The All Blacks can boast only one World Cup win, while their two greatest foes - South Africa and Australia - have both recorded two. But if you listen to their supporters, the weight attributed to these triumphs is completely biased and does not take into account any other games.

Of course, the World Cup's conspicuous absence since 1991 from New Zealand’s trophy cabinet is a sore point, but not as big a deal as some other nations make out. For some strange reason, despite being the youngest World Cup of all professional sports, no other trophy, competition or match in the world matters. At least, not according to South Africans, English or Australians.

In 1987, the All Blacks won the inaugural World Cup, and did so convincingly – albeit without the presence of South Africa, a fact that all New Zealanders readily admit. However, it is disappointing that South African supporters state this at every opportunity, despite the fact that it was only New Zealand who defied international conventions and still fielded teams to play the banned Springboks.

Much as I personally disagreed with South Africa being prevented from playing, the Gleneagles convention had banned them for reasons beyond rugby, and that is history that cannot be overturned.

The point to derive from this is that with the concept of team and pool draws, you will not have to always play the toughest opponent to win a World Cup. If the All Blacks did not have to do it in 1987, then the same applies to the Springboks' recent World Cup win, where they did not have to play their toughest opponents - the All Blacks, Wallabies and hosts France.

Statistically, the All Blacks are the greatest World Cup holders so far. They convincingly defeated a very powerful French side in the final, 29-9.  It would not be until August 18, 1990 that New Zealand would taste defeat.

In four years of championship reign, they won 26 games, drew one, and lost two – both to the Wallabies. With each of those losses, the New Zealand media and public was damning, saying it was a blight on the World Cup win. A blight – a stain.

Since then, the Wallabies and Springboks have won the trophy twice, and there is a significant difference between the championship reigns of these two teams.

The Australians have, like the All Blacks, done the championship proud. Their win in 1991 was the turning point in their history and the ushering in of a new world rugby power. In four years they lost only four games. In 1999, after their second World Cup win, they had the greatest period in their history – beating the British Lions, and claiming the Tri-Nations and Bledisloe Cups more times in the next four years than any other period in history.

However, the Springboks are truly poor defenders of what they would call the world’s premier trophy. In 1995, they beat the odds to defeat a mighty All Black team, but the following year they played their greatest enemy in five Test matches and lost four of these games, including three in succession in South Africa. They then capitulated to the British Lions a year later – as well as losing to the All Blacks twice more.

Is a pattern becoming clear? So far this year the ''world champions'' have lost to both the All Blacks and Wallabies twice, a very poor start to their reign. With it likely to be the only trophy in their cabinet for some time, maybe we should give the South Africans the leeway to fall back on their nine-point defeat of the English.

In every other major team sport there are world championships, but they do not hold precedence. In cricket, ask Australia or England what they would rather hold, a world championship or the Ashes? Ask India, would they prefer the world championship or the Border Gavaskar trophy?

Equally with soccer, after the European Championship, do Italy stand quoting their world championship success? Not with Spain and Germany contesting a quality final and now being the two top-ranked teams in the world. The Euro Championship is infinitely harder to win than the World Cup, and the soccer world knows it.

So it must be with rugby. Wales are Six Nations Grand Slam champions, the oldest international competition in world rugby – and they deserve their credit. But, unfortunately for them, they did lose twice to South Africa, which does tarnish their kudos. But it is not an easy tournament to win, with an immense history between the foes, especially the original five nations.

Having said that, the Tri-Nations is the hardest tournament in world rugby to win. To succeed, you must take the scalp of the All Blacks, Springboks or Wallabies in their own backyards – statistically the three hardest locations in the world to win. But even on the cusp of either the Wallabies or All Blacks claiming the title, there is still no credit coming from the South African public.

If New Zealand do, in fact, lift the trophy in Brisbane – where they have an 80 per cent winning percentage (is there anyone against whom the All Blacks do not have a positive winning ratio, or any place?) – it will be their ninth Tri-Nations title since its inauguration in 1996.

Equally, if the All Blacks retain the Bledisloe Cup, it will be their 36th title in 48 attempts. Sure, New Zealand would love another World Cup but there is equal significance placed on both the Bledisloe and the Tri-Nations.

Unlike a world championship, there is no easy game in a Bledisloe or Tri-Nations. That is, unless you have to play in South Africa.