Burgess - Breaking News

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

These league players all think union is so easy.

Maybe egg on the face of Bath.

As for England in hindsight he should not have been picked, but its worth remembering that he did fine in the limited role that was assigned to him. I don't think its anything like as important or as damaging as the tactics and loss of nerve that we suffered from as a team

Looking at it now it would appear he was lured to Union with an clear commitment by the england management that he would be playing in a RWC. He was to be the x-factor to put the side over the top, but ended up being a commitment that seemed to unsettle the side. Never embarrassed himself from what I can remember but was competent, not a game-changer.

Running back to RL so quick shows his motives were primarily on RWC.

Shoehorning Burgess into the England team might have been worth the gamble if he gained experience in international Union and used it going forwards to develop into a mainstay of the side. In hindsight those caps have been wasted and surely would have been more valuable to someone else - Slade for example!

And on Burgess's. Yes he's been showered in the smelly stuff from the media and pundits, but it wasn't his fault England were abject. Nor would anyone turn down the chance to represent their country. However I'm believe he should have persevered and shown he had the ability, not ducked out at the first hint of failure.

Makes the next or Lancaster's job a bit easier though

Still, nice little earner.

Egg on face of RFU really

Bath tried him at centre, found he was better in the back row.  Still a work in progress there but promising nonetheless

England took him on as a centre.  WTF?

You fellas seriously need to sort out your cohesion between club and country because quite clearly there is none and everyone has a different agenda.

Congratulations, you just lost a sporting superstar who could have potentially been box-office gold in Union

Really sad he's gone - with some hard work he'd have been a class act in RU. But it actually makes me feel a bit less of him that he wasn't prepared to put in the work required tbh. Which I guess means he's less of a loss to RU. It also makes SL's sausage up by selecting him (and at centre) more of a jumbo. Now if only we next hear that SL's leaving for RL - sweet.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Looking at it now it would appear he was lured to Union with an clear commitment by the england management that he would be playing in a RWC

Don't think that's true. Who could possibly have given such a commitment?

I think both parties are to blame. Burgess for his lack of persistence and inclination to run back to the comfort zone when things don't go well. England for absolutely butchering his transition from league to union by picking him too soon and arguably in the wrong position.

Upon his arrival, I recall the England management indicating they would not bow to the hype surrounding him. Some posters on here suggested he has a product for the next WC, not this one gone. It seems England did bow to the hype and it didn't work out.

The irony being if he had not been taken off v Wales England might have won that game.

He's been on a hiding to nothing. He actually did ok at centre. Lancaster and Farrell are to blame for not playing him in a position that the whole world knew he should have been in.

Good luck back in Oz.

Now time to move on...Next.

World Class in RL, Average in RU with limited opportunity - We've seen this so many times before with Farrell and Iestyn Harries for example  but big Sam did stick his chest out and showed little humility and respect for the code. Lancaster and the players all bought into the "Presence" and "Winning Mentality" BS and they will all fall on the Sword of BS - Its the likes of Burrell and others I feel sorry for as they may never get another opportunity in a RWC and he was selected on what he might do rather than what he had done. High risk with no reward this time.

Ruby, agree about Burrell. One minute's he's told he's in the RWC 31 by SL, next day dropped for Burgess who the boogers off pretty well straight afterwards, and as you say may never get another chance at a RWC.

RubyGuby wrote:World Class in RL, Average in RU with limited opportunity - We've seen this so many times before with Farrell and Iestyn Harries for example  but big Sam did stick his chest out and showed little humility and respect for the code. Lancaster and the players all bought into the "Presence" and "Winning Mentality" BS and they will all fall on the Sword of BS - Its the likes of Burrell and others I feel sorry for as they may never get another opportunity in a RWC and he was selected on what he might do rather than what he had done. High risk with no reward this time.

Farrell wasn't average he was crap.

I agree re Burrell. Being replaced by a player who has done very little in union must be galling. One of the things that would have annoyed him as that according to Farrell Senior Burgess was preferred largely on the basis of what he did on the training ground. Picking a player based on practice in preference to a test record is ludicrous.

