KEY POINTS:
A year out from the World Cup, the talk is all about who will come second. The title is a lay-down misere for the All Blacks, a fait accompli.
Well, that's the line of thinking in the Northern Hemisphere.
It is as flawed as the wisdom that gave
the last two titles to the All Blacks - until France and Australia gazumped them.
But the All Black supremacy right now does prompt thoughts about how much more appealing the next tournament would be if the All Blacks had two teams in the event.
Okay, okay, that smacks too much of that patronising comment from Louis Luyt after the Springboks' success in 1995, when he gloated that it would have been their third title if they had been allowed to participate in the previous two events.
But from a historical perspective, the World Cup has not delivered many new sides to challenge the traditional powers. Samoa were an exception with the flair they had in 1991 and 1995, but their cause has been hindered by lack of resources and competition.
The same old sides will probably go into the quarter-finals next year.
The only real uncertainty is whether Italy or Scotland will qualify second in the All Blacks' pool and which of France, Ireland or Argentina will miss out in their pool of death.
Samoa may have something to say about their pursuit of a place ahead of England or the Springboks, but there are always questions about the Pacific Islanders' durability.
Like every other World Cup, that first month of matches will drag until the sudden-death quarter-finals.
It is also preposterous that the All Blacks are drawn to play Scotland at Edinburgh in their third pool match and potentially have a quarter-final in Cardiff. So much for the event being held in France, but politics are never far from decisions in top sport.
England's proposal, when they were rebuffed in their bid to host the 2007 tournament, included splitting the tournament into two sections so teams would all play one another before moving to the playoffs.
At least that would have removed anomalies like that in 2003 when England deservedly won the crown, but didn't play the All Blacks.
Then there is the small matter of the draw being completed three years before the tournament, a decision which has favoured sides such as cup-holders England, who have slid to seventh in the world rankings.
Of course any notion about having another New Zealand side in the World Cup goes against the philosophy of one nation, one team.
But the evidence gathered during Graham Henry's coaching tenure shows another New Zealand side would hack it at the top level.
Record test wins against England and France with 10 player changes underline that point.
Whether separate squads could sustain that record is debatable, as Henry has emphasised the importance of keeping his players fresh and competitive.
Two squads of 30 might be stretching New Zealand's rugby resources, but it would be fascinating to see it and ponder (with apologies to Luyt) the chances, or the outcome, of an All Blacks vs New Zealand XV final.
