Slammin Sam almost ready....

Big Sam may get a run out for Bath this weekend. What fantastic news. If there was ever a player so eagerly awaited I don't know. Bath players already very impressed with him during training. An on song Sam between Ford and Manu for England would be mouth watering. Even big sonny boy Williams would be apprehensive about facing that line up. Can Sam live up to the hype and expectations? Who knows but at this point the hope he has a successful union career is enormous.

That backline sounds like something Gatland would like. I look forward to seeing Craigball fail miserably.

I have no expectations from him. I expect him to take at least one season, maybe two, before I expect anything. Good luck to the guy

Guscott reckons Englands centre combo could some day be Burgess and T'eo. Gas.

I have lost faith in rugby league players switching to rugby union, and every one claiming him to be the saviour of England rugby.

Lets see how he goes at club level first shall we?

Absolutely right, many more league players fail than succeed. He needs to play first before we can make any judgement

Having said that this isnt just any old league player, but one of the best around and at the peak of his career.

lostinwales wrote:Absolutely right, many more league players fail than succeed. He needs to play first before we can make any judgement

Having said that this isnt just any old league player, but one of the best around and at the peak of his career.

Maybe he is one of the best around and at the peak of his career.

I would still like to wait and see how he goes at club level, before bringing him in to the England set up.

I thought I read recently that they saw his union future in the backrow??? Or was that just a pundit wading in to the debate? I must admit when I first heard about him switching codes my first thoughts were that he'd be a great no.8.

Ford has said that they're going to try him in the backrow. Someone on here said he'd said he would try him in both (but that's not horse's mouth)

HammerofThunor wrote:Ford has said that they're going to try him in the backrow. Someone on here said he'd said he would try him in both (but that's not horse's mouth)

http://www.planetrugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,16024_9579960,00.html

Ford said recently that he'd start in the back row, but it looks like that's changed.

Ignore - double posted somehow!

thomh wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Ford has said that they're going to try him in the backrow. Someone on here said he'd said he would try him in both (but that's not horse's mouth)

http://www.planetrugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,16024_9579960,00.html

Ford said recently that he'd start in the back row, but it looks like that's changed.

Griff, Ford definitely said he was looking a the backrow a few weeks ago, as thomh said, it looks like he'll she starting off the bench for the centres.

Do we not have any a league or lv cup games this seems a bit soon ! Eastmond was eased in softly

I remember Andy Farrell being hailed as the next big thing when he converted in 2007. I hope for England's sake Burgess doesn't join the ranks of players hyped beyond proportion before they even touch a rugby ball only to turn out as a false dawn-player. Guscott's reception just reiterates how silly the rugby world can get.

Knowsit17 wrote:I remember Andy Farrell being hailed as the next big thing when he converted in 2007. I hope for England's sake Burgess doesn't join the ranks of players hyped beyond proportion before they even touch a rugby ball only to turn out as a false dawn-player. Guscott's reception just reiterates how silly the rugby world can get.

There were glimpses of what Andy Farrel could have done in his short Union career. I think he could have been a success had he moved earlier. (and if we could have found the right position for him)

Not sure how well he'll adapt to Union,if he keeps it simple he could do well in the centre....but sure wouldn't like to be the first person to run at him anyways!

lostinwales wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I remember Andy Farrell being hailed as the next big thing when he converted in 2007. I hope for England's sake Burgess doesn't join the ranks of players hyped beyond proportion before they even touch a rugby ball only to turn out as a false dawn-player. Guscott's reception just reiterates how silly the rugby world can get.

There were glimpses of what Andy Farrel could have done in his short Union career. I think he could have been a success had he moved earlier. (and if we could have found the right position for him)

Farrell's problem was that he immediately injured his knee, was out for a long time (18 months?) and came in having lost both some of his pace and the time to properly develop into the game. His defensive and distribution skills were still sound, though.

Burgess is younger, physically more imposing, but there's a question as to whether he's fast enough to play in the backs and whether he can learn fast enough to be an effective back row. I'll watch the game with interest (and possibly from behind the sofa, given Quins are playing), but I am not getting my expectations up.

More Union to League converts have been successful rather than League to Union. Not sure about the SH but the only real success I can think of in the NH (sure there are more) is Billy Whizz.

I am getting my expectations up.

The guy is physically immense. We need a carrier in the forwards and we need to fix our centres. He can play where he wants and he'll be successful.

