Yet Another Sam Burgess Discussion Thread

[LondonTiger]

First topic message reminder :

Sam Burgess, demigod or not?

[Hammersmith harrier]

The thing with Youngs is you can see he's a converted centre, he's great in the loose but he's horrific in the set piece and ultimately puts too much pressure on Ford because of it. Our problems at hooker and centre are really showing up the omissions of Tuilagi and Hartley, a home world cup is not the time to prove a point to players.

[englandglory4ever]

"Our problems at hooker and centre are really showing up the omissions of Tuilagi and Hartley, a home world cup is not the time to prove a point to players."

I suppose you do know that Hartley was banned and Tuilagi injury is still not right and Christmas time is when he is expected back. So no, they don't "show up omissions" do they? Therefore no "point" was being proved by anybody either.

[BamBam]

But Hartley could have been the 3rd hooker, and we take the risk that none of the other two get injured before the Fiji game

[Scottrf]

But Hartley could have been the 3rd hooker, and we take the risk that none of the other two get injured before the Fiji game

Doesn't seem as big a risk as the wonky lineouts now other teams have selected two hookers for the entire tournament. Youngs is great around the park but not good at all at hooker basics.

[beshocked]

Hammersmith harrier the issue is that England cannot and shouldn't rely on Hartley.

England need more than one reliable hooker.

Lancaster has got himself in this position by not starting any hooker other than T.Youngs and Hartley in meaningful games.

Lancaster has shown a lack of trust in the other hookers.

Webber only got 5 minutes vs Fiji. To me personally that wasn't enough time. If Lancaster was going to pick Webber over George he at least needed to give Webber some game time.

Now we go into the Wales game with a first choice hooker we aren't comfortable with and Webber with 5 minutes under his belt since the 1st warm up game vs France and George whose had two bench cameos in the warm ups.

Not good is it?

Personally I think that's poor management but we can agree to disagree.

[Hammersmith harrier]

"Our problems at hooker and centre are really showing up the omissions of Tuilagi and Hartley, a home world cup is not the time to prove a point to players."

I suppose you do know that Hartley was banned and Tuilagi injury is still not right and Christmas time is when he is expected back. So no, they don't "show up omissions" do they? Therefore no "point" was being proved by anybody either.

The ban that ruled him out of the Fiji game only and Tuilagi would have been in the squad so yes they do both show up the RFU as pandering to popular opinion and omitting them both.

[No 7&1/2]

Tuilagi assualted a police woman. There was some guff spouted about his ferry swim but he needs to be dropped after that no matter what and he's injured so couldn't ahve been. Taking 2 available hookers would have been a big risk.

[beshocked]

Hammersmith Harrier there wouldn't be talk about Hartley if Lancaster sorted out the hooker situation by making intelligent decisions.

[lostinwales]

Tuilagi assualted a police woman. There was some guff spouted about his ferry swim but he needs to be dropped after that no matter what and he's injured so couldn't ahve been. Taking 2 available  hookers would have been a big risk.

Thats been done to death and its irrelevant as his groin isnt right.

[Hammersmith harrier]

Hammersmith Harrier there wouldn't be talk about Hartley if Lancaster sorted out the hooker situation by making intelligent decisions.

There would have been talk regardless when Hartley is the best English hooker by qutie some distance, managing Webber and George better wouldn't have made them better options. I agree the persistence with Youngs is infuriating, i'm all for players having an all round contribution but when they're not good enough at their primary job they should be dropped.

[beshocked]

Hammersmith harrier my point is that Hartley absence is amplified because of Lancaster's poor management.

Hartley might well be England's best hooker but if Webber or George were given some trust by Lancaster they might prove that they deserve to be ahead of Youngs and be able to pressurise Hartley.

Webber just 5 minutes against Fiji. What's the point?

George was one of the form hookers in club rugby last season but is seen as effectively 4th choice for England. He can't prove himself because he's not being given the opportunities.

If Youngs was tearing it up for England then hooker wouldn't be a problem but he's not.

[No 7&1/2]

He'll have some in training, perform well there he'll get a chance with the team.

[beshocked]

Training...... that measures how good a player is.... good to know.....

The more you can bench press the better too.

[No 7&1/2]

I'm just throwing it in there, certainly possible. If in training he's not showing as much as the other 2 or possibly he's showing the same and they've gone with the guys that have been around longer.

[beshocked]

Perhaps no 7 & 1/2 but it's still not a good reason to pick a player in my opinion.

I don't care how good player X does in training if he doesn't bring that form onto the rugby pitch.

