Slamming Sam and the Destabalising Effect

First topic message reminder :

This is not a WUM so please lets have some considered responses here as well as the usual dross.


The inclusion of Sam Burgess divided opinion in many pundits minds with perhaps Carling being among the more vociferous (I have always been a fan of Carling by the way and think that he more than any other person pulled England away from a pompous amateur era to that of a winning mentality) - Now there is no doubting this players ability as an individual although he has yet to prove himself in rugby union and a lot is being asked of him. My question I guess is, has his inclusion and undoubted aura destabilised what has been a pretty consistent ship over the past 3 years. Has it upset the dynamics of the team. He is a natural leader but that can create confusion, particularly in a game where he has not earned the right to be a leader. I've always been a fan of Burrell and of course its about combinations and familiarity in the 10, 12 and 13 axis. I'm just thinking that by opting for 1 potentially precious Jewel Lancaster and Co have discarded a number of Diamonds that have previously shone and perhaps could have shone if given the opportunity. It would have also maintained the equilibrium that appears to be lacking at present.

Good point Bam.

If you'd have stuck a 6 on Burgess's back you wouldn't have been surprised with his performance bar packing down and the line out. He's a forward, anyone with half a brain can see that.

Worsley did do a good job but the result was the same, its just negative tactics and England need to aim higher than that as they have some lightening backs. They seemed afraid or reluctant to use them against a rag bag of a welsh backline. Sometimes fortune favours the brave not the conservative. You have to go and win these games as winning will not always come to you.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Tuilagi 13 E4E? What was your point?

Oh do move on for goodness sake. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. Manu is not playing. He may never play. Move on.

You felt it important enough to make the point he's a 13 in response to the fact Lancaster has replaced his physicality through Burgess. If you no longer find it relevant fair enough.

Well burgess has been playing at 12 and Manu at 13. If Manu did play again. It's not inconceivable to see them both on the pitch. So I don't buy this premise that Burgess is replacing Manu that's all.

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Tuilagi 13 E4E? What was your point?

Oh do move on for goodness sake. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. Manu is not playing. He may never play. Move on.

You felt it important enough to make the point he's a 13 in response to the fact Lancaster has replaced his physicality through Burgess. If you no longer find it relevant fair enough.

Well burgess has been playing at 12 and Manu at 13. If Manu did play again. It's not inconceivable to see them both on the pitch. So I don't buy this premise that Burgess is replacing Manu that's all.

But not what Lancaster said.

And I completely agree with your point on them both being on the same pitch. Tuilagi in midfield (possibly even at 12) and Burgess at 6.

RubyGuby wrote:Worsley did do a good job but the result was the same, its just negative tactics and England need to aim higher than that as they have some lightening backs. They seemed afraid or reluctant to use them against a rag bag of a welsh backline. Sometimes fortune favours the brave not the conservative. You have to go and win these games as winning will not always come to you.

Oh its undoubtedly negative, agree with you there.

Just trying to point out that Burgess isn't the saviour of the English centre partnership just because he stopped Roberts at source a few times

Burgess makes one kick. Not the best I agree. But now the Burgess haters are saying he can't kick. We don't hear them criticise others like this when they do something not quite right. And there are plenty of examples to choose. Maybe it's a jealousy thing, feelings of inadequacy or something. I don't know.

englandglory4ever wrote:Burgess makes one kick. Not the best I agree. But now the Burgess haters are saying he can't kick. We don't hear them criticise others like this when they do something not quite right. And there are plenty of examples to choose. Maybe it's a jealousy thing, feelings of inadequacy or something. I don't know.

Totally. It is like Leeds fans giving Man utd sh!t because they haven't won the league for 2 years!

seanmichaels wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Burgess makes one kick. Not the best I agree. But now the Burgess haters are saying he can't kick. We don't hear them criticise others like this when they do something not quite right. And there are plenty of examples to choose. Maybe it's a jealousy thing, feelings of inadequacy or something. I don't know.

Totally. It is like Leeds fans giving Man utd sh!t because they haven't won the league for 2 years!

Isn't Burgess a Bradford city fan though?

rodders wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Burgess makes one kick. Not the best I agree. But now the Burgess haters are saying he can't kick. We don't hear them criticise others like this when they do something not quite right. And there are plenty of examples to choose. Maybe it's a jealousy thing, feelings of inadequacy or something. I don't know.

Totally. It is like Leeds fans giving Man utd sh!t because they haven't won the league for 2 years!

Isn't Burgess a Bradford city fan though?

