All of which sounds quite a reasonable theory behind the unflattering efforts we've witnessed from England, Ireland, Scotland, Italy and, to an extent, Wales over the past couple of weeks but let us put forward another reason why Europe's elite six have played like drains in this World Cup . . . none of them are actually that good. Before we get accused of some sort of Six Nations treason, allow us to explain the logic behind our statement. Certainly, there's no argument that a September World Cup is a little early in the normal European season but it's important to remember that where most players in the northern hemisphere would usually be back in pre-season training in late July, this season they were all back lifting weights, running up hills and what not in the last week in June.

If we follow the logic that the vast majority of Europe's international players started their pre-season a month earlier than they normally do, this season's September is effectively last season's October. Therefore this weekend's equivalent last season, the third of the month, would have been the first weekend of the Heineken Cup, a point in the calendar where Irish teams, and others across the continent, like to think they're well beyond the point of early-season rustiness.

But what about the fact that the Six Nations are facing teams, unlike say in the Heineken Cup, that have gone through entirely different preparations?

It would be an extremely valid argument were it not for the fact that the teams the northern-hemisphere countries have struggled against haven't all been from the Tri-Nations. Ireland, for example, were awful against both Georgia and Namibia, one side whose season mirrors ours and another who have such a collection of amateurs in their ranks that it doesn't really matter what season they play their rugby in. It's a similar situation for the English, who couldn't get a bonus point against a US side who haven't been playing rugby all summer, and Wales, who struggled to bat aside a Canadian team in the same situation.

The team that renders this argument completely dead in the water is Argentina. All their professional players play in Europe, they conform to a northernhemisphere season and yet they can go out and beat France at the Stade de France.

Which brings us back to our original point, namely the European sides at this moment in time simply aren't very good. Have a think about it.

Scotland are a well-organised side with a big back-row and a consistent goal-kicker but they're utterly predictable. Italy are organised along similar lines, albeit without a competent kicker and, again, you'd struggle to describe them as anything other than average, a notch below that if you happened to witness their efforts against Portugal on Wednesday.

Wales, meanwhile, are the European side with the richest attacking potential but their light pack struggle to get them enough ball to cause the damage they're capable of. Ireland, while stronger than those teams already mentioned, have, bar about five specific games, performed little better than average over the past two seasons. England have been damn awful in that same period and, indeed, there's a decent argument that Ireland have only become the second best side in Europe because of the sheer confusion surrounding the international set-up across the water.

All of which leaves France, and here's where you have to laugh. Rugby's great dilettantes have since the last World Cup, through some kind of weird cosmic realignment, become the most consistent team in Europe. And even they, as proved against Argentina at the start of the tournament, are still prone to the odd blip in performance. So enough moaning, please, all you northern hemisphere rugby stakeholders. Your product at the moment just isn't very good and that would apply no matter where you placed it. Roll on a South Africa-Argentina and All Blacks-Australia set of semi-finals.

They all deserve it. And here's to a better crop of Six Nations teams in New Zealand four years hence.