[Geordie]

Lancasters policy is very strange.

In the backs he is totally open to trying players.

He's played and trialled all sorts.

Yet move to the Forwards and that policy changes quite dramatically. And I don't think he does trial loads...for whatever reason.

Maybe Rowntree has a big influence in this.

I agree with Beshocked that knowing hooker was a potential issue, he should have had a look at the options in the warm up games...and to be honest before then - AI's 6n etc.

He just doesn't make lots of changes in the forwards and I think that's a mistake at times.

[BamBam]

Perhaps no 7 & 1/2 but it's still not a good reason to pick a player in my opinion.

I don't care how good player X does in training if he doesn't bring that form onto the rugby pitch.

Or maybe that is the form shown in training, and George and Webber have been no better

[Poorfour]

Gf, it's not strange. He's been forced to trial players in the backs by injuries, retirements and loss of form in almost every position. The forwards have had fewer issues - though long term absences for the likes of Corbs and Croft have perhaps been less visible than the pattern of shorter term injuries in the backs.

Overall, only Steve Hansen has used fewer players than Lancaster among the major national coaches in this RWC cycle. The squad selection has been heavily geared towards picking a core group and building experience - but it has also rewarded good performances when players have come into the squad.

[beshocked]

Bambam I don't care how well T.Youngs does with his throwing in training if he can't consistently hit an England player when playing at Twickenham.

The pack might well be able to scrummage well against an inanimate object like a scrummaging machine but it doesn't mean they can vs the likes of Fiji,Wales and Australia!

Japan aren't the best team in the world but they seemed to consistently hit their jumpers against South Africa - if need be England need Borthwick as a specialist lineout coach.

Too late for this RWC sadly but perhaps in the future.

[BamBam]

And if George can't even throw better than him in training what makes you think he can at Twickenham?

Surely the coaches aren't idiots, if George is throwing at 90% in training and Youngs is throwing at 60-70%, they would make the change

[beshocked]

Very true Geordiefalcon,

England look light on experience at TH too. Cole is the clear choice from Lancaster but it means that the players behind him have had basically no gametime.

Only at lock is there some more depth because of injuries.

Even with the absentee of Hartley, hooker is still an area which Lancaster has only really trusted T.Youngs. Disappointing.

Lancaster wants an experienced core but if you lose the likes of Robshaw,Cole and T.Youngs then cracks in his selection will be busted wide open.

[No 7&1/2]

But they re only relatively experienced as hes tried to stick with them.

[beshocked]

And if George can't even throw better than him in training what makes you think he can at Twickenham?

Surely the coaches aren't idiots, if George is throwing at 90% in training and Youngs is throwing at 60-70%, they would make the change

It's because training isn't Twickenham. It's completely different.

Just because T.Youngs is throwing better in training does not mean he will at international level.

It's a flawed way of a looking at it.

[fa0019]

To be honest can anyone be worse?

[BamBam]

I agree its different, but if he can't be clearly better in training is he going to improve tenfold against Wales!!

And no, he probably couldnt be much worse, but we need better, not the same

[beshocked]

fa0019 to be LCD wasn't great on his England debut.

Bambam don't think I ever suggested picking George to start vs Wales. Should have vs Fiji to see what he could do.

Lancaster has backed T.Youngs completely so he needs to stick with him.

Webber or George might be better than T.Youngs but haven't been given sufficient opportunities (training doesn't count).

[englandglory4ever]

"It's a flawed way of a looking at it."

Sorry, that's hogwash. Coaches make selections based on a number of inputs and one of the main inputs is how well a player does against others whilst being watched by the coaches. That in itself creates pressure to some degree. If the training paddock wasn't such a key element of selection as beshocked would have us all believe then why in hell bother with it at all?

[Barney McGrew did it]

SL clearly favours play in the loose to set-piece. Otherwise TY wouldn't get a look in, as he weakens the scrum (twice) as well as the LO. But it is a preference that is too high risk IMO - he better hope we don't lose the Wales game to a scrum penalty 3 pointer.

What is worrying though is that despite this we still don't do well at the breakdown. It makes me wonder what his game plam actually is. I think he'd make a great RL coach.

[No 7&1/2]

His flaws are over egged. There was dispondance about set piece and breakdown last time Peyper reffed us just possible we may suddenly improve again?

