Yet Another Sam Burgess Discussion Thread

[LondonTiger]

First topic message reminder :

Sam Burgess, demigod or not?

[Barney McGrew did it]

I'm not sure what Lawes adds bar the odd tackle on a back, he's been very quiet. Parling has shown up better in the last few games imo

He's become a very tall wing. Shame he's no good at it. Still, keeps him away from the big boys.

[Geordie]

He made one carry of any significance and was smashed and dropped the ball.
Several years back he was labelled a basketball player.

Sadly I really don't think he has moved on from that and post World Cup he could find himself being challenged by a few others.

I think the pack needs a good shake up post WC.

[Sgt_Pooly]

I've been hugely disappointed with Lawes of late, he really adds very little to the game. When you at Parling's influence and work rate I can't see how Lawes can keep his place.

[jamesandimac]

I haven't seen the game on TV yet as I was there, but from what I saw Lawes was very busy and made a lot of secondary tackles and hit a lot of rucks. From what I saw he did a lot more than Parling and looked a lot better once Launchbury came on. Funny the differences in opinions you get from seeing the game live when compared to on TV! I've obviously missed loads.

On that though it was interesting to see what goes on out of camera. I spent a lot of time looking for Barrett and what he was doing, or not as the case maybe, and I wasn't impressed. For someone whos supposed to offer defensive stability and organisation he wasn't offering anything of the sort. He never pulled defenders out, never seemed to hassle or organise, never seemed to communicate at all. Just seemed content to tackle and that was it. If anything Joseph and Ford were organising the D from what I could see.

On the topic of the thread (sorry) Burgess did do a lot of organising on D when he came on and England seemed to make a lot of yards of him or his offloads (3 if I remember rightly).

[Geordie]

Its just a shame that hes been played at centre, when as soon as he goes back to Bath he'll be a 6.

[jamesandimac]

That maybe the case, but he offered a different option in attack for England yesterday. Until that point England only had strike options out wide and there was nothing through the middle, no power runners. Fiji knew that and could drift wide and close down the wingers. He came on and drew men in creating the space out wide. Having him there over Barrett offers another option for England in attack. It makes life easier for the 10.

[Geordie]

Cant disagree with that..

[jamesandimac]

Who would you look to start next match Geordie?

[Geordie]

Well that's the question mate.

I would start Launchbury and Parling. And I would look at the front row aswell.

I would leave the backs alone...but maybe look at Burgess earlier if Barritt isn't offering much.

I would also be asking Ford to show me much better game management.

[fa0019]

I've been hugely disappointed with Lawes of late, he really adds very little to the game. When you at Parling's influence and work rate I can't see how Lawes can keep his place.

Lawes has never been a 4 enforcer type. He can hit yes but usually a blindsided athletic hit on a back. Launchbury... how is he not first choice 4... I'd take him over any 4 in the world bar Retallick and in fairness, I see Launchbury as a far better LT prospect.

Launchbury plays the big guy yet doesn't get the needle like many do and he can take on the quickest players too, he has it all. Very Johnson esque... Johnson 2.0.

Launchbury and Parling looks like the natural choice.

[jamesandimac]

The game will be won and lost upfront next week. We need to get front foot ball for Ford and Youngs so they can shine. In Cardiff we out muscled them however if Lancaster goes with the same pack next week I can see Wales doing that to us.

[Geordie]

FA
That's what we are saying...Lawes is a lineout lock. As is Parling, so they should not be playing together.

Launchbury is still on comeback from injury. He will most likely start the next game. And as I said above...Launchbury and Parling should start for me.

I'm not sure I see Launchbury as Johnson mk 2.

[jamesandimac]

Just watching the game again on TV and I'm up to the half time, but I don't know what the issue is with Lawes. He's pressurised the Fijian lineout to stop clean ball, something only Wood has also done, and hes also been stopping the Fijians dead in the tackle with good line speed. No big hits mind just low hits. Also responsible for a few turnovers, one key one just before halftime when England were under the cosh from Fiji, but it was spoiled by a Morgan loose offload. Only thing he did wrong was one early knock on, but I will say that it belted it down for 15 mins before kick off.

As an aside, the back 3 were very impressive. May and Watson may not have had many chances going forward but they clean up a lot of poor play. All 3 are on top form at the moment and are very good in the air.

[englandglory4ever]

Its just a shame that hes been played at centre, when as soon as he goes back to Bath he'll be a 6.

You are probably right but that is so disappointing. Mike Ford is a luddite if he takes him back to become anonymous 6 again. Especially after the huge investment in time and money made to make him a 12 by England. I've said it before and I'll say it again. When Sam played a few games at 12 for Bath he was actually given the ball about 3 or 4 times in total. Almost always he was miss passed or used as a dummy runner. Totally ignoring the value he could have brought to the team. I blame Ford. I even think he may have deliberately done that to Sam to make his decision to play him at 6 look the right one. It was that bad. Sam should move to the Quins where they would love a good hard running, offloading inside centre. He'd suit their game much more.

