I'm not, you understand, suggesting that the likes of Sailor, Gidley, Clyde and Lockyer weren't outstanding players. They really were. Just that in terms of the 13 guys on the pitch, I've never seen such devastating professionalism. They haven't conceded a try in 5 games, against international opposition !!

Two examples to pick out, but any number could be quoted :

1) Brett Morris's try involved an astonishing one-handed reverse pass out of a tackle, some superb footwork to create a gap, a deft kick delivered at full speed, and then a further kick which was attempted - and executed perfectly - after a dab forward when trying to regather. Each one of those actions was completed by men who probably had possession of the ball for less than two seconds, and was moving at speed under pressure from a dogged NZ cover defence. Yet despite that pressure, and that lack of time for thought and deed, each Aussie player did exactly the right thing. On a good day, England might have managed to pull off one of those actions. But never all at once. We just don't have the skill.

2) With about 10 minutes to go, NZ were pressing in the Aussie 30 metres zone. They actually put on some decent passing moves towards the right wing, with dummy runners and good pass selection. They also shifted the ball across the pitch with real width and speed. If they'd launched that sort of attack against England, they'd have been odds on to find an overlap, or beat a man, and score. Yet the Aussie line simply drifted across, communicating calmly, not getting sucked in, and making every tackle count. The Kiwis never even looked remotely likely to score. And this is after 70 minutes, with the game won, when English players would be dropping the intensity. I commented at the time that it seemed like the Aussies had 20 men on the pitch, not 13. Seconds later, the excellent Vossy called it as 21 ! It was astonishing.

In addition, did the Aussies make a single error until Slater's knock-on in the tackle (possibly helped by a Kiwi tackler) in the 37th minute ?

I'm not saying this team had all the best players ever. I'm saying that they were the strongest team I've seen. And I genuinely do believe that they were playing the strongest NZ and England sides we've had for many a year. If they're going to keep that standard up, we're going to have to hold international competitions without them !

He's not doing a man by man individual comparison.

As a team performance that was one of the best in the games history.

Each one of those aussie tries took devastating skill and execution to score (bar maybe the intercept at the end) because the NZ defence wasn't poor.

They were near unplayable.

With hindsight, it probably worked out well for england, going out ''bravely'' last week to the then world champions, because had they won it would have been another depressing dose of reality.

As an Aussie who's been following RL since the late 70s, I don't try to compare across the decades. This team was the best available this year. By the 30-minute mark they completely owned the middle of the paddock. Forwards were running 10 metres to the tacklers then getting another 5 metres after the contact. This shows outstanding levels of fitness and commitment.

One of the best examples of commitment was Vatuvei's run down the touch line. There were 4 or 5 OZ players there to push him into touch - and they wer already 20 points ahead. Sure Vatuvei ran the wrong line but the inside defenders still made the effort to get there.

As for the quality of Brit players, fan and pundit surveys in AUS media regularly include Sam Burgess in the Top 10 and usually Graham in the Top 15.

Difficult to argue with what has been said a very clinical aussie machine a fully deserving the title of world champions.

Agree that they are probably the best Aussie side as a complete unit in the last 10 years. But not the best ever. Individually the 2000 World Cup side was better, Trent Barrett could only get on the bench.
The 82 invincible's where light years ahead of GB RL. And the 86 side was the core of the 82 side with some more outstanding players added. The GB side of the 86 series was very good, and was vastly superior to the aged side of 82. We had an outstanding crop of players coming through. Hanley, Schofield, Crooks,Lydon, Gill, ward, Myler, Gregory( third test). And scored some outstanding tries in that series but where still well Beaten, we should have one the 3rd test but for the worst penalty try in history.
All things being equal ( full time modern training nutrition etr) the 86 side was the best side ever never mind Australia. Mal meninga only on the bench for the fist two tests. Brett Kenny and gene miles centre Lewis and sterling in the half's crusher cleal. Whoah

I think so too. The current lot are much fitter and with weight training and diet regimes building up muscle mass. This area can be built on by players.

But skill can't be trained into players.

Skillful halves could have opened up that Ozzie defence.

How many short kicks where there to turn the first line of defence ? Short grubbers.

The Australians have 13 loose forwards on the field now with all the bodybuilding modern players do. They try to suffocate other teams and succeed.

This current crop individually aren't great, but they play as a team. Quite a few are, thankfully for us, at the wrong end of their playing careers.

Interesting viewpoint.

IMO wrong on so many levels but I understand why you think that way.

Chris Anderson called the 2000 team "The Dream Team", but IMO the 2008 is the best ever, they really missed Steven Price and Brent Tate in the Final, and they were complacent in defence in the Final as they knew they were so good.

272-24 (45-6) over 6 games.....4 tries conceded v England and 2 penalty's, one v Fiji and one v NZ. They may not be the best Aussie team ever but they have been pretty dominant at this tournament.

Compare their record to the other 7 Quarter finalists....

Kiwis 208-90 (35-15)
England 148-66 (30-13)
Fiji 68-150 (14-30)
Scotland 84-102 (21-25)
USA 64-120 (16-30)
Samoa 88-74 (22-19)
France 21-112 (5-2icon_cool.gif

They are streets ahead of everyone.....

Well I have only been watching the game for nigh on 60 years, so I will make errors.

