Sam Burgess...What do we think?

[goodNumber10]

Eastmond got into the England team after his first full season, with only half of that spent as a centre.
He was injured for the first year at Bath. We are only half-way through his second season.

Tomkins didn't take much longer and wasn't Ashton pretty much straight into scoring tries in the championship?

The better the player the less time it takes - Folau hadn't played a full season when he scored 2 tries against the Lions.

Clearly it takes time, particularly when you move infield, but let's not exaggerate.

Interesting to note that Andrew Fifita (the guy who the Rabbitohs are trying to replace Burgess with) is potentially swapping too!

Eastmond made his England debut on a depleted tour to Argentina, and even then only as a substitiute. He's a good player and i think he should be in, but he's had 2 and a half years in union - yes he was injured for most of 2011/2012 but he was still in and around union and being coached the game - regardless he is far from a dead cert to make the England team as a regular with 36 and Barritt both ahead of him in the pecking order.

Tomkins made the england team in his second ful season at Saracens he switched 2010 had half a season with Sarries, then spent most of 2011/2012 in the Storm learning the game. He stepped up in 2012/2013 and has only been a first team regular since early 2013, so his transtiion has been managed as well and taken a while.

Folaue is an outside back the transition is a lot easier there as the skill sets almost identical, ashton likewise but it still took him 3 years to make the England team.

 

[goodNumber10]

???

If you're questioning that then I suggest you have a look at the RC episode in question and see for yourself... they're clearly blagging it pretending to know who he is.
Barnes in particular is obviously tasked with being "controversial" by Sky, his opinions flit so often that it can only be by design.

Regardless they are professional sports journalists, their opinion even if you don't agree with it matters.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I'm not suggesting that he'll make the RWC. That's clearly not going to happen. Being a Bath fan I'm talking partly from a club perspective, not just England.

Kyle had half a season's playing experience at IC before he made his England debut in that position and he looked to the manor born.
A season analysing the game from the sidelines is great, but not comparable with a season of playing.

Tomkins and Ashton were good league players, but not in the same bracket as even Eastmond.
Their gestation period reflects this - and Saint's period in the championship prolonged Ashton's.

Folau was playing AFL at the time he switched, I accept that wouldn't have had an enormous impact, but should be bared in mind.
Yes the positions are very similar - but that's partly my point.
Very good league players and very good Union players share a number of instincts and abilities that make it possible to switch very quickly.
The better the player - the less time it takes to transition.

Regardless they are professional sports journalists, their opinion even if you don't agree with it matters.

I disagree.

 

[goodNumber10]

I'm not suggesting that he'll make the RWC. That's clearly not going to happen. Being a Bath fan I'm talking partly from a club perspective, not just England.

Kyle had half a season's playing experience at IC before he made his England debut in that position and he looked to the manor born.
A season analysing the game from the sidelines is great, but not comparable with a season of playing.

Tomkins and Ashton were good league players, but not in the same bracket as even Eastmond.
Their gestation period reflects this - and Saint's period in the championship prolonged Ashton's.

Folau was playing AFL at the time he switched, I accept that wouldn't have had an enormous impact, but should be bared in mind.
Yes the positions are very similar - but that's partly my point.
Very good league players and very good Union players share a number of instincts and abilities that make it possible to switch very quickly.
The better the player - the less time it takes to transition.

I'm not arguing against any of that, all i'm saying is that generally speaking long gone are the days where league players could waltz into any position on a union team and make a major impact from day one - there are exceptions - Eastmond, like Benji Marshall, is a natural ball player he fits the 12 roll in union (think marshal would be better suited here) and was recruited because of that. He still needed a transition period and who's to know if he'd not been injured he'd have made an impact i that first season - there has been a big change of coaching at bath over the last two seasons hasn't there?

Folau and Ashton were recruited specifically as outside backs (and i have to say Folau look immense for the tahs at the weekend).

So burgess might go well, he might make no impact at all (unlikely) but until he's had a few hit outs we won't know.

I disagree.

Fair enough.

 

[ratsapprentice]

He'll almost certainly make an impact instantly.
I think his raw power in the tackle and as a carrier will transfer without a hitch.
What he'll struggle with is how to consistently involve himself effectively.
A bit like Bastareaud or Carlin Isles.

