[England] Post-6N/Pre-RWC Player Watch

[ratsapprentice]

I mean, if the odds of Wood/Haskell producing a World Class game is a generous 1 in 10, I'd say the odds for Burgess is a generous 1 in 20...

My point is that we're hardly asking him to outperform Joe Launchbury... and at the moment he's not even in the final squad - the group is yet to be trimmed.
See what he does in the warmup games and if his limitations cannot be made up for then judge, until that happens we've seen enough from him to suggest he has something to offer as a 6.
Potentially.

 

[Every Time Ref]

How many have they produced in their combined 94 caps? If you were being generous I think you'd have to admit that there's a less than 1 in 10 chance of them producing a "World Class" performance.

So we're clear - world class means "there or thereabouts the best player in their position in the world".

How many times has Burgess done it? How many times has any player done it in their first handful of international games? Especially having only played a handful of domestic games before that? World class performances in league are only weak evidence for likely world class performance is union.

To be fair, I used "world class" flippantly, I probably should have said "international class" or something. Regardless the leap from good domestic to good international is a big one, and Burgess's performances, while impressive, haven't been that fantastic even at blindside.

 

[Patchey]

Burgess is the new Steffon.

 

[Every Time Ref]

My point is that we're hardly asking him to outperform Joe Launchbury... and at the moment he's not even in the final squad - the group is yet to be trimmed.
See what he does in the warmup games and if his limitations cannot be made up for then judge, until that happens we've seen enough from him to suggest he has something to offer as a 6.
Potentially.

I guess there's something to be said for that, in terms of "potentially". But Itoje could have been given the same chances, and Ewers could have as part of the extended squad. Both were cut early, without a chance to prove themselves in an international match at all. Potentially anything could happen, but there's a limit to what you can try

 

[TheSaffycen]

Personally (though I fear I may be shot) I don't think that Burgess will become a world class 6. That's just my opinion. He hasn't got much variety to his game, he is a big smashing 6, but does he do that job better than Ewers ? He doesn't have the variety that Itoje has at being a lineout operator and also a ruck smashing, carrying threat.
Now this all could change, Burgess could learn how to be a effective jumper, could master the breakdown and his leadership qualities could be even more evident. But for me he isn't going to learn much more at the ruck as this is a new concept and the lineout he will probably get to competent at receiving the ball.
Ewers and Itoje both have the potential to get to the top, Burgess might but I think a 7/10 international is the best he will get to. Which is much better than Wood and Haskell recently...

 

[ratsapprentice]

I didn't suggest he was likely to perform at a world class level - in fact my point was that he doesn't need to in order to merit a place over Wood or Haskell.

Ewers and Itoje not being there isn't really relevant to the question "should Sam be there".

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Burgess is the new Steffon.

Not fat enough

 

[TheSaffycen]

I didn't suggest he was likely to perform at a world class level - in fact my point was that he doesn't need to in order to merit a place over Wood or Haskell.

Ewers and Itoje not being there isn't really relevant to the question "should Sam be there".

It is because the only way to answer if Sam should be there is by looking at who else was available to pick. Ewers and Itoje both were available, the England management believe that Sam is the better option. I personally don't think that Sam Burgess should be there because there were/are better options in Ewers/Itoje.


Sam Burgess IMO would not have been there if his name was John Smith. People say that the England management wouldn't pick someone just because of their name, but can someone explain to me how Burgess got picked then ? As Fearns was more effective in the same team as well as Itoje and Ewers having better games than him. That's just the way I've seen it.

 

[Raggs]

The difference with Burgess is his rate of improvement. Itoje/Ewers/Fearns etc, are all likely to improve (the first two especially), but slowly, as they learn new skills and refine their game.

Burgess has a huge amount of skill already, but from another code, and re-applying it to Union is not an instantaneous process (his fumbling of the ball in the early days etc). However, it's a lot faster than learning skills. If Burgess can keep improving at the rate he has, combined with his leadership/presence, then by the time the RWC comes around he may be a very useful choice. The only issue is lineout, and that's not an issue if England decide to play him as a 12 with 6 only being in emergencies.

