The League Media

[terry j]

It has seemed to be pretty fair so far, from what I've read. Most people acknowledge that he struggled with the game (although you hear some idiots saying he was England's best player.) but that even making the world cup squad was a significant achievement. The main rhetoric is about how poorly he was treated by the media, which is a fair observation.

Hopefully this episode dissuades a few people from jumping ship - I've been sick of the whole circus since about 2004.

yeah, ok. Tis only been a few hours yet, hardly time for the daily rags to have their say. Yobbos like dean ritchie, I find it hard to believe he will fair. Tho of course till it happens I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Pfitzy]

Once he lands back here, it'll be #BoganStorm

 

[Antony]

yeah, ok. Tis only been a few hours yet, hardly time for the daily rags to have their say. Yobbos like dean ritchie, I find it hard to believe he will fair. Tho of course till it happens I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The broad conversation has been going on for a month, so I reckon we have a fair idea. Full disclosure though, I don't even know who Dean Ritchie is - so maybe I manage to skip the worst of it.

 

[wamberal]

The biggest shame about this whole mess is that there is absolutely no way he made the English World Cup squad on merit, as a 12.


Merit? Remind me again, how many minutes did he spend on the field in the lead up to the Cup selection as a 12?


Merit? He was clearly promised selection if he signed a contract and, frankly, that reflects very badly on the integrity of our sport.

 

[mxyzptlk]

well we have an experiment on our hands now. How will burgess be explained/talked about by the league media. Honest and impartial, or (the premise of the thread) a way to put the boot in.

I said at the beginning of the RWC that if England doesn't make it out of the pools/perform well, it'd be interesting to see if the league press criticizes union for criticizing Burgess for England's failure, whether it's true or not (and it's not).

I've seen one Daily Mail piece that's done that, one NZ Herald piece, and plenty of boneheaded blogs and tweets. But the narrative across the board now seems to be that the media treated Burgess unfairly or blamed him for England's problems. At best, Burgess was symptomatic of England's larger issues, but I'm having a hard time finding anyone in the standard press that was unfair to Burgess, blamed him, or didn't go out of their way to say Burgess wasn't hard done by being thrown into a position he knew nothing about. On occasion that Gordon D'Arcy piece will come up, but that was an analysis by an actual world-class centre of Burgess' limitations in that position, and being factual isn't being unfair.

But it seems that tweets and forum posts are passing for the media being unfair and blaming Burgess. And if that's the case, I want my goddamn credentials and per diem.

 

[mxyzptlk]

The biggest shame about this whole mess is that there is absolutely no way he made the English World Cup squad on merit, as a 12.


Merit? Remind me again, how many minutes did he spend on the field in the lead up to the Cup selection as a 12?


Merit? He was clearly promised selection if he signed a contract and, frankly, that reflects very badly on the integrity of our sport.

What would have been interesting is if he pulled a Brad Thorn and decided he wasn't yet ready for Test rugby and held off for the Lions. Then we'd see if he merited being picked at 6.

Another question that's been raised, and it's a good one: Had Burgess not been picked for RWC, would he still be on his way to the Rabbitohs, or would he still be training at Bath?

 

[terry j]

but I'm having a hard time finding anyone in the standard press that was unfair to Burgess, blamed him, or didn't go out of their way to say Burgess wasn't hard done by being thrown into a position he knew nothing about.

I agree, and here is an interesting and (to my ears) balanced discussion of this debacle (surely not too strong a word)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0377k26

In any case, sure there have been rumours/conjecture floating around, but now it is official. So, for me at least, the interest begins on what the league apologists come up with.

Oh, btw anthony, in your own best interests remain ignorant of dean ritchie. I value your mental health.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I agree, and here is an interesting and (to my ears) balanced discussion of this debacle (surely not too strong a word)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0377k26

Yep, listened to that same show just a few hours ago. One of them raised the question as to whether Burgess would have stayed or left had he not been selected for the England team, which is a good counterfactual question. Only Sam probably knows.

I liked how they had both union and league teammates on squashing the whispers that he was unhappy because of how the other players treated him. That's been one of the more noxious rumors, gets trotted out on Triple M about once a week.

