Burgess is good, but Gregan was better
Roar Guru
By Gatesy, 20 Jun 2008 gatesy is a Roar Guru
Why is everyone suddenly down on George Gregan? Luke Burgess has come along and suddenly we’re all comparing the two of them.
Yes, I will agree that if Gregan and Burgess both started the same year, then Burgess may well have gotten the nod. But they are from two different eras.
Luke Burgess is potentially great half-back, in the Farr-Jones mould, which no doubt excites all the Waratahs’ people. But he is yet to prove himself on the big stage.
He has not yet played the All Blacks or the Boks and already his forwards are talking about how they didn’t protect him. Is there an inherent weakness there?
Let’s not forget that George Gregan was the first Australian halfback of the professional era from 1995 until 2007. Twelve years! If he was so ordinary, why was he always the first pick?
So what if he ran sideways? More often than not, he had a runner (such as Owen Finegan, or Joe Roff, or Graeme Bond, or Craig Wells, or Rod Kafer, or Clyde Rathbone, or Adam Ashley-Cooper, or Mark Bartholomeusz or … you get my drift) coming on the angle.
He was a patient half who recycled the ball in an era when the Brumbies played multiple phases, and he got his runners away.
To my mind, that is still the way to play the game, no matter what developments have taken place, and Patrick Phibbs does it as well as Gregan did.
With No 8′s like Hoiles running off him, the Brumbies style is alive and well.
Welcome Luke Burgess. But let’s never forget George.
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
Rabbitz said | June 20th 2008 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Gatesy,
Have you been living under a rock? “Why is everyone suddenly down on George Gregan?” Suddenly? Suddenly?
It seems that”everyone” was calling for his sacking for a couple of years before he gave it away.
The reason that the bagging has resurfaced is that now that we have a half with speed, accuracy and rugby nous, it has just thrown Gregan into sharp relief and has highlighted just how bad is really was.
And just so you know, as a armchair selector, Gregan never made it past 1999 in my teams…
LeftArmSpinner said | June 20th 2008 @ 9:17am | Report comment
They were from different eras until Gregan overstayed his welcome and put himself before country. Their eras collided and Gregan’s legacy will be tarnished as a result.
We knew Gregan gave slow service and didn’t attack the line but only now are we seeing what might have been had Burgess’s fast service and attacking options been available to the S14 and Wallabies in the past two years.
sheek said | June 20th 2008 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Swifty,
I reckon Gregan’s last good year as a Wallaby was 2002. In 2003 I was a contributor to rugbyheaven, & I argued Gregan was only holding his place because of the captaincy. And I said it every year after up to 2007. I know plenty of people who suggested likewise.
I don’t think Gregan played any better after 2002, & in fact, his form gradually declined. Why did he continue to hold his position? Player politics. Gregan was hugely influential in players affairs & with RUPA.
Yes, Gregan was a great rugby player. But as a scrumhalf, he had significant shortcomings.
No one is truly suggesting Burgess will be a Wallaby great. Only that he has the potential to be better. At the moment, what he’s offering is a refreshing return to the traditional Wallaby scrumhalf play.
Peter K said | June 20th 2008 @ 9:33am | Report comment
The Gregan we sure from 2003 onwards was a vastly inferior player to what got him there.
Gregan started protecting his body, making sure he did not get injured. He became one dimensional, he didn’t threaten the line. He didn’t kick the ball up and under and chase. He didn’t dart down the blindside.
Everyone knew what he would do. He would wait, get the ball out slowly while everyone was organised both attack and defense. They look where he should put a runner through and run sideways and then deliver a short pass. The defense knew he wasn’t a threat, know he could only pass so far. All they had to do was cover guys around him. They woke up to the inside runners running off his hip.
Sure he was successful longer at Brumbies level, but at intl level how often did he deliver?
The primary skill of a scrumhalf is quick delivery of the ball, second an accurate pass, and thrid a long pass. Gregan had an accurate pass but slow delivery and did not have a long pass. Burgess has a pass twice as long and snaps a pass from the ground fairly often. He needs to work on his accuracy.
