Glad England lost; they deserved to. Will never understand how anybody can enjoy watching such dross. As you say what a waste of talent in having Burgess play and barely get a chance to show what he is capable of. Surely any impartial sport lover must recognise how telling it is that a guy who plays PROP (damn effectively) in RL plays CENTRE for the RU shower.
The times I watch the game and see players turn back inside with an overlap or bomb a chance by an inability to pass accurately down the line. I'm talking about the international side not a lower league club side. Awful. Some of the tries scored in a RL season would be viewed as extraordinary/exceptional/hugely praiseworthy and repeated ad infinitum if the RU international side were actually capable of scoring anything like them.

For god's sake Watkins do NOT be tempted

Two of the best RL players of their generation wasted in RU.

Don't get me wrong I prefer to watch league. And also agree Sam is a waste in the sport for me.
If you give the super 15 a go you would probably enjoy it. Played with more of a running game and better handling. I agree England were poor, but thought the handling and try for Australia, particularly the second was good.

You cannot really compare league and union in terms of the try scored, for a start there are 4 extra players on the pitch making it more difficult to score. Secondly in league you can have your edges try there luck as you get the ball back. In union if a winger goes for broke and gets isolated then the ball is usually turned over. The seemingly pointless short runs by forwards near the ruck are to try and suck in defenders to make space out wide. England's handling was poor last night

Couldn't have put it better. Spot on.

You can add to that the fact that Lancaster has been unable to win the big competitive games that really matter. He's taken England as far as he can. What worries me (as I do actually care) is that parallels with Clive Woodward's first WC in 1999 are being drawn and Lancaster will be given 4 more years to "finish the job". He's not Clive Woodward, Andy Farrell is not Phil Larder and Chris Robshaw is no Martin Johnson.

Barritt was an embarrassment in the midfield. He took every pass stood still and simply shuffled it along - something i used to try and get 8 year olds not to do, and spent most of his game laying on top of rucks having a rest. As for Farrell, well you sort of knew he'd do something stupid at some point.

Lesley Vainikolo's playing!!!

It really is the world's elite playing.

The money this competition will generate is ridiculous. Why can't we attract people who don't care about RL all year long to our international competitions like RU does?

Was reading something on the BBC and it gave some stats:

Sure enough, Pocock - outstanding at the last World Cup - was unstoppable once again. On Saturday he made nine tackles, six carries and 14 metres, four passes, two offloads and, most importantly, three turnovers.

Robshaw? Six tackles, five carries, three metres, two passes, no turnovers.

Unstoppable!!! I know their defence is closer but those stats don't look too amazing to me. And considering these are meant to be the tackling machines, they only made 15 between them. Sums up the speed of the game

I went to Leicester to watch Argentina vs Tonga. It was a phenomenal game. It confirmed to me that I like union as a game to watch but just not the northern hemisppheres way of playing it. Both teams using the full width, running from deep, minimal kicking, good movement and offloading. It just showed that the game can be good to watch if played with the right attitude

I saw that, and even though its compsring apples with oranges I still compared it to what peacock does

As per the eagle I much prefer the southern hemesphere style of play and the super 15 is very watchable, I imagine a lot of league fans would enjoy it. England are a very hard team to watch.

But comparing stats is pointless they are different games. Having played both codes in the forwards and also in the backs in union I found playing in the backs boring. I enjoyed both codes in the forwards and both were very physically demanding. Lots of shuttle runs in league and big impacts. Lesser impacts in union but you are constantly wrestling around scrapping for the ball. Real scrums. It's hard work!!

I really don't like England RU, to me they've always played boring rugby and run by an organisation who are so far up their backsides it's unreal.

However I'll gladly watch other watch Union games, Wigan vs Huddersfield last Thursday? Nah it was dull, Canada vs France was much more entertaining

Have to say as well, I really don't think Burgess would have made any sort of difference to the result on Saturday even if he had started.

