OK, I'll admit it: I've never been one to go to undue effort trying to find something original to write about. I mean, I enjoy writing, and moaning, and giving my two pennies worth (sometimes I'll even stretch to 5p, I like it that much) but you're unlikely to catch me awake in the middle of the night, pondering the deep mysteries of space and time whilst wondering how to reconcile said deep mysteries with the underlying contradictions, complexities and futility of the the human condition. 'To hell with sharp, insightful analysis!' I cried, as I created my username for this blogging platform. 'Hang original thinking, or creative endeavour!' I ejaculated as I confirmed my email address (and yes, that was an excuse to use the word 'ejaculate'). 'This waste of html will be just as monotonous, prosaic and platitudinous as the Daily Mail, so help me God.' Lofty heights for which to try and reach, I'll concede, but thus the goal was set.
So this blog is about Sam Burgess.
In two words: poor bloke. It's undoubtedly a sad situation this, made all the sadder by just how every single person in the world has been in complete agreement about the whole thing, with the notable exceptions of the Bath and England management teams. That it should have come to this is a sorry state of affairs and one which deserves answers for the fans, because I find it difficult to accept that the men in charge have been honest with us. As follows.
England's world cup was a shambles. You can point to mitigating factors: the refusal to kick 3 points against Wales that would ultimately have taken us through, the fact that Australia had dug up some Tasmanian devils since the last time they rocked up to Twickenham, and the fact that it didn't matter what England did because nothing less than the total and utter destruction of the human race would have prevented the All Blacks from winning this one. That said, the team didn't show up as a collective when it mattered most. When moments were there to be grabbed against Wales and Australia, England fumbled worse than bambi in a soap factory.
Let's be clear, that was not Burgess' fault. Unfortunately for him, though, he is the clearest illustration of how poorly managed the whole thing was. When league players cross to union, the most successful, historically speaking, have been in the back three. Think Jason Robinson. Chris Ashton. Israel Folau. There have been others who made a damn good fist of playing in the centre: Sonny Bill Williams springs to mind, as does Burgess' Bath team-mate Kyle Eastmond.It takes time - a lot of time - for them to make that switch a success, to learn the game and the intricacies of their position. Williams is used off the bench by New Zealand. Eastmond didn't make England's World Cup squad, despite playing most of the domestic season in Sam Burgess' team. In the position England wanted Burgess to play in. If Bath thought Eastmond was better there, what were England seeing that they weren't?
If England were playing next weekend and Lancaster picked Chris Robshaw or Tom Wood to play at 12, people would question his sanity, and rightly so. If Gatland tried to play Warburton at 12 there'd be a revolt. It's daft to play experience players out of position, never mind relative novices. Add to that: England were going up against two world class 12s in Jamie Roberts and Matt Giteau. Was anyone seriously suggesting Burgess was in their league? Again this is not a slight on Burgess, merely an illustration of how improbable and how (with hindsight, admittedly) doomed to failure the whole thing was. Burgess didn't do a whole lot wrong, but he didn't win England any games either and he should never have made it on to the pitch ahead of, say, an urban fox who lived round the corner from the Stoop. At least it would have known the pitch.
Which leads me back to the men who picked him. That last paragraph was easy to write after the event, and if England had gotten to the semis it may well have been a different story. But I seem to remember someone saying, way back when, that players had to earn their place in his team through form. One of the central tenants of the 'new England' after the last World Cup fuck-up, was that. Yet at the most important point of his or any of his players' careers, Lancaster departed - or allowed himself to be persuaded away from - his golden rule. I reckon it's a legitimate question to ask why, and that's before we get on to the question of tactics.
People seem to forget that Owen Farrell was injured throughout the last 6 nations, and if he hadn't been George Ford might not have started all Englands games. Nevertheless, they did show glimpses of what they were capable of when they put 50 wonderful, breathless , ridiculous points past France. They took the defence-first rule book and binned it, and they won a few friends in doing so.
So come the World Cup: Farrell, Burgess, Barritt. Three players who would rather run through a brick wall than show it the ball and go the other way, laughing as they saw it fall flat on its bricky arse. That can work, but it does rather stick all your eggs in one basket. And it was a different basket from the one England fans had started liking in the 6N. And the eggs were rotten. And the chickens had been carried off by that fox from earlier. And turned into nuggets.
My gripe here really is that the more I think of it, the more it looks to me like everything was done to get Burgess into the side no matter what. That might not be the case, and again it's result dependent thinking, but the whole thing now seems so divorced from logic, reason or evidence of Lancaster's reign to date that it feels like it was out of his hands. Like it was orders from on high, and like Burgess was basically promised he'd be playing in the World Cup before he'd left Sydney. I hope I'm wrong, but if that was the case then someone should be sacked.
