The League Media

[Braveheart81]

It was an error because he had to shift Barritt to 13 where he got exposed.

Yes, but there was a forced selection change at 13 due to Joseph's injury.

Of course Slade could have come in at 13 and that may have been a better option.

Lancaster's error was potentially selecting Barritt at 13 over Slade.

Selecting Burgess at 12 after deciding that he preferred Barritt over Slade at 13 wasn't an issue. Burgess went pretty well.

 

[Antony]

Yes, but there was a forced selection change at 13 due to Joseph's injury.

Of course Slade could have come in at 13 and that may have been a better option.

Lancaster's error was potentially selecting Barritt at 13 over Slade.

Selecting Burgess at 12 after deciding that he preferred Barritt over Slade at 13 wasn't an issue. Burgess went pretty well.

It's an opportunity cost issue. He's solid but limited at 12, and they had options like Slade and Eastmond who could have delivered the kind of edge that I think they'll need to get much further. If they had focussed on developing him as a 6 (at both club and international level) he could be a genuine option by now.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's an opportunity cost issue. He's solid but limited at 12, and they had options like Slade and Eastmond who could have delivered the kind of edge that I think they'll need to get much further. If they had focussed on developing him as a 6 (at both club and international level) he could be a genuine option by now.

Eastmond isn't in the squad but is primarily a 12.

Slade is in the squad but they didn't select him for the Wales match.

I get what you're saying but I don't think you can judge Burgess on anything except how he played which was pretty well. It's not his fault the coach didn't trust Slade at 13 or Barritt played poorly.

I guess the biggest question that should be put to Lancaster is why he selected Slade in his squad if he wasn't going to play him when his first choice 13 went down. Their squad very clearly had two 12s and two 13s.

 

[wamberal]

They did not have time to develop him as an international 6, that would have taken a couple of seasons.


Bear in mind that he had never, ever, played our game. There is a huge amount
for a back-rower to learn, particularly one who would be expected to win his share of lineouts.

 

[Antony]

Fair enough - I'm not trying to have a go at the guy, he seems nice enough and is obviously a very good athlete, but I think he was the wrong selection at 12. Let's leave it at that shall we, and get back to complaining about Phil Gould.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Yes, but there was a forced selection change at 13 due to Joseph's injury.

Of course Slade could have come in at 13 and that may have been a better option.

Lancaster's error was potentially selecting Barritt at 13 over Slade.

Selecting Burgess at 12 after deciding that he preferred Barritt over Slade at 13 wasn't an issue. Burgess went pretty well.

Did you see that Gordon D'Arcy article from the other thread? That's exactly what he got into -- how Shaun Edwards' defensive system leaves some space on the edges, but that requires a distributor in the centers in order to take advantage of that. Neither Burgess nor Barritt are those distributors; Slade was left out of the match-day 23; and the only other person experienced there against Wales, Luther Burrell, was left out of the squad.

Doesn't show the best judgment on Lancaster's part. Also -- that was England's 14th center partnership since he took over. Constantly rotating your centers probably isn't the best way to get them to bed in and click.

(I like one of D'Arcy's recommendations: "First thing they should, but won’t, do is push someone down a stairs and get Steffon Armitage over from France. ")

 

[mxyzptlk]

They did not have time to develop him as an international 6, that would have taken a couple of seasons.

It took Sonny Bill two seasons in France just to get ready to start becoming an international center.

 

[Braveheart81]

Did you see that Gordon D'Arcy article from the other thread? That's exactly what he got into -- how Shaun Edwards' defensive system leaves some space on the edges, but that requires a distributor in the centers in order to take advantage of that. Neither Burgess nor Barritt are those distributors; Slade was left out of the match-day 23; and the only other person experienced there against Wales, Luther Burrell, was left out of the squad.

Doesn't show the best judgment on Lancaster's part. Also -- that was England's 14th center partnership since he took over. Constantly rotating your centers probably isn't the best way to get them to bed in and click.

