[RWC] Burgess

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34732141

What a bloody waste of talent, time and money (in that order).

Unfairly scapegoated for England's woeful RWC showing - we were beating Wales when he got taken off!

Centre - Back Row - Centre ~ well done Bath/England.

Ironic given the perceived weakness in the England RWC squad was in the centre and the backrow.

Watch him take up where he left off in the NRL.

NB I thought Tom Burgess had a stormer in the England v NZ RL international last week.

:wink: How about giving him a try?

 

[SimonSmith]

Nice guy.
Tried hard.
Really World Class in either centres or back row? Maybe in the future, but not right now.

 

[didds]

Not really sure it was Bath's issue?

didds

 

[leaguerefaus]

Yessss. Welcome back Sammy boy!

 

[dave_clark]

should never have been in the squad. burrell, eastmond and twelvetrees should be fuming. slade too, to an extent.

but agreed. unfairly made a scapegoat, and needed more time to become a union player.

 

[crossref]

Did he really, himself, believe he was a world class RFU centre?

 

[4eyesbetter]

That's not gone well

 

[Dixie]

Did he really, himself, believe he was a world class RFU centre?

I have no doubt he would have become a world class RFU centre. Whether he himself believed he was the best man to play in the centre at England's 2015 RWC is irrelevant - no pro sportsman would decline a representative opportunity, and anyone that would is unlikely ever to become a top sportsman. The fault lies firmly with two people in particular - Andy Farrell initially, and ultimately Stuart Lancaster for allowing himself to be led by the nose down an obvious blind alley. If ti took SBW 2 years in union to win his first AB cap, what made SL think that SB was twice as good - or was he just accepting that the AB's are twice as good as England? Either way, he's got to go.

 

[davidlandy]

Either way, he's got to go.

England were OK, not brilliant, but also not too terrible. They only lost by a fraction to Wales, and if they'd got the 3 points instead of going for the corner they'd have gone through - a tiny margin. Would people still be calling for SL to be sacked if Eng had made the QF? If so, probably not with such vehemence...

If England fans feel hurt and embarrassed to have been the first hosts to have gone out in the pool stages of their own RWC, and want to find a scapegoat to ease the pain, that's totally understandable - but a bit of a shame for SL. Is it really entirely his fault? What about the people who appointed him? Or the players themselves - should they all be sacked too?!?

Mind you, stepping back a bit from all fault and blame, if you look at what a SH coach has done for Wales, and now Scotland, you have to wonder why England keep choosing someone from their own... pride probably, but I think it would serve them (but not me as a Welsh fan, ha ha) if they were off on a plane to NZ to see who's available...

 

[Dixie]

England were OK, not brilliant, but also not too terrible.

England are probably the wealthiest National Union in the world, with access to the world's largest playing base. As with each of the SH teams, the bare minimum expectation should be reaching the final. Against that level of expectation, England's performance was woeful. And the reason for that is largely (IMO) down to selection - ignoring Armitage and Abendanon, including a player with only 25 games under his belt in a key position, ignoring Cipriani so that when the chips were down we had to move everybody out one position, rather than bringing on an exciting utility back with a proven ability to break down defences.

If England fans feel hurt and embarrassed to have been the first hosts to have gone out in the pool stages of their own RWC, and want to find a scapegoat to ease the pain, that's totally understandable - but a bit of a shame for SL.

You seem to suggest that the only possible reason to get rid of SL is to find a scapegoat for underperformance. Do you really feel that if we had had (for example) Warren Gatland at the helm, we would still have missed out on a QF?[/quote]

Is it really entirely his fault? What about the people who appointed him? Or the players themselves - should they all be sacked too?!?

It is not Burgess's fault that he was selected for his country before being able to play the game - that fault lies wholly with the selectors. It is not the players fault that selection was deeply conservative in all positions except inside centre, nor that the use of substitutes and replacements was poor. Nor that we went into a must-win game against the world's best turnover specialists without a world-class #7. The policy of ignoring FR players stems from Ian Richie - but SL had the ability to override it in exceptional circumstances. He didn't feel that facing the toughest-ever RWC pool in a home world cup counted as exceptional - that was his call, for which he should be held to account. Compare Michael Cheika's experience in bringing back into the fold Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell - fortune favours those bold enough to push back against the powers that be where the opportunity exists. SL failed the test.

Mind you, stepping back a bit from all fault and blame, if you look at what a SH coach has done for Wales, and now Scotland, you have to wonder why England keep choosing someone from their own... pride probably, but I think it would serve them (but not me as a Welsh fan, ha ha) if they were off on a plane to NZ to see who's available...

the two teams that underperformed most were England and France - and it needs to be considered whether their policy of sticking with local coaches is just a coincidence.

 

[crossref]

I think the crucial factor that Eng and Fr have in common, is not the nationality of the coaches, but the club system.
Burgess clearly wasn't ready to be selected for a RWC, and it didn't help one bit that Bath played him in a different position from England. In any other country but Eng or France the national team call the shots and it would be inconceivable for a player to be asked to play flanker for his club, while being considered for inside centre for his country. Its inconceivable that anoyne could play world class rugby in both those positions, after just a few months in the game.

 

[Ian_Cook]

To be fair, Burgess had played both second row and midfield back in RL (I know its s different animal, but this is not uncommon in RL, e.,g. Brad Fittler, Joel Thompson, Mitchell Aubisson, Simon Mannering & Ruben Wiki)

England's difficulties in the midfield haven't been anything to do with Burgess. Its been that they seemed for many years to be unable to settle on a combination. Just looking at the matches between NZ and England since the 2011 World Cup

England.............................New Zealand

2012 Barritt/Tuilagi.......... - Nonu/Smith
2013 Twelvetrees/Tomkins - Nonu/Smith
2014 Eastmond/Tuilagi..... - Nonu/Smith
2014 Twelvetrees/Burrell.. - Nonu/Smith
2014 Eastmond/Tuilagi..... - Nonu/Fekitoa
2015 Eastmond/Barritt.... - Williams/Smith

Five different centre pairings in six matches. In the 126 matches England have played between RWC 2003 and the start of RWC 2015, they have used 43 different 12/13 pairings. Over the same period, NZ have used 12, including over 60 tests by Nonu & Smith. If anyone has skapegoated Sam Burgess for England's problems in the midfield, then that is very unfair IMO.

 

[crossref]

Burgess wasn't the problem, agreed, but no way was he ever the solution.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

As a guy who enjoys and has played both codes I'm a little disappointed Sam didn't stick it out and play for the season and the six nations. Missed opportunity all round but now he's gone back to RL I guess he will never know if he was good enough to be a true great at both codes.