All Blacks will win 2011 Rugby World Cup

sheek sorry to say that your prediction are untrue. WC is a far different tournament from your history games as you commented on it could be anybody's game nowadays you never know don't be so sure about your ab's team.

I wouldn't like to put money either way. I'm sure Graham Henry will be planning for the RWC. Long term and narrowed down to six weeks. I'm sure he will be analyzing strategies and understand s that games in RWC are not played he same as the open play during the AIs and the Tri Nations. It will come down to referee interpretations. If the ABs can play to the calls of the ref, then I believe they gain the advantage. SA will be a huge threat come RWC. Tri Nations is not an accurate picture of form during RWC. As will the Aussies. What the ABs need to do is to be consistent and to use the pressure to their advantage.

The All blacks will be defeated in the semi-finals alongside Australia by either a northern hemisphere team or South Africa. The All Blacks are excellent strategists in long term planning and conditioning for tri nations and grandslams but are poor tacticians for a world cup tournament. I think the South Africans bring more animosity and ambition to their game and their senior players are more cunning and better at adapting tactics in high pressure situations than ours. The English and the French while overall inferior in the quality of their games play more rugby at club level and in the six nations tournament. This means they have a greater variety of gaming experience even if they aren't as fit or as conditioned as our black knights. I think either the South Africans the French or English will be more inclined to adapt tactics from their experience that will defeat the All Blacks with all of their rigorous planning and strategies.

"Thanks for the kiss of death Sheek." I'm sure it was fully intended as such. :)

Raging favourites? You need to check your history. In 95 they were favourites by the time of the final but leading in to the tournament had no form to speak of (having lost a home series to France and the Bledisloe to Aus the previous year) with only a lead up match against Canada to prepare. They also had a rookie 7, 10 and a completely unproven 11 (yeah, those guys turned out to be Kronfeld, Merhtens and Lomu, but they were just unproven rookies at that point). In 99 they'd lost 5 games the previous seasons and had lost their final lead up test to Aus by a record margin. Rather than being one of the greatest teams, they had a very unstable core. In 03 they'd lost to England in the season opener and, despite the 50 points in Sydney, had a fairly tight match in the return match in Auckland. They'd also lost to England and Aus the previous year. They were a good team, but England were rightly favourites having not lost a meaningful test in the last 15 tests or something and having beaten both NZ and Aus away earlier in the season.

England seems to have a better record in RWC FINALS then NZ.. NZ has been in 2 finals and won once England has been in 3 Finals and won once SA, 2 finals with 2 cups Australia- 3 Finals with 2 wins France- 2 finals 0 wins.. SO using the 7's format tournament points system. A cup win for 24 points, Runner up 20 points we get NZ- 44 ENG- 64 SA- 48 AUS- 68 FRA- 40 Therefor Australia should be favorites to win Next years RWC... Followed by ENG, SA, NZ then FRA

You forgot about 1980, all that stood between the Springboks and a series victory was a couple of corrupt officials that had the balls to admit that they were corrupt.

I posted elsewhere today as follows: "AB’s were awesome across the park – if they can bottle that performance for RWC 2011 they will be VERY hard to beat". Given how dominant the Sth Afr teams were in the super 14 I am reluctant to write off any of the top 5 or 6 teams so far out from RWC 2011 - even OZ. Much will depend how well the teams can minimize SERIOUS injuries from now on but that AB side was indeed awesome. Even so, if OZ can get their best 30 to be considered for selection next year we are far from out of the RWC 2011.

The late great Slim Dusty named one of his latter CD's "On the Wallaby" - the lead song being called "Australia's On The Wallaby". it was arranged and written by Slim. I could be wrong but I think it refers to his travels all over OZ.

The only thing you can base NZ winning the 2011 RWC cup on is that they won it in 1987. Aside from that they have been the absolute raging favourite in every other tournamnet and have come unstuck every time. The AB side in 1999 was one of the greatest teams and they failed after France decided in the second 40 that they wanted it more. In 2003 in the 3N - the AB's absolutely demolished the Australian's. I can't remember such a one sided victory and yet Austrlia defeated them an part of that win was from an intercept but the simple fact is that the Wallabies outplayed the AB's - they shut down the two key ball runners in the forward pack in Collins and Mealamu and pressured Spencer all day which eventually cost them. In 2007 France again turned up to play and NZ fell short. Whilst I agree that the current team plaed extremely well last night - this performance and their ongoing history of winning in NZ does not outweight the pressure that will be on this team and that the are unable to complete the ultimate task on the worlds biggest stage.

