Yet Another Sam Burgess Discussion Thread

[LondonTiger]

First topic message reminder :

Sam Burgess, demigod or not?

[BamBam]

This has been posted elsewhere, but thought this was interesting re the scrum

http://www.the42.ie/ireland-england-scrum-analysis-2315340-Sep2015/

[englandglory4ever]

Goode is a better full back than Cipriani. In fact I think he is a better player. It is popular to hate on Goode, exaggerate his flaws and minimise his skills.

A bit like Burgess I s'pose!

I wrote a massive reply, then thought no, will not let you hijack yet another thread. You want to discuss Sam's attributes (and flaws) create a new one.

No Tiger I don't want to discuss Sam's attributes and flaws on here. I was just throwing it out there that there are similarities to the way Goode and Burgess are perceived by others as you quite rightly point out.

[LondonTiger]

This has been posted elsewhere, but thought this was interesting re the scrum

http://www.the42.ie/ireland-england-scrum-analysis-2315340-Sep2015/

Interesting. My gut feel was that Cole was struggling, but that analysis really is concentrrating on Ireland's Th vs our LHs.

[Duty281]

I would be playing 1st choice team, no questions. We've a good squad but they've not played together that much, they need to get used to winning at Twickenham. Points difference could well be an issue so we have to be ruthless and put as many points on Fiji as possible.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Fiji are an underrated side, and England cannot afford to take them lightly.

[englandglory4ever]

"I would rather England made individual replacements during a game rather than wholesale changes of the front row that way you can make a more informed view of individual performances. For example, it would've been worth seeing how George went between Cole and Marler against a full strengh French and Irish front row, rather than bring on a new front row late on in the game."

Good point jimmymac. I'd like to see and compare that too.

[BamBam]

Tough to do though, props and hookers last 60 mins at a maximum, unless you sub George in at halftime, difficult to get more than 20 mins

Which is why I think its better to have had him starting one of the games, but never mind

[Scottrf]

I would be playing 1st choice team, no questions. We've a good squad but they've not played together that much, they need to get used to winning at Twickenham. Points difference could well be an issue so we have to be ruthless and put as many points on Fiji as possible.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Fiji are an underrated side, and England cannot afford to take them lightly.

They are a decent team, but there's not a legitimate danger of losing at Twickenham.

[englandglory4ever]

I've seen several comments criticising Lancaster suggesting he doesn't know who his starting side is because he keeps needlessly chopping and changing players.

Could it be that far from "not knowing" he (and his coaches) in fact know exactly who their preferred starters are but have been trying different combinations to compare and contrast but also, importantly, to build depth in the squad? I may well be proved wrong but to me it is looking like England now have 31 players who would grace any rugby team. As we know the average attrition rate in a RWC is 4 players and can go up to 6 so we will see. Of course injuries have also played a significant part over the past couple of years but as soon as they are fit his preferred players come back pretty quickly.

[jamesandimac]

Tough to do though, props and hookers last 60 mins at a maximum, unless you sub George in at halftime, difficult to get more than 20 mins

Which is why I think its better to have had him starting one of the games, but never mind

I would've liked to have seen George get a start in the warmups and if they want to take the risk in the Fiji game then great but i can't see it happening now which is a shame. We are now in a position where we are going into the Wales and Aus games having not tried all our combinations in a live situation therefore we can't fully know who our first choice are.

I appreciate there is training, however from what i've read the team have been training in specific combinations for the last few weeks. For example in the midfield they've said that Ford Barrett and Joseph have continually trained against Farrell Burgess and Slade. Thats great but what about mixing those combinations up in training at least.

[ChequeredJersey]

I would be playing 1st choice team, no questions. We've a good squad but they've not played together that much, they need to get used to winning at Twickenham. Points difference could well be an issue so we have to be ruthless and put as many points on Fiji as possible.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Fiji are an underrated side, and England cannot afford to take them lightly.

But first choice team is not, IMO, the best choice team for stacking up points.

England will not take Fiji lightly but there is a reason we've never looked like losing to them ever in any venue and thrashed them with a second choice team the last time we played. They look better since then but the relative ineffectiveness of their style vs ours is still a big factor

[ChequeredJersey]

This has been posted elsewhere, but thought this was interesting re the scrum

http://www.the42.ie/ireland-england-scrum-analysis-2315340-Sep2015/

Interesting. My gut feel was that Cole was struggling, but that analysis really is concentrrating on Ireland's Th vs our LHs.