If I was Lancaster I'd be trying to get him to the next training camp (if there is one between AIs and 6 Nations). I'd also be bring Steffon Armitage, but that's a different debate for a different topic!

Is Armitage really that good or is it just people think he's the answer and because of his absence it can't really be disproved.

I can't bring myself to be too excited because I can't shake the feeling that he will go back to League in a few years whether he is a success or failure.  If he becomes an integral part of the team and then up sticks back to Aus, it will be pretty deflating.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Is Armitage really that good or is it just people think he's the answer and because of his absence it can't really be disproved.

Mainly the latter. That and the endless 'we need a proper 7' discussion despite having a very good 7 in place. He might be the answer, but there is no guarantee and he is out of reach

lostinwales wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Is Armitage really that good or is it just people think he's the answer and because of his absence it can't really be disproved.

Mainly the latter. That and the endless 'we need a proper 7' discussion despite having a very good 7 in place. He might be the answer, but there is no guarantee and he is out of reach

lost,

That's my thoughts on it to I have never been overly impressed by him and then you have Robshaw who some swear by so picking Armitage would mean he would drop out and you would have to find another captain.

No, few are saying SA should replace Robshaw. Certainly what I'm saying he's too good a (proven) player to ignore, he offers something different to Robshaw off the bench, he'd provide injury cover (God forbid that Robshaw gets injured), and provides cover across the BR. Our BR is not so confirmed now as it was a year ago - Billy V replaced for eating all the pies, Haskell & Wood fighting it out; we need a couple of top players in each position to challenge for the RWC. Simples.

Barney,

Is he really proven at International level though he only has what half dozen caps. Agree with you about the cover bit and every team needs as many options as possible.

Not proven at test level, certainly proven at European level. He aint no messiah, but he's an excellent player who could provide something different occasionally (to Robshaw). Is SL going to play Robshaw in every game? Even McCaw gets a rest sometimes. OS is not a strong position (for depth) in England. Anyhoo - it isn't going to happen.

The thing with Armitage is he promises what a lot of people think we need. He offers the turnover skills that we in the English game love to see and he also offers a very dynamic and physical ball carrying option that is really lacking from either flanker (not helped by our lock situation either).

Similarly Burgess offers that destructive line break and defensive monolith at 12 that we've all seen Nonu and SBW offer NZ so we all live in hope in that regard as well.

Whether either would be able to offer what we hope at international level is another thing.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The thing with Armitage is he promises what a lot of people think we need. He offers the turnover skills that we in the English game love to see and he also offers a very dynamic and physical ball carrying option that is really lacking from either flanker (not helped by our lock situation either).

Similarly Burgess offers that destructive line break and defensive monolith at 12 that we've all seen Nonu and SBW offer NZ so we all live in hope in that regard as well.

Whether either would be able to offer what we hope at international  level is another thing.

I think they have both done more than enough to deserve a shot though, if you include Sam's league background.

There's no guarantee that either of them will make us a better side, but they are two players who have completely excelled in what they've been doing for the last couple of years. Fraser, Kvesic and Clark haven't had the same impact in Europe as Armitage, so why should they be ahead of Armitage in the pecking order? Similarly, I've not seen Barritt, Twelvetrees, Eastmond or even Burrell do the kind of things Burgess is capable of in the centres.

I'm not saying that I'd definitely start them in the first match, but I'd definitely have both of them in my training camp to take a look at them.

robbo277 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:The thing with Armitage is he promises what a lot of people think we need. He offers the turnover skills that we in the English game love to see and he also offers a very dynamic and physical ball carrying option that is really lacking from either flanker (not helped by our lock situation either).

Similarly Burgess offers that destructive line break and defensive monolith at 12 that we've all seen Nonu and SBW offer NZ so we all live in hope in that regard as well.

Whether either would be able to offer what we hope at international  level is another thing.

I think they have both done more than enough to deserve a shot though, if you include Sam's league background.

There's no guarantee that either of them will make us a better side, but they are two players who have completely excelled in what they've been doing for the last couple of years. Fraser, Kvesic and Clark haven't had the same impact in Europe as Armitage, so why should they be ahead of Armitage in the pecking order? Similarly, I've not seen Barritt, Twelvetrees, Eastmond or even Burrell do the kind of things Burgess is capable of in the centres.

I'm not saying that I'd definitely start them in the first match, but I'd definitely have both of them in my training camp to take a look at them.