But more to the point is that past players like Wally Lewis, Brett Kenny and Gene Miles, had that 'something' that cannot be coached. They had supreme skills on the rugby field.

The current ozzie team are short on skills, but are super fit athletes. That's why the final looked quite boring to some.

Lewis, Kenny and Miles could 'open up' any rugby teams defence and with great flair.

No no no. There is no way you could argue that this team are "short on skills". Did you not see their tries ? The passing at full speed ? The lines which were run ? Is tackling and defensive movement not a skill, because this team were very good at it. They were up against Foran and Johnson, who are no slouches at opening up good defences, yet who couldn't find a crack. Isaac Luke ripped England to pieces down the ruck, yet was squashed. SBW has been named the best forward in the world, and has freakish skills, yet was utterly neutralised.

Yet when the Aussies had the ball, they made yards through their perfect timing, they created overlaps, they were aware of when it was best to pass and when it was best to kick, and they exercised those skills with consistent excellence. Not just the halves, or a star forward, but the whole team. And that's before we get to Thurston's kicking game !

Again, I'd suggest that the reason we remember players like Cleal, Meninga, Clyde, is because they stood out as uniquely skilful in their respective teams. That fewer stood out on Saturday seems to me to be because ALL the Aussie players were playing to an outstanding standard. Would those stars of the past have stood out as much in today's team ?

Who knows, but it is a terrible disservice to those guys to describe them as simply super-fit drones without skill. They had plenty of skill. Plenty.

Do I sense an iota of irony here ?

Your comment of 'simply super-fit drones without skill' sums the current ozzie team succintly.

Best performance since the 2004 Tri-Nations final.

What utter nonsense.

So Slater, Inglis, Thurston, Smith, Hayne etc are only good players because they are super-fit?

I haven't read the whole thread but IMO, Thurston is better than Lockyer, and Fitler

If that were the case anyone could do it.
If that were the case the Kiwi team who all play in the same comp at the same level would have been close.
So the whole problem with the Welsh team is they were not fit enough?

Slater has the odd error in him, but is a brilliant conductor from the back and is one of the better broken field players in the history of the game - but he has no skill. Cronk and Thurston can drop the ball on a dime, but that's just pushups and shuttle runs. Smith has so much time to create plays because he's super fast, not because he has great vision and reads the game probably better than anyone in the last 20 years.

Yes, they are possibly the fittest Kangaroos side ever. Yes they had an incredibly simple game plan.
But they played with precision and poise that no amount of fitness and practice could provide alone. The passing, the silky touches, the split second reaction to the unexpected - [ithat's[/i skill.

The precision of everything they did was awesome. The kicking game in particular was light years ahead of anything else seen in the tournament. I'm struggling to think of a wasted kick in the whole 80.

As others have said, there may well be better individual players in previous generations, but that's as complete a team performance as I've ever seen live.

Billy Slater, Greg Inglis and Johnathan Thurston would be rated equal to the best backs Australia has ever had (the Immortal Andrew Johns excepted).

Jarryd Hayne, having been repositioned at centre, could well turn out to be one of the best international centres Australia has ever produced (he kept Michael Jennings, Brent Tate and Josh Morris out of the team).

It was good that Tim Sheens apparently said in his half-time team talk - to run harder and tackle harder. That's what every sensible coach at every level has ever said. That's 99% of what any team, anywhere has to do to win a game of RL. The rest of it is B*****t. We seem to have lost sight of how simple RL is in Britain. As I have said umpteem times we are fixated with people who are flash rather than efficient teams and team players who work away and largely go unnoticed.

All that on one game - you really are a silly old windbag at times.

But hey you're a legend in your own head so how dare a mere mortal question your arrogant assumptions.

Better than us certainly but far from unbeatable, get a grip.

It wasn't on one game. I explicitly referenced their performances across the whole competition.

Nor did I make any assumptions. Merely offered an opinion.

Most people on this thread have managed to offer their own opinion, either in agreement or disagreement, in a civil, rasonable manner. Like adults discussing something of interest.

You decided to just go straight for the personal insults. Nicely done. Congratulations on your contribution.

The way this discussion has gone reminded me of a video clip from a popular video clip site.

Searching for something like "Jarryd Hayne's Freakish Chip" could bring something up.

Always thought Thurston was overrated,( in an all time list) very very good but not great, my opinion has changed over this World Cup I now think he is up there with the very best, 3 rd behind Johns and sterling for me now, ahead of Langer. And he still as a few years ahead of him.

2013
Australia conceded 4 tries all tournament....272-24.......45-4 average WINNERS

2008.
Australia conceded 3 tries in pool play (9 in total)186-50....37-8 average SECOND

2000
Australia 3 tries in pool play (11 in total)...308-58 over 6 games...51-10 average WINNERS

89-92
Australia conceded 11 tries over 5 games......214-54...... 43-11 average WINNERS

980-186..........44-8 average.

I'd say that based on the last 4 RLWC's the current champions are the most efficient with an average winning margin of 41 points and conceding only 1 try per game on average.....in reality, 5 games they conceded no tries! The 2000 side did score more points, but the 2013 side did face far more professional players from the NRL/SL representing Fiji/Ireland/USA than they did in 2000.

The depressing thing is that even with their loss in 2008, they are the most dominant force in International sport that I can think of....