Sam Burgess - what a mess

Dick Knights Mumm · Nov 5, 2015

nwgull said:
England didn't do well, but I can't agree that it was a shambles off the pitch at all. It was the most watched World Cup ever in terms of crowds, and nearly every game sold out. The decision to use mainly football stadia up and down the entire country was very sensible.

Fair enough. I was thinking of the difference it would have made had the home nation performed as could be expected.

Dick Knights Mumm · Nov 5, 2015

Brian Fantana said:
Whilst I agree with a lot of this, the last time we had as bad a World Cup was 1999. We then spent the next 4 years building something truly special on and off the pitch, and we all know what that resulted in.

By no means am I saying that we're guaranteed to do the same again in 2019, BUT an awful lot of the squad from this tournament are still very young and will be coming into their prime in 4 years time. The likes of Watson, Nowell, the Vunipola brothers, Henry Slade and George Ford from the current squad have the potential to be world class players by the time the next world cup comes around. Added to that, the likes of Itoje at Sarries, and a few other up-and-coming players, I think we have another amazing opportunity now to blow the cobwebs away and start planning for 2019.

Stick with Lancaster ? Having made the investment in his experience do you carry on or get a heavyweight in ?

nwgull · Nov 5, 2015

spring hall convert said:
It needs to be a summer sport in the northern hemisphere. We can't compete with the Southern Hemisphere's ball handling skills and the inclement weather and poor pitches in the winter leads to negative rugby here. Even when we won in 2003, it was a really wet World Cup which played into our hands. We can't rely on that.

England played one game in the wet: the semi against France. They had beaten every team in the world during the previous 12 months, including the All Blacks away, and were clear favourites before the tournament, so it's unfair to suggest that the wet weather is the reason we won.

Rugby is a winter game all over the world, and suggesting that it changes over here just because England haven't done so well this time is knee jerk to say the least. It would also lead to a lot of injuries at levels where pitches aren't watered.

Brian Fantana · Nov 5, 2015

Dick Knights Mumm said:
Stick with Lancaster ? Having made the investment in his experience do you carry on or get a heavyweight in ?

I'm actually quite torn on this issue. I think the most important aspect is that whichever coach is chosen, be that SL or someone new, that person remains in post for the next 4 years and is given the chance to build a winning team and a winning mentality. It's also very important that we ditch this rule of not picking overseas players. Clearly, you need to pick your best players. It should be a compliment to English rugby that some of the heavyweight French teams want to recruit some of our players. Being able to bring experience of playing in different, arguably higher quality leagues can only be a benefit to the England team. Steffon Armitage would, and should, have walked into the England team. In what other sport would the recent European player of the year not been picked to play for their home nation?

Brian Fantana · Nov 5, 2015

nwgull said:
England played one game in the wet: the semi against France. They had beaten every team in the world during the previous 12 months, including the All Blacks away, and were clear favourites before the tournament, so it's unfair to suggest that the wet weather is the reason we won.

Rugby is a winter game all over the world, and suggesting that it changes over here just because England haven't done so well this time is knee jerk to say the least. It would also lead to a lot of injuries at levels where pitches aren't watered.

This.

We were the team that everyone wanted to be beat, because we had been easily the best in the world for the 18 months preceding the tournament. Weather played not a jot of difference in our victory.

Questions · Nov 5, 2015

I think England were hoping Burgess would be the new Sonny Bill after the switch. This World Cup came far too early for him.

Brian Fantana · Nov 5, 2015

Questions said:
I think England were hoping Burgess would be the new Sonny Bill after the switch. This World Cup came far too early for him.

Yep, agree.

It actually would have been better for him to have either arrived in union 12 months earlier than he did, or have waited until now and then had 4 years to build up to the next RWC. For them to think that he would be good enough after 9 months to start in the England side is mental.

Iggle Piggle · Nov 5, 2015

Dick Knights Mumm said:
I think rugby has come out of the World Cup quite poorly. The seeding done so far ahead leading to uneven groups, odd numbers in the groups meaning a shattered Japan playing a fresh Scotland, all that video technology and yet the major decision missed. Once England went out the local interest pretty much disappeared. As did media interest.

And as for the English RFU - they have been shown to be a right bunch of amateurs. Placing faith in a manager clearly out of his depth (whose has allowed his assistant to apparently pick the team), not match philosophy, not picking the best players, and then packing the post tournament inquiry with mates and those involved with the managers appointment. Complete shambles.

Completely agree. 'This' as they say. The RWC basically gave it to NZ with the seeding. As [MENTION=232]Simster[/MENTION] says the respect for the ref was shown up as well. Joubert gave a marginal call but was given the talksport treatment.

spring hall convert · Nov 5, 2015

nwgull said:
England played one game in the wet: the semi against France. They had beaten every team in the world during the previous 12 months, including the All Blacks away, and were clear favourites before the tournament, so it's unfair to suggest that the wet weather is the reason we won.

Rugby is a winter game all over the world, and suggesting that it changes over here just because England haven't done so well this time is knee jerk to say the least. It would also lead to a lot of injuries at levels where pitches aren't watered.

3 things.

1) it's not just England that failed. Not a single northern hemisphere side made the semis. Ireland and France were embarrassed in the quarters.

2) Apologies for overstating the case, England were the best side in 2003 but the weather did help their efficient rather than expansive game.

3) There's a big difference between the conditions the Super 12 (or is it 14 now?) is generally played in and Premiership rugby from November to February.

We also have to be free to pick the best side availible to us regardless of where people play their club rugby.

marshy68 · Nov 5, 2015

Tooting Gull said:
Off back to league. Total fiasco.

