BURGESS ?

Is the inclusion of Burgess after one international and half a season with Bath (in a different position to where England are apparently playing him):

1 - A testment to the open mindedness of Stuart Lancaster, the England set up and the RFU that someone with a lot of raw talent can come into the squad no matter what their background and experience?

2 - A damning inditement of the RFU/PRL coaching system in that rugby union cannot produce test quality players from within it's own ranks and an admission that the clubs are not producing players good enough to keep a rugby league convert with less than a season's experience out?

3. A sign of pig-headedness that a player who has shown his best form as a backrower is being shoehorned into the centres as a result of Manu Tuilagi's brain fart, and Burgess's own leadership and physical play

That being said, I don't expect him to let anyone down

Damn I thought this was about burgers.

Sorry...!

I thought we'd moved on.

Sorry....!

Or it could be
4) Burgess is an exceptional athlete who has showed amazing powers of dedication to be able to get to this point so quickly, and that his general presence and attitude have a very positive effect on the rest of the squad and the coaches are keen to capture that.

(and yes he is a back row, but will do a job at 12)

5) An opportunity to rehash the same arguments already being had in several other threads


It happened. Be glad it wasnt Farrel senior or Hape.


6) Only happening because Tuillagi is a violent drunk

lostinwales wrote:Or it could be
4) Burgess is an exceptional athlete who has showed amazing powers of dedication to be able to get to this point so quickly, and that his general presence and attitude have a very positive effect on the rest of the squad and the coaches are keen to capture that.

(and yes he is a back row, but will do a job at 12)

Doing a job wont win you a WC....

GeordieFalcon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Or it could be
4) Burgess is an exceptional athlete who has showed amazing powers of dedication to be able to get to this point so quickly, and that his general presence and attitude have a very positive effect on the rest of the squad and the coaches are keen to capture that.

(and yes he is a back row, but will do a job at 12)

Doing a job wont win you a WC....

No it won't but he is most likely the back up rather than the first choice and the things he will be expected to do are things he does very very well.

Interesting interview with Lancaster in the Telegraph today, describing the training match on Wednesday. He singles out an example where Burgess picked a line without the ball that held 3 defenders and created space for Goode to score a try.

That might raise questions about the intelligence of England's defence, but I think the point he's trying to make is that Burgess offers a different kind of threat to the rest of his options. The combination of physical presence and unexpected lines demands a bit more attention from defenders, which could be one of the 1%s that England will need.

I don't know whether it will work, but it's interesting. Ironically, it may actually be an advantage that he's barely played at centre - there's so little video of him there that he's an unknown quantity for opponents.

Ultimately Lancaster, as with any leader, must make the decisions he feels are best to achieve the goal - in this case win a RWC.  His performance will be judged based upon results.  If he wins, this was a good decision, or at least not a bad one.  If he is not successful, then he will also be judged.  

In this context, I think we want Lancaster making his own decisions, along with his immediate coaching team, whether we agree with those decisions or not.  Caving in to conventional wisdom or outside criticism is weak.  He is in charge and is, therefore, solely responsible.  If England play poorly, the parts he selected not firing, and do not make the Quarter-Finals, then he will be gone.  If he is successful, then he would, and should, be rewarded.

I'd love them to release the footage of these training games once the tournament is done.

Interestingly, Lancaster also insists in that Burgess is as quick as Burrell and that only Joseph is quicker than him in the centres.

I reckon there is some financial reason for his inclusion. I think Lancaster must have been put under pressure from some stakeholders somewhere.

It makes zero sense otherwise IMO.

I guess that shows hom much your opinion is worth

GunsGerms wrote:I reckon there is some financial reason for his inclusion. I think Lancaster must have been put under pressure from some stakeholders somewhere.

It makes zero sense otherwise IMO.

There are rumours from some posters on these boards that the lads in the Welsh camp who are on DCs are preferred to no DC players.

I'm not so sure.

Was Burgess' move from league part funded by the RFU...???

That said reports from other players on him back up Lancaster and Farrell who say he is a huge asset to the squad not just as a player.

