What a waste of "rugby" talent.

No he is waving the flag for rugby union. Never understood why league fans think that league players playing union is somehow good for our sport.

When he first signed for bath I heard Brian noble and others say how if he plays at Twickenham in s world cup it would be great for rugby league.

Where do people get these crazy ideas from? It's more inferior complex and basically saying that a rugby league player is not big until he puts on an England rugby union Jersey.

Can't imagine the media and fans in Sydney are saying that Sam burgess playing union for England is great for rugby league.

Agreed.

The reason is simple if you take off your Stevie Wonder's. Rugby Union outside of Sydney is a massively more popular sport with a huge worldwide TV audience.

Therefore just as Jason Robinson's success over a decade ago was good for Rugby League. Sam Burgess has had more mentions and national sports headlines in the last week than the SL has done all year. In each case his former League CV is rolled out for all to read therefore if he achieves some success in his short and limited Union career this will reflect well on his RL upbringing.

RL has such a low media profile that the BBC, on the day they relied on our Challenge Cup final to fill their Saturday BBC1 afternoon programne could not find any time to promote it on all their Breakfast time every 20 minute sports slots. Most national newspapers do not even cover SL.

Which doesn't alter the fact that the clear sub-text as presented to the media re Burgess (and as it was with Robinson in his time) is

"good league player, yes, but can he hack it at the 'proper' version of the sport?". This patronising view is not good for RL.

Which is precisely why I said "I hope he gets the chance to impress on the big stage and wave the flag for League."

Because if he did show what he can really do then this would make so many of the League blind media pundits have to eat their words!

It is of course dreadful for rugby league. To think otherwise is stupid. A lot of British RL's major stars have came from RU in the past. Now that the best of our small talent pool goes to play another game or to play in Australia is dreadful for the British game, which is going backwards at a great rate of knots.

Of course losing SL stars to Union or the NRL is a bad thing. But my point was having already lost Burgess to Union last year it will be good for League if he now makes a success on the big stage which will raise the League profile in a major way. If he fails to impress then we get the bad publicity of yet another league player who they will report as not good enough to reach the grade in Union.

I still don't see why his success would be of any benefit whatsover to RL. Will it generate new supporters or sponsrs? Of course not - they will be attracted to Union where he stars!

Agreed.

The 'benefit to league' stuff is horse manure. If he (or any other convert) does well, the only thing guaranteed to happen is more players lost to RL. It will not translate into a single extra spectator at a SL game, or more sponsorship money or any other actual tangible benefit. On the downside, England's RL team is massively weaker because our best forward (by some distance) isn't available. That's a tangible loss, as are the other converts to RU.

I'm having the same discussion with NFL fanboys re Jarryd Hayne. Loads of people oddly whooping it up for Hayne, but perhaps won't be so happy when the NFL starts picking up more players. About the best they can come up with is 'it makes league look good'. Wow. Are we so insecure we need a player to excel in a different sport to know that?

It seems there are many League supporters who are stuck in the past and are insecure enough to begrudge a fine rugby player success in his chosen future on the main international stage. Any publicity is good for a minority sport and any positive headline publicity that shows league produces outstanding players has to be good for our game. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of publicity principles.

To further suggest if Burgess is successful for England we will loose more players to Union is naive and an excuse for a failure to accept the real world. Since Union turned pro it has come on in leaps and bounds as a spectator sport and the 'Union product' now attracts serious investors and tv rights aound the globe. Do you seriously think that Union clubs will not be targetting League talent anyway? If League players are seen to be better than Union players you could argue that it would attract more youngsters to League to acquire those skills.

I am fortunate to appreciate both forms of rugby and have fond memories of seeing many of the Union greats who moved to League enhance our game at the highest level. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the big cheque book is with the Union boys we cannot just shout "foul" when their scouts come around.

League has to raise it's image if it is to survive and get away from this sort of small time thinking.

Your missing the point completely. Is anyone really begrudging burgess or hayne in there new chosen careers.

I am have not read one convincing argument in this thread on how burgess playing in the union world cup will raise leagues profile. It won't raise rugby league's profile one bit. We have had other ex league players put on the England rugby union Jersey since Robinson and its not like it did anything for rugby league.

Do you think the ITV rugby union commentary team will tell its audience how league is great sport and its where burgess, falou, SBW learnt there skills so please go and watch it. I wouldn't expect them to do this so its totally illogical to think it would happen.

Have RU papers like the times suddenly decided that they have been wrong ignoring league and will now expand its coverage all because of Sam burgess?

You know they haven't and they won't do so in the future. They talk about Sam burgess because he is now a rugby union player.

When Sam burgess makes his return to rugby league you won't see his name mentioned in the papers like the times ever again.

Next you will be saying that Israel falou raises rugby league profile when playing first in the AFL and now playing union for the wallabies.

I think we all agree that rugby league has to raise its profile but if you are seriously telling me that by playing rugby union is one way of achieving this goal then I cannot agree with you.

