I have not been that fussed about any defections to RU in the past, but this is an exception. I think it's a tragic loss of a genuine star player with the presence on and off the filed to raise the profile of the international game in particular. I have no doubt that a big part of the success of the last world cup was down to the mouthwatering prospect of an England team with someone who could run over and stop anyone the Aussies or Kiwis could put on the field. And he delivered, even if the team didn't quite. He could have (and should have) led our national side (which really needs to be GB, not bloody England) for some time.

I agree completely with you, he will be utterly wasted in Union. If he'd grown up playing the game he would have probably been a world class player, but my 11 year old has instinctive ruck skills he's developed over the last 4 years, he doesn't even think about it - and that is what Burgess will have to be like if he is going to play back row. At centre you might be able to get away with learning on the job for a couple of years but back row forwards have to be at most breakdowns - that's their job - to win and secure ball. It's complex, and a penalty minefield.
I may be proved wrong, I often am but I think if England want to use him as a centre then it simply confirms how inept and clueless the England management have been regarding the development of the England backline (although I see they have enlisted the assistance of Brian Ashton on a part time basis so maybe the message is getting through that they don't know what they are doing).

As well as his obvious physical gifts, I think the secret of Sam Burgess's success lies in his attitude, and it's very obviously present in his BBC interview on arriving at Bath. He is willing to work, always willing to learn and never too big for his boots.

Because of all that, he can master Union as a back-rower (which is where he has to play, he's quick and agile for a forward, but even in RU he isn't a back) but I don't think he can do it in time to make the World Cup squad ahead of the likes of Ben Morgan, Tom Wood, Chris Robshaw, Tom Croft, Billy Vunipola etc. Morgan and Vunipola will carry and offload almost as well as Sam Burgess can, but crucially they are years ahead of him in awareness at the breakdown. Most back-rowers are expected to be a back-up option at line-outs as well at Test level. I just don't think Sam Burgess's superior athleticism in the loose is going to be enough, in that time frame.

I hope the lad makes the grade. The crucial point is which position will he play in. Also he needs to be given time.
Any failure on his part whether major or minor will encourage the broad sheet sports journilsts to put boot the boot in.
Stephen Jones and Stuart Barnes are not big fans of league players crossing over.
As for various claims about Burgess being one of the best players of all times, I think not , maybe in the future.
I can think of several players who I would put ahead of Burgess. The main one being Mal Reilly.

The irony is England could have the best player in Europe, Stefan Armitage, in the back row but won't select him while he plays in France. It's rediculous, this isn't kids mini rugby where you reward lads that turn up and train every week, it's international rugby where you put your best 15 on the pitch. I know the ruling is supposed to be because French teams are not particularly helpful when it comes to releasing their highly paid talent for the endless friendly matches the RFU likes to put on to raise the huge piles of cash they like to roll around in, and it's also designed to help prevent an exodus of English players but it's another example of English rugby dogmatism that makes me cringe.

DHM you are quite correct with your Armitage comment , the lad is playing well so pick him.
Whilst many on this foroum don't care for union I enjoy many of the internationals and the six nations.
It's ironic that on the week end we played the Australians at league, attendance approx twenty thousand ,over fifty thousand watched the barbarians game at twickenham . I watched most of that game, it was nothing more than a warm up match for the Aussie team.
I gave up on watching the all blacks in Chicago , it was not even a good training session .
The attendance at that game was over sixty thousand.

I am not so sure. If he is played by his club in the back row I do not see why England cannot play him at 12 because he really could be devastating wherever he plays. It would be a good learning curve to try a couple of positions.

I would play him at inside centre and agree with Sir Clive Woodward that he must join the England camp asap and be in the squad for the World Cup. At the very least he could provide from the bench sufficient impact to turn a game around in 10 minutes. However I think he will be a quick learner and and his positives will more than outweigh any lack of Union nous.

Mike Ford sees him as a forward

"Whatever happens, Ford has pledged not to dilute the strengths which have made Burgess a legend in league. “The way we are trying to play at Bath will suit Sam’s style and Sam’s skill-set. More than half the rugby league players to come across have been signed for what they can do in league, then changed as a union player. I’m pretty adamant that one thing I won’t do is change Sam. The gameplan will suit him and the 14 other people on the field. It’s not just about Sam. But I’d be stupid to put him on the wing, wouldn’t I?