He knows how to bosh and step - he will take time to learn to bosh and step and then present the ball without being turned over.
Then he can learn how to run a line that means he doesn't have to bosh or step.
Obviously if he's seen as a forward there will be a whole new skillset to learn too.

 

[goodNumber10]

He'll almost certainly make an impact instantly.
I think his raw power in the tackle and as a carrier will transfer without a hitch.
What he'll struggle with is how to consistently involve himself effectively.
A bit like Bastareaud or Carlin Isles.

He knows how to bosh and step - he will take time to learn to bosh and step and then present the ball without being turned over.
Then he can learn how to run a line that means he doesn't have to bosh or step.
Obviously if he's seen as a forward there will be a whole new skillset to learn too.

i think you're taking my words a little too literally, or they were the wrong choice of words. Yes he'll make an impact (i said he likely will) he'll bosh and smash and get himself yellow carded for some crazy hits... but will he have the same impact that eastmond does in being able to turn a game, contribute to the teams objectives?

i'm not so sure.

either way it'll be interesting to see how he beds in, i really wish he didn't have to play out the Summer with the Aussies.

 

[McTallshort]

I hope he does well at Bath but I am uncomfortable about the talk around him playing in the WC. It reminds me of Andy Farrell who when he joined Union didnt have an easy time but was still selected for the 2007 WC. People at the time didnt even know what position he should be playing in yet he went anyway taking the place of someone who was probably a better technical player.

Lots of people think he could play 8 but what makes a great 8 is the ability to read the game how can he learn the game better than either Morgan or Billy in 10 months?

If a good player gets dropped just to let Burgess into the squad I would not be happy. If he rips up trees for bath and gets selected on merit then fair enough but there should be no special dispensation because he was a good league player.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I'm still at a loss as to why eastmond isn't our starting 12 and wonder if he will ever get a chance.

If bath see burgess as a 12 then does eastmond go to 13? Or does burgess challenge tuilagi for the power 13 role?

 

[SimonG]

The 10 man rugby played by England in 2003 was a result to the team a) Being somewhat over the hill b) The pressures of winning a World Cup.

As for Greenwood - he had a better than 1 in 2 strike rate in the centres. Smith, Nonu, de Villiers, Fourie, O'Driscoll, D'Arcy, Jauzion - there's a list of pro era inside centres that didn't do that. Horan didn't manage it. Jason Little didn't manage it. Sella didn't manage it. Bunce didn't manage it. Umaga didn't manage it and he spent a fair bit of time on the wing! In fact, to simplify this, there is a grand total of 13 tier 1 internationals with a better strike rate than Greenwood and they are all back three players. No other centre has done better than 1 in 2. To put it into perspective in that England team - Jason Robinson and Ben Cohen have strike rates bettering his by 0.002 and 0.01 of him in terms of percentage.

My last comment on this as it wasn't my intention to digress so much from the thread topic. A WC is ESPECIALLY when you go to your main players. Any major tournament in a any sport is when the coach looks to his stand out players to get it done. England did that in 2003 by focusing on that awesome pack and the boot of Wilkinson.

In terms of strike rate, the platform that England pack provided would inflate the record of any back. England were dominant upfront for most of Clive's reign...the stand out has to be what they did to NZ in their own backyard and with a man less. They beat the crap out of us at Lansdowne. Our backs barely touched the ball. At the WC the ilk of Jason Leonard, Danny Grewcock, Martin Corry..could barely get a game. Greenwood was a good player, not a great player, not a game changer. An average England pack and England win nothing as they didnt have the backs (bar Robinson) to produce from nothing. He's probably the best pundit on Rugby and I like the guy.

On topic, Burgess IS someone who can do something from nothing, he's shown it in League, and I have no doubt he will do in Union.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I'm still at a loss as to why eastmond isn't our starting 12 and wonder if he will ever get a chance.

If bath see burgess as a 12 then does eastmond go to 13? Or does burgess challenge tuilagi for the power 13 role?

