Englands' 50 man Training Squad for RWC

First topic message reminder :

England Rugby World Cup training squad (50)
Chris Ashton (Saracens)
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby)
Brad Barritt (Saracens)
Kieran Brookes (Newcastle Falcons)
Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints)
Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby)
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Danny Cipriani (Sale Sharks)
Calum Clark (Northampton Saints)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers)
Alex Corbisiero (Northampton Saints)
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs)
Elliot Daly (Wasps)
Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints)
Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby)
Nick Easter (Harlequins)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
George Ford (Bath Rugby)
Alex Goode (Saracens)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
James Haskell (Wasps)
Maro Itoje (Saracens)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby)
Stephen Myler (Northampton Saints)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby)
Matt Mullan (Wasps)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs)
Geoff Parling (Leicester Tigers)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs)
Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers)
David Strettle (Saracens)
Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)
Marland Yarde (Harlequins)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)
Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'm with Beshocked on this one. England have a group of really exciting backs, with Ford, Joseph, Watson and May all likely to be involved (shame Wade isn't in there as well). Having a couple of players like Barritt and Brown in the mix to add some solid steel and experience makes sense to me. These guys are consistent performers who have been there, seen it and got the T-shirt. 36 has all the skills, but is just a bit too flakey for me, and I prefer Burrell at 13 personally.

Too soon for Itoje though. Participating in the training squad will be good experience but with Vunipola and Morgan certain to be the two options at 8, and Robshaw at 7, the balance wouldn't be right having Itoje at 6, and he certainly isn't good enough (yet) to oust one of the incumbent locks (Launchbury, Lawes, Attwood and one of Parling/Kruis).

You were doing alright up until that point, now I suspect, you wont be taken too seriously with regards to classifying 36 as 'flakey'....

Jimpy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'm with Beshocked on this one. England have a group of really exciting backs, with Ford, Joseph, Watson and May all likely to be involved (shame Wade isn't in there as well). Having a couple of players like Barritt and Brown in the mix to add some solid steel and experience makes sense to me. These guys are consistent performers who have been there, seen it and got the T-shirt. 36 has all the skills, but is just a bit too flakey for me, and I prefer Burrell at 13 personally.

Too soon for Itoje though. Participating in the training squad will be good experience but with Vunipola and Morgan certain to be the two options at 8, and Robshaw at 7, the balance wouldn't be right having Itoje at 6, and he certainly isn't good enough (yet) to oust one of the incumbent locks (Launchbury, Lawes, Attwood and one of Parling/Kruis).

You were doing alright up until that point, now I suspect, you wont be taken too seriously with regards to classifying 36 as 'flakey'....

It's just that Burrell's best performances for England were those at 13 outside Twelvetrees. He has the physique of course to be a very powerful 12, but there's just so little in the way of finesse. Of course you can build a game plan around that, in the way that Wales have with Roberts, but with Ford at 10 and Joseph at 13 I'm just not convinced Burrell is a good fit for England at 12, and he certainly isn't going to oust Joseph. Barritt isn't as powerful as Burrell, but he's very solid with a low error count and could very well be the player that glues the more talented components of the England backline together.

The good thing for England is that you guys are a long way from Tindall/Noon. All of the options in contemplation are better than you've had for a while.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'm with Beshocked on this one. England have a group of really exciting backs, with Ford, Joseph, Watson and May all likely to be involved (shame Wade isn't in there as well). Having a couple of players like Barritt and Brown in the mix to add some solid steel and experience makes sense to me. These guys are consistent performers who have been there, seen it and got the T-shirt. 36 has all the skills, but is just a bit too flakey for me, and I prefer Burrell at 13 personally.

Too soon for Itoje though. Participating in the training squad will be good experience but with Vunipola and Morgan certain to be the two options at 8, and Robshaw at 7, the balance wouldn't be right having Itoje at 6, and he certainly isn't good enough (yet) to oust one of the incumbent locks (Launchbury, Lawes, Attwood and one of Parling/Kruis).

You were doing alright up until that point, now I suspect, you wont be taken too seriously with regards to classifying 36 as 'flakey'....

It's just that Burrell's best performances for England were those at 13 outside Twelvetrees. He has the physique of course to be a very powerful 12, but there's just so little in the way of finesse. Of course you can build a game plan around that, in the way that Wales have with Roberts, but with Ford at 10 and Joseph at 13 I'm just not convinced Burrell is a good fit for England at 12, and he certainly isn't going to oust Joseph. Barritt isn't as powerful as Burrell, but he's very solid with a low error count and could very well be the player that glues the more talented components of the England backline together.

