Winning Bulls = Dominant Boks?

Kiwi pundits like to point out that Super 14 success doesn't translate into international success... but that's only true for Kiwi teams. For South Africa, there seems to be a direct correlation. Look at the history:

2006 - Bulls scrape into 4th place, the only SA qualifier, and the Springboks have a disastrous year, including a record 49-0 loss to Australia.

2007 - Bulls and Sharks dominate the league and compete for the Final. Springboks win the World Cup.

2008 - Sharks are the sole SA semi-finalists, the Bulls come in 10th. SA has another terrible Tri-Nations, including a loss to Australia on home soil - the first since 2000.

2009 - The Bulls destroy all before them, as do the Boks, beating the All Blacks in all 3 fixtures of the year.

So, with 2010 again looking like the year of two SA finalists (Bulls and Stormers), what chance do the All Blacks have? South African teams have destroyed their New Zealand counterparts... ignoring the Lions, of course. The Stormers have won all 5 games, the Bulls are poised to go 4-1, the Sharks are 3-2, even the lowly Cheetahs are 2-2! Victories on New Zealand soil are coming thick and fast for the Saffas, and that can only translate into success for the Boks.

So, another Tri-Nations trophy in the Bok closet seems a historical inevitability. The only question is, are the Boks peaking to soon? The World Cup is next year and can Smit, Matfield and co. really sustain the momentum? The Stormers pack, featuring just one regular Springbok starter, are maybe proof that it doesn't really matter. SA has the depth of talent to dominate for years to come - just ask the Kiwi's who they fear worse now, Matfield or Bekker.