Plenty of experience among the depleted Kangaroos

Just a bit of fun mate.I attempted to draw attention to the authors 739pm post and had mine moderated.

The fuss isn't about size. Scott and Thaiday are probably the same weight but who would you want taking the second tackle hit up in the middle of the field? Ditto Corey Parker. Parker and Thaiday are great players but they're not metre eating props and that's what Australia are missing. Comparing pack weights to determine who has the best forward pack is pointless.

The Kiwis are more experienced at playing at a higher level.... there's no point counting NRL games at International level. It would be like comparing NRL players by how many NSW cup games they have played. You're argument would be something along the lines of - although the Roosters have more NRL experience, Canberra has a bucket load of NSW cup experience so there's nothing to worry about because that means they've played plenty of football. I don't want to be disrespectful mate but the premise of this article is a bit silly.

Thaiday has rarely played well in the front row. He's at his best running wide if the ruck than trying to grind out hard yards. Parker plays in the middle third but isn't a cart horse either. Size isn't the only factor in determining a good prop. Eastwood had a good game and a good season. He plays in the middle like a prop but isn't expected to do the tough 1st - 3rd tackle carries. That's what Australia was lacking and what they don't have in their squad. Another problem caused by injury but exacerbated by poor selection.

Tigerdave - Australia were just completely outmuscled by a much better pack of forwards, there were no excuses indeed the final score flattered Australia 40 - 12 would have been a better indication of what really took place, When I was growing up the old saying was forwards win matches and big games are won up front, but these days everyone seems obsessed with the sexy positions the so called spine. But really nothing has changes, even mediocre spines can look good behind a dominant pack that buys them time ans space and even great spines struggle when they are denied the above playing behind a badly beaten pack.Yes Australia miss Thurston but we miss Matt Scott even more. I thin we will beat England, to me it looked like the same old England last Saturday, the same lazy, sloppy English Super Keague style football,Australia will get past them with grim work ethic and NRL attention to detail but probably not without a scare. But not New Zealand, this tournamenr really is theirs to lose because they have the best squad.

I just googled Matt Scott.I had him at around 125 kg.The guy looks like a truck but your right. Wiki has him at 108 and his cows profile at 106. Must have light bones or something.

Nah,just googled them...apart from the Burgess boys who are 120 k's each,the Pommiie pack aren't bigger than us either..all our forwards are 6' except Sam T. 5' 11" and Robbie F. whose size isn't really a factor anyway..so buggered what the fuss about size is all about..

Eye - Do you have the entire pack plus interchange comparisons 2013 WC vs 2014 FN. We looked small compared to the Kiwis. Perhaps the 2014 props have weaker hip flexors which help to bend the line : )

Firstly Geoff,pretty sure each country picks a squad of 24..that's it,Vaughan and Maguire didn't make the original cut..so no can do.. every member of the Aussie forward pack and bench represented their state in SOO this year..every single member..last week was an inexplicably poor performance,seems like many are confusing that with lack of ability .. Checking weights Tamou 108 kg..M.Scott 110..our World Cup finalist front row...versus A.Woods 110 and S. Thaiday 110...which player in particular is a midget ? True believers time to stand up..

I agree Geoff. The injuries were bad luck but the selections were strange to say the least. One genuine prop in the 17. The part timers were out muscled in the middle third. They're playing an arguably better and more aggressive pack this week. The only other prop coach sheens can call on is Klemmer who has no tests and about 20 NRL games playing about 25 mins per game. Although that's probably 'experienced enough' for Clinno.

Hahahaha....don't take it personally champ. If you write a poorly conceived, thoughtless and blatantly incorrect article people are going to debate it. Fact is that was an EXTREMELY inexperienced team.

I'm with you The Barry - there is nothing in the team selections this week that gives me any more confidence than last week. And I don't really see the point of this article. The loss of Thurston, Scott, Gallen, Slater, Hayne etc was always going to see the Aussies struggle and to dismiss this is just ridiculous. Plus the loss of Inglis and DCE only made things worse. But it's the selections to replace those missing that concerns me - why wouldn't you choose some impact front rowers like Vaughan and Maguire? How can you expect to win against international teams with strong forward packs with a bunch of midgets? There are also serious question marks about ten form of DCE and Smith. Hopefully they can respond against the Poms.