 

[terry j]

A while back (I think it was huge arse?) posted a 'list' of comments from league re union. (you know, high score league means awesome league attack, high score rugby means shit rugby defence, that sort of thing)

It might be timely to bring it back here so if the media go the way I think they will, we can tick off the boxes and add any new ones (eg 'burgess got frostbite being in the backline')

 

[No4918]

Both sides have messed up here. IF Burgess was promised a spot then it is stupid and naive on his part. Not convince that was the case though. I do feel for him as he has been made a scapegoat for an atrocious RWC campaign. He never should have been there and is now thrown out. Management have dropped the ball as he could have turned out being a very good international player. Why does Lancaster still have a job? He and Farrell should both be sacked after what happened.

 

[mxyzptlk]

A while back (I think it was huge arse?) posted a 'list' of comments from league re union. (you know, high score league means awesome league attack, high score rugby means shit rugby defence, that sort of thing)

It might be timely to bring it back here so if the media go the way I think they will, we can tick off the boxes and add any new ones (eg 'burgess got frostbite being in the backline')

I was thinking of that same thing, and trying to figure out how the Burgess experiment would be spun. When he left, it was assumed he'd just be on the World Cup side because he was a world-class league player ("world class," though, presumes the rest of the world plays the sport). That assumption also presumes that either Burgess was soooo good he could just automatically make it, or that yawnion was sooo easy any leaguie could walk on and show them how it's done, or both.

Now that it's over and Burgess didn't make it, and wasn't able to produce the same kind of boshtastic magic he did in the NRL, is it going to be because the game was too hard? That Burgess wasn't good enough? Not prepared enough? That Burgess was just too bored to keep his head in the game for those minutes-long stretches when he wasn't handed a ball and given 10 meters to run directly over someone?

I don't think Burgess necessarily thought this, nor any other convert, but the truth is both sports can be a bit complicated in their own ways, and you'd be a fool to assume union was so easy that any leagueie could walk in and dominate like some might imagine. Even other world-class converts had to have a somewhat lengthy apprenticeship, and then just fell into the structure, but didn't necessarily dominate anything.* England played around with leaguie Joel Tomkins a couple years ago in the centres, and that didn't pan out either.

* (Some wingers excepted; the position seems to be similar enough in both codes that some league wingers were able to just do what they do in union and succeed. End of the chain and all that.)

 

[mxyzptlk]

Both sides have messed up here. IF Burgess was promised a spot then it is stupid and naive on his part. Not convince that was the case though. I do feel for him as he has been made a scapegoat for an atrocious RWC campaign. He never should have been there and is now thrown out. Management have dropped the ball as he could have turned out being a very good international player. Why does Lancaster still have a job? He and Farrell should both be sacked after what happened.

Arrrgghhh... Who? Who's scapegoating him for England's failure? I've been reading that for weeks, and it's especially ramped up in the past couple of days. This is at least the third time I've read that claim on these boards today. I have yet to find anyone in the media claiming England failed because of Burgess. I have seen others -- on social media and in the press -- stating that's the case -- that Burgess has been scapegoated. But who's actually saying that Burgess is the actual reason England failed? (Twitter, facebook and blogspot don't count; any maniac can post something online, just like I am right now.)

Seems to be the opposite, that England failed Burgess and themselves by putting someone in before he was ready.

 

[TOCC]

The biggest shame about this whole mess is that there is absolutely no way he made the English World Cup squad on merit, as a 12.


Merit? Remind me again, how many minutes did he spend on the field in the lead up to the Cup selection as a 12?


Merit? He was clearly promised selection if he signed a contract and, frankly, that reflects very badly on the integrity of our sport.

This was my issue, the coach was happy to parachute in a league convert who was clearly not up to the required level yet, but was to stubborn to select French based England players who were in terrific form because of some rule he created.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Antony]

Oh, btw anthony, in your own best interests remain ignorant of dean ritchie. I value your mental health.

Too late. I googled him after writing that and found this:

http://www.sportal.com.au/rugby/new...ke-over-all-blacks/1nu2q5r9daepz14up5w604rbzs

 

[mxyzptlk]

This was my issue, the coach was happy to parachute in a league convert who was clearly not up to the required level yet, but was to stubborn to select French based England players who were in terrific form because of some rule he created.

Exactly.