I don't believe that Lancaster et al will keep him in unless they're sure he can do a good job, it's too big a call come the RWC when they have some more proven performers. And if they really are looking to put him at 12, then to be honest, that removes a lot of the complaints... at 12 we have a selection of Barritt, 36, Eastmond and Burrell.

I'd potentially rate Burgess over Burrell at 12. Can't be any worse in defence, and tackles harder. Better carrier. Less pace, but with Ford and Joseph I think we're OK. I don't rate Burrells distribution either. Barritt is our best defender, but Joseph is also an organiser for defence, so Barritt isn't essential on that front (I don't think much would get through a Barritt/Joseph pairing), Burgess is better in attack than Barritt. 36 could be the best of the bunch, but just can't find the consistency.

I do think Burgess's future is at 6, but if he keeps improving his game at the same rate, and if England decide that a 2nd ballplayer isn't cutting it, Burgess isn't a necessarily bad option at 12.

 

[Patchey]

Not fat enough

'Rotund' is the word you need.

 

[Peat]

Sam Burgess IMO would not have been there if his name was John Smith. People say that the England management wouldn't pick someone just because of their name, but can someone explain to me how Burgess got picked then ? As Fearns was more effective in the same team as well as Itoje and Ewers having better games than him. That's just the way I've seen it.

For crying out loud!

Ok then. Why do you think the England management have picked him because of his name? Why do you think the England management, who've worked with him up close twice now, are working with him further due to his name? Why do you think the England management, who each individually spend more time watching and considering rugby than all of the posters on this thread put together, went out and convinced him to seek a move to union solely based on his name?

How f**king incompetent do you think they are that they've involved a guy solely because he was big in Rugby League?

Wake up and smell reality. Do yourself the signal favour of realising what you are looking for in an England international is not the same as what they are looking and try to consider what they might be seeing, as rest assured, they are definitely seeing something and it isn't pictures of him in a Rabbitohs shirt with his cheek broken.

Burgess has both the mentality and body of a world class rugby player. That is rare as all goddamn hell in this England team and in case anyone hadn't noticed, Lancaster is putting a huge amount of emphasis on mentality. The chance to put another leader with big occasion experience into the team is something he'd love (and wasn't available with Itoje or Ewers). The big question mark on Burgess is whether he knows enough about Union in his bones to be effective at that level - his coaches have talked up how quickly Burgess learns and, in truth, it's not unusual to see a player making a difference in international rugby while playing in a relatively narrow role.

This is why Burgess is there. He fits two out of three of Lancaster's concerns and Lancaster believes in him enough to master enough of the third to be effective.

It's really not that difficult. Honest to god, I'm going to red rep the next five people who say Burgess is only there down to his name/the media.

 

[McTallshort]

How many times has Burgess done it? How many times has any player done it in their first handful of international games? Especially having only played a handful of domestic games before that? World class performances in league are only weak evidence for likely world class performance is union.

To be fair, I used "world class" flippantly, I probably should have said "international class" or something. Regardless the leap from good domestic to good international is a big one, and Burgess's performances, while impressive, haven't been that fantastic even at blindside.

This! Had Burgess just been a regular club player would his performances at 6 for bath warrent a world cup place?

 

[TheSaffycen]

For crying out loud!

Ok then. Why do you think the England management have picked him because of his name? Why do you think the England management, who've worked with him up close twice now, are working with him further due to his name? Why do you think the England management, who each individually spend more time watching and considering rugby than all of the posters on this thread put together, went out and convinced him to seek a move to union solely based on his name?

How f**king incompetent do you think they are that they've involved a guy solely because he was big in Rugby League?

Wake up and smell reality. Do yourself the signal favour of realising what you are looking for in an England international is not the same as what they are looking and try to consider what they might be seeing, as rest assured, they are definitely seeing something and it isn't pictures of him in a Rabbitohs shirt with his cheek broken.

Burgess has both the mentality and body of a world class rugby player. That is rare as all goddamn hell in this England team and in case anyone hadn't noticed, Lancaster is putting a huge amount of emphasis on mentality. The chance to put another leader with big occasion experience into the team is something he'd love (and wasn't available with Itoje or Ewers). The big question mark on Burgess is whether he knows enough about Union in his bones to be effective at that level - his coaches have talked up how quickly Burgess learns and, in truth, it's not unusual to see a player making a difference in international rugby while playing in a relatively narrow role.

