Only three teams can win World Cup, says McKenzie

Australia have never won 7 straight at a world cup

SA are nothing near the side of 07 who were not that great. That sounds like a prediction to me, you are predicting that SA cannot win and will fail. Deny that and you'd be playing lotto, without buying a ticket. If you are just stating that SA are weak, and that NZ, Aus and England are good. Then like McKenzie - you're entitled to your biased opinion. You are evidence that theres no pleasing someone who has a disliking for you. You dont like the Boks, fair enough - 5 years of losing to them is enough to make any Englishman bitter. I hope the boks improve their game, on current and past form - you are right, NZ will pick them off at the Semis.

Let's just leave it at 'Game on'.

Did you guys read what Link said - he favoured three teams and thought another 4 would not win. He never said the four would not be in the final and "suspected" the other three could do it. Given he gets put on the spot by journalists would you like him to say there are 8 teams that can win it to make everyone feel good or actually voice and opinion with some evidence. If other think SA can win then fine - thats what sports tipping is all about. The only difference is that journos dont ring some people for their opinion but it doesn't stop them having one

I haven't made any predictions.

'– Like NZ in World Cups ?' No. The failure of the 1999 NZ side to beat France has nothing to do with the current side. Sides who win WCs tend to have form leading in to WCs and/or after the WCs they win. The only side not to have form before or after was the 2007 SA side. “As I have said countless times, this 2011 SA side is nowhere near as good as the 2007 side, and even that side was no great unit.” '– the class of 07 is the core of the class of 09. SA had a fantastic year in 09, not a perfect year but a really good one. The class of 09 is the core of this team now. Have they been in good form, not really – thats what would worry me if i was a kiwi or Aussie – The Boks out of form , out of shape, coached by a man out of his mind are still able to beat NZ B, push Aus hard and dominate for periods.' I'm not sure why you keep referring to 2009? Rugby in 2009 was played under different law interpretations, laws that hid the flaws of SA and highlighted their talents. Those laws are gone, hence the past two seasons have been awful periods at Super and Test level. PdV has nothing to do with SA rugby. All he does is select the side, and SA has such a lack of depth that he has constantly picked the best players. It isn't PdV's fault that Jaque Fourie or Habana can't pass properly, or that the SA defence has been woeful for a good while now. 'What will happen if they find form at this WC ?' Probably not much because the side is 4 years older, and so many players are out of form under law interpretations which don't suit their talents. What you're saying is 'Oh, we could well be a threat of a lot of things start to go right which haven't gone right for a long time.', and that's simply ridiculous. The Australians have won two away games in SA in two seasons. I doubt they give flying fig about an ageing and limited side. 'NZ cut holes in the defense, yes or course – NZ do that to everyone dont they ? Boks were able to scramble, im guessing this means that the defense of the boks is totally inefficient ? Funny enough, Boks won the game – not sure how that happened but apparently the scoreboard counts for more than the amount of times you break the line.' Typically childish. You should be more worried why a backline (playing behind a beaten pack) that had never ever played together as a unit could create so many linebreaks with ease. 'So on current form, The boks in my books are not that badly placed.' Lol. 'When we start to talk about wooden spoons for 2010, and 2011 we really get off the topic. SA forfeited this 3N in favour of the WC. Sending lamb(ie)s to the slaughter for the away leg. If the coach thought he would get any points from that side, then he is as crazy as everyone thinks.' You got smashed last season by your main WC contenders. I think that's pretty relevant. You have no 3N form. That's pretty relevant. 'I could be wrong, Boks could lose to Wales, and Samoa and not qualify for the quarters – the only positive from that is the coach wont have his job by the time he gets on the plane back home.' It's easy for you to blame the coach, but like I said - your side is packed with players who are limited. Fourie can't pass, Habana can't pass or kick. Steyn can't run a backline. It's no coincidence that your Super sides are on a downward curve either. The backplay of the Bulls and the Stormers was horrific. You're just being disingenuous for the sake of it. Some of the stuff you are coming out with is farcical, and you keep ignoring key points for the sake of it. This SA attitude is old hat now. Bore off.

