Yet Another Sam Burgess Discussion Thread

[LondonTiger]

First topic message reminder :

Sam Burgess, demigod or not?

[Sgt_Pooly]

Billy usually looks a better player as an impact sub as he's a big carrier against tired legs. Similar with Morgan really who uses his pace and power in the latter stages. Either are good starters and it's very close between them.

I'd say Haskell was more than able replacement for Wood/Robshaw. It was only 3 games ago that the majority of 606 were saying he was nailed on as a starter. We have 3 very good flankers and 2 top quality 8's.

[lostinwales]

Billy usually looks a better player as an impact sub as he's a big carrier against tired legs. Similar with Morgan really who uses his pace and power in the latter stages. Either are good starters and it's very close between them.

I'd say Haskell was more than able replacement for Wood/Robshaw. It was only 3 games ago that the majority of 606 were saying he was nailed on as a starter. We have 3 very good flankers and 2 top quality 8's.

And its great Wood (finally) coming back into the kind of form which makes discussion of who plays at 6 pretty redundant

[jamesandimac]

Poorfour, I understand that its difficult, especially when the clamour is for people who have only emerged this year, i.e. the Georges, Slades and Burgess' of the world.

Looking at hooker as a example, Lancaster has had his hands tied really over the past year or so with injuries. Hartley was always seen as the first choice going into the world cup and was really seeing what cover there could be for the replacements and 3rd hooker slot. Webber was tried throughout the AIs and Youngs came back in for the 6Ns. At the time George wasn't in the squad so couldn't be tested. If hartley hadn't been such an idiot we wouldn't be complaining so much, more discussing the virtues of having Youngs on the bench as impact.

But Hartley was an idiot, something Lancaster couldn't have predicted, and we are now struggling for the first choice hooker slot. Realistically, Lancaster had no choice but to call up 2 untried and still developing hookers, who had only just burst onto the scene, into the training squad. In my view its not Lancasters fault that we are in this situation, its Hartleys. However its Lancasters job to make the most of what he has got, and he's got to choose whats best from the team from a Hooker who can't throw, a Hooker who isn't first choice for his club but can do a job or a Hooker who has a lot of potential but is unproven at this level.

[Scottrf]

But Hartley was an idiot, something Lancaster couldn't have predicted.

Even as a Saints fan I'm not sure about that one

[beshocked]

lostinwales if Morgan doesn't carry well then to be frank what does he do? Billy has a higher workrate than Morgan too.

Sgt Pooly it's not close between Morgan and Billy based on current form.

Billy had a great 6 nations and played very well vs Fiji. He played every minute in the 6 nations so he's not just a good impact player.

Morgan struggled vs Fiji.

Actually in regards to Haskell you'll find that some believed that Haskell was excellent vs Wales but tailed off as the tournament went off - finishing with a whimper - a YC vs France.


jamesandimac it is Lancaster's fault. He's not trusted Webber or George sufficiently.

Hartley's ban creates an opportunity to try out new options but this is being squandered by Lancaster. How is a contender going to emerge to Hartley if Lancaster won't try Webber or George.

[BamBam]

A flanker picking up a yellow card? Who'da thunk it! Better drop all flankers who get yellow carded (who is volunteering to tell Richie McCaw?!)

George was firmly 2nd choice at Saracens until Brits got injured, he wasn't a real option during the AIs or 6N, only coming up to the RWC squads did I think he was even in with a shout

[beshocked]

Bambam it was a trip - a stupid needless YC. I could add that Haskell gave away numerous penalties vs Ireland too.

Are you seriously comparing Mccaw who has the cloak of invisibility to penalty machine Haskell?

Surely you're making my point for me - George got an opportunity for Saracens - grabbed it with both hands. He's not exactly a new name. He's been in the Saxons, he was in the U20s. The only real difference is that he got consistent game time.

He's not been trusted by Lancaster. Is that his fault?

Burgess has been picked by Lancaster and he hasn't had as much gametime as George or played as well.

You can't say with a straight face that experience matters when Burgess is picked.

There's not much more George can do. Lancaster would have continued to ignore him if Hartley was fit - that's bad management.

[Sgt_Pooly]

You can be so one eyed Beshocked at times.

There is very little between Billy and Morgan. I'd actually start Morgan as he gets around the park better and give Billy 25/30mins to use his carrying. I can't actually recall an England game of late where Billy played as well as he did against Fiji, perhaps this is clouding your view.