The reason for that is that he knowingly took the silver instead of an England career, he resigned for Toulon in the full knowledge that it would put him out of the England set up. That to me says a lot i.e. I prefer the money to playing for my country. He has made his bed, so he has to lie in it. England have enough trouble with getting pairings and sets of players to gel, one reason is that the squad is drawn from a much larger number of clubs than anyone else bar France; and look how they are getting on. relax the rules for SA an suddenly you will have all the best players playing in France increasing the problems with establishing cohesion in the team.

We could of course ask Toulon to sign the entire English squad, that would solve the problem.

As for SB, it was always stated that he would start off in the backs as the back row is a more technically difficult position to play, too many ways of getting pinged if you are not fully conversant with both the laws and the way different refs interpret them. Next season he should be up top speed with the way the game is played and ready for a shot in the back row. If he could get it together there and match the work rate of Wood or Robshaw, both him and Morgan and 6 & 8 would be a mouth watering prospect.

The other aspect of the SA debate is that he is in a team that arguably operates in a way that allows him to absolutely make the most of his talents, and its a team that plays differently for England.

We are not going to change the team and restructure how we play to fit in a player that we cant guarantee is going to be a success.

lostinwales wrote:The other aspect of the SA debate is that he is in a team that arguably operates in a way that allows him to absolutely make the most of his talents, and its a team that plays differently for England.

We are not going to change the team and restructure how we play to fit in a player that we cant guarantee is going to be a success.

+1

Fraser, Kvesic and Clark haven't had the same impact in Europe as Armitage, so why should they be ahead of Armitage in the pecking order?

Robbo, Not sure you can compare them. Fraser has had a few injury problems but now seems to be flying. He will start to make an impression in European competition.
Kvesic playing in a poor side with Glos and Clark is more a 6 for me and Garvey should be in over him for that position.

I would rather just focus on Kvesic and Fraser as youngsters over Armitage who iwouldnt be in the side after the WC anyway.

I also agree above that Toulon play a style that is geared for Armitage....and England wouldnt do that.

Back to Sam Burgess for a moment

Ford's comments about SB are interesting - suggesting that he felt the game was somewhat passing him by at 12 and wanted to get involved in the breakdown. Sounds as though he will ultimately settle in the back row, although clearly it will take longer for him to adapt to the role of 6 or 8 than to 12. Could be just what we need - a big ball carrying and monster tackling 6 with a high workrate (alongside Robshaw and Morgan/ Billy V). The question is whether he can learn the position well enough by the RWC...

On BBC Radio, Mike Ford said words to the effect "We want Sam to be Sam, which means making tackles and getting his hands on the ball. I think he'll get more chances to do that from the back row than centre, so we're looking at giving him a run there." (I've put quotation marks there but those aren't the words he actually used).

Richie McCaw speaks about Brad Thorn and SBW in his autobiography. He says that Thorn struggled with the decision-making and running lines required in the back row but began to thrive when he moved to lock because he could set some simple goals:

...[S]hift bodies in rucks, push like a bloody bulldozer in the scrums and catch the ball at the front of the lineout. If he gets the ball in hand, he's going to take a very direct route forward, and if he sees anyone with the ball in hand, he's going to snot him. He's absolutely single-minded in pursuit of those goals, so much so that he's sometimes a difficult guy to talk to on the field. His mind is on his core jobs, what he's got to do next - and he's not that interested in the finer points of strategy.

On SBW

...[H]e's an impressive physical specimen. It's clear he has a lot to learn about when and where to best use his pretty outrageous talents, like offloading, and the different lines he has to run on attack and defence, and the complexities around the tackled ball. But the most impressive thing is that he listens and clearly wants to learn, and when I look closely at what he's doing at the breakdown, for instance, I can see he's struggling with timing, knowing when to commit and that sort of thing, but when he does commit, he gets his body position right and is brave and strong over the ball.

The only way Burgess will make the World Cup is if we are struggling for form as a team, and Lancaster decides to throw caution to the wind, hoping that the league man can take sides by surprise because they haven't seen him play.

RF

Some interesting comments - not sure I necessarily agree with your last paragraph, as clearly whether Sam makes the RWC squad or not will depend on performances at club level by then - he may be a fast learner and pick up the necessary skills quickly (or not).

