The presence of the British and Irish media corps, though it is shrinking slightly in numbers given the Lions are a dead duck facing into a dead rubber, was too good an opportunity to miss.

So the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) availed of the chance to present their case for staging the 2011 World Cup during the week.

Their staging of this New Zealand-Lions series has been - a few bumps apart - a useful dry run and in most ways an undoubted success. Yet ironically, in view of the hostility Alastair Campbell's presence here caused, their presentation, despite the slick brochure, darkened room and accompanying slides, was a little short on specifics and did not appear to woo a sceptical media corps. Style over substance, you might say.

It was almost emotional in tone. Unsurprisingly, an impressive array of people lent their backing to the bid; the likes of All Blacks legend Colin Meads, inaugural World Cup-winning captain David Kirk, current captain Tana Umaga, actor Sam Neill, 2004 Olympic cycling gold medallist Sarah Ulmer, and, more significantly and weightily, prime minister Helen Clark and the New Zealand government.

There was also, by the way, an anti-doping pledge that "there is no cleaner country in world sport".

Their formal bid document will be competing with those from Japan and South Africa when the 24 executive members of the International Rugby Board (IRB) make their decision in Dublin next November.

Needless to say, their bid "emphasises the rich heritage and history of New Zealand rugby", according to the NZRU chairman and former All Black Jock Hobbs. "We may be a small country, but we make up for that in many ways - we are a stadium of four million people."

Trevor Mallard, the minister for sport and recreation, pledged the government's support, and maintained this support is guaranteed even if this year's general election prompts a change of government.

With the backing of the government, Chris Moller, the CEO of the NZRU, said that "New Zealand understands and accepts its liability for tender costs, tournament costs and host-union costs. We have prepared a realistic budget."

Moller also highlighted the double tax treaty between New Zealand and Ireland, where the IRB and RWCL are based, would provide relief from tax on business profits "and will limit to 10 per cent tax on any income classified as royalties".

However, on the more pressing concerns of New Zealand's infrastructure, accommodation for up to 60,000 visitors and stadia capacity, the presentation was somewhat vague. With regard to accommodating so many supporters, Moller pointed to the hiring of 1,800 camper vans during the Lions series and the use of two cruise ships as examples of New Zealand's "ingenuity".

Likewise, he cited two proposals for increasing the 47,500 capacity at Auckland's Eden Park (putative venue for the semi-finals and final) to either 55,000 or 60,000, at a cost of 130 million New Zealand dollars.

Only when asked did he then mention vague plans to upgrade other venues.

But given the need to play at least three of the quarter-finals in other venues if Auckland is not be overloaded and the tournament is to be properly spread around, the surfeit of 30,000-seat stadiums might well be overstretched and ill-suited to accommodating a World Cup.

Granted, Moller pointed out that the primary source of profits from a venture such as the World Cup would be broadcasting rights and multinational sponsorship.

No one doubts the quality of New Zealand's coverage of their number one sport - they even have a 24/7 dedicated rugby channel - but time differences place their bid at a disadvantage, for it will mean games being screened with early-morning kick-offs in Europe.

Hobbs also pointed out that, though a World Cup might mean more than double the visitors, unlike the Lions tour supporters would be based around the islands rather than in one location.

"And clearly six years is quite a long time for building additional hotels and upgrading infrastructure."

Indeed, six years' notice ought to give New Zealand time to improve all these aspects.

There will be a moral argument for spreading the gospel by having the 2011 finals in Japan, where the infrastructure is in place and they've co-hosted the 2002 football World Cup (while South Africa will have hosted that event in 2010). Yet this is a somewhat bogus claim, for as the football World Cup in the US in 1994 proved, hosting such an event doesn't necessarily have any significant spin-offs for non-traditional hosts. One ventures most of Japan would be blissfully unaware of the event taking place.

The suggestion by Moller that if New Zealand doesn't host the 2011 finals it might never do may have had an element of truth in it, but there was a hint of blackmail in this too, which didn't go down well.

Nonetheless, there's also a genuine advantage in having the finals in an English-speaking country - given it is the language of seven of the world's top eight Test teams - which will embrace the tournament almost en bloc.

And as South Africa staged the RWC in 1995, there's also a moral argument for giving New Zealand hosting rights for the first time since the inaugural, 1989, tournament - when no one else was willing to do so.

For ultimately, no country has given more to the game than New Zealand.