Should the Sam Burgess experiment fail this weekend, he may receive a slightly frosty reception when he heads back to Bath to join those that have already been culled from England’s World Cup squad.
Ok, so it’s unlikely anyone will actually make a fuss of it, but the fact is two of Burgess’s Bath teammates were directly affected by his presence in this weekend’s team, as Kyle Eastmond and Semesa Rokoduguni faced the chop without getting a run out in the warm-up games. There is every chance both would have been retained had Lancaster and his coaches not been hellbent on giving Burgess a go in the centres.
Rokoduguni was binned along with Ashton and Yarde leaving only three recognised wingers in the squad. This decision was essentially taken because Lancaster needed to retain an extra centre as a safety net should the Burgess experiment not work – hence why, assuming Barritt and Joseph are shoo-ins, only two from Burgess, Slade, Burrell and Twelvetrees will make the final cut. In doing so, he has sacrificed the chance to see any of Rokoduguni, Ashton or Yarde in action.
Of course, there is every chance it could work well. Lancaster regularly speaks of his desire to have a blend of ball players and ball carriers in his backline, and if they were to use Burgess in the way Burrell was used in the Six Nations – subtly, often running dummy lines – it would allow Ford and Joseph to thrive again. Indeed, Burgess would probably command more of the defence’s attention than Burrell.
The problem is, he is starting in a midfield with Owen Farrell and Henry Slade – one relatively rusty after an injury-disrupted season, the other making his debut as well. Slade is more of a ball player as a centre, compared with Joseph whose quick feet and acceleration make him a huge danger on the outside break. Farrell is a more pragmatic fly-half than Ford, too, and Burgess will have to work harder off the ball than he did for Bath when wearing the 12 shirt.
Slade must be a little concerned also. Had Burgess not been included the headlines would all have been about him, but he now finds himself somewhat overshadowed. There is also of course the danger that Burgess has a stinker, which would undoubtedly impact on Slade’s ability to put his best foot forward.
Lancaster needs Burgess to play well. If the experiment fails miserably, he has wasted one of three precious warm-up games when he could have been looking at other options. He will also find it hard to justify playing Burgess in a position in which he largely underwhelmed at club level, ahead of the guy who lit up the Bath backline in the same shirt week after week.
Of course, there is much more on the line on Saturday other than the Burgess/Slade combination. Ben Morgan’s return from injury is welcome but after only fully returning to training this week, is he ready? He will be rusty but there is time to rectify that; for now, the priority is to get through the game unscathed.
Alongside him Calum Clark makes his debut in the number seven shirt – an intriguing decision. There was a great focus on the breakdown in last weekend’s matches, with Hooper and Pocock dovetailing brilliantly for Australia, while Justin Tipuric struggled (at the breakdown – he was brilliant otherwise) for Wales. Clark, alongside clubmate and captain Tom Wood, must impress in that area.
In the front five, Kieron Brookes has a chance to cement the final propping place ahead of Corbisiero, who is on the bench. Similarly George Kruis must press his case to be included over Dave Attwood, who will likely start next weekend, as the final lock after the established trio of Lawes, Launchbury and Parling.
Billy Twelvetrees has had a tab in the last chance saloon for at least a year now – Luther Burrell will likely start in next week’s game so this really is his final shot, and coming from the bench it’s going to be tough for him to force Lancaster’s arm.
Finally we come to the Alex Goode/Danny Cipriani debate – the two are ostensibly in competition for a place as cover for the 10/15 shirts. Given that Goode is starting, and that there are only four other recognised back three players left in the squad, you have to imagine he has the upper hand in this battle. It would be a hell of a risk to take only Watson, Nowell, May and Brown to the World Cup with Cipriani as cover.
These warm-up games, as has already been pointed out numerous times in the past week, are a curious beast. On an individual level everyone is trying to thrust themselves into the final squad, but there must still be sufficient emphasis on the team that the overall performance doesn’t suffer.
Ireland showed how it should be done, and proved how successful Joe Schmidt has been at instilling his ‘vision’ or ‘culture’ – or whichever management buzzword you prefer – into not only his starting team, but also those in the wider squad that haven’t seen too much action over the past few years.
Schmidt sets great stall by the individual fitting into the collective plan, and that approach showed how it can pay dividends in this situation. Lancaster follows a similar plan and despite three debutants in the team, there is enough quality and experience that their performance against France must be more like Ireland than Wales for it to be considered a success.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
You can almost see where Lancaster is going with his squad now, especially in the backs where things were less clear cut.
If he picks Ford and Farrell at 10 and Barritt, Joseph and one of Burrell, Burgess or Twelvetrees in the centre, he can then go with Slade to cover 10-13 and pick his 5 back 5 players. That would be 11 picks and leave him with 2 scrumhalves, 8 front row players and 10 second/back row forwards.