[Hammersmith harrier]

I think every man and his dog apart from Stuart Lancaster and the England set up knows that Burgess is a 6 not a 12 so if anyone is to blame it is him not Ford who is playing him to his strengths.

[lostinwales]

Being a 6 means that he has much more of a license to roam than he does at 12. It means he can be used there on the odd move if wanted or he can just follow the ball all day like he looks like he wants to.

[englandglory4ever]

I think every man and his dog apart from Stuart Lancaster and the England set up knows that Burgess is a 6 not a 12 so if anyone is to blame it is him not Ford who is playing him to his strengths.

That's right. Try and drum up some fictitional gang to back up the fact that you don't agree with the paid professionals at the RFU. I'm afraid its only you and maybe one or two others. So who is actually right?

[englandglory4ever]

I'd love him to move to Harlequins. They'd love him too at 12.

[lostinwales]

I think every man and his dog apart from Stuart Lancaster and the England set up knows that Burgess is a 6 not a 12 so if anyone is to blame it is him not Ford who is playing him to his strengths.

That's right. Try and drum up some fictitional gang to back up the fact that you don't agree with the paid professionals at the RFU. I'm afraid its only you and maybe one or two others. So who is actually right?

The paid professionals at Bath who pay his normal wages and are investing in converting him from a League player?

Right now he can do a job for us, and in its limited way do it very well. The alternatives are not good enough, not on form, or not ready yet, but I'd be amazed to see him there long term.

[Hammersmith harrier]

I think every man and his dog apart from Stuart Lancaster and the England set up knows that Burgess is a 6 not a 12 so if anyone is to blame it is him not Ford who is playing him to his strengths.

That's right. Try and drum up some fictitional gang to back up the fact that you don't agree with the paid professionals at the RFU. I'm afraid its only you and maybe one or two others. So who is actually right?

Lancaster and England are certainly not right, i'd be backing Fords judgement over them any day of the week considering he has a far better understanding of the Rugby League skillset and how best to utilise it.

[englandglory4ever]

Let's start a petition to bring slammin Sam to Harlequins. Bath don't want him.

[Shifty]

I don't get the fuss over this guy. He doesn't stand out as a world class player in Union, but neither does he look totally out of place on the field. He appears a decent international standard player, no more no less. He isn't so vital that England can't do without him.

[Geordie]

I think many people just think his skills set could be well suited to the 6 spot. And from there he could have much more influence than at 12.

Ie he can get on the ball more with his hard carrying or is offloads. He would also bring a physical edge to the pack which we are lacking.

This then gives you the space to bring in another talented 12 like Stephenson or Hill or Slade or any number of kids we have coming through.

Off course he needs to this for Bath first...as Tom Wood has really come back in to form in the last few games.

[thomh]

Let's start a petition to bring slammin Sam to Harlequins. Bath don't want him.

Who exactly would that petition be aimed at? Anyway, given that you think Burgess is best at 12 I doubt Quins would be a fit for him anyway. Already have Jamie Roberts.

Don't understand the Lawes stuff above. He's had a quiet couple of games but last season he was outstanding for England. The idea that he's never kicked on I find very strange.

[Hood83]

I think every man and his dog apart from Stuart Lancaster and the England set up knows that Burgess is a 6 not a 12 so if anyone is to blame it is him not Ford who is playing him to his strengths.

That's right. Try and drum up some fictitional gang to back up the fact that you don't agree with the paid professionals at the RFU. I'm afraid its only you and maybe one or two others. So who is actually right?

I agree with Hammersmith, he's a 6 imo. He's also probably good enough to be a very decent international 12, at least as good as Barritt, and possibly already better going forward.

I think he could become an absolutely fantastic 6 given time.

[Hood83]

I wouldn't say 3 missed scrums is ok myself. They were dominated for 60 mins before England's bench quality came on.

If you looked at Ford his management was poor. Look at England's backline attack... it wasn't there at all. He's the general.. he drives the plays.

Yet it was like a beach game, tossing it over to one player to the next. No one taking it in. No one straightening the line, no direct balls. You have to say the pivot is responsible for this. I would say Youngs didn't give him great front ball service and Fiji's line-speed was impressive yet when England had the ball no one seemed to want to take it in.... they looked scared to a man. Only a few players (Parling, Wood, Billy V, Brown etc) seemed to want to take them on.

What was his kick success rate too? 3/5?

It's a fairly regular gripe of mine, but Ben Youngs passing is frequently awful. Almost every ball is at least a foot too high. I have absolutely no idea why people can't see this.

