It's become a cliché - almost a reflex - of RL fans on this side of the world to make statements like "This isn't a classic Australian side", or "This is a sub-standard Kangaroos squad" when the green and golds hove into view. Usually such a statement is made in the context of trying to show just how poor the England/GB side is, because they can't even beat a weakened Roos team. I've certainly heard that this time round, and indeed certainly every tournament since the 1995 World Cup.

I'm here to say that such statements are b@llox. Anyone claiming this isn't a superb Kangaroos side is talking out of their Harris, and has no greater value than an old fella moaning that nothing's as good as Van Vollenhoven/Boston/Huddart etc.

The reason I've heard given for why this set of Aussies are "not a classic side" is because they don't have stand-out players like a Lockyer, a Lewis or a Meninga. Cobblers. The reason they don't have particularly stand-out players is because they are ALL stand-out players. It's like saying that the Louvre's collection of art is weak because none of the works stand out.

Smith, Thurston, Cronk, Inglis, Slater, Thaiday, Gallen : these are astonishing athletes and incredible players. All of them, and their team-mates, would walk into any Aussie side I've seen since I started watching in 1982. Some of the skill on display today was breathtaking, and literally unimaginable from an English perspective. Most of their tries simply couldn't have been scored by an English player - we don't have the men with the fleetness of thought, let alone physical reaction, to do what they did. And that's before we get to a defence which hasn't conceded a single try in 400 minutes of Test rugby, against some very talented professional players.

I'm slightly appalled by the quality of the Aussies because I simply don't see where we can challenge that. This is easily the best Kiwi team in decades, and only the regrettable absence of Marshall weakens it significantly. It's also - controversial, I know - the strongest England side we've put out in decades. Maybe we've had better centres in the past, or craftier halves, but never all at the same time and married to a very strong pack. Yet neither the Kiwis nor England are in the same league as the Kangaroos on this showing.

The World Cup has been a wonderful festival of rugby league, with heart-warming moments and pleasure galore. It's shown again that when two sides of comparable ability come up against each other, then RL is an unmatched sporting spectacle. But it's also shown that the gulf between Australia and the rest remains a chasm. It is hard to see how it can be closed.

Salute the kangaroos, and stand in awe. When you're old men, you'll be able to tell your bored grandchildren that you witnessed possibly the best rugby league side ever to grace a field.

I mostly agree. They are certainly the best Kangaroos side in over a decade.

The answer to your question of how to beat them. Like NSW, you wait for those 30 something year old masters of our game retire, and lose in the meantime.

I'd disagree, defensively they are very good, but including today they havent been challenged since playing England

NZ stood off them today giving them room to play, something you cannot do with the Aussies

All different opinions

They are a very very good team. Some people would say the Australian team from the late 80's and early 90's with the likes of Stuart, Daley, Langer, the Walters brothers, Meninga , mark Carroll, E.T. Elias, ETC. But for me its the Team of 2011 with Lockyer in the squad and Cronk on the bench

I think the fact that they looked unchallenged was more to do with how good they were, rather than how poor NZ were. They were effectively so dominant that they looked as if NZ were no more of a threat than the USA, or Ireland. Yet this is the same NZ team who broke English hearts in a heroic game last week which most of us thought was about as high a quality performance as possible.

I think the Aussies made their own room to play, and denied the Kiwis similar space.

Well said.

at least their union team is being beaten

lol

As I said, it seemed to me the Kiwi's didnt take more than 2 steps forward in defence, conceding 8 metres every tackle right from the start, the only way to play the Aussies is to get into their faces, thats what they did in 2008 , and what they did to England last week

All opinions

They've only played 2 'real' tests though, England in Cardiff, and the Kiwis today. Ok they've dispatched the 4th best team in the world more than comprehensively twice but i can't say that this Aussie team ever.

I felt in 2008 they were better but just got caught out in the final. I think the Aussies put 50 past both England and NZ that year.

I have read what has been said but to me the invincible, of the 1980 era were better they went a very long time before they got beat and I am talking about the old test matches they were greats

There have been times in the past when anyone who was fair dinkum would have the best 17 in the world as all Australian, but this time around Burgess, Graham, SBW and possibly a few others are better than their Aus counterparts.
Many of the Aus players are well past their best - Smith, Slater, Bird, Gallen and others are all past their best.

Watching the Kiwis today was like watching England in Tri and Four Nations finals against Australia. They looked beaten at the kickoff, absolutely drained of energy - whether that was nerves of the impact of last week who knows?

This is certainly as good an Australian side as there has been for the last 10-15 years, the only real "weakness" potentially being in the front row where they are nothing special. As for the "best ever", it's hard to compare.

The Invincible sides of 82 and 86 were made to look much better by the paucity of British opposition. It was effectively full time athletes against part time players. The Kiwis were a thorn in their side around that time though, pulling off some good performances with the likes of McGahan, Graham and Filipaina outstanding.

Through the 90s, GB were there or thereabouts against an Australian side featuring legends like Fittler, Daley, Meninga etc, just never being able to string two wins together in the same series.

The current Australian side is very, very good. How many of them would make it into an all time Australian XIII though, which is surely the measure of whether they are the "greatest ever"?

In the early 80's our rugby was so far behind the Aussies it's hard to really judge just how good they were.

We do know that now we have a number of players who are as good if not better than them.

