So for the past 4 years England have, quite rightly, been named the team that has made the worst defence of the Rugby World Cup in its shortlived history, but looking forward to Saturday, history begs to differ on this, but also shows that England may not be making the final by any means. Only 1 nation, defending the RWC crown, has ever made it to the next RWK final. The 1987 winners, NZ went out in the 1991 SF. The 1991 winners, Australia, went out in the 1995 QF. The 1995 winners, RSA, went out in the semis in 1999. The 1999 winners, Australia, did indeed make it to the finals of their own world cup, although were pipped at the post. Also apart from only 1 nation (Wales), all the RWK hosts have made it to their own final (at least). If this world cup was in England, I would be confident that England would reach the finals, probably to be beaten by SA. Its quite rightly not in England though... and even if England play out of their skins, like they did in the 2003 world cup final, in which they totally dominated the game but due to the ref. it remained close... is it even possible for England to beat France in their own backyard in a world cup semi. The refereeing was fairly one sided in the 2003 world cup final, despite England's dominance, yet it was nothing compared with NZ's dominance over the French in the semi and the French still won. With history against them, do England have any chance at all? Also, the Aussies, the only team to defend and get to the final of the following world cup, if England make it to the final, do they then become the greatest ever defenders of the RWK crown, seeing as that both the RWC finals concerning England's defence were outside England?