[Geordie]

Let's start a petition to bring slammin Sam to Harlequins. Bath don't want him.

Who exactly would that petition be aimed at? Anyway, given that you think Burgess is best at 12 I doubt Quins would be a fit for him anyway. Already have Jamie Roberts.

Don't understand the Lawes stuff above. He's had a quiet couple of games but last season he was outstanding for England. The idea that he's never kicked on I find very strange.

Maybe I'm just missing what he does and I'm not giving him a fair analysis. Maybe also he shouldn't be paired with another lock similar like Parling.

Personally again id like to see him put another bit of weight on.

Ill watch the Fiji game again and see what my opinion is.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Lawes has quietened down over this season, not making as many of those trademark hits, but doing a lot more of the grind, especially in defence. Parling and Launchbury are roughly the same weight, but only one has the grunt to go with it and it isn't Exeter's latest lock. Look how the scrum suddenly stiffens when Launchbury came on. Parling does not play his weight.

Lawes has become a lot better technically in the tackle, he rarely misses stopping his man dead, he is also becoming like Launchbury a good ground hog and there is no one I can think of that disrupts a maul from a lineout like him. He seems have arms 5 ft long which always gravitate to the ball carrier.

One of the reasons England do not fear Aus and Wales with their specialists, all the England back 5 are good at snaffling the ball and slowing down the opposition rucks. Add Cole and Youngs to that and that is a formidable snaffling operation.

Back on topic, big Sam is growing in this ability to.

[Hammersmith harrier]

The startling thing with Launchbury was his full body hit on Nadolo, put him in to touch as if he was a scrum half, in that one moment it typified his physicality and highlighted something we'd been missing.

1. Marles
2. George
3. Brooks
4. Lawes
5. Launcbury
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola

[LondonTiger]

The startling thing with Launchbury was his full body hit on Nadolo, put him in to touch as if he was a scrum half, in that one moment it typified his physicality and highlighted something we'd been missing.

1. Marles
2. George
3. Brooks
4. Lawes
5. Launcbury
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola

Vunipola and Launcbury both have a chance of being upgraded from the bench. Cannot see George being selected in the matchday squad and reckon if Cole is (deservedly) dropped then Wilson will start.

[Sgt_Pooly]

As a Falcons fan, Brookes is not good enough to start. He's a 30min prop and should be kept as impact.

[DaveM]

What is all this criticism of Lawes? Weird.

I suspect England might go with the same starting pack and forwards on the bench. Seeing as Launchbury will either come on after 50 minutes or go off after 50 minutes it doesn't actually make that much difference who starts.

The choices for SL are in the backs. Will Barritt's poor showing see Burgess promoted to the starting line-up?

I'll keep saying it - asking Ford to manage the game effectively entirely on his own is placing too much pressure on a very inexperienced player. I haven't read the Stephen Jones article, but I'd imagine he is calling for Goode to start because he can help Ford. Of course it won't happen, but England are going to have to get a second play-maker in at some point during the tournament.

[ChequeredJersey]

Yes but you ALSO need someone who can make yards consistently, deweaponise the opposition kicking and high ball game and make something happen.

Care is a genuine playmaker at 9, he is Quins' main metronome. Slade is a playmaker. Farrell can play 12. Ford has managed in plenty of matches as the main playmaker. So I don't think you actually NEED another playmaker starting; it would be nice, but dropping our most dangerous player for whom we rely on for making midfield momentum to do so seems insane, especially when there are other options across the backline

[ChequeredJersey]

But really what you need for Ford and whoever else to have a good time and not struggle as a playmaker is a forward platform and THAT was a major thing we lacked. Alongside any composure, good handling conditions and a gameplan that suited either the opposition or the conditions or the context of the match.

[DaveM]

Personally I wouldn't drop Brown, I'm just saying I can understand the logic behind getting a footballer like Goode in.

I'd play Slade at 12, without any doubt.

[DaveM]

England had enough ball to have really hurt Fiji, and superb outside backs. 9, 10, 12 didn't do enough with the ball we had.

[No 7&1/2]

On reflection I would keep the same team for Saturday but Barritt has to play better than that in attack,he was shocking. Slade will hopefully get a bench spot because once he does get a chance I don't think he'll let it go.

[Sgt_Pooly]

Dave, the critisism of Lawes is.....what is he adding? I'd hardly call that weird.

I forgot he's been playing the last few games. He adds little around the park bar the odd tackle on a back. He lacks grunt and often goes backwards when he carries.

He needs to start contributing more as we're carrying too many players in the pack already (Front row esp Youngs, Lawes).

