The Sam Burgess Dilemma

There seems to be a perpetual debate at the moment over whether Sam Burgess should be in the England squad for the World Cup, and if he is, where he should play.

Mike Ford has made it very clear that he sees Slammin' Sam as a flanker, and should he make the England squad, we can expect to see him playing there when he returns after the World Cup. However, reports suggest that Stuart Lancaster will be playing Burgess in the centre during the warm up games against France.

Which is best?

I think the answer to that question has to be considered as what is best for the team as a whole, and the game plan that England are likely to play. Burgess certainly shone as a flanker towards the tail end of the domestic season, and throughout the Premiership Final, and many refer to this in order to support the argument that he should play in the forwards. However, bear in mind that while playing in the centre for Bath, he was still learning the game of rugby union; had it perhaps been that he started at flanker, he might have shone equally as well at centre. Burgess is certainly a man with an immeasurable talent, and in many respects, it's a shame that he didn't make the switch to union six to twelve months earlier. This would have given him more opportunity to learn the game and cement a place in the England squad coming into the World Cup.

Fitting the game plan

The question is then: what does Sam Burgess provide that England are lacking?

England have depth in the back row, but with the unbloodied Calum Clark, and Matt Kvesic currently on 2 caps, they lack the depth of international experience. First choices here have to be Wood and Robshaw, but the gamble would not be too great in having Burgess as a supporting flanker who can make a big impact coming off the bench.

England certainly have a lot of talent in the centre, and I think everyone would be surprised if Jonathan Joseph didn't start at 13 given his international performances of late, which leaves a number of players vying for inside centre. I would take Eastmond as a direct replacement for Joseph, which leaves Brad Barritt, Luther Burrell and Billy Twelvetrees fighting for the shirt.

So, where does Burgess fit into this? There has been talk that Lancaster is moulding him as a direct replacement for Manu Tuilagi, which doesn't seem too absurd when you consider the stature of both. However, I think this does a disservice to Burgess; he has a great offload game, where as Tuilagi, and certainly Luther Burrell, are too blinkered at times. So often I have seen Burgess break through the gain line and look to offload the ball out of the tackle Sonny Bill-esque, however more often than not, the runners weren't there to capitalise. This is one of the key areas that teams such as New Zealand do so well, utilising a big ball carrier at 12 off the shoulder of the 10, and running good supporting lines for the offload, before capitalising on the broken field. Sonny Bill Williams, and Ma'a Nonu spring to mind. So going forward Burgess can certainly make an impact; his lines of run and his offloading are certainly the key components England will require at inside centre.

While he certainly fits in going forward, it is defensively that I think he is key. Owen Farrell or George Ford will start at 10, that is a given, but which it will be depends on the style of game that England want to play. Ford is the smaller of the two and while he has shown he is defensively capable, the opposition will no doubt target his stature as a weak point. Farrell on the other hand is two stone heavier and is less likely to be targeted as a weak link in the midfield. So with that in mind, if England want to lean towards a more attacking style of play, perhaps against teams they should be beating such as Fiji and Uruguay, or because of a diminutive opposition midfield, we are likely to see Ford and Burgess take centre stage, where Burgess can support Ford defensively in the midfield. I think against Wales, where the game will be a lot tighter, we might see Farrell and Burgess in the midfield to front up against the raw power of the welsh three quarters. Then, for games where territory is key and the opposition have a balanced midfield, perhaps against Australia, we might see Farrell and Barritt who complement each other defensively, and both provide kicking options.

One thing that remains to be seen, is Burgess' defensive positioning when played at centre. It might not be too much of a problem when playing Uruguay or Fiji, but if he is in the mix for the Wales game, they are certainly the team who will ensure he is found out.

Conclusion

There have been plenty of players who have made the switch over the years, some with more success than others, but I think Burgess has shown in his handful of games for Bath that he is certainly not lacking. In truth, I would like to see him playing in the same role for Bath as I have outlined above for England, sitting between Ford and Joseph.

Either way, I do however believe that he should go to the World Cup. At this stage, he is still largely an unknown quantity, but sometimes that can be the difference between winning and losing.

Filed under: Rugby World Cup, England
Written by: Edward Kerr
Follow: @edwardrkerr · @therugbymag