The good thing for England is that you guys are a long way from Tindall/Noon. All of the options in contemplation are better than you've had for a while.

Not sure I agree with that. He is a strong powerful guy. Different styles. But Barritts crash ball is underrated. He always hits the lines at full pelt...something too many other England players don't.

I agree Burrells performances were better at 13 than 12.

But then Englands style appears that the 13 spot is Englands main strike point...even over the wingers. All the tries seem to come from there.

It's a good point on Barritt. When I said "less powerful" I suppose I meant less physically imposing; Burrell being the bigger and stronger man. As you say, that doesn't always lead to a more effective ball carrier in the backline. A good example of a smaller bloke who always seemed to get over the gain line was Gordon D'Arcy, who used his quick feet and lower centre of gravity to good effect. Bigger players like Burrell and SBW can sometimes be chopped down more easily if the tackle technique is better.

As I said above, I'd personally go with Barritt at 12 for this World Cup. I think his basics first, direct style, would work well with Ford at 10 and Joseph at 13.

I think the big difference between Burrell and Barritt in terms of carrying is speed with Burrell the quicker player. Burrell looks to get more offloads away though that will probably be the gameplan more than lacking the required skills.

Jimpy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'm with Beshocked on this one. England have a group of really exciting backs, with Ford, Joseph, Watson and May all likely to be involved (shame Wade isn't in there as well). Having a couple of players like Barritt and Brown in the mix to add some solid steel and experience makes sense to me. These guys are consistent performers who have been there, seen it and got the T-shirt. 36 has all the skills, but is just a bit too flakey for me, and I prefer Burrell at 13 personally.

Too soon for Itoje though. Participating in the training squad will be good experience but with Vunipola and Morgan certain to be the two options at 8, and Robshaw at 7, the balance wouldn't be right having Itoje at 6, and he certainly isn't good enough (yet) to oust one of the incumbent locks (Launchbury, Lawes, Attwood and one of Parling/Kruis).

You were doing alright up until that point, now I suspect, you wont be taken too seriously with regards to classifying 36 as 'flakey'....

Jimpy I am sure you'll find that most rugby fans believe that Burrell has performed better at 13 for England than 12. Not sure you highlighted as an error by FES.

As for 36 being flakey. I would say he is to an extent. He couldn't hold down a spot as a starter for Leicester at 12 because of his inconsistent performances. The more reliable Allen was the favoured choice which was one of the reasons 36 left. At Gloucester he's continued his inconsistent form. He might be captain but he's not exactly a successful one is he?

For England he's been a mixed bag. He's both overrated and underrated. He's not as talented as his fans make him out to be but he's not been particularly bad - he just hasn't delivered on his promise. He's someone who is meant to be able to pass well, add a boot and be creative but in general he's not used his boot enough, his passing is inconsistent, most of the creativity has come from others (even Farrell was more creative than 36 in last year's 6 nations). I would say that Twelvetrees has been a 6/10 for England when you take into account everything.

He was one of the weaker performers in the last season's 6 nations.

Lancaster obviously feels the same because he didn't start 36 in this year's 6 nations and probably would have picked Barritt if he was fit.

lostinwales it's about balance. The safe guys as you call them could allow the flashier players to get on with the flashy stuff.

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'm with Beshocked on this one. England have a group of really exciting backs, with Ford, Joseph, Watson and May all likely to be involved (shame Wade isn't in there as well). Having a couple of players like Barritt and Brown in the mix to add some solid steel and experience makes sense to me. These guys are consistent performers who have been there, seen it and got the T-shirt. 36 has all the skills, but is just a bit too flakey for me, and I prefer Burrell at 13 personally.

Too soon for Itoje though. Participating in the training squad will be good experience but with Vunipola and Morgan certain to be the two options at 8, and Robshaw at 7, the balance wouldn't be right having Itoje at 6, and he certainly isn't good enough (yet) to oust one of the incumbent locks (Launchbury, Lawes, Attwood and one of Parling/Kruis).

You were doing alright up until that point, now I suspect, you wont be taken too seriously with regards to classifying 36 as 'flakey'....

Jimpy I am sure you'll find that most rugby fans believe that Burrell has performed better at 13 for England than 12. Not sure you highlighted as an error by FES.

