Seriously this happens every four years, mostly with Murdock papers, although I guess in this case the irish article isn't from a Murdock paper. A couple of isolated Aussie journalist make diaparaging remarks about the opposition, completely out of tune with the average non-bogan supporter, and the papers on the other side of the big pond pick up these remarks and use them to tar the entire country, in the case of murdock papers probably co-ordinated by the editors of the papers.
90% of rugby supporting Australians thought we should have won against an out of form Irish team, but still recognized them as a serious danger who had recently taken apart England and who dominate the EC and HC tournaments. The loss of Moore and Pocock were definate disadvantages, and would have affected the result, but good teams always have injuries and part of being a good team is managing whoever you have playing on the field for any particular game. What we were most angry about was how poorly and unintelligently we played. And a lot of that was because of how intelligently and well Ireland played. But when you're venting, you don't vent by saying "weren't they good, weren't they good", you vent by castigating the unacceptably areas of your own teams play (terrible gameplan, coaching, decision making, scrummaging and inability to adapt to less than ideal weather conditions). It's not meant as a slight to the Irish, it can be inferred that a lot of these were caused by a great game plan from intelligent Irish coaching, intelligent decision making by the players and a vastly superior forwards pack in the tight and loose. However we can't moan about Ireland and make them weaker, we can only moan about australia and hope that eventually something gets done about our faibilities.