This is why Burgess is there. He fits two out of three of Lancaster's concerns and Lancaster believes in him enough to master enough of the third to be effective.

It's really not that difficult. Honest to god, I'm going to red rep the next five people who say Burgess is only there down to his name/the media.

Let's turn this around, what have you seen that makes him look good enough then ? Why have they picked him over Ewers and Itoje ? Because they have picked a 26 year old who might stay until the next world cup, and there was talk if he didn't make this one that he might not stay in union, over a 24 year old who's performances have far outshined anything Burgess has done and a 20 year old who already looks pretty confident at European level !
What are they looking for in a blindside then ? Because what does Sam have over Ewers ? He doesn't carry as hard or make near the same amount of tackles. Do they want the role they have ALWAYS used of a work horse who is good at the lineout, because let's 'wake up and smell reality' he doesn't know a lineout from his backside. Funnily enough Itoje is actually the blueprint for that. So then I ask Why have they picked Burgess ?

 

[goodNumber10]

Let's turn this around, what have you seen that makes him look good enough then ? Why have they picked him over Ewers and Itoje ? Because they have picked a 26 year old who might stay until the next world cup, and there was talk if he didn't make this one that he might not stay in union, over a 24 year old who's performances have far outshined anything Burgess has done and a 20 year old who already looks pretty confident at European level !
What are they looking for in a blindside then ? Because what does Sam have over Ewers ? He doesn't carry as hard or make near the same amount of tackles. Do they want the role they have ALWAYS used of a work horse who is good at the lineout, because let's 'wake up and smell reality' he doesn't know a lineout from his backside. Funnily enough Itoje is actually the blueprint for that. So then I ask Why have they picked Burgess ?

He's not saying he thinks he's good enough, he's saying there is clearly something going on in that Lancaster and co rate him very very highly for a number of reasons and that he has the sterotypical rugby player physique - kind of like Lewsey in 1998/99, and that rating him is not on the basis of his reputation in league but a ton of immeasurables.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

They literally working off potential, though - there's nothing else they could be working off.
Maybe they do like his temperament, maybe he does look good in training, but in a game of rugby union he's not international standard (yet?).

 

[goodNumber10]

They literally working off potential, though - there's nothing else they could be working off.
Maybe they do like his temperament, maybe he does look good in training, but in a game of rugby union he's not international standard (yet?).

perhaps.

On the other hand i'm sure they analysed the Data and done profiling and studied his Biomechanics to decide if he is or isn't - they can do a hell of a lot on the training field with simple games and 1 - 1 tutoring.

it's similar to what i said about burns and co last year, that they can get a hell of a feel about a guy form training sessions - especially if he's just doing things others aren't.

 

[TobesHodges]

I just wish it could be
6). Robshaw
7). S.Armitage
8). Morgan

A fools hope

 

[TheSaffycen]

He's not saying he thinks he's good enough, he's saying there is clearly something going on in that Lancaster and co rate him very very highly for a number of reasons and that he has the sterotypical rugby player physique - kind of like Lewsey in 1998/99, and that rating him is not on the basis of his reputation in league but a ton of immeasurables.

So, and I know I will get a red rep by Peat but there we are, if it was anybody else do you think they would've made the RWC squad ? I'm not sure how many more they have to cut but he's got to the warm ups, and he's been put ahead of other players who have looked much better than him.

 

[goodNumber10]

So, and I know I will get a red rep by Peat but there we are, if it was anybody else do you think they would've made the RWC squad ? I'm not sure how many more they have to cut but he's got to the warm ups, and he's been put ahead of other players who have looked much better than him.

i think the point is it's not if "I" he would have made the squad...

I don't know, i tend to think he is there because they admire him, but i don' think they'd have any qualms about cutting him

 

[Raggs]

Or he's not in competition with Itoje or Ewers, and he is in competition with Burrell, Barritt and co...

Ewers is not going to make it until he starts taking lineouts regularly. As he is, he is just a lesser version of Billy Vunipola, and as such is only going to get a look-in if Billy V get's broken, and even then he'll struggle since Morgan will come in first.