Much as I feel sorry for Burrell. It is with Slade that we have really missed a trick. I am convinced he is real class. If he were from any other country he would have ten caps by now.

Slade will now have his opportunity but this also doesn't look good for Lancaster - I still struggle with how they bought into Sams aura - Ironic when the likes of Abendanon and Armitage have actually been doing it on the field without auras as European players of the year

The selection of Burgess for England's World Cup squad will certainly go down as one of the strangest in rugby history. Certainly, I feel as though some back-room dealings took place to guarantee Burgess' selection in the squad - there was no good, logical reason for his inclusion, and it must have been tremendously tough on Burrell to lose out.

And one has to be disappointed with Burgess. Gives rugby union, a tougher sport than rugby league, with a far greater skill-set required, a go for one year (out of the agreed three), but finds it too difficult to cope and skulks off into the sunset.

Lancaster will face even more flak now.

Bit gutted about this. Not a huge loss in terms of the level he reached, but I really thought/think he would have made an excellent 6 in time.

I don't really blame him for leaving. Think SL bodged his selection and placement and there was clearly a lot of sniping from others like Matt Dawson and I wouldn't be surprised from within camp as well.

I thought he'd tough it out. A real shame but hope he goes back and has a great League career

chewed_mintie wrote:Egg on face of RFU really

Bath tried him at centre, found he was better in the back row.  Still a work in progress there but promising nonetheless

England took him on as a centre.  WTF?

You fellas seriously need to sort out your cohesion between club and country because quite clearly there is none and everyone has a different agenda.

Congratulations, you just lost a sporting superstar who could have potentially been box-office gold in Union

Yup. I really, really hope we move on from the Lancaster era immediately. Shame we'll still have so many duffers at the RFU though.

Clearly a spectacular athlete and no doubt about his pedigree in Rugby Leauge. But poor decision to select him for England when his performances for Bath showed that he was not up to it. He took the place of a proven international centre in the World Cup and was probably a significant factor in the way England limped out of the tournament at the pool stage, beaten by an injury ravaged Wales and thumped by Australia.

Farrell Senior Burgess was preferred largely on the basis of what he did on the training ground. Picking a player based on practice in preference to a test record is ludicrous.

What i don't understand is that Frarell Senior (says) that Burgess was picked because of what he did in training.

Yet when England kicked out of the RWC, Farrell senior says that it was SL who had the last word. I just think that Farrell Senior had too much influence over selection in the team/squad.

I also think that it is because England was kicked out of the RWC Big Sam as been made a scapegoat.

Should never have been selected in the first place.

I don't feel sorry for Burrell, if he'd played better when he had his chances this year and still not been picked, then I would have sympathy.

Think it's sad about burgess, would like to have seen what he could do if persevered with in the back row.

I'd like to think he'd have wanted to tough it out and prove himself. Maybe he didn't like the negative press... Or maybe he just prefers playing a game where he's a bonafide superstar... In a country that loves the game. Maybe he just prefers playing league...

Who knows, it's a shame though.

Talk coming out that Lancaster and his entire crew are axed with a SH man with considerable experience coming in.

Eddie Jones?
Jake White?

milkyboy

In all honesty i don't think it would of matterd one bit if Burrell had played well or not, i just don't think he was going to get in the RWC squad ahead of Burgess.

I too would of liked him to stay in union as see what he would of turned out like.

I just did not understand why he was taken off in the Wales game, it is because of that when it all went pear shaped.

Regardless of Burgess....Burrell was poor for England in the 6n at 12, He was way better at 13 in the previous 6n. Indeed many on this site were saying he shouldn't go!!!!

I actually think he was treated very badly. It was always the intention to try to get him into the England squad but in my opinion the gun was jumped by a good 18 months. There was a difference of opinion on what his best position should be and as a result there was a monumental balls up made by the RFU. They rushed him.

