A player's ability cannot be judged on rep games in League. Other sports, maybe, but league (particularly the Australian team) has a culture of being conservative and faithful to past performances in selection. In the Ashes series a few years ago I remember the British commentators ranting about how fantastic Kimmorley is, because he destroyed the Poms, and I'm sure there would have been many back here saying "nooo! You bastards!". And then he sucks for NSW.
Problem with rep games is they put a new player in the spotlight so that one good performance elevates the 'new guy' to stardom, and a crap performance crucifies him. Ben Creagh is a good player but I probably wouldn't have known much of him if he wasn't picked for the city/country, played well and consequently had lavishings of praise from all our commentators saying he should be in the Australian team. On one performance. Fine, he played well for the Dragons, but I don't think he would have been drooled over in the same way without the city/country. Same goes for players like O'Hara and Waterhouse.
Barrett is a very good player at club level, but that has nothing to do with his ability in the alternate form dimension of rep games. He destroyed QLD one year at halfback, prompting calls for him to be Australian halfback. He played fantastically at hooker this year for Australia and everyone started gushing. Now he has a less than great game and people are calling for his head. Form in a single rep game seems to be judged as equivalent to say 5 club games. It paints an unrealistic picture of the player because the next game they could destroy the opposition and be everyone's friend again. But in our game, no matter how you play, if you've represented before you'll be picked again no worries so it's pointless arguing I suppose...