Pretty much that summary was accusing of Ireland trying to use illegal angles and an extra prop and wheel the scrum constantly...

[BamBam]

Written by an Irish paper though, so perhaps its objective analysis CJ!

[Wi11]

I would be playing 1st choice team, no questions. We've a good squad but they've not played together that much, they need to get used to winning at Twickenham. Points difference could well be an issue so we have to be ruthless and put as many points on Fiji as possible.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Fiji are an underrated side, and England cannot afford to take them lightly.

They are a decent team, but there's not a legitimate danger of losing at Twickenham.

Pure arrogance, and proves his point.

Have any of the people making comments like this actually researched Fiji's team or watched their recent games? I have and in my opinion we should be legit bricking it and putting out our first XV without hesitation. If both sides fire the first game could be some spectacle. If we play like we did in Paris we will probably lose.

[ChequeredJersey]

Written by an Irish paper though, so perhaps its objective analysis CJ!

I didn't say it wasn't  much like Pooly I was skeptical about the wheeling scrums from about the second time it happened

[Scottrf]

Pure arrogance, and proves his point.

It has nothing to do with arrogance if I'd say the same thing if I wasn't English. The handicap isn't at 27 points because they're a real threat.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Written by an Irish paper though, so perhaps its objective analysis CJ!

The photos do not lie!!!!!!

[BamBam]

Apologies for the overload of links, but found this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11849595/Rugby-World-Cup-Sam-Burgess-should-not-be-in-England-squad-says-Chris-Ashton.html

For someone hoping to revive his Engand career as he mentioned in an article the other day, is criticising selection really the best idea?

[ChequeredJersey]

I would be playing 1st choice team, no questions. We've a good squad but they've not played together that much, they need to get used to winning at Twickenham. Points difference could well be an issue so we have to be ruthless and put as many points on Fiji as possible.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Fiji are an underrated side, and England cannot afford to take them lightly.

They are a decent team, but there's not a legitimate danger of losing at Twickenham.

Pure arrogance, and proves his point.

Have any of the people making comments like this actually researched Fiji's team or watched their recent games? I have and in my opinion we should be legit bricking it and putting out our first XV without hesitation. If both sides fire the first game could be some spectacle. If we play like we did in Paris we will probably lose.

Yes. This is not the best Fijian side I have seen, Fiji have never beaten England (nor Ireland)

The nations they have beaten have been Canada, Japan, Samoa and Tonga (losing to the Maori) also drawing to Samoa. None of those nations have ever beaten England either. 

In 2012 our Bs put 54 points on them.

[Scottrf]

They have also been shipping 20+ points to Tonga, Samoa, Japan, 18 to Canada.

[ChequeredJersey]

Against Fiji we have played 5, won 5, scored 210 points to 83 for a mean of 42-17

[ChequeredJersey]

If we let them play, will Nadolo, Nakawara, Goneva, Matawalu cause issues? Yes

Should we play super aggressively and force the pace from the word go? No

Should we be able to dominate the breakdown, wear them down with structure and then take advantage of gaps later on? Yes

[Wi11]

Yes. This is not the best Fijian side I have seen, Fiji have never beaten England (nor Ireland)

The nations they have beaten have been Canada, Japan, Samoa and Tonga (losing to the Maori) also drawing to Samoa. None of those nations have ever beaten England either. 

In 2012 our Bs put 54 points on them.

Which Fijian team was better? They have much better personnel, funding, prep time and results than the 2007 team, which nonetheless was able to turn up at the WC, beat Wales and give the eventual winners a scare.

You can only beat what's in front of you, and with the exception of the game against the Maori ABs (which was closer than England, Ireland, the Lions or any other team have got to Maori since 2003) Fiji have done just that. And their results have been getting steadily better.

2012 is about as relevant to now as 2007 was when Wales thrashed Fiji 66-0 in 2011. Fiji had a terrible two years and that just happened to be when we gave them a fixture. They are a world better now.

[ChequeredJersey]

Yes. This is not the best Fijian side I have seen, Fiji have never beaten England (nor Ireland)

The nations they have beaten have been Canada, Japan, Samoa and Tonga (losing to the Maori) also drawing to Samoa. None of those nations have ever beaten England either. 