He's a midfield bludgeon, and England already have way too many of those as it is. What the England back line needs is not another big lad who can truck it up and make a few yards, but players like Joseph, Slade and Ford who can play with the ball in hand and create space for those around them.

If Burgess has a future in Union - and I remain unconvinced that he does - then it has to be either at 6 or 8, not in the centres.

When you contrast the style in which England played the Six Nations finale against France earlier in the year - when they knew they had to win by a large margin to stand any chance of picking up the title - and the way they have played in this World Cup, it's apparent they are heading backwards under Lancaster/Farrell/Rowntree at a rate of knots.

We lost the game because we didn't have enough players who could open up a defence, and because the back row were too slow to the ball. Burgess wouldn't have helped that. Joseph was the only middle back we had. Farrell and Barritt both play as small, innefective back row forwards.

I am now very doubtful Burgess will make it. He's a very determined individual but back row forward is his best option and he's got a lot of work to do. You also have to realise that although he's a beast in League, in Union he is hitting the ball up into guys who dwarf him. He won't be a lineout option which also limits his usefulness.
He is just not a centre.
I wonder how he's feeling now? Already hearing some rumours regarding England camp discord around him.
Not the showcase he thought I would imagine. Disastrous tournament and some vocal criticism likely to re-emerge around his selection and contribution.
Now he has several years of relative obscurity in club rugby looming. If the predicted pogrom of the England coaching set up takes place then I can't see a squad place for Burgess as a centre, so IMO he's going to have to really show massive progress as a back row.
My guess would be back to the NRL for 2017 season.

Come on Uncle Gary. Put a bid in. You know you want to.

I'm in agreement on Burgess not making it now.I think he could still be a hit if he was willing to dedicate the next 7-8 years (virtually rest of his career) playing the game and be a very good back row, but i don't believe he ever had any intention of doing this project to that level. He reached his short term goal of making and playing in a WC squad and despite not letting anybody down, his inclusion will be remembered for all the wrong reasons due to England's ineptitude as a whole not Sam Burgess as a RU player which is unfortunate but is just how it has played out.

He has a life in Australia now with his family out there and due to be married soon so, like you say, expect him back in the NRL anytime within the next 18 months.

I think that if Burgess stays with Bath he will make it as an international 8 and it will not take him that long either. To be fair despite very little experience as a Union centre and, one high tackle apart, he equipped himself pretty well at international level and he certainly was not at fault for the defeats. I understand why he was included in the squad and if you look at the competition none of the other contenders for the inside centre slot had been good enough consistently.

Against Wales Ford should not have been brought on and Burgess should have stayed on. Against Australia the needs were different and there was a good argument to play Burgess/Barritt with Slade with at least the latter being on the bench.

However all this criticism of the centre selections blows a smoke screen over the real failures which were the pack and the poor discipline (9 pens concede to their 5). There were plenty of clues in the two warm up matches against France where the forwards were twice outplayed. We looked lacking in energy and nervous and despite a better performance against Ireland we didn't look ready or confident and Ford's drop in form cost him his place. I think the occasion got to some of the players.

The English game is built around the cornerstones of the scrum and the lineout. We lack class back row players with pace and the breakdown has been a weakness for years. But we did not dominated the scrum where we expected to win penalties - in fact the reverse happened and we gave away the penalties with our props greatly overrated and we lacked a hooker with a reliable throw (although Youngs was not to blame)

Had Armitage qualified for selection he would have added something in this key turnover area, but he is not the complete player either. Too short to be lifted in the lineout and too short to do the lifting and offers nothing to stop the rolling maul. He often looks brilliant in his clubside playing alongside what is a pack full of International Kiwis and Springboks.

One of the English problems is that Robshaw is not a natural 7 but he is usually the top tackler which means he cannot be the second tackler at the breakdown at the same time. Other sides these days rely on the second rowers to make more tackles leaving the back row to arrive as second tackler/fetcher.