No money from the RFU.

It has been publicly stated that the RFU made no financial contribution to the move. I'm never sure whether people stating otherwise are unaware of that or just dont believe it.

And there is just no amount of money in terms of a 'financial reason' that can match the rewards from winning (ha ha) the RWC.

In other words there is no reason to jeopardize our already slim chances of winning the RWC by picking Burgess over an alternative because of outside forces

I dunno, maybe he didnt pick Eastser because the RFU were worried about forking out £35k every time he wanted a poo.

Yeh - plus even if the RFU did contribute, that's a sunk cost anyway and no reason to change your selection policy, even if the financial impact of winning/losing the tournament was zero.

maestegmafia wrote:Damn I thought this was about burgers.

Sorry...!

He was selected yesterday on National Burger Day! A coincidence I think not, but at least he will add beef to Engalnd's challenge and relish the task ahead.

hugehandoff wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Damn I thought this was about burgers.

Sorry...!

He was selected yesterday on National Burger Day! A coincidence I think not, but at least he will add beef to Engalnd's challenge and relish the task ahead.

Mrs Poorfour would probably tell me he has buns of steel. With sesame seeds on. But this is getting cheesy and we won't know for another few weeks whether he'll bring home the bacon.

If there is one chap who can make the conversion its Burgess. Lets put it another way... he's a better RL player than Sonny Bill ever was.

Who cares if he's limited in certain aspects of play. He offers things no other player in England can in defence and also with the crash ball... use him right and he will be an awesome player. All players have weaknesses... hell England even once capped Joel Tomkins so I'm not sure what people are complaining about. You build plays around your team, your players which suits all best, not plays which quite simply players have to adapt to.

People say he can't attack... neither can half the England backline.

They said the same thing about Jason Robinson... oh, he's not cut out for union, this was even after his Lions exploits and early England appearances.

Save NZ, he'd be in ever other national RWC squad... and that's only because their talent at centre is a) off the chart and b) settled. Had Burgess had 12 more months he'd be in that squad too.

Half the England backline can't attack. You really have issues fa.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Half the England backline can't attack. You really have issues fa.

Think its a warranted comment given Barritt, Farrell etc is a real possibility as first choice 10 and 12.

Given its Youngs Ford Barritt Joseph, Nowell, Watson and Brown its' not warranted at all.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Given its Youngs Ford Barritt Joseph, Nowell, Watson and Brown its' not warranted at all.

Think Ford will still play? I think he's played himself out of the starting jersey on last weeks form. If Farrell plays vs. Ireland and performs well, he'll take the jersey IMO. I think Farrell actually is a better choice anyhow vs. Ireland.

Ford will start. Even throw Farrell into that backline and your comments are well wide of the mark on England as appears to be your thing at the moment.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ford will start. Even throw Farrell into that backline and your comments are well wide of the mark on England as appears to be your thing at the moment.

I was proved well off the mark last saturday I'll give you that. I recall our chats on Ford and Youngs in the build up... boy was I wrong. Took me a week to get that egg off my face.

fa0019 wrote:He offers things no other player in England can in defence

Such as?

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ford will start. Even throw Farrell into that backline and your comments are well wide of the mark on England as appears to be your thing at the moment.

I was proved well off the mark last saturday I'll give you that. I recall our chats on Ford and Youngs in the build up... boy was I wrong. Took me a week to get that egg off my face.

This reads sarcastically but you were shown to be wrong. Good to admit it and move on though. I assume this means the top 6Ns try scorers dont have a backline who cant attack as well.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ford will start. Even throw Farrell into that backline and your comments are well wide of the mark on England as appears to be your thing at the moment.

I was proved well off the mark last saturday I'll give you that. I recall our chats on Ford and Youngs in the build up... boy was I wrong. Took me a week to get that egg off my face.

This reads sarcastically but you were shown to be wrong. Good to admit it and move on though. I assume this means the top 6Ns try scorers dont have a backline who cant attack as well.