The big difference is how composed and meticulous the Aussies are. They rarely put themselves under pressure, they work their way through their sets, they execute their last play, they make sure everyone is ready for the kick, or they have numbers to defend a kick.

No amazing skills, no standout performances, just 100% composure and execution.

Compare to last week when with 2 mins to go, we got out of position on the 4 th tackle and subsequently put an aimless kick in the air, giving the kiwis field position to get back in our half. No way the Aussies would have put an aimless punt like that with 2 mins to go.

That isn't superstar play, it is very good preparation and mental strength.

Just thinking through the Aus squad, only Inglis, Hayne and a few of the bench guys might still be in the side in 4 years time.
Slater, Smith, Gallen, Thaiday, Bird, Parker, Thurston etc will all be retired, and many of the younger players like Boyd etc are nothing special and will be challenged by other players for their spots.
A couple of injuries and we could see a completely different Australian side in 4 years.

That Australian performance today was simply exceptional. It was one of the best all round rugby league performances I've ever witnessed when you take account of the quality of opponent.

The execution in attack, the discipline in defence and the performance of the pack was something very very special.

We witnessed world champions in every sense of the word today.

Take a bow

There is much of your post that I agree with. The 2013 Kangaroos are a very good team and totally dominated a Kiwi team that many were saying were on their way to another World Cup win when they strolled through their group

What I don’t agree with is the specific status that you apply to certain players. We have been watching International RL for a similar length of time, I started with the 1986 Kangaroos but I watched a lot of the ’78 and ’82 games also

You state that Smith, Thurston, Cronk, Inglis, Slater, Thaiday and Gallen would walk into any Australian team since 1982 (“and their team mates” but I won’t address that bit). I agree about Smith and Slater and probably Inglis but for Thurston to walk into any team means he is better than Wally Lewis from 1986 or Lockyer more recently. While I agree that Thurston is very good, I don’t think he is better than these two (or even Kenny or Fittler)

And for Cronk to walk into any side he would need to be better than Sterling or Langer but, most importantly, better than Andrew Johns. Cronk is a good player but he is simply not better than Andrew Johns

I would take a number of second rowers over Thaiday including Noel Cleal and Bradley Clyde was a better loose forward than Gallen

So, while the 2013 variety of the Kangaroos are a good side, I think only three of them would push for a spot in my all-time Kangaroo team, Smith at hooker, Slater at full back and perhaps Inglis at centre (although he would have very stiff competition from the likes of Gene Miles, Mal Meninga and Steve Rogers to name just a few)

p.s. I don’t think the Louvre was a very good comparison to use as one piece hanging in the Louvre does stand out as the single greatest masterpiece in art

I'd agree with this the NZ pack were hammered from first minute when their prop dropped the ball. In turn their defence couldn't match the same intensity plus just look at Thurston, Cronk and Slater different league likewise NZ didn't create anything through their pivots.

As for the best 17 in the world I think players like James Graham and Sam Burgess if Aussies would be their first choice props.

The teams of the last two decades & further back have been greats, what is to be praised admired & worked towards is the length of time they have been top dogs. GB & NZ trip them up in the odd game. Australian teams have consistanly upped the standard of play, GB & NZ also improve but getting the consistancy of performance is what they do better than us. Frustrating as it is I give them credit for their quality & effort. Lets just try & push on from here & get the numbers of players up to the figures we had when GB regularly beat them then we can give them a run for their money. WELL DONE AUSSIES.

at least the RU Wales v Australia game was a contest.
Some great tries, and a few good brawls also.
I was bored watching RLWC final, but Oz were clinical weren't they ?
Bet we (England) would have scored a try or 2 though.

They're a fantastic team. That Defence has been great, but they were never really tested today. I really think last weeks encounter knocked the stuffing out of NZ, and i think England would have made a better challenge.

That being said, it may just be that Australia were that good! But Fiji x 2, USA, Ireland aren't the best markers to test.

But well done the Aussies, you were excellent today, and the stats don't lie!

I think since I've been watching (2004), they're the best I've seen, but of course I've missed out on many great teams. I suppose the best thing is that the likes of Smith, Slater, Cronk, Thurston, Thaiday, Bird and possibly Hayne and Inglis won't be there in 2017, so we'd have a much better chance of winning and I'd say the tournament would be a bit more open than it was this year. Of course, I wanted more of a contest like 08 was, but take nothing away from the class and quality of the Aus side.

Taking nothing away from the Aussies, but..........

Today, the Kiwi's looked a shadow of the team that took the pitch last week. I think about the brutality of that match and the fact that England pack threw everything including the proverbial kitchen sink at them, made them appear like they had absolutely nothing left in the tank.

That was first international game I've witnessed in a long time that produced an intensity similar to that of an origin game. This is where the Aussies really benefit from the their origin competition, they know how to back up tough matches. We really need the British public to buy into the international origin games, mainly because we just don't have enough players to create possibles vs probables game and the other nations just aren't good enough.

This said, at international level we need to create a scenarios where both finalists have had a tough semi-final. Fiji clearly need more competitive games, in turn creating a stronger identity and sense of unity. Furthermore, England and New Zealand need to play each other during the origin period.

Not the best ever. These guys are good but I reckon out of the two World Cup finals I've seen at Old Trafford, the 2000 team would have beaten this 2013 team (although it would have been a great match).

The 2000 team had Lockyer, Fittler and Johns in it.....sure this team has some fantastic athletes in the back line but in 2000 they had Sailor, Gidley, Girdler and Rogers.

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.