Guess your England RWC squad of 31

[4071]

Thanks

You can't give me anything previous to those last 6 games so once again you criticise me! Signs of a losing/lost argument.

How have I moved the goalposts?

Those were his six starts in the back row. I also gave you some numbers for his six starts prior to that at centre. Those 12 starts demonstrate quite clearly his ability to break tackles and make ground.

You have said that you based your claim that Burgess is 'rubbish' and will never be anything other than average on everything you have seen up until the present day ("I am also judging my opinion of Burgess from the 1st time I saw him play Union up until the present day"). This period covers just 15 starts, just 6 of which have been at flanker. So these six games at flanker are what you have based your opinion on.


Here is where you have shifted the goalposts. You asserted - based on the half dozen games he has played at blindside - that he "...does not make enough yards and has not looked like worrying defences"

Taking the small sample on which you have based your opinion, when it's demonstrated that in those games he has actually made plenty of yards and worried defences, you have decided that the sample is insufficient.


YOU chose the scope on which to make a judgment (that Burgess is rubbish) and then when your main claim is shown to be wrong, you change the scope.

I said he was relatively untested. Any firm statement of his ability based on a small sample of games would be questionable. You disagreed. You made a firm claim based on those games. Then when shown to be wrong, you decide that it's too small a sample after all.

[4071]

I was referring to the quasi-divine tone.

Quasi?

[The Boy Dave]

England need as many line breakers as they can get their hands on.
I have no problem with Burgess as a player at all, only the fact that he has been fast tracked after hearing several years of excuse's over acceptance for failure to deliver any real consistency or a title of any sort.
I wouldn't be against an England team with the likes of Burgess, Armitage, Kvesic, Vunipola the elder and Manu all in it surrounded by the likes of Ford, Cipriani, Slade, Cole, Launchbury and so on.

[jgriffin]

I was referring to the quasi-divine tone.

Quasi?

you haven't earned it yet......

[brooksey845]

Just did a 5km run in training for a triathlon in a few weeks and was thinking about the whole Burgess saga. Im going to put it out there- Burgess to be in the 22 or if im being really bold to start....... He is a proven winner within his own sport that type of experience you can't really buy (he was baths stand out player in the prem final), all the information coming out of camp about his attitude etc is really positive, big ball carrier and tackler (the stats previously mentioned in this thread back this up), we have other players within the team that can fit in the role of the unseen things that a 6 does such as Launch, Cole, Lawes & T Youngs (most probable starters). It also realistically seems like the type of decision that SL would actually make if that makes sense?

Thoughts!?

[Bill W (2)]

Just did a 5km run in training for a triathlon in a few weeks and was thinking about the whole Burgess saga. Im going to put it out there- Burgess to be in the 22 or if im being really bold to start....... He is a proven winner within his own sport that type of experience you can't really buy (he was baths stand out player in the prem final), all the information coming out of camp about his attitude etc is really positive, big ball carrier and tackler (the stats previously mentioned in this thread back this up), we have other players within the team that can fit in the role of the unseen things that a 6 does such as Launch, Cole, Lawes & T Youngs (most probable starters). It also realistically seems like the type of decision that SL would actually make if that makes sense?

Thoughts!?

If SL selects Burgess and or Farrell and wins the World Cup it will be a masterstroke.

If he selects either (or both) and fails to win the World Cup it will be a fatal mistake!

[ellis9]

If Lancaster picks Farrell and Burgess we won't win the World Cup!

[brooksey845]

Just did a 5km run in training for a triathlon in a few weeks and was thinking about the whole Burgess saga. Im going to put it out there- Burgess to be in the 22 or if im being really bold to start....... He is a proven winner within his own sport that type of experience you can't really buy (he was baths stand out player in the prem final), all the information coming out of camp about his attitude etc is really positive, big ball carrier and tackler (the stats previously mentioned in this thread back this up), we have other players within the team that can fit in the role of the unseen things that a 6 does such as Launch, Cole, Lawes & T Youngs (most probable starters). It also realistically seems like the type of decision that SL would actually make if that makes sense?

Thoughts!?

If SL selects Burgess and or Farrell and wins the World Cup it will be a masterstroke.

If he selects either (or both) and fails to win the World Cup it will be a fatal mistake!

I can somewhat agree with that! Farrell will be in the 22 but wouldn't start for me but SL will include him somewhere could maybe see him at 12.

[Cardiff Tig]

If Lancaster picks Farrell and Burgess we won't win the World Cup!

So, England are in the semi-final (trying to be more realistic than saying final ) and we have a 2 point lead going into the last 15 mins. Ford gets injured.

Would you rather have Cipriani (or any other fly half of your choice) coming off the bench to see through to the end (probably kicking a huge pressure penalty) or Farrell?

Farrell was chosen for the Lions. You don't get to be a rubbish player for that. And before you say it was because of his Dad, Gatland was never going to risk losing the series because his only back up 10 was chosen for none rugby reasons.

Personally I don't think Burgess is quite ready for the world cup just yet, only because he is not quite up to speed with lineouts and the breakdown compared to other union players, and at international level you can't really avoid it. That being said, he's impressed me a lot since being moved to the back row, and being in the England camp and playing the warm up games (potentially) will only make him even better.

[mol2]

The bench has to have specialist backs to cover 9 and 10. Given that the bench is limited it's useful to have players who can cover more than one position.
I can understand having Farrell on the bench to cover 10 (& 12) but hard to justify starting him ahead of of the first choices.
As for Burgess I don't think he has the experience to start at 6 yet and is behind the other centres but in the short term may have a potential bench berth covering flank and centre, although you really would be concerned if he came on after 10 minutes and had to cover 7!

The real reason Burgess is in with a shout is because England do have issues at flanker. The injured Croft has been found out at times in some physical games as has Wood (who has been off form). 7 has perhaps been a problem area with Robson adopting the role although many would see him as more of a 6, simply because there was no other outstanding candidate. Obviously going to France has turned Armitage into the new Messiah, although the development of Kvesic would be my preference.

8 has been turned around since the debacle at the Millenium stadium 2 years ago although Morgan breaking his leg leaves only Billy Vunipola if Morgan doesn't make it.

[ellis9]

Henry Slade should be the 10/12 replacement he can play either position, has a good kicking game and makes things happen, unlike Farrell. As I keep saying, there really is no place for Farrell in this squad!

[SPIKE@srufc]

If Lancaster picks Farrell and Burgess we won't win the World Cup!

Nothing else needed on the subject.

[mol2]

Henry Slade should be the 10/12 replacement he can play either position, has a good kicking game and makes things happen, unlike Farrell. As I keep saying, there really is no place for Farrell in this squad!

I'm with you on Slade but I understand that Lancaster won't have the strength to ditch his rugby league background coaches son.

As for Farrell not making things happen I beg to differ. Every time I see his selection for England it makes me hold my head in my hands in bewilderment!

[Sajerj]

Neither Farrell or Burgess were in the any of the squads for the last Six Nations tournament and England didn't win that.

There was not a single RL convert in any of the England match day 23s during that tournament.

But i guess that does not fit with the usual SL/Farrell/Anti RL rhetoric.

[ellis9]

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/burges ... ang-track/

Anyone still want to try and convince me that Burgess isn't rubbish?

Seems Lancaster is going to use him as a centre as "A lack of lineout nous has ultimately meant his immediate international hopes rest on him breaking into the England backline "

A flanker with a lack of lineout nous isn't rubbish? Pfft