If the ultimate goal for rugby league players is to play at Twickenham wearing a England union Jersey then why are we even bothering with rugby league as a sport.

Biggest waste of athletic talent I have ever seen. I hope they are Paying him a Motza because his job satisfaction must suck!

Hayne on a $100k retainer ATM will get paid a measly US$500k/year for his services (minimum wage) IF he gets into the 49'ers 53 man squad but already is being praised and talked about by everyone including the aussie press whom have him on headline news after his two preseason performances. Job satisfaction compared to Burgess must be hugely better right now but for a shed less coin!

I'm sure Sam will shed a tear and then wipe it away with a tenner. By the way....the Aussie press are bound to cover an Aussie abroad. We've got a kiwi in the NBA..... To read papers here you'd think he was bigger than Jordan

My point Juan is that there is simply no upside whatsoever from Burgess playing RU, which was your original point.

The fact that RL needs to look to itself to stop players going to RU is valid, but a different point entirely.

I do think though that the more Lee Smiths/Chev Walkers that go to RU rather than Jason Robinsons, the less likely it is for individual RU clubs to risk big money on them. To me RU clubs are making the same mistake as many RL clubs did, signing star RL players without really looking at whether they are even likely to make good RU players. Sam Burgess will probably be a reasonable success in RU (getting to a WC as a centre after his club deciding he'll never make one is pretty good going), but will never have the sort of impact he had in RL. He's one of those players that screams RL.

Burgess was signed for one reason - to counteract SBW following his RLWC performance.

Watched the 'highlights' of Eng v Ireland, Burgess came on late and made one big hit leading to an Ireland dropped ball & subsequent England try, it was one of the 3 or 4 actual highlights of the game. He did however drop a pass in a planned (read blindingly obvious) move into heavy traffic.
There are a couple of the England backs I'd like to see in RL who had a good go tbh and I think Courtney Laws has always had something about him.

The biggest thing I noticed though and still a massive issue that England /Lancaster can't seem to address/fix and IMO the reason they won't make the semi finals is their forwards/halfbacks unwillingness to get the ball out wide where their danger men are. FFS it's basic rugby, time and time again you had a couple of fatties rolling up a yard or so, a few more pile in to 'secure' the ball & slowing the play down and giving the defence time to have a fag, half a mild and a slash in the bogs before finally setting their line. The alternate was some basic passing to the next man outside giving the centres/wingers a bit of space to have a crack which they'd already done early doors with success.
So called international level players at the pinnacle of their sport making such rudimentary mistakes it was cringeworthy, good job the BBC now has a x128 forward button on the iplayer

I watched it and thought just the same, they really butchered one easy one on the right wing in the second half.

The two England wingers were actually their best performers. Watson for one would make a decent RL player I reckon. Joseph, too, he actually has a bit of footwork, which seems distressingly rare in RU backs.

I'm guessing you find every sport cringeworthy as international level players of all sports make rudimentary mistakes. The players you are talking about were sublime during the 6 Nations though.

WTF???If you're going to comment then at least have a modicum of knowledge.....

SBW featured for 17 minutes (including 10 in the sin bin) COMBINED during the QF/SF and Final of RUWC 2011. He is again, 3rd or 4th choice cover for the All Blacks midfield and I suspect the same stands for Burgess and England...neither will feature in big games until the last 10 or if there's an injury!

I can't think of a single sporting team which has literally been dour, defensive and functional throughout the forty-odd years I've watched the telly. A single team - [iapart from England RU[/i.

It's like every England team which has taken the field has sworn some kind of blood-oath not to play entertaining rugby. They were godawful to watch in the seventies. They were godawful to watch in the eighties. The nineties.

Their only win of any real significance (the RWC) seemed like an accident where someone hadn't told Jason Robinson that he couldn't sidestep or beat his opposite number.

Whilst we've locked ourselves into one pattern of play (overwhelm the opposition through size and strength in the forwards, box kick for territory, mop up the penalties, hurl one after the other prop-sized inside centre at the defence until it cracks etc.) NZ, Australia, South Africa and even Wales! have produced several genuinely entertaining sides who even in defeat can thrill the crowd with exciting play.

It's embarrassing. And selecting Burgess as yet another battering-ram centre (despite the fact that he was never a rapid forward in RL!) is symptomatic of an England setup which simply cannot help itself.

Sam Burgess will be back at South Sydney by 2017 at the latest, and then off to the NFL faster than you can say "Jarryd Hayne."

I notice you didn't include the last 4 years and with good reason, under Lancaster England have progressively played better rugby and were the best team in the 6 Nations. They came to the Millennium Stadium in a hostile atmosphere and played attractive expansive rugby (I was there to witness it). I've also seen England play good rugby at times in the last 30 years and Wales play rubbish quite often (including Saturday) so using the odd experimental friendly to make such a sweeping generalisation doesn't hold up.