(I like one of D'Arcy's recommendations: "First thing they should, but won’t, do is push someone down a stairs and get Steffon Armitage over from France. ")

Yeah, I did.

There's definitely a disconnect in D'Arcy's reasoning. He spends the start of the article talking about all the things Burgess lacks in terms of experience and timing but then when he breaks down each key play, it's either an error from Wales in response to whatever Burgess did (rather than something good by Burgess) or Barritt's mistakes.

I agree that at this stage Barritt is a much better 12 than Burgess and Barritt is a terrible 13.

Clearly with the squad he had, Lancaster should have picked Slade at 13. If he's in your squad as your second 13 then you need to trust him when your first choice gets injured.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Clearly with the squad he had, Lancaster should have picked Slade at 13. If he's in your squad as your second 13 then you need to trust him when your first choice gets injured.

A year ago Malakai Fekitoa was in a similar position as Slade. Can't imagine the All Blacks bringing him up, and then sidelining him for someone with a fraction of the experience in his position (Barritt in this case, not Burgess).

 

[wamberal]

It took Sonny Bill two seasons in France just to get ready to start becoming an international center.

When Money Bill switched I thought he would have made a pretty handy 6.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm still confused where Burgess' two RWC appearances haven't been largely good.

He had plenty of impact off the bench against Fiji and was fine against Wales.

I really don't see where it is an error by Lancaster to select him as an option at 12.

Burgess made 2 shocking misreads in defence that would have been severely punished by any one of NZ, SA, AUS, Fra.
To my jaundiced eyes in both cases he came out of a line to make the hero play by sacking a bloke 2 or 3 channels inside. This is classic because he hasn't yet realised that in union you not only have to defend the current phase you have to think about defending the next phase - something you don't have to do in league because of the great leveller - the play the ball.

 

[terry j]

just saw the replay, but did not see the 'other players gesturing to burgess where to stand' that some have talked about. Did I just miss it (again) or was it something you had to be at the ground to see?

Yep IS, I am sure that the concept of a tackle ending play (in league) can be a hard one to suddenly grasp. Esp in the big games so to speak, how much of your actions are purely instinct.

 

[RunnerGunner]

They did not have time to develop him as an international 6, that would have taken a couple of seasons.


Bear in mind that he had never, ever, played our game. There is a huge amount
for a back-rower to learn, particularly one who would be expected to win his share of lineouts.

He did actually! From 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_league/super_league/bradford/7960128.stm

Rugby League is my favourite sport with rugby union well down the list! I have a big worry that top rugby league players (like yourself) will defect to it! Should I worry or is this just a phase?
Chris Forster, Cas
It is definitely something rugby league as a sport should be worried about. We've had players go over and I'm sure there will be more in the next couple of seasons. Someone should look into the possibility central contracts between the RFL and players they want to keep in the sport. I can understand why fans are asking the question but it is something that is over my head. I played a little bit of rugby union when I was younger but I'm definitely on the side of league.

 

[RunnerGunner]

The talk of Union players and journalists lining up against Burgess because he's from League is nonsense. There was no such talk when Jason Robinson got into the England team in no time at - as he had proven himself to be good enough in a short period of time.

Burgess simply hasn't proven himself as a centre in rugby union. His own club coach sees him as a Number 6. It will actually be very interesting if England lose tomorrow and Lancaster and Farrell get the sack, Mike Ford will likely get the top job.

Guys like Will Carling and Matt Dawson, who criticised picking Burgess in the squad, have been hugely complimentary of rugby league players over the years. You actually rarely see the cross code bullshit between players anymore, there is a huge amount of respect there. Except maybe in Australia where there is a huge element of playing to the Code Wars gallery.

 

[kandos]

Runner Gunner - Perhaps you should read the Sunday Times for the regular pot shots by Jones and Barnes. Now they have David Walsh on his case with a hatchet job in last week's rag on Burgess. Barnes did criticise Robinson quite heavily in a TV broadcast when Robinson played for Bath before he came into the England team.

