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 (5-28)

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.