only to beat NZ but too try and win the RWC.
IF,IF NZ get to the final it will hard to see them losing....But you never know.

Don't worry Maj, I won't believe we've won it until Richie's paraded "Bill" through a rebuilt Colombo Street and Cathedral Square ...

That was a cracking game between France and New Zealand in 2007 and I don't think anybody but France could have beaten them.
Without a doubt they are the best team in the world and the rankings proves that point.
As Maj just said if and there is no reason they should not make the final I can see this being the most one sided world cup ever.

NewTraditionalHaka wrote:Biltong

For all your statistical analysis of results, you're missing some key ones. Home advantage is less likely to return the winner of the comp, three teams have won as many or more RWC titles than the AB's and two teams have been in more finals. If i were a betting man I'd take nothing less than evens before I put money down on the Kiwis. Our NZ friends don't like this but RWC is the only time they meet teams playing at the same consistent level of intensity they always put on the opposition and the reality of it is they often come up short.

As a previous poster observed, I also dislike the choker tag since it gives no credit to the opposition.

I will concede the fact and echo your sentiments that during the RWC all nations play at their highest possible intensity levels. I think that when it comes to teams facing New Zealand in a RWC tournament, they realise that this is most likely to be their ultimate test for superiority and progress in the tournament, the other side of the coin is also that these teams after beating the all Blacks struggle to pick themselves up for the next match.

Look at the results after beating New Zealand in a quarter or semi final, France beat the All Blacks is 1999 and 2007, but then lost their next match. In 2003 Australia after beating NZ lost in the final against england. So no matter whether you beat the All Blacks, it seems that history shows once a team has picked themselves to dizzying hights to compete against the All Blacks, they struggle to repeat it.

Debating the fact that home advantage is not so significant, well, I would have to disagree with you there. Statistically the All Blacks almost, I repeat almost never lose at home.

So the odds of the All Blacks not winning this RWC is indeed very, very small.

But then this is sport, and anything can happen on any given day.

Just one last point, the All Blacks will once again go into the RWC having a big target on their backs. But this time they have passionate home crowds to support them.

Stastically home sides don`t win RWCs,and many sides only have full strength sides at RWC`s.David Kirk wrote an interesting article about the All Blacks and changing styles of play.He said there was nothing wrong with there style just the execution on the day.Although I care little for RWCS and know the world number one side is the All Blacks with or without a RWC.It would be nice to see them win another before I die.In the RWC two factors the away travelling bit does`nt apply.For example in this years S15 Crusaders have been flitting about the globe like a bluebottle with the runs.3Ns/S15 matches usually go to the home side because of the travel factor.Secondly every team raises there game against the All Blacks in a RWC as a little victory if they beat them.There is also the fact that the draw often effects the results,and that the eventual winner never meets the All Blacks.After all only 3 sides have ever beaten them in a RWC.NZ this year have home advantage,,with the luxuries that entails.A wider squad on stand by as injury cover if they opt to go with a squad of only 2 hookers /scrum halves.Perhaps a few Refs decisions going there way as it seems home team get the close calls.This year unlike 2007 Henry and co.Know there squad bar one or two,at Prop,back up fly half and possibly wing or 4th lock.Like all the SH squads it won`t be who we want,but who we have fit .Already the S15 has had an horrendous toll,3Ns finish only a fortnight before kick off .So many new names will be there,trust me I know,177 matches 31 losses since 1996, only 7 at home a proud record but no RWCs or final s in that time.In the final analysis,it will come down to luck with injuries and refs decisions,and Richie Mc Caw is now a penalty waiting to happen.

My money is on New Zealand. They are the best team in the world and play very attacking rugby. I agree wth other poster that say they cant stand the 'choker' tag. I think that is a horrible word. NZ are the best team and the team all others aspire to beat.

That said, i still think that it will be a very competitive WC.

Look at the results after beating New Zealand in a quarter or semi final, France beat the All Blacks is 1999 and 2007, but then lost their next match. In 2003 Australia after beating NZ lost in the final against england. So no matter whether you beat the All Blacks, it seems that history shows once a team has picked themselves to dizzying hights to compete against the All Blacks, they struggle to repeat it.