Which is another reason to think that is was orders from on high: on high has rather conveniently been left out of the scope of the review into England's failure. Lancaster's position, meanwhile, looks more precarious by the day.
Sorry for the conspiracy theories, but, y'know, 9/11, Elvis is alive, Harry Potter is real and the letter just got lost in the post etc. Didn't New Zealand play well? Who needs world cups anyway grumble grumble grumble....
So this blog is about Sam Burgess.
In two words: poor bloke. It's undoubtedly a sad situation this, made all the sadder by just how every single person in the world has been in complete agreement about the whole thing, with the notable exceptions of the Bath and England management teams. That it should have come to this is a sorry state of affairs and one which deserves answers for the fans, because I find it difficult to accept that the men in charge have been honest with us. As follows.
England's world cup was a shambles. You can point to mitigating factors: the refusal to kick 3 points against Wales that would ultimately have taken us through, the fact that Australia had dug up some Tasmanian devils since the last time they rocked up to Twickenham, and the fact that it didn't matter what England did because nothing less than the total and utter destruction of the human race would have prevented the All Blacks from winning this one. That said, the team didn't show up as a collective when it mattered most. When moments were there to be grabbed against Wales and Australia, England fumbled worse than bambi in a soap factory.
Let's be clear, that was not Burgess' fault. Unfortunately for him, though, he is the clearest illustration of how poorly managed the whole thing was. When league players cross to union, the most successful, historically speaking, have been in the back three. Think Jason Robinson. Chris Ashton. Israel Folau. There have been others who made a damn good fist of playing in the centre: Sonny Bill Williams springs to mind, as does Burgess' Bath team-mate Kyle Eastmond.It takes time - a lot of time - for them to make that switch a success, to learn the game and the intricacies of their position. Williams is used off the bench by New Zealand. Eastmond didn't make England's World Cup squad, despite playing most of the domestic season in Sam Burgess' team. In the position England wanted Burgess to play in. If Bath thought Eastmond was better there, what were England seeing that they weren't?
If England were playing next weekend and Lancaster picked Chris Robshaw or Tom Wood to play at 12, people would question his sanity, and rightly so. If Gatland tried to play Warburton at 12 there'd be a revolt. It's daft to play experience players out of position, never mind relative novices. Add to that: England were going up against two world class 12s in Jamie Roberts and Matt Giteau. Was anyone seriously suggesting Burgess was in their league? Again this is not a slight on Burgess, merely an illustration of how improbable and how (with hindsight, admittedly) doomed to failure the whole thing was. Burgess didn't do a whole lot wrong, but he didn't win England any games either and he should never have made it on to the pitch ahead of, say, an urban fox who lived round the corner from the Stoop. At least it would have known the pitch.
Which leads me back to the men who picked him. That last paragraph was easy to write after the event, and if England had gotten to the semis it may well have been a different story. But I seem to remember someone saying, way back when, that players had to earn their place in his team through form. One of the central tenants of the 'new England' after the last World Cup fuck-up, was that. Yet at the most important point of his or any of his players' careers, Lancaster departed - or allowed himself to be persuaded away from - his golden rule. I reckon it's a legitimate question to ask why, and that's before we get on to the question of tactics.
People seem to forget that Owen Farrell was injured throughout the last 6 nations, and if he hadn't been George Ford might not have started all Englands games. Nevertheless, they did show glimpses of what they were capable of when they put 50 wonderful, breathless , ridiculous points past France. They took the defence-first rule book and binned it, and they won a few friends in doing so.
So come the World Cup: Farrell, Burgess, Barritt. Three players who would rather run through a brick wall than show it the ball and go the other way, laughing as they saw it fall flat on its bricky arse. That can work, but it does rather stick all your eggs in one basket. And it was a different basket from the one England fans had started liking in the 6N. And the eggs were rotten. And the chickens had been carried off by that fox from earlier. And turned into nuggets.
My gripe here really is that the more I think of it, the more it looks to me like everything was done to get Burgess into the side no matter what. That might not be the case, and again it's result dependent thinking, but the whole thing now seems so divorced from logic, reason or evidence of Lancaster's reign to date that it feels like it was out of his hands. Like it was orders from on high, and like Burgess was basically promised he'd be playing in the World Cup before he'd left Sydney. I hope I'm wrong, but if that was the case then someone should be sacked.
Which is another reason to think that is was orders from on high: on high has rather conveniently been left out of the scope of the review into England's failure. Lancaster's position, meanwhile, looks more precarious by the day.
Sorry for the conspiracy theories, but, y'know, 9/11, Elvis is alive, Harry Potter is real and the letter just got lost in the post etc. Didn't New Zealand play well? Who needs world cups anyway grumble grumble grumble....
No comments:
Post a Comment