Out of the reckoning

In the final few weeks before Rugby World Cup 2015, we are already walking across battlefields. International squads are being trimmed; 45 becomes 38, and will eventually become 31. Discarded bodies lie strewn about our path, they tried to make the cut and failed. We’ve all been there, “No, we don’t want you…” Rejection, sport’s bastard cousin, smiles and points at your isolation. To have a team, you must tell people they can’t be included. To create unity, you must divide.

Of course, those left unpicked will only be referenced should the chosen fail. Nobody will care if the selected are victorious. But should things not work out, ‘if onlys’ will come raining down. Ahead of a major tournament, we stand on the precipice of the unknown. We have contention about certain players because they are yet to fail, yet to succeed. The arguments ensue because it is yet to be proven.

2631EC3500000578-2977505-image-a-14_1425391754180

In England’s ranks, no one divides opinion more than Sam Burgess. A player fast-tracked into the Union game from Rugby League; a man of brilliance, just not quite at this sport. A man adapting very quickly, but is it quickly enough? A man attempting to take up position, with people seemingly undecided as to the position that should be.

To someone joining the debate on Burgess and England, there are some curious aspects about him and his club side Bath; let me recount them to you. Last season, Bath were very good: offensively irresistible, they could put a lot of points on teams. Their backline secured nine try bonus points (joint top in the league with Wasps) and 10 to 15 were all English (George Ford, Kyle Eastmond, Jonathan Joseph, Semesa Rokodunguni, Matt Banahan and Anthony Watson have all worn the red rose).

They were also very good defensively: only Northampton conceded fewer points over the campaign. This is relatively unsurprising because Bath’s Director of Rugby is Mike Ford, a man who was previously defensive coach for Ireland, the British & Irish Lions and England (he took them to the World Cup final in 2007). Ford masterminded a fine season for Bath, he took them to the Premiership final and was voted the Aviva Premiership Director of Rugby at the annual awards ceremony.

In his Bath team, Burgess played at flanker. They tried him at centre but Ford Senior didn’t think him good enough, he preferred Eastmond and Joseph in tandem and the former NRL man at 6. Burgess began to play well there, he kept good players like Carl Fearns and Matt Garvey on the bench. Odd then, that Stuart Lancaster should jettison the man in the middle of Bath’s back line, Kyle Eastmond (dropped from the England squad last Friday), and line up a man from the same team playing in a different position, Sam Burgess.

What was wrong with what Bath were doing? Cohesiveness between 10, 12 and 13 in an England shirt would be beneficial surely, and relatively straight forward given the fact they (Ford, Eastmond and Joseph) all play in those positions for Bath? Yet Eastmond has been dismissed without trial, Burgess included for an international debut in a position in which he’s not proficient. It is a very big gamble, and one at odds with Lancaster’s tendency for the uncomplicated.

The inside line suggests that Brad Barritt, Saracens’ inside centre will probably start alongside Ford and Joseph in an England first choice XV. And it is in Barritt’s mould (big, straight running, defensively sound) that ‘Slammin’ Sam’ is currently being seen. Burgess is a direct replacement then, that offers a very similar option? That is uncomplicated. And rather unadventurous. Mike Ford this week has said that in attack, Eastmond can do things no other England player can. He is very surprised to see Eastmond back in the Bath camp. So am I. Eastmond is one of the best lock pickers around. Why keep trying to smash down the door?

Kyle-Eastmond

In press conference this week ahead of the France game, Lancaster conceded that he likes the way Bath play. ‘Using power runners’ to create space outside. For me, Eastmond is a key part of that creative process, and yet he’s been left out the mix. Those sums don’t add up.

Add to this the potential of Luther Burrell. Northampton Saints’ inside centre has seemingly slipped down the pecking order since a fruitful partnership with Joseph in the Spring. Why is this Burgess experiment being worked on, when there are seemingly more sensible and risk free options, especially ahead of such an important tournament? Logic too, it seems, has been left out of the reckoning.

Only time will tell if this trial will work. If it does, it will be hailed as a master stroke from a rugby genius. And if it doesn’t, you have to suppose that rejection’s probing finger will turn towards Lancaster.

Sam Roberts © 2015. (Text only). All Rights Reserved.

This entry was posted in rugby, Sport and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Out of the reckoning

  1. Bryan says:

    Sam, a reasonable article but you need to check your facts a little more. Let me correct on something. Ford never intended Burgess to be a centre. He believed it would be useful for SB to see and learn the game from that position. Go back to what Ford said when SB was signed. He moved him to 6 when he believed he had a reasonable grasp of the game and Ford junior game back from the 6N!

    Like

    • Sam Roberts says:

      Bryan, thank you for your comments. I say that Mike Ford didn’t think SB good enough at 12. Which he didn’t, surely? Otherwise he would have kept him there. From other comments on other articles you’ve read a dislike of Sam Burgess in to my words. There is none of that. He’s an incredible player currently being misused by England.

      Like

      • Bryan says:

        Apologies for getting the wrong of the stick Sam, but in every single article and in every interview, Ford always said that Bath signed him as a 6 not a centre. He repeated this last week on Radio 4 and in the press. His stint in the centre was only about learning the game from a near distance on the pitch. His logic was thus: this was a new game for SB and Ford didn’t want to change what made him what he was in RL. Switching as a forward was always going to be harder (as it was for RU converts to league back in the day). Ford worked out a new way to help the transition. I even got to speak to Mike Ford for literally a few minutes and he said it was always his plan to do exactly what he did. I keep seeing this line about ‘failing at centre’, he was never destined to be a centre, it was never the plan, and aside from some positional stuff Ford never worked on Sam as a centre (and yeah I know Lancaster didn’t agree LOL!)

        Like

      • Sam Roberts says:

        That’s my whole point Bryan. Why has he been put in this position? Burgess was the man to defy historical evidence and succeed but he hasn’t been given a chance. Hope Ford can get him back on track at the Rec.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s