I’m guessing he’s saving his strongest team for the final game against Ireland, and they’ll look to build momentum from that game and the Fiji opener for the crucial pool games.
I would imagine that the starting team for Fiji is pretty much confirmed in the eyes of the coaches. I believe that this game is about pinning down some of the back-up slots, which remain a little uncertain.
10/15 back up
Hooker back up
Lock back up
Back-row back up
Prop back-up (TH, and or 5th prop in particular)
oh, and Centre back up!
I do not subscribe to the statement that this is a wasted chance to see Roko, Ashton or Yarde. To me, they have clearly decided which 3 wings they are going with, and that is it.
Similarly, scrum half. This could have been Dickson’s “chance”!
Totally agree with you on just about everything here Jamie.
One thing that really concerns me is the way Bomber has stupidly increased the pressure on Slade to perform on Saturday,firstly by pairing him with a player who is still learning the Union game and secondly by refusing to give him a run out,even as a rep,in the 6N.
As you rightly point out a bad game from Burgess will also affect young Henry negatively too.
Meanwhile ,over in Aus Cheika has given the Wallabies a genuine scrum, engineered a win over the AB’s and won the Rugby Championship.
Imagine how low in morale they will be when they pitch up at HQ!
To be a touch harsh, if Slade can’t cope with the pressure of having a team-mate play poorly then perhaps he shouldn’t be in the squad. We want to see how players cope in adversity as well as when they have the upper hand. He can still shine even if Burgess fails.
Anyway, let’s be positive, perhaps it’ll be a fantastic pairing that rip France apart. Anyone seen the French team yet?
As an aside, whilst the weekend’s game will have given the Aussies confidence, I think that the idea that many of their problems have been solved is slightly wishful thinking.
Their scrum looked better than it has, but equally the AB scrum looked poor and incoherent. The Hooper-Pocock combo will cause teams problems, but the ABs played right into their hands by trying to spread the ball wide without sufficient support and without having first used the forwards to tie the Aussie back-row up.
It was a great win for the Aussies, but I am going to save judgment until I’ve watched the AB backlash at Eden Park.
After reading this it now makes even less sense to lose three wingers and retain the constantly underwhelming 12T as a centre option. With the likes of Burrell, Barritt, Burgess, Joseph and Slade, and also Farrell, Cips, may and Nowell’s ability to cover in the centres. Why has he retained 12T but dropped the three wingers?!
Spot on.
Maybe you could do a poll of who we think should be in the centres from the choices left? If the Burgess/Slade combo works, I would definitely think about dropping either Burrell or Joseph. Slade has been performing more consistently than 12T all season, whichever position he was playing.
Drop Joseph? You have GOT to be joking. Remember the tries he scored in the 6N? The electric pace and sheer audacity? Three wingers gone and you would let JJ go? Even Bomber isn’t that addled.
I am assuming that was a typo by Dazza… Surely?
Sorry, I meant 12T. Brain to hand malfunction!!!!!!!
>> Rokoduguni was binned along with Ashton and Yarde leaving only three recognised wingers in the squad. This decision was essentially taken because Lancaster needed to retain an extra centre as a safety net should the Burgess experiment not work – hence why, assuming Barritt and Joseph are shoo-ins, only two from Burgess, Slade, Burrell and Twelvetrees will make the final cut. In doing so, he has sacrificed the chance to see any of Rokoduguni, Ashton or Yarde in action.
<<
I think you're getting a little conspiracy theoryish here – that doesn't make any sense. There is little different from having one extra player around, if he wanted to give Roko a try he could have kept him with no cost. Nothing to do with Burgess. Roko's absence is much more likely down to his weakness under the high ball from a coach who loves a fullback.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I’m pretty sure Lancaster didn’t have to cut an exact number of players last week (he said up to 9 i think), so the number of centres kept shouldn’t really have anything to do with Roko being kept or not.
The more I think about it, I really don’t know why Roko/Ashton wasn’t kept and given a go this game with May, and next week Nowell and Watson. Unless Roko/Ashton really didn’t measure up to the other three in training (i.e. under the high ball as you say).
But Matt, if the coaches have already decided on their 3 wingers, why waste everyone’s time by keeping more in the squad?
Rather than giving everyone “a go”, I believe they should be looking at getting the squad of 31 some game time.
Yes you’re right, I think I that’s what I meant in the end. Lancaster and co. must be sure who they want as wingers and so that’s the decision they’ve made.
Blub
For me you’ve hit the nail on the head.They are all short of game time.Priority should be given to the 31 and not faffing about with more experimentation with Sam, Goode,Billy etc.We run the risk of not being match ready by 18/9 v Fiji.
I just don’t understand retaining 12T instead of Eastmond, I know he is bigger in the vein of Burgess and Burrell but wouldn’t say he offers a greater carrying threat than Eastmond like they do and distribution skills and form for me say Eastmond stays
“He will also find it hard to justify playing Burgess in a position in which he largely underwhelmed at club level, ahead of the guy who lit up the Bath backline in the same shirt week after week.”
