Australia have been wrapped in splendid isolation in Montpellier this month, a city in the south of France a few miles from the Mediterranean which has been basking in temperatures of more than 80 degrees Fahrenheit since the Wallabies arrived.
They left yesterday, grudgingly for some reason, for a city on the sea, Cardiff, where they face their main group rivals Wales at the Millennium Stadium today. Australia have spent most of the year cursing the paradox of a tournament which is being hosted by France having games in Wales and Scotland.
Montpellier has been both warm and friendly for the Wallabies. Their luxury hotel is tucked away from the main drag but is within easy walking distance of an arcade bulging with designer brand shops and a broad, pedestrianised avenue filled with outdoor restaurants and market stalls. Only the distant ringing of tram bells interrupts the gentle hum of conversation.
Heat of a different sort awaits them in the Welsh capital. The University of Montpellier is one of the oldest in France: its alumni include Nostradamus, but it would not have taken his powers to predict the reaction of the Australian Rugby Union chief executive John O'Neill to the Wallabies having to play Wales at the Millennium Stadium.
"Why the hell are we playing in Cardiff on Saturday?" he asked. "The host nation is France, yet Wales and Scotland get home ground advantage for important games when you are supposed to be talking about competitive neutrality. It is not fair. The French promised matches to Wales, Scotland and Ireland as they battled with England for the right to host the tournament. The most successful World Cups were South Africa in 1995 and Australia in 2003. The tournament should be played exclusively in one country."
O'Neill is spot on. The International Rugby Board originally insisted that the World Cup this year would be a stand-alone tournament, that is it would be held only in one country. England and France both submitted bids to that effect, but the French, at the 11th hour and with the connivance of the Board, offered matches to the Celtic unions in return for their votes. Wales, citing an agreement with France in 1999, pressed for, and got, a quarter-final.
So, of course, Australia supported England back in 2002? Er, no. Only Canada voted for Twickenham. O'Neill should accept his share of the blame for this year's event not being staged in one country. And another thing: he cited the 2003 tournament, which Australia staged, as one of the model World Cups. It was superbly run, better even than 1995, and its success was in no small measure due to his leadership.
But it was only by accident that Australia staged the event alone. They had originally awarded New Zealand co-host rights in return for their support in the bidding process, only to withdraw them following a dispute over money in which the IRB became embroiled. It was a messy divorce and O'Neill still has not been forgiven by some on the other side of the Tasman.
New Zealand wanted to stage one pool, rather than the two offered. And who would have faced the prospect of bearding the All Blacks in their own den despite the tournament being hosted by Australia? Wales. At least the Wallabies have sampled the delights of Montpellier; the Welsh would probably have found themselves stuck in Manawatu.
And it could backfire on France. After losing their opening match to Argentina, they face the prospect of a quarter-final against New Zealand - in Cardiff. Only in rugby union could the hosts of a tournament find themselves playing in another country.