Ford has clearly stated that he isn't moving Kyle - he wants a playmaker at 12.
He's undecided as to whether Sam will be a flanker or centre. If he is a centre he will be not replace Kyle at 12 - that's not to say he's going to be a traditional OC either.

 

[Maverick1987]

My last comment on this as it wasn't my intention to digress so much from the thread topic. A WC is ESPECIALLY when you go to your main players. Any major tournament in a any sport is when the coach looks to his stand out players to get it done. England did that in 2003 by focusing on that awesome pack and the boot of Wilkinson.

In terms of strike rate, the platform that England pack provided would inflate the record of any back. England were dominant upfront for most of Clive's reign...the stand out has to be what they did to NZ in their own backyard and with a man less. They beat the crap out of us at Lansdowne. Our backs barely touched the ball. At the WC the ilk of Jason Leonard, Danny Grewcock, Martin Corry..could barely get a game. Greenwood was a good player, not a great player, not a game changer. An average England pack and England win nothing as they didnt have the backs (bar Robinson) to produce from nothing. He's probably the best pundit on Rugby and I like the guy.

On topic, Burgess IS someone who can do something from nothing, he's shown it in League, and I have no doubt he will do in Union.

Nope wrong again . So what you are saying is that any back playing behind a decent pack isn't that brilliant they just look good because the pack is good ? For example in recent rugby is that Conrad Smith isn't a good player he only does well because the pack is good ?

Anyone who says that Woodward era England team was a 10 man rugby team is ill informed or a jealous Celt

 

[SimonG]

Err...thanks for crediting me with coining the label for Clive and his boys, didn't know I had THAT much influence...I come up with "Dads army" too?

:lol:

 

[Maverick1987]

How do you block people on the mobile app ?

 

[goodNumber10]

How do you block people on the mobile app ?

Can you block people on here? Thank the lord.

 

[Maverick1987]

Can you block people on here? Thank the lord.

Well I saw 2 people who said they had blocked someone I was just wondering . If you can I suspect simon will only have 3 people who can view his posts in a couple of months haha

 

[goodNumber10]

Well I saw 2 people who said they had blocked someone I was just wondering . If you can I suspect simon will only have 3 people who can view his posts in a couple of months haha

just done it on the browser... just click on the users profile you want to ignore and then add to ignore list. That users posts dissapear from the forum for you - though you can still see quotes by them in other users posts (understandably)

Didn't see a way to do it on the mobileapp.

 

[Zed]

Nope wrong again . So what you are saying is that any back playing behind a decent pack isn't that brilliant they just look good because the pack is good ? For example in recent rugby is that Conrad Smith isn't a good player he only does well because the pack is good ?

Anyone who says that Woodward era England team was a 10 man rugby team is ill informed or a jealous Celt

I don't think that's necessarily what he's saying, but it's possible for an average player to shine in a great team. Personally I think Conrad Smith is a great player, but he has it easy - he's playing behind one of the best packs in the world, outside the best 10 in the world, whom he receives highly accurate and fast passes from, when he gets the ball it's invariably against a backline that is in disarray, he has some of the best players in the world outside him etc etc I think if you put an average player in the ABs backline they would look better than they actually are.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Oh SimonG's posts are hilarious. 10 man rugby in the Woodward era? Ha we may not have had the best backs but we had bloody good ones that could give any team a run for their money. The only reason we got accused of 10 man rugby is because our 10 just dominated everyone (even NZ) whilst our backs were 'merely' very good.

 

[LittleGuy]

Well I saw 2 people who said they had blocked someone I was just wondering . If you can I suspect simon will only have 3 people who can view his posts in a couple of months haha

Just add the user to your "Ignore list" open their profile and click the "add to Ignore list" option. As a mod I would love if people would use this feature more, think it would eliminate some of the constant feuding on here I have to sort out, if users who loath one another literally could not see one another.

 

[SimonG]

Oh SimonG's posts are hilarious. 10 man rugby in the Woodward era? Ha we may not have had the best backs but we had bloody good ones that could give any team a run for their money. The only reason we got accused of 10 man rugby is because our 10 just dominated everyone (even NZ) whilst our backs were 'merely' very good.

Echoed what I've just said. Cheers.

And Zed...precisely.

Knew folk would get it eventually.