Quite possibly hailing from Dewsbury.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:If you'd have stuck a 6 on Burgess's back you wouldn't have been surprised with his performance bar packing down and the line out. He's a forward, anyone with half a brain can see that.

Spot on. A forward stuck in the back line trying to look useful. Total credit to him by the way forbeing prepared to play out of position. Wouldn't need if the coaching team wasn't so myopic.

englandglory4ever wrote:Burgess makes one kick. Not the best I agree. But now the Burgess haters are saying he can't kick. We don't hear them criticise others like this when they do something not quite right. And there are plenty of examples to choose. Maybe it's a jealousy thing, feelings of inadequacy or something. I don't know.

2 kicks in that game, both poor.

We wouldn't be talking about him if you didn't keep spouting rubbish like he's a world class passer etc. He's not world class in any facet of the game because he's not been in union long enough to be tested. As it stands, he's a poor International centre and a good (with more potential) AP standard backrower. Let's judge him again in a year, I can't believe we're still talking him.

For being such an average player (currently), Burgess receives far too many column inches.

To be fair Sarge, Burgess is receiving too much ink.  But he is also the biggest risk and wild card in the England team, perhaps in any team at the World Cup.  Not just in the squad but in the game day 23.  So extra commentary is going to happen.  I wonder if Tuilagi was not hurt and in the face of the police whether Burgess would be in the squad.  My guess is likely.

He is now our boy and for - hopefully - the next full month we support him..........

seanmichaels wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Burgess makes one kick. Not the best I agree. But now the Burgess haters are saying he can't kick. We don't hear them criticise others like this when they do something not quite right. And there are plenty of examples to choose. Maybe it's a jealousy thing, feelings of inadequacy or something. I don't know.

Totally. It is like Leeds fans giving Man utd sh!t because they haven't won the league for 2 years!

Doesn't matter who makes the comment and why... if the point is correct. Burgess is doing ok under the circumstances but isn't looking like he's going to set the world on fire as an international centre... and Man U haven't won the league for two years.

Ok, I am a Leeds fan

No 7&1/2 wrote:And I completely agree with your point on them both being on the same pitch. Tuilagi in midfield (possibly even at 12) and Burgess at 6.

He might possibly play 6 and Manu at 12 or 13. If Manu moved to Bath. Bath is where the failed England attack/defence coach went after he got the sack from England. Shows what he knows. When he was involved with England they couldn't break out of a brown paper bag let alone score tries. They were a shambles. Bath is the best place for Ford. Unfortunately for an extremely talented rugby player called Sam Burgess its not. He needs to move so he can play in the Centre for club and country.. It would be sweet to see him use Devoto and Eastmond as speed bumps.

Why are you so dead set that he's a centre anyway? Because Ford played him there initially? If you ignore Ford because he was dropped from England then you're surely saying that your opinion of Burgess may change wholly dependant on if Lancaster stays on after the world cup?

I looked up delusional and found englandglory4ever is a recognised synonym.

Glory has been on the wind up since Burgess was first picked. Its just ridiculous. So much repetitive BS on these forums at the moment

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why are you so dead set that he's a centre anyway? Because Ford played him there initially? If you ignore Ford because he was dropped from England then you're surely saying that your opinion of Burgess may change wholly dependant on if Lancaster stays on after the world cup?

He has all the attributes to be a world class centre. I'm English and I support England. If sl says he's a good centre that's great but I also agree with what I've seen. That's a bit of a leap to suggest Burgess won't play centre if sl goes. That's not certain at all. Unless of course the failed Ford came back. I actually believe Ford used Sam very badly when he played those few games at centre for bath. The times Burgess made crashing runs only for the younger Ford to completely ignore him was staggering. Was he being set up by the coach to fail? That's what it looked like. Finally, bath have several options at centre. Maybe Ford is losing Sam in the forwards just to keep everyone happy.

offload wrote:I looked up delusional and found englandglory4ever is a recognised synonym.  

Why don't you just keep your infantile playground jibes to yourself. Anyone can do that even a 5 year old. Can't take an immature like you seriously now.

Bar kicking, pace, passing and positional sense hes a world class centre.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bar kicking, pace, passing and positional sense hes a world class centre.

Ha ha. Keep up the broken record it doesn't stop him from being selected in the match day squad to play the biggest game since 2003 final. Where? In the centre of course. I guess it hurts a lot to be so wrong as you all the time.

No on the bench.

Burgess was England's clear pick of the centres against Wales. Barritt was poor, and when Farrell moved to 12 he was a disaster positionally. Gifting the welsh try with his rush defence at the wrong moments.

