Sam Burgess - what a mess

[martin tyler]

The strangest thing about all of this in my eyes is that the best players should play for England, no matter the sport and where they play. What is the big hang up about Armitage not being allowed to play just because he plays club rugby in France? The guy appear to be a monster at the breakdown an area in which England were clearly were lacking. Burgess should have been allowed time to develop in to a player as a number 6 where he was playing at Bath. Rugby seems to be to political and it robs the fans of seeing the best players

 

[nwgull]

Completely disagree with this. In the games themselves, the refs continued to be treated with respect. Dawson and Hastings are both prize cocks so taking anything they say seriously would be like treating the witterings of Savage and Claridge as oracle-like pronouncements. What is worrying is the statement from the IRB saying that Joubert got it wrong, that's something that needs to be looked at. I suspect the IRB are already regretting that statement.

But, as Simster says, the rugby authorities have done pretty poorly by the Tier 2 teams. The lack of matches is one thing, the short turnarounds was another - Japan had four days after the SA game and then played a rested Scotland. That was disgraceful.

Why do you consider Dawson and Hastings as prize cocks to not be taken seriously? They both played at the highest possible level for years, and would have walked into any international side in their respective eras.

 

[Brian Fantana]

The very fact that Bath and England couldn't agree on Burgess' best position is indicative of the whole mess. There is no way in a million years that Burgess should have been in the squad as a centre. His physicality, tackling and ball-carrying skills made him the perfect option for playing in the back-row, indeed where Bath had been playing him. Another 4 years playing there *might* have made him into a world class Union player - he certainly had the potential.

He's been massively badly treated by the RFU and the England management. Through no fault of his own, he has been made the scapegoat. If they'd have picked Luther Burrell in the squad as a centre option instead of Burgess, England wouldn't have lost to Wales - it's as simple as that.

 

[Gwylan]

Why do you consider Dawson and Hastings as prize cocks to not be taken seriously? They both played at the highest possible level for years, and would have walked into any international side in their respective eras.

I'm not talking about their ability as players, they were both excellent. But as pundits ...

 

[Dr Q]

The very fact that Bath and England couldn't agree on Burgess' best position is indicative of the whole mess. There is no way in a million years that Burgess should have been in the squad as a centre. His physicality, tackling and ball-carrying skills made him the perfect option for playing in the back-row, indeed where Bath had been playing him. Another 4 years playing there *might* have made him into a world class Union player - he certainly had the potential.

He's been massively badly treated by the RFU and the England management. Through no fault of his own, he has been made the scapegoat. If they'd have picked Luther Burrell in the squad as a centre option instead of Burgess, England wouldn't have lost to Wales - it's as simple as that.

Pretty much spot on there BF. As a Bath fan, I'm both disappointed he's gone, but also glad that the media focus that was on him all the time will now be gone and the rest of the team will get a look in.

 

[nwgull]

I'm not talking about their ability as players, they were both excellent. But as pundits ...

Both played international rugby consistently for 10 years, including 3 world cups; Hastings has 6 Lions caps and Dawson has 7. You would struggle to find a more experienced and knowledgable pair of pundits working in the media on any sport.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Both played international rugby consistently for 10 years, including 3 world cups; Hastings has 6 Lions caps and Dawson has 7. You would struggle to find a more experienced and knowledgable pair of pundits working in the media on any sport.

True but some ex-sportsmen (eg Atherton) use that vast experience to great effect. Others get carried away with their own celebrity and act like a knob. I know which side Dawson falls on.

 

[Martlet]

I pretty much agree with everything written on here. As another Bath fan (my dad-in-law's a STH at the Rec, so no choice in the matter!), I felt Bath had got it spot-on. They realised early he wouldn't flourish at centre - in particular, he wasn't happy waiting for the action to come to him, and kept over-forcing his hand and conceding stupid penalties (like the one against Australia when he's have been carded if Farrell hadn't got there first).