As for 36 being flakey. I would say he is to an extent. He couldn't hold down a spot as a starter for Leicester at 12 because of his inconsistent performances. The more reliable Allen was the favoured choice which was one of the reasons 36 left. At Gloucester he's continued his inconsistent form. He might be captain but he's not exactly a successful one is he?

For England he's been a mixed bag. He's both overrated and underrated. He's not as talented as his fans make him out to be but he's not been particularly bad - he just hasn't delivered on his promise. He's someone who is meant to be able to pass well, add a boot and be creative but in general he's not used his boot enough, his passing is inconsistent, most of the creativity has come from others (even Farrell was more creative than 36 in last year's 6 nations). I would say that Twelvetrees has been a 6/10 for England when you take into account everything.

He was one of the weaker performers in the last season's 6 nations.

Lancaster obviously feels the same because he didn't start 36 in this year's 6 nations and probably would have picked Barritt if he was fit.

lostinwales it's about balance. The safe guys as you call them could allow the flashier players to get on with the flashy stuff.

BIB - Once again, its a team game. You could have put Jean De Villiers in at 12 with all his captaincy experience and world class ability, but doubt he would have been a successful captain for Gloucester over the past couple of years either

I may be wrong but wasn't Twelvetrees coming back from injury prior to the 6Ns?

I'm the nearest thing to a Twelvetrees fan on this forum and I don't know if I've ever suggested he has talent over what he has, perhaps you think differently. Ironically in the end we both agree he's a 6 out of 10 player who's never really been outstanding and never been awful. Think the difference is I believe everyone at 12 over recent seasons has been around the same level for the majority and I just think Twelvetrees brings out more in others.

Bambam seems like that's becoming your catchphrase.

Of course it's a team game but 1 player can make a difference. Not always of course but having an influential player can do things.

You don't think Jean De Villiers at 12 for Gloucester would make a difference? He might well galvanise and kick players like Laidlaw,Hook and Morgan up the backside - get them playing better.

I can give you some examples - look at Leicester without Manu - they lack the penetration in attack - that go forward. Saracens without Billy have less oomph and carrying power in the forwards. What would Saints do without Myler being fit for almost every game in the last 4 years?

Rugby is generally a squad game but De Villiers would be a massive coup for Gloucester.

Gloucester are screaming for a leader who will get the higher profile players performing.

no 7 & 1/2 I think the problem is that 36 gets far too much credit for other's players form.

The impression I get from you is that you believe that 36 was the key man in the backs who got the rest of the backline ticking.

Whereas I thought that in the creative stakes 36 was mostly a passenger last season's 6 nations with Care,Farrell,Burrell and Brown being the most creative in the backline.

Yeah he'd be brilliant at leading the team, but he still wouldn't have made the front 5 forwards any better, they'd still get crumpled at the set piece and be pretty lightweight around the field.

I'm sure he would make a great impression personally, but I doubt the TEAM would suddenly have been challenging for AP/European titles just because he'd be in there ahead of Twelvetrees

Pretty much have to use it as a catchphrase when its suggested that titles aren't being won because Billy Twelvetrees isn't doing good enough a job as a captain

beshocked wrote:Bambam seems like that's becoming your catchphrase.

Of course it's a team game but 1 player can make a difference. Not always of course but having an influential player can do things.

You don't think Jean De Villiers at 12 for Gloucester would make a difference? He might well galvanise and kick players like Laidlaw,Hook and Morgan up the backside - get them playing better.

I can give you some examples - look at Leicester without Manu - they lack the penetration in attack - that go forward. Saracens without Billy have less oomph and carrying power in the forwards. What would Saints do without Myler being fit for almost every game in the last 4 years?

Rugby is generally a squad game but De Villiers would be a massive coup for Gloucester.

Gloucester are screaming for a leader who will get the higher profile players performing.

no 7 & 1/2 I think the problem is that 36 gets far too much credit for other's players form.

The impression I get from you is that you believe that 36 was the key man in the backs who got the rest of the backline ticking.

Whereas I thought that in the creative stakes 36 was mostly a passenger last season's 6 nations with Care,Farrell,Burrell and Brown being the most creative in the backline.

I'd probably say he's the key man in that backline if I thought that though. As I've said I think he's the best out of the current recognised 12s for the style we're trying to play. I think having him there helps others around him more than the others though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think the big difference between Burrell and Barritt in terms of carrying is speed with Burrell the quicker player. Burrell looks to get more offloads away though that will probably be the gameplan more than lacking the required skills.

That's very true, looking for offloads will change the carrying dynamics...

