I recall with fond memories the years of 2005 and 2006 as an All Blacks supporter. These were golden years for the team, with Graham Henry appearing to have his team ready and primed for what was hoped would be World Cup redemption.

Redemption, you ask?  Well, when a team like the All Blacks lose but 39 games in 21 years – and dominate by and large in between - a solitary World Cup is in some measure a failure.  Or, as it is now considered a choke by either the Union, coaches or the players themselves.

There were clear reasons for the failed build-up in 2007 – brilliantly documented in the review commissioned after the Cup and viewable here.

The All Blacks lost to France 18-20, and based on that two-point defeat the overwhelming favourites for the tournament were dumped. 

A team with the record of New Zealand have only themselves to blame, but this in turn leads to a flaw with the knockout system of such championships.

More than a year on, the Kiwi rugby league team has performed a remarkable upset and defeated the Kangaroos – the “rugby league team of the world”. The RL Aussies are a dominant outfit who have, unlike their black-clad union counterparts, fulfilled championship expectations and won nine World Cups.

But irrespective of how good Australia are, New Zealand, with only one NRL team, will now carry the bragging rights of world champions for the next five years (the next tournament is scheduled for 2013 to avoid competing with the Olympic Games in London).

Despite this, do we not all still think that the Kangaroos are effectively the best team in the world – and in saying this, believe that they are essentially world champions?

Even the most one-eyed New Zealand supporter would concede that despite being “world champions” the Kiwis will be lucky not to lose their next game or games to the Kangaroos. Furthermore, if the final were to be played over three games it would be a formidably brave punter who would bet against the might of the Australians.

The All Blacks were not afforded such luxury at the end of 2007. Despite a phenomenal two-to-three-year record leading up to the World Cup, they lost. 

Were they still considered the best team in the world? Well, effectively no. They lost their No.1 world ranking and the World Cup to South Africa. But herein lies the flaw – the All Blacks yielded this to the Springboks despite beating them 2-0 in 2007.

Far be it for me to criticise the Springboks. They played the tournament to win, and irrespective of the quality of their opposition, they beat them.

But now, on the cusp of the end of the rugby season for the South, who can lay claim to rugby union world domination? It is fair to say that team is the All Blacks, based on a current 13-2 win record and their ninth Tri-Nations title. Is it fair that New Zealand can lay such a claim when we are still in the first year of a Springboks championship reign?

The Americans believe in a very different system, accentuated by the NBA. Each team play 82 games over what is a 1,230-game regular season (of course, something impossible to achieve on an international scale or with a contact sport).

In the first round of the finals series, opponents play a five-game series. The conference and overall championship finals are played over seven games. The eventual champions will have had to play potentially well over 100 games. There can be no dispute as to their pedigree.

There is also the points ranking system where, in Test cricket, a team’s ranking is determined by their record against all other Test nations. While Australia were comprehensively beaten by India, it is far too early to call the Indians the best nation or world champions, for Australia have been kings of the world for too long to be dethroned in a mere Test series.

With most world championships being held in a four-year cycle, the importance or weight given to such a title must be taken into perspective. 

A team like the All Blacks or Kangaroos should win such titles as they are clearly the best teams in the world – but as history has now proven, world champions are made by the sides that perform the best over a tournament's duration. 

But for the sake of more equality, would it not be a good thing to see such titles decided in a three-match series? Or as a Kiwi league supporter, should I not shut up and enjoy the next five years!