Disagree. History is not really on anyone's side and more expectation equals more pressure. That the Wallabies have less pressure has equated into two Web Ellis', all they need to do well is a good leadership group and a bit of luck. The Wobblies have always surprised those who regard Rugby as anything more than a game, they could well do it again. However the cold ruthless relentless AB's of last night did make a statement. Now does De Villiers understand what Henry meant, was he paying attention? Hope not.

True Vinay, Bold prediction but history is on my side. Only one Boks team has been successful here over a 3 test series - in 1937. Only one Lions team has been successful here over a 3/4 test series - in 1971. Only one Wallabies side has been successful here over a 3 test series - in 1986. Only one French team has been successful here over a 2/3 test series - in 1994. Okay, the WC format is different, & allows teams to produce spectacular one-off victories. But NZ are perhaps just slightly more "unbeatable" at home than SA, & they are both usually much more unbeatable at home than all the rest. These two teams are way ahead of everyone else at the moment. I would be surprised if anyone else closed the gap sufficiently in 12 months. Australia will continue to have problems with its 'tight 5' into next year, despite some massive talent in the backs. Also, the longer NZ have gone without winning the WC, the closer they are to winning it. 2011 will be their year, beating the Boks in the final! BTW, if I recall correctly, the Wallabies were called as such not only after the animal, but also because there was a saying at the beginning of the previous century of "going on the Wallaby", which I believe was a military tour version of going "walkabout". So perhaps the Wallabies are forever doomed to go on the walkabout..... !!!

Yea, if Higginbotham proves to be a reincarnation of Willie O, we might just make it!

WC Rugger, After more than 100 years of international rugby, we Aussies still don't get it most of the time - it doesn't matter how much talent you have between nos 6-15, it's the talent, technique & power you have between nos 1-5 that is critical.

Whatever.....

Sorry,Sheek(no "r" in the pejorative.)

Sheek, Bold prediction. Not because you pick the AB's, but so far out from the WC. The one factor you may not have calculated is that capricious witch (good manners prevent me from using the perjorative) Fate and its attendant maid, Injury. Coming to the Wobblies is there a " waiting for someone else to do the hard yards" syndrome? Its like the coach has imposed a rigidity that frowns on individuality. Even team games need one or two to take the game by the scruff and impose themselves. Richie McCaw does this superbly and even Rockocoko goes looking for work.I feel sometimes the Wallabies go "walkabout". All this,Sheek,might just be superficial observations. Maybe the cattle is not there.

sheek I'm not some deluded optimist. I know that they are terrible inconsistent, lack aggression, composure and have many times over the past years lead me to hang my head in shame after enduring yet another one of there all too consistent poor efforts. However, there is a lot of talent in the side and are actually capable of beating anyone at anytime. Most the issues this season stem directly from a lack of dominance from the pack. This has alot to do with injury. Only now are we beginning to see our regular front row take shape once again. For the first 4 games of the season we fielded what I would have consdered at very best our third string front row. Hell, I regard Ma-afu as our 4th if not 5th best option behind, Alexander, Slipper/Kepu, Baxter and the bloke who recently represented the Aus U20's in Argentina. I'm serious about that by the way. We lack the size of Palu in the back row. I am happy to see Higginbotham coming in to rectify that giving us a much more physical feel. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see Horwill this season. Which is a pity. I believe he could be a bit of an enforcer given the free reign to do so. Our biggest issue is where far to nice. Something that holds Aus Rugby back. You'd be surprised what one enforcer can do for a team.

have to disagree ... it's in the same vein as those posting the inference that the AB's gameplan last night was courtesy of the Reds / Bulls match in Brisbane in the S14 - as if Henry owes McKenzie some huge token of gratitude for showing him the light (which is plainly rubbish) ... the need for australians to latch onto anything and everything gets cringeworthy at times

Tui, Don't be so pathetically superstitious. Besides, my predictions are sometimes w-w-wr-wr-not right (ha, ha)..... !