There have been four World Cups in the professional era and three of those have been won by southern hemisphere teams. The anomaly to that run was England in 2003.

If we go back and crunch the numbers, the favourites for the 1999 World Cup were New Zealand.

The champions that Super Rugby season were the Crusaders and, until 25 minutes from full-time against the French in the semi-final, it was looking like the predictor might just come true for the Kiwis.

The Reds finished on top of the round robin that season, with the Brumbies just outside the top four.

That same year the Wallabies retained the Bledisloe Cup, so the indicators were looking strong for the Wallabies to be very competitive. The result? A win to the good guys.

Four years later, 2003 turned out to be a massive let-down for the Springboks, being bundled out in the quarter-finals by New Zealand.

That same year in Super Rugby it was the South African conference in the most turmoil.  The Bulls finished sixth as the other provinces propped up the table. I am sure SA Rugby is hoping history won't repeat this season after they failed to be represented in the semi-finals.

The final that season was between the Blues and the Crusaders, with the Blues emerging victorious.

Again NZ would be strong, but this time it was England going in as favourites after sweeping aside the Wallabies and All Blacks on their southern hemisphere tour. Winners: England.

The 2007 event was a role reversal for South Africa. The Sharks and Bulls dominated and, in turn, dominated Springbok selection.

These two teams played out an epic decider with a moment of brilliance from Brian Habana separating the teams. No one else was really in the running.

England made the final competitive,despite earlier being defeated 36-0 in the pool stage by the eventual champions.

Four years later, it finally became New Zealand's  turn again, and it was their  bogey team, the French, who nearly crashed the party.

Through the Super Rugby season, though, it was the Reds who dominated, pushed in the final by the Crusaders.

So did the formula work? Certainly in 2007, but the overriding prediction of a strong conference certainly points to the fact that they will be competitive, meaning semi-finals or a spot in the big one.

Another way could be looking at geography. Lets reacquaint ourselves with past winners. Australia have won twice, along with  South Africa and New Zealand.  Throw in England's win in 2003 and that's all the countries engraved on the Webb Ellis trophy. All heavily biased towards the southern hemisphere.

Diving into those stats, let's take a look at where those achievements took place. New Zealand won the inaugural RWC on home soil and completed the double at Eden Park in 2011. So, in effect, their World Cup success has only come at home, which doesn't really count. That's having an unfair advantage, isn't it?*

South Africa fall into the same category as New Zealand for one of their successes, winning in Johannesburg in 1995, but then  repeating the feat away from home in France, giving them extra credibility.

England, for their solo win, won the tournament in Sydney.

You could say that trumps New Zealand's efforts by winning away from home but, on a technicality, Australia was colonised by the Brits so it was  like playing on home soil*. Perhaps that doesn't trump New Zealand's efforts, just making it a win to the Commonwealth.

So that leaves us two RWC wins, both on foreign soil. Doing the business with everything against them.

Cold, wet, damp climate, having to adjust to the heavier ground, the stodgy food, the cold showers, being homesick and getting stitched up with the currency exchange. Yet we were still able to make it happen.

So with this year's World Cup to be played in England, that equals a lay down misere for the Wallabies.

*Please forward all complaints to my editor.