England's RWC Preparations

First topic message reminder :

Original thread about to explode

https://www.606v2.com/t59064-englands-50-man-training-squad-for-rwc

Is it me or am I beginning to see spectral musings on here again? Style, simple mistakes, a bit of arrogance, it is all so familiar.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lancaster hasnt mentioned his long term thoughts only his short term. I dont see Burgess making a great impact at 12 in the wc and given Bath have Devoto coming through and Eastmond there and Burgess more keen to play 6 its unlikely he will go back to 12 in anything other than cover. He looks a far better 6 than centre. You dont come across someone whos seen a lot of Burgess.

I've seen plenty, have you? His abilities lend themselves to 12 or 8 nicely!

For the 90th time your not considering development, Burgess was always going to look at seas early on, there are numerous 'highlight' videos of him, and watch his reactions post tackle, and post ruck.... he is lost for a few seconds, as his instinct is to hit hold and watch. He has developed nicely at 6, but there will be a point where I want to see more. He has the potential to graduate from 6, and has been given the platform to do so by Ford and now Lancaster.

He looked ok at 12 and got worse. Looked miles better at 6 , his best position. Ford his coach for the majority of time considers him a 6. You ve previously said you dont watch much prem just london welsh and pro 12. seems you re catching up?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Is it me or am I beginning to see spectral musings on here again? Style, simple mistakes, a bit of arrogance, it is all so familiar.  

A couple of threads gently spiraling out of control. Hmmm

No 7&1/2 wrote:He looked ok at 12 and got worse. Looked miles better at 6 , his best position. Ford his coach for the majority of time considers him a 6. You ve previously said you dont watch much prem just london welsh and pro 12. seems you re catching up?

Can you pick out 3 games that he started at 12, and show how his progression got worse? I'd doubt it, as I'm 99% sure he's started 1 game at 12 for Bath (motm, 10db, 2cb, 10/2 tackles, 60m made) and 1 for the saxons (which is always a mess, and whilst he didn't light up the field, he was no worse than many). And those games were only 2 months since his debut in the AP. That he looked better in general over 2 months later (i.e. 100% more time actually playing decent level union, and a huge amount more time actually on the pitch) should hardly be a surprise.

I agree that 6 looks like a very good position for him, probably his best, but I do not understand everyone who seems so positive that he cannot manage at 12 given the improvement he's shown in Union in general, and that he has already looked at the very least, reasonable at 12 (not 13 where much of his time actually came from, without Joseph guiding him).

Hes only been average at centre.You can point to the Wasps game but all his rivals for centre spots have played better over the seasonand theres people not in the squad who should be ahead of him at centre. I keep saying 12 as thats the likely position for England in a lot of Baths games he was swapping 12 and 13. I just dont think his form in the middle for Bath warrant a place.

He shouldnt be considered short term and wont long term.

I don't even think he looked ok at 12 tbh, he looked poor, he hasn't the gas or hands to play at centre.

People talk about his progression in union but this has been in the backrow were he has found his natural position. He didn't progress in the centres because he just hasn't got the attributes and possibly the nous to play there.

SL is desperate for a physical centre and he's fitting square pegs in round holes at the minute. The noise coming out of the training camp that Burgess is going well in training sounds forced and uninspiring which is hardly surprising seen as he's played at BS most of the season.

I really don't get how this discussion on Burgess has legs tbh, he was terrible there in the AP and nobody can suggest he'll make a good centre until the next time he plays there. You can only go off previous outings in the position and they were not good.

Why is Raggs the only one considering development? If we talk form over the entire season you have to consider injuries as part of performance, when it comes to International rugby it's about hat you are capable of.

This is his first season of union, he was always going to be raw early on, which coincided with his 12 displays, which weren't great, then hidden to a degree at 6. He has developed really well, and has picked up union really well, his potential to play 12 or 8 is there!

Why do people feel me complimenting Burgess, Ford, LAncaster on what they have all done this season is trying to derail a thread? What is contraversial about thinking Burgess can play 12?

Why are you all looking to be offended? And trying to claim i'm the ghost (constantly), because we all hold very minute difference in views on a very talented player?

"He has developed really well, and has picked up union really well, his potential to play 12 or 8 is there"

I suppose he has potential as in he plays rugby and could in theory play there. I don't think he could play there to a good level though by a long shot.

