Irishmen have no reason to talk up one of their main rivals.

Another man of the match level of performance by Hardaker for Leeds v Saints this Friday will, I reckon, make it almost impossible for McNamara not to give him the England no 1 shirt.

Given how crapola ST has been in the NRL, I'd have to agree with you.

Cheer up, Aviva Prem back on BT soon

Rumour has it that he's struggling with a knee injury. Will probably still play in the playoffs but could see him become one of those that miss out through injury for the Eng/NZ series.

No I didn't.

He's struggling a smidge with the English language on this thread isn't he?
It's almost as if he just sees what he wants to and ignores what is actually posted.

sorry....bundled you in with Loiner81 there. My bad.....you just questioned my sanity in researching the birth places of 1,000 players and you had a point!

...or simply gets two posters and two posts mixed up?

Well I know he is Irish but really it is stretching the blarney to suggest there was no blame in D'arcy's biased article.

The heading gave a hint as what was to follow:
"Burgess is blunder that could bury England"

D'Arcy's said "[iIt is simply not possible for him to be ready and now we have the poof. Burgess lacks the sense of timing, in attack and defence, required to be effective at international level. His naivety embarrassed those around him and severely damaged England's chances of reaching the quarter finals"

he later said

"Burgess never got to the pace against Wales"

and then

"All Burgess did was run straight in search of collisions with Jamie Roberts (who obliged but really conned him most of the time"[/i

These comments were wholly wrong. Burgess did exactly what was asked of him in that he totally stopped Roberts crossing the gain line and took his threat out of the game. In fact it was only when Burgess was substituted that Roberts got into the game on attack and it was the Union experienced Barritt who embarrassed everyone by running out of the line to leave the space for their try.

Burgess for his part crossed the gain line several times, made several crunching tackles on Roberts and North and ran a good dummy run in the move that led to the England try showing a good sense of timing all round.

With regard to his comments about running straight well he was up against the Wales and Lions centre Roberts who has made a career out of running straight on the crash ball and Burgess was the one who came out on top.



No different to League in that respect. Of course playing together for 50 matches makes it easier so all the more credit to Burgess on his first international against France in the warm up game and to play so well and against Fiji for stepping in off the subs bench with such impact to greatly assist in the bonus point and again inn the Wales match we had the game won before his substitution. So picking Burgess was not an error.



Both codes include running at the opposition as they are contact sports but again in both the clever players run at the inside shoulder where possible but such are the defences in both codes that there will be some collisions and Burgess is equipped to do both.

Moving to the point of the speed of Burgess's selection. This is the nub of where the Union former players are so pizzed off. Burgess has shown that a League prop forward, although very inexperienced in the finer points of Union, is able to make it right through the the World Cup at centre and make few serious errors while providing impact and reliability at the highest level. Not only does this burst the their back slapping bubble but it shows their bias.

What the former Union International players are really upset about is that in Burgess you have a Rugby League prop who in a very short space of time is able to do most of what they did at Union International level just as well. Now because it took a couple of Irish 3 years to learn how to play centre at test match level is rather the point. A top League International already has the key skills to make the switch quickly and as I say this is what has pricked their bubble. (Burgess he can also play at 6 too!)

Because these two have played a lot of test matches does not mean they are the best judges. Being former test players does not mean they make good coaches or pundits. Read the views of Sir Clive Woodward, Sir Ian McGeechan and Jonathan Davies who rate and applaud Burgess. Their status as top International players, coaches and pundits trumps anyone of the anti Burgess brigade

Burgess is able to do most of what D'arcy and O'driscoll at test level just as well?












Is that why he's been dropped for the Aussie game?

I'll leave you to your dream-world.

All the blame lies with the selection. The continued comments referring to Burgess in the article can all be traced back to the initial premise that 'he was promoted too early"...it;s not his fault!
Burgess has taken no more or less flack than the rest of the England side in the press. A few click-baiters have published inflammatory that is designed to drive traffic, which we gleefully respond to

but the reality is that Sam Should never have been played at Centre nor against Wales.

