Re: Sam Burgess : Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:54 pm  

tugglesf78 wrote: You might not say that when you hear the current rumors regarding his return to SL and one club in particular.... http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-7497832 Nope, not bothered, not even if it were Saints.

tugglesf78 wrote: You might not say that when you hear the current rumors regarding his return to SL and one club in particular.... http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-7497832 Nope, not bothered, not even if it were Saints.

Re: Sam Burgess : Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:37 pm  

Sounds like the bookies have run scared at the potential for there being a bit of insider knowledge being passed round but I doubt it.

Leeds will need to check his 'Love-Ometre' anyway because they don't play for cash over Headingley way.

Re: Sam Burgess : Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:45 am  

Burgess would be any club's marquee player wouldn't he? Not that it matters because I don't think he'll go to SL unless he suddenly decides to quit RU before his contract is up. I do think he's more likely to go back to Souths when his contract is up though. If he'd been part of an England team that got to the final, I reckon he would have stayed in RU to go one better next time.

Personally I think the England result, and the treatment of Burgess in particular has to be a plus for RL. There's no chance Burgess will play at centre for England again, and assuming Lancaster et al get the flick (including Farrell, who I can't forgive for helping to entice RL players) any other coach would probably do the exact opposite of fast tracking him - he'll have to be far and away the best in his position to be considered again.

It also means that other converts will be highly unlikely to be fast tracked by England either - especially if other union players get annoyed at being jumped over in the queue. Given that most RL converts (including Sam) go supposedly because of the bigger stage etc, if you're told it could be years before you get a shot that would make a lot think twice. Compare that to Vainakolo, Paul, Hape, Farrell, Ashton and Burgess who gave the impression that all you need to do is play half a dozen games of union and you'll get to play at Twickers, and the thought of actually learning the game and playing club rugby in the winter may not be the enticing thought it once was. When you add in the undisguised dislike of RL and the glee of pointing at failures, I reckon moving to RU could well be seen as a huge risk that might not be worth taking.

Personally I think the problem with Sam was entirely predictable - signing a player because he is naturally built to be great in another sport rather than looking to where he'd play in union etc. Had they looked at Burgess as an RU player, I don't think any RU side in their right mind would have paid a lot for him. The fact that Bath didn't even work out he'd never make a centre until they tried him there speaks volumes (including for how good a coach Mike Ford is). The fact that England made the same mistake after Bath admitted theirs is even more proof of how bad a coach Lancaster must be.

Re: Sam Burgess : Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:10 am  

Never looked a union player. As poor as the game is he's not quick enough to be in the backs or big and slow enough to be in the forwards. He's stuck in between two roles and its showed.

Regardless of the club it'd be nice to see him back in league.

Re: Sam Burgess : Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:40 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

Burgess would be any club's marquee player wouldn't he? Not that it matters because I don't think he'll go to SL unless he suddenly decides to quit RU before his contract is up. I do think he's more likely to go back to Souths when his contract is up though. If he'd been part of an England team that got to the final, I reckon he would have stayed in RU to go one better next time.

Personally I think the England result, and the treatment of Burgess in particular has to be a plus for RL. There's no chance Burgess will play at centre for England again, and assuming Lancaster et al get the flick (including Farrell, who I can't forgive for helping to entice RL players) any other coach would probably do the exact opposite of fast tracking him - he'll have to be far and away the best in his position to be considered again.

It also means that other converts will be highly unlikely to be fast tracked by England either - especially if other union players get annoyed at being jumped over in the queue. Given that most RL converts (including Sam) go supposedly because of the bigger stage etc, if you're told it could be years before you get a shot that would make a lot think twice. Compare that to Vainakolo, Paul, Hape, Farrell, Ashton and Burgess who gave the impression that all you need to do is play half a dozen games of union and you'll get to play at Twickers, and the thought of actually learning the game and playing club rugby in the winter may not be the enticing thought it once was. When you add in the undisguised dislike of RL and the glee of pointing at failures, I reckon moving to RU could well be seen as a huge risk that might not be worth taking.

Personally I think the problem with Sam was entirely predictable - signing a player because he is naturally built to be great in another sport rather than looking to where he'd play in union etc. Had they looked at Burgess as an RU player, I don't think any RU side in their right mind would have paid a lot for him. The fact that Bath didn't even work out he'd never make a centre until they tried him there speaks volumes (including for how good a coach Mike Ford is). The fact that England made the same mistake after Bath admitted theirs is even more proof of how bad a coach Lancaster must be.

Good post. Agree with this. My guess is that Farrell pushed hard for his selection and Lancaster gave in. Was Farrell too influential? And what will it all say about his future?

Re: Sam Burgess : Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:48 am  

Watch Rads doing the interview with Sam Tomkins on Wigan t.v.