But what frustrates me endlessly with England players is the lack of pace when carrying the ball in to contact when the offload is not on. Too many times they dawdle up to the two or three tackles and make very little ground past the tackle line, and half of them are on their way to the ground before they've even been tackled.....

I really want to see them hitting those tackles at maximum velocity trying to smash them back as much as possible, make some ground and suck in defenders creating the space out wide.

There were three successful captains in English club rugby last season.

Hargreaves, Twelvetrees and Itoje.

Bambam a team is more than just a front five. That's why Leicester didn't win the AP.

The issue for Gloucester is that high profile players like Hibbard,AfoaLaidlaw,Hook and Morgan aren't delivering compared to what they should be.

You don't know though. One player might well get other players raising their game.

Care helped Farrell last season in the 6 nations - both formed an excellent 9-10 combo.

Not saying that De Villiers would make Gloucester a top 4 side but think he could get them to top 6.

I am saying that with the talent in Gloucester's team the leadership at the top needs to be questioned.

beshocked wrote:...
Whereas I thought that in the creative stakes 36 was mostly a passenger last season's 6 nations with Care,Farrell,Burrell and Brown being the most creative in the backline.

The back line that year did perform noticeably better than the year before and I don't think that 36 did much that was amazing, but I do also think that for whatever reason he did help the players around him perform better.

He certainly did better than Burrell did this year

GeordieFalcon wrote:
But what frustrates me endlessly with England players is the lack of pace when carrying the ball in to contact when the offload is not on. Too many times they dawdle up to the two or three tackles and make very little ground past the tackle line, and half of them are on their way to the ground before they've even been tackled.....    

They are usually standing still when they get the ball. This to me suggests they are not looking to bash through, but either offload or tie in players and recycle and go again. This is why they seem to go to ground early to be in control of the breakdown, rather than make 2/3 yards and get isolated.

I would like to see our power ball carriers stand deeper but take the ball flatter so they are at speed when taking the ball.

Interesting LT,

So you think this is actually the tactics and system they are operating.

Well its not one I like a whole lot to be honest. Still think we need some of our guys really having ago at the opposition, as you say the big boys standing deeper.

As I'm a club over country person, I'll join this purely due to the Glaws comments!

I just want to pick up on some of the comments, largely from beshocked. I can't disagree with the comments about 36; he had an average season last year. The reason for this is largely driven by Hook, who up until the last 2 months of the season stood deep and drifted as soon as he got the ball. This meant when 36 received the ball he was largely static and rush defences provided him with little options other than taking the ball into contact at no pace. It was notable that he improved once Hook started taking the ball to the line and running straight. He is clearly capable of performing at a better level, but his confidence isn't there and whilst he provides something different to the other 12s it is questionable whether deserves to be in the 31.

The comment about Morgan's poor club form is way off the mark. Morgan had his worst season for us in 2013/14, in turn he had his best season for us last year by a country mile. Unfortunately he was injured in January in the Sarries game, which was 2 games into when Glaws finally started to gel as a team. Prior to this Morgan, like Kvesic, played exceptionally well in a disjointed team and received little or no credit due to the overall poor team performance.

From the BBC:

England World Cup winner Lawrence Dallaglio says he believes rugby league convert Sam Burgess could force his way into Stuart Lancaster's squad and has also been impressed by his aura.

Burgess, 26, switched to rugby union last season and is part of England's World Cup training squad.

"He might force his way into contention which again is quite exciting," Dallaglio told BBC Points West.

"I've been following his progress, he has presence, an aura about him."

Burgess began his Bath career at centre but has now switched to the back-row and Dallaglio says the cross-code star has the potential to make an impact in the 15-man game.

"To play for your country you need to have involvement in the game and since he has moved from centre to the back row we've seen him have much more," he said.


"I like the guy. I'm quite surprised no-one has tried to properly lay one on him yet. He's an outstanding prospect and I'm sure he's causing the coaches a headache or two."

Dallaglio, who was part of England's World Cup-winning side in 2003, also believes home advantage could play a vital part in their hopes of lifting the Webb Ellis trophy again,

However, he does fear their inexperience at international level could prove decisive.

"It's a pretty tough tournament but as the host nation, England should go in there feeling very proud and with a great opportunity," he said.

"I think we are genuine contenders by nature of us playing at home. We are probably the most inexperienced team of all the genuine contenders and I think that may count against us.

"What this rugby World Cup tells you is hardened, seasoned veterans tend to do quite well as you need to understand how to deal with pressure.

