Mark Watson

It's the best of the Australian team.

They come here, they're going to play in New Zealand, they're going to get beaten, they're going to go home.

Yes, we saw the Brumbies, obviously, in the first rounds beat the Crusaders at home.

But we always said this with the Australian teams.

Once you get halfway through the season, the injuries come in, they just simply still don't have the depth.

I still think they're a better competition if they still... As good as the Western force have been, I still think they would be better off just with three teams versus four.

And then I would genuinely...

And saying that, I did think that the Brumbies had a breakthrough victory the other day over the Force, and that might be the turning point in their season.

I think they'd lost four games coming into that one.

Like the Crusaders, the Brumbies, aren't they?

You're never going to rule out a Stephen Larkin coach Brumbies team.

And if for some reason you find yourself playing there in Canberra in the playoffs, not that I think that's mathematically possible, then that's always going to be a scary proposition.

So if you're asking me who the top Australian team is, I'm still going to go with the Brumbies.

Are we placing too much emphasis on under-20s and whether that necessarily has flowed through to the international game?

You can argue perhaps.

Look, I think one of the biggest problems in New Zealand rugby, we've dumbed down the age group representative stuff, haven't we?

No more roller mills here in Auckland.

North Harbour, these teams don't pick under-16, under-18 rep teams anymore.

And I can understand maybe some of it, you know, sometimes size is the big factor at a schoolboy age and maybe just the big kids get picked.

But I also believe you should also have a weight restricted age group representative sides too, particularly under 15s, under 16s, under 17s, so that you do allow for those kids who develop a little bit later physically to get bigger.