He may not be the sharpest offensive player in world rugby and he may not even know all the rules yet, but there is one very good reason why Sam Burgess was selected for England. And it could turn out to be a stroke of genius by Stuart Lancaster.
The average amount of points scored by teams in World Cup games in all World Cups is only 19.
The 2011 World Cup had the lowest point accumulation of all-time coming in at a dismal 13 points per team. That’s worse than the horrifically boring 1991 World Cup. The 2007 World Cup was only slightly better with 17 points per team.
If you rank a World Cup on how many points were scored then the best World Cup ever was 1999 when the average points per team in finals games was 27, one point ahead of 1995 and six ahead of 2003.
But in four of the finals we’ve seen scores of 8-7, 15-6, 15-12 and 12-6. There were two tries in those four finals, one scored by Tony Woodcock and the other Tony Daly. That’s two props if you don’t remember. Hardly the attacking brilliance we see in some of the Rugby Championship showdowns.
What I’m getting at here is that World Cups aren’t won on attacking rugby, they are won on defensive grit. Ask the 1995 All Blacks, they had one of the best attacking teams in history and they couldn’t score a try when it counted. You could also ask Richie McCaw what was on his mind when he was ahead of France by one and playing on a broken foot. It certainly wasn’t spread the ball wide.
So, getting back to Lancaster’s selection of Burgess, as soon as the news came through the comment sections went nuts with incensed armchair selectors. And it wasn’t just fans, Will Carling’s comments pre-team selection almost came across as an election smear campaign.
Of course there is some truth there. Burgess may not have a complete game yet, but one key thing that he does have is a destructive and dynamic defensive game and that will be vital once the World Cup kicks off.
Anyone who has played rugby will know how a big tackle can inspire a team, how it can bring a team together. There are plenty of teams that base their whole game plan around aggressive, swarming defence.
England will know that with Burgess they have a midfield that will not be penetrated and this will give them huge amounts of confidence. It will allow them to buy into the siege mentality that has worked so well for them in the past.
So, forget the complaints about Burgess’ attacking game, England have never really played attacking rugby at the World Cup anyway. (Nor have most other teams for that fact.)
The World Cup will again be won on defence and in Sam Burgess, England might have one of the most devastating defensive players in world rugby.
JimmyB
Guest
How eloquent. Apt name btw.
dropkick
Guest
Burgess sucks he aint bigger than everyone like in league and too slow
D Socks
Roar Rookie
Just to add a couple more considerations, the help that Burgess has to hand is none other than Andy Farrell who did a fair bit of defensive work with the backline. Then there's Mike Catt, a rather successful centre and a RWC winner to boot. Brad Barritt is an incredible defensive captain and would test Big Burg in training and bring out the weaknesses ... so there's only one excuse left which is the experience. George's old man gave him a run at 6 and the tries he ended up scoring for Bath were from great lines in support play, rather like a centre. So he's had a good competitive run in different shirts and has a pretty good big match temperamant ... I for one am looking forward to seeing him against Fiji and then impacting against the other challenges of the pool. He'll be pretty much ready to go if & when the knockout stages start ... as will the rest of the group with those nations.
Dave_S
Guest
I'm a big fan of his league days, haven't seen him in rugby, so I'm generally undecided. There are obvious attractions in his attacking game, busting a tackle and offloading. I don't entirely agree with the view that the defensive roles are too different for him to adapt quickly enough - there are of course key differences but modern league players are well coached in reading angling and dummy runners and scrambling in defence. But there is potential for inside backs to exploit his lateral mobility and inexperience. I think the bigger risk is not that he will miss tackles, but (a) teammates who don't trust him to make the right defensive read in the heat of the moment will over-compensate and leave gaps themselves and (b) he will give away kickable penalties through inexperience by not rolling off the tackle fast enough, etc.
Frisky
Guest
You forgot the French try in 2011 final
Birdy
Guest
You're looking at this through Aussie eyes, Tahplan. Absolutely no way on earth would it have even crossed Lancaster's mind to include Burgess as part of some campaign to woo 'northern' people to the game. Rugby Union obviously wants to expand the game, but Rugby League fans are not really the target - there isn't enough of them in England (even in the 'north' it pales by comparison with football/soccer). The goal is to try and attract people whose main interest is probably football, or only have a minor interest in Union. Amongst these types, Burgess is not a particularly big name or a 'star'. Winning the RWC might attract more people to the game in England. Including Burgess is neither here nor there.
Margin_Walker
Guest
You know Burrell is actually from the north don't you? Not sure the northern conspiracy angle really holds water. After a decent first 6N in 2014 he's had a very mediocre season for Northampton and England. He could have slammed the door shut on Burgess (or at least secured a spot for himself) with a run of form. His defence has been found wanting at club and international level (only made 71% of the tackles he attempted in the AP last season) and he doesn't have any kind of distribution game. Burgess is obviously a bit of a punt, but it's not like Burrell's form demanded inclusion.