Well that doesn't stack up as Aus in 2003 faced the best team in the world (at the time) in the final and it can be argued that they did better than expected as they took England into extra time. 2003 was England’s tournament to lose. The inconsistency of France is famous and the fact they cannot sustain their maximal performances over multiple games is an issue for them and has been for many years.

2007 was different for NZ as NZ really did fall to pieces; I also do not like the "choker" tag as France made them crumble and when things didn't go NZ’s way they had no answers.

Now to this year’s tournament I would state that I think the NZ management have learned from their mistakes in 2007 and this will give them a harder edge. However if they lose McCaw and Carter then this, in my view, is a problem as they were there in 2007 and would be two key players who have the noose, I think, to not let it happen again. NZ, like any team that wants to win the RWC, will need a set of players who can keep their heads and think clearly when the pressure is really on - losing McCaw and Carter would reduce their ability to do this. Relying on young, admittedly very talented, players is not a route to success in the RWC.

I expect NZ to do it this time however I believe the challenge that will come from SA, Aus, Eng, Fra and Ire should not be underestimated.

As my own prediction I feel that if Ireland can get it together then they have a set of forwards and a few exceptionally experienced operators to go far - I would put my money on them to reach the semis at least. 2007 was a huge under performance for them.

Biltong

With all due respect mate, I agree with mcrjfNo7 as I’m not sure the stats you’re picking altogether work again.

The comments re Aus doing better than expected in ’03 against England post their AB win are well made and don’t forget Aus beat NZ in the ’91 semi and then went on to win the final.

Guess that’s stats for you – unreliable.

However one stat no one’s gonna argue with is that NZ rarely lose at home – but they do lose ….and they often lose in a RWC tournament.

If as you say the odds on them not winning the RWC are going to be ‘very, very small’ then I’d put a very, very large wedge on the other side of that book.

mcrjfNo7, I also expect Ireland to finally play to form and reckon they could pull a nasty surprise on the Aussies. Is this the most anticipated RWC for a long time, or is that just me?

England in 2003 were poor by there standards in the RWC,the semi-final.The final was a scrappy borefest either side could have won.A drop goal after 120 minutes is hardly decisive,Aus tried one missed JW did`nt.Just like Merths missing in 1995,Australia and Brumbies were the best side in the world in 1991.

emack2 wrote:England in 2003 were poor by there standards in the RWC,the semi-final.The final was a scrappy borefest either side could have won.A drop goal after 120 minutes is hardly decisive,Aus tried one missed JW did`nt.Just like Merths missing in 1995,Australia and Brumbies were the best side in the world in 1991.

Erm, Alan, the Brumbies didn't exist in 1991 - founded 1996. Or did you mean '99?

Sorry yes

[quote="emack2"]The final was a scrappy borefest either side could have won.quote]

Hmmm, well I was in that stadium and no one looked bored my friend.

Perhaps borefest was ill chosen,Both sides had been poor by there respective standards in the RWC.Indeed both played there best games in the Semi`s.England was expected to walk it they did`nt as an Englishman[also All Black fan],I was happy that when my first choice side[All Blacks] fell .England won.it is a fact that the RWC is not a feast of rugby but more often a grinding match.The so called winning formula/boring England tag.That match was very scrappy and by the end it was like watching to punch drunk fighters waiting for the bell.The drop settled it. If it had`nt it would have been a drop goal shoot out 3 each,then sudden death alternately not by a named kicker but all different.I think that rule still applies,never been one yet but?of course if one of your teams is in the Final your not bored .But be honest that was`nt a great final for the non involved to watch.Please bare in mind i`ve watched great All Black v Bok matches when 9/10 man was the order of the day in thick mud and enjoyed every minute of it.Every bit as watching the Recent AB demolition of France and The Boks in late 2009/10.

Well emack, it's hard for me to take the view of the uninvolved because I was so completely involved - and Andre Watson made it a nail biter to the end for me and everyone around me of whatever persuasion, including a few Kiwis who'd bought tickets in anticipation of a different final.

