DAVID Kirk, New Zealand's only World Cup-winning captain, has ridiculed the Wallabies' scrum by comparing props Guy Shepherdson and Matt Dunning to Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Kirk, the halfback who led the All Blacks to victory at the inaugural World Cup in 1987, delighted in lampooning the much-criticised Wallabies pack when he was part of a forum at the Far West Children's charity function at the Tattersalls Club yesterday.

Kirk joined 1991 Australian World Cup-winning captain Nick Farr-Jones, Wallabies World Cup-winning hooker Phil Kearns and Australia's victorious coach in 1999, Rod Macqueen, in discussing who will win the upcoming tournament in France.

While Farr-Jones, Kearns and Macqueen pushed the Wallabies, Kirk scoffed at suggestions the All Blacks would suffer their traditional World Cup yips that have caused them so much heartbreak over the past two decades.

Kirk argued that there would be only one winner - New Zealand. He said that the Wallabies would be shackled by their considerable up-front weaknesses, noting their props struggled against formidable packs, such as those of the All Blacks, the Springboks and the leading northern hemisphere countries.

Kirk said the Wallabies had been given a considerable advantage at the scrums in recent times, primarily because they had "generally been bailed out by referees".

He said officials had helped the Wallabies by repeatedly penalising opponents for dubious scrum infringements, and that Australia were at a advantage whenever the set-piece "degenerated into a wrestle".

"I don't actually think it's a very strong scrum, but it's a better scrum than what it was. But Tweedledum and Tweedledee, number one and three, just aren't really good enough," said Kirk, the chief executive of Fairfax Media.

While the Wallabies' coaching staff insist the Australian scrum has improved markedly since they took over from Eddie Jones, the claim is derided by opponents, in particular New Zealanders, who don't rate the Wallabies pack.

Kirk was too shrewd to dismiss the Wallabies in France. "Australia are a very mature team, with a great mental attitude," he said. "So you know for sure Australia can play the big match, because they are tactically savvy and possess a lot of mental composure. Unless you have a tough pool, you only have to win two games to win the World Cup. The semi-final and final, and that's it.

"If New Zealand had played Australia 10 times at various grounds around the world this year, New Zealand would have won seven or eight of them. That leaves two or three - and one of those could be the World Cup final. It is that competitive at the top of world rugby. But, fundamentally, it still revolves around whether the tight five is good enough."

That is the big question, and Farr-Jones admits he has the same concerns.

"The Wallabies will be competitive, and they're getting better," Farr-Jones said. "But my antenna does go up nervously because of that scrum. If you look at the five winners of the World Cup, they all have had reasonably dominant scrums."

Even Kearns, who this week earned the ire of his trans-Tasman neighbours by arguing that the All Blacks would not get to the semi-finals in France, conceded he wasn't entirely convinced about the Wallabies pack. "The Australian pack can be competitive at breakdown and lineout time. At scrum time, we're hanging on … and the referee does have a major impact," Kearns said.

As the panel discussion continued, Farr-Jones began to side more and more with the All Blacks. He believed that their Bledisloe Cup loss in Melbourne was the one any World Cup team needed in the lead-up to regain their focus. His main fear was that the All Blacks will now enjoy a long succession of victories … "and that really pisses me off".

But Kirk gave the brutal warning that if the All Blacks lost at this World Cup, life in New Zealand would basically cease.

"It is a very black and white outcome for the New Zealand public. If you win, fantastic, if you lose, you just don't come home."