I therefore think we have a better chance to finish top of the pool and originally thought this is a good thing. I then realised who we would be likely to play in the quarters and found out it was France and basically thought ‘Oh s**t.’

However, I still fee we have a better chance of beating France than New Zealand, if we get there of ourse.

I was hoping that another one of the six nations teams would also be drawn into the same pool as NZ. Our previous best performance was in 1995 when we played Ireland, Wales, Japan before meeting Scotland in the quarterfinals, England in the semis and the Boks in the final. I agree with Nick and James, harder pool games prepares NZ better for the knockout stages.

Ireland must be getting sick and tired of meeting the Wallabies at a world cup, the same way Scotland must be tired of meeting the All Blacks.

And it’s ridiculous projecting 2011 results on 2008 form (not to mention selecting pools 3 years out). Get back to work, you lazy lot!!!

The AB’s have been the best team in the world almost every year since 1987 when they won their only world cup.

Being married to a Kiwi I can already picture the family tears when France knock off the AB’s…

Why not play a straight knock out with a plate and shield for the lesser lights. knocks about 3 weeks off your tournament. Pre qualify 8 teams to play 8 seeded teams. Round of 16 seeded. After that draw matches from a hat. that would spice things up.

Completely disagree with the article.

I think the Wallabies are in a pool of death.

Ireland and Italy are both danger teams for Australia.

I think the point forgotten is that the Wallabies are the team least likely to have support in New Zealand – so of all nations will recieve a very hostile reception (as the are the Blacks biggest danger).

If the Wallabies then have to play Wales in the quarters, well, I predict that they will struggle to get past. Of course, if they come runner up in their pool, then they will play the Boks in the quarters.

The Blacks will be happy to get France out of the way – without the mentality of a sudden death game, they should easily account for them on their home soil. They will also enjoy a touch match before the finals.

I’m not so sure it’s such an easy ride, dont you want hard games going into the final (assuming the Wallabies make it that far).

the pools of death would have to be B and D.

D – Fiji beat Wales in 2007, and were a JP Pieterson tackle away from beating the Boks in the quarter final. Samoa are likely to be in that pool as well, and Samoa have got a record of beating Wales at World Cups as well…having said that Wales just beat Australia, if they can keep the nucleus of team together for the next 3 years, then they could well be a contender, the last time they played a world cup in NZ, they beat Australia.

B – Argentina, England and Scotland, recently their records are fairly even, plus we have the possibility of Georgia being Europe 1 (they are currently the highest ranked European nation outside the 6 Nations) – they went close to beating the Irish in 2007, whos to say they might not improve and beat the Scots.

I dont agree with it being a farcical tournament at all, I personally wouldnt want to front up to the Georgian or Tongan or Samoan sides and tell them that they’re in a farce of a tournament, but hey, you might be a huge bloke who would delight in doing so.

Assuming the world cup was being held in your original typo mistake year – 2009 – yes, Australia should be very afraid.

But as you know, a lot can change in 3 years. By 2011, other countries might have reason to be very afraid of the Wallabies!

With a huge smile on my face inspired by 1999 and 2007, I’ll be shouting “ALLEZ LES BLEUS” until I am hoarse.

I would like to see the odds on the top 2 seeds coming out of each group. Just goes to show how farciful this tournament is. It takes over a month of play to determine the top two teams in each group and in those groups of 10 games played at best 2 games will be genuine contests that might have a bearing on the outcome of the tournament.

Give the mungos their dues, at least they came up with a world cup format that recognised the disparity between the pros and the amateurs.

The needing hard games to win the thing is supported by the ABs performance last time (although that was partly their own making due to excessive rotation), but refuted by SA actually winning the thing – they had a soft pool, easy QF (Fiji) and relatively easy Semi (Argentina), and still had enough gas in the tank to win the final – although it should be noted that only one of the teams they had to beat (Arge) are ranked in top 4 a year later.

I think ABs will be fairly happy with their draw – they get their bogey team France in a non-sudden death situation, and then wouldn’t have to play them again unless they manage to win their way through to the final (assuming both sides made it that far – unlikely on prior form).

Agree is madness to be making the draw this far out. The excuse is needing to give NZ sufficient time to allocate bases and sort out who’s staying where etc – but you could do all this before the draw was made, IMHO. But it’s a (slight) improvement on the prior practice of using places teams finished last time. At least the pools look relatively even based on current form.

RWC’s are a unique tournament. They are won by teams that are able to string together wins and harden as the contest rolls on.

The Wallabies easy path will see them having not played enough hard rugby except for Wales in the Quarters. The only hope for hard rugby for Australia is if Wales continue to maintain and improve their current game. On current form, it will be a tough game and one to steel the winner, for the tougher games ahead.

Having said that, prior to the RWC 2011, Australia will benefit from being in the Tri-Nations tournament with the two best teams in the world and being at the end of their season rather than at the start like the NH.

On balance, I dont think we have been served well by the draw!

It’s ridiculous to make predictions about how teams will be two years from now as there is no guarantee that the current seedings will reflect the relative strengths in 2009. It could be that Australia will have a tough time of it.

In the qualifying round, Australia will have to play Ireland for the fifth time in a World Cup but for the first time on neutral territory. This is a side that has beaten Australia twice in the last six years and who have been known to give them a hard time in World Cups. Although Australia have won all four cup ties up to now, two of them (Dublin 91 and Melbourne 03) have been by the squeakiest margin possible: a single point. The other two, in Sydey in 87 and Dublin 99, Australia won quite easily.

Even assuming they win the group, Australia will most likely have to play either England or France. In World Cups, they have played France twice with one win and one loss. Against England, they have played three World Cup ties since their victory in the 1991 final (won thanks to a blatant deliberate knock on by Campese that should have been a penalty try, and would have been a sin binning if it had been invented back then) and have lost all of them, in the quarter finals of 1995 and 2007 and the final of 2003.

If they finish runner up in their group, they will most likely have to play South Africa but what are the chances of them finishing third? Given Ireland’s record against them a victory on neutral soil would not be an outlandish result and as for the Italians: well, they don’t have a lot of strength in depth, particularly in the backs but boy, can they scrummage!!!

Be afraid, Australia. Be very afraid!!!!!!!