-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Sam Burgess back to RL
- Thread starter mdaclarke
- Start date
His choice so much for being mentally strong
"He's a warrior and very proud - he'll see his contract through to the end no matter what, he wants to succeed at everything he tries."
Oh, bye.
Oh, bye.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2011
- Messages
- 12,274
- Reaction score
- 2,264
I'd say there'll be some hefty compensation for Bath then.
There's rumours of Te'o going back as well at the end of the year. If he does I wonder will that turn teams of converting players for a while.
There's rumours of Te'o going back as well at the end of the year. If he does I wonder will that turn teams of converting players for a while.
*kicks a puppy*
Probably just give them back the jiffy bag full of 50s that Bath handed across a year ago.
Seems pretty crazy that Bath paid out a ton to get him to Union and now the Bunnies have to pay out a ton to get him back.
Only positive thing to come out of this is Carl Fearns twitter reaction. https://twitter.com/Carl_Fearns/status/662297350405230592
Great shame, was looking forward to seeing how he'd go this season at 6.
Great shame, was looking forward to seeing how he'd go this season at 6.
Hahahah, love Fearns
Bath will be kicking themselves for letting him go now!
Bath will be kicking themselves for letting him go now!
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,590
- Reaction score
- 10,443
Well that's very unprofessional by Burgess. Every single thing surrounding him has been a joke, from being fast tracked above better players to being forced into the world cup early and now tearing up his contract. So much for mental toughness, I've lost a lot of respect for him. Had a bad world cup and now giving up after less than 1 season. This is why we shouldn't fast track league converts.
Abendanon hinting, on twitter, that Eastmond will be off.
:wall:
Gonna have to chalk this season up to rebuilding unless we get some turnaround effing League players....
Eh, Bath have more than enough depth to cope with these departures.
To be fair, having had another look, I reckon he means Lancaster.
Which seems more likely than before now.
Less worried about Burgess more worried about center remember we don't have Joseph currently.
Well sure but do they have any players worth having left?
Agulla isn't considered a center option, that leave Devoto, Banahan & Jeff Williams (who I don't really know).
Agulla isn't considered a center option, that leave Devoto, Banahan & Jeff Williams (who I don't really know).
Tom Fowlie is not for sale.
On a serious note actually feel a bit sorry for Burgess should never has been picked by Lancaster who then plays him out of position that's not his fault. But the press go straight at him. Also would be sad if Eastmond went he could be something special but one bad game against the world champions and its bye bye. What a waste.
Only press to go at him was the Irish Times
Yoshimitsu
Academy Player
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 276
Bravo everybody involved!
So to summarise the RFU tried to pay for him to come but other clubs got the arse so Bath ended up paying the lot which then led to Bath having a free hand in where to pick him. Having had a look at Burgess being pretty much unable to survive at Premiership level at centre, Bath determined he was going to be a better 6 and committed to a course of action to play him there. To the extent they forced a perfectly good 6 to consider his options and pack his bags. Lancaster, Farrell et al decided that despite Burgess's relative failure at Bath, they knew better and decided not only to select him in the RWC squad but to do so in his worse position. Furthermore that then required that they drop a centre who was instrumental to a decent 6 nations to accommodate him. Lancaster and Farrell then decided that on top of playing him out of position they'd partner him with perhaps the least creative man in English rugby. To make up for his defensive fragility this forced Lancaster's hand in to picking Andy's boy ahead of their previously established No 1 at fly half. Despite all that Burgess played O.K despite nearly being binned a couple of times for Leaguish hits. Lancaster then decided to drop Burgess for the one game where he might have been able to show something in order to give a run out to a real centre.............
All because he had a winning personality apparently.
This has to be the nail in Lancaster's coffin.
So to summarise the RFU tried to pay for him to come but other clubs got the arse so Bath ended up paying the lot which then led to Bath having a free hand in where to pick him. Having had a look at Burgess being pretty much unable to survive at Premiership level at centre, Bath determined he was going to be a better 6 and committed to a course of action to play him there. To the extent they forced a perfectly good 6 to consider his options and pack his bags. Lancaster, Farrell et al decided that despite Burgess's relative failure at Bath, they knew better and decided not only to select him in the RWC squad but to do so in his worse position. Furthermore that then required that they drop a centre who was instrumental to a decent 6 nations to accommodate him. Lancaster and Farrell then decided that on top of playing him out of position they'd partner him with perhaps the least creative man in English rugby. To make up for his defensive fragility this forced Lancaster's hand in to picking Andy's boy ahead of their previously established No 1 at fly half. Despite all that Burgess played O.K despite nearly being binned a couple of times for Leaguish hits. Lancaster then decided to drop Burgess for the one game where he might have been able to show something in order to give a run out to a real centre.............
All because he had a winning personality apparently.
This has to be the nail in Lancaster's coffin.
Similar threads
