Slammin Sam head back to League

Redgirl82

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-union/news/article/504/10056861/sam-burgess-leaves-bath-to-return-to-rugby-league-club-south-sydney-rabbitohs

Looks like another issue for the England management team. Sam Burgess is heading back to Rugby League and back over to Sydney Rabbitohs

Not great for Bath who had invested a lot of money and time in him and always said he wasn't ready for the WC and if playing in WC should have played blindside. The 750k should soften the blow

Will it have a knock on affect with Ben Te'o who has been improving since his run of injuries at the start of Leinster career did not help him. The last few games last season and the start to this season really has seen him become an attacking threat for Leinster. His contract up at end of season but I think most supporters would like him to re-sign.

Dravokivich

You mean re-sign right?

Dave_The_Sheep

No great glory in this for anyone. Lancaster, the RFU, Burgess. Only Bath really not at fault there.

Saw this on the rugbyunion subreddit, apparently posters like this are all over Bath.

dub_skav

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

No great glory in this for anyone. Lancaster, the RFU, Burgess. Only Bath really not at fault there.

Saw this on the rugbyunion subreddit, apparently posters like this are all over Bath.

They're missing "an early" there

corny

Despite the chat i'd say this was always on the cards.

Family, Aussie girlfriend, the fact he's rubbish at union and a phenomenon at League..... no brainer really.

Redgirl82

corny wrote: »

Despite the chat i'd say this was always on the cards.

Family, Aussie girlfriend, the fact he's rubbish at union and a phenomenon at League..... no brainer really.

Rubbish at Union? based on what do you think he is Rubbish at union

stephen_n

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Rubbish at Union? based on what do you think he is Rubbish at union

The media said so!



It's unfortunate because he had the makings of a really good player, but he wasn't international standard yet and shouldn't have been at the RWC, it did him no favours and exposed him to a lot of BS media attack.

lunarhog

He's not rubbish but needed time, at least another season before getting near the national team. And in the same position too, of course!

A2LUE42

With all the grief he got. I believe that if he stayed on and played the last 10 minutes of the Wales game, the result would have been different. They had a reasonably structured defense. When Ford came on and Farrell moved out to 12, they seemed to loose focus or not settle and wales scored within that time.

ulster_Beef

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Since when did Chesney from Coronation Street play rugby?

LorMal

There are a number of half - truths that are quickly becoming the accepted version of events following the World Cup.

- England were competely rubbish and were deservedly humiliated. (They could have beaten Wales accept for some very poor decision making)
- Ireland would have beaten Argentina if they had Sexton POC and O'Brien fit and available for the match (The Italy game seems to have been forgotten). 'No team in the world can afford to lose....etc'
- New Zealand were unbeatable. (An average SA team got close)
- Japan were amazing (Scotland thumped them)

Redgirl82

LorMal wrote: »

There are a number of half - truths that are quickly becoming the accepted version of events following the World Cup.

- England were competely rubbish and were deservedly humiliated. (They could have beaten Wales accept for some very poor decision making)
- Ireland would have beaten Argentina if they had Sexton POC and O'Brien fit and available for the match (The Italy game seems to have been forgotten). 'No team in the world can afford to lose....etc'
- New Zealand were unbeatable. (An average SA team got close)
- Japan were amazing (Scotland thumped them)

Not sure what the above has to do with Sam Burgess

LorMal

Not much - just having a little rant. In fairness, Burgess just needed time.

duckysauce

LorMal wrote: »

There are a number of half - truths that are quickly becoming the accepted version of events following the World Cup.

- England were competely rubbish and were deservedly humiliated. (They could have beaten Wales accept for some very poor decision making)
- Ireland would have beaten Argentina if they had Sexton POC and O'Brien fit and available for the match (The Italy game seems to have been forgotten). 'No team in the world can afford to lose....etc'
- New Zealand were unbeatable. (An average SA team got close)
- Japan were amazing (Scotland thumped them)

Scotland beat the Japs because of 4 day turn around and their players were ****ed after 1st half, and their best player Mafi went off .

Bridge93

duckysauce wrote: »

Scotland beat the Japs because of 4 day turn around and their players were ****ed after 1st half, and their best player Mafi went off .

