You're right. It's not like they approached Old Trafford first and were told it wasn't available due to the SL Grand Final taking place...
A game that's been held in that stadium, around this time of the month for the last 17 years.

The RWC committee wouldn't have given it a second thought

Well it would obviously have been one of the first things to be apparent when Old Trafford pulled out. And with the planning and police involvement, travel, etc etc etc it's not like they could be planned on the same day on accident.

Personally I think it might backfire a little a better attended, closely fought GF up against an at best boring one sided game and as a game we should look at it as a challenge to make it the biggest and best grand final ever. This year should have been a big one. If anything it should have been THE big one. No cheap tickets, all premium tickets. 1 year where we really really go for it, massive pyrotechnics, a really big band massive fan park etc. Even if we made a loss on it this year it was a chance to change the paradigm.

As it is we are left with knock down Nigel wondering why his new wonder structure hadn't had them flocking and dusting off his £5 ticket and a free beanie hat offers.

Just one kn*b head writing a few lines in the Wail online. I hardly think that's something to be surprised at, imagine it was written on the VT, just one more psychiatric patient with access to the internet and a keyboard.

So we're agreed that they wanted a game that weekend in one of the biggest cities in England outside London, and having been rebuffed for their first choice of venue found another one which suited their needs?

I am glad.

The first they would have been made aware of the GF date is when Old Trafford turned them down. AFAIK the 2015 SL Grand Final date wouldn't have been public knowledge in early 2014.

So having decided they quite fancied a game in the north only to find their first choice unavailable, why wouldn't they go to the next best alternative?

The question posed is whether or not they had sufficient knowledge to avoid the GF. I think they did and took a calculated risk that they could get using the Etihad on the same day past the police. That they took that decision is, in my opinion, a demonstration of their lack of foresight. It COULD also be argued that they made that decision with some malice.

It could, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that the IRB organised one of the biggest sporting tournaments in the world in such a way as to "damage" an insignificant (in both national and global terms) sport such as RL.

I don't see anyone suggesting that the Ireland-Italy game on Sunday has been scheduled for the Olympic Stadium specifically to clash with the NFL game at Wembley.

Dead Rubber at the Etihad Stadium it is then. That was an England build up followed by an epic collapse and exit that our Footballers would be pushed to beat. I have to admit that I'm gutted, didn't think we'd win, but didn't expect us to be dumped out of our home World Cup at the first cut. Big Sam Come back to where your phenomenal talent would be both appreciated and used, turn away from the dark side.

England got what they deserved for negative team selections and tactical approach. Rugby union has evolved beyond a game for eight donkeys up front and two half-backs who can kick.

Sadly, England don't appear to have grasped that. Left their best back-rower in France, kicked their best centre and hooker out of the squad on disciplinary grounds, picked Farrell for his kicking over Ford and Barritt over Burgess for his tackling.

Bet they're glad they gave Lancaster a five year contract.

They do have a feel of England Cricket about them in terms of what happened to the cricket team at the recent Cricket World Cup.

Playing a style that's negative and cautious what other teams have moved on from. Need a similar kick up the backside and shake up as the cricket team took afterwards.

Glad England lost; they deserved to. Will never understand how anybody can enjoy watching such dross. As you say what a waste of talent in having Burgess play and barely get a chance to show what he is capable of. Surely any impartial sport lover must recognise how telling it is that a guy who plays PROP (damn effectively) in RL plays CENTRE for the RU shower.
The times I watch the game and see players turn back inside with an overlap or bomb a chance by an inability to pass accurately down the line. I'm talking about the international side not a lower league club side. Awful. Some of the tries scored in a RL season would be viewed as extraordinary/exceptional/hugely praiseworthy and repeated ad infinitum if the RU international side were actually capable of scoring anything like them.

For god's sake Watkins do NOT be tempted

Two of the best RL players of their generation wasted in RU.

Don't get me wrong I prefer to watch league. And also agree Sam is a waste in the sport for me.
If you give the super 15 a go you would probably enjoy it. Played with more of a running game and better handling. I agree England were poor, but thought the handling and try for Australia, particularly the second was good.

You cannot really compare league and union in terms of the try scored, for a start there are 4 extra players on the pitch making it more difficult to score. Secondly in league you can have your edges try there luck as you get the ball back. In union if a winger goes for broke and gets isolated then the ball is usually turned over. The seemingly pointless short runs by forwards near the ruck are to try and suck in defenders to make space out wide. England's handling was poor last night

Couldn't have put it better. Spot on.

You can add to that the fact that Lancaster has been unable to win the big competitive games that really matter. He's taken England as far as he can. What worries me (as I do actually care) is that parallels with Clive Woodward's first WC in 1999 are being drawn and Lancaster will be given 4 more years to "finish the job". He's not Clive Woodward, Andy Farrell is not Phil Larder and Chris Robshaw is no Martin Johnson.

Barritt was an embarrassment in the midfield. He took every pass stood still and simply shuffled it along - something i used to try and get 8 year olds not to do, and spent most of his game laying on top of rucks having a rest. As for Farrell, well you sort of knew he'd do something stupid at some point.

Lesley Vainikolo's playing!!!

It really is the world's elite playing.

The money this competition will generate is ridiculous. Why can't we attract people who don't care about RL all year long to our international competitions like RU does?

Was reading something on the BBC and it gave some stats:

Sure enough, Pocock - outstanding at the last World Cup - was unstoppable once again. On Saturday he made nine tackles, six carries and 14 metres, four passes, two offloads and, most importantly, three turnovers.