Not sure I'd agree about England playing their best rugby in the semi either. Another one i was in the stadium for and the game felt as dull as the weather. But maybe that was me just wanting to get it over with and move to the main event - rightly or wrongly I never felt there was a chance we'd lose to the French either before or during the game.

Have there been better finals from a purists point of view - almost certainly. But a borefest, as you rightly corrected, it wasn't and there would have been many millions who couldn't take their eyes off it. On a connected point, i reckon i always want to see the host contesting the final - it adds so much to the whole occasion.

Interestingly enough except in 2007,the All Blacks had suffered recent defeats,by1991 the great 1987 side had gone nearly 4 years undefeated.The law change concerning the driving maul/scrum feed was changed,after the maul stopped the side going forward lost the feed.[not sure when the law changed].By 1991 they were not the same force.Pre 1994,1999,2003 the All Blacks had suffered defeats by France,Australia,England respectively.In 2003 had Andrew Merthens been in the All Black side,they would certainly have won one possibly both v England goal kicks being the difference.I think they were JOINT-favourites 2003 on the strength of the 3Ns results 4-0. Injuries to Umaga probably cost the 2003 Semi-Final.The Final had it been NZ v England and Leon McDonald kicking ,Umaga was not risked in the semi being saved for the Final.In 2007 the best side on the day won,injuries to key players,the binning of McAlister did`nt help.Australia went out at the same stage,France lost to Argentina twice.Argentina had nothing to offer except the formula,Solid at set piece,defence,drop /penalty goal risk nothing.Limited gameplans work in RWCs.

emac2

Yes the drop goal sealed it for England in 2003, but didn't Andre Watson(the ref) in the game claim that he was about to award a penalty to England for Australia going off side at the time Dawson was passing the ball back to JW?

I think the fact that the ABs have recently come out on the right side of some close games recently is a real positive. World Cups in the pro era have always been won by sides that edge the tight games, and that can find a way to win under pressure. In recent times the All Blacks have all too often blasted their way to tournaments and not managed to harden their competitive edge.

This side looks pretty tough, and the type of game plan being deployed is now as physical as it is creative.

I actually think Australia rather than South Africa provide the main threat. They are the most creative opposition out there, and the most capable of breaking down defences and putting 7 point rather than 3 point scores on the board. They also have a core strength to their pack in Moore, Sharpe, Elsom and Pocock (in particular). If Genia and Cooper get going, they are a match winning combination against any side, especially with an attacking talent like Beale to unleash.

Australia have managed one win in the last eleven matches,and were very lucky to win the last one.Donald Duck not only missing a reasonably easy penalty,but a crucial touch to close out the match.The All Blacks demonstrated there ability to win matches under pressure 6-0 in a 3Ns says it all.IF and it is a big if the All Blacks can field there first choice squad.They will have a pack to match any at the set piece,the best Back Row as a unit,and as good a set of backs as most.Goal kicking is crucial,if they can get Weepu?Carter on the field or Carter/Dagg at the same time two class goal kickers .Then I think it may well be a case of there`s to lose.A tactical loss to France at Group stage would mean an easier route to the Final.Trouble is pride won`t let the m lose it I will be very surprised if they don`t win there group.After that it`s down to luck they could do with some in RWC`s.

Good discussion gents. Can only add my bit about the home ground nature of the World cup.
NZ have never been beaten in a world cup match at home so their record is 100%.
That combined with NZ's overall record at home which is almost as good means this is one world cup stat that we have that is better than our non world cup stats.
The fact that OTHER teams fail to win at home is not really a stat one can use when referring to AB's at home.
World cup or not, the AB's, as Biltong has mentioned, are near unbeatable at home.
And if they had have been better away from home, other home results would have been worse- i.e. SA 95.
For the weeks of the world cup NZ have built many things around it- moved school holidays, rearranged many itineraries not obvious in the mainstream press.
Unlike other cups, where the AB's travel amongst greater metrolpolitan areas where day to day many are oblivious to the fact that the World cup of Rugby is even on.
Not gonna happen here. Every waking day during the tournament will see the AB's look into the eyes of their supporters, willing them on, energising them, progressively building towards the end stages of the tournament.

And that is only the off field stuff...