SBW played a bit part in RWC 2011....17 minutes including 10 in the bin for the QF/SF & Final. He was used as a sub in the pool game v France too but played against Tonga and Japan. The AB's knew that they needed SBW, but as an impact player.....not as their key centre!

Burgess came in because JJ was unfit. JJ is now fit so we revert to the first choice line up. Burgess will come on as originally planned as an impact sub unless the 'experience Union centre' Barritt continues his errors and bad form in which case Big Sam will make an earlier appearance. But it makes better headlines for you envious anti League chaps to continue your agenda by saying he is dropped.

You didn't mention MOM Farrell retaining his 10 spot, but of course form isn't something you notice is it?

Not that I hope thy do it, but the next time the RUWC rolls around, if they're thinking of signing a RL player with the hopes of playing for England, then surely they should learn to do it at least two years before the WC. Burgess I think performed competently against Wales.....but that's all he was ever really going to do giving his RU experience and that's not what you want in a WC campaign. An extra 12 months would've done him a world of good, it's actually a credit to the guy that he's managed to get in the side in such a small amount of time.

They picked the wrong Bath RL convert....

The original premise you speak of is wrong. This premise was made by people who resented Burgess being in the squad and who laid blame in totally the wrong direction. Hence my argument about an agenda from certain former players who are pals with the second rate "experienced" who were not picked. These same have had plenty of chances to prove they should have been in the squad but they are at best mediocre.

This premise of yours is flawed because the England defeat was not the fault whatsoever of Burgess who had done everything expected of Barritt had he played inside centre. With him on the field England twice had a 10 point lead in the second half which would have been greater had the "experienced" England players not given away silly penalties within kicking distance. It was after Burgess was subbed that the wheels fell off. The "experienced" Barritt making a schoolboy error to let in Roberts for the first time in the game. Followed by a penalty from Brown and failure to take the chance of a draw or win in the last minutes.

Plenty of culprits to choose so why choose one who put in a good performance?

Your SBW analogy proves that he had to overcome some anti league sentiments too. It took NZ a long time to warm to his skills and he was only a sub in their first match in this WC.

May as well change the thread title to RUWC15 or just merge it with the Burgess RU thread.

This clearly isn't about our international game.

Agreed. I wish the mods would take a much stronger line on this (as they would on many other forums).

If Burgess is as good as O'driscoll as you laughably claim then he would get in ahead of Barritt as BOD is in the top 3 centres of all time and Barritt isn't in the top 50, which proves you are talking poop. To be a world-class centre you need to be able to kick well, something that SB did twice and failed miserably, which also proves you are talking poop (if proof were needed).

You are like an 8 year old talking about his favourite comic-book hero

You really don't like accuracy or reading much do you? I did not claim Burgess is as good as BOD. What I said was:

[i"What the former Union International players are really upset about is that in Burgess you have a Rugby League prop who in a very short space of time is able to do most of what they did at Union International level just as well. Now because it took a couple of Irish 3 years to learn how to play centre at test match level is rather the point. A top League International already has the key skills to make the switch quickly and as I say this is what has pricked their bubble. (Burgess he can also play at 6 too!)"[/i

Did you spot the difference this time? I do not think that anybody has suggested that Burgess is a world class centre just yet have they?

What was being discussed was; firstly the objections to his selection in the squad over some other centres that had not proven their worth consistently despite plenty of previous chances. And secondly the objections, mostly from those same sources, to his being on the bench and subsequently in the starting line up.

I have not sought to prove Burgess is the finished ticket or a World class centre. I think I have provided a strong case to show in each of the matches that he did not look out of place or let the team down as other more experienced players in fact did.