Why did he stay the number one pick for so long? Well many pundits did not want him there, probably thge majority.
However his was kept because he was deemed a good captain, or least there did not seem to be other options for captain. I believe that if he wasn’t captain he would of been replaced a lot earlier.
stillmissit said | June 20th 2008 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Ah! Gregan the epitome of a complete selection stuff up driven by the media. Having banged on at my mates for years and much later on THe Roar about his weaknesses it is poor comfort to be told by all and sundry that the dismal few who questioned his time as a Wallaby are now correct.
I was at ‘THAT TACKLE’ game and said to my mate that it was a great and gutsy tackle but he didnt strike me as a good half back.
Basically I hated the fact that we continued to select him without putting any pressure on him. We never got to find out what he was capable of doing because we rarely criticised him and NEVER dropped him. Every time anyone mentioned his performance and that was after 2002 the old chestnut would come out from a scribe often the other GG, ‘gutsy player, great captain, what about that tackle, should be first picked’. The NZ and SA teams all praised him to the roof as they would rather have a time killer with a poor pass than have Whittaker develop into a fast feeder of an Australian backline. And we fell for it.
Gregan should have been in and out of the Wallabies depending on how he was playing not on his posturing and politics. Gregans time was our loss and not only didnt we get the best out of Gregan we got nothing out of Whittaker – who I believe would have been more in the Farr-Jones mould than a handsome, bald, black statue with attitude.
There is a huge lesson in Greagans reign and that is something flashy doesnt always mean that the player is a great. We need to analyse players deeper than we have done in the past. It’s bloody professional lets look at more than ‘THAT TACKLE’.
BTW I may put up an alternative thread listing his weaknesses.
jacko said | June 20th 2008 @ 10:25am | Report comment
I’ve noticed when I visit a george gregan coffee shop they take 2 steps back before passing me my coffee. I then get slammed by the next bloke in the queue as I have to over reach to get it….
Harry said | June 20th 2008 @ 10:32am | Report comment
I was about to jump in but those above have done the good before me – up to 2003, a great player particuarly in the late nineties. But held us back massively by staying on too long (referees where but one group who had worked him out and no longer fell for his spiels) , too slow and predictable on the field, and a real political player – not in a good way – off it.
George Gregan is a very admireable person and a rugby player with very impressive achievements – but Australian rugby is well rid of him, he stayed four years longer than he should have.
The other point is I think Gregan benefited enourmously from his connection with Larkham, who remained a great player to the end – Exhibit A, his match winning performance in Melbourne against NZ last year. Of course Larkham’s problem since the RWC 99 win was holding his body together, he was only fit about 50% of the time after that. I always thought our 07 world cup hopes hinged on whether Larkham was fit or not. When he went early in the tournament the inevitable happened to Aus.
Had Larkham quit Aus rugby at the end of 03 or 04, then I don’t think Sideway’s George – as he then was w-ould have lasted as long as he did.
Anyway its all history now, good luck to Luke Burgess who looks the goods and lets hope that another test class half emerges (Sheehan aint, Cordingley past it) – possibilities include John Holmes (dreadful this year alas but still has potential), Will Genia and Ben Lucas.
The Link said | June 20th 2008 @ 10:38am | Report comment
why do Rugby selections always have this conspiracy angle presented? Gregan got selected because of player power, the League converts had a ‘Wallaby’ clause in their contracts? C’mon guys this is rubbish. The selectors are responsible for leaving Gregan in past his prime (perhaps he was a selector as captain – can someone enlighten?).
Rugby selections have for years lacked the ruthlessness of say the Australian Cricket team selectors. Just look at the relative success of both sides…..
The Link said | June 20th 2008 @ 10:39am | Report comment
jacko = bravo!!!
Jameswm said | June 20th 2008 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Great points all of you. Some in depth comments, but really Leftarmspinner summed it all up in two lines.
Leftarmspinner, heh? You mean Ray Bright style between the ump and the stumps?