Playing badly but still winning

I've decided to put a small (ok, tiny) amount of money on South Africa to win the World Cup based on the fact that, on their day, they could beat the All Blacks - the overwhelming favourites. But thinking back to the last World Cup, the reason that England won the tournament was that they were sufficiently well prepared that they could play badly and still win. The final was a prime example of that - they didn't play well and yet they still came through....just.

So who in this year's competition could play badly and still win? Well, ominously, the All Blacks. Their performance in the Tri-Nations was a good example of a team not at its best playing pragmatically to ensure that they won. If they play like that they will win the World Cup - never mind the usual racking up of 100 points in the pool stages and then a semi-final meltdown.

The only other team that has a chance of winning while playing badly? France I reckon. They've shown recently that they can shut down the opposition as well as play with their usual flair.

But the Kiwi's are the overwhelming favourites. Everyone has been suggesting that their Tri-Nations performance has given hope to the other countries, but for me if they play like that they will win the World Cup.