I think more than anything what cost us the game was that 3 of the 4 all-time great, world class players they had to call on (Thurston, Slater and Inglis) produced match-winning plays when they were most needed. Along with Cameron Smith who wasn't as good as he can be (but still very, very good) these players will at least stand mentioning in the same breath as the best I've seen in their positions in 25 years.

That we don't have players quite at that level is not the fault of the coach or the 17 players who played at the weekend.

I think you totally miss the point re Charnley. How I read the post was that to single out the usual 1 player is daft. Especially when its easy to pick fault at individuals. A lot have picked out Sini for no other reason than it is him or that a player can't be international class if they are not quick. There were others who stood out more so than Kev who made individual errors, but is it there fault? Not in my opinion. It's easy to point fingers. But ultimately errors and discipline cost us against a team with too much quality to give them that amount of free ball.

The one individual I'd pick on is Westwood. Comical errors and soft penalties galore, yet he's one of the players to have played most recently in a GF so no excuse for rustiness compared to others, and he's very experienced. Out of ten he'd be close to zero for me. It was the sort of performance people were worried about Hock making.

I believe his mother had died suddenly a few days before so whether the lad was in the right state to be on the pitch in the first place is open to question.

That's all very here and now.

Thurston is a great player though and can be regarded in the same category as previous Aussie greats.

Buderus and Smith, there is nothing that Smith adds other than kicking to what Buderus had. If anything I don't think Smith has quite reached Buderus yet, but they are very close. Certainly Smith does not add "so much more".

Inglis is a great athlete, whome the many say is better at fullback then centre. But he isn't the be all and end all since Meninga. There have been a lot of great athletic centres equally as good in that period. Likes of Miles, Iro, Blackmore, Renouf, even Folau and he not swithed would have been in the same category. Other than weak Tomkins attempt on Saturday our two centres had Inglis well under control.

Not convinced again that Slater is the best fullback ever. He is very good, but does have weaknesses. Minnichello in his day was equally very good. Brett Webb as an example before injury was every bit like Slater. But there have been others also, without the same platform to demonstrate how good they are.

I agree but if he ever backs away from Billy Slater from a scrum again he needs a good dry slap.

We've got, potentially, the best pair of centres I can remember. The only problem, apart from them regularly seeing quality ball, is that neither of them appear to recognise just how good they are.

They are not in the same league as Senior, Gleeson or Connolly.

RG-Connolly and Senior were outstanding centres and to be fair Gleeson had 3 good seasons but Cudjoe and Watkins are much more dynamic and explosive than Gleeson ever was imo.
Plus both of the new lads have time on their side to improve further.

Every winger who played outside Gleeson scored tries by the bucketful.

Edit

Gleeson is one of the most over rated players ever. Don't recall more than a couple of good seasons from him. He was the equivalent of a Phil Hassan type player. Bothe Watkins and Cudjoe at this age are far superior to him.

Schofield (has there ever been a better centre) & Lydon (just a natural, gifted complete player).