He'll go to the WC as a centre, but more because of who is he than because of any particular ability to play centre well. He'll do a job, but after the WC I don't think he'll play another minute in the centres in his Union career. He'd be a 6 in the squad if it wasn't for his inexperience in aspects like the line-out. Once he's played another few month for Bath I'm sure England will select him as a backrow. I presume he'll settle at 6 because whilst 8 looks a possibility England have good options there.

Ok I get it, neither of you think he can play 12, but surely you have to concede Lancaster is better placed to make that decision than either of you?

I don't think he'll make an international 6, Haskell, Wood etc are just too far ahead, I don't think he'll play 8 internationally, although he has the ability to, and Morgan is too inconcsistent.

However there are no standout 12's in the England squad, and Burgess has progressed to a point where he could slot in there!

For all of Fords blustering pre world cup, if Burgess plays 12 succesfully for England he will definately play 12 for Bath!

"However there are no standout 12's in the England squad, and Burgess has progressed to a point where he could slot in there"

But he's looked awful at 12.

Perhaps it's easier to agree to disagree.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"However there are no standout 12's in the England squad, and Burgess has progressed to a point where he could slot in there"

But he's looked awful at 12.

Perhaps it's easier to agree to disagree.

He didn't look awfull at 12 though, he looked raw in his first few games of rugby union, which were at 12, although that said didn't he have a MOTM performance at 12?

He was hidden at 6 to negate his inexperience, that proved to have worked, he has a season of rugby under his belt now and could very well look to 12 again!

Why d you think you know more than Lancaster?

Why do you think you know more than Ford?

It's a pointless debate, let's just agree to disagree.

Ford was very clear from the outset - well before he'd even played - that he saw Burgess as a 6, because he sees Burgess's differentiating feature as being able to make 60-80 plays per game (be they carries, tackles or whatever), and the back row is where that can best be used. He moved Burgess to 6 as soon as he felt he was ready.

Moving a player to a position where he is more regularly involved in a game is hardly hiding him.

That said, 6 is a position that needs less decision making than 12. That's not to say that there haven't been 6s who were good decision-makers (Richard Hill was as good as the game has seen), but there have also been a fair number of 6s who just hit whatever there is to be hit, like Joe Worsley or Dan Lydiate.

There aren't many international 12s who aren't good readers of the game, though. I'm not sure if Burgess can gef up to speed enough to be truly effective there (and he'd be wasted, and probably surplus to requirements) at 13. That said, the coaches have several months to focus on that with him, and he's clearly a quick learner.

Fanster wrote:Ok I get it, neither of you think he can play 12, but surely you have to concede Lancaster is better placed to make that decision than either of you?

I don't think he'll make an international 6, Haskell, Wood etc are just too far ahead, I don't think he'll play 8 internationally, although he has the ability to, and Morgan is too inconcsistent.

However there are no standout 12's in the England squad, and Burgess has progressed to a point where he could slot in there!

For all of Fords blustering pre world cup, if Burgess plays 12 succesfully for England he will definately play 12 for Bath!

Well I think people's point is that it isn't as likely as at 6.

Further up the thread you've said that Ford's view is biased by the fact that Bath need a 6 more than a 12, but you've just used the exact same logic for England - that his best position is 12 because England are more in need of a 12.

I also think your "progression" argument is a bit shaky. We all saw Burgess's game massively improve when he moved to 6, but apparently that's evidence that he's just improved generally as a union player and can play for England at 12.

Maybe he'll do well, but my worry is that a whole pre-season where he could have had time to learn the finer points of flanker work including the lineout will have been lost, and that he'll just miss out and go back to playing 6 anyway without the benefit of three months practice at it. Obviously there's a lot of overlap so it wouldn't be completely wasted, but still.

Incidentally the only issue I have with him at 12 is his pace. He's got a very short stride for someone his height. Not slow for a flanker but without the burst that you'd hope for someone trying to keep up in backs moves with Ford and Joseph.

As part of my World Cup preparations, I'm still smiling at this tweet from George Chuter to Thomas Waldrom.

https://twitter.com/george_chuter/status/615402526846898177

I hope our new social media policy would still let this kind of thing through.