I feel sorry for the more established England players who missed out on an RWC place in their own country (something they'll never have the opportunity to do again) simply because the RFU spent a truck full of cash on getting a great RL player into the squad who clearly wasn't ready. I also feel sorry for Burgess himself as he probably hadn't expected to be in such a position. Poor guy was probably so confused he had no idea what day of the week it was. I always said that Lancaster's hand was forced in this case - I don't believe he had any intention of taking Burgess to the RWC. I think he had a centre line-up of Burrell, Joseph, Barritt & Slade in his mind. Then along came the RFU and said you HAVE to put Burgess in - because he's cost us more than your salary for the next few years.

I don't think Burgess himself did anything particularly wrong in the RWC - he was picked to do a job in defence in the centre for the Wales match and did it relatively well. It was only after the back line was rejigged with Ford at 10 & Farrell at 12 that things went pear-shaped. Yet somehow it was Sam who copped all the flak.

I hope that when he gets back to League he is super-successful and has a fine career.

Mr Bounce wrote:
I don't think Burgess himself did anything particularly wrong in the RWC - he was picked to do a job in defence in the centre for the Wales match and did it relatively well. It was only after the back line was rejigged with Ford at 10 & Farrell at 12 that things went pear-shaped. Yet somehow it was Sam who copped all the flak.

.

100% agree mate.

majesticimperialman wrote:milkyboy

In all honesty i don't think it would of matterd one bit if Burrell had played well or not, i just don't think he was going to get in the RWC squad ahead of Burgess.

I too would of liked him to stay in union as see what he would of turned out like.

I just did not understand why he was taken off in the Wales game, it is because of that when it all went pear shaped.

could be majestic... but like I said. If burrell had played well it would have looked more obvious!

Burgess made a few mistakes when he played, but they were highlighted because of who he was. He did a job he was asked to do, didn't do much that caught the eye but didn't do a lot wrong either. Didn;t deserve the flak he copped, which i think was largely collateral damage from flak really aimed at lancaster.

The whole scenario is bizarre. I have a season ticket at Bath and watched Sam from the beginning. He might be one of the best RL players ever but he took a long time to learn the union game. His support play, retention, defensive positioning etc were poor at centre and although he improved he NEVER put in a complete performance at centre.

He was better in the backrow, much, but by the end of last season he was stlll a long way off test standard in that position.

It is frankly ludicrous that he ended up in a WC squad in any position. Burrell may not have been on top form. but he was and is a better rugby union centre than Burgess will ever be.

Sam has been let down and the attention he took probably contributed to his decision to quit. I bet if he hadn't been called up he would still be at Bath - getting on with learning the game. He might have been England's next great number 6.

Despite everything, I don't believe Burgess was the reason England lost to Wales.  I think if he was not subbed off England would likely have won that match.  Obviously England were not going to win the tournament and probably would have gone out in the first rould of the knock-outs, but things might have appeared less dire than they do now, though the reality of the quality of their play would still be the same.  

That said, who knows what handshake agreements Burgess had regarding inclusion in the RWC squad.  Some mates have told me they believe Burgess was foisted on Lancaster.  I rather doubt their opinion, but the whole situation does not seem logical in any way.

Given other Lancaster/Farrell decisions I have no need to think that he might have had some dodgy promise.  It's completely plausible for them to select him even though it was clear to most sane people he wasn't ready.

Then you have the fact his family play in Australia and he's getting married to an Australian. You've got media reports that Vunipola said there was resentment in the team, etc (which, when you dig into them, was from an anonymous forum post and has been discredited, but still got into the mainstream media). So yeah, I would have been off a while ago I think.

Edit: he may also think the game is as boring as ****.

I think the thing is for league converts is that it takes time. SBW had a couple of seasons with Toulon and a run with Canterbury before making the AB's northern tour. 2012, his fourth year, that really see him start to hit his stride. Thorns first 3 years in the Rugby were OK, but it was his return in 2008 that really saw him blossom. I think wing is the easiest conversion, but even here we're asking more of these players than in the past.