I've said before, and write this as someone brought up mostly playing League (indeed, I'm from the same town as the Burgess brothers), that the big issue in crossing codes is not learning the different skills and tactics, but develping the instincts for RU while not losing the assets that you can bring from league ('simple' skills like taking a ball on at pace and running good lines). Instinct is what allows you to do the right thing at the right time without the slight delay you would have in thinking about it - as an aside, I remember Martin Johnson complaining about Graham Henry's coaching of the Lions forwards to use a 'pod' system, in that it meant those not already familiiar with the concept had to think whether to commit to a ruck or stand off, rather than relying on instinct.

Just careful you don't do an Ash Splash promotional job on him! Let him in easily. Even look the other way for a while. Pretend you don't know he's there. But don't over-praise before he finds traction. Traction first, then praise.

In some ways SB is a useful distraction. It would be an amazing feat for him to make the RWC squad. I dont think he will be ready by then, assuming he does make the transition to union successfully.

Assuming he does make the grade I would have thought he would start getting some international recognition in another year

The only player to make a successful transition that quick is Jason Robinson, lets hope for number 2 and that he is as successful.

dummy_half wrote:RF

Some interesting comments - not sure I necessarily agree with your last paragraph, as clearly whether Sam makes the RWC squad or not will depend on performances at club level by then...

I think Burgess will make a decent player but I don't think he'll be up to the mark in time. It sounds like Thorn settled relatively quickly because he kept things focused. Burgess won't be able to do that because he isn't playing in the tight five. He's closer to SBW, who took longer than a year to learn the game.

That's why I think Burgess can't be ready by the World Cup but it's possible he will have shown a flash of something which makes Lancaster want to roll the dice. The only circumstance I can imagine him doing that is if the wheels start falling off at the Six Nations.

Rugby Fan wrote:

dummy_half wrote:RF

Some interesting comments - not sure I necessarily agree with your last paragraph, as clearly whether Sam makes the RWC squad or not will depend on performances at club level by then...

I think Burgess will make a decent player but I don't think he'll be up to the mark in time. It sounds like Thorn settled relatively quickly because he kept things focused. Burgess won't be able to do that because he isn't playing in the tight five. He's closer to SBW, who took longer than a year to learn the game.

That's why I think Burgess can't be ready by the World Cup but it's possible he will have shown a flash of something which makes Lancaster want to roll the dice. The only circumstance I can imagine him doing that is if the wheels start falling off at the Six Nations.

But isnt the fact that Thorn played a specialist Rugby Union position (lock) what makes his conversion all the more harder?, ie there is no comparison in Rugby League to a Rugby Union lineout, the breakdown, ruck, or maul. there may be some similarity between a Union and League scrum but not a hell of a lot.

Your are right though Burgess, as stunning an athlete as I know he is, will have to undergo a big transformation and that will take time. I wish him every success.

SecretFly wrote:Just careful you don't do an Ash Splash promotional job on him!  Let him in easily.  Even look the other way for a while.  Pretend you don't know he's there.  But don't over-praise before he finds traction.  Traction first, then praise.  

If only. Wait till Bath play Welsh and he scores a couple of tries

burgess going on now for Bath...

aucklandlaurie wrote:...But isnt the fact that Thorn played a specialist Rugby Union position (lock) what makes his conversion all the more harder?

That's what I would have thought, but the passage I quoted above from Richie McCaw's book suggests Thorn found the game easier to play when he could focus on tight five tasks rather than deal with decision-making in the back row,

So another Superman leading England to the promised land as if they haven't enough to choose from.

Or you could read what was written.

Brad Thorn wasn't that special in 2003 and went back to league post RWC,nor was he ever much of a Lineout option.

Completely miss what everyone wrote emack

David Flatman said on Twitter that Burgess wants to play in the forwards, and I'm guessing he's heard that from his Bath connections.

A back row of Burgess, Robshaw/Wood/(Armitage) and Morgan/Vunipola/(Armitage) certainly wouldn't lack carrying or tackling ability, and if we had Cole and Launchbury in the pack we those two chip in with quite a bit of breakdown work too.

That would leave a question mark over the centres, but we still have the Six Nations to establish a partnership, and for me that would be working out who of Twelvetrees, Burrell, Barritt and Eastmond plays best inside Tuilagi.

What a poor game to make a super star debut. The rain came hard and the bath forwards stuck it up their jumpers. The Bath backs must have got very cold. They didn't even have to defend in the second half either. Sam must be wondering if he can get his old job back.

Yeah, wasn't much of a debut. The Bath backs barely touched the ball in that last 20 minutes. Was a messy sloppy game. But I have to admit, the only reason I stayed with the game on tv was to see Burgess come on.