The whole Ford/Burgess/Stewie/cenre/flanker thing is rather amusing…so Ford and Stewie must have had a chat way back and decided to try him out at centre even though Ford thought he was a 6, Ford discovered he wasn't much cop and Burgess got bored out in the middle so they moved him to back row -must have upset Stewie- Ford discovers he enjoys being where the metal meets the meat but is a bit pants at line outs and at the first opportunity when Burgess is in the England camp Stewie publicly announces he's a centre not a back row. What does Ford know anyway?

And now 36 strongly rumored to be out the door in favor of a man who has never played a game of international Union (at centre or 6) at a home RWC…just gets better and better!

Power to the people!!!!

I wonder whether the coaches are leaking information to the press to keep them sweet, or if journos are just reading between the lines and making educated guesses.

Is there really any value in letting it be known that a player is probably going to be cut? Perhaps it gives him a kick up the backside, but I can't imagine a decent professional needs to read about being dropped to put in his best effort to make the World Cup.

Lancaster has done excellent for England...but to label him "Englands best coach?" Im not sure.

Burgess should not be considered a 12! He's a 6 only.
If the're looking at 12's id rather give young Stephenson at Saints a go...he's been class!

It's interesting talking about 6 and 12 because people obviously want and expect different things from these positions.

People have mentioned Hill - Hill was a backrower who was as easily comfortable at 6 or 7. Can't compare Burgess to one of the best backrowers of all time yet.

Would anyone in their right mind pick Burgess at 7? No of course not.

Burgess is a very different 6 to what Lancaster wants.

We know that Lancaster likes to have a big guy in the centres - Burrell,Tuilagi and 36 all point to this. Burgess fits the Lancaster school of centres.

We as England fans talk about wanting another ball carrier in the pack, well Lancaster wants one in the backline - whether that's Burrell,36, Tuilagi or now Burgess.

I can see Lancaster's point but personally I would rather see some more physicality in the pack.

If England to aspire to no 1 in the world they need to able to physically impose their will on the likes of SA,Ireland,France,Wales,Australia and NZ.

I think that should be the English way which is the forwards. Not sure that Burgess is ready for international rugby just yet though.

To be honest I think it would have helped Burgess' case if he had been on the winning side in the AP final instead of the losing one. Rugby is of course a team game but Bath lost the physical battle in the final and Burgess was part of a beaten backrow. Can he be blamed? Perhaps not but it always helps to be on a winning side IMO.

You might say - so what? It's a team game and it's only one match but it was a big one which I am sure Lancaster would have been watching. Not exactly as if Burgess went head to head with an experienced 6. Okay the Saracens backrow isn't too shabby but if Burgess wants to wear the 6 shirt he needs to be imposing his will on backrows like that.

He was the better 6 on show but even then a simple head to head isnt always the best way to go about things.

I thought Burgess was fantastic in the AP final and the stats bear that out, it's just a shame that he's missing out on a full pre-season at 6 which could have helped iron out his breakdown and lineout deficiencies.

How do you define better? More showy?

Simple head to head isn't always the best I agree but it's one way. Also I don't mean 6 vs 6 necessarily, I mean 6,7 and 8 vs 6,7 and 8 as obviously the most effective backrows are the ones that compliment each other and work off each other's strengths.

IMO it's up to a player and team to try and impose their will and gameplan on the opposition.

Burgess and the Bath backrow failed to do that. It's up to the backrow to help their team by pressurising the opposition - it was clear which backrow did that better.

It's not necessarily about looking sexy and flashy, it's about winning the match by working as backrow together.

Hill,Back and Dallaglio was as deadly a backrow as you can get because they weren't just good individuals - they were a deadly unit.

Burgess might well have been the best backrower on the pitch in terms of stats but if that's the case then why did Bath get beaten at the breakdown? Didn't obviously work well enough with Louw and Houston as a backrow unit.

Better in as very effective. Made his tacles made himself available carry was good at the breakdown. In a first half where Baths forwards didnt do enough he was the shining light for them which was impressive. 2nd half was different as Bath started to get hold of the and more on top. The only thing letting him down was the lineout as mentioned. Was hoping England would work with him on that but alas.

Not effective enough evidently. Being in a team is about bring out the best in others too. People keep telling me that rugby is a team game - I agree.

Did Burgess bring out the best in Louw and Houston? Obviously not. Did the Saracens backrowers make Louw and Houston look like poor players? Seems that way doesn't it? We know they are not bad players but they were made to look like it.

The biggest question mark against Burgess in my eyes is how he fits into an unit - whether that's the backrow or backline. He quite clearly has the athleticism and the physicality but not convinced he has the know how yet.

