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.

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.