In 2012 our Bs put 54 points on them.

Which Fijian team was better? They have much better personnel, funding, prep time and results than the 2007 team, which nonetheless was able to turn up at the WC, beat Wales and give the eventual winners a scare.

You can only beat what's in front of you, and with the exception of the game against the Maori ABs (which was closer than England, Ireland, the Lions or any other team have got to Maori since 2003) Fiji have done just that. And their results have been getting steadily better.

2012 is about as relevant to now as 2007 was when Wales thrashed Fiji 66-0 in 2011. Fiji had a terrible two years and that just happened to be when we gave them a fixture. They are a world better now.

I bet you that Fiji do not beat or seriously look like beating any of the big 3 in their group. They will be respected, because that's what this England team do, but in this group we need at least 4 tries vs Fiji

[Scottrf]

2012 is about as relevant to now as 2007 was when Wales thrashed Fiji 66-0 in 2011. Fiji had a terrible two years and that just happened to be when we gave them a fixture. They are a world better now.

Fiji 47-18 Canada
Fiji 39-29 Samoa
Fiji 27-22 Japan
Fiji 30-30 Samoa
Fiji 30-22 Tonga

Which of those results is scary? Scotland beat Tonga 37-12. England beat Samoa 28-9. Italy beat Samoa.

How is a team with that defence beating England at Twickenham?

[GunsGerms]

Fiji look like they are coming into some form but personally I cant see them causing Wales, England nor Australia any problems at all.

[Wi11]

If we let them play, will Nadolo, Nakawara, Goneva, Matawalu cause issues? Yes

They might even if we don't. I doubt their league opponents have been trying to "let them play".

Should we play super aggressively and force the pace from the word go? No

Arguably we should, as scottrf has identified their weakness is defence. Target this and we should be able to rack up enough points to be out of range, with the added bonus of some possible points difference gains. Play defensively and we will shift the focus of the game onto whether they can break down our defence, to which I fear the answer will be "yes".


Should we be able to dominate the breakdown, wear them down with structure and then take advantage of gaps later on? Yes

Not sure we'll dominate the breakdown. And I don't want to rely on them tiring late on, we're better off getting a lead as early as possible in the game, remember we have an inexperience squad starting a home WC under huge pressure to get out of there group, let's make it as stressless as we can for ourselves. Can we get an early lead? Yes, I think we have the cutting edge out wide to beat Fiji's defence even when they are fresh

[Cyril]

England, Australia and Wales should all be 20+ points better than Fiji.

I see them as being relatively competitive but not a real threat. Squeezing past other Pacific Island sides is hardly a cause for concern.

I don't think it's arrogant or insulting to say that certain sides should beat other ones comfortably.

[Notch]

England Rugby in a bit of a social media fail...

[Scottrf]

I have to be honest, I don't understand the outrage at picking Farrell over Cipriani at all.

[Wi11]

2012 is about as relevant to now as 2007 was when Wales thrashed Fiji 66-0 in 2011. Fiji had a terrible two years and that just happened to be when we gave them a fixture. They are a world better now.

Fiji 47-18 Canada
Fiji 39-29 Samoa
Fiji 27-22 Japan
Fiji 30-30 Samoa
Fiji 30-22 Tonga

Which of those results is scary? Scotland beat Tonga 37-12. England beat Samoa 28-9. Italy beat Samoa.

How is a team with that defence beating England at Twickenham?

Primarily the last two, but it's also the players they have and the visible improvements over that period that make them look threatening to me.

The other results you quote are cherry-picking. NZ beat Samoa by less than Fiji, and only a month earlier. I'm not claiming that is any more reliable, but quoting random results from a year ago doesn't stand for much.

[Mad for Chelsea]

I have to be honest, I don't understand the outrage at picking Farrell over Cipriani at all.

well quite. Farrell is a better player than Cips, full stop. Cips had a good 20 minutes vs France after they'd all gone home, but that's about it. Of course, you could argue that Cips should be in the squad, but instead of who? Goode? He was excellent against France in the first game. One of the centres? Leaves us too light in centre cover. Ultimately England were only ever going to pick two FHs with Goode and Slade as back-up if needed..

[Mad for Chelsea]

2012 is about as relevant to now as 2007 was when Wales thrashed Fiji 66-0 in 2011. Fiji had a terrible two years and that just happened to be when we gave them a fixture. They are a world better now.