Haskell has played better than Wood over the last year or so but Wood has really stepped it up the last few games. Haskell is clearly our next best option on the flanks, I doubt even you an disagree with this.

[BamBam]

Erm .. did you see what McCaw was yellow carded for? (Hint - it was a trip)

I agree George was worth a shot, but I'm saying he was only worth a shot in the lead up the the selection of the RWC training squad.

At the time, Hartley and Youngs were nailed on (like it or not) and Lancaster chose Webber and LCD ahead of him, that might have been a poor decision but both had been around the Saxons etc, and were more well versed in training methods etc

[Sgt_Pooly]

"I agree George was worth a shot, but I'm saying he was only worth a shot in the lead up the selection of the RWC training squad."

Exactly.

George did not have the best of seasons up until the last half a dozen or so games where he really stepped up. He was excellent in the AP play offs and this cemented his claim for a spot. To suggest George should have been getting game time prior is crazy as he wasn't showing good enough form and had at least 3 better hookers ahead of him.

[Geordie]

Haskell is clearly our next best option on the flanks, I doubt even you an disagree with this

I do though Sgt.

On his day yes probably a starter for me. He can be immense....BUT how often do we see that performance. Very rare...he just too inconsistent at international level.

He is one of the players id have been looking to replace over the last year.

[beshocked]

Sgt Pooly not being one eyed. Just because I think Billy is better.

There is still not sufficient proof Morgan can last 80 minutes.

Perhaps you haven't seen an England game in a while?

Billy had an excellent 6 nations - topped most of the forward stats. He struggled in the warm ups but at least he's brought his top form when he's needed it.

Morgan did not have a good game vs Fiji.

As for Haskell playing better than Wood? No - Wood didn't do well in the warm ups but in the big games he's very consistent. IMO was England's best starting forward vs Fiji.



I think Brown is better than Goode.

Prefer Ford to Farrell because of his attacking ability.

Would still have Marler ahead of Mako

It's not bias because I think Billy is better. I genuinely think he is.

[No 7&1/2]

We can do this all day. Why didn't Mullan get a run of games. Why didn't Kitchener? Why didn't Clifford or Kvesic. Itoje. Waldrom, Ewers. Robson. Cipriani. Hill. Eastmond. Daly. Yarde. Pennell. Etc

[BamBam]

Until the teams are named looks like we're doing this for boredom purposes

We'll all be united as one against the Welsh by Thursday afternoon

[beshocked]

Bambam George had been around the Saxons too.

Okay fine I didn't see what Mccaw's YC was for but he's practically a saint compared to Haskell.

Sgt Pooly if that was the case then why did George have the joint highest tackle count in the ERCC and a massive tackle count in the AP if he only happened to turn up in the last few games? Also how did he manage to have one of the best lineout stats in the AP?

http://www.times-series.co.uk/sport/12972813.Saracens__George_resassured_he_s_in_England_frame/

"That good work puts any England disappointment into perspective for George, whose tally of 205 tackles ranks the highest of any tight-five forward in Aviva Premiership Rugby this year."

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Bambam George had been around the Saxons too.

Okay fine I didn't see what Mccaw's YC was for but he's practically a saint compared to Haskell.

Sgt Pooly if that was the case then why did George have the joint highest tackle count in the ERCC and a massive tackle count in the AP if he only happened to turn up in the last few games? Also how did he manage to have one of the best lineout stats in the AP?

http://www.times-series.co.uk/sport/12972813.Saracens__George_resassured_he_s_in_England_frame/

"That good work puts any England disappointment into perspective for George, whose tally of 205 tackles ranks the highest of any tight-five forward in Aviva Premiership Rugby this year."

More like the Devil in Disguise, having said that I wouldn't mind him as a Saint.

[Geordie]

Until the teams are named looks like we're doing this for boredom purposes

We'll all be united as one against the Welsh by Thursday afternoon

Absolutely...

And I don't dislike the players. I genuinely see the value in all...but I just think it would be nice to know exactly what other options we have at this level. And this is the site to raise that

[LondonTiger]

We can do this all day. Why didn't Mullan get a run of games. Why didn't Kitchener? Why didn't Clifford or Kvesic. Itoje. Waldrom, Ewers. Robson. Cipriani. Hill. Eastmond. Daly. Yarde. Pennell. Etc

And in the end it usually comes down to people pushing their favourites.

the shoudl have got a go XV:

Mullan
George
Francis
Kitchener
Slater
Itoje
Kvesic
Ewers
Simpson
Cipriani
Wade
Slade
Daly
Yarde
Tait

[Poorfour]

The thing for me is that most of the players we're debating here only really emerged at club level this season. George, Itoje, Clifford, Slade, LCD have all really only been contenders in 2015.