Taylorman, you don't need me to point out that 100% RWC home record refers to world rugby over 30 years ago and something unrecognizable today.

You know, the more I hear about the extraordinary lengths the administration of rugby in NZ and even it's government are going to to secure the elusive win I wonder about the pressure this is building on the AB team. You're right, the preparations aren't widely known about but you can be sure the team do. All those fans staring into their faces as you describe might just not be that helpful.

As posters have observed, there is a general toughness to the current ABs and I'd expect big lessons were learnt from the 07 experience, but pressure & expectation do strange things to people - and extraordinary pressure & expectation can do extraordinary things.

Yeah I only see it as a good thing. I put the past woes down to apprehension, the inability to dominate through the midfield between the 30-60 minute period and that apprehension providing a sniff for the opposition to defend so resolutely through that period- all 5 losses have that ingredient.

In 87, and with most non WC wins that apprehension aint there and is where the matches were won.

I reckon the support is a good thing. Scared the h*&k out of the 87 team so that they just couldnt lose, and like it or not, that will be the reality for this team. Goes with the territory and in some part is 'out of their hands'

I only thing about home advantage,it does`nt apply in RWCs because the inter continental travel factor is removed.John Mitchell to night in a Domion press article suggests refereeing of the breakdown area.Will help the Boks more than ABs or OZ ,that slowing the ball down might even take the Genia/Cooper axis out of the game,If Dickenson`s reffing of the Reds game is any indication Richie McCaw stands the risk of being whistled outof the game.Mitchell also suggests the more pragmatic approach may be more circumspect for the AB`s.Mitchell has been around,was forwards coach for the great England side pre 2003RWC.Was with Deans responsible to the all out running game since then but got the chop post2003.Indications from 3Ns will be useful as to which style is better,S15 is no indication but Crusaders have the best set piece in the comp.ABs have a better Scrum than either Boks or Oz,and the line out is at least competetive now.Thorn in his last hurrah,Williams and Jack back to something like there best form,Boric and Donnelly solid performers,Sam Whitelock.Hoeta.Romano going well if fit,NZ now has depth at lock lacking for some years,plus a very useful front row quartet in the Brothers Grim,Macintosh,Crockett all young as Props go.

Yep...agree there Alan. 3N usually makes us stand up and go....Oooh! a la Eden Park last year.

GH is another factor. What he hasnt learnt in Rugby last few years probably isnt worth knowing...

Having been through 87, I was off work most of it and caught just about every game live, went to a couple. It was surreal. Such a small country hosting these big and small teams all over the place. Pure heaven for a young rugby fanatic.

These days things are more 'PC' and 'proper' so there'll be a range of who cares through to the fanatics but for me it'll be back to 87 and hopefully Eden park...all over again

Alan I detect a sense of apprehension from your side not to be too confident about the RWC hopes for the All Blacks.

Mate, no matter how we skin this cat. This is the All Black's RWC to lose. I personally have looked at this scenario from all angles a number of times and can find no reason to believe the All Blacks won't win this one.

These are the facts.

Their bogey team does not meet them in the quarters or semis.


The only other teams that have beaten the All Blacks in NZ is SA and Australia

SA has their own problems, we have injuries to some stalwarts that even if they are ready and fit for RWC might not have enough time to hit top form.
Fourie du Preez, Juan Smith, Heinrich Brussouw.

These are all guys who made the big difference in 2009 Tri Nations, Du Preez with his tactical mind and execution and Brussouw with his ability to starve opposition of possession and Juan smith with his presence and ball carrying ability on the field.

On top of that, many south African supporters believe that our front row remains a problem as they keep on using john smit as a prop, and we all know that is not his best position, all this to accommodate Bismarck at hooker.

Then to our lock pairing, Victor is not the man he was 2 years ago, and Bakkies seems to be too afraid to play his normal game with the fear of reprisal every time he goes beyond the edge of what is seen as tough but fair play.

Morne Steyn has not controlled matches well at all this year, and added to that his kicking game is off.

Then throw into the mix, selections such as Adie Jacobs who continues to be part of the squad, with very little game time and a poor defensive record.