In the Australia match we made more carries across the gain line than Oz and 50% more metres and although we won 6 turnovers we lost 9. We were too predictable

Can't see him staying. After England's last group game then heads will start to roll as the press and public demand blood and Burgess and Farrell Snr. are already being lined up as two of the biggest targets.

Whoever takes over (in the likely event Lancaster is sacked) I think will be told to avoid RL connections if and when possible.

Burgess said that he wanted to go to RU to play on the big stage. Assuming Lancaster goes and he focuses on becoming a forward, it'll be Bath only next year. No other coach would dare risk him as an experiment again, so if anything I'd guess his return to the England team would be delayed if anything. All this stuff about how determined he is etc really doesn't matter if he can't deliver on the field, and he'll have to balance a potentially long slog to get back into the England team with the bells and whistles he'd receive in Australia if he comes back to the NRL.

I'd argue its a good thing if he plays one more year then returns to the NRL, as he'd be seen as another high profile league failure, which will hopefully reduce interest from RU a bit going forward.

That's about as well a thought out summary as I have seen. I can't disagree with any of it.

The problem is that most ru media people don't understand their own game. They are the ru equivalents of Eddie and Stevo. The spend ages pre game talking about midfield combinations when in reality they get the ball about 7 times a game.

The starting front 5 were fine. We had enough possession and I actually thought the pack performance in general was as good as the Australians - apart from support of half breaks where we continually lost out to the more mobile Aussie back row. Our scrum was actually on top and at least as good as Australia first half - we won a decent share of penalties. Scrums with Australia always end in a penalty one way or another and as usual they out manoeuvred England in the build up by highlighting Joe Marlars tactic of pushing against the hooker not his opposite prop (he actually did this all through the Wales game and got away with it). Our scrum fell to bits when we brought on all our replacements.
Stats show we made more metres, had more possession and equal territory, what we lacked was the skill to convert that into tries. Australia did because they had class at 10, 12 and 13. When May wet off injured at halftime the last thing you wanted to see was our only dangerous midfield runner stuck on the wing. When you look at that you realise the exclusion of a player like Cipriani was a massive error.

I do not believe our front five were fine at all. They gave away 3 penalties in the first half alone at the scrum as it went backwards. Our props are over rated and did not dominate at all, so out went the game plan to win penalties at the scrum and tire out their props so that they would be slow in the loose. In fact it was our forwards that were slow around the field and did not clear the rucks away quickly enough which show our back row was outclassed too.

We made 10 more carries over the gain line than Oz and 137 more metres made yet were turned over 8 times with 9 penalties conceded to their 5. So you think winning 35% is a decent share of penalties? All our ball was far too slow so the main blames lies at the leaden feet of the forwards.

Cipriani had not earned a place at either fly half or fullback and would have been as big a gamble as Burgess. To be fair he did not get much game time to prove himself in the build up but despite his attacking talents his temperament is suspect as is his judgement. In his pre-match comments he stated that not one of the Australians would get in the England squad! This was tantamount to a motivational team talk for them - what a plonker.

The Ozzie backs were able to perform in space on the back of quick ball and penalties gained by their forwards. Their back row also stopped our momentum every time with turnovers.

All in all I think we were outclassed all over the park because our players under performed and too many looked slow and out of form with no sharpness. Perhaps nerves played a part too with so much expected of them.

Sam Burgess DROPPPED from Saturday's squad!

#BlameBurgess in full swing now.

You know I don't respond to anything you post and you know why. This is intended to stop you wasting your time in future.

we had a lof of ball, but as juan says it was slow ball. We went into rucks and either got turned over, or couldnt secure quick ball because our forwards (particularly the back row) were too slow to the breakdown.it didnt help that aus had 2 natural 7s in the team, and we didn't have 1.

to top that off we had a ponderous scrum half meaning any ball to the backs was poor

probably more to do with giving everyone a run out than some anti-league bias

SAM BURGESS IN LEEDS HAVING MEDICAL