KEY POINTS:
I think the World Cup will have a New Zealand-South Africa final. I don't think any of the Home Nations will make it past the quarter-finals except possibly England - and that only because the Australians are so weak in the tight five.
I think Argentina and Italy will keep Ireland and Scotland out of the quarter-finals and I don't think France will get past South Africa in the semifinals.
If it's a surprise you want, they will be few and far between in this World Cup - but Argentina could spring one. They could beat France in their pool game and if that happens and the Argentinians beat Ireland, that would set up a New Zealand-France quarter-final.
I know some people will gulp a bit at that. But look at the last two All Black scores against France in France: 45-9 and 47-3. No-one is silly enough to forget 1999 and to say the French couldn't cause an upset but this All Black team looks a different kettle of fish to me. They are focused and multi-talented and the only question mark will be whether they have had enough game time to go from weak pool opposition to France in a World Cup knockout game.
For me, Australia will win their group - the easiest of the lot - and will play England in the first quarter-final after the Poms come second to South Africa in their group. I'm picking Australia to win the quarter-final with England, even if they have only 30 per cent of the ball. They have the backs and loose forwards, to a certain extent anyway.
If I'm wrong and the English win, that will be an ideal semifinal for the All Blacks, who are drawn to play the winner of this match in the last four.
I do not think this England team can get near them but will give them a hard match up front ahead of the final.
South Africa will beat Wales in the next quarter-final, France will beat Italy and New Zealand will beat Argentina in an ideal quarter-final for them.
Why South Africa in the final and to beat the English? Because I think they now have more all-round threat in their game, they have selected well and they have real pace along with their ball-winning ability.
There's one other thing I'd like to see - consistent refereeing. It's the biggest worry of this World Cup. Refs can influence a game and its result far more than they ever used to.
It's all down to interpretations. Even in Friday night's Air NZ Cup matches, I watched one ref at the Otago-Southland game letting Otago get away with blue murder when they killed the ball. In the other 7.30pm game, another ref was killing Counties Manukau for the same thing. Same rule, different rulings.
My only other gripe is that after 20 years of World Cups, it seems we are no further down the road to building the number of quality rugby countries than we were back in 1987.
I guess you could say Argentina and Italy have improved. But Scotland and Wales have gone backwards. Samoa are probably less likely to provide an upset than they were in past tournaments. Fiji seem less of a force than they were.
The rationale behind the World Cup was to spread the gospel of rugby and to increase the number of nations playing the game at the top level. It takes time, I know, but to be only marking time after 20 years must be a big worry to the IRB.
Maybe Ireland will beat France or Wales will beat Australia. Maybe. But probably not. And then you have to ask the question - where is the international game of rugby headed?
I think that's harder to answer than who will win the final.
