Bath coach Ford hits out at Burgess

No. They now go before they make it. It's now players like Cooper Cronk, Jarred Warea-Hargrave, Craig Wing, etc who played Australian schoolboys or NRC equivalent then were signed by NRL teams.

Sour grapes is cognitive dissonance. That's where the term comes from....

yeah that's right - all the players in those competitions and teams I've noted - they are all muppets including the World Cup and the All Blacks. all bloomin muppets. muppets everywhere you look.

Back in the 1980s - 90s, League players may have been fitter, faster and stronger because they were professionals vs. the amateurs of Union. But the skill sets required, especially in the forwards, were, and still are, very different. This was highlighted by by the clash-of-the-codes games played between Bath (union) and Wigan (league) in 1996. In the first game was played under League rules. Unfamiliar with the style of play and unprepared for the pace it was played at, Bath was hammered with Wigan running away with the game to win 82 - 6. In the rematch two weeks later, played under Union rules, it was Wigan's turn to be hammered, although the presence in their side of some recent converts from union and their (at the time) superior fitness mitigated the damaged somewhat. Bath won 44 - 19. Another clash-of-the-codes game was played in 2003 between St. Helen's (league) and Sale (union), this time one half being league while the other was union. Sale won 41 - 39, although Sale won the the union half 41 - 0 with St. Helen's winning the league half 39 - 0. The only real difference between the two sides being the experience with their own code, as both sides were fully professional.

Soap, does will greenwood count as a big name? because he's article pretty much said exactly what you and jez have.

Soap, I don't know but I suspect that Burgess is a bigger story in Oz than it is back in England. There are a load of English guys in the team I coach here in HK (about half the squad). They are all fuming over Lancaster (who has now resigned) and Rob Andrew who they are calling Mr Teflon. The anger amongst these guys towards the performance of the RFU and Andrew in particular is massive and certainly overshadows anything directed at an individual player.

Reputation and a misguided belief in potential. Best to select players based on performance.

Very little of the criticism was personal. He performed poorly -- and when you do that you get criticised. No one had a go at his attitude, temperament or commitment, but they certainly criticised his lack of nous. He got shown up defensively against Wales. But the criticism he received is nothing compared to what has been thrown at Lancaster and Robshaw. Robshaw in particular got a lot of flak, and I think it was pretty harsh (but not surprising). He's taken it awfully personally and now he's packed up and left.

Brad Thorn made it very clear that he didn't think it was in the interest of the team to go on the 2002 end-of-year tour unless he new he would be around the following season. He didn't want to disrupt preparations for the 2003 Rugby World Cup by taking a spot in the side. He made a decision that was in the best interests of the team and not necessarily in the best interests of himself. He thought about what the consequences of his decision would be on other people -- and not just whether it'd be a good decision for himself.

thats true, tho as i said it would be nice if some rugby names spoke up and pointed out he wasnt the biggest problem rther than joining in.

ob, tbh i really dont think whether or not i believe that has anything to do with what we were discussing

Nothing else to play for, please - there is a Lions tour in 2017, that in itself should be enough.

Why would any Rugby player go to league when they can earn much more playing in Europe or Japan?? That's why you don't see anyone bother going over to league anymore. As for the physicality of each sport, they're different (however there are 1 or 2 positions that allow for a 'simpler' crossover). League's physicality lies in anaerobic capacity. Union's physicality lies in brute strength. They are two completely different games with a different required skillset & fitness. When playing both games you can tell the difference, playing League you get exhausted mostly from the running. Union you get exhausted due to the physicality of the breakdown & set pieces. It's the same at the higher levels, but they do at a quicker pace and higher strength. But please spare us with the "Burgess could adapt to the slower, less physical game" when that is a completely false any naive statement.

I actually think what he said was fine & pretty spot on. Bath put a whole lot of time into him & Mike Ford believed he would become a great player, he just wanted him to stick it out and pull his socks up. But Sam took the easier option of coming back to Oz. I don't think any of his comments were unfair at all.

I disagree. Yes, he was put into the side far too early. The English were expecting their version of a Sonny Bill, the main difference was that Sonny Bill had a full Top 14 season, ITM Cup and Super 14 where Burgess had half a season if that (he did go to England with a broken jaw). The media wanted a scapegoat for their poor performance and he was it. Ford had the right idea, Burgess was going to be a loose forward, he has never had the skills to be a back.That Burgess didn't want to play there because he felt it would adversely affect his England chances does show he was more interested in getting into the England team long term than playing where he was best suited. To me, he should have buckled down and shown them what he could do but no, it appeared that being a small fish in a big pond didn't suit him.

England as a whole LOVE a scapegoat in sport when things don't go to plan, and SB was an easy target.

Well said Jez, completely agree

Nope. The RFU is so divorced from the clubs that they refused to assist Bath in bringing him over. The other clubs would howl massively if they did that. There is no way he was guaranteed a spot, as that would have been seen by the other clubs as assisting Bath. Why would the RFU hamstring themselves for a punt on an untried and unproven player? The fact that they eventually chose him is simply a poor decision on the part of the coaching team as part of a flawed gameplan.

Union players very seldom go to the NRL anymore. The only reason they ever did was for the money and now they can get better money in rugby so why would they change? The most recent would be Konrad Hurrell who seems to be making a good fist of it. You need to go back to the early 90s to find players regularly switching codes from rugby to union. Even then they usually only did it at the end of their careers to top up the bank balance. If they went early enough they could usually make a good fist of it. A couple of highly successful examples would be Matthew Ridge and Darryl Halligan.

that's not cognitive dissonance, that's sour grapes...