Robshaw? Six tackles, five carries, three metres, two passes, no turnovers.

Unstoppable!!! I know their defence is closer but those stats don't look too amazing to me. And considering these are meant to be the tackling machines, they only made 15 between them. Sums up the speed of the game

I went to Leicester to watch Argentina vs Tonga. It was a phenomenal game. It confirmed to me that I like union as a game to watch but just not the northern hemisppheres way of playing it. Both teams using the full width, running from deep, minimal kicking, good movement and offloading. It just showed that the game can be good to watch if played with the right attitude

I saw that, and even though its compsring apples with oranges I still compared it to what peacock does

As per the eagle I much prefer the southern hemesphere style of play and the super 15 is very watchable, I imagine a lot of league fans would enjoy it. England are a very hard team to watch.

But comparing stats is pointless they are different games. Having played both codes in the forwards and also in the backs in union I found playing in the backs boring. I enjoyed both codes in the forwards and both were very physically demanding. Lots of shuttle runs in league and big impacts. Lesser impacts in union but you are constantly wrestling around scrapping for the ball. Real scrums. It's hard work!!

I really don't like England RU, to me they've always played boring rugby and run by an organisation who are so far up their backsides it's unreal.

However I'll gladly watch other watch Union games, Wigan vs Huddersfield last Thursday? Nah it was dull, Canada vs France was much more entertaining

Have to say as well, I really don't think Burgess would have made any sort of difference to the result on Saturday even if he had started.

He's a midfield bludgeon, and England already have way too many of those as it is. What the England back line needs is not another big lad who can truck it up and make a few yards, but players like Joseph, Slade and Ford who can play with the ball in hand and create space for those around them.

If Burgess has a future in Union - and I remain unconvinced that he does - then it has to be either at 6 or 8, not in the centres.

When you contrast the style in which England played the Six Nations finale against France earlier in the year - when they knew they had to win by a large margin to stand any chance of picking up the title - and the way they have played in this World Cup, it's apparent they are heading backwards under Lancaster/Farrell/Rowntree at a rate of knots.

We lost the game because we didn't have enough players who could open up a defence, and because the back row were too slow to the ball. Burgess wouldn't have helped that. Joseph was the only middle back we had. Farrell and Barritt both play as small, innefective back row forwards.

I am now very doubtful Burgess will make it. He's a very determined individual but back row forward is his best option and he's got a lot of work to do. You also have to realise that although he's a beast in League, in Union he is hitting the ball up into guys who dwarf him. He won't be a lineout option which also limits his usefulness.
He is just not a centre.
I wonder how he's feeling now? Already hearing some rumours regarding England camp discord around him.
Not the showcase he thought I would imagine. Disastrous tournament and some vocal criticism likely to re-emerge around his selection and contribution.
Now he has several years of relative obscurity in club rugby looming. If the predicted pogrom of the England coaching set up takes place then I can't see a squad place for Burgess as a centre, so IMO he's going to have to really show massive progress as a back row.
My guess would be back to the NRL for 2017 season.

Come on Uncle Gary. Put a bid in. You know you want to.

I'm in agreement on Burgess not making it now.I think he could still be a hit if he was willing to dedicate the next 7-8 years (virtually rest of his career) playing the game and be a very good back row, but i don't believe he ever had any intention of doing this project to that level. He reached his short term goal of making and playing in a WC squad and despite not letting anybody down, his inclusion will be remembered for all the wrong reasons due to England's ineptitude as a whole not Sam Burgess as a RU player which is unfortunate but is just how it has played out.

He has a life in Australia now with his family out there and due to be married soon so, like you say, expect him back in the NRL anytime within the next 18 months.

I think that if Burgess stays with Bath he will make it as an international 8 and it will not take him that long either. To be fair despite very little experience as a Union centre and, one high tackle apart, he equipped himself pretty well at international level and he certainly was not at fault for the defeats. I understand why he was included in the squad and if you look at the competition none of the other contenders for the inside centre slot had been good enough consistently.

Against Wales Ford should not have been brought on and Burgess should have stayed on. Against Australia the needs were different and there was a good argument to play Burgess/Barritt with Slade with at least the latter being on the bench.

However all this criticism of the centre selections blows a smoke screen over the real failures which were the pack and the poor discipline (9 pens concede to their 5). There were plenty of clues in the two warm up matches against France where the forwards were twice outplayed. We looked lacking in energy and nervous and despite a better performance against Ireland we didn't look ready or confident and Ford's drop in form cost him his place. I think the occasion got to some of the players.

The English game is built around the cornerstones of the scrum and the lineout. We lack class back row players with pace and the breakdown has been a weakness for years. But we did not dominated the scrum where we expected to win penalties - in fact the reverse happened and we gave away the penalties with our props greatly overrated and we lacked a hooker with a reliable throw (although Youngs was not to blame)

Had Armitage qualified for selection he would have added something in this key turnover area, but he is not the complete player either. Too short to be lifted in the lineout and too short to do the lifting and offers nothing to stop the rolling maul. He often looks brilliant in his clubside playing alongside what is a pack full of International Kiwis and Springboks.

One of the English problems is that Robshaw is not a natural 7 but he is usually the top tackler which means he cannot be the second tackler at the breakdown at the same time. Other sides these days rely on the second rowers to make more tackles leaving the back row to arrive as second tackler/fetcher.

In the Australia match we made more carries across the gain line than Oz and 50% more metres and although we won 6 turnovers we lost 9. We were too predictable