"But they have home advantage and talented players and I'm expecting big things of England.

"If they can come out of their group as winners they really do have a big chance and then we can dare to dream."

There does seem to be a growing momentum pushing Burgess into the squad. Exciting times.

BamBam wrote:Yeah he'd be brilliant at leading the team, but he still wouldn't have made the front 5 forwards any better, they'd still get crumpled at the set piece and be pretty lightweight around the field.

I'm sure he would make a great impression personally, but I doubt the TEAM would suddenly have been challenging for AP/European titles just because he'd be in there ahead of Twelvetrees

Pretty much have to use it as a catchphrase when its suggested that titles aren't being won because Billy Twelvetrees isn't doing good enough a job as a captain

Some other catchphrases of note:

Deity, Godlike, bullied, Itoje

Pretty much just noise coming from Dayglo, in response to some fairly obvious questions.

I still have faith he's going to force himself past Haskell.

LondonTiger wrote:Pretty much just noise coming from Dayglo, in response to some fairly obvious questions.

It was almost a constant stream of contradictions - or that's how I saw it anyway.

Jimpy wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Pretty much just noise coming from Dayglo, in response to some fairly obvious questions.

It was almost a constant stream of contradictions - or that's how I saw it anyway.

Agreed. We need battle hardened veterans with experience.....so I'd pick Sam Burgess.....

Not as if Burgess isn't used to big games though is it. League and union have a lot of similarities and he's not going to freeze. Really good leader as well.

Jimpy nothing wrong with a catchphrase or two or three or four....

What's wrong with praising one player but also thinking there is a lack of experience and leadership in the side? Okay he doesn't mention the word leadership but it's clear that England could do with some more when the going gets tough.

The term double standards springs to mind when comparing Burgess to other players....

Depends if you think that league counts for something or doesn't.

I don't think there is any issue over his big game temperament and leadership skills. It's more a case of what he has managed to learn this year and what he hasn't.

It will be a staggering achievement were Burgess to make the final 31, but he is the kind of exception to the normal way of things who might just do it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends if you think that league counts for something or doesn't.

Quite. Burgess's fitness, physical impact and ability to influence big games have never been in doubt, because unlike the other inexperienced players in the squad he has done it at a very high level in league. It is different from, say, Itoje's [1] experience as JRWC-winning captain, because he's competed at effectively the highest level in league for multiple seasons, as captain and consistently the best player in his sport. The question has always been whether he can acquire the skills to play union in time. I didn't think he could, but it looks increasingly like he has. I want to see him given a shot in the warmups.

[1] Or Clifford. Who went there and did that before Itoje and was for my money the best player on the pitch in the Barbarians game. But I'd have been astonished if he'd made the squad.

Pop quiz:

Who was England's captain for the 2014 JWC?

Jheez, if only someone had mentioned this on the board, I might have had a clue

BamBam wrote:Jheez, if only someone had mentioned this on the board, I might have had a clue

Ah well, it may be a QI style question.

To be fair experience isnt top of my wish list anyway.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends if you think that league counts for something or doesn't.

Quite. Burgess's fitness, physical impact and ability to influence big games have never been in doubt, because unlike the other inexperienced players in the squad he has done it at a very high level in league. It is different from, say, Itoje's [1] experience as JRWC-winning captain, because he's competed at effectively the highest level in league for multiple seasons, as captain and consistently the best player in his sport. The question has always been whether he can acquire the skills to play union in time. I didn't think he could, but it looks increasingly like he has. I want to see him given a shot in the warmups.

[1] Or Clifford. Who went there and did that before Itoje and was for my money the best player on the pitch in the Barbarians game. But I'd have been astonished if he'd made the squad.

England have been burnt before when capping League converts. I think maybe it was the management at fault, but it seemed they were getting these big imposing lads from League and, like the Soviet Armies in 1941, throwing them pell mell into battle with little thought as to how they would actually perform. It was simply assumed that they would make the transition and punch holes in the opposition. It quite often hasn't worked - Big Les springs to mind.

This man Burgess - it seems he's the real deal, but caution should be exercised before committing him, especially on the world stage.

I'm aware of the history, and also of the risk - and six months ago I'd have been in the "it won't work" camp.

But Burgess has been consistently impressive since his move to 6, particularly at the breakdown. We knew he was a physical freak, but it seems he's also a fast learner.

With three months in camp to gel with a team, the chances are he will improve significantly - probably more than many of the other options.