Not to mention our coach, he doesn't have one original idea.

Therefor, meetig the Boks in the Semi final, yes we'll put up a fight no doubt, and are still strong enough to beat most teams, but there is no better time and opportunity for the All Blacks to win the Semi.

THen meeting australia in the final.

Australia has won 1 of their last 11 matches agaqinst New Zealand. Yes, quade Cooper and Genia are one of the best half back combinations in world rugby, but that is not enough when comapring the quality of possession they will get vs what Weepu and Carter will get.

Finally it will all be about what happens on the day, but the all Blacks have too many cards in their favour not to win.

I believe if the All Blacks do not win this one, the mental scarring will most likeley become too much.

Biltongbek,I have too much respect to discount any team in a RWC,and agree it is indeed NZ`s to lose.Whoever the Boks field they will have a goal kicker with about an 80% kick rate some where in the side.In tight games,with refs seeking to police Scrum and breakdown.That could be a key factor,since 2007 the Boks have beaten the All Blacks 4 times,twice at home and lost 5 hardly massive domination.In a 3Ns with the travel factor,both sides at full strength All Blacks every time the record shows that.In a RWC there bogey team is OZ they`ve never beaten them in a RWC.

Hi ya Biltong. The mental scarring is ony something for the fans and the players of the time.

If they lose the next guard will appear on the horizon, keen as mustard, dead certain that theyre the ones to do it, ready to get the team back to the top in between cups.

We're actually used to it now, the losing thing. We really would just like to see something different and it would be nice at home especially with so many more people being directly involved this time- from players, coaches, right through to hoteliers, bus and taxi drivers, private accommodation ripoff merchants, schools and all the thousands who turn up to the many games across the country.

A win would just be the icing- especially for us that saw the first. So, given all this, can the rest of the teams please just lie down this once and let us get on with it. Even if we give you the next 5 it'll be worth it!

Given that, if someone were to win it it other than us it would be an emphatic and absolute joy to see either Scotland or Ireland win it here against us- neither having beaten us in over 100 years of trying.

Even I'd be happy with that. Not a likely prospect, but imagine the hysteria!

Do people think there would be much mental scarring. Would it be a death knell to the brand of the All Black?

I don't think so personally but stranger things have happened.

The doubts are there because its the world cup. Regardless of what happens in the pool play, NZ has a simple formula- Win a home 3 test series 3-0. Something they have managed many many times.

Being the world cup is purely in the minds of the players and that needs to disappear.

I reckon Kirk was right. The formula is correct, the execution has been poor.

NewTraditionalHaka – it’s not just you mate I am very excited about this tournament, wish I could go as NZ will be an amazing place to be.

emack2 – to call it a borefest was indeed wrong and I would counter the scrappy nature as being simply a RWC final. I would also add that Aus were very fortunate not have been penalised more at the scrum but it is all academic now as Eng won and that is how history will remain. The RWC finals are generally scrappy as it is usually a case of each team fearing doing something to lose as opposed to trying to do something to win. If you look at the history of the results then only 87 and 99 were reasonable scoring games, and funny enough they were both against France, who seem to not rise in the finals. I fully agree NZ are the favourites and rightly so. The 3N will be very illuminating.

biltongbek – “The only other teams that have beaten the All Blacks in NZ is SA and Australia” and England and France. I believe the biggest hurdle by far for SA is their coach; some of his decisions (or lack of) have been crazy in my mind but as you rightly state Aus and SA are the most likely to beat NZ. This makes sense as of course they play each other far more than other teams and there is advantage in that familiarity.

I would also agree about the home advantage factor not being as crucial as normal as it is more like an old style tour for the other teams and they have time to settle.

Quarter finals I think will be Ireland v Wales, England v France, South Africa v Australia, New Zealand v Scotland. I will go for a Semi-Final of Ireland v England and Australia v New Zealand. I’m not brave enough to go any further than that and of course this is all fanciful guess work until the 3N, RWC warm up-games and, of course, the group stages get under way! After all who would have predicted a South Africa v England final last time around, even after the group stages?

I am looking forward to this RWC and I think NZ will do a great job of hosting this tournament.