Did Burgess make a few errors - YES. Were those errors crucial or cost us points - NO.
Did other vastly more experienced players including the first choice inside centre make errors - YES. And were they crucial and cost points and a try - YES
Did Burgess restrict the "world class" Wales & Lions centre and stop him getting over the gain line - YES
Did this same vastly experienced Roberts & co stop Burgess crossing the gain line - NO
Did Burgess run a good dummy line and execute very well a training field move that led to our try - YES
Were England winning with the defence well intact when Burgess was substituted - YES

So Burgess, despite his lack of experience, in his International Union performances to date have shown he can tackle as well, cross the gain line as well, even offload effectively as both his opposite numbers and co centres. In fact on current form he should be starting at 12 before Barritt.

Our first choice inside centre Barritt is not exactly known as a good kicker is he? When Ford came on he put in two poor kicks that "failed miserably" (to use your term) and gave away possession at a time when we needed it. I also recall you would have selected him before Farrell remember?

If you think SB can do 'just as well' (your words) in a couple of games what BOD could do you are quite deluded. For a start Bod could kick, he also didn't need to be told where to stand defensively (by both Slade and Barritt in both games, if you went on RU forums you'll see fans from both sides commenting on this basic error). You're right, Barritt isn't known as a good kicker, hence why I said he wouldn't be in the worlds top 50 centres (and you said I don't like accuracy or reading much?). You also never answered why 2 Irish ex-players would be 'anti-league' when, coming from Ireland, they wouldn't give a rats about a regional sport in England. Mainly because it blows your theory that it's because they are 'anti-league' (to use your term) rather than that they might actually be telling the truth. And not only does Lancaster think the same about SB's lack of nous in playing in the centres (because he's DROPPED him), but Mike Ford at Bath was so unimpressed with his centre play that he moved him to number 6 and has no intention of moving him back to centres. I suppose Mike Ford is 'anti-league' too is he?

You think you provided a strong case? Only in your dream-world

"...able to do most of what they did..... as well" Why can't you quote accurately?

Inside Centre play includes tackling with a strong physical presence, putting your side on the front foot by crossing the gain line often in heavy traffic, running dummy running lines to fix defenders, being strong in the breakdown area, being able to offload in tight situations, backing up with good angled runs and having a strong presence. These are the basics and of course there are other skills like kicking. But as I said Burgess in his limited international game time so far has shown that he has this basic and important skill set and his mistakes have been minimal and not crucial. He has not been outplayed and has made a game changing impact when he came on as a sub and in fact has been better than the 'experience and ready' Barritt who is England's first choice inside centre.

So for you and others to pretend that his selection is in anyway a reason for the loss against Wales or was wrong is arrant nonsense and one can only presume in the absence of facts to disprove my points you have an agenda against Burgess.

https://youtu.be/9JLASzADsaI I'm a Sam burgess fan, but he's not even close. England made a bad decision in picking him for the wales game....not his fault.

https://youtu.be/9JLASzADsaI I'm a Sam burgess fan, but he's not even close. England made a bad decision in picking him for the wales game....not his fault.

I haven't said his selection was responsible for the loss against Wales, why do you make things up?

You also say that SB is strong at the breakdown, that shows that you are making it up as you go along, he was hopeless at the breakdown as well as kicking, which according to you are two of the basics. I also notice that you didn't mention his paucity of any positional sense of where he was supposed to stand, especially at lineouts, which should be a pre-requisite for any international centre. You never did answer my question asking if Mike Ford is 'anti-league' because he agrees with BOD and D'arcy that SB is not even a centre at club-level because he moved him to flanker and won't play him at centre again. I ask you again: is Mike Ford anti-league for thinking SB isn't a centre? You want there to be an agenda against Burgess because you want RL to be that important, but unfortunately for you it isn't.

Spot on, in time SB could be a handy International player but I and many others think at 6. Over the years BOD given us (Wales) a few beatings but I don't know anyone who doesn't admire him. He's a legend. For anyone to think SB is anywhere near BOD is just laughable.