Fiji 47-18 Canada
Fiji 39-29 Samoa
Fiji 27-22 Japan
Fiji 30-30 Samoa
Fiji 30-22 Tonga

Which of those results is scary? Scotland beat Tonga 37-12. England beat Samoa 28-9. Italy beat Samoa.

How is a team with that defence beating England at Twickenham?

Primarily the last two, but it's also the players they have and the visible improvements over that period that make them look threatening to me.

The other results you quote are cherry-picking. NZ beat Samoa by less than Fiji, and only a month earlier. I'm not claiming that is any more reliable, but quoting random results from a year ago doesn't stand for much.

47-18 against Canada is a good result, but not much more than that. When France beat them by a similar margin in the last WC the knives came out (and FTD was barely ever seen again ). Beating Samoa by 10 is nothing special. Having watched that, yes Fiji will be a threat in attack, but their defense is very ropey, they'll concede a lot of points IMO to the top teams. Samoa were making good ground at every contact when they had the ball.

That's not to say England should take Fiji lightly (they won't in any case), but to give a couple of players who could do with the game time and/or rest some who need it would be perfectly reasonable.

[Scottrf]

Primarily the last two, but it's also the players they have and the visible improvements over that period that make them look threatening to me.

The other results you quote are cherry-picking. NZ beat Samoa by less than Fiji, and only a month earlier. I'm not claiming that is any more reliable, but quoting random results from a year ago doesn't stand for much.

I barely cherry picked, just picked the first results I saw. Posting the full list wouldn't be much different.

Please post the NZ team. I very much doubt it was first choice. The Saxons wouldn't draw with Samoa.

[Wi11]

2012 is about as relevant to now as 2007 was when Wales thrashed Fiji 66-0 in 2011. Fiji had a terrible two years and that just happened to be when we gave them a fixture. They are a world better now.

Fiji 47-18 Canada
Fiji 39-29 Samoa
Fiji 27-22 Japan
Fiji 30-30 Samoa
Fiji 30-22 Tonga

Which of those results is scary? Scotland beat Tonga 37-12. England beat Samoa 28-9. Italy beat Samoa.

How is a team with that defence beating England at Twickenham?

To put it another way, do you find this run of results scarier than the above?

Fiji 12-55 Australia
Fiji 29-16 Canada
Fiji 35-31 Japan
Fiji 15-21 Tonga
Fiji 0-49 Australia

That team went on to beat Wales and I think it's fair to say things weren't "comfortable" for South Africa either. I don't see how people are so confident that the current Fiji team won't turn it on in a similar manner. They have showed signs in their last two games.

[Scottrf]

I don't think a good win after a run of bad results means they are due a better win after a string of mediocre results. It's a sample size of 1. Of course it 'could' happen but it's very unlikely.

[Wi11]

I don't think a good win after a run of bad results means they are due a better win after a string of mediocre results. It's a sample size of 1. Of course it 'could' happen but it's very unlikely.

No it's not, there is a long history of PNC teams beating European teams, especially (but not exclusively) at the World Cup. And it's never preceded by years of dazzling results, because they just haven't had adequate preparation to perform consistently outside of major tournaments.

[Duty281]

I would be playing 1st choice team, no questions. We've a good squad but they've not played together that much, they need to get used to winning at Twickenham. Points difference could well be an issue so we have to be ruthless and put as many points on Fiji as possible.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Fiji are an underrated side, and England cannot afford to take them lightly.

But first choice team is not, IMO, the best choice team for stacking up points.

England will not take Fiji lightly but there is a reason we've never looked like losing to them ever in any venue and thrashed them with a second choice team the last time we played. They look better since then but the relative ineffectiveness of their style vs ours is still a big factor

I certainly think England will win, but I also think that England cannot afford to be complacent against a dangerous and unencumbered Fiji side. If England fail to start until 20 minutes have elapsed, as they have done so often in the past under Lancaster, and Fiji get ahead early...Can't let it happen!

I don't think points difference will come into it, in truth. I think Australia and England will comfortably defeat Wales, so the lines of qualification will not be blurred in this group.

[bluestonevedder]

I have to be honest, I don't understand the outrage at picking Farrell over Cipriani at all.

The problem with social media is it gives arm-chair fans an easy way to publicise their ill-informed opinions, and other fickle fans just nod in agreement.