Tahpan
Guest
Agree that winning the RWC has a lot to do with defence and that a big tackle can result in an instant change in momentum. This is largely because knock out games are to do with mindset and defense is all mental. However, in rugby, the best defenders are not big men. Think Hooper, Dussatoir, Brussouw, Pocock. While Burgess can hit someone who runs into him, there are huge questions as to whether he will be able to read complex attacking patterns. Further, in attack he will be dealt with much like SBW - chopped quickly and forced into turning the ball over. In my view, he is a massive liability and will not be picked for the big games. Unfortunately, his inclusion reads a lot like a PR stunt to get the English northern public involved in the tournament. That is not a tactic without merit but it understandably makes people like Burrell and his supporters sick to their stomach.
Rugby Tragic
Guest
Thanks Birdy, interesting, Burgess was great in NRL and I think he will eventually be a good rugby player but on what I have seen thus far, 2015 might be a bit soon . we shall see. I was also slow to warm to SBW, he changed my opinion of him fairly quickly when he showed some special off loading talents but hasn't be the same on his return to rugby this time around.
Birdy
Guest
He's going to be a good 'un, Edward.
Edward Pye
Roar Guru
Slade reminds me of a young Dan Carter at the 03 WC
Edward Pye
Roar Guru
Yes the information only relates to finals but i didn't want to blow out the stats by including games with 100 pt blow outs. Some teams will get knocked out before the finals and England is unlucky to be in the pool of death, but lets get serious, the main part of the tournie is the finals and these games are stupidly tight, so that may provide Burgess with a stage to shine.
Edward Pye
Roar Guru
For sure Sean, the risk is definitely there and he may be played out of games against better teams. I can see a team like NZ putting short kicks in behind the line and turning him around, Australia will have a game plan for him too, so the choice could easily be England's un-doing. But, I think given his defensive nous in both league and the games he's played so far in rugby, he has earned the right to be called a potent defender. Not many people have clobbered Sonny Bill Williams in either form of the game and that's a reputation and point of difference that a team can build around. Mike Julz made an interesting point that they might start him against Fiji which makes a lot of sense to me. Negating their big midfield runners will be important to beating them and then that performance will dictate whether he plays against Wales or not. He probably won't start against Australia, but I could see him coming back in during the finals as games get tighter. Cheers for the kudos as well :)
Birdy
Guest
I've been in two minds about it, RT. I think the majority opinion in England is that he's too inexperienced and has too many Union weaknesses. I've been starting to slightly come round to it though. Mostly because there isn't a line of class centres putting their hand up. My biggest relief is that they've picked Henry Slade. This kid is going to be a star, with the only question being is this RWC too soon for him. Jonathan Joseph and Brad Barritt were always nailed on and probably the starting pair against Fiji. So the question is who was Burgess competing against for the 4th Centre spot? There were two contenders (excluding Slade). Burrell, and Twelvetrees. I'm not a fan at all of Twelvetrees. Too flaky and I'm glad he's not in. Burrell is unlucky. He was the starting 12 in the 6 Nations but hasn't kicked on at all, so competition to Burgess also had doubts about them. This makes it less of a gamble. It's still a punt, though. He'll have no problems with front on tackles, but clever movement may be a problem. Obviously, he's created a real stir in the camp, so an balance I support the selection.
Rugby Tragic
Guest
What does our resident Englishman Birdy think of Burgess's inclusion?
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Mate at the time, the team that ran out for the 2007 WC final was the most experienced Springbok team to ever play a test. Record number of combined test caps, over 500 or something. Obviously that record has been broken numerous times since then as many of the same players continued playing.
Mike
Guest
"World cups aren't won on attacking rugby" Except the evidence you have cited relates only to finals. Many more tries are scored in the matches leading up to the finals. And without winning those matches, nobody gets to the finals. Re Burgess, I would have thought it's just a calculated risk combined with the hope that he might provide some x-factor in attack. He has played very well in league to balance his limited experience in Union and It doesn't sound much more of a risk than several other selections, not just by England.
Jibba Jabba
Guest
Pye in the sky stuff !
the older
Guest
Card magnet.
Machpants
Roar Guru
I think that, since the victory over the ABs, England have lost their way. The stated aim, 4 years ago, was a starting XV with 600 caps. Have they even got 600 caps in the entire squad? Lancaster has failed to advance his young players by chopping and changing too much. When you look how Hansen as brought on people like Aaron Smith, Brodie, etc - you can see what constant selection, trust, can achieve. Young guys with lots of caps and playing well for it. There is a good chance that an AB team (if they make it, it is RWC after all) starting 23 could have over 1000 caps AND be no older on average than the 2011 team (and younger than England 03) around 26~27. Then again SA managed it on 07 with a young and inexperienced (relatively) team, so maybe I'm wrong! Very exciting to see how that pool goes! And I'll be over there for the pool games, can't wait!