Burgess - Breaking News

First topic message reminder :

Sam Burgess has signed for South Sydney Rabbithos. Another failed RL conversion. Serious egg on face for Bath & Lancaster & Co.

There seems to be a lot of jealousy in English Rugby Union, from current players to former players. Burgess had a good cameo against Fiji and when he left the pitch against Wales England were 10 points up. To achieve that in 8-10 months points to someone who could have been exceptional a year or two down the line. He could easily have played the SBW (sheer presence in the final enabled offload to take out 1/2 the Aussie backline) role for the All Blacks but the collars up barbour brigade would never accept it. Shame and the bloke has been hung out to dry.

He could have had an exceptional year or two if he stuck Union out.....he decided to run back to RL with his tail between his legs.

This was Burgess's decision and his alone.

seanmichaels wrote:There seems to be a lot of jealousy in English Rugby Union, from current players to former players. Burgess had a good cameo against Fiji and when he left the pitch against Wales England were 10 points up. To achieve that in 8-10 months points to someone who could have been exceptional a year or two down the line. He could easily have played the SBW (sheer presence in the final enabled offload to take out 1/2 the Aussie backline) role for the All Blacks but the collars up barbour brigade would never accept it. Shame and the bloke has been hung out to dry.

I agree he could have been an exceptional in time, but we'll never know now for sure. He wasn't happy at Bath for a bunch of reasons some we can guess at some we'll never know. At worst the 'barbour brigade' have as much to do with that as he had with his own expectations of the game and how well he could adapt. He wasn't shunned or treated badly because he was a league player, quite the opposite given how quickly he was promoted to the national set up. Guys like Burrell have much more of a complaint about how they were treated by the system than Burgess.

The 'hung out to dry' bit is a media construct. The media have pushed an agenda because he's high profile and a lot of people lap it up.

I think the statements both by Burgess and by people at Bath simply reinforces the need for people to grow the eff up and know when to shut their pie hole.

In other words, act professional.

I actually think the Burrell thing is over-stated. His form was bang average for a long time, and frankly I don't think he'd have done any better at 12 than Burgess.

Hood83 wrote:I actually think the Burrell thing is over-stated. His form was bang average for a long time, and frankly I don't think he'd have done any better at 12 than Burgess.

yep- he was consistently the worst performing back in the England back division in my eyes

seanmichaels wrote:There seems to be a lot of jealousy in English Rugby Union, from current players to former players. Burgess had a good cameo against Fiji and when he left the pitch against Wales England were 10 points up.

Yup 2 points the media have pretty much ignored.

No one seems to mention the shambolic game Mike Brown had against Australia or how badly outplayed their back row was - Robshaw is keeping is head down anyways.

Burgess has definitely been scapegoated.

rodders wrote:Burgess has definitely been scapegoated.

I don't think he has been. Critics have attacked the decision to select him. I don't think I've heard anyone of any stature suggest that Burgess' performance on the pitch was the reason England got knocked out.

Mind you, I can see why Burgess felt in the crosshairs. Quite a few said right from the off that it was wrong to select him, while after the tournament, it was easy to point to that choice as evidence of muddled thinking.

The point being, it's very possible to hold the opinion that it was wrong to include Burgess in the squad, while also conceding that he did all right in matches, especially by comparison with other players.

When people say Burgess "did OK" in the centre and wasn't the reason England lost, that might be true. Surely the point is that someone else might have done a little better than just OK.

In his 3 WC matches he carried over the gain line a total of 7 times, beat 2 players and made no clean breaks. In the Welsh match he didn't pass the ball once. Just saying.....

Shame he turned out to be a quitter before he had learned the game.

offload wrote:When people say Burgess "did OK" in the centre and wasn't the reason England lost, that might be true.  Surely the point is that someone else might have done a little better than just OK.  

In his 3 WC matches he carried over the gain line a total of 7 times, beat 2 players and made no clean breaks.  In the Welsh match he didn't pass the ball once.  Just saying.....

Shame he turned out to be a quitter before he had learned the game.

Well, I can't say that Barritt did any better, and those who had previously had their chances at 12 (Burrell, 12trees, Eastmond) hadn't cemented the jersey. I'm not particularly defending Burgess, but there was some rational thought in giving him an opportunity. You could though equally argue that Slade should have been given more game time - my guess is that Lancaster et al preferred Burgess's big game experience, even if from a different code.

There were certainly other players who should be being questioned regarding the performances against Wales and Australia, although in the latter case I think it was partly we just caught them on a very good day.

Anyway, Burgess has gone back to Sydney, Lancaster has quit and I assume the rest of the coaching team will soon be on the way out. New broom and a blank sheet of paper regarding the team and squad.

Sam and the missus partying along to Jimmy Barnes.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11635832