“Maybe I am a coach who sees things differently to, say, Stuart Lancaster, who has to win an international and only gets one chance. I get 22 chances in the Premiership, so I can afford to experiment a bit and see what his best position is. I want the best 15 players on the field.”

rlhttp://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/oct/30/sam-burgess-debut-back-row-bath-englandrl


Jason Robinson sees him as an inside centre

"There's no doubt in my mind that he'll play a massive part for England,".

"People ask, 'is he capable of doing it in such a short space of time?'.
"They're looking at 11 months until the Rugby World Cup. Can he play for England?
"My journey proves that it can be done. I came over in November and, by February, I was playing for England. In June I was on the Lions tour! I have no doubt Sam Burgess will be playing for England, it's just a case of when. It's going to be exciting.

"We've got Manu Tuilagi, who's probably England's first choice in the centre. Luther Burrell is a strong player, great going forward, but I think Sam has got something in him that even those two players don't have."

"I've not seen many players, if any, that pound for pound can physically hit people like he does.

"He's a very intimidating figure. He's one of the best in the world.
"It's a shame that Bath play so far away from where I live [in Huddersfield] because I'd be down there every week just looking for that collision."

He addsSir Clive Woodward says

"One thing is for surehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2814942/Sam-Burgess-power-make-England-scary-Stuart-Lancaster-play-inside-centre.htmlrl


Sam Burgess says

“I’m coming in as an outsider,” Burgess said. “I understand that. It is not going to be an easy transition. But I don’t lack belief. A lot of athletes believe in themselves, set themselves goals. I don’t think I am lacking in that. The weight of expectation does not bother me. I have learnt to do with it in Australian rugby league.”

Burgess also revealed that he had had several chats with former NSW Waratahs’ coach Michael Cheika, brother of a friend of Burgess, and believed him “to be the right man for the Wallabies … who can turn them around”. The media blitz lasted four hours. Burgess took it all in his stride. He is not easily fazed. One thing is for sure. He will make his mark in union, no matter where he plays.

I don't care about Sam burgess anymore, he plays his rugby elsewhere now (quote the late prejudice Bill mclaren) nothing to do with rugbly league any more and nothing to do with Leeds Rhinos.

Big Sam has made big impression at Bath and looks set for his RU debut this Friday despite just two weeks training. Live on BT Sport

I'm trying but it's still hard

I must say that BT Sport coverage of the Aviva Premiership is so far ahead of Sky's coverage of Super League it's not funny. Educated debate and intelligent discussion in comparison to Sky's usual diet of screaming, shouting and balling over mountains made out of molehills.

Looking forward to seeing how Sam fares on his debut on Friday night.

Against a 15 man defence with no 10m gap?

He'll run the ball in hard, perhaps occasionally flattening a would-be tackler before being engulfed. But not that often.
Defence-wise he'll put in the odd big hit. If he comes on at around 60 minutes he might make five or six tackles.

In the eyes of the headline writers, his will have been the outstanding contribution.

Enjoy.

The camera work on Sky's coverage of SL is excellent, so is the in game editing and far outweighs any other UK company (Channel 9's coverage in Oz is unsurpassable). It's the so called 'experts' they employ to summarize the games that let their coverage down. The drag everything down to the intellectual level of your average Daily Mail reader.

Which TV company was broadcasting the 4Ns from Aus to the Beeb? I thought the camera work was shocking.

Sky's game day coverage hits the same buzz-phrases and manufactured controversies as it has for 15 years. If it ever worked, it certainly doesn't work now. But the main players (producer, commentator, summarisor) are so entrenched there's no stopping them. Honestly think Sky's coverage is the single largest thing holding this game back in this country. The BBC's coverage, which was equally embarrassing in the French/Murphy days, has learned lessons, changed, and is absolutely miles ahead.

Spot on.

The BBC have two producers on their team who are avid Rugby League fans, who are well aware of the poor image of RL that the SKY guys portray, and aim to show RL in it's best light. This, along with having a proper commentry team who are there purely to commentate and inform the audience, a separate presenter and some good analysis in the studio mean their coverage has improved.

SKY is awful to watch on the otherhand. Five voices during the game, bickering with eachother, informing the audience of nothing. A total refresh is needed, except for the analysis with Jon Wells, he's the silver lining.

The problem with SKY is that the main producer isn't a Rugby League person. They don't understand the game well enough to understand the garbage that pours out of Eddie, Stevo & Clarkeys mouths, or give freee reign to Clark to bore us with his traffic light stats. The producer they use is inheriting their production setup, inheriting the presenters and the format, and will continue as is until they move onto something else. There simply isn't the appetite at the moment to ive it the overhaul it needs.