Herald Classics: NZ named 2011 RWC host - David Leggat: Honestly now, what odds did you really give us?

Now be honest as you read this.

Hands up anyone who really, honestly believed the 2011 World Cup decision would go New Zealand's way? No, I didn't think so.

The odds were against Jock Hobbs and his team. Of the three options open to the International Rugby Board, the whisper had it that New Zealand would be the safe option. For that, read dull.

South Africa had financial merit, and Japan represented the chance to break down a large door to a potentially significant market. The odds-makers had written New Zealand off. That was the pre-vote scuttlebutt.

Yet in the end, South Africa came nowhere and the Japan option was not taken up. If in doubt, IRB, take the safe option. So they did.

It's a grand week to be living down in this neck of the woods.

Don't forget Australia's had much to savour with the Socceroos qualifying for next year's World Cup in Germany after taking their fans on a white-knuckle ride past Uruguay in Sydney.

You'd never heard of John Aloisi before Wednesday night (and you've probably forgotten the name already) but it was his penalty in the shootout which did the job.

And now this.

Over the next few weeks and months, you'll hear a variety of theories on how New Zealand got the job done.

Be sure, despite union protestations to the contrary yesterday, deals were done to secure votes. That's just the way of the modern sporting/business world.

So don't be surprised if the All Blacks start trekking off to the Northern Hemisphere for rather more games than they have in recent years; don't raise an eyebrow if they go in new, or rarely taken directions.

Of the other two bids, Japan certainly had more merit than South Africa.

For starters, the Springboks hosted the tournament only 10 years ago. They have the soccer World Cup in 2010, and they have big upheavals within the administration of the sport.

The Japanese would have provided a new window, but there were problems.

Anyone who's ever visited Japan knows the hellish cost of living; and for all the talk about it being an emerging nation, they were, with all due respect, emerging 20 years ago and are still getting tonked any time they go near one of the leading nations. That would have been a bad look.

There's also a suspicion that the crowds would not have turned out except for the heavy hitters.

When South Korea and Japan hosted the 2002 soccer World Cup, anecdotal evidence suggested the more passionate crowds were in South Korea. The Japanese were more passive, which does not make for good viewing.

Expect a welter of criticism over the decision from Britain, where most of the rugby writers heavily backed Japan as offering the ideal time and stage to open the game to Asia. Whether it will ever really catch on there is a moot point. I doubt it.

Either way, here's a thought. Why could the IRB not sit down and schedule the next four tournaments, thus giving host nations years to plan and get all their ducks in a row.

For example, why not put 2015 in England (or, if they insist, the four Home Nations doing another of those dreadful joint operations); 2019 in Japan; 2023 in South Africa and 2027 in France. Then everyone would know where they stand.

Finally, a big pat on the back for Hobbs. He has further enhanced his reputation as the go-to man of New Zealand rugby, the bloke for the big jobs, as he showed at the time of the threatened player revolt of 1995.

As if to prove the doubters wrong, New Zealand showed the small guy can still pack a decent punch as all around were saying it couldn't be done. Now the country has six years to make sure the job is done right.