Re: Sam Burgess : Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:48 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

Burgess would be any club's marquee player wouldn't he? Not that it matters because I don't think he'll go to SL unless he suddenly decides to quit RU before his contract is up. I do think he's more likely to go back to Souths when his contract is up though. If he'd been part of an England team that got to the final, I reckon he would have stayed in RU to go one better next time.

Personally I think the England result, and the treatment of Burgess in particular has to be a plus for RL. There's no chance Burgess will play at centre for England again, and assuming Lancaster et al get the flick (including Farrell, who I can't forgive for helping to entice RL players) any other coach would probably do the exact opposite of fast tracking him - he'll have to be far and away the best in his position to be considered again.

It also means that other converts will be highly unlikely to be fast tracked by England either - especially if other union players get annoyed at being jumped over in the queue. Given that most RL converts (including Sam) go supposedly because of the bigger stage etc, if you're told it could be years before you get a shot that would make a lot think twice. Compare that to Vainakolo, Paul, Hape, Farrell, Ashton and Burgess who gave the impression that all you need to do is play half a dozen games of union and you'll get to play at Twickers, and the thought of actually learning the game and playing club rugby in the winter may not be the enticing thought it once was. When you add in the undisguised dislike of RL and the glee of pointing at failures, I reckon moving to RU could well be seen as a huge risk that might not be worth taking.

Personally I think the problem with Sam was entirely predictable - signing a player because he is naturally built to be great in another sport rather than looking to where he'd play in union etc. Had they looked at Burgess as an RU player, I don't think any RU side in their right mind would have paid a lot for him. The fact that Bath didn't even work out he'd never make a centre until they tried him there speaks volumes (including for how good a coach Mike Ford is). The fact that England made the same mistake after Bath admitted theirs is even more proof of how bad a coach Lancaster must be.

Agreed. Hopefully much of this will come to pass.

I also concur about Andy Farrell. I think people have laid off him a little because he was once a favourite son and all that, but it's time we accepted that he's not one of us any more. I have no sympathy with him and will be disappointed if he turns up back in RL after he gets sacked. Firstly because, as you say, he was the one who persuaded Sam to leave, but secondly because I'm not sure what's going on inside his head, if anything. This idea that you can parachute RL players into international RU and they'll win pots for you is far, far too simplistic an approach for professional sport. Stevo made this point a few years ago; that it's quite ludicrous that so many of these lads seem to have England caps built into their contracts. Okay, it will secure the signatures for you, but how can it possibly work in practical terms?

The RU still seem completely intoxicated by the experience they had with Jason Robinson, without apparently realising that his main asset was broken field running, which is easily transferrable to either code. Surely - after the expensive failures of Henry Paul, Iestyn Harris, Karl Pryce, Chev Walker, Kyle Eastmond, Andy Farrell himself, and now Sam Burgess, it's time they started doing some real diligence on the actual skills these players possess and worked out whether they can genuinely be used in a different sport. (As you say, the very fact that Mike Ford apparently shares this shortsightedness and yet is head coach at a top RU club speaks absolute volumes).

And this applies both ways. When the main traffic was RU to RL, the converts had to prove they were worthy of international recognition, and quite a few of them didn't.

Re: Sam Burgess : Tue Oct 06, 2015 11:23 am  

I remember reading a column by one of the English players (I forget who) in one of the papers a few years ago. He was talking about training at Bath. Apparently if they had a bad session one of the punishments was to make them play RL for twenty minutes, which absolutely knackered them.

It's easy to see that in Union there is a great deal of respect for League players. They know that someone like Burgess is a hugely talented, high performing individual. He has been given a free ride by the England coaching team on the back of his accomplishments at the Rabbitohs. I think there is a belief that he is better than your average Union player. And I think that is true.

However, these things take time. Burgess would be a quality back rower in Union after a few years learning the game, no danger. Just as Joel Tomkins would be too. Joel saw sense and came back to the game he knows best. Let's hope that Sam does too, because a couple of years learning the dark arts of Union forward play could be a waste of time. By that time England RU may have moved on.

Re: Sam Burgess : Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:08 pm  

Lancaster has made 9 changes for their last match, virtually giving everyone a game and what's the BBC headline? "Sam Burgess out of England squad".

Re: Sam Burgess : Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:24 pm  

jinkin jimmy wrote:

Lancaster has made 9 changes for their last match, virtually giving everyone a game and what's the BBC headline? "Sam Burgess out of England squad".

Well, there's nothing else much to talk about for the game is there?
What's really annoying is that there's bgr-all mention of the only rugby game that really matters on Saturday either. And look at the radio schedule: we start on 5LiveExtra in favour of the Oz/Taffy game, then get bumped over to the main channel (if we're lucky) at half time. I know the RFU have done their best to get in the way and the RFL are trying to pretend nothing else is happening, but FFS, how much cr*p do we have to take?