Kiwis win: Three key questions

Alex Glenn of New Zealand slips the tackle of Theo Fages and Vincent Duport during the Rugby League World Cup group B match between New Zealand and France. Photo / Getty Images.

APNZ rugby league writer Michael Brown, NZ Herald columnist Chris Rattue and Herald on Sunday rugby league writer Michael Burgess tackle three key questions from the Kiwis 46-0 win over France at the Rugby League World Cup this morning.

The scoreline suggested a comprehensive victory against France but was it a good performance from the Kiwis?

Brown: Not particularly. They were very good in some areas, like their defence and kicking game which produced a handful of tries, but sloppy in a number of aspects. They struggled to complete their sets, build pressure and their execution of set-pieces was poor. This was a poor French outfit, despite the fact they are ranked fourth in the world, and offered very little and the Kiwis didn't take total control until the final 30 minutes. The good thing is they won comfortably and emerged with seemingly no fresh injuries, and that's important in a long campaign.

Rattue: Don't know about the team, but it was an absolutely fabulous performance form Issac Luke, as good a dummy half display that I can remember from a Kiwi. Luke should be celebrated more than he is in New Zealand. It was a good enough performance by the Kiwis - it is sometimes hard to sustain things against lesser opposition.

Burgess: It was a solid performance but still far from what will be required in the latter stages. France - who were lifted by a fantastic home crowd - were always going to tire in the last 20 minutes. Before that, when the contest was on, there were scrappy elements to the Kiwis' game and too many errors.

How does New Zealand's progress stack up against main rivals England and Australia?

Brown: They are doing OK in this respect. Australia were dreadful in the first half against England but improved as the match wore on and England let slip a golden chance to upset the Kangaroos. There have been some interesting results in this World Cup but it will still come down to the Big Three and there is still plenty of time for them to get their games together before the semifinals and final.

Rattue: Don't think any great form guide has emerged from the tournament - it's still going to come down to how the big three perform on the day, the main difference being that England need all of their big guns on board.

Burgess: On a par, as all three teams have room to improve. England and Australia have had the benefit of that tough match against each other but still have issues to ponder; for the English, their second half fade, for the Kangaroos their slow start.

With a handful of position up for grabs, who might have done enough to push their way into the first-choice squad?

Brown: Ben Matulino (196m) demands selection in the prop rotation and offers a little more than the likes of Sam Moa. The second centres position is still up for grabs but should go to Krisnan Inu because Bryson Goodwin doesn't look convincing at this level. Kevin Locke had a mixed night and didn't do enough to displace Josh Hoffman and Jason Nightingale doesn't have enough weapons to be selected ahead of Roger Tuivasa-Sheck and Manu Vatuvei.

Rattue: The most interesting question, apart from a hole in the centres, is Ben Matulino. Both the Warriors and Kiwis seem reluctant to give him his full due as one of the best props in the game. There doesn't seem to be the confidence in him that existed last year. Goodwin made some amends but still doesn't look like a genuine test centre...the jury still out there. Players like Locke, Nightingale and Glenn didn't do enough.

Burgess: Krisnan Inu looks more focussed than at any other stage in his Kiwis career, and might be favoured now for the second centre berth alongside Dean Whare. He is good in the air, a better defender than Bryson Goodwin and a top back up goal lkicking option. Ben Matulino has probably moved ahead of Sam Moa while Roger Tuivasa-Sheck is now the number one winger.