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.

englandglory4ever wrote: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.

Almost as bad as someone who throws an insult and adds 'mate' afterwards

Your angle seems to be changing all the time to the point where he has now been relegated to just 'good'.

englandglory4ever wrote:As I said many times Burgess could play anywhere.

englandglory4ever wrote:His passing is world class far better than Barritt for example. He is blatantly fast enough for any world team Centre.

englandglory4ever wrote:I couldn't name anyone who has played less at centre and done so well against world class opposition. No one. The bloke is a legend in the making I hope.

Manu, debut against Wales and scored, next game against Ireland and scored. Compared to Sam's first 2 games which have been nothing more then ok.

englandglory4ever wrote: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.

You're blinkered, there are plenty who have been criticized for poor performance, I'm really not sure how you've failed to notice. And what's with 'haters'? What a ridiculous statement. Thinking that Burgess would make a better 6 than a centre does not make someone a 'hater' - I'm fairly sure we would all love to see Burgess excel at whatever position he is played in.

englandglory4ever wrote: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 think we need pure English beef to succeed

englandglory4ever wrote: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.

I'm starting to see where this infatuation with Burgess is leading. You're longing for pure English beef in your backs' side?  

I can see where we went wrong in 2003 now, our reliance on Greenwood and Catt in the centre's was our downfall, we should have relied on the muscle of Jamie Noon instead.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Banahan another. Burgess won't get the chance to develop at centre for club.

Matt Bananahan?  Do you mean Matt "I am Shane Williams Bitch" Bananahan?

Yes thats the 1 that always sticks in my mind! Still hoping if we see Sam tonight it will be for Barritt rather than beside him.

I would like to have seen Banahan at 12 a few years back but his time is long gone

Burgess looked good when he came on

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Burgess looked good when he came on

Which is more baffling, the decision last weekend to decline the posts by Robshaw, or the decision to bring Burgess on a World Cup and then put him on the bench for the most important game in England's career under Lancaster? Leaving no back 3 cover.. which leads to a centre partnership of Farrell and Barritt against Australia. Unforgivable.

I do like Lancaster, but knowing him he will probably still believe bringing Burgess was the right call.

Don't kick start this thread again or Englandglory will make his first appearance since the game and accuse you of being infantile for holding the majority view on forward Sam !

offload wrote:Don't kick start this thread again or Englandglory will make his first appearance since the game and accuse you of being infantile for holding the majority view on forward Sam !

Point taken

Where is Englandglory?

I am England's Glory !

I am England's Glory !

So no one thought that Sam had a destabilising influence - Interesting

For England no.

Ah he had, 7&1/2.  Listen to Burrell's comments.  

Nope, he doesn't lash out, he's gracious - he doesn't blame Burgess for being a player with ambition and hope, he doesn't blame Burgess for being picked and living a bit of a dream whilst things went reasonably well for him in England.... but you can't doubt that Burrell feels his dedication to his role and work, and hopes were bluntly walked on by the team choosers.

That feeling was obviously shared by players who would have considered themselves friends of his within the squad.  And that feeling of a good player being leap-frogged by a Union rookie...... it's bound to have had a destabilising influence.  Not the only one but certainly one of the couple of 'choosing' mistakes that were made in the lead up.

Ok. Say it's true that there were some players with their noses bent out of joint as they didn't get a place. Does that mean that Slade has a destabilising affect? Or does it really mean that some players were disappointed losing out?

I just think it was a symptom rather than a cause

I'm not saying the players weren't simply moans. I'm saying a fact is a fact.

It doesn't matter about legitimacy of moans. If players feel one of theirs was hard done by and should be sharing time with them at the WC because he deserved it for work put in over the years, then that's what will happen - destabilisation. Moans and groans interfering with attention to detail and concentration levels.

