Not quite sure how moving him to a position that better suits his athletic ability is a sign he's on the way out?

If he's going to make it in Union, it will be as a back rower.

if he doesnt make the RU world cup squad he'll be straight back to the rabbitohs. Love to see him at Leeds but we just couldn't afford him. Will be interesting to see if a marquee player rule come sin, if so I can see Koukash going all out to sign him for salford

I'm struggling to see how he makes it in Union at the highest level. The best centre in the 6 Nations was his Bath clubmate Jonathon Joseph, who is fast and agile. The message must be getting through now that you need pace in the middle of the field, not size. So for me centre is out.
Back row play takes years to develop - you need to learn the skills from a very young age and you need to be a natural at it. No.8 is where I would play him.
His best chance is the total lack of any clue from the England management when it comes to selecting the back row. If England really need a strong ball carrier with good hands who wins ball at the breakdown and makes punishing tackles all they need to do is stop being morons and select Stefan Armitage.

Come back to league Sam, and pull on a Leeds shirt next season.

I think if he's going to make it in RU it has to be at 6 or 8. He's a totally different animal to Steffon Armitage, who is an out and out 7, and yes, should be in the England team. Though his non-selection is nothing to do with rugby and everything to do with politics.

I can't think of a major League-to-Union switch who's made it in the back row. I think the odds are against him. I also think there's a first time for everything, and Sam Burgess is a physical freak with an unbelievable work ethic, so you never know. World Cup is surely too soon though, and I have a feeling he knew that when he signed. I don't think he'll quite if he doesn't make the squad.

I also don't think he'll sign for Salford unless he sees a real chance to do more than earn money. I think there was (hard as it has been for people to admit to) a lot more than money behind his moves to NRL and to Bath.

I agree with Ford who has always said he sees Burgess as a back rower. While I still believe he could do a job at 12 (as his ball carrying and defense fit the RU CV for a big unit at inside ) I feel sure his skill set and need to be always in the action are best suited to the back row. Of course he lacks the techniques that others have gained over time but his strong ball carrying and defensive abilities will more than make up for any mistakes he will make. It is not as though other back row competition brought up with the techniques don't make plenty of errors themselves because they all do and the breakdown is something of a lottery in the way referees adjudicate. So I say let big Sam loose so he can get stuck in where he will do most damage.

He is not yet ready to play at 8, although that is where he will end up, so they are correct to start him at 6.

Not selecting Armitage is nothing to do with the England management. The RFU rules only allow it in exceptional circumstance eg injuries to your other options. Wales have suffered due to many of their team playing for French clubs in the week before an international and not being available for the full training sessions.

As Sir Ian McGeechan says

[i"As it stands, the policy is there for a very good reason. As an international coach, you need a certain level of stability about your preparation. You need to know that you will have sufficient time at the right times with your players ahead of Test matches.

Once you select a player based abroad, it is a step towards losing control of the players because you are relying on the goodwill of somebody in another country"[/i
[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10789998/Englands-overseas-player-rule-is-right-and-Steffon-Armitage-should-be-called-up-only-in-an-injury-emergency.html[/url

I don't buy that, in fact I think it's nonsense. We're not talking about players playing in S15, Armitage is based an hours flight away.

The idea of Wales not selecting Halfpenny or Davies because they play in France is rediculous. The English game is run by idiots.

It is not about the flight time at attend the match. It is about having the players available for full pre-game preparation. French Clubs have first call. Read the article.

Armitage plays 8 for Toulon.

I'd have Robshaw at 6, Matt Kvesic at 7 and Armitage at 8. I just want Burgess to come back to RL, it's where he belongs.

He does, but he's a superb 7. He's a great all rounder, but his work at the breakdown is what sets him apart. We've got some good ball carriers at 8, Robshaw is becoming our lynchpin and is making 7 work by sheer force of will but is still better at 6. Robshaw at 6, Armitage at 7 would win a huge amount of ball and Morgan/Vunipola/Burgess at 8 to punch holes and offload, safe in the knowledge that the other two will do the bulk of the dirty work. For Burgess to stand any chance of getting meaningful game time it has to be at 8, and it has to be with 2 good technicians at 6 and 7.