What he needed was a good pre-season and early few games, outside the spotlight whilst the RWC was going on. Instead he's been made a focal point, played out of his position and basically become emblematic of England's failure under Lancaster. I can't blame him for wanting to head back to the Rabbitohs where, don't forget, he won them the league final playing 70 minutes with a broken jaw.

If Ritchie's whitewash can get Lancaster out of this one, I'd love to see how.

 

[nwgull]

True but some ex-sportsmen (eg Atherton) use that vast experience to great effect. Others get carried away with their own celebrity and act like a knob. I know which side Dawson falls on.

Whether you find someone a knob is personal opinion - although I can't think of much that Dawson does that's knobbish to be honest. However, to say that the opinions of a pair of pundits with such a huge amount of international rugby experience behind them is 'not worth listening to' is just silly.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I think rugby has come out of the World Cup quite poorly. The seeding done so far ahead leading to uneven groups, odd numbers in the groups meaning a shattered Japan playing a fresh Scotland, all that video technology and yet the major decision missed. Once England went out the local interest pretty much disappeared. As did media interest.

And as for the English RFU - they have been shown to be a right bunch of amateurs. Placing faith in a manager clearly out of his depth (whose has allowed his assistant to apparently pick the team), not match philosophy, not picking the best players, and then packing the post tournament inquiry with mates and those involved with the managers appointment. Complete shambles.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Whether you find someone a knob is personal opinion - although I can't think of much that Dawson does that's knobbish to be honest. However, to say that the opinions of a pair of pundits with such a huge amount of international rugby experience behind them is 'not worth listening to' is just silly.

I was listening to the radio for that game. Neither of them knew the ref was not able to use the 4th official as it was not a try (or whatever the rule is) and their ire was increased by some previous grievance against Joubert referred to by the commentator.

On the point about the ref running off - they were quite right. And Hastings in particular was quite specific about why he was upset - not the ref's decision, but his actions at the whistle. Emotions were clearly running high.

Mind you, Tootin' is correct. Dawson is a knob.

 

[Gwylan]

I think rugby has come out of the World Cup quite poorly. The seeding done so far ahead leading to uneven groups, odd numbers in the groups meaning a shattered Japan playing a fresh Scotland, all that video technology and yet the major decision missed. Once England went out the local interest pretty much disappeared. As did media interest.

And as for the English RFU - they have been shown to be a right bunch of amateurs. Placing faith in a manager clearly out of his depth (whose has allowed his assistant to apparently pick the team), not match philosophy, not picking the best players, and then packing the post tournament inquiry with mates and those involved with the managers appointment. Complete shambles.

This

Actually, there could be an interesting poll out of this. Which sport in England is the worst administered? Football, cricket or rugby? It could be close call

 

[Tooting Gull]

I was listening to the radio for that game. Neither of them knew the ref was not able to use the 4th official as it was not a try (or whatever the rule is) and their ire was increased by some previous grievance against Joubert referred to by the commentator.

On the point about the ref running off - they were quite right. And Hastings in particular was quite specific about why he was upset - not the ref's decision, but his actions at the whistle. Emotions were clearly running high.

Mind you, Tootin' is correct. Dawson is a knob.

Hastings said Joubert 'should never referee another international'...for running off! Slightly OTT. As you say, emotions running high.

 

[Tooting Gull]

This

Actually, there could be an interesting poll out of this. Which sport in England is the worst administered? Football, cricket or rugby? It could be close call

Real shame, because ON the pitch there were some very special moments. Most of DKM's list are organisational things.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Real shame, because ON the pitch there were some very special moments. Most of DKM's list are organisational things.

I don't know enough to comment on the pitch - people who do know tell me that Lancaster stumbled on a centre partnership in one of the friendlies - then discarded it. And before the 2003 World Cup I was able to name most of the team - they were a settled team. This time we were still chopping and changing coming into the tournament. Something was not right. And even I spotted at the time the on-field folly of (a) going for touch (we are not Japan) and (b) going for a short throw. To me it appears a bit of a shambles off the pitch and for England a shambles on the pitch.