With Burgess he's barely been in the code for 11 months. I think he's done well. Whether he should have been included in the squad is a matter of opinion. I think he would have gone onto to bigger things.

doctor_grey wrote:Despite everything, I don't believe Burgess was the reason England lost to Wales.  I think if he was not subbed off England would likely have won that match.  Obviously England were not going to win the tournament and probably would have gone out in the first rould of the knock-outs, but things might have appeared less dire than they do now, though the reality of the quality of their play would still be the same.  

That said, who knows what handshake agreements Burgess had regarding inclusion in the RWC squad.  Some mates have told me they believe Burgess was foisted on Lancaster.  I rather doubt their opinion, but the whole situation does not seem logical in any way.

Not his fault but it would have been brilliant if we'd had someone in midfield who could do more than tackle or try to smash through a defensive line.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Despite everything, I don't believe Burgess was the reason England lost to Wales.  I think if he was not subbed off England would likely have won that match.  Obviously England were not going to win the tournament and probably would have gone out in the first rould of the knock-outs, but things might have appeared less dire than they do now, though the reality of the quality of their play would still be the same.  

That said, who knows what handshake agreements Burgess had regarding inclusion in the RWC squad.  Some mates have told me they believe Burgess was foisted on Lancaster.  I rather doubt their opinion, but the whole situation does not seem logical in any way.

Not his fault but it would have been brilliant if we'd had someone in midfield who could do more than tackle or try to smash through a defensive line.

Well that's one more skill than Barritt showed

GeordieFalcon wrote:Talk coming out that Lancaster and his entire crew are axed with a SH man with considerable experience coming in.

Eddie Jones?
Jake White?

Where you hearing that GF?

I could tell you...but id have to kill you

Kill Him GF

GeordieFalcon wrote:I could tell you...but id have to kill you

Don't tell me then- I've got a hell of a weekend planned! Maybe tell me Monday morning?

Acknowledging my lack of skin in this game, I'm disappointed it didn't work out better than this.  I thought with time he'd go really well.  No matter the hype of ABs and SBs, I feel Burgess is a rarish talent and a beast to boot.  A nice mix.  His effort in the last nrl gf was not something you see often.

I know from our own experiences that no matter how good they are at league they still need to learn and prove they can be good at a game where instinct no longer helps them, but I didn't expect he'd play the RWC and move on.  I feel that is the disappointing point.

On a second personal note, I'm interested in / apprehensive about how the all powerful* NRL media spin it. Sam is a really big deal here and as he doesn't return the conquering hero, I'm expecting the 'silly poms / rugby full'a snobs' cards to be played.  Shirts me.

* for us as oz rugby fans

Personal Footnote: thanks and well done on a great World Cup.  You do these things bl' well.  Even though we made the final my personal highlight was still knocking you out Love you always xx [\hairySanchez

It's a bit of an annoying missed opportunity. Such a shame Burgess didn't switch codes half-way through a World Cup cycle, giving him a full two seasons to get up to speed (one solely with club and then another with AIs and 6Ns).

Given his age he was never going to stay around for 5 seasons (and another RWC), especially as he's got the opportunity to be possibly the best ever League player.

Cyril wrote:as he's got the opportunity to be possibly the best ever League player.

Are you kidding me?

Please don't go throwing out silly statements like that!

I reckon that's it mate. Timing was short and wrong.

Not to go all sammy-woo-hoo, and such, like you are.

chewed_mintie wrote:

Cyril wrote:as he's got the opportunity to be possibly the best ever League player.

Are you kidding me?

Please don't go throwing out silly statements like that!

We'll speak again in five years time

Given how much he's already achieved and how highly he's rated (by the Aussies no less) I don't think it's unthinkable. Maybe 'one' of the greats would be more accurate given how it's all opinion anyway.

Yep, one of the greats in time.  But not the greatest.

Off the bat: Andrew John, Wally Lewis, Mal Meninga, Brad Fittler, Darren Lockyer, Ellery Hanley, Jonathan Thurston, Brett Kenny, Gene Miles, Ruben Wiki, Steve Menzies, Allan Langer - I would rate all of these as greater players - this is without even considering past greats from earlier eras.  It's more or less a question of who is best out of JT or Andrew Johns as the greatest player of all time.

