All Blacks have all the bases covered

PETER MEECHAM/Fairfax Media

QUESTION-MARKS: The All Blacks clearly have the ability and the form to lift the World Cup. But do they have the self-belief? And will the referees allow them to dominate?

Relevant offers

David Kirk

All Blacks must show ruthless streak David Kirk: Now is the hour for All Blacks Bledisloe a triumph for mental toughness Springbok pride looms to doom Solid rebuild but where's the killer punch? Players key to lifting suspended sentence Demise of men in black greatly exaggerated Boks master 'no-risk' approach Talent meets toughness in final England: The boa constrictors of rugby

In particular when discussion of the Rugby World Cup comes around and some wag with preternatural insight, notes that New Zealand has only ever won ONE rugby World Cup and then proceeds to gag, gurgle and dribble with his hand around his throat, eventually wrestling himself free to general hilarity. I grow weary of the land of the bouncing kangaroo.

Or at least Wallaby supporters.

The All Blacks are once again red-hot favourites to win the World Cup in 2007. It seems that the only thing that gives other nations and bookies comfort is history. New Zealand has indeed only ever won one rugby World Cup And that was the only tournament in which the All Blacks did not start firm favourites. So, the logic goes, just because they are the best team doesn't mean they will win. Look what happened in London, Johannesburg, Cardiff and Sydney. Bummed out, choked, didn't perform when it really mattered. The same will happen this time.

If history is to be our guide we should start by absorbing the benefits of hindsight. The All Blacks may have gone into the World Cups of 1991, 1995, 1999 and 2003 as favourites but they shouldn't have. In 1991 the team was clearly ageing and struggling for form. The Wallabies had rebuilt after the Jones era and the 1987 disappointments. A young, hungry team on the way up should have been identified as the team to beat.

The 1995 All Blacks were a genuinely great team who should have won. They ran into an extraordinary set of circumstances with a gastro illness the night before the final and a Springbok team surfing a wave of national rebirth that carried them through.

The 1999 team was talented but lacked vital leadership and composure. The Wallabies were better going into the tournament and certainly once it unfolded. In 2003 England were top of the world rankings, had beaten the All Blacks in New Zealand earlier in the year and should have been favourites.

In 2007 results support All Black favouritism. The Tri-Nations trophy and the Bledisloe Cup are both safe and sound in Wellington and regular victories over France, every UK nation separately and the British and Irish Lions all confirm the No 1 world ranking. This New Zealand team has depth, leadership, strong set-pieces, the best fly-half in the world and great try-scoring power out wide. There is little doubt they should win and we all know it. But what could stop them?

Lets run through a few options. How about the weather? It used to be that some teams played much better on dry grounds than wet ones and vice-versa. Big slow forward packs and strong kicking flyhalves ground out victories in the pouring rain they could never have achieved in sunshine. The weather will not determine the winner of the 2007 Rugby World Cup. Changes in the laws and professionalism have homogenised player shape, size and playing styles. Everyone plays more or less the same way these days. The team that does it better wins; not the team that does it different.

How about injuries? Any team that suffers a run of injuires to top players will be materially affected, but the All Blacks are surely less exposed to this than any other team. Australia is particularly exposed. If any one or more of Gregan, Larkham, Mortlock, Vickerman or a prop gets injured, Australia will be doomed. South Africa have only a few world-class players and limited depth, likewise the UK nations. France have rotated and developed their players so much that we more or less have no idea who is in their top team – so who knows if injuries will hurt them? The All Blacks have three of the best five props in the world, three of the best six second-rowers and adequate relacements everywhere else. Perhaps they are most exposed at fly-half (which country isn't?), in the loose-forwards and at centre, but it would take an extraordinary run of injuries to seriously affect the overall performance.

What about playing away from home? Many countries have much poorer records on the road. Unfortunately, for the rest of the world, New Zealand is not one of them. The All Blacks' performance away from home is second to none in world rugby.

The home advantage will, however, play an important role in the tournament. France, traditionally, do not travel particularly well. At home, however, the Tricolors inhale the passion of a full stadium and translate it into a raw physical intensity that is truly frightening and very often effective. To win the World Cup the All Blacks will have to beat l'esprit de France as well as the French rugby team.

Two possible causes of an All Black failure remain: referees and self-doubt. Referees will play an unheathily prominent role in the World Cup. The two problem areas will be the tackle, degenerating as it does into rucks, mauls, pile-ups, scrags, wrestles, and every other indescribable tangle of legs, arms and penalty opportunities. My view is that at most breakdowns both teams could be penalised. It's a lottery and different referees draw different names out of the hat at different times.

The other key area is the scrum. Referees today seem loath to rule in favour of the stonger set piece, believeing, it seems, that the scrum should serve as an efficient restart, rather than as an advantage to be exploited by the better unit. Referees often effectively depower the contest by penalising the stronger scrum when the weaker one collapses or disrupts to avoid a pummelling.

All teams will need to adapt to referee interpretations as matches unfold. A failure to read a referee and adjust will mean penalties, lost field position and in a tight match could be the difference between winning and losing. The All Blacks will be refereed more tightly than any other team, just because they are the All Blacks.

Finally self-doubt. How could a team which such talent and confidence engendered by years of dominance have self-doubt you may ask? It is not as simple as that. Confidence, mental toughhness and self-belief are intellectual and emotional constructs.

On the one hand, individuals and teams need to have a strong analytical belief in their superiority. A knowledge that they are, on paper, faster, stronger, better. The task then becomes to do what you are capable on the field. If things are not going right, keep believing in the facts of faster, stronger, better, and keep doing it. Time is on your side. The opposition, who may be playing above themselves, will eventually falter. The laws of physics will kick in. Don't panic. It will happen.

But self-belief is also emotional. In the face of overwhelming odds – two minutes to go, two points down, at the wrong end of the field – teams with the self-belief necessary to win a World Cup, genuinely believe thay will. All they need is the ball and a plan. I don't know if the 2007 All Blacks have the necessary rational and irrational self-belief.

I sure hope they do because if they don't the next Wallaby supporter that fakes choking to me is going to find my hands around his neck helping him get the job done properly.

David Kirk was captain of the only New Zealand team to win a World Cup and is now chief executive of Fairfax Media.

- © Fairfax NZ News