I don’t like to go on about things. In fact, I try and keep this website full of articles of different aspects of rugby and sport. I try not to let it get dominated by certain teams or players. But this last week has been a little different and I feel my last article needs a follow up, an addendum. I like to think I’m always learning and this week I’ve learned a lot.
You will have picked up the agitation in my previous missive. It attempted to articulate my confusion over the inclusion of Sam Burgess into England’s rugby squad. I asked a lot of questions, provided few answers, and as I continued to read the fallout from Monday’s decision to start Burgess in the centre against France this weekend, I continued to cogitate. Things just weren’t right. It didn’t make sense.
And one of the main reasons for that was Stuart Lancaster himself. Over the last few years I’ve spent a lot of time listening to him and looking at what he does. And I’ve learnt that, above all, he is a pragmatist: Stuart Lancaster does things for a reason. There is method in each one of his decisions; every step is thought out and considered.
Lancaster’s inclusion of the former rugby league star had befuddled greater minds than mine. Brilliant rugby journalists have been trying to come to terms with it. Why put Burgess, who hasn’t even proven himself as a international blindside let alone centre, in a team three games away from a Rugby World Cup? If we’re honest he’s barely proven himself as a Premiership player. The debate rallied back and forth.
And then I got a phonecall. A friend of mine (someone with greater insight than I and someone who is high enough up the rugby food chain for me not to mention his name here) wanted to speak to me. He’d read my piece. He had some questions of his own. And as he started to ask them, my head began to nod. I’d claimed in my last piece that I felt rugby logic had been lost on this matter. Of course, as my friend continued to talk, I was to discover that my problem had been my looking for rugby logic.
He conceded I was right. Burgess isn’t yet an international quality centre. ‘But what is he? What do you know about him?’ he asked, letting the phone line’s silence hang between us. I knew the evidence on Burgess was irrefutable. A peerless physical specimen schooled in NRL grand finals; an athlete of power, presence and accomplishment. A winner. The type of man Australians fear.
‘He’s also learning the game,’ he continued. ‘I think that his mindset is what most interests Lancaster.’ My friend spoke about the England squad and balance. How personalities are important to Lancaster. How a World Cup squad needs everyone to play their part. Out of the group games how many will the second string start? Lancaster knows his starting back line – maybe we all do – you need people happy to sit behind that, to be the bench. If you get people too keen to play it can upset dynamics. Yes of course you want competition but it can be divisive in a team room.
I’d started to agree. I thought of Lancaster and all the ideologies he holds. How his reign has been littered with decisions that served the greater good. How he always talks about team and unity, and how whenever I see Lancaster in press conference it looks as though he doesn’t appreciate the attention. This has never been about one with Lancaster, it’s always the all.
Burgess provides the perfect jigsaw piece. He is a good enough sportsman to warrant respect from everyone around him. His efforts in Australian Rugby League have made him a hero. Burgess will have spoken in camp, and when he did, everyone will have listened. Lancaster will have seen that and it will have been noted. Voices like Burgess’ are integral to a World Cup campaign.
Also, the younger players in the squad will gain from having him around. I think of George Ford for one. Reared on Rugby League VHS as a child, Burgess’ presence alongside him in training will be invaluable. Perhaps there are concerns about whether young Ford has the temperament for this coming competition. Having Burgess in the squad won’t be a bad thing for someone like George. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they are spending a good amount of time with each other.
Include in this as well the idea that Burgess himself will want to play this role. This is a win-win. His education in this sport will be optimised in such surroundings, and that is what he is all about at the moment. He always talks about how much he has to master. He’ll do his job when called upon but crucially, he won’t be banging on doors begging for a starting berth. He’ll sit behind Barritt and be happy; content to just soak it all up and learn.
And as an added bonus, Burgess will take the spotlight off players. These warm up games are vital examinations for a host of players. How do you get the best out of them? Well, taking a little bit of the pressure off could work. I have a sneaking suspicion we could see a really good performance from Henry Slade this weekend, on his international debut. But lots of people are talking about the man inside him. It’s clever isn’t it? But most importantly, it all starts to make sense.
This Burgess decision was never about rugby logic. Lancaster was thinking wider than that. We’ve been told time and again, winning a World Cup is not just about rugby. Which reminds me of Paul Grayson, a player who picked up a World Cup winners’ medal in 2003. Unkind people snarked that it was just for retrieving Jonny’s drop goals in practice. And you know what, maybe it was. Because sometimes in life, you have a job to do.
Sam Roberts © 2015. (Text only). All Rights Reserved.
Great article Sam, look forward to the next!!
A very interesting take on the whole Burgess dilemma. I understand parts of your argument – I’ve no doubt he is a consummate professional and someone that will be hugely beneficial to the England team environment – but the assertion that they should look for players that are happy to sit on the bench doesn’t sit well with me.
I’d be nervous about what happens if someone who is happy to sit on the bench for the whole tournament is suddenly thrust into the World Cup final due to injury. Is he going to be happy about that ascension to the starting line-up or more nervous? I also don’t think Burgess is anywhere near up to speed enough with the game’s intricacies to be an option for England’s midfield in those big knockout games.
Of course, he could well play a blinder this weekend and I’ll happily eat my words. Mmm, tasty words.
Jamie – I’m with you in your uneasiness. But I can’t fathom it otherwise. There remains a gamble here. A gamble on Barritt staying fit. But I don’t think Burgess will be fazed by playing in the RWC. He’s played massive test matches and Grand Finals. He won’t be nervous. If he has an awful game this weekend SL’s decisions become harder… I can’t wait.
Yep you’re right, the atmosphere shouldn’t faze him. And actually, it would probably take quite a few injuries for him to start the big games – if Barritt does get crocked, Burrell and Farrell will both likely be ahead of him in the queue for the 12 shirt.
Side note – a year and a half ago, who would have thought Brad Barritt would be everyone’s first choice at 12? Still find that hilarious given how much hate there always was directed towards him.
Too right. I think people understand Lancaster’s style now and at that, Barritt is your man.
Well done Sam very well thought out piece. I for one do not doubt that this is a decision that has been well thought through by the management team and I agree with your synopsis of the situation.
My only concern surrounds the loss of Eastmond from the squad. I am concerned that he may well react badly and return to league in a huff, but more importantly for me, I would have loved to see him unpick defences as only he can.
already commented on Twitter – good piece sam, cannot help but think lancaster hand is tied by RFU on this selection, there is no “rugby logic” reason to pick burgess on any type of form, 6 or 12, impact sub maybe at best.
There is no doubting the man or his ability and i pray he comes good, i really do or the usual UK rugby media Idiots (SKY/Times et al) will go to town..
re: lancaster – no sure he is either a genius or no clue, has best squad depth outside of NZ, best set up best forwards coach around, best pack (x2) but something just says “RFU yes man” i honestly think of Joe schmidt was England coach we would have a Very very good chance of winning RWC.
why is Alex King not involved in set up for RWC … Catt has been a big faliure for me as attack coach
Sorry Daniel but the RFU had no say in this whatsoever. Bath fully paid for bringing Sam Burgess into RU. The RFU contributed nothing! The decision to bring Sam into the squad was Bomber’s with some advice from Andy Farrell and conversations with Mike Ford (even if he ignored Ford’s advice).
In only a few games, Burgess was beginning to top the stats for the forward say Bath. Given that he needs to catch up on the line out skills, the WC is probably a year too early for him. If he stays – as I expect him to – in RU, I would bet that he will be lining up as England’s first choice 6 or even 8 in four years time.