David Leggat: What’s in a name? Well, quite a lot actually

Let's clear the air first: I'm not a huge fan of those jazzy nicknames for national sports teams.

A leading sportsman once remarked that the only team he wanted to be part of was called the Australian cricket team.

(I think it was Steve Waugh, and if it wasn't I'm sure he'd have agreed while fixing you with that narrow-eyed, piercing look which doesn't tolerate any argument.)

In Australia's case, most other daggy alternatives had been taken: the Boomers, Wallabies, Kangaroos and Emus - which only left the Koalas, Platypuses and Wombats.

"Platypus captain Steve Waugh ... " doesn't quite hit the mark, while "Wombats captain ... " would probably earn a clip round the ear.

Here's a small test. Identify these teams: The All Blacks (all right, an easy starter for three), Wheel Blacks, Tall Blacks, Tall Ferns, Black Ferns, White Ferns, Kiwi Ferns, All Whites, Black Sox, White Sox, Bobby Sox (okay, settle down) and Black Sticks.

If you said the last one was the New Zealand women's hockey team you'd be half right.

This week the newly rebranded New Zealand Hockey revealed that the name given to the national women's team will now be shared with the men's side.

What was wrong with "the New Zealand men's hockey team"? Okay, it's a bit of a mouthful, but it is what it is.

The Black Sticks have developed an identity over the last few years. And the reason for the change?

"When we looked at it there was no logical reason to have a different name," said NZH chief executive Ramesh Patel.

White Sticks was discarded after appropriately brief consideration, given the unfortunate connotation.

So what happens at Olympic and Commonwealth Games? No problem, says Patel, as they invariably play on different days, and if need be they can revert to the national men's or women's team.

It will take some getting used to. The blokes might need to put up with the odd "You're playing like a bunch of girls" jibe. The bottom line is they should have their own distinct identity and if that means adding another moniker to the already bulging bag, so be it.

New Zealand is rated 7-1 third fancy to win the hosting rights when the International Rugby Board makes its November decision on the 2011 World Cup. According to Australian agency Centrebet, Japan is favourite at 2-5 (for you non-punters that is a $2 return for every $5 invested) and South Africa is 5-2.

But I reckon you can just about forget South Africa. It is hosting soccer's World Cup in 2010, so the Government is unlikely to stump up fat wads of money in successive years.

It would have been only 16 years since the Republic last staged the rugby World Cup, and the degree of turmoil within its own administration and the combined effect is hardly a giant neon sign flashing "pick us".

This week's announcement was accompanied by the expected fanfare, but in reality the NZRFU has simply put on its running shoes. The bid was lodged overnight. The starting gun goes today.

And anyone thinking New Zealand will get the nod for sentimental or historic reasons hasn't been living on Planet Commerce for a long time.

On one hand, the IRB may be swayed by the profit-making potential of Japan, and the idea of taking the four-yearly showpiece to new territories will also appeal.

On the other hand, it's seriously expensive for supporters, therefore a turnoff, and you will have the sight of the host nation getting pounded on the scoreboard - never a great look.

But can New Zealand cope with the demands of a World Cup?

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Lions tour won't be the Lions at all: it will be assessing how well New Zealand the country - as opposed to New Zealand the rugby nation - handles the assignment.

The IRB will be watching. The NZRFU has a tough sell on its hands.