(puts on investigator's hat)
Triple M also claimed that Burgess is being "widely blamed" for England's loss, and followed that up with more talk about how soon he'll be back at South Sydney.
So I got curious today, did some digging. The thing is, I can't find this wide-spread blame. I can find wide-spread criticism of the so-called wide-spread blame (the article Pfitzy linked to,
this Independent article,
this stuff.co.nz article, that Triple M mention). But beyond
one Paul Hayward article in The Telegraph, there doesn't seem to be the flood of Burgess-bashing those other sources are suggesting.
About that article: Knowing that reporters don't write their own headlines, "
England vs Wales: Huge Sam Burgess gamble played to Wales' strengths at Twickenham" doesn't quite do the piece justice, but is guaranteed to get some league hackles up (and generate hits). Hayward's complaint, though, isn't that Burgess cost them the game; it's that Lancaster switched tactics when it wasn't necessary, and Burgess ended up as part of that switch. (And that lineout call was crap.)
But Hayward points out how Burgess kept his channel contained, made an effective if ugly kick, and did the job he was meant to do.
You could say those changes worked in establishing England’s early advantage but they disintegrated in the last 20 minutes. To say Burgess’ departure was responsible for that unravelling is absurd. He was not the reason England lost but his selection was an error after the thoroughly acceptable victory over Fiji, which ought to have settled things down, not prompted an upheaval.
Burgess did have to be directed where to be at times, and that's a weakness arising from inexperience, but for the most part he took that direction well and contributed.
Elsewhere it's not hard to find plenty of rugby media and players/former players pointing out that Burgess wasn't the issue. Like former Wales captain Martin Williams, who
recently spoke on talkSPORT and noted that it wasn't until Burgess left that the game changed. Williams said as a Welshman, he was delighted England moved Farrell to 12, because Farrell was "bossing the game" at 10, had a great combination with Burgess, and Barritt "was struggling the whole match." (Williams was also complimentary of how Burgess went for his first start as a 12.)
Burgess made twice as many tackles as Barritt -- who bears plenty of responsibility for the dogleg Wales took advantage of to score -- and didn't give up any of the 12 England penalties that led to 21 points of converted Biggar kicks. It was right after the substitution and switch-up that Jamie Roberts was able to get really involved a play, drawing in Barritt and Watson and assisting in the Gareth Davies try. No way of knowing if Burgess would have been sucked in as well or if he could have disrupted something before Wales got wide, but if Barritt was struggling all game, the question lingers.
Haywood probably rightly draws some criticism for his inelegant description of Burgess looking as if he "won a prize to be on the pitch with the England team" and was "wandering around trying to be helpful." In his first start on the biggest stage, why wouldn't Burgess look like he won a prize? And he made the fourth most tackles of any England player, the most of any back, and didn't give away any penalties -- so yeah, he was somewhat helpful.
Yet that one article has become
widespread-blame and an indication that the England rugby world blames all of league for their loss to Wales. This sounds like one of those pre-fab narratives: If England win with Burgess on the pitch, it's because league is a better game and rugby can't do anything without poaching their players. If England lose and Burgess was in the game, look for any criticism that points out a mistake, and blow that up to blaming league. It's a can't-lose narrative.
(For the record, I don't have any axes to grind here other than getting the story straight. I'm largely in agreement that Burgess was rushed in; would probably make a better 6; and the RFU flubbed it when they couldn't coordinate with Bath to help Burgess develop in a way that suited England, Bath and Burgess. But if this is the way the narrative is developing, I fully expect conspiracy theories to pop up claiming Lancaster knew he couldn't win the World Cup, so they brought in Burgess to make league a scapegoat. But right now, the scapegoat role seems to have a Robshaw-shaped silhouette -- unless you follow league media.)