By and large I find the Burgess signing bizarre, to spend a large amount of cash on a player without any notion of his ideal position is odd.

I like Ben Morgan, he has good hands and runs like a train, I'd bring him and/or Vunipola on as a bench impact player for the last 20/25 minutes. Kvesic is in a different league at the breakdown to any English forward other than Armitage, he's young so I guess he has to earn it. Also, Armitage is a massive ball carrier - he makes huge metres so you wouldn't lose anything with him at 8.
Scotland exposed England really badly on the outside. At the end of the first half of that game they had ripped huge holes and a lot of that was becasue we had three slow back row forwards on the pitch at the same time. France scored way too many points - you should never concede that many at home - and again, a big, slow back row that couldn't cover for a big slow centre like Burrell. Thank god for Courtney Lawes.
The only problem might be at the lineout, but as neither Vunipola or Haskell jump, nothing lost there.

The RFU ask a lot of English players. Would you not have selected Sam Burgess at the last World Cup? Nonsense. It's protectionism, designed to stop English star players earning more money in France or anywhere else.
Nick Abendanon is playing out of his skin at Clermont, he's developed his game significantly since leaving Bath, but no matter how much better he gets he won't be eligable for an England call up until he returns to what is increasingly looking like a significantly inferior club competition for almost certainly much less money.

Seems I've stumbled onto rufans.com.

I usually have limited understanding when people are going on about the different RL positions on here, but compared to discussing RU positions, I feel an expert when it comes to RL. All I have really understood is it is about Sam Burgess and different numbers which generally equate to different positions and roles.

Sorry for my ignorance. Haha! Can anyone recommend a good site / book discussing the different rugby league (or union) positions and how you can tell who is playing which..?

He's been signed purely for publicity and to try and destabilise league nothing else.

Maybe Sam fancies a couple of years in SL just to try for a SL GF winners ring

Excellent posting,my one comment would be it's highly unlikely England will win the World Cup under Lancaster. He was the right man for the job to stabilize the team after the World Cup fiasco, but it should have just been a short term contract.
For me he has limited vision for a so called top coach.

If that's the case it's an extremely expensive publicity stunt. Which may make them the laughing stock of the Union world.

Well if I had a free choice for the World Cup I would start Laws at 6, Armitage at 7 and Morgan/Vunipola at 8 which would provide a back row with speed, great defense and ball carrying abilility. Bench cover of Burgess (if he proves himself quickly) Robshaw, Wood, Croft. However the current rules will only allow Armitage to be selected in an emergency so we should select a true 7 and not a converted 6.

This may seem harsh on Robshaw who has given valiant service but IMO he is not quick enough or good enough at the breakdown to be a 7 at World Cup winning level. Moving Laws to 6 would allow a bit more grunt in the 2nd row which will be needed to gain an advantage in the tight and gives us a true destroyer at 6.

Not a fan of Robshaw, Not big enough, fast enough or clever enough for the highest level, the fact that he's captain is still bizarre to me.

Said that since he got into the England side. Does lots of things adequately, nothing particularly out of the ordinary.

The game is speeding up in all facets. A mobile, athletic back row is an essential part of any successful side.

England are still picking based on size and strength, that's not what the game is about any more.

Woah am i on a rugby YAWNION forum or something?!?!?!?!1

This is NOT a KICK N CLAP messageboard is it?'

Steady there Bang, tolerance of a little OT pluralism, is a virtue.

Well some,times we vere off main topic for a bit that's how conversations go and we don't always stick to strict party platform lines.Im surprised we haven't talked about the election,but he's gone missing again probably because Leeds are doing ok

Completely agree with all of that.