I think this is the key point. I thought we’d moved away from the Aston/Johnson years of playing players away from their best position, but because the RFU has invested a lot of moolah in the Burgess experiment, they expect to see him playing. I’m afraid that Burgess will not impress, and it’s not fair on him, and it’s certainly not fair on those he’s kept from having a place. We have a surfeit of excellent centres, why play someone who doesn’t really play there?
I’m not convinced that is the whole argument though, Eastmond is certainly the best 12 in the Bath squad, but (and here comes the caveat), its the best 12 for the high-risk, high reward style of play that Bath adopt. I’m not sure that style of play would translate well to international level and in a sense Eastmond loses out, not because Burgess is a better 12 than him, but because JJ has been playing so well at 13. Lancaster clearly wants to go with the safer strategy of a big ball carrier combined with a playmaker in his centres, with Ford at 10 and Joseph at 13, Eastmond simply doesn’t fit with this philosophy. And also Bath not the RFU invested a lot of moolah in Burgess, the RFU chickened out of picking up the transfer fee so that came out of Bruce’s pockets in the end!
I don’t think the RFU ‘chickened out’, rather they stepped back when the other clubs kicked up a fuss about them paying for a player to another club – and rightly so.
I agree that Eastmond doesn’t fit in between Ford and JJ in an international backline, but I do think he could have done a job with, say, Farrell inside him and Barritt/Burrell outside him during the ‘other’ group matches. Remember the only times we’ve seen him in an international environment was with the Joel Tomkins experiment outside him – the less said about that the better.
But the risk in dropping him really comes if JJ gets injured – it leaves you with a centre partnership of 2 from Farrell/Burrell/12T/Barritt/Slade/Burgess. All have their own qualities but none will really worry defences with their creativity (Slade aside, perhaps, but I think he’ll be doing well to make the final squad anyway).
I’ll give you that, “chickened out” is me being a bit cheeky rather than the reality of the situation.
And yes, without Eastmond I would agree that there is a potential gap but personally I would cover that with taking both Burrell/Burgess (depending on how the latter measures up) and Slade, but that does mean losing someone else along the way but I’ll work that one out later…
“Remember the only times we’ve seen him in an international environment was with the Joel Tomkins experiment outside him”
?? Really, Eastmond?
He has played more than that hasn’t he?
Yes he has. He’s got 6 caps
Eastmond started in three games vs NZ last year, playing with Farrell and Barritt in one and Burns and Tuilagi in two.
He also started with Farrell and Barritt vs SA last year
He started one match vs Arg in 2013 with Joseph and came off the bench in the other to replace Joseph, playing alongside 12Trees
So, he’s played internationally alongside every England centre experiment for the past two years with the exception of Tompkins
Deja Vu? Haven’t England been here before with Farrell Snr?
Is it me, or has Lancaster lost the plot? Ditching Roko & Eastmond, 2 of the likely best back line in England; i.e., Bath, for the untried flanker in midfield, Burgess? Beggers belief.
What possible criteria (& I understand SL has lots of them) can he have for this selection? Nought personal agin Burgess, as he’s a decent cove & a trier by all accounts, but with a WC weeks away & what with experimenting wholesale in the hope that Burgo et all will, with a bit o’ luck & a following tail wind, that his team, esp his mid field, will miraculously fall into place?
Lanco has recently talked it up about another ‘vision’ for the 2019(!) WC with loads of investment in his youth policy for then bearing fruit, along with loads new qual coaches for future grassroots etc, etc.
Is this all a smoke screen to detract form his mediocre record v the SH & which currently puts it on a par with the tin-tacked johnno’s?
We’ve all heard ad infinitum form Lancs that England are ‘not far away’, ‘back on track’ or ‘closing the gap’ & so on, but on what basis does he espouse this stuff? Not his track record, that;’s for sure.
Why doesn’t he simply play the bath back line with his best add on’s instead of hanging out guys like Roko & Eastmond to dry. Aslo Cip will be lucky to carry the oranges… if he even make the cut.
Also, why didn’t he, e.g, at least look at Waldrom in the squad before discarding him… or not? I mean he was only the top try scorer in the Prem.
My main point is that I think it’s a disgrace to almost destroy potentially decent players’ shots at a likely once in a life time shot at a WC… & on the dubious basis of Gawd knows what basis.
And this when the ltd Farrell would need to break a leg to get out of the squad & Ford, who failed mentally v Saracens in the big 1 by kicking aimlessly down the oppo throats 3x in a row when his team needed TRIES. He & most others it seems, over rate Ford. He sings when his team’s winning, but he ain’t done all that yet at Inta’l level v the SH… & that’s what, in the end, really counts.