You are missing a vital point - which is who is selecting the backs? Oh it's a northern ex Rugby League forward from t'north who played 12 for England and was pretty hopeless there. Like Burgess - couldn't kick, or pass more than a few yards and had insufficient pace.Sajerj wrote:I think its difficult to know where Burgess is as a 12 , because he clearly was in the very early stages of learning the game when he played there.
You have to believe that he has impressed in training. If he was a mile off the mark, then it is hard to believe the England coaching team would waste valuable playing time on him. I guess we find out next Saturday.
I like Eastmond as a club player, but he has fallen short at the very top level. He had a really good club season, but ultimately was absolutely nowhere against Farrell, Barritt and friends in the final.
Hewitt's comments are silly really. He is confusing Club rugby with International rugby, and they are a world apart.
Sam Burgess
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Re: Sam Burgess
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 14868
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 pm
- Location: Essex
Re: Sam Burgess
A very relevant poin IMHO!G.K wrote:
You are missing a vital point - which is who is selecting the backs? Oh it's a northern ex Rugby League forward from t'north who played 12 for England and was pretty hopeless there. Like Burgess - couldn't kick, or pass more than a few yards and had insufficient pace.
Still keeping the faith!
Re: Sam Burgess
First off we can't lay blame at Sam's door for this situation. It is not his fault that he is surrounded by this circus and he is just doing his best like any player would.
I think the main problem is that we don't have a stand out 12. Sam is not being considered in the back row because we have proven quality there.
At 12 we have Eastmond (too leaky when put under pressure at top level), Billy 12T's (too inconsistent despite having more chances than most to prove himself) and Burrell (I'm not a fan). First pick at the moment would probably be Brad but we all know he is mainly a defensive wall and offers little in attack. Say what you like about Sam but not many players will be able to run through him at 12 and you are less likely to get caught out positionally than he might at 13 (this is why defensively Manu switched to 12 and Tindall 13 in the last World Cup). On that basis I understand having a closer look at Sam as he certainly offers more going forward than Brad. He is faster, has a much better offload and is a far more dynamic carrier - neither of them really have a kicking game but we have two 10's in our match day squad who are fairly dependable in that department as well as two fullbacks who have a good boot on them.
Personally, I don't see the problem in giving him a run out. If he is rubbish then drop him. If he is great then we have a genuine option. The stupid move would be to play Brad as if he gets injured we really are in trouble at 12!
I think the main problem is that we don't have a stand out 12. Sam is not being considered in the back row because we have proven quality there.
At 12 we have Eastmond (too leaky when put under pressure at top level), Billy 12T's (too inconsistent despite having more chances than most to prove himself) and Burrell (I'm not a fan). First pick at the moment would probably be Brad but we all know he is mainly a defensive wall and offers little in attack. Say what you like about Sam but not many players will be able to run through him at 12 and you are less likely to get caught out positionally than he might at 13 (this is why defensively Manu switched to 12 and Tindall 13 in the last World Cup). On that basis I understand having a closer look at Sam as he certainly offers more going forward than Brad. He is faster, has a much better offload and is a far more dynamic carrier - neither of them really have a kicking game but we have two 10's in our match day squad who are fairly dependable in that department as well as two fullbacks who have a good boot on them.
Personally, I don't see the problem in giving him a run out. If he is rubbish then drop him. If he is great then we have a genuine option. The stupid move would be to play Brad as if he gets injured we really are in trouble at 12!
Re: Sam Burgess
Still unconvinced about Burgess as a centre. I think he's better as a flanker or No.8.
-
- New Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:31 pm
Re: Sam Burgess
G.K. Has it spot on.
As much as Bugess oozes confidence (evidence of this at Welford Rd when Barf came to town before we gave them a hiding), his technique however has been found wanting and he can't hope to crash ball his way through teams in the RWC. If he was a nailed on 12, he'd of played there day in and out for Barf, but instead they chucked him in with the forwards. Other than adding hype to the hype train, I really cant' see it.
As much as Bugess oozes confidence (evidence of this at Welford Rd when Barf came to town before we gave them a hiding), his technique however has been found wanting and he can't hope to crash ball his way through teams in the RWC. If he was a nailed on 12, he'd of played there day in and out for Barf, but instead they chucked him in with the forwards. Other than adding hype to the hype train, I really cant' see it.
Re: Sam Burgess
Andy Farrell apparently couldn't kick, and he couldn't pass more than a few yards. That has to the funniest comment i have ever read in this forum.
Re: Sam Burgess
What about Slade?! I would love to see Slade and Joseph playing together.Will S wrote: I think the main problem is that we don't have a stand out 12. Sam is not being considered in the back row because we have proven quality there.
At 12 we have Eastmond (too leaky when put under pressure at top level), Billy 12T's (too inconsistent despite having more chances than most to prove himself) and Burrell (I'm not a fan). First pick at the moment would probably be Brad but we all know he is mainly a defensive wall and offers little in attack. Say what you like about Sam but not many players will be able to run through him at 12 and you are less likely to get caught out positionally than he might at 13 (this is why defensively Manu switched to 12 and Tindall 13 in the last World Cup). On that basis I understand having a closer look at Sam as he certainly offers more going forward than Brad. He is faster, has a much better offload and is a far more dynamic carrier - neither of them really have a kicking game but we have two 10's in our match day squad who are fairly dependable in that department as well as two fullbacks who have a good boot on them.
Personally, I don't see the problem in giving him a run out. If he is rubbish then drop him. If he is great then we have a genuine option. The stupid move would be to play Brad as if he gets injured we really are in trouble at 12!
Re: Sam Burgess
Don't accept that about Lancaster - I see some pragmatic decisions and some that are plain daft. What that tells me is that compared with a top international coach or manager, he isn't. While he is playing his own variation on the SCW playbook, it is a 2nd division one.darganj wrote:Brilliant article on the Burgess situ
http://samrobertsrugby.com/2015/08/12/i ... reckoning/
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Re: Sam Burgess
There is likely some merit in it, but hopefully he will play well Saturday and put the issue to bed and remove that angle of debate.
MJ learnt to his cost in 2011 what happens when you have players in a squad go 'off tour' and players become disgruntled over their role in the squad.
MJ learnt to his cost in 2011 what happens when you have players in a squad go 'off tour' and players become disgruntled over their role in the squad.
Re: Sam Burgess
that is quite an interesting article, I guess we all get preoccupied by on pitch performances as this is all we see, whereas off pitch things need to be taken into consideration too. COuld also explain some of those who have left tigers..darganj wrote:Brilliant article on the Burgess situ
http://samrobertsrugby.com/2015/08/12/i ... reckoning/
cheers
Rich
Rich