Scotland beat the Japs because they're a better team then them. The size of the win was because of Japan's fatigue

duckysauce

Bridge93 wrote: »

Scotland beat the Japs because they're a better team then them. The size of the win was because of Japan's fatigue

it was only 12-7 at half time

Bridge93

duckysauce wrote: »

it was only 12-7 at half time

So Scotland were winning at halftime with a stronger bench to come on.

twinytwo

LorMal wrote: »

There are a number of half - truths that are quickly becoming the accepted version of events following the World Cup.

- England were competely rubbish and were deservedly humiliated. (They could have beaten Wales accept for some very poor decision making)
- Ireland would have beaten Argentina if they had Sexton POC and O'Brien fit and available for the match (The Italy game seems to have been forgotten). 'No team in the world can afford to lose....etc'
- New Zealand were unbeatable. (An average SA team got close)
- Japan were amazing (Scotland thumped them)

Point 1 - yes they were - england failed to put away a depleted walch team... the wrong decisions were made at crucial times by both players and management

Point 2 - We are better than Argentina, but you cannot lose essentially 4/5 of your best players in the same game and expect to bounce back in 6 days... another fact that is ignored just 4 of the argentina team that started against namibia started against us... most of the argentina got the bones of 2 weeks rest while we got a physical battering off france.

Point 3 - well they went through the WC unbeaten so i guess they are unbeatable

Point 4 - Japan stepped up and whopped SA, they were expected to play scotland on a 3/4 day turn around while scotland were fresh ... if they played tomorrow japan would win hands down

duckysauce

Bridge93 wrote: »

So Scotland were winning at halftime with a stronger bench to come on.

scotland had not played at the weekend

Bridge93

duckysauce wrote: »

scotland had not played at the weekend

That's got nothing to do with what I said. In fact I noted the handicap Japan had from playing 4 days earlier and that it contributed to the score.
But Scotland are a better team than Japan and would've won the game anyway albeit by less than they did. They have a stronger starting team and stronger bench to come on then Japan. Hence they were winning at halftime and full time. I feel people are getting carried away by Japan. They were remarkable but they're not tier 1 yet. They came bottom of their group in the PNC only a few months ago.
Isn't relevant to Burgess anyway.

JPNelsforearm

Messed around positionally, broke a cheekbone, delayed arrival, not given the 6 nations, he basically had the odds stacked against him and he made an ok fist of it, stick any rugby player with that baggage and ask them to carry them NSW at origin, it just wouldnt happen. Lancaster and Ford are clowns, had a rolls royce and ditched it.

Greyian

twinytwo wrote: »

Point 3 - well they went through the WC unbeaten so i guess they are unbeatable

They were unbeaten, it doesn't mean they're unbeatable.

Digifriendly

Greyian wrote: »

They were unbeaten, it doesn't mean they're unbeatable.

Well IMHO the side that won the RWC are unbeatable . Remember their defeat to Australia in the Rugby Championship was without Ma'a Nonu.

English Lurker

Very disappointed by Burgess in all of this. I brought into the whole idea that he and others were selling that he was here for the long term, a born competitor who didn't do failing and who'd stick to the rocky road of transition. Well, he didn't, he's failed, and whoever else people blame for the situation, only one man decided Sam Burgess should go back to League and that's Sam Burgess. If the press was a factor for him, he's truly the most delicate flower I've ever seen in professional sport.

Apparently the Times have blamed it on a falling out between Mike Ford and Burgess, who wasn't fancying going back to blindside. No idea if that's true but I do think Bath should shoulder their fair share of the blame at least. Unless England were telling them something radically different behind closed doors, they must have known Burgess was going to get an international shot at centre - and only centre. They chose not to support that, despite knowing it put player and country in an awkward position. Their money, their choice - but their responsibility too.

At the very least, this is the poster boy case for why a separate union and clubs is bad for the national side.

England though - I posted that I had no issue with them backing him all the way, but to back him and then not back him in the manner they did was super weird and not at all helpful. It's not worked for us at all and I think someone probably gave him some false expectations. I'd love to know if the rumour that a guarantee of a World Cup place was signed are true...

All a bit poor from everyone really. Anyway, on to the next ill-conceived flirtation with League stars...

jimjimjimmy

Sam didn't succeed in rugby. There were many factors involved in this, some were in his control and some were not. I would have loved him to stay and prove all the doubters wrong, which I think he was capable of.

He is an absolute legend here in Australia, which not many non-Australian League players are. I think he's opted for the easy and familiar route. I can't say I blame him with the way he's viewed in his homeland compared to down under. All his family and his soon-to-be wife's are in Sydney.

