Burgess Named In The England Squad

Its happened. Sam Burgess has been named in England's World Cup squad.

I, for one, am delighted by his inclusion. He is a fantastic player who showcased his talents in Rugby league year after year. There is no doubt Australia do not want to see Sam Burgess playing against them on October 3rd.

He is also a player who performs, if not raises his game, on the big stage as he had does time and time again in the Super League and NRL as well as for England and Great Britain.

I know he has only played for 10 months and there is still plenty of debate over what his best position is, however when you look at the options at centre his selection is a no-brainer. Luther Burrell for me should have been in the squad at the expense of Brad Barritt, who seems immune from criticism in the press. For me, his performances do not merit such an untouchable status.

Now obviously not everyone is happy with his inclusion, ex-england scrum half Matt Dawson has already commented he doesn't believe Burgess should be included. His opinion is perfectly valid however as I said when you look at the alternatives his selection should not come as much of a surprise. The likes of Billy Twelvetrees have failed to impress despite being given countless chances.

One certainty about the tournament already is that if England perform well or even win the World Cup it will be nothing to do with Sam Burgess, however the moment England lose whether in the Final, Semi-Final or even in the group stage you can guarantee he will be the main point of criticism. The rest of the squad and management will certainly get off lightly in comparison.

It may be 2015, but the snobbery from the former Rugby Union players and media towards Rugby League is still as strong as ever. It was the same in the beginning with Jason Robinson. Initially I remember the great