Why would he come out and announce he wanted to go back to Souths before a deal was done? It's between the two clubs to agree a deal and all Burgess can do is wait for them to do that. If they fail to do so then he's left hanging dry by announcing he wanted to return to RL but having to return to RU. Bath might not to keep him if he's said he wants to leave, but they aren't going to let him go for peanuts either.

He might not owe the media anything, but announcing he wants to stay at Bath wouldn't be for their benefit, it'd be for his coach and clubs benefit to end this media circus that they're being dragged in to.

Read what I posted, and digest it. Understand it.

There's a difference between him being interested and wanting to join but taking time over a big decision. Giving it the due dilligence any big life decision needs, and us having to say ''please come sam, please come''.

Of which neither you or any of us know the background to, or if leeds are even speaking to him. Which makes your '....sod him' comment along with those about him rotting in RU or going to 'uncle Russell' sound pretty pathetic.

I didn't realise you were so sensitive.

Good Response. Not sensitive, just pointing out the daft nature of your post.

I think he'll at least see out his contract at Bath. Even if he wants to return to Souths they would have to do some pretty quick manouevering to clear cap space, so 2016 will be very difficult without letting some stars go and likely to lead to them having a very unbalanced squad.

The tragedy of this whole farce is that Burgess is a great RL forward.

As DHM says, there's nothing yet to suggest he will ever be more than an average RU player. Not his fault, but clearly too many people buy into players being great in one sport being able to transfer to another. Outside backs are different, as the roles are quite similar, but anything else is basically a blind punt. Ford clearly stated that Burgess would be a centre when he joined Bath, then came to realise he was never a centre. Remarkable lack of insight from any coach since nobody who'd ever watched Burgess play RL could have sensibly thought he'd ever make a centre.

The people to blame for this mess are Ford and Farrell for recruiting him, Lancaster for buying into the hype rather than using his eyes, and Burgess himself for having an ego big enough to believe that sheer willpower and athleticism would transfer into another sport.

As it is I think he'll stay at Bath, be an OK club player and then go back to Souths having missed three peak years of RL. There will be no guarantee that by then he'll have anything like the same impact he had previously, and it would be tragic if he comes back as a shadow of his former self.

Now the BBC have an active 9 point quiz on their news web site to help Sam decide to stay in Union or return to South's. The only England player in the news in RWC final week

Some of the RU commentators are saying it was plain arrogant to think Burgess could go from rookie to RU international in a matter of months. For once I'm inclined to agree. I think our collective, natural disdain for RU has caught us out on this occasion.

Come on Sam have a season or two at the Rhinos. Agree that it was arrogant/optimistic of someone to think he could pick it up in a few months but thats all hindsight. RU commentators are loving being able to say this?

There will always be knockers who say Burgess won't make it in any position in Union but the facts are that he already has made it to the very top in a position that was not his natural one within a year of making the transition. It was precisely because he was selected for the World Cup squad and then actually made into the starting lineup that has irked those same knockers who had been proven wrong and now want to try and prove they were right all along by blaming him for all England's woes.

In such a short time it is no wonder he isn't the finished Union product yet. But in the WC he did all that was asked of him including strong impact from the bench that secured a victory, keeping the much heralded and very experienced Roberts fully in check for all the time SB was on the field and putting in much better performances as a centre than the very experienced Barritt in all the games.

So I do not buy the criticism of SB as it was all a smoke screen to avoid having to admit we lost two games because our very experienced players, and in particular our much over rated forwards, gave away stupid penalties within kicking distance, were out played and out thought and our very experience captain couldn't make the right decision when it counted. So experience and playing the game from being a junior did't count for much when it mattered did it!

SB was selected ahead of the other centre candidates as something of a wild card which was logical in the absence of decent form from the other contenders. Most of the SB knockers would have selected Tuilagi yet he can't pass or kick, has suspect defence and few rugby skills other than power. Burgess may be a novice but he has more to offer that Tuilagi and it is ironic that the critics could not see SB's worth.