As a Rabbitohs member I'm delighted he's back, for selfish reasons, but also disappointed he didn't succeed. Getting a lot of stick here from non Rabbitohs fans about being a poor man's Sonny Bill.

Anyway welcome home to the sparkly eyed man!

nehe milner skudder

twinytwo wrote: »

Point 4 - Japan stepped up and whopped SA, they were expected to play scotland on a 3/4 day turn around while scotland were fresh ... if they played tomorrow japan would win hands down

They didn't whop them. They were losing with a minute to go to be fair. They won by a gee hair.

aimee1

English Lurker wrote: »

Very disappointed by Burgess in all of this. I brought into the whole idea that he and others were selling that he was here for the long term, a born competitor who didn't do failing and who'd stick to the rocky road of transition. Well, he didn't, he's failed, and whoever else people blame for the situation, only one man decided Sam Burgess should go back to League and that's Sam Burgess. If the press was a factor for him, he's truly the most delicate flower I've ever seen in professional sport.

Apparently the Times have blamed it on a falling out between Mike Ford and Burgess, who wasn't fancying going back to blindside. No idea if that's true but I do think Bath should shoulder their fair share of the blame at least. Unless England were telling them something radically different behind closed doors, they must have known Burgess was going to get an international shot at centre - and only centre. They chose not to support that, despite knowing it put player and country in an awkward position. Their money, their choice - but their responsibility too.

At the very least, this is the poster boy case for why a separate union and clubs is bad for the national side.

England though - I posted that I had no issue with them backing him all the way, but to back him and then not back him in the manner they did was super weird and not at all helpful. It's not worked for us at all and I think someone probably gave him some false expectations. I'd love to know if the rumour that a guarantee of a World Cup place was signed are true...

All a bit poor from everyone really. Anyway, on to the next ill-conceived flirtation with League stars...

Burgess was messed around between playing 6, 12 & 13 when time was extremely short for him to get up to speed with union.

Id say he didn't want to waste the best years of his career if he was going to continue to get messed around so much that its on the back pages of the papers every day.

The video of him looking lost positionally in the final play of the england v aus game as giteau scored said it all.

English Lurker

aimee1 wrote: »

Burgess was messed around between playing 6, 12 & 13 when time was extremely short for him to get up to speed with union.

Id say he didn't want to waste the best years of his career if he was going to continue to get messed around so much that its on the back pages of the papers every day.

The video of him looking lost positionally in the final play of the england v aus game as giteau scored said it all.

Likelihood is he'd have been a 6 and a 6 only post WC; England staff said they'd be looking at him as a 6 afterwards to the papers (although anonymously). So no, he wasn't going to continue getting messed around. Again, possible other things have been said behind closed doors.

former total

English Lurker wrote: »

Likelihood is he'd have been a 6 and a 6 only post WC; England staff said they'd be looking at him as a 6 afterwards to the papers (although anonymously). So no, he wasn't going to continue getting messed around. Again, possible other things have been said behind closed doors.

I can't believe he'd ever have made it as a 6. A 26 year old flanker who'd never shoved in a scrum or jumped in a line out? And what's he going to do at the breakdown? If he struggled to adapt to centre, I don't think playing a more technically demanding position would be any easier.

case885

former total wrote:

I can't believe he'd ever have made it as a 6. A 26 year old flanker who'd never shoved in a scrum or jumped in a line out? And what's he going to do at the breakdown? If he struggled to adapt to centre, I don't think playing a more technically demanding position would be any easier.

What's the difficulty in shoving? A lot of flankers don't jump in the lineout so it wouldn't be that uncommon although a disadvantage.
As for the breakdown it wouldn't be his primary role anyway, tackling and carrying which he's very good at are.

LorMal

twinytwo wrote: »

Point 1 - yes they were - england failed to put away a depleted walch team... the wrong decisions were made at crucial times by both players and management

Point 2 - We are better than Argentina, but you cannot lose essentially 4/5 of your best players in the same game and expect to bounce back in 6 days... another fact that is ignored just 4 of the argentina team that started against namibia started against us... most of the argentina got the bones of 2 weeks rest while we got a physical battering off france.

Point 3 - well they went through the WC unbeaten so i guess they are unbeatable

Point 4 - Japan stepped up and whopped SA, they were expected to play scotland on a 3/4 day turn around while scotland were fresh ... if they played tomorrow japan would win hands down

"We were better than Argentina" - see, you are proving my point about post RWC delusion setting in.