If Burgess played in the centres he would need to try and get the best out of the players around him too.

NZ are the best side in the world because they are dangerous - 1-15 and are a deadly unit which works efficiently. They have have brilliant individuals but it's the partnerships that make them what they are.

Well the roles were reversed in the 2nd half but we re not going to sit here and say B Vunipola doesnt fit in etc. How he would fit into Englands backrow is the question because of the lineout so I reluctantly accept Lancasters decision. He d be a great bench option though.

no 7 & 1/2 so what? The game was won and lost in the first half.

When Sarries build a large lead they go into defence mode which works most of the time (personally I think it's stupid as it cost numerous try bonus points and they should continue to jump on the opposition's throat but if it works in a final.....)

Saracens still don't have the ruthlessness of Tigers. Something I think is impressive.

Saracens scored 70 tries but only 5 try bonus points in the AP compared to Tigers 37 tries with 4 try bonus points.

Why would you question B.Vunipola's place when he was arguably England's best forward in the 6 nations?

How many times have you seen sides ease off in the 2nd half because they've done enough in the first? I have seen it plenty of times.

Im not talking about winning or losing though but the performance of 1 guy. Expanded it to the performance of the backrows in general. I wouldnt question Vunipola but using your analysis of Burgess you d have to. Just trying to addf lesh to the statement of Baths beaten backrow, for 40 45 min yes and Burgess individually was very good throughout.

Apparently 12 trees and Eastmond won't cut the mustard either.

Wasn't 12 trees the new saviour of England's centre 'crisis' a few years ago ?

no 7 & 1/2 winning and losing is important. I know you think it's irrelevant but I don't.

Burgess was part of a backrow that struggled so badly that Bath were down 25-3 at half time. Yes Bath brought the scoreline back to 28-16 but it didn't make up for it.

Munkian in some people's eyes Twelvetrees is still the saviour.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 winning and losing is important. I know you think it's irrelevant but I don't.

Burgess was part of a backrow that struggled so badly that Bath were down 25-3 at half time. Yes Bath brought the scoreline back to 28-16 but it didn't make up for it.

Munkian in some people's eyes Twelvetrees is still the saviour.

Why does hyperbole always have to come into it? Players mostly aren't considered either a 'saviour' or 'rubbish'. It's always useful if you want to undermine someone's argument and put words in their mouth though, I guess...

I think most people hope 12T can fulfill his potential and get form back as he certainly could do a job for England if he does that. Similarly with Burgess, there's potential there too (most people think at 6). What we don't know is how far he's advanced with all the squad time. I can't help but think it's maybe a year too early in his case though.

It's a forum though, so only polar opposites count

Cyril unfortunately not every player makes it. Some players show plenty of promise but it doesn't convert into a successful international career.

Cipriani is a case in point - he was meant to be the complete package at 10 and it looked like he could be with an excellent performance against Ireland but the wheels seemed to come off after that. You never know perhaps Farrell and Ford will both be injured leaving Cipriani as the saviour.


The Burgess bandwagon is rolling. I guess I can understand it - he was a superstar in RL, he's a big guy, great athlete, fast learner etc but I just think he still needs more time as he's not been in rugby union long enough to really learn everything he needs to. Doesn't help that club and country are fighting over his best position.

I am guilty of being on the Itoje bandwagon - there are numerous youngsters who get talked up as the next big thing but I rarely believe the hype. With Itoje though it's different - I think for a player of his age in his position to make an impact is impressive.

My issue with Twelvetrees has always been he's been built up to be better than he is - I've never felt that he's shown enough to warrant the hype that surrounded him.

Cipriani has a hearing, this week so his fate will be decided either way.

Surely he must have been over the limit if this is the case?

That would guarantee Slades position aswell....

GeordieFalcon wrote:Lancaster has done excellent for England...but to label him "Englands best coach?" Im not sure.

Burgess should not be considered a 12! He's a 6 only.
If the're looking at 12's id rather give young Stephenson at Saints a go...he's been class!

I think Rowell has the best % and Woodward won a RWC….Lancaster hasn't won anything in 3 years so i think he isn't the best anything yet.

Cyril wrote:Why does hyperbole always have to come into it? Players mostly aren't considered either a 'saviour' or 'rubbish'. It's always useful if you want to undermine someone's argument and put words in their mouth though, I guess...