I did say "he's the opportunity to be possibly..."

I'm not making any rash assumptions, but he's got plenty of time to get up there considering his previous upwards trajectory. Difficult to compare eras and positions/skills too.

His decision to leave Union was probably based on at least 3 things: i) realisation that to become a top level player in Union would take a significant amount of time; ii) family/friends in Aus; iii) the longer he spends out of League the less chance he has of achieving his ultimate goals there. If he was a couple of years younger or older he may have decided to stay longer or make a permanent switch, but mid-late 20s is a crucial time as a rugby player in either code.

Slow and Sedate wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Despite everything, I don't believe Burgess was the reason England lost to Wales.  I think if he was not subbed off England would likely have won that match.  Obviously England were not going to win the tournament and probably would have gone out in the first rould of the knock-outs, but things might have appeared less dire than they do now, though the reality of the quality of their play would still be the same.  

That said, who knows what handshake agreements Burgess had regarding inclusion in the RWC squad.  Some mates have told me they believe Burgess was foisted on Lancaster.  I rather doubt their opinion, but the whole situation does not seem logical in any way.

Not his fault but it would have been brilliant if we'd had someone in midfield who could do more than tackle or try to smash through a defensive line.

Well that's one more skill than Barritt showed

Owen Farrell?????????????????

chewed_mintie wrote:Yep, one of the greats in time.  But not the greatest.

Off the bat: Andrew John, Wally Lewis, Mal Meninga, Brad Fittler, Darren Lockyer, Ellery Hanley, Jonathan Thurston, Brett Kenny, Gene Miles, Ruben Wiki, Steve Menzies, Allan Langer - I would rate all of these as greater players - this is without even considering past greats from earlier eras.  It's more or less a question of who is best out of JT or Andrew Johns as the greatest player of all time.

I have literally no idea who any of those people are.

doctor_grey wrote:

Slow and Sedate wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Despite everything, I don't believe Burgess was the reason England lost to Wales.  I think if he was not subbed off England would likely have won that match.  Obviously England were not going to win the tournament and probably would have gone out in the first rould of the knock-outs, but things might have appeared less dire than they do now, though the reality of the quality of their play would still be the same.  

That said, who knows what handshake agreements Burgess had regarding inclusion in the RWC squad.  Some mates have told me they believe Burgess was foisted on Lancaster.  I rather doubt their opinion, but the whole situation does not seem logical in any way.

Not his fault but it would have been brilliant if we'd had someone in midfield who could do more than tackle or try to smash through a defensive line.

Well that's one more skill than Barritt showed

[b]Owen Farrell?????????????????[b]

That boy needs to stop his mouth going so much to Refs

GeordieFalcon wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Slow and Sedate wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Despite everything, I don't believe Burgess was the reason England lost to Wales.  I think if he was not subbed off England would likely have won that match.  Obviously England were not going to win the tournament and probably would have gone out in the first rould of the knock-outs, but things might have appeared less dire than they do now, though the reality of the quality of their play would still be the same.  

That said, who knows what handshake agreements Burgess had regarding inclusion in the RWC squad.  Some mates have told me they believe Burgess was foisted on Lancaster.  I rather doubt their opinion, but the whole situation does not seem logical in any way.

Not his fault but it would have been brilliant if we'd had someone in midfield who could do more than tackle or try to smash through a defensive line.

Well that's one more skill than Barritt showed

[b]Owen Farrell?????????????????[b]

That boy needs to stop his mouth going so much to Refs

I think he needs to get the gel out of his hair, too. Ever notice how it always sticks up in the front a lot?

Heard a great analogy on the radio.

It is like the writers of Hollyoaks trying to beef up the ratings by getting Robert De Niro on the cast. Writers insist on De Niro adopting the Hollyoaks acting style. Writers realise the show is still sh!t. De Niro blamed. De Niro goes back to Hollywood