You're welcome - if SA are discarded by Wales, and your predictions are correct - I will come back and acknowledge that you were right. If SA win this World Cup - i expect the same. Game on.

The truth is we havent really seen what the boks can do yet. Anyone basing their chances this year on their 3N performance is in for a surprise I feel. If you really look at the Bok's squad for the fist 2 games of the 3N- MAJORITY of those guys are not in the Bok WC squad of 30. The boks 3N started in game 3 and 4. The game agaist Aus was the "real" Boks first game and the Ausies 3rd. The game was very 50/50 in the end. No disgrace for the boks. However despite the next win against NZ, the Boks were not that convincing. They do need to improve to stand a chance but dont write them off. Aus and SA play in NZ all the time thanks to the S15. NZ feels more at home than anywhere in Europe. The 6N sides are on unfamiliar turf. Wales are very optimistic about their chances against SA. I think they will struggle not only to beat SA but to progress out of their pool. Samoa and Fiji will both fancy their chances against Wales. This is home ground for them. Favorites to win are NZ. Why? Because they want it the most. SA in 1995 were probably the 4th or 5th best side going in. The Boks had been losing to everyone prior to '95. They won because they wanted it the most. The team that wants it the most is NZ hands down.

I think in South Africa - when 'your' favorite player is not selected for the team, that becomes a B team. Saffers are deranged by Sport, because of the status quo in the country. Theres nothing else to get excited about #3rdWorld

Of course it makes no sense Ben. Lets assume your paste and critic method. "You cannot suggest a side will attain success based on failure" - Like NZ in World Cups ? "As I have said countless times, this 2011 SA side is nowhere near as good as the 2007 side, and even that side was no great unit." - the class of 07 is the core of the class of 09. SA had a fantastic year in 09, not a perfect year but a really good one. The class of 09 is the core of this team now. Have they been in good form, not really - thats what would worry me if i was a kiwi or Aussie - The Boks out of form , out of shape, coached by a man out of his mind are still able to beat NZ B, push Aus hard and dominate for periods. What will happen if they find form at this WC ? Everytime the Boks beat NZ or Aus - the opposition had a bad game, not that it has anything to do with the pressure being heaped on them - no that would be silly to think. NZ cut holes in the defense, yes or course - NZ do that to everyone dont they ? Boks were able to scramble, im guessing this means that the defense of the boks is totally inefficient ? Funny enough, Boks won the game - not sure how that happened but apparently the scoreboard counts for more than the amount of times you break the line. So on current form, The boks in my books are not that badly placed. When we start to talk about wooden spoons for 2010, and 2011 we really get off the topic. SA forfeited this 3N in favour of the WC. Sending lamb(ie)s to the slaughter for the away leg. If the coach thought he would get any points from that side, then he is as crazy as everyone thinks. That McKenzie claims NZ, Aus and England are the only title contenders baffles me a little. I could be wrong, Boks could lose to Wales, and Samoa and not qualify for the quarters - the only positive from that is the coach wont have his job by the time he gets on the plane back home. England will be there, because they can play the ugly springbok game well. You call it 2007 tactics, we call it percentage rugby. tomato potato.

You're literally out of this world... Right, NZ can be said to be favourites for the WC because they have an excellent winning record, haven't lost at home in two seasons, have strength in depth and the ability to mix and match their play. Australia can be said to be strong contenders because they have some outstanding talent and have improved various facets of their game. The same applies to England. SA can be said to be contenders why...? They have shown absolutely no improvement over the past two seasons. Absolutely none. There is not one thing that has improved recently that suggests SA has a good chance of upsetting the odds. It's simply ridiculous that you would interpret a home loss to Australis as some indication that SA are on an upward curve. It's actually quite sweet, but in a sad way.