GF, I just don't buy that Lancaster could have tried new players in the AIs or 6N. We went into the AIs with the press droning on about England having 4 losses in a row. The fact that they were against the All Blacks, three of them were in NZ and two of those were with a patched up squad because of the timing screwup was, apparently, neither here nor there. Then you had Australia, who are in our Pool, and South Africa, the only team Lancaster's played but never beaten. Which of those games would you have sacrificed on the altar of new blood?

Oh, and hang on a minute. Wasn't that the series that Lancaster dropped Farrell for Ford and began the development of the backline we have today? Maybe his hand was forced by Farrell's injury and lack of form, but he still blooded (yet another) new backline.

This 6N was meant to be the one that England won. Of course, it started on a Friday night in Cardiff with England lacking half the preferred starting pack. Now, arguably he could have blooded Clifford that night in place of turning to Haskell. He is, after all, on Lancaster's radar having won the JRWC (with another great individual performance). But at that point, Clifford was just returning from injury and hadn't yet forced his way into the Quins first team. It was the absence of Robshaw and Easter for the 6N that gave him his chance.

But it's pretty reasonable to argue that with two largely untried locks and two thirds of your preferred back row missing, taking a chance on a completely untried player for a pressure game like that might have been a bit much.

It's easy to argue these things with hindsight, but at the time the squad that went to Wales felt all-too-new.

[LondonTiger]

Stop making reasoned, balanced points Poorfour.

[No 7&1/2]

What have you and Lancaster got against Beumont and Clifford LT?!

All those players though you could say would have offered a bit more depth now if given more or any run of games. We're picking out certain positions at the moment with hindsight and a couple of poor performances (both under the same ref which may be a coincidence).

[beshocked]

We can do this all day. Why didn't Mullan get a run of games. Why didn't Kitchener? Why didn't Clifford or Kvesic. Itoje. Waldrom, Ewers. Robson. Cipriani. Hill. Eastmond. Daly. Yarde. Pennell. Etc

Perhaps Mullan should have got more gametime but Marler and Mako are clear 1st and 2nd LHs. Kitchener is well down the pecking order, also what has he done to warrant being ahead? Clifford - too many players ahead of him plus didn't do enough. Ksevic - should have been given an opportunity. Itoje - should have been given an opportunity in the warm ups. Waldrom - IMO has missed the boat. Ewers - perhaps unlucky too. Robson - no chance, not better than the 9s. Cipriani - not a better 15 than Brown or Goode, not a better 10 than Ford or Farrell. Hill - hasn't done enough yet. Eastmond - unlucky. Daly - still has to do more. Yarde - needs to improve his form. Pennell - no way, wasn't playing to sufficiently high standard.

[lostinwales]

Kitchener/Slater would be a great 2nd row combo. Based on the fiji game though Launchbury looks to be back big time

[No 7&1/2]

Perhaps George should have got more gametime but Hartley and Youngs were clear first and second choice. Kitchener is probably the best lienout forward in the prem and it was him or Kruis at the time to start the 6Ns. Clifford had a great year, a lot of people are mentioning him. etc etc You would do the same as Lancaster but they would be different players in other words.

[TightHEAD]

Burgess will be selected vs Wales.

[LondonTiger]

We can do this all day. Why didn't Mullan get a run of games. Why didn't Kitchener? Why didn't Clifford or Kvesic. Itoje. Waldrom, Ewers. Robson. Cipriani. Hill. Eastmond. Daly. Yarde. Pennell. Etc

Perhaps Mullan should have got more gametime but Marler and Mako are clear 1st and 2nd LHs. Kitchener is well down the pecking order, also what has he done to warrant being ahead? Clifford - too many players ahead of him plus didn't do enough. Ksevic - should have been given an opportunity. Itoje - should have been given an opportunity in the warm ups. Waldrom - IMO has missed the boat. Ewers - perhaps unlucky too. Robson - no chance, not better than the 9s. Cipriani - not a better 15 than Brown or Goode, not a better 10 than Ford or Farrell. Hill - hasn't done enough yet. Eastmond - unlucky. Daly - still has to do more. Yarde - needs to improve his form. Pennell - no way, wasn't playing to sufficiently high standard.

