Amid all the lopsided contests in the World Cup's first weekend, it's worth noting that there have been few real slaughters. Nor, with the obvious exception of the already decided Pool A, where Uruguay and Spain are liable to be hopelessly outclassed by South Africa and Scotland, might there be subsequently.

It's a truism of rugby that defences, along with set-piece games, are comparatively easier to organise and certainly the least influenced by sheer ability and talent. So it's been that the majority of the underdogs, or the unofficial third division, have thus far been able to push up aggressively, make the hits and generally make the established nations work that bit harder for their scores.

The Argentinians and the Canadians ruffled the Welsh and the French, even the Tongans harassed the All Blacks (making a mockery of the 68-point handicap bet) and to a degree the States tackled hard against Ireland.

The net result is that the favourites' have had to be that extra bit sharper in their decision-making to penetrate them, and scores haven't thus far come as easily as expected. The first round of games have also given a sizeable pointer as to who the best third-placed side might be, and therefore most probably Ireland's play-off opponents, on the proviso that Ireland qualify from Pool E as runners-up.

Uruguary did not run up a cricket score against Spain, and as they are unlikely to even breach the try-lines of either Scotland or South Africa, the chances of them sneaking into the play-offs as the best third placed side have already been greatly removed.

Even more interestingly, neither Tonga nor Italy in Pool B, nor the US or Romania managed even double figures in their opening games. By comparison, Fiji ran up an unexpectedly high tally of 67 against Namibia, while Canada even managed a credible 20 points against the French. With the Namibians looking like the proverbial whipping boys in Pool C, and the French far from penurious in defence, the chances are that the third placed team in this group will have a very healthy points tally.

Similarly, in Pool D, the early demarcation lines suggest that Samoa and Argentina will be vying for second and third place at least (with Japan likely to end up pointless) and will also have a significant points tally in their favour. It may even be that Samoa could topple the Welsh, but either way, although a draw in any of the five pools could suddenly change the landscape, the initial prognosis hints that the best third-placed side will be one of the aforementioned quartet - i.e. Canada, Fiji, Argentina or Samoa.

Would Ireland prefer the additional hassle of meeting one of these teams in Lens just four days before a possible quarter-final at home to France, as opposed to meeting Wales in Cardiff as group winners? All the more so as the Fijians or Canada will have been based in France for several weeks already?

It's still debatable as to which is the more preferable quarter-final opponent for Ireland in any case. Wales seem the more likely to improve from a first, clearly nervous, opening game at home. Yet they are far from unbeatable.

Yet the French looked like a side with too much pressure on them last Friday evening and, as an imposing cauldron, the Millennium Stadium may even be a tad over-rated. Sure, with the roof closed, and Max and Shirley doing their stuff, the noise was deafening.

But once the game got going it was quite muted. They too may be suffering from the advent of `occasion crowds' as witnessed at Twickenham and Lansdowne Road amongst many other venues in recent years.

Cardiff on Friday was memorable in so many ways, but least of all as a rugby match. They seemed hopelessly disorganised, or should that be hopelessly organised? On arrival in Cardiff Airport last Friday morning, there wasn't a taxi to be found or even ordered.

As for the French, TV evidence suggests their lack of confidence is still palpable, particularly Thomas Castaignede (who is essentially a confidence player). A shoulder injury and a slow service, making Fabien Galthie's absence even more mystifying and a sign of bad management, didn't help. In addition, the French backs still looked to be playing a game from the 70s, running across field with no-one prepared to straighten the line. However, with the introduction of Christophe Llamaison at out-half (and Castaignede's switch to full-back) France's house was immediately in better order, and the kick up the derriere given to Emile N'tamack by way of his demotion to the replacements' bench seemed to have worked. You still wouldn't know what shape they could arrive at Lansdowne Road for the quarter-finals in.

The signs are though that Ireland aren't even thinking in terms of which is the more preferable knock-out route. Though the management are still being coy, and the team selection is being delayed until the stated deadline of 48 hours before kick-off, i.e. next Friday, more revealing may have been comments by the players.

Regarding next Sunday's match, Dion O'Cuinneagain twice made references last week to the Australians in a manner that, at the very least, suggested he would be playing in the game. Ditto Keith Wood the next day. The signs are that Ireland will go for this game in time-honoured fashion, and that is probably the better route to take, certainly if they want to get the country behind them and put into practice the ultra-positive messages they've been privately preaching.

The Australians suffer under the illusion (dilusion?) that Lansdowne Road is a seething cauldron - courtesy of the '91 quarterfinal - but the rest of us know better. Most times it isn't and in point of fact Ireland's record against the leading nations at home in the 90s is abysmal. This Sunday, the Irish rugby public would want to get their act together.

For sure, the colourful, visiting Australians will.