From someone out of the group. Voiced afterwards. I find it hard to believe a group of uber competitve sportsmen don't have moans all the time in the belief they're better than x. I can't see it having a bad effect.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ok. Say it's true that there were some players with their noses bent out of joint as they didn't get a place. Does that mean that Slade has a destabilising affect? Or does it really mean that some players were disappointed losing out?

Depends. Is Slade a flash league convert whose aura was shown favouritism by the England staff and was then played out of position after only a handful of starts at centre, at the expense of a full-time centre?

If Slade begins to start in the position, you'd expect it's because he's earned the right to start i.e. noticeably outperformed the other contenders. Not so when Burgess was picked. That's the difference between both cases and the root of the destabilising effect the op is citing.

Who really cares?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Who really cares?

rubyguby it seems.

He might be back soon as his move to league has been blocked, as it'd ironically force the rabbitos over their salary cap.

yappysnap wrote:He might be back soon as his move to league has been blocked, as it'd ironically force the rabbitos over their salary cap.

You mean he might have to return to Bath because they wouldn't go over the cap in the Premiership???????

It would be great if he came back but there's more chance of a snowball surviving in hell. Bath would be the last place he went. Two nasty Ford populars there who would love another chance to ruin his career.

What is with you and Burgess?

Mancrush I guess.

Burgess is a great RL prop forward, but there was a reason he was a prop and not a loose forward.

I still think if he stuck around he could of done well, but we'll never know

doctor_grey wrote:

yappysnap wrote:He might be back soon as his move to league has been blocked, as it'd ironically force the rabbitos over their salary cap.

You mean he might have to return to Bath because they wouldn't go over the cap in the Premiership???????

Ouch!

LondonTiger wrote:Mancrush I guess.

Burgess is a great RL prop forward, but there was a reason he was a prop and not a loose forward.

LT they don't have "loose forwards" in league, an 8 yes but no loosies

SB could have become a very good 6 maybe in time an 8 and time was on his side being so young, unlike Farrell. He did and could have continued to do a very limited role at 12 playing the like of Wales, with someone like Slade at 10 and the wingers coming into the 10/12 channel it might have worked.

I thought that in the role he was given, he was OK. He did what he was asked to do, stop the Doc and punch holes. Nothing exciting like we have seen from JJ, but he did what it said on the packet until he was subbed then everything went to pieces.

Whether SL was right to go down that route is another matter, but SB did nothing wrong.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Mancrush I guess.

Burgess is a great RL prop forward, but there was a reason he was a prop and not a loose forward.

LT they don't have "loose forwards" in league, an 8 yes but no loosies

From http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/understanding_positions

Loose Forward (13)
The loose forward will always be found in the thick of the action. It is a job that requires plenty of running, so they need to be super fit.
Not only that, loose forwards have to have excellent handling skills and a defence as tough as iron. They will generally top the tackle count at the end of the game. And as the last man in the scrum, it is the responsibility of the loose forward to make sure the ball is available for the scrum-half.

This is where SBW played. (Andy Farrell too, but when he lost pace I think he moved to prop)

There's not much difference in any of the RL forward positions... well any positions really.

Loose forward used to be an extra playmaker, like Farrell, but not as much these days so prop, second row, looseforward are all pretty interchangable in RL - you just get the ball and run....

The bottom line is that they are all professional players and representing England when they go out on the pitch they should put in 1000% effort and will to win.

Anyone who didn't should never put on the White Shirt again!

Slammin' who?

rodders wrote:There's not much difference in any of the RL forward positions... well any positions really.

Loose forward used to be an extra playmaker, like Farrell, but not as much these days so prop, second row, looseforward are all pretty interchangable in RL - you just get the ball and run....

Except usually the loosie is quicker than a prop.

Still fairly common in super League to see ex 6's (stand off) move to 13 (Loose forward) as they get older.

League is just a game of Flankers and Centres.

I played league for a bit, sadly a long way below the Super League but broadly speaking the props were the biggest guys who would truck it up on play 1/2. The second row would then play slightly wider and do the same for play 3 or 4. The props and second rows would play left/right and the loosie would have a roaming role. As an aside, I found it to be much more tiring and physical than Union.