[englandglory4ever]

I agree Barney. I think SL is trying to create a running XV where reliance on set piece is not so important. Well let's say not the be all and end all. Japan showed what can be done with a lighter set of forwards. I've also seen England in the past absolutely muller teams in the tight but not on the scoreboard. Winning by one or two 3 pointers from scrums was the order of the day. Not anymore. They are looking to keep the ball in play for 40 minutes which is something the NZ team does. Clearly the last 15 minutes is where tight games are going to be won and lost at the business end of the tourney. The signs are that SL and his coaches have made strides in this area.

[Hammersmith harrier]

The rather relevant point that Beshocked is trying to make is that training is no substitute for the cauldron that is Twickenham against Wales, from what i've seen George would be the safer set piece bet than the woeful Tom Youngs. We know that he'll miss his throws and weaken the scrum but with George it's a only a small question mark because of his inexperience.

George and Launchbury in for Youngs and Parling will strengthen the scrum and line out immeasurably whilst Launchbury will more than make up for Youngs open play work rate plus he's a big positive at the breakdown.

[jamesandimac]

No7, I have to disagree completely that Youngs' flaws are over egged. Lets not forget that he has a history of this and his gifting territory and possession to NZ in AI 13 handed them the game. This is nothing new and could rear its ugly head again at a more important stage should we progress.

I do completely agree with this statement though. A back 5 of Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw and Vunipola offers so much grunt and graft around the park that it affords each individual to excel in their bespoke areas as they know the other 4 will cover. For me that back 5 has it all as a unit which means you can concentrate on set piece from the front row.

[Geordie]

Gf, it's not strange. He's been forced to trial players in the backs by injuries, retirements and loss of form in almost every position. The forwards have had fewer issues - though long term absences for the likes of Corbs and Croft have perhaps been less visible than the pattern of shorter term injuries in the backs.

Overall, only Steve Hansen has used fewer players than Lancaster among the major national coaches in this RWC cycle. The squad selection has been heavily geared towards picking a core group and building experience - but it has also rewarded good performances when players have come into the squad.

I accept he has had injury issues and loss of form but it concerns me that at times he hasn't had a look at players.

Now I know the argument then is about creating a settled high capped team....but you can still achieve that AND have a look at other options. I appreciate it isn't easy, but just think Lancaster hasn't quite got the right balance in that respect at times.

And surely comparing Steve Hansen isn't the best example...they're world champions and the best team in the world. He doesn't need to change much...just check out a few new comers...

[No 7&1/2]

Not over egged at all then but we go back to nz 13 quite alot to prove hes no good.

[Poorfour]

GF - I think next RWC cycle there's a lot more scope to experiments, but when - really - could Lancaster have looked at new players, and who should he have looked at?

Be specific, and don't allow yourself hindsight, and I think you'll find it's a lot harder than it sounds.

The media and fans bay for blood after every loss. The only real chance for experimentation was the 2013 South American tour - where he rested Robshaw and tried out Kvesic and a number of other new players. He also took a fair few young players on tour to NZ and has tried them out in the non-cap games. Kyle Sinckler got a game against the Crusaders, and Henry Slade forced his way through from the Barbarians game.

And who hasn't been tried that should have been? The ones that people (well, beshocked mostly) are demanding at the moment are players who've only really emerged in the last season - George, Itoje, Slade - very risky to throw into an RWC situation (though he has chanced an arm on two of them, albeit not entirely through choice).

Off the top of my head, the new players he's brought through to full caps since he started are: Marler, Mako, George, Brookes, Thomas, Launchbury, Kruis, Billy V, Morgan, Farrell, Ford, Barritt, Burrell, Burgess, Twelvetrees, Eastmond, May, Nowell, Watson, Goode, Kvesic, Gray... there may be more. The likes of Robshaw, Wood, Brown and Lawes only had a handful of caps when he started. That's a pretty sizeable chunk of the current squad and the total base of players he's used.

[englandglory4ever]

Well said poor four. SL brought a large number of new and exciting talent in over his tenure. He basically built a virtually new team.

[LondonTiger]

GF - I think next RWC cycle there's a lot more scope to experiments, but when - really - could Lancaster have looked at new players, and who should he have looked at?

Be specific, and don't allow yourself hindsight, and I think you'll find it's a lot harder than it sounds.

I agree 100%.

Lancaster has, as far as possible, tried to mix things up in the "softer" AI matches and on tours.

the following gives the full list of 41 players who received their first caps under Lancaster:

http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;debut_or_last=1;filter=advanced;orderby=matches;spanmax1=31+Dec+2015;spanmin1=01+Jan+2012;spanval1=span;team=1;template=results;type=player


That is 21 of the WC squad.