The comments on England Rugby's facebook page are so infuriating I can't even bring myself to read them any more.

There were some comments which even suggested Cips should be included over Ford...!?! It's amazing how quickly these so-called 'fans' forget about Ford's wonderful six nations campaign in light of one poor game behind a pack going backwards.

Cipriani had a great cameo against France, there's no denying it. But still, there was way too much of a media frenzy considering it was just a single try. Perhaps he should have been given more game time, but Farrell is tried and tested at international level.

[LondonTiger]

Of course Fiji could win, but to deny that it is unlikely is bonkers.

It has happened in the past (not to England yet) but does not happen very often, hence why it is deemed to be unlikely.

[lostinwales]

Same old story. Fiji will have 'world class' individuals but won't have the same kind of team cohesion that the top 3 in this group will have. So they might do some great moves and score some great trys but they will find it very very hard to progress

[Scottrf]

I don't think a good win after a run of bad results means they are due a better win after a string of mediocre results. It's a sample size of 1. Of course it 'could' happen but it's very unlikely.

No it's not, there is a long history of PNC teams beating European teams, especially (but not exclusively) at the World Cup. And it's never preceded by years of dazzling results, because they just haven't had adequate preparation to perform consistently outside of major tournaments.

England are 14-0 vs Fiji, Samoa, Tonga. There's not a long history of them beating England at Twickenham which is what I was discussing. Not whether they've beaten Georgia or a random 'European team'.

[Wi11]

I didn't deny it was unlikely. I denied that it was "very unlikely" or "not a legitimate danger". I just don't think this Fiji team is one to be lightly dismissed. Anyway that's the last I'm going to say on it, if people want to assume this game is a done deal they can. Thankfully I don't think Lancaster will be doing so.

[jamesandimac]

For me we need to build momentum from the Fiji game with a view to being at full strength for Wales. Now that may mean playing first choice to ensure winning, like they have said conitnually for the past month or so, but it could also mean trying out those last few little combinations/questions that need testing "live" in a match atmosphere.

For me there are 3 questions that need answering:

1. Can George cut it from the start? Give him the starting jersey and put Webber on the bench for Fiji. We know they view Youngs as first choice but lets confirm it before Wales by trying the other options. Also keeps him fresh for Wales.

2. Is Parling really the saviour of the lineout? Yes he is good, but then so far we have only seen either Launchbury, Lawes, Haskell and Robshaw in Paris, offering only 1 out and out jumper, or Parling, Lawes Wood and Robshaw in Twickenham, offering 3 jumpers. Is he better or is that he had more options to play with? I would start Launchbury and Lawes for Fiji and see how we get on then having Wood as extra option compared to Paris. And lets be honest this option served us very well in the 2014 6Ns and there wasn't an issue then.

3. Is there a better option at 12? (I don't want to restart the debate over a certain players qualities) Ford and Joseph are seen as first choice with Barrett providing the glue, I get that, and they played relatively well as a unit on the weekend to warrant that assestment. But we haven't seen what Burgess can do in the 12 channel playing between Ford and Joseph (at this level), we've only ever seen him play outside Farrell. I would wager defensively it would still be as strong as Barrett. We also haven't seen what Ford, Farrell and Joseph can offer in a live match scenario especially as Farrell Snr has said they've ran that combo in training. Why not try this out before we hit Wales.

The rest of team, by all mean put full strength, but it would be nice going into the Wales game with answers to the big question marks as I don't see any other chance after Fiji to do so. If they don't we could be in a position whereby we are going with what we think is our best 15 but a better option could be sat outside of the matchday 23.

[beshocked]

Notch that's funny.

Wi11 I feel like you are giving Fiji too much respect and underestimating the fringe England players.

England have beaten Wales in the last two years with about 8 different players in the starting line up. Wales are a stronger side than Fiji yet England managed to beat them with two quite different sides.

England have more strength in depth than the other sides in Pool A - might as well use that strength.

Don't think any poster has suggest England plays a completely 2nd string side.

Equally I don't think any poster is saying that Fiji will be a walk in the park but England should be able to beat Fiji at home even without a completely full strength team.

jamesandmac

Agree with 1. and 2.

As for 3. Surely it's best to stick with Barritt to get Barritt-Joseph partnership having some continuity?

