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.

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.