'Not sure why the last 2 years means anything for 2011. Lest you forgot, Boks put their best foot forward for the first time this year against Aus in Durban – Dominated the first half and then as expected ran out of puff.' Because it's about form. You cannot suggest a side will attain success based on failure. That's obvious. To that extent, the past two years is certainly far more relevant than the ELV period. Ultimately, SA are coming off two 3N wooden spoons, three home losses in two seasons (two home losses to a very erratic Australian side), their best players are 4 years older and badly out of form, the backline play has been atrocious (no tries in the past 7 Tests), and the side has shown no ability whatsoever to mix and match styles of play. As I have said countless times, this 2011 SA side is nowhere near as good as the 2007 side, and even that side was no great unit. You're living in a rugby dream world - there is nothing to be positive about. 'They then stuffed NZ B.' Somebody say arrogance? They certainly didn't stuff NZ B. They scraped a win through goal kicking and good scramble defence. The NZ B backline tore the Springbok defence to shreds. 'So going back 2 years or more is really irrelevant unless we are making the point that the same class of 09 – who took 3 against the Kiwis on the trot – are back.' Doesn't make any sense.

Yawn Ben - same old rhetoric - same old chip on the shoulder. nothing before the last 2 or 3 games leading to this WC really mean anything about whats going to happen here. as stated previously, Boks have dominated Aus for 40 in first game back for A team. Then fluffed NZ B. So to think that SA have no chance - means one of two things, either you bear hatred towards the country, or you're just plain illogical. Boks NZ Semi Final - are the only reason that Australia can win the Cup - Whoever wins the AB Springbok semi final is going to have to put more in than the final - and ultimately be too drained to win it from there against Aus , Unless Aus are knocked off by England in their Semi.

Not sure why the last 2 years means anything for 2011. Lest you forgot, Boks put their best foot forward for the first time this year against Aus in Durban - Dominated the first half and then as expected ran out of puff. They then stuffed NZ B. So going back 2 years or more is really irrelevant unless we are making the point that the same class of 09 - who took 3 against the Kiwis on the trot - are back. Anything else is a moot point, and i reject your theories by virtue of the arrogrance that you will naturally associate to this post.

Very gracious of you. Enjoy the games too.

Bens S ... there's no arrogance mate. And I don't think anything I said above implies this. All I'm saying is the Boks have a big chance as do NZ, Aus, and to a slightly lesser extent France and England. NZ are favourites. For sure I'm not denying this. They have to be in NZ. Aus are in awesome form too. Boks have key players back that made them so good in 09. That's all I'm saying. This is a big generalisation here and is probably only true to some Kiwi's, but not most, (as I have many other really cool & humble Kiwi friends)...but some Kiwi's expectation that the All Blacks should win is viewed by many people in other parts of the world as arrogant. Why should they win? Because stats and history proves that they will lose games too, especially against the Boks who have by far the best record against them than any other team. Since last WC NZ-SA played 11, Boks won 5, NZ won 6. 2 of those wins in NZ. NZ have won 3 in SA. So it's 50-50 over the past 4 years. THat's better stats than every other team against NZ and we will hopefully play NZ in the semi (if both teams get there first of course!!). Don't you think these most recent results mean anything? I think they mean it'll be a close game with the most likely victors being NZ, as home ground advantage favours them. But Boks will be up for it. You can't ignore this and pretend this record doesn't exist because it's reality. The same as in 1995, Boks-NZ drew the game in 1994; 18-18 at Eden Park, Auckland. Which was the very last time these two teams met before that final. In all honesty though.. all that matters is how each team peaks during this next month and how they rise to the occasion of the big games that matter. For those 80 min (or possibly more). Boks may fail, All Blacks may fail but are the favourites and Aus may fail.. who knows? Good luck to your team though and enjoy the next month of rugby!!

Actually South Africa were heavy favourites to win the 2009 Lions tour. In 2007 they were third favourites (because of their draw, and not their mediocre/poor 2006 form). I really don't see what beating NZ has to do with anything? I'd be more concerned with Wales and Samoa.

You've made reference to this Springbok B side before, Loftus. Does that mean the Springbok side that has been selected to play Wales is also South Africa B?

Keep smiling, Rhino, because I assume otherwise it's tears before bedtime. South Africa have not done a single thing in the past two seasons to suggest they are any where near a cup winning side, so I'm not sure what your basing your profound optimism on (beyond arrogance, that is).

lose one early and you go into a difficult draw, and then confidence is down. From memory I don't believe any winner has ever lost a game.