[propdavid_london]

No one is suggesting that Slade is included? Hes only had the 1st warm up game so far. Perhaps he is someone that could fill that utility cover off the bench for the Fiji game.

[ChequeredJersey]

I suggested Slade to bench. Farrell, we know what he brings and what he covers and know the job and situation in which to play him (could be genuinely vital to finish off the matches in the knockout stages), Slade we need to play a bit more and see whether he can cover 10/12 as well. I'd have him and Nowell on the bench, but as I've said, I don't see an issue with having Goode and Nowell on the bench instead if Goode is being seen as a real 10 cover player. Farrell vs Fiji is not a wise step

JJ has to start though, for me. I want Barritt and JJ to play as much together this world cup as possible really

I think we NEED to play Care on the bench as well, and would highly advocate starting George

[Wi11]

I would pick Burgess for Fiji, with Slade on the bench, but I suspect Barritt is inked in as he needs game time. I dont think Barritt's game is well-suited to that kind of fixture though.

CJ, are you suggesting having no 10 on the bench? I don't think Lancaster will want to chance that, but it's an interesting idea - we could pick Burgess and Slade as our bench players and, provided the game is safe, bring them both on for a good half hour of game time. Puts a lot of pressure on Ford to play 80 minutes at 10 but frankly we need to be able to rely on Ford, and if he is going to let us down I'd rather find out sooner than later (and Slade can cover in an emergency).

Agree about Care on the bench, I'd have him there for all games, and be prepared to bring him on earlier than usual if we are struggling for tempo.

[kingelderfield]

Fiji would love Burgess to play, of all the group teams I imagine the Fijian style is most suited to exposing his positional inexperience.

I think this is pretty much the ideal opening game for us. They definitely present a real threat of a kind and so there will be no need for any psychology and though it is the obvious response, everyone appears in agreement that the correct response is a strong structured game from the start(which is just what this side needs at this moment), earning the space to go wide.

Reminds me in some ways of the 2003 Somoa game.

Lets hope we select either a full or very near full strenght side and start as we mean to go on.

[ChequeredJersey]

I would pick Burgess for Fiji, with Slade on the bench, but I suspect Barritt is inked in as he needs game time. I dont think Barritt's game is well-suited to that kind of fixture though.

CJ, are you suggesting having no 10 on the bench? I don't think Lancaster will want to chance that, but it's an interesting idea - we could pick Burgess and Slade as our bench players and, provided the game is safe, bring them both on for a good half hour of game time. Puts a lot of pressure on Ford to play 80 minutes at 10 but frankly we need to be able to rely on Ford, and if he is going to let us down I'd rather find out sooner than later (and Slade can cover in an emergency).

Agree about Care on the bench, I'd have him there for all games, and be prepared to bring him on earlier than usual if we are struggling for tempo.

Slade and Goode can play 10 reasonably well and in attacking style. I am hoping that a tight-game closer-out is not going to be needed in any way!

[jamesandimac]

 Notch that's funny.

Wi11 I feel like you are giving Fiji too much respect and underestimating the fringe England players.

England have beaten Wales in the last two years with about 8 different players in the starting line up. Wales are a stronger side than Fiji yet England managed to beat them with two quite different sides.

England have more strength in depth than the other sides in Pool A - might as well use that strength.

Don't think any poster has suggest England plays a completely 2nd string side.

Equally I don't think any poster is saying that Fiji will be a walk in the park but England should be able to beat Fiji at home even without a completely full strength team.

jamesandmac

Agree with 1. and 2.

As for 3. Surely it's best to stick with Barritt to get Barritt-Joseph partnership having some continuity?

I understand your point about continuity and it is key.  Barrett probably is the first choice and the best option moving forward and that being the case we should invest the time into them.  The only reason there is a question mark is that we haven't seen all the options.  Potentially one of Slade, Farrell or Burgess could be the better fit for the starting XV, but we'll never know unless its tried out.  And if thats the case, we could end up investing time into the wrong partnership.

That said, Barrett probably will be first choice.  Its just a shame they haven't had more time to test the likes of Slade, Farrell and Burgess in between Ford and Joseph before now.

What are peoples assessments of Barrett though?  He hasn't changed much as a player over the past few seasons yet opinion of him has shifted from him being seen as somewhat of a limiting player to now as the first choice.

[Sponsored content]