I agree with much of what you say, and have bolded some bits. 1) Because I strongly agree and 2) because that is eaxctly why Kvesic and Itoje were not given chances in warmups and why that was correct.

The back row we took was always going to be selected, no point wasting gametime on two players who were not in consideration.

[Sgt_Pooly]

One eyed as you only champion Saracens players, do you not watch other games?

That's the first stat I look for in a hooker....tackles

[Poorfour]

What have you and Lancaster got against Beumont and Clifford LT?!

All those players though you could say would have offered a bit more depth now if given more or any run of games. We're picking out certain positions at the moment with hindsight and a couple of poor performances (both under the same ref which may be a coincidence).

Personally, I've got nothing against Beaumont or Clifford. They both look like excellent prospects. The question is always whether either of them (or Itoje, Kvesic, Ewers... Uncle Tom Cobley) did enough to be looked at now ahead of Wood, Haskell, Robshaw, Morgan and Billy.

The answer is no. Post-RWC, I expect several new players to come into the squad fairly rapidly and be given at least bench appearances to show what they can do. I would not be surprised to see Clifford displace one of the current flankers before 2016 is out. Beaumont and Itoje are slightly longer shots, more because the players ahead of them are younger than for any other reason. Kvesic, Ewers etc will probably have to step up their games considerably to get back into consideration.

[beshocked]

Londontiger fair enough, you make good points but I think Itoje and Ksevic would have offered something different to the current options. I don't think the other contenders would have.

Also Lancaster was happy to waste gametime on Clark......

Sgt Pooly I don't only champion Saracens players.

I thought Ksevic was unlucky to miss out on selection.

I have said that Brown was the best back on the pitch in the England vs Fiji game.

no 7 & 1/2 Hartley's not in the squad though so he's not first choice at the moment.

What did Beaumount and Clifford do in the big games? You don't count demolishing the Barbarians as a big game do you?

That's what the difference between Itoje and the other two. Itoje featured in the big games at the business end of the season and did well.

[Poorfour]

Yes beshocked, Itoje did feature in big games. But since it now seems increasingly certain that a major contributor both to him being in those big games and possibly to his performance in those big games (because of the quality of the squad around him) was Saracens spending more than they should have done on their squad, surely that also raises question marks about the value of those games as a way to judge him?

You also don't even apply your own damned criterion consistently. When has Kvesic ever played in a big game? Not for Worcester, certainly, and I don't remember Gloucester bothering the business end of the season overmuch. Clark, on the other hand, has played and played well in plenty of big games. Why, then, is it a "waste of gametime" to play Clark, but Kvesic was "unlucky to miss out on selection"?

[Geordie]

Yes beshocked, Itoje did feature in big games. But since it now seems increasingly certain that a major contributor both to him being in those big games and possibly to his performance in those big games (because of the quality of the squad around him) was Saracens spending more than they should have done on their squad, surely that also raises question marks about the value of those games as a way to judge him?

You also don't even apply your own damned criterion consistently. When has Kvesic ever played in a big game? Not for Worcester, certainly, and I don't remember Gloucester bothering the business end of the season overmuch. Clark, on the other hand, has played and played well in plenty of big games. Why, then, is it a "waste of gametime" to play Clark, but Kvesic was "unlucky to miss out on selection"?

Clark has barely been played though...his first senior team start was in the WC warm ups. Why leave it so late...and only give him 1 game? It suggests that he was never going to feature, and so was a waste of a world cup extended squad place. A waste of a squad place...because whats the point having a player in your squad who is never going to challenge for a place?

[LondonTiger]

Clark was surely used as he has been deemed the best replacement if any of the 3 flankers drop out injured.

Similarly Cipriani featured as he may be called up in event of an injury.

Where the coaches were uncertain as to who would be selected in certain spots (hooker & centre) they gave the front runners some game time.


All of this had to be done while at the same time making sure the expected starters got sufficient game time to shake off 3 months of fitness only.

[LondonTiger]

The one time clark should perhaps have been looked at would have been on the bench during the 6Ns.
however had he done that, then as sure as apples are apples, he would have been criticised.

[beshocked]

Poorfour well Racing Metro have a higher salary spend than Saracens, ditto Clermont. Saints probably have a lower one but have been accused of cheating the cap themselves, Bath - well they are one of the two accused. So no I disagree with you. I don't think the value of those games are diminished.