Agreed, there's no animosity among the players because they both know how hard the two codes are, it's some of the journos who stir it up.

 

[RunnerGunner]

I read it most weeks, not Jones because he's a troll who nobody who seriously watches rugby respects.

It is not because Burgess is an ex rugby league player. It is the hype.

Again, I don't think there is anything in it apart from people saying it was lunacy to pick a guy who had barely played the sport in a position he was unproven in and worse, not fancied with his club. That will attract criticism.

I did not see Kyle Eastmond's league past mentioned when he got his first caps. Eastmond had to wait and got his chance. There were criticisms of his size and power at international level, but nothing on his league past because there was not the hype associated and he waited and earned his call up. Here is Stuart Barnes trumpeting Kyle Eastmond;

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article4259800.ece


Here he is lauding SBW

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/rugby_union/Internationals/article1559710.ece


The narrative is that the Union boys want to bury Burgess and hence "rugby league players". This is just pure paranoia. You don't see it about Israel Falou or Sonny Bill Williams, you didn't about Jason Robinson 10 years ago, in the ST because they've earned their stripes as rugby union players.

 

[wamberal]

The criticism surrounding Burgess would be just as intense if he had switched from any other sport. Basketball, for example.


And the player himself should not be criticised in any way. The RFU stands totally condemned - England allegedly has the most rugby players in the world, and yet they have to scuttle around and fast-track a player who has never played the game virtually straight into the national team.


The whole episode is just bizarre.

 

[pjm]

After watching the peerless Wallaby performance in the morning getting through the NRL GF was hard, and then it was called the best GF ever.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^ It is just like the Olympic Games. To perpetuate the myth, and encourage other cities to invest billions of dollars, most of which will never be recovered, every Olympic Games is announced as the best ever. The mungo "family" and their fanboy media have too much at stake to do anything apart from go into super-mega immortal miracle overhype.

Mungo Media reporting on a loig game
Plenty of tries scored = magnificent attack - Oh it's an unbelievable miracle
Not many tries scored = Super defence - nothing short of miraculous
Game decided by kicks = Super cool heads under intense pressure - unbelievable moment
Low scoring game = Incredibly tense with superhuman defence efforts just managing to hold out the scintillating attacking forays - absolutely unique tension
Injured players = Impressive and manly physicality - What a heroic hit and he's gone down for the count

Mungo Media reporting on a Rugby game
Plenty of tries scored = can't tackle or defend
Not many tries scored = inept attack
Game decided by kicks = boring kickfest (don't mention AFL and it's massive popularity)
Low scoring game = told you it was boring
Injured players = Thugs

 

[Gnostic]

Burgess made 2 shocking misreads in defence that would have been severely punished by any one of NZ, SA, AUS, Fra.
To my jaundiced eyes in both cases he came out of a line to make the hero play by sacking a bloke 2 or 3 channels inside. This is classic because he hasn't yet realised that in union you not only have to defend the current phase you have to think about defending the next phase - something you don't have to do in league because of the great leveller - the play the ball.

Kurindrani has been caught out a few times in his games and doesn't have the excuse that Burgess does.

I don't like league, its boring and utterly predictable these days. I last followed league when "my" side played in the top comp, the Newtown Jets. So I am very far from having even an educated opinion on their players success in their game.

From what I've seen Burgess hasn't seemed out of place in this England side. Lancaster and Co. decided to play a very limited game plan with the selection of Farrell at 10. In that case Burgess was probably the best call they could make at 12 and I don't understand why they started with Barrett at 12 against the Wallabies. IMO Barrett offers far less than Burgess in terms of impact with ball in hand and its only those few times per game that Burgess will be caught out defensively, but as with Kurindrani it is up to the defensive structures to deal with that breakout.

The choice of Lancaster and Co to basically throw away all the work they had done on an attacking game plan, which saw them beat Australia last year and have a reasonably upward trend in their play, made the selection of a more ball playing/attacking centre pairing a waste of time.