WTF???If you're going to comment then at least have a modicum of knowledge.....

SBW featured for 17 minutes (including 10 in the sin bin) COMBINED during the QF/SF and Final of RUWC 2011. He is again, 3rd or 4th choice cover for the All Blacks midfield and I suspect the same stands for Burgess and England...neither will feature in big games until the last 10 or if there's an injury!

I can't think of a single sporting team which has literally been dour, defensive and functional throughout the forty-odd years I've watched the telly. A single team - [iapart from England RU[/i.

It's like every England team which has taken the field has sworn some kind of blood-oath not to play entertaining rugby. They were godawful to watch in the seventies. They were godawful to watch in the eighties. The nineties.

Their only win of any real significance (the RWC) seemed like an accident where someone hadn't told Jason Robinson that he couldn't sidestep or beat his opposite number.

Whilst we've locked ourselves into one pattern of play (overwhelm the opposition through size and strength in the forwards, box kick for territory, mop up the penalties, hurl one after the other prop-sized inside centre at the defence until it cracks etc.) NZ, Australia, South Africa and even Wales! have produced several genuinely entertaining sides who even in defeat can thrill the crowd with exciting play.

It's embarrassing. And selecting Burgess as yet another battering-ram centre (despite the fact that he was never a rapid forward in RL!) is symptomatic of an England setup which simply cannot help itself.

Sam Burgess will be back at South Sydney by 2017 at the latest, and then off to the NFL faster than you can say "Jarryd Hayne."

I notice you didn't include the last 4 years and with good reason, under Lancaster England have progressively played better rugby and were the best team in the 6 Nations. They came to the Millennium Stadium in a hostile atmosphere and played attractive expansive rugby (I was there to witness it). I've also seen England play good rugby at times in the last 30 years and Wales play rubbish quite often (including Saturday) so using the odd experimental friendly to make such a sweeping generalisation doesn't hold up.

Why you all talking RU?

Sam who?

You're right - once or twice England has played "attractive rugby" - but only [iby its standards[/i.

But compared to the kind of free-flowing stuff I've seen from several All Black sides over the years, one or two Australian ones, heaven knows how many French plus the Welsh and even the usually dour South Africans - it's little more than an ersatz facsimile.

As Albert Einstein once said, [i"It's all relative". [/i

Having seen them in the flesh in the last year along with NZ, Wales, Australia, Ireland and Scotland they have played the most attractive rugby I've seen, so again, your argument doesn't hold up. And to say they've played attractive rugby once or twice in decades is laughable and betrays your prejudices.

Well, that's your opinion.

It's the opinion of most (if not all) match-going people I know where I live and work in Cardiff. I'd take the opinions of rugby people who have actually been to see the teams you mention in the flesh over yours.

I agree with Mugwump and all the England RU supporters I know share my opinion so your argument doesn't hold water either!

England RU are rubbish
God bless Ireland
Go Fifi and Uruguay

I've watched England yawnion for 45 years. i agree completely with Mugwump. Some of the most myopic, prejudiced, paranoid RL fans I know have stood in the same spot every other week for the same period. Attending games doesn't mean jack in this respect.

I take it you include yourself and Mugwump in that?