[beshocked]

Thank you hammersmith harrier. That's indeed the case though I am not sure Lancaster can risk George vs Wales because he missed the opportunity to try him vs Fiji.

JamesandImac you are right. The unreliability of T.Youngs set piece is not new. I do like that back five that you and hammersmith harrier support.


Poorfour how many of Lancaster's selections were him picking a player because of form and how many were because of injuries?

I think you'll find that the majority of Lancaster's new caps were because of injuries.

Lancaster has just happened to blood new caps through sheer necessity most of the time, not some genius masterstroke on his part.

One of his only conscious decisions to blood a new player - Nowell I thought was a mistake because the game that Lancaster chose to do it in.

There are better times to try out new players. Warm ups for example are a perfect opportunity as well as against weaker opposition, preferably at home. I feel that Lancaster picked the wrong players - Clark and LCD to experiment with in the warm ups. LCD is more understandable but when you realise that his weaknesses at throwing are arguably worse than T.Youngs, it doesn't look so good.

It's no more risky to try George and Slade when T.Youngs seems to be struggling at set piece and Barritt didn't have a good game vs Fiji.

It's not hindsight because I have supported both George and Slade.

Burgess is one risk by Lancaster that might pay off but it makes me wonder why he didn't try more.

George and Slade would be risks too but England do IMO need more options at 2 and in the centres.

I question the decision not to try out Ksevic and Itoje too.

[LondonTiger]

Warmups a a pathetically crap time to try out players for the first time. You only learn in matches where the result is the only important thing.

[No 7&1/2]

You were a bit wary of Slade at 12 initially weren't you beshocked? Not having spent much time there for Exeter, or is it at 10 or 13 you'd want him?

The thing with blooding players is ideally it's done in a settled side gradually which is a luxury lancaster hasn't had. He's basically embedding an entire back row to get a decent number of caps to start with let alone blooding the next phase as well.

[beshocked]

Londontiger disagree.

Warm ups help ease players in. Teams still want to win though there's less on the line. It's a stepping stone. Gametime even in a warm up is much better than training IMO because you are still playing a competitive side who are trying to win.



no 7 & 1/2 yes I was a bit wary but I thought Slade had a good debut in the first warm up game. My viewpoint on players is not always set in stone. He looks like he could be a good utility player.

Lancaster might not have the luxury of a settled side but he has the luxury of having a bigger pool of players to pick from.

[No 7&1/2]

So it was hindsight then! The pool of players comes back to the issue at hand though, do you forever chase the form player? Was it best Lancaster tried to identify a set core and give them experience or would he have been better spreading it around so we now had numerous players on 8-10 caps?

[fa0019]

Got to go with form and let nature take its course.

Don't have preconceived ideas on who will be there bar someone who is a golden oldie and you can't see them lasting 4 years.

Otherwise you lower the competitive spirit, the honour of the shirt and the drive amongst all players to fight for their place and raise performance.

What happens if your golden egg gets injured/banned?

[No 7&1/2]

I'd go with the opposite. We've had the golden OC injured and were then able to pick Joseph who himself was injured when he was due to get an opportunity. I come back to the fact England have very few players who are through that initial blooding process though we have no golden oldies. Form for England with so many options would mean half a new side every match, which I wouldn't see as ideal.

[Geordie]

GF - I think next RWC cycle there's a lot more scope to experiments, but when - really - could Lancaster have looked at new players, and who should he have looked at?

Be specific, and don't allow yourself hindsight, and I think you'll find it's a lot harder than it sounds.

1) The Backs
I think the backs are looking good now because he's been able to look at different players - injury forced or not. Hes been forced to make changes and this has allowed him to see what different players offer and has stumbled upon a set of backs that could become very good indeed.

If he hadn't have had the injuries....would that be the case? Im not sure.

2) Times available to check players out.
In the last year we have had the Ai's 2014, the 6n, then the warm up games. Plenty of time to have a look at the odd position that is causing concern. Not too mention the last 3 years of his tender prior to this year.
Creating a settled team is hugely important, and for the first couple of years he was absolutely correct in putting out the same team wherever possible.
However to check people out doesn't mean playing 10 new players per game. It means having for example: Ewers on the bench instead of Haskell for a few games to see what he brings to the team. Not just for one match. You see nothing in one match.

3) Back row:
In the back row we have had Haskell who despite huge "potential" has never shown the consistency to deserve to be selected for this squad now. Regardless of "experience".

Callum Clark has been around the squad for some time now...yet only play his first game in the WC warm ups?? How does that show what he is capable of?