I know Tom Youngs played like a dream, no lineouts lost and dominance in the scrum. Ford was dominant and his kicking was immaculate. Kicked one from halfway too.... only 5m short (well 10 if you wanted it over the posts)... totally proved me wrong in questioning his range at the moment.

Ah, but ok set piece was dire but did you see him in the loose??? Makes up for it doesn't it..... no.

I don't wish bad on the above players at all, but put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes if you like.

You said Fords accuracy wasnt good enough yet it was. As I pointed out very few regular kickers have the distance for half way. France for instance. The lineout was useless but that wasnt mainly Youngs. You just seem a poor judge of England players they are much bettert han you give credit for as evidenced byy ou thinking the backline cant attack.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You said Fords accuracy wasnt good enough yet it was. As I pointed out very few regular kickers have the distance for half way. France for instance. The lineout was useless but that wasnt mainly Youngs. You just seem a poor judge of England players they are much bettert han you give credit for as evidenced byy ou thinking the backline cant attack.

Teams with halfway range

Ireland - Sexton
Wales - Halfpenny
SA - Lambie, Meyer or Pollard
NZ - Carter
France - Huget (I think its him anyhow)

Teams without

Scotland
England
Australia

The problem is...

with penalties 5m +/- the halfway line... the above countries probably have a decent chance of getting 3 points not 80% decent but still better than a 1 in 7 chance of scoring off a inside 22 lineout. Let teams get 1 or 2 of these and you're all of a sudden a score behind. Its these sorts of margins where games are won and lost, where teams have to start chasing games to catch up leaving gaps.... and all of England's competitors save AUS have people who start that can take these sorts of opportunities.

Its Spedding not Huget. You rarely see teams have a go from halfway its not an important factor, though pertienent than the accuracy you started on and the way off the mark attack comment.

Henry Slade can kick from the half way line.

I think Burgess will be a huge hit in Union after another few seasons but I think this is too much too soon etc.

If it goes wrong for him how mentally tough is he could he bounce back from a poor WC showing?

bedfordwelsh wrote:I think Burgess will be a huge hit in Union after another few seasons but I think this is too much too soon etc.

If it goes wrong for him how mentally tough is he could he bounce back from a poor WC showing?

He played 78 minutes with a broken eye socket and was still man of the match. He doesn't seem the kind of guy who's lacking in mental fortitude. I also suspect that to get to the level of performance he has in RL and in RU he is someone who takes feedback and responds to it.

Burgess isn't going to fold if he plays badly, it will just make him train even harder and learn the game quicker, he's unbreakable in more ways than one.

Then if that's the case and if it does go badly for him he will only come back stronger from it, I do think he will be a huge success.

Poorfour wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:I think Burgess will be a huge hit in Union after another few seasons but I think this is too much too soon etc.

If it goes wrong for him how mentally tough is he could he bounce back from a poor WC showing?

He played 78 minutes with a broken eye socket and was still man of the match. He doesn't seem the kind of guy who's lacking in mental fortitude. I also suspect that to get to the level of performance he has in RL and in RU he is someone who takes feedback and responds to it.

Or he had access to effective pain relief and/or didn't know the extent of the damage.

Yes, we know he is a tough guy.  And to be considered to be at the top level in his previous sport, he must train well and take to coaching.  Still that guarantees nothing.  But considering he has been selected for the England squad, let's all hope he works out supremely well.

And despite my not being a Lancaster fan, I have been around a number of top flight pro teams and I have to believe the coaching staff saw definitive indications he is ready for this.

Poorfour wrote:Interesting interview with Lancaster in the Telegraph today, describing the training match on Wednesday. He singles out an example where Burgess picked a line without the ball that held 3 defenders and created space for Goode to score a try.

That might raise questions about the intelligence of England's defence, but I think the point he's trying to make is that Burgess offers a different kind of threat to the rest of his options. The combination of physical presence and unexpected lines demands a bit more attention from defenders, which could be one of the 1%s that England will need.