I think most people hope 12T can fulfill his potential and get form back as he certainly could do a job for England if he does that. Similarly with Burgess, there's potential there too (most people think at 6). What we don't know is how far he's advanced with all the squad time. I can't help but think it's maybe a year too early in his case though.

It's a forum though, so only polar opposites count

First para is spot on - the media and some posters here like to see things in black and white terms, but mostly reality is in the shades of grey.

With regard to 12trees, he has all the attributes on paper to be an excellent international player, but his performances have not lived up to some excessively high expectations. He's been neither as good nor as bad as often made out though.

Burgess I suspect you are right that the RWC has come a season too soon - as I've said before, the issue with converting from RL to RU is often not the technical requirements (easy enough to learn) but the 'doing the right thing at the right time'. To be a top class player this has to be on instinct, not from conscious thought, and it takes some time to pick up this 'skill'. Heck, even changes of system can scupper experienced world class players (Johnno's comments about Graham Henry's pod system?), so to expect a RL convert to pick up the finer points of RU (to a sufficiently high level to play internationally) in 6-8 months is unrealistic.

Didn't Burgess himself say that he was finding it a bit boring in the centres?

I think that with players like him (and haskell to an extent) it's best to accept that they are limited in what they can do (tackling, carrying and offloading) but just go with it. I like to call it the "hulk smash" train of thought. Send them on with 20 (or start them for 60) and tell them to carry like crazy and smash anything that moves. This would make the most of their skills and for someone with as little experience as burgess has, make the game a lot easier for them by assigning him a role he knows inside out.

Incidentally, i don't think that this necessarily means he should be confined to 6. His passing isn't too bad and he has a good offloading game. If he runs hard lines every play then ford can choose to either use him to carry it up or skip him and go out wide to JJ with Burgess on the decoy. Basically take the decision making out of burgess' hands, leave him to do what he does best. Admittedly he will still have to learn to defend in the 12 channel, but from what i've seen that hasn't been too much of an issue.

I agree that i think much of Lancaster's thinking is down to having a big carrier in the 12 shirt and he wants Burgess to be that man. If he pulls it off though it will be a brilliant midfield to have and a lot of what i've seen regarding Burgess' inclusion is down to the character and leadership he shows which carries a lot of weight with Lancasters selection.

belovedfrosties wrote:...I agree that i think much of Lancaster's thinking is down to having a big carrier in the 12 shirt and he wants Burgess to be that man.  If he pulls it off though it will be a brilliant midfield to have and a lot of what i've seen regarding Burgess' inclusion is down to the character and leadership he shows which carries a lot of weight with Lancasters selection.

Agree with that. I suspect one of Lancaster's major concerns is not having experienced campaigners in his team. That's not necessarily just about caps, it's about the way players conduct themselves around the squad, and handle pressure on the pitch.

Burgess appears to have these qualities on spades but it only really makes sense if he's a starter, and I struggle to see that he's got sufficient rugby nous to handle the highest level of competition.

England only have Haskell, Cole, Croft, Youngs, Lawes and Easter from 2011

Gwlad wrote:England only have Haskell, Cole, Croft, Youngs, Lawes and Easter from 2011

Is that all? That can't be right, 6 players who have played at a RWC? Easter and Croft are long shots to start, Lawes and Haskell have been in and out too.

With dealing with pressure I think those on the lions tour will have a similar experience, so I wouldn't worry too much!

Also maybe the inexperience might help with dealing with the huge pressure of a home RWC

Fiji have just won the Pacific Nations Cup by beating Samoa. They are in the group, in case anyone has forgotten.

Rugby Fan wrote:Fiji have just won the Pacific Nations Cup by beating Samoa. They are in the group, in case anyone has forgotten.

They'll be losing a few players to their French contracts though, as Van Der Merwe will be missing for SA.

Also a few of those games weren't great uality, the Samoa match in particular was a bit of a mess, extremely exciting but little structure and their set peice was dire at times!

Gwlad wrote:England only have Haskell, Cole, Croft, Youngs, Lawes and Easter from 2011

There are more players in the current squad with WC experience than that.

Wood and Wigglesworth too, but that's not many.

There are 11 of the same players from 2011 squad

corbs and wilson
ashton also

9 retired

foden, simpson, croft and tuilagi have been injured

It is amazing how much a squad changes in 4 years but players do often retire after world cups