Lancaster clearly subbed sam burgess irrespective of how well he was playing. He subbed him because he felt some weird pre-planned loyalty requirement for ford to get 15 minutes, and with Farrell kicking so well he wanted him still on the pitch.

Any claims burgess got subbed because of how he was playing are quite simply ignorant.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bar kicking, pace, passing and positional sense hes a world class centre.

Pretty much sums Burgess at centre.

He can straight up tackle and is a decent carrier though, much like a 6....

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bar kicking, pace, passing and positional sense hes a world class centre.

Pretty much sums Burgess at centre.

He can straight up tackle and is a decent carrier though, much like a 6....

The difference from Barritt is???????

Barritt can kick, has positional awareness and reasonable passing. Granted not much pace, not sure if he's faster than Burgess.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Barritt can kick, has positional awareness and reasonable passing. Granted not much pace, not sure if he's faster than Burgess.

Burgess has more skill in his little finger than Barritt and hes only played a couple of games. Barritt can't kick, is a poor passer, and his positional awareness let Wales score a try. If Barritt is a good Centre then Burgess is a demi God Centre.

That statement makes no sense.

Barritt is a better centre than Burgess, that's not a debate.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:That statement makes no sense.

Barritt is a better centre than Burgess, that's not a debate.

You keep being a Burgess denier Poorly. There are one or two of you left but their argument is wearing thiner by the game. It certainly is up for debate and no military non-com can stop it.

There's only you in his corner fella, it's a touch embarrassing.

None of your arguments stand up. He's a top centre because SL picks him there......SL drops him for Barritt.

You're obviously a Wum but fair play to you. You've really stuck to it despite everyone realising he's not good enough.

I think Tom Youngs should be your next project.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:There's only you in his corner fella, it's a touch embarrassing.

None of your arguments stand up. He's a top centre because SL picks him there......SL drops him for Barritt.

You're obviously a Wum but fair play to you. You've really stuck to it despite everyone realising he's not good enough.

I think Tom Youngs should be your next project.

You sound like another weakling I know. You always write posts using "everyone else" is on your side. Well your platoon is withering away before your eyes as every game is played. You are embarrassing mate because you don't even stand up for yourself let alone England. I wouldn't want to go in to battle with you that's for sure. A third rate military non com thinks he commands "everyone". That's the joke.

I have no idea what you're on about.

Every game that's played....with the world class centre Burgess on the bench.

Zero idea, zero argument, zero clue.......you've got to love some of the posters on here.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I have no idea what you're on about.

Every game that's played....with the world class centre Burgess on the bench.

Zero idea, zero argument, zero clue.......you've got to love some of the posters on here.

You say "only me in his corner". Lie in the first line. After that the rest is just rubbish from someone who knows absolutely FA about rugby.

Where's your gang of "everyone" gone? You know the thousands of people on your side that you speak for. I speak for what I see and don't conjure up a fictional army like you. I bet you were a school playground bully.

Clueless......

Show up these weak nasty bully boys for what they are and they clear off. Good riddance.

englandglory4ever wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:There's only you in his corner fella, it's a touch embarrassing.

None of your arguments stand up. He's a top centre because SL picks him there......SL drops him for Barritt.

You're obviously a Wum but fair play to you. You've really stuck to it despite everyone realising he's not good enough.

I think Tom Youngs should be your next project.

You sound like another weakling I know. You always write posts using "everyone else" is on your side. Well your platoon is withering away before your eyes as every game is played. You are embarrassing mate because you don't even stand up for yourself let alone England. I wouldn't want to go in to battle with you that's for sure. A third rate military non com thinks he commands "everyone". That's the joke.

Wee bit over the line there.
Burgess has a lot of potential. But at the moment is still a project with a long way to go. My preference was for Burrell. And I still think that was the way to go. But, credit to Burgess, he has done better than I thought he would. Today is crunch time, we need all experienced hands on deck for England to win. And England must win. .

You're embarrassing yourself Englandglory, let it go fella.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You're embarrassing yourself Englandglory, let it go fella.

Haven't you got anything to say about rugby? I will make something very clear to you. I DO NOT think Burgess is currently a world class Centre. I do however think he could be with time. I think his skills and physical attributes are worth continuing with. It annoys me intensely when I say this and others like you come on here throw insults at me, Burgess and the coaches for having a different opinion to you (Not "everyone else" as you say?) If you showed a little more maturity you would get a little more civility from me. Keep up the insults though if that's what makes you happy.

I DO NOT think Burgess is currently a world class Centre

Finally something we can agree on, you've obviously been taking notice of the majority of posters on here, we got there in the end.