Just a wasted opportunity for rugby in this country.

 

[Brian Fantana]

I don't know enough to comment on the pitch - people who do know tell me that Lancaster stumbled on a centre partnership in one of the friendlies - then discarded it. And before the 2003 World Cup I was able to name most of the team - they were a settled team. This time we were still chopping and changing coming into the tournament. Something was not right. And even I spotted at the time the on-field folly of (a) going for touch (we are not Japan) and (b) going for a short throw. To me it appears a bit of a shambles off the pitch and for England a shambles on the pitch.

Just a wasted opportunity for rugby in this country.

Whilst I agree with a lot of this, the last time we had as bad a World Cup was 1999. We then spent the next 4 years building something truly special on and off the pitch, and we all know what that resulted in.

By no means am I saying that we're guaranteed to do the same again in 2019, BUT an awful lot of the squad from this tournament are still very young and will be coming into their prime in 4 years time. The likes of Watson, Nowell, the Vunipola brothers, Henry Slade and George Ford from the current squad have the potential to be world class players by the time the next world cup comes around. Added to that, the likes of Itoje at Sarries, and a few other up-and-coming players, I think we have another amazing opportunity now to blow the cobwebs away and start planning for 2019.

 

[Brighton Mod]

More worryingly was Lancaster "influenced" by Andy Farrell? This would say a lot about England's poor World Cup.

From the outside it would be an obvious observation as Farrell has a wealth of experience in League and surely he would have been consulted on the move.

Whilst some on here continue to mention the toffs in the game, I don't see that. But what I do see is slow and immobile forwards not keeping pace with the game and a weak midfield, with wasteful and ridiculous kicking. We need to look at our game as we are miles behind where we should be.

 

[nwgull]

I don't know enough to comment on the pitch - people who do know tell me that Lancaster stumbled on a centre partnership in one of the friendlies - then discarded it. And before the 2003 World Cup I was able to name most of the team - they were a settled team. This time we were still chopping and changing coming into the tournament. Something was not right. And even I spotted at the time the on-field folly of (a) going for touch (we are not Japan) and (b) going for a short throw. To me it appears a bit of a shambles off the pitch and for England a shambles on the pitch.

Just a wasted opportunity for rugby in this country.

England didn't do well, but I can't agree that it was a shambles off the pitch at all. It was the most watched World Cup ever in terms of crowds, and nearly every game sold out. The decision to use mainly football stadia up and down the entire country was very sensible.

 

[spring hall convert]

It needs to be a summer sport in the northern hemisphere. We can't compete with the Southern Hemisphere's ball handling skills and the inclement weather and poor pitches in the winter leads to negative rugby here. Even when we won in 2003, it was a really wet World Cup which played into our hands. We can't rely on that.

In addition, possibly unpopular, but I would get rid of relegation from the top flight as it leads to the teams at the bottom of the league playing desperate 10 man rugby rather than expressing themselves.

Having said that, Lancaster has to go, by any measure his tenure has been an abject failure. Why oh why did he get England to focus on playing expansive rugby for 4 years, only to abandon it under pressure. It's the way we played I couldn't take, rather than the results themselves.

 

[Brian Fantana]

In addition, possibly unpopular, but I would get rid of relegation from the top flight as it leads to the teams at the bottom of the league playing desperate 10 man rugby rather than expressing themselves.

Totally agree.

If you take away the risk of needing to play not to lose at all costs, you remove the shackles preventing players from playing more experimental and attacking rugby. However unintentional it may be, every team dragged into a Premiership relegation battle immediately adopts a very beligerent and tedious style - the rugby equivalent of parking the bus in an attempt to lose by 7 or less, and thus secure a bonus point which might keep them up.