­­
As the Tri-Nations comes upon us again, it once again looks as if the Aussies at best can hope for second and the real title race is between New Zealand and South Africa.  What makes this year so interesting is the uncertainty around the All Blacks and Springboks.  Which of these teams is really the favorite?  Who are the underdogs?  

One option is to look at the betting situation.  Most betting sites that I have looked at seem to put the All Blacks as favorites, closely followed by the Springboks.  Betting is always a tricky way to look at these things, however, because the bookie wants to make money more than predict the right answer.  Popular teams tend to be "taxed."  In other words, internationally known teams like the New York Yankees or Manchester United or the Los Angeles Lakers tend to pay less.  Public opinion of these teams is inflated, which means they are bet on more, which means their odds have to be shortened to protect the bookie.  My guess is the All Blacks are often too short because of this phenomenon.

The consensus in many (NZ) media sources is that the Springboks need to be dethroned before they lose their favorites status.  They have won the last three meetings, four of the last six, and the last two on NZ soil.  In provincial play, the Bulls have been dominant and the Bulls make up the bulk of the Boks.  Until the All Blacks prove otherwise, the crown remains in African hands.

On the other side of that discussion are the tests that have been played since last years Bok victory in Hamilton.  New Zealand played well on tour in Europe, rolling France in Marseilles.  South Africa, however, fell all over themselves in France and Ireland, as well as bad losses to Saracens and Leicester.  This June the All Blacks regained some of their attacking mojo as South Africa was solid.  Some will dismiss the IRB rankings, but the Kiwi dominance of them currently is due to superior performance in the last nine months.

So who should be seen as the favorite?  I think one has to consider the All Blacks the favorites for several reasons.  They are playing two of the three tests at home.  The losses in Hamilton and Dunedin are significant, but should not be seen as the status quo.  Furthermore, the All Blacks are in a better place mentally with a better squad then last year.  The young guys' energy is greater than the experience of those they replaced.  Also, the proper (rather than new) rule interpretations will force the Boks to actually play instead of live off of others' mistakes.  South Africa's dominance has been based on deconstruction, and now the referees are requiring positive play.

This tournament will be significant mostly in defining the main story lines of the 2011 RWC.  If South Africa continues to win, the pressure on Graham Henry and the rest of the management will be immense.  The Sprinboks will be described as an unstoppable machine, the Achilles heel of the All Blacks. 

If the new look All Blacks, however, manage to win, the media will turn.  They will start to recognize that the Boks are aging.  The drain of Super 14, tests, and Currie Cup is starting to show on South Africa.  Almost all the major players in the Bok set up (Matfield, du Preez, Smit, Burger, Botha, Habana) are now getting to the wrong side of 25, if not 30.  The injuries to those players are signs of that drain.  The question will be whether or not 2009 was the peak of the Sprinbok wave and (ironically) it is New Zealand properly timing their run to the World Cup.

My guess is that the second scenario is more likely.  By this time next year I think the All Blacks will be Tri Nations champions (barely) and the new combination will be becoming concrete.  South Africa will be obviously too long in the tooth against the youth of the All Blacks.  Then again, that is only a guess.  Another South African methodical march to the Tri Nation crown and the story will look very different for the underdog All Blacks.