You just need to adjust slightly and you'll be on our page...

I DO NOT think Burgess is a Centre

I'm not sure he is a WUM, strangely. I remember a few years ago he had an obsession over big physical specimens playing rugby regardless of their actual skills in the game. We "discussed" the importance of having skilful players over huge lumps. Sam Burgess is just the perfect culmination of his wildest dreams.

Poorly Sergeant. There you go again. "our page". Who is this army that you so fondly talk about? Or is it just a figment of your imagination. You seem to have delusions of grandeur where you speak for an army all the time. Let me put it right for you once again.

Burgess is a good Centre he has been selected to play for ENGLAND. One of the best rugby playing nations in the WHOLE WORLD. That must make him a GOOD CENTRE in anybody's eyes.

I accept he is not THE best Centre in the world. That's me speaking speaking for myself following my own convictions. What have you and your fictional army got to say about that? We will get there in the end I'm quite confident. Just keep thowing the inane insults though its part of your psyche..

He is pretty hilarious though.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I'm not sure he is a WUM, strangely. I remember a few years ago he had an obsession over big physical specimens playing rugby regardless of their actual skills in the game. We "discussed" the importance of having skilful players over huge lumps. Sam Burgess is just the perfect culmination of his wildest dreams.

Yes I did as a matter of fact and still do. I come from the "good big un" is better than a "good little un" camp. Always have, so many on here like little tiddlers. I've seen too many useless nippy tiddlers that come with a big fanfare only to be utterly useless on the big stage. Tait was a prime example and did an excellent impression of a rag doll when he played for England.. I think we need pure English beef to succeed. We can be gallant losers with nippy tiddlers all day long.

Banahan another. Burgess won't get the chance to develop at centre for club.

seanmichaels wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:I think a lot of the lesser home nations like Ireland and Wales are jumping on the bandwagon. Realistically they know they'll never win a World Cup due to their ineffectiveness against southern Hemisphere sides on a consistent basis. Kicking England / Burgess after a pool game loss isobviously some comfort.

Lesser? Ireland and Wales have won 7 of the last 11 6Ns to Englands 1, Ireland have become more consistent against the SH sides and are fairly even against the Wallabies and Boks in recent times and run the ABs close quite a few times in recent encounters but just need that first win

This England team have a record against SH sides comparable to Irelands though historically Englands is far better, don't think the ghosts of RWCs past will take England further tough

World cups. England 3 finals. Consistent against southern hemishphere sides. The lesser home nations haven't acheived on the big stage, albeit Wales winning the bronze medal in the amateur era. It is like when Blackburn won the premier league, you just knew they would do nothing in europe.

So does that mean England are a lesser team than France?

Don't feed the trolls...

I know but watching him shift the goalposts to suit his argument is amusing

There is no shift in the argument. Even in the recent lean years England have beaten the All Blacks. It is so rare for the smaller nations that when they do they feel they have to write a song about it.

I think you have a point Rory, it's extremely odd.

englandglory4ever wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I'm not sure he is a WUM, strangely. I remember a few years ago he had an obsession over big physical specimens playing rugby regardless of their actual skills in the game. We "discussed" the importance of having skilful players over huge lumps. Sam Burgess is just the perfect culmination of his wildest dreams.

Yes I did as a matter of fact and still do. I come from the "good big un" is better than a "good little un" camp. Always have, so many on here like little tiddlers. I've seen too many useless nippy tiddlers that come with a big fanfare only to be utterly useless on the big stage. Tait was a prime example and did an excellent impression of a rag doll when he played for England.. I think we need pure English beef to succeed. We can be gallant losers with nippy tiddlers all day long.

Pure English beef not Barritt...?

maestegmafia wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I'm not sure he is a WUM, strangely. I remember a few years ago he had an obsession over big physical specimens playing rugby regardless of their actual skills in the game. We "discussed" the importance of having skilful players over huge lumps. Sam Burgess is just the perfect culmination of his wildest dreams.

Yes I did as a matter of fact and still do. I come from the "good big un" is better than a "good little un" camp. Always have, so many on here like little tiddlers. I've seen too many useless nippy tiddlers that come with a big fanfare only to be utterly useless on the big stage. Tait was a prime example and did an excellent impression of a rag doll when he played for England.. I think we need pure English beef to succeed. We can be gallant losers with nippy tiddlers all day long.

Pure English beef not Barritt...?

Yeah I must admit I'm not comfortable with SA beef in our side. I guess its the same as Wales with all that English beef in their side. Where are all the Welsh players these days? They used to be so good.