Clinno, There is more international experience in the Kiwi side than the Kangaroos outfit.... that means a hell of a lot more than NRL games.

Tupou, Mansour, Woods, Walker, guerra on debut. Another four with five or fewer tests. Another three with less than 10. So that's 12 of the team who have played 36 tests between them. That's such an experienced line up. Who needs Thurston - 32 tests, Gallen -31, Slater - 25, B Morris 18, Hayne 12, Boyd 17, Watmough 16, m Scott 16, etc? Inglis first test at fullback, DCE first test at 5/8. Just because there were a couple of players who have played a lot of tests doesn't mean the TEAM is experienced. You don't need to dumb anything down you just need to come up with points that make sense. To call that side with 5 debutants "experienced enough" is laughable. You've completely understated the experience and quality of the players out and clearly have no idea how green and inexperienced their replacements are. Not to mention making no allowance for mass changes and no experience playing together.

But I think you are firstly downplaying the ability of the Kiwi side and secondly way over estimating the ability of the Australian team that took the field last week. Australia was always a very big query with so many new changes to key positions before & during the game. They were in real trouble by halftime ! Just have a look at their spine. No fullback, no five eighth, a number nine on his last legs after his worst season in a decade, and a half back missing his normal trump card Slater. Forget how many other caps the rest might have had, they were totally disorganised after 10 minutes of play, and were gone when Inglis didn't come back after halftime ! The Kiwis had their usual enthusiastic & tough working pack and a much more effective bench which served it up to our over rated & disorganised mob. The likes of Lewis Brown, Greg Eastwood, Simon Mannering, Adam Blair always step up at Test time, and look at their halves Foran & Johnson , plus a solid experienced set of outside backs like Whare , Beale, Hiku & Nightingale. The Australian team will struggle to beat the Pommies this week as we have now trained a bunch of them up to NRL standard, and our pack is as weak a pack as I can remember. We still have no five eighth, we still have an out of form 9, and query over the fullback ? What is going to enhance our performance this week ?

you are quite right, one prop and no five eight in the team. To have to rely on DCE at half back is bad enough. He has never performed at rep level and the weekend was no exception. As for Props Woods did a good job, but needs to take it to the next level if he is going to fulfil his potential. Thiaday has played prop for Brisbane and Australia with distinction, but not his preferred position. He had a real off night. To identify all the mid sized forwards is right on the money. How did Papali get selected? The team would flow much better with a recognised regular 6 like Sutton (size and defensive skills), and from a big bopper who had some ability like Vaughan or MacGuire. I like your thinking, Moylan at full back, Ingles in the centres, Bird at 6 (why not we have no other 6) to give the defensive line great shape. I think it's the 30 points that the real issue is. The attack misfired but can only get better with game time together.

It's not the experience that beat the Aussies. Firstly let me congratulate the KIWI's and Steve Kearney..a thorough gentleman. Lets look at the facts though. Johnson has never player to his potential is test matches...the aussies invited him into the contest and let him control the game. Good work from the halfback. Bromich is in the top ranks of props but the lack of defence made him look like a superstar. Eastwood is years past his best, he warms the bench for his club side, when he gets picked in the 17,, and he was let run like Gasnier. I don't rate the NZ side that highly but to be able to put 30 on the Aussies doesn't say a lot for them either. NZ should have come away wth more points. But for a forward pass Bromich would have scored a second try in the first half. The ball was forward but the gap was there even if they passed it next week. Most Australian players should hang their heads in shame after that performance. The gap on the edge of the ruck was Sydney Heads porportion. Our lazy forwards didn't bother covering it and DCE and Jennings just weren't interested in tackling. Personally I'd put Bird at 6 because blind Freddy could see that gap and the Pommy coach would have to be stupid if he didn't try to exploit it. Come on Australia, have some pride int he jumper and in playing for your country. Sheens, Bird, Inglis and Smith spruiked that the team was concentrating on their defence in the lead up to the game. All I can say is thank heavens for that, what would have happened if they didn't.?