Tom Wood and Robshaw have played every game just about. Robshaw is a risk of running into the ground...and Wood has had a spell of being out of form. Wood was then replaced by....the inconsistent Haskell??? Master stroke. Not even Clark, a stable squad member got a look in despite being in top form for Saints. Why have him in the squad?

Only in the Barbarians game did he play some new players and lo behold young Clifford put in a top class performance...to back up his entire season for Quins...but then not a sniff again.
You say players have been tried. When? How much gametime recently has Kvesic been given. Or Ewers. Just Two examples of players who have stood out in the prem this season and last? If they're not good enough fine...but at least you know then and can put it to bed.

4)
Ill not go there with Itoje...that's been done to death...as has the hooker position.

5) Second Row
Ironically he has had a look at various locks and we have a great stable of them, but I do think bar Launchbury none of them offer a real physical presence that would be good to have in the squad.

But at least we found out that Attwood is not good enough. This was because Lancaster took the time to have a look at him. Well done for that one. But why did he also not spend the time to have a little look at Ed Slater long before his serious injury when he was still playing class.

6) Front Row:
Same story.

7) Experience v Inexperience:
Experience is absolutely crucial I accept that...however there are certainly exceptions...and Lancaster does show some imbalance here.

He wont select certain people because they are young but will select others like Burgess despite playing no rugby and then playing him in a position he barely knows.

I also debate the need for experience when players are totally out of form. Namely Haskell. He has shown through the years he isn't consistent enough for this level...so why persist with him over someone like Clifford as I mentioned before. Both were very very good for their clubs this season. We know about Haskell so why not play Clifford.

In my eyes there is no issue at all with this?

[beshocked]

Well said fa0019.

To be honest there wouldn't be calls for S.Armitage and Hartley if Lancaster was well stocked in terms of strength in depth at hooker and 7.

Hartley has 66 caps. T.Youngs has 25 caps, Webber 14.

Most of Webber's caps are as bench man, he's not been trusted by Lancaster. Only 5 minutes vs Fiji again proves my point.

At 7 there is no true openside. Sure England might well play another 6.5 but England need to look at other options.

Wales and Australia will definitely test the breakdown area.

[BamBam]

I understand the need for options, but as a pairing when playing well, have Wood and Robshaw ever been truly bested at the breakdown?

Wales 2013 was more the lack of balance in the back 5 of the pack, which meant we spent the whole game going backwards.

When we've had parity or even slightly less as a pack, I can't remember any "true 7s" giving us that much of a problem

Only Wales 2013, SA 2012, and Ireland and France this year stand out, and those games were because we got annihilated in the power stakes rather than Wood and Robshaw being poor at the breakdown

[lostinwales]

Its worth quoting Tom Wood again about this (from the Independent 4th September)

He does not for a second buy the popular argument that England are short of a “natural No 7” – indeed, he can be rather challenging on the subject, demanding to know exactly what his interrogator might mean by the phrase.

“I’ve always said that a back-row unit is about balance,” he argues. “When I look at people who carry the tag of ‘natural 7s’ – Justin Tipuric [the Welsh open-side who played so impressively against Ireland last weekend] or Michael Hooper [the exceptional Australian flanker] – I see players who do a lot of their best work in open field. If you play two such people together, as some teams may do at this World Cup, you may lose something at close quarters.

“You need a range of qualities: you need a line-out element, some ballast, carrying ability and a big tackling game, as well as ball-winning skills at the breakdown. Ultimately, it has to be about what works for you.”

[beshocked]

Bambam to be fair you're right as a pairing they have done well but you cannot guarantee they will be fit all the time. If one of Wood or Robshaw is injured then you're left with a feq question marks.

lostinwales I wouldn't say Wood or Robshaw are big ball carriers or big tacklers though. Both great workrates but they don't force opposition back with massive hits or are significant threats with ball in hand. I guess it's worked because the carrying responsibility is on the broad shoulders of the no 8.

Morgan IMO was disappointing, B.Vunipola showed why he should start vs Wales.

Don't get me wrong I think Wood,Robshaw,Vunipola is a good backrow but if you lose one of them I don't think it would be as effective.

I felt the 2003 team did well to cope without Hill until the semi finals but are you convinced that this 2015 could do the same losing Robshaw or Wood?

[lostinwales]

I think Billy did look good because of the stage of the match when he came on, but he does have the bulk to make an impact on any team. Morgan wasn't bad by any means but looked small compared to the Fijians and didn't get any joy with his carrying game

[Sponsored content]