His treatment reflects badly on everyone involved, especially Lancaster. Probably shouldn't have been in World Cup squad, but would have been a great union player with more time. Made a scapegoat for matches he should never have been playing in. League's gain, union's loss.

Egg chasing who gives a shit?

Pavilionaire · Nov 5, 2015

Tooting Gull said:
True but some ex-sportsmen (eg Atherton) use that vast experience to great effect. Others get carried away with their own celebrity and act like a knob. I know which side Dawson falls on.

It's ironic because his Question Of Sport counterpart Phil Tufnell is an excellent cricket pundit. Tonight's inquest with Geoffrey Boycott re the Pakistan series debacle was quality listening.

Gwylan · Nov 6, 2015

spring hall convert said:
3) There's a big difference between the conditions the Super 12 (or is it 14 now?) is generally played in and Premiership rugby from November to February.

Maybe so, but it would be a big mistake to make rugby a summer game. For a start, the pitches would be too hard, getting tackled on those pitches is no fun. At my kids' clubs, there's no contact during summer training as it's too dangerous. Kids learn the basics in those early years, playing contactless rugby would be no help to their development.

Secondly, loads of kids play cricket as well as rugby; making rugby a summer sport would force kids to choose between one or the other, that's not good for the development of either.

Thirdly, people take summer holidays and do other activities in July and August. That would hit kids and youth rugby, again stopping development of the game

CheeseRolls · Nov 6, 2015

Pavilionaire said:
But football CAN learn a lot from rugby. Compare the success of the 2015 World Cup event to the farce unfolding around Russia / Qatar and the cynicism surrounding recent football World Cups, look at the sportsmanship on display. When has any footballer made such a magnanimous gesture as Sonny Bill Williams giving his winner's medal away to that child?

The England rugby team may have under-achieved but we put on a damn good event and the sport globally is in good health.

A better coach, a better captain and getting rid of the selection exclusion policy for the likes of Steffan Armitage will surely soon see English rugby in a better place.

Christiano Ronaldo is a fair match for SBW in terms of his acts of generosity. Before anyone goes off on one SBW has not always been universally loved either.

Agreed the event management was superb.

nwgull · Nov 6, 2015

Gwylan said:
Maybe so, but it would be a big mistake to make rugby a summer game. For a start, the pitches would be too hard, getting tackled on those pitches is no fun. At my kids' clubs, there's no contact during summer training as it's too dangerous. Kids learn the basics in those early years, playing contactless rugby would be no help to their development.

Secondly, loads of kids play cricket as well as rugby; making rugby a summer sport would force kids to choose between one or the other, that's not good for the development of either.

Thirdly, people take summer holidays and do other activities in July and August. That would hit kids and youth rugby, again stopping development of the game

All good points. Although, the most significant would be that it's actually quite well and cold in NZ in the winter as well. I remember the 2005 Lions tour where the Blacks dismantled the Lions in the wet weather.

The reason that the northern hemisphere sides aren't traditionally as strong - although there have been plenty of occasions where they have been - is due to football being the number 1 sport in these countries. It's nothing to do with conditions. In fact, playing all your rugby in the dry would hinder skill development.

Dick Knights Mumm · Nov 6, 2015

nwgull said:
All good points. Although, the most significant would be that it's actually quite well and cold in NZ in the winter as well. I remember the 2005 Lions tour where the Blacks dismantled the Lions in the wet weather.

The reason that the northern hemisphere sides aren't traditionally as strong - although there have been plenty of occasions where they have been - is due to football being the number 1 sport in these countries. It's nothing to do with conditions. In fact, playing all your rugby in the dry would hinder skill development.

Isn't RU the third sport in Australia ? It's often quoted.

nwgull · Nov 6, 2015

Dick Knights Mumm said:
Isn't RU the third sport in Australia ? It's often quoted.

Rugby is the number 1 sport. The codes are fairly irrelevant when it comes to handling skills, which is what we're talking about here.

Bevendean Hillbilly · Nov 6, 2015

The Southern Hemisphere teams are harder, faster and more skilful than the Northerners. That's the difference,

Gwylan · Nov 6, 2015

nwgull said:
Rugby is the number 1 sport. The codes are fairly irrelevant when it comes to handling skills, which is what we're talking about here.

Cricket is number one sport in Australia by a long way. It's the only sport that's popular in every state - rugby union is only really strong in a couple of states (NSW and Queensland)

Simster · Nov 6, 2015

nwgull said:
Rugby is the number 1 sport. The codes are fairly irrelevant when it comes to handling skills, which is what we're talking about here.

Gwylan said:
Cricket is number one sport in Australia by a long way. It's the only sport that's popular in every state - rugby union is only really strong in a couple of states (NSW and Queensland)

Football codes are intensely regional in Australia. Rugby are the dominant codes in NSW and Qld, but Aussie rules AFL dominates elsewhere. Cricket and recently football are the only truly pan-Australia sports.

On a national scale, the AFL dominates attendance numbers, but rugby league and AFL are pretty much even when it comes to TV ratings.

And the rugby union situation is remarkably similar to what it is here - aside from some distinct heartlands, it's basically a posh boy's sport. Most kids in the two rugby states play league.

scamander · Nov 6, 2015

Thought I'd post this - an excellent article on how rugby is viewed and played in NZ.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/sep/11/all-blacks-how-new-zealand-sustains-its-rugby-dynasty

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Sam Burgess - what a mess

Take me Home Falmer Road

Take me Home Falmer Road

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Habitual User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Take me Home Falmer Road

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

"the man's an arse"

New member

Share this page