[No 7&1/2]

I honestly think Lawes and Launchbury are by far the best pairing and I'd be surprised if they didn't revert back to them for Wales. I can understand some slight criticism to Lawes as as the 'enforcer' he is a little light weight, as the lineout lock he's very physical.

[jamesandimac]

I think the critisism of Lawes does him a dis-service. Lawes showed up well in the Fiji game, making a lot of covering tackles and even a few turnovers. Bar 1 carry where he spilt the ball his carrying got England over the gameline and, before the introduction of the bench, was one of the few carriers to take the call into contact at pace.

What I don't get is how Parling gets so many plaudits as a lineout specialist. The primary jumpers for England in the past 2 games have been Wood and Lawes with Parling only taking 1 or 2 himself. When he calls he only calls to the front, middle at best, and we are settling for a catch and drive rather than any quick ball off the top to challenge the opposition midfield. Part of that is the hooker I'm sure.

But lets not forget that he was only called into the side after the poor showing in Paris where Lawes had only himself as a natural jumper to select from, with back up from Launchbury and Robshaw, and a poor hooker throwing in. Parling comes into the next 2 games and has the luxury of Wood, Lawes and himself as natural lineout options as well as having Robshaw as a backup.

In the 2014 6Ns Lawes was rightly lauded for his lineout calling and in the Autumn England had a near on 100% success rate with Lawes calling. Remember as well that it wasn't just catch and drive ball either, England varied their throwing well during that year with a lot of ball being taken at the rear and going off the top.

There is no doubt that having Lawes and Wood together in the starting lineup improves Englands lineout immeasurably. But you need to balance that out and thats where Launchbury comes in for me. They were immense together in 2014 before injuries. They were very impressive together of Friday for the final 30 mins.

The only issue for me in the pack is the hooker. Have a decent hooker who can accurately hit the tail jumper and England have a lot of options. Have a decent hooker who can actually scrummage and hook and I'm pretty sure Cole and Marler will begin to miraculously improve in form.

Starting pack has to be:

1. Marler
2. Webber (He can scrummage and his arrows haven't been bad for England in the warm up or previous performances)
3. Cole
4. Launchbury
5. Lawes
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola

[Exiledinborders]

Jamesandimac I agree with your pack but would go with George. He has a better lineout record in AP, can scrummage and is better around the park than Webber.

Either are better than Youngs who whilst great around the park is a liability at set piece.

[LondonTiger]

I cannot see how, or why you would select Cole. He was the liability.

[BamBam]

Jamesandimac, I agree with you that Parling had more options and did not have the same pressure as Lawes did when France were just throwing up Chouly in front of him.

I would like to see Lawes given another go with Wood as a second option and Launchbury/Robshaw as reserves

One thing I would say about Parling as a caller is that its not always the best option to call the ball to yourself! Matfield is the master, but the amount of times he would call the ball to Juan Smith in 2007 was crazy, when the opposition were marking big Victor. Thats the mark of a real caller to me

[Sgt_Pooly]

As Bam say's, a top line operator doesn't always throw to himself. It's about securing ball from your options. This is pretty basic stuff tbh

[jamesandimac]

I understand that but it is all about options. Can you honestly say that Parling has used the best options over the last couple of games? Is a catch and drive at 2 always the right option? Or is just throwing direct to the first jumper the only option because of Youngs lack of accuracy past 2?

When Lawes was running the lineout all last year we had a lot of variety and used good options in the right areas of the field, it wasn't an issue then. But then he did have Hartley throwing.

[jamesandimac]

George does tick a lot of boxes overall and i know Beshocked is a keen advocator of his, but the atmosphere at Twickenham is going to be even louder than last Friday (if thats even possible) and the pressure will be immense. I would be concerned that it may be a bit too much for his first start.

[BamBam]

I'm definitely in the camp that thinks Youngs is a liability at the set piece, but can see that Parling helps to limit that by calling safe options

It would be nice to have Hartley back, but barring an injury to another hooker it won't happen, I can't see us going down the Wales route and bringing in a player at a different position to the one who has been injured

[beshocked]

jamesandimac unfortunately England wasted the opportunity to start George vs Fiji.

That was the time to play George if they wanted to potentially start him vs Wales.

I expect T.Youngs and Webber will continue.

[Sgt_Pooly]

Youngs is a complete liability, he should be nowhere an England jersey.

[englandglory4ever]

T. Youngs is energetic in the loose and a good tackler so defensively he is very sound. Trouble is we lose weight in the set piece, ruck and maul. He's also a very dodgy thrower. So when you add that lot up you can only come to the conclusion that he is not good enough at the basics for a hooker. That places a huge amount of extra workload on the props and the other front 5 players in general. We need another hooker who is very good at the basics. Not Hartley as he is a discipline nightmare.

[Sponsored content]