I do apply my criterion pretty consistently. I don't claim to be perfect though.

Are you seriously saying Ksevic is at the same level as Beaumount and Clifford because that's what you seem to imply.

7 has less competition, Ksevic is one of the only proper openside contenders.

Clark actually disappointed in some of the bigger games this season - destroyed by Racing Metro and Clermont and beaten by Sarries. Granted he was good at times but it when it came to the crunch he wasn't good enough.

Play well in the big games and you can claim the plaudits, play poorly in the big games and you won't.

[No 7&1/2]

Back to judging players on the team again. Ho hum.

[No 7&1/2]

And I fully agree you can't say well Itoje played in the big games at the end of the season when they cheated to get there.

[LondonTiger]

And I fully agree you can't say well Itoje played in the big games at the end of the season when they cheated to get there.

Disagree. that he played in those games means you can compare his performances. However just because a team wins does not mean every player in that team deserves a call up, nor does a team being thumped in a big game does not mean all the players on the losing side were poor.

[No 7&1/2]

His team have denied the chance to others and have a better standard of squad to be able to keep people fresh more easily. I think at the very least you have a big caveat.

And yes to the last bit.

[Hoonercat]

Londontiger fair enough, you make good points but I think Itoje and Ksevic would have offered something different to the current options. I don't think the other contenders would have.

Also Lancaster was happy to waste gametime on Clark......

Different doesn't mean better, and Lancaster doesn't want 'different' which is why he gave Clark game time. I'm struggling to understand where Lancs is supposed to have found game time for all these other players, given the team is already so short on caps that experience would be even further diluted. How is he supposed to build a core team while throwing in all those you would like to see tried? There simply aren't enough international games to try all these different players AND build a core team, especially in the lead up to a WC.

[Geordie]

which is why he gave Clark game time.

How much has he actually played in the whole time he's been in the squad?

[LondonTiger]

which is why he gave Clark game time.

How much has he actually played in the whole time he's been in the squad?

More than Itoje

[Sgt_Pooly]

which is why he gave Clark game time.

How much has he actually played in the whole time he's been in the squad?

More than Itoje

Mainly because he's currently better than Itoje

[LondonTiger]

which is why he gave Clark game time.

How much has he actually played in the whole time he's been in the squad?

More than Itoje

Mainly because he's currently better than Itoje

Wash your mouth out with soap and water.

such blasphemy will not be countenanced.

[beshocked]

Sgt Pooly just a shame that Clark wasn't better than Itoje in the AP semi....

Saints might have won if Clark had played better than he did. Of course rugby a team's game but the backrow is important.

Just one game I guess but so was the game vs Racing Metro and the one vs Clermont too....

Compare and contrast how each player did against each other and the same opposition.....

[No 7&1/2]

Which particular ones beshocked? Clarks currently the better player but its fair to say Itoje has huge potential probably more so at lock though?

[Sgt_Pooly]

Yea, Saints would have won if Clark had outplayed Itoje.....because thats how team sports work

[beshocked]

sgt pooly I said that Saints might have won if Clark played better. Not saying they would have.

One player can make a difference.

no 7 & 1/2 currently the better player... because of course there's a lot of recent evidence to go on.....

The game when Racing Metro destroyed Saints, the game when Clermont destroyed Saints...

The game when Racing Metro lost to Sarries, Itoje came on as a sub. The game when Clermont narrowly beat Sarries.

Of course the Saints vs Sarries game too.

Clark is a good club player but he's not really shown he can cut it at international level just yet.

Itoje has proven himself to be a good club player too but has not yet been given an opportunity by Lancaster at international level.

[Sgt_Pooly]

You're so inconsistent Beshocked, you let your Sarries bias hinder you views too much.

Clark is currently better than Itoje, the majority of unbiased posters would agree. I do think Itoje will kick on past him in the not too distant future though.

[No 7&1/2]

Itoje came on as a lock didn't he?

So we're Clarks had enough chances at international level now? Incidentally for Itoje i think the real immediate comp remains the lock who can play 6 and i'd say SLater is better currently.

[LondonTiger]

Yea, Saints would have won if Clark had outplayed Itoje.....because thats how team sports work

It isn't?

After all Exeter beat Sarries home and away last season, dominating up front. so obviousley Waldrom, Ewers and LCD must be better than BillyV, Itoje and George.

Mind, Leicester beat Exeter home and away - therefore ...........

[Sponsored content]