I can imagine League being very tiring and physical actually. And I do respect that part of the game.
I also do appreciate that there are considerable skills to break down the defences etc.

I just find it so boring to watch (for the most part)

I think in a way that's why big name league players are supposed to do well at Union, because they are going to score very highly on the fitness tests and for workrate.

It can be a bit too structured for me, with a lot of set plays. No scrum resets mind you...

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think in a way that's why big name league players are supposed to do well at Union, because they are going to score very highly on the fitness tests and for workrate.

It can be a bit too structured for me, with a lot of set plays. No scrum resets mind you...

You need to have a scrum to have a scrum reset.

I don't have numbers to hand but we do have a lot fewer scrums these days than a few years back.

Bathman_in_London wrote:...As an aside, I found it to be much more tiring and physical than Union.

That's part of what Burgess had to say in his interview. He said League would make him physically drained, and a big part of the impact he could have in a game was having the will to keep performing, and inspiring his team mates to do the same.

For several reasons, I don't think union ever made him feel the same way. It also occurred to me that he probably really wanted to stay on against Wales during the World Cup. I know all players do, but reading that, I got the impression he felt his value would be in the kind of situation when the pressure builds and you have to stand up and be counted.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:...As an aside, I found it to be much more tiring and physical than Union.

That's part of what Burgess had to say in his interview. He said League would make him physically drained, and a big part of the impact he could have in a game was having the will to keep performing, and inspiring his team mates to do the same.

For several reasons, I don't think union ever made him feel the same way. It also occurred to me that he probably really wanted to say on against Wales during the World Cup. I know all players do, but reading that, I got the impression he felt his value would be in the kind of situation when the pressure builds and you have to stand up and be counted.

Yep. The USP I thought he was bringing was the fact that hes such a big guy but will run hard all game. He had big limitations but also offered some good things and I think he could have been used better. Hindsight being such a wonderful thing taking him off vs Wales just so we could have both Ford and Farrell on the pitch at the same time seems increasingly dumb.

lostinwales wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:...As an aside, I found it to be much more tiring and physical than Union.

That's part of what Burgess had to say in his interview. He said League would make him physically drained, and a big part of the impact he could have in a game was having the will to keep performing, and inspiring his team mates to do the same.

For several reasons, I don't think union ever made him feel the same way. It also occurred to me that he probably really wanted to say on against Wales during the World Cup. I know all players do, but reading that, I got the impression he felt his value would be in the kind of situation when the pressure builds and you have to stand up and be counted.

Yep. The USP I thought he was bringing was the fact that hes such a big guy but will run hard all game. He had big limitations but also offered some good things and  I think he could have been used better. Hindsight being such a wonderful thing taking him off vs Wales just so we could have both Ford and Farrell on the pitch at the same time seems increasingly dumb.

Mate, To me it seemed dumb at that time too. I couldn't fathom why we would want to weaken our defence when defending a lead late in the game. Substituting Ford for Burgess at that point made as much sense at the Maginot Line. Whatever Burgess was or was not, the lad could tackle, That was exactly what we needed, not another kicker in the back line. Frankly, I am still amazed at the simplicity of thought. The naive level of The Plan. UFB.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What is with you and Burgess?

I just think he is a great bloke and great rugby player in either code who could have been a fantastic asset to England/club rugby generally. What is your issue with Sam Burgess? Does he make you feel inadequate in some way?

Only in the sense I lack masculinity and talent. Could have been fantastic but hes gone now never to be the Lions blind side flanker. Let him go. Its not your fault chief, its not your fault.

"Only in the sense I lack masculinity and talent."

It makes sense now. I thought you may have had a deep seated psychological problem with him. Its OK I understand now.

While I'm sure everyone else on the forum has those 2 things over Burgess! Never understood why you felt he didn't have the talent for 6 but there we go. Who's your next tip for the top?