Re: Antoine Dupont : Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:42 pm  

BarnsleyTrinity wrote:

I think Sam was made the scapegoat for England's catastrophic failure at the 2015 World Cup .

Whilst I accept he was fast tracked by the coach Stuart Lancaster in to the England world cup squad the truth was the England camp wasn't together as a group and couldn't handle the pressure of a home world cup .

Sam wasn't anything like as bad as he was made out to be in that tournament and in my opinion Union being what it is , it was easy to blame the Rugby League lad from Heckmondwike for the complete failure of that England team .

My old PE teacher at Kettlethorpe high was Lancaster. It was bizarre seeing him on the big stage

Re: Antoine Dupont : Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:47 am  

The Avenger wrote: He was absolutely used as a scapegoat and done so totally against the facts but the Rugby Union media fell all over themselves at the opportunity to rubbish a Northern lad from Rugby League. In their game against Wales, Burgess absolutely dominated Wales and Lions centre Jamie Robert’s defensively giving him fits while running all over him when in possession. England were ahead on the scoreboard when Burgess was substituted but after he was gone Robert’s suddenly came alive and made the break from which Wales scored and won the game. It was ridiculous to blame Burgess! Completely agree. I remember after what had been said in the lead up, then how easily Sam handled Roberts, it being quite funny. For all his supposed lack of experience and better players that he'd jumped over, he just shut him down. Not only that, Roberts was an integral part in getting Wales moving forward on the front foot, with his storming centre runs, that enabled quick recycles and opened up the rest of the field, he was key to how Wales was successful in that period. Similar to how Eddie Jones used Manu Tuilagii when he came back after that world Cup, during their win streak and success he had. Ateotd as you say, England were 25-18 up when Sam was taken off, in the one World Cup game he did start. Then his replacement George Ford, Mike Ford's kid, who's a Fly Half predominantly, just didn't have the same impact and defensive qualities and it led to Wales taking the lead and their win in the last 10 minutes. Also Sam was going to be on the bench for that game before Jonathan Joseph got an injury, so Sam had to start and after this game Joseph partnered Barrett in the centres to that embarrassing defeat against Australia that gets lost because it doesn't fit agendas. Rightly Lancaster should and was torn to shreds in the media but Sam shouldn't have been a part of it, not in the way the media went about blaming the loss on Sam anyway, it should have been why did they sub him when there was absolutely no need to. It fell apart because they stupidly took him off and the replacement just got bullied by Roberts as he had done in previous games. The talk about him being fast tracked and put in ahead of more experienced players, just held no weight at all because, firstly he started one game and when one of those more experienced players came on for him, he was crap and got exposed just as they both did against Australia and other games. It was the team and the coaching that was wrong, as Sam said himself it was full of ego's, politics and snakes. He was there 10 months and Burgess played 21 games in the back-row for Bath, including the 2015 Premiership final, while England had eyes on him playing 12. How's that joined up thinking at all, if they had his best interests they both should have been working off the same sheet from the start and had him playing 12 at Bath. Sam has since said this about Ford and his thought on him, “The politics went through the roof, Burgess said. “Mike Ford wanted the England coaching job. He added: “I think probably the biggest outcome everyone wanted was, Mike Ford wanted the England coaching job. So his job was to try and sabotage Lancaster and his decision-making and his coaching methods. “I think obviously with George being his son in camp, it kind of infiltrated a little bit into the team camp. That’s just my take on it, whether that’s the reality of it or not, but that’s my reality.” “I just felt that people behind the scenes were playing a deeper game,” explained Burgess. “With George, Mike kind of infiltrated the camp – that is my take on it. “After me starting against Wales, my relationship with George completely changed, he wouldn’t talk to me, he was a bit sulky. “Knowing what I know now, I see the politics. George came on with 10 minutes to go to keep Mike and George happy. We didn’t need him on, we had the team to finish the game.” Jonathan Davies and Paul Grayson, wrote an article on planet rugby about it and they agreed and were bang on. https://www.planetrugby.com/news/if-sam-stays-on-england-win-ex-international-duo-slam-burgess-treatment-in-rugby-union-calling-world-cup-decision-madness

