KEY POINTS:
Finally, George Gregan's "four more years" are over. At last, the All Blacks have the chance to avenge not only the semifinal defeat to Australia at the 2003 World Cup but also a series of unexpected setbacks dating back to the 1991 tournament. The start of the 2007 World Cup has been a long time coming. But it is time the All Blacks have put to extremely good use, stringing together seasons of consistently impressive performances.
Indeed, somewhat perversely, doubts about their ability to hold aloft the Webb Ellis Cup at Paris on October 20 spring most strongly from their own supporters.
The most dispassionate analysis in sport comes from bookmakers. Their very survival depends on rational dissection of contestants' strengths and weaknesses. It speaks volumes that Britain's bookmakers have New Zealand as an odds-on favourite for the World Cup. Ladbrokes, for example, quotes the All Blacks at 1/2. South Africa, the second favourite, is 5/1, followed by France (7/1) and Australia (12/1). Add a strong dose of patriotism to that verdict and New Zealanders, it would seem, have every reason to expect an All Black win. That, however, is far from the universal view.
A Herald-DigiPoll survey, taken just before the All Blacks left for France, suggested one in four New Zealanders had doubts about the All Blacks' prospects. More than 28 per cent of those polled said they were not confident of a World Cup victory. Only half said they were confident of success.
If that seems odd, it would appear New Zealanders have learned to leaven their patriotism with a strong whiff of pragmatism. Successive disappointments since the 1987 triumph on Eden Park have lowered expectations - even to an extent that the degree of pessimism defies a more rational analysis of the All Blacks' chances.
That may be no bad thing. Nobody wants a repeat of the loathsome outpouring that followed New Zealand's semifinal elimination in 1999 by France. In 2003, the reaction was noticeably more subdued, even if the disappointment was as great. There should be a similar response this time if the All Blacks are undone by a team that, on most reasonable counts, should not beat them. Defeat would not mean that New Zealand had suddenly become a degraded rugby nation.
It would mean only that a team much favoured because of its consistent strength had been beaten in a one-off match - as sometimes happens to favourites.
Any doubts about the All Blacks' standing in world rugby should surely have been removed by their reception in France over the past week. Two thousand people took time out from sunning themselves on the holiday island of Corsica to watch a light recovery session, and a crowd of 3000 greeted them at a mayoral reception on their arrival in Marseille. It does not matter to the French that New Zealand has failed to win the World Cup since 1987. They have always recognised the All Blacks as the most worthy of opponents. To them, what Brazil is to football, New Zealand is to rugby. That will not change whatever the outcome of the World Cup final. After all, Brazil has entered several World Cups as favourite (perhaps most famously in 1982), played scintillating football, and crashed out before the final.
In four more years, the All Blacks will, of course, contest another World Cup, this time on home soil. It would be ideal if they ran on to Eden Park in the final as defending champions, bidding to become the first country to win back-to-back tournaments. That may not happen but, if so, it will not be for lack of quality, depth, experience and preparation. The All Blacks are ready. May the best team win.