The questions about Burgess are simple...

1) Can he adapt to wrapping his arms when tackling
2) How is he at the breakdown
3) Can he offer ANY kind of option in the lineout?

And how do those answers compare to say Haskell who is also a huge physical specimen who sadly hasn't used those abilities like I wish he had. He should have been a top player of his generation given simple instructions...be a wrecking ball of a 6. Tackle tackle tackle...carry carry carry....

First 2 are yes and very good already. The third is completely up to England to develop him as he's not taken anything at the lineout bar a couple of actually very good clean ups at the back following over throws.

LondonTiger wrote:Pop quiz:

Who was England's captain for the 2014 JWC?

Dang you are all too clever to fall for the trap and say Itoje

Well maybe he can be what Haskell should have been.

Or am I being unfair on Haskell that he hasn't been given simple instructions to follow and stick to?

The first squad post WC could be very interesting and have a few changes in it with the likes Of Clifford, Itoje, Slade, Sam Hill etc etc all coming through.

A few of the old guard need to focus on consistently high performances.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well maybe he can be what Haskell should have been.

Or am I being unfair on Haskell that he hasn't been given simple instructions to follow and stick to?

When he first appeared on the international scene I really thought we had a guy who could become one of the world's best. He has had his moments, is versatile and has at least gone around the world and earned respect wherever he has played, but from my nice comfortable armchair I'd say I was disappointed with his progress.

Of Course we also assume that Woods place is there for the taking. Or Wood safe?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Of Course we also assume that Woods place is there for the taking. Or Wood safe?

Long term the thing that worries me about Wood is the injury situation. He is very fit but the lengths he has to go to to manage his foot condition does make you wonder how long he'll last

Haskell has been a bit messed around with in his international career.

Just before the last World Cup Dayglo was telling us he could be the best Number 8 in the world if selected consistently there. Of course he then went on his travels so was out of the picture when Lancaster started. He has been used at openside by Wasps this last season and blindside by England. I suspect that his job instructions in white consist of tackle and ruck. Whatever lineup we play we seem to use just a single "bullocking" runner who is freed up from other duties.

Burgess is still inexperienced in rugby union though. That's my point. Yes he has all that rugby league experience but it's different. The transition is not instant and is not easy as Jimpy has mentioned - not all the converts have been successful.

The notable exception being Jason Robinson.

Burgess is being picked based on his potential, just like other prospects.

The advantage that he has over other ex league players trying to make the transition is that he seems to be a faster learner plus of course the belief that because he excelled in one code of rugby he can another.

Of course there is logic to this but like any newcomer they need to prove themselves.

Picked on potential to a point. Like any of the newer members in and around the squad he's shown enough in his club games, at 6 at least, to get considered. You're absolutely right about the need to prove it now, in training, in the warms ups if he gets the chance and beyond.

The comparison with Haskell is apt, and not just because they could be competing for the same squad slot.

Haskell's big skills gap is his on-field decision making. Time and again we have seen that he has a full set of physical skills and can play 6, 7 or 8 well - but the simpler you make his job, the better he plays. He doesn't seem to have the ability to see what the game needs and adapt to it that Wood, Launchbury and Robshaw have.

Burgess is more of an unknown in that respect, but the signs are that it's the other way round: the more you give him to do, the more effective he is. He might need a couple of old heads around him giving him a steer, but he seems able to take it on board in real time.

I don't think it will happen, but having Easter and Burgess on the pitch together would be an interesting option. Easter provides the lineout expertise, but would also be the ideal onfield coach for Burgess, and Easter offloading to Burgess on the half break would be an attacking option that any team would struggle to cope with. Can't see it as a starting option, though, and it would mean subbing a lock for Easter, which might not be ideal.

Jason Robinson did so well because he was an exceptional athlete with the right attitude, not because he was an RL player (but that did help). I think the downside of his success was that it helped make people think that every convert from RL would also be a success, but that has been proved mostly to be false.

Burgess seems to be an exceptional athlete with the right attitude. Of course he still has much to prove, but he just might be the real deal

Burgess is a good squad and bench option, thats perhaps his strong point whne it comes to getting on the plane. Having him in the side gives a lot more cover to positions, and an impact player. A bench with him in gives the option of replacing back row forward late in the game whilst retaining cover in the backs for injuries.
Its the kind of luxury most coaches would love to have.

Its quite normal for at least one back and a forward to go as a "utility" player (the wonderkid slade is likley to get his chance on that basis) .