 

[terry j]

IF Burgess was promised a spot then it is stupid and naive on his part. Not convince that was the case though.

You'd say no? In fact, it was exactly the opposite (naive etc) because as it turned out he WAS selected for england.

As mxyl pointed out above (in the podcast) the interesting question is 'would he be kitting up for Bath right now-as per his contract-if he had not been selected for england?'

How is he supposed to react when the england coach and associated staff tell him he has what it takes. After all, they are (?) the rugby experts.

Hehehe, well I did warn you Antony. Actually, just take comfort in that all you have seen is his written tripe. Interviewed in person he is even more obnoxious. You didn't take my word before, but trust me on this one!

Anyways, that is the type of spin I expect to see spun from the league media. I could be wrong of course.

 

[Pfitzy]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...pion-quits-rugby/story-fn2mcuj6-1227598243859

Five Burning Questions about his return. Cut through the NRL going the thrashwank, and you can find the mortar rounds targeted for Union, which I now present for everyone's amusement:

Why is Burgess coming back to the NRL?

The champion forward made limited impact on rugby, despite his rapid ascension to the England Test squad and dual international status. To be frank, the way he was managed in the 15-man code was disgraceful.


Burgess should have been playing openside flanker from the outset, something his Bath club coach Mike Ford worked out. He was still used at centre by the England team and it was an ill-fated move on several fronts, played out on the biggest stage in the game, in front of the world.

Worst of all, setting Burgess up to fail by playing him in an role not remotely familiar to his rugby league skill set turned the English public on him. The snooty union set in the Old Dart were delighted by his struggles, while the general public turned from excitement over the marquee recruit to rolled eyes. The final embarrassment was Bath’s insistence until 24 hours before his confirmed departure that Burgess was locked into his union deal - meaning they were either telling porkies or had no idea.

Not that the circus necessarily worried Burgess. By all reports he was mostly dissatisfied with union mostly because he could not have the dominant involvement in the game that he enjoyed in rugby league. Raised a 13-man player, he is returning to his roots, the game that made him a household name in Australian and English league heartlands.

...

Will Burgess go back to rugby union for another World Cup crack, SBW style?

Only Burgess can know how much unfinished business he feels he has in rugby. Given he is such a proud competitor and things turned so awfully pear-shaped, probably plenty.

The length of his South Sydney deal is intriguing - three years theoretically allows him to play out his Rabbitohs contract and consider his options, possibly returning to the 15-man game in time for the next Rugby World Cup.

If there was any agonising over his future at all post this RWC, it was reports that Burgess was fuming at how his campaign panned out and was desperate to prove himself a star in rugby. It may be a fire that keeps burning, and he’ll still be of decent age (29) if he makes the switch in three years’ time.

...

If Burgess wins another premiership with the Rabbitohs in the next two seasons, perhaps he starts to think about other challenges earlier. He will need a decent amount of time to better come to grips with the game, cement himself as an elite No.6 and convince his many naysayers that he’s worthy of another World Cup shot.

So let's have a shot at the rugby establishment but recognise he didn't give himself enough time.

And P.S. if Burgess signed a three year contract in the NRL, is the author above basically approving him breaking it if he wins a premiership?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I spoke to some of the rugby establsihment. They didn't have it in for Burgess they had it in for Lancaster because they doubted he was ready.
If he plays for Souths for 3 years he'll give himself exactly the same amount of time he had to get ready for this RWC.
Besides which Bath saw him as a 6 not a 7.

 

[terry j]

So let's have a shot at the rugby establishment but recognise he didn't give himself enough time.

And P.S. if Burgess signed a three year contract in the NRL, is the author above basically approving him breaking it if he wins a premiership?

heh heh, started hasn't it.

I wonder if the league media will be as disgusted at Slammin Sam for reneging on a contract as much as they were when SBW reneged on a contract a few years ago.

I have my doubts frankly.

 

[mxyzptlk]

So let's have a shot at the rugby establishment but recognise he didn't give himself enough time.[.....]

The snooty union set in the Old Dart were delighted by his struggles,

Lines like that "delighted by his struggles" bit are one of the reasons league media can get so tiresome. No evidence, no examples, just a standard line trotted out in defiance of all facts. It's like putting salt on the table, something regularly rolled out whether it's needed or not.