This is what makes the RWC such a great event.

In 1995 Kitch Christie first coined the now well-worn phrase “the high road or the low road,” with regards to how a team progresses to the knock-out phases of the World Cup, although he probably drew inspiration from the old Scottish folk song about the contrasting routes to Glasgow.

In essence, Christie told his players that by beating the other main foe in their group – Australia – they would get the easier run-in to the final.

In the Boks’ case in 2011, that means beating Wales, Samoa, Namibia and Fiji and finishing top of Group D, meaning a probable quarter-final against Ireland (likely runners-up of Group C) while the runners-up of Pool D – probably Wales but possibly Samoa, will have to play Australia (surely the winners of Group C).

But the road the Boks have chosen to take began a long way before their departure for Wellington today and it clashes in fascinating fashion with the path the Wallabies believed was best for them.

This is what makes the World Cup such a great event. The game of chess begins long before the Rugby World Cup event itself.

The Aussies chose to pick their possible side for every Tri-Nations game, with the obvious aim of winning them all and building positive momentum into the tournament. This they have undoubtedly done, having won the Tri-Nations for the first time in a decade by winning three of their four games, the last being a self-belief boosting win over a full-strength All Black side in Brisbane.

The Boks, by contrast, chose a totally different approach to the World Cup. As they did in 2007, they sacrificed the Tri-Nations on the World Cup alter. As many as 21 players holed up in a Rustenburg retreat with master tactician Rassie Erasmus doing their homework while the B Boks were getting hammered in Sydney and Wellington.

As far as the Springbok jersey was concerned, it was case of short-term pain for (hopefully) long-term gain.

The plan was for the “main manne” to be refreshed for the World Cup after Super Rugby, even if meant being underdone going into the World Cup. The match against the Wallabies in Durban was seen as the first rung on a ladder that leads to the quarter-finals and beyond.

So even the loss to the Aussies in Durban was not the end of the world as far as the greater World Cup picture is concerned because the front-line troops had their first taste of battle for six weeks and then built on a good first half- performance the following week when they beat the All Blacks in Port Elizabeth.

Now the idea is to hone and polish the battle plan in a very tough Pool. Apart from the likely walkover against poor old Namibia, the Boks will be heavily tested by Wales, who boasted most of the Lions squad that toured in 2009 and are overdue to play much better than they have been to live up to their pedigree; by a much-improved Samoa team that a month or so ago knocked over Australia in Sydney; and by the always difficult Fijians, who nearly beat the Boks in their quarter-final in Marseilles in 2007.

This has all been carefully planned by the Boks. It is an around about way of doing things compared to the Route One plan of the Wallabies, but heck, for ages the Boks were always accused of being brainless.

Whatever happens, we should be encouraged that the Boks are working to a plan, which has not always been the case – when we were asked to be patient and judge the 2003 Boks on their World Cup performance, the management were on an (unanswered) wing and a prayer, because in reality they had been up the creek with a broken boat as well as no paddle from about 2001.

To be fair the coach in that era just did not have the players. In 2011 we have the players, the pedigree and the plan.

by Mike Greenaway