International Tests can either go two ways. Last night I saw Samoa and Tonga play an end-to-end Test, full of action while the night before had the Kangaroos and Kiwis playing out a rugged Test, a grind. Both games had pros and cons, for example the joy of seeing a completed set of six and a kick in the Pacific Test was up against the frustration of not seeing the Kiwis fire a shot. Neither Test was better, Test footy can just be played differently.

There was nothing weird about the Pacific Test. It went as many would expect and I was left feeling full to the brim with rugby league, especially after watching Papa New Guinea get up over Fiji for a massive upset win. Both these games were fun to watch and the precise reason why international rugby league, especially these Tests between Pacific nations should be taken to a new level. 

After the Anzac Test though, I was left with a very weird feeling, mainly thanks to the performance of the Kiwis. Australia were too good for the Kiwis with Mal Meninga's impact on the Kangaroos clearly evident, the 'Roos backed up their talk from the week about the pride in the 'Roos jersey etc with a strong performance up front which allowed their slick operators to pull the strings.

Australia were too good, however they weren't any better than 16-0 and Phil Gould might have a point regarding the inability of this Australian team to dominate the Kiwis. 

There is the disappointment of losing countered by some pride in the Kiwis performance. I've got a few issues with how the Kiwis played in attack but the way the Kiwis stayed in the contest and defended for much of this game was nothing less than admirable, then we need to remember all the players that were missing from the Kiwis outfit. Weapons, weapons that would have given the Kiwis some attacking impetus.

It's hard to get mad about the Kiwis' attack when three of their best spine aren't playing, just like it's hard to get mad at Tohu Harris getting beaten one-on-one by a rampant Greg Inglis. Leading into this Test, I was intrigued as to how Shaun Johnson would handle being the only play-maker for the Kiwis and that was intensified throughout the game as it became clear that Jordan Kahu wouldn't do much ball-playing (Kahu was however very strong running the footy and was class in defence #Weird).

I was however treated to what can only be described as a cycle of attacking sets that resembled the Warriors. These sets would end with Johnson having to kick from either 40m-line; a long kick down the throat of an Aussie, or bombs that can't be contested. I've seen those kicks on weekly basis watching the Warriors and unfortunately, Johnson showed a lack of creativity or confidence to really take the game over.

Of course, Johnson was pretty much a lone figure so he can hardly be blamed, plus the Kiwis forwards were dominated. Johnson didn't fire any shots, Kenny Bromwich isn't the best dummy half and Kodi Nikorima was a passenger, thanks largely to the fact that the Kangaroos ran for 1,672m and the Kiwis ran for 1,167m.

Jesse Bromwich played 58 minutes and had 13 carries for 99m.

Paul Gallen played 56 minutes and had 22 carries for 224m.

One Kiwi (Jason Taumalolo with 114m off 13 carries) ran for over 100m, while Australia had four.

Two of those 100m players came off the bench for Australia (Josh MCGuire and James Tamou).

The Kiwis have been able to get over the Kangaroos in recent years because their forwards have trampled their opposition. While the Kiwis' defence and effort were admirable, they lost this Test because the Kangaroos' forwards were well aware of the threat posed by the Kiwi forwards. They aimed up, ran harder with the footy and got up off their line to put our forwards under pressure.

That gives me a special note for Warriors fans; it's not Shaun Johnson that is the problem. Johnson served up what he has been doing for the Warriors, on Friday night and that was because the Kiwis' forward pack weren't quite putting the Kiwis deep into Aussie territory with quick-play-the-balls. Look at the Warriors forward pack, that's where the issue lies.

Forget the Kangaroos breaking their minor losing streak against the Kiwis and think of this in a wider context; the Kiwis have now lost to England and Australia in their last two Tests and have won just one of their past four Tests. 

Alright, alright, cool ya jets. The tour to England was headlined by inexperienced halves combinations and the general old school 'tour' vibe when young players are chosen to gain experience and get integrated into the Kiwis set up. That's now been followed by a young Kiwis team matching the Kangaroos for much of an Anzac Test, should we be asking serious questions and all that dramatic stuff? No.

What I've seen in the past 8 months is Stephen Kearney expanding the Kiwis pool, translating the greater presence of Kiwis-eligible players into Kiwis depth. We know what the Kiwis can do with a full-strength team and I've started to hear about a Kiwis culture that has been developed thanks to consistency in squad selections (which obviously led to consistent wins), that's all fine and dandy when all our best Kiwis are available.

As we are now well aware of, we can't bank on our very best Kiwis always being available. From this Anzac Test though, we can bank on any player called up from that growing pool of players to play with an effort and desire fitting of Test footy. I've seen the Kangaroos win these sort of games by a far bigger margin, so for an under-strength team defend strongly and stay with the Kangaroos for most of this Test was almost as good as a sublime win. 

It would have been cool if the Kiwis fired a few more shots though, a bit of razzle dazzle.