Ford has always seen Burgess as a 6. However inside centre was the obvious place for him to start and it was what the national coach had requested. But is wasn't long before Ford moved him to 6 for Bath where he has shown very good progress including being selected for the big game at the end of last season. If he chooses to stay in Union I can see him going onto become an international back rower as again when you look at the current competition it is hardly world class. But he may just decide that the pull of family, sunshine and superhero status are an easier option.

Except it wasn't a choice between Burgess and Tuilagi, as the latter had managed to get himself suspended for another off-field indiscretion. It came down to a straight choice between Burgess and Luther Burrell, who has never let England down, is still relatively young and has plenty to offer the national side in the future. Burrell and Jonathan Joseph would have given England an athletic, well-balanced centre pairing heading into the tournament.

Lancaster took a punt on Burgess instead. It was his most high profile selection decision, so when England failed it was the one that came under the most scrutiny.

It's alright bemoaning people for not seeing what Burgess "has to offer", but truth is like many of his England team mates he didn't deliver it on the biggest stage. His performances were ordinary rather than outrageous, functional rather than fabulous. He did a job, but frankly I don't think he did anything in the World Cup that Burrell, Tuilagi or any of the other centres who missed out couldn't have done.

Agree with above about picking Burrell. IMO where he went wrong was playing barritt and picking slade but having no confidence to play him when Joseph injured. Adding burgess and his inexperience meant he got the whole centre pick wrong. Truth is he could have had mal meninga at centre that england team would not have been much good. burgess is an ideal distraction for the rfu to avoid scrutiny on a poor pack and not picking Hartley and anyone playing in France. I reckon burgess on way back next week to rl. He is not killing the speculation.

I didn't say it was a choice between these two. I was making the ironic point that those who were critical of the selection of Burgess for a lack of centre skills had been championing Tuilagi who would probably have been selected had he not been convicted and I was comparing the skill set of the two. So why did they expect Burgess to possess silky centre skills when they were happy with Manu.



The choice came down to 3 out of Barritt, Twelvetrees, Burrell, Slade and Burgess. In the warm up games Burgess and Slade both impressed when England beat France. The combination of Burrell and Joseph looked rusty in the return game in Paris and we were well beaten. In both games Twelvetrees came on for the final quarter without looking good. In the win against Ireland Barritt and Joseph were the centres with Burgess coming on for Barritt for the last quarter.

Burrell lost his chance based on poor form both in the warm up and in training. He had played well previously but had lost form and his timing was out and he would have only been understudy to Barritt anyway who it turned out was our weak link.



Yes I agree it was a punt but as I say it wasn't as if there was great competition based on form. Despite his novice status Burgess did not let the side down and bossed Roberts against Wales and left the field with England in the lead. England did not go out of the WC because of the inexperience of Burgess. In fact it was his more experienced teammates who kept giving away penalties and it was the pack that was outplayed in every game and most of the warm up ones too.



As I keep saying we lost the games in the forwards and with our poor decision making. I do not think it fair to say Burgess did not deliver and he was more than ordinary when he cam on as a sub and injected urgency and go forward in the first game. Against Wales he was up against the hugely experienced Lions centre and danger man Roberts who is noted for beef rather than fancy footwork himself and SB won all the exchanges and did not look out of place at all.

But not everyone was as critical of Burgess. Writing for The Daily Mail, former England coach Sir Clive Woodward praised the league convert for his efforts at Twickenham
“Burgess was picked to do a specific job in tandem with Farrell — who was outstanding — and Barritt and to that extent it worked,” Woodward wrote. “But in World Cups you pick depending on the opposition and he isn’t guaranteed a start next time.” Woodward also noted that Burgess showed he had ‘big match aura’ “in spades” and “looked in his comfort zone on a massive occasion.

So IMO Sam has every right to feel aggrieved at the blame that was unfairly blasted his way. It was disgraceful.

Rumours that Souths are shopping Dylan Walker around in an attempt to clear some cap space for Sam. Anything on the wire down there about it, BR?