England's back line

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

He will start off very strong playing fancy passing attacking rugby and everyone will be saying how great he will be this season, but as the season comes to a close and the games get bigger and tougher he will flounder into mediocrity and finish outside where it matters.

That's the Bath way.

 

[Patchey]

Combined with his enormous work rate - yes.

Good point. I guess we have never seen someone his size, with his work rate and athleticism in the backs for England have we? I can't think of anyone. Manu comes close but I honestly this Burgess may be more physical.

I guess my concerns are a) He's never played Union before (obviously point i know), b) The idea of a 12/6 hybrid is interesting but while that may work for Bath how would it work for England? We don't want to build a back line around one player, c) Presuming Burgess is considered in the centres for England, how does out game plan change with two massive lumps in the centre? Granted we've never had a 12 quite like Burgess but I can't think of a time when we've played with a big, physically inside centre and not stifles creativity out wide. Thats my concern about whether England 'need' him. He'll bring a lot to the team but would it be better is we used players who will brings things he may not?

 

[ratsapprentice]

If he can become genuinely strong (not just adequate) at the breakdown* I don't think there is anyone in the country with his physical ability and skillset.

*That's defensively as well as offensively.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Good point. I guess we have never seen someone his size, with his work rate and athleticism in the backs for England have we? I can't think of anyone. Manu comes close but I honestly this Burgess may be more physical.

I guess my concerns are a) He's never played Union before (obviously point i know), b) The idea of a 12/6 hybrid is interesting but while that may work for Bath how would it work for England? We don't want to build a back line around one player, c) Presuming Burgess is considered in the centres for England, how does out game plan change with two massive lumps in the centre? Granted we've never had a 12 quite like Burgess but I can't think of a time when we've played with a big, physically inside centre and not stifles creativity out wide. Thats my concern about whether England 'need' him. He'll bring a lot to the team but would it be better is we used players who will brings things he may not?

Too me we would be mad not too build a team around him. There is no one in rugby union who has his power and aggression in defence, that's how i would use him most. Barritt is the best defensive 12 we have but he isn't a big hitting hard running general, Burgess can absoloutely become this monster for us. Who knows if he will turn up in the centres but we can't deny that his carrying and tackling wont still be a asset in union. Even if he becomes a Picamoles type 8 I would still have him in the England team over Vunipola.

 

[Patchey]

So you're thinking is he'll be like a supercharged version of Barritt when he plays at 12?

I can see where you're coming from, but what is his distribution like? I don't follow the NRL enough to see many games so all I've really seen of Burgess is on highlights reels. From that I can see he is a monster carrier and will have no problem tackling but I can't remember him ever actually passing (not including offloads). Can we really bear to have another non-passing inside centre?

I also disagree with the notion of building a team around one player. Our attack has been so focused around Manu and look what happened when he had a long term injury! We need multiple players to be focal points from 1 to 15. Burgess can maybe be one of those players but if he is relied on disproportionately we'll be repeating a mistake of the past.

 

[Peat]

We don't need a player like Burgess in the backline. I'm not saying there isn't an argument for it, but no one likes at a standard England back-line and thinks "Hmm, we're short of physicality".

We do need to find a player with his level of physicality somewhere numbers 4-6.

If we were to field Burgess as a centre, then Wales' lessons says to me that means either running 10 or Manu to the wing. Possibly both.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I'd generally agree with that^

The main problem with Sam being a back, IMO, is that you then basically negate - at best limit - his workrate.
His workrate is astounding - the more and more I watch him play the more convinced I am that he's a 6, 8 or even a 4.
He will go all day long whilst maintaining a level of physicality many players only manage to peak at.

Even if the opposition have 90% possession there just isn't enough work in the backs to take advantage of his engine.

I've been trying to find a player in the premiership who we can compare him with physically and I think Nathan Hughes is a good dude to contrast him against.
They are the same height, but Sam is bigger and quicker with a higher workrate. And Nathan Hughes is a considerable player.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Honestly only Eastmond has good distribution from the 12's we have used. Barritt is very poor really, his passing is slow and he really only passes the ball along instead of creating something, he can grubber kick very well though. Eastmond can create something he is the most agile and i rate him higher than the others. Twelvetrees i just don't rate, his defence is not as good as Barritt, not even close really, his passing is massively overrated, he doesn't read the game incredibly and misses alot of overlaps and he actually normally just slips over into traffic. Burgess might not be able too do 20 yard cut out passes (I don't watch NRL either and if you try too look him up all you find are big hits and smashing over people) but none of our normal 12's can either so you might as well put the guy who will get you over the line and get up and do it again.

Add on too peat-

If we were to field Burgess as a centre, then Wales' lessons says to me that means either running 10 or Manu to the wing. Possibly both.

All we need too do is use Daly at 13 and he can add the creative spark in our team, Wade at 14 and then our backline is very dangerous.

 

[ratsapprentice]

36's passing and distribution is quality at times - he's just inconsistent.

 

[Peat]

I like the 4 suggestion. A lot of people talk about whether he's like SBW. Well, what if he's like Brad Thorn, currently the most successful League convert ever?

I like Twelvetrees and think he does the job when in form. One of those players who needs a run to get comfortable. Not perfect, but sufficient to the task.

Unlike Daly, who bluntly is not an international standard defender. Don't like saying it, but he's not.

 

[ratsapprentice]

People rubbished the idea of him being a lock because he's supposedly not tall enough - he's the same height as Thorn.

 

[Peat]

I must candidly admit to preferring my locks taller but it's an option, particularly if he doesn't develop the required effect needed on the breakdown for a blindside soon enough.

To be blunt, I wish this was all a season ago. He has a lot to learn if he's going to be a genuine World Cup option and plenty of talented players haven't managed it before. We don't even know what position he's to be considered for yet. Is he getting here off of the back of a season?

 

[TheSaffycen]

36's passing and distribution is quality at times - he's just inconsistent.

Then his passing isn't good. That's like me saying Barritt's passing and running is good because he's done it before.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Is he getting here off of the back of a season?

Yup. Bunnies likely to win the thing as well so add on playoffs/final.

 

[ratsapprentice]

...And before that the RLWC, he's going at it too - clearly wants to leave on a high.

Next weekend is the final round of their regular season.

Then they have the playoffs, which are a little bit complex - it's easier to look at a diagram of it than me explain it to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NRL_season
So he's played a lot of rugby.

I think a lot of Bath fans are underestimating how much rest he should get.

 

[Peat]

If he wants to make the World Cup, he can't afford that much rest though. But then he needs plenty.

This is all beginning to feel a bit like we're wishing for a miracle here.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I dunno man... I'm not really think about England at the moment.
I'm talking about from a Bath perspective.

 

[Peat]

I know you are, but the point stands just as well from an England perspective.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Must be honest I think it would be a waste using him as a lock. He doesn't know what a lineout is and even though he's a big guy he isn't big enough in my opinion. Being 6 foot 5 he obviously is a big bloke but I think really you need to be a bit taller or less bulky so you can spring up quickly like Croft or Lawes, also I don't want him using his energy pushing in the scrum, I want him running at people off set piece ball. The more I see of the guy he should play at 12, he has pace and footwork which makes no sense for a 6ft5-18st monster

5.29 absoloute pace and power

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

It's not like we need him at lock.

we have

Lawes
Launchbury
Parling
Attwood
Kitchener
Stooke
Kruis
etc, etc.

the 6 battle would be better for him if he were to go in the forwards, or he could discover he is a beast at turnovering rucks and go in at 7.