The Avenger wrote: He was absolutely used as a scapegoat and done so totally against the facts but the Rugby Union media fell all over themselves at the opportunity to rubbish a Northern lad from Rugby League. In their game against Wales, Burgess absolutely dominated Wales and Lions centre Jamie Robert’s defensively giving him fits while running all over him when in possession. England were ahead on the scoreboard when Burgess was substituted but after he was gone Robert’s suddenly came alive and made the break from which Wales scored and won the game. It was ridiculous to blame Burgess! Completely agree. I remember after what had been said in the lead up, then how easily Sam handled Roberts, it being quite funny. For all his supposed lack of experience and better players that he'd jumped over, he just shut him down. Not only that, Roberts was an integral part in getting Wales moving forward on the front foot, with his storming centre runs, that enabled quick recycles and opened up the rest of the field, he was key to how Wales was successful in that period. Similar to how Eddie Jones used Manu Tuilagii when he came back after that world Cup, during their win streak and success he had. Ateotd as you say, England were 25-18 up when Sam was taken off, in the one World Cup game he did start. Then his replacement George Ford, Mike Ford's kid, who's a Fly Half predominantly, just didn't have the same impact and defensive qualities and it led to Wales taking the lead and their win in the last 10 minutes. Also Sam was going to be on the bench for that game before Jonathan Joseph got an injury, so Sam had to start and after this game Joseph partnered Barrett in the centres to that embarrassing defeat against Australia that gets lost because it doesn't fit agendas. Rightly Lancaster should and was torn to shreds in the media but Sam shouldn't have been a part of it, not in the way the media went about blaming the loss on Sam anyway, it should have been why did they sub him when there was absolutely no need to. It fell apart because they stupidly took him off and the replacement just got bullied by Roberts as he had done in previous games. The talk about him being fast tracked and put in ahead of more experienced players, just held no weight at all because, firstly he started one game and when one of those more experienced players came on for him, he was crap and got exposed just as they both did against Australia and other games. It was the team and the coaching that was wrong, as Sam said himself it was full of ego's, politics and snakes. He was there 10 months and Burgess played 21 games in the back-row for Bath, including the 2015 Premiership final, while England had eyes on him playing 12. How's that joined up thinking at all, if they had his best interests they both should have been working off the same sheet from the start and had him playing 12 at Bath. Sam has since said this about Ford and his thought on him, “The politics went through the roof, Burgess said. “Mike Ford wanted the England coaching job. He added: “I think probably the biggest outcome everyone wanted was, Mike Ford wanted the England coaching job. So his job was to try and sabotage Lancaster and his decision-making and his coaching methods. “I think obviously with George being his son in camp, it kind of infiltrated a little bit into the team camp. That’s just my take on it, whether that’s the reality of it or not, but that’s my reality.” “I just felt that people behind the scenes were playing a deeper game,” explained Burgess. “With George, Mike kind of infiltrated the camp – that is my take on it. “After me starting against Wales, my relationship with George completely changed, he wouldn’t talk to me, he was a bit sulky. “Knowing what I know now, I see the politics. George came on with 10 minutes to go to keep Mike and George happy. We didn’t need him on, we had the team to finish the game.” Jonathan Davies and Paul Grayson, wrote an article on planet rugby about it and they agreed and were bang on. https://www.planetrugby.com/news/if-sam-stays-on-england-win-ex-international-duo-slam-burgess-treatment-in-rugby-union-calling-world-cup-decision-madness

[PopTart]

Re: Antoine Dupont : Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:10 am  

It was really bad but the only lovers were Rugby Union.
Sam got a shed load of money and he came back to league to continue as player and coach.

Re: Antoine Dupont : Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:13 pm  

If J Robinson had not been so great ,he would have not have been any were near the England Rugby Union team that win the World Cup .When he started playing for England they did not pass to him for the first 2 games Union as always looked down on R L and still do ,

Re: Antoine Dupont : Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:52 pm  

alegend wrote:

If J Robinson had not been so great ,he would have not have been any were near the England Rugby Union team that win the World Cup .When he started playing for England they did not pass to him for the first 2 games Union as always looked down on R L and still do ,

Yes I remember his first couple of games when he’d supported a break and would have walked a try in had they passed to him but they didn’t