I don't know whether it will work, but it's interesting. Ironically, it may actually be an advantage that he's barely played at centre - there's so little video of him there that he's an unknown quantity for opponents.

SL is a massive fan of rugby league basics, including running lines. And Burgess was a completely exceptional RL player.

There's no doubt if Burgess starts against the big sides they will target him. But they'll also be scared of him, with the ball and without. It's an interesting call, but it's a home WC and Burgess brings an X-factor and a presence to a young English side that doesn't yet have many players whose reputations worry the opposition (even if it has plenty of players the opposition respect).

Lancaster has a cunning plan, so cunning you could pin a fox on it and call it Manu Tuilagi.

He is going to win the Rugby Union World Cup by playing rugby league.

Genius

Whatever we as individuals think, it is interesting that after all the preparation and build up to the WC, the hosts have selected two players for the mid field with one cap each, earned in a "friendly".

History will judge.......

It will.

They've gone with ability rather than experience. This is the first time Slade or Burgess could realistically have been picked, which is a bit unfortunate. The alternative would have been to pick Twelvetrees, who's just not playing that well and Burrell, who's been no more than workmanlike for the last 12 months.

It's a bit of a gamble, but not a huge one in my view. We'll see how they go. Right now I'd like to see Farrell, Slade, Burgess as the starters, instead of Ford, Barritt, Joseph. I just prefer the balance of the former, and the control they could provide when we have the ball.

offload wrote:Whatever we as individuals think, it is interesting that after all the preparation and build up to the WC, the hosts have selected two players for the mid field with one cap each, earned in a "friendly".  

History will judge.......

Well, Lancaster was hired to win World Cups. This is the moment he has been building towards. If he believes Burgess and Slade in the 31 man squad give him the best chance to win, then he has to go with what he thinks is right. Would we want him doing anything else, whether we think it is the right decision or not?

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You said Fords accuracy wasnt good enough yet it was. As I pointed out very few regular kickers have the distance for half way. France for instance. The lineout was useless but that wasnt mainly Youngs. You just seem a poor judge of England players they are much bettert han you give credit for as evidenced byy ou thinking the backline cant attack.

Teams with halfway range

Ireland - Sexton
Wales - Halfpenny
SA - Lambie, Meyer or Pollard
NZ - Carter
France - Huget (I think its him anyhow)

Teams without

Scotland
England
Australia

The problem is...

with penalties 5m +/- the halfway line... the above countries probably have a decent chance of getting 3 points not 80% decent but still better than a 1 in 7 chance of scoring off a inside 22 lineout. Let teams get 1 or 2 of these and you're all of a sudden a score behind. Its these sorts of margins where games are won and lost, where teams have to start chasing games to catch up leaving gaps.... and all of England's competitors save AUS have people who start that can take these sorts of opportunities.

Spedding is the French long range kicker

offload wrote:Whatever we as individuals think, it is interesting that after all the preparation and build up to the WC, the hosts have selected two players for the mid field with one cap each, earned in a "friendly".  

History will judge.......

Put it like that it is a fully balls out selection, behind Barrit and JJ though who are seasoned operators.

Burgess is just a bliddy good all round rugby player. He will be a star so long as he keeps his discipline and doesn't give penalties away. I have no worries about him whatsoever. You just have to see how he performed against France. Outstanding.

Its the guy next to him in that France game who could be a star in this midfield. Burgess was decent vs France how do you think he was outstanding?

englandglory4ever wrote:Burgess is just a bliddy good all round rugby player. He will be a star so long as he keeps his discipline and doesn't give penalties away. I have no worries about him whatsoever. You just have to see how he performed against France. Outstanding.

Blimey - you've really got worked up about this one haven't you? Burrell gives a couple of penalties away against France's 1st choice backline and it's "how dare he? Drop the useless lump immediately". Burgess does the same against France's 2nd choice back line and its "he'll be the greatest of all time provided he doesn't do that again." (Paraphrasing)

FWIW I'm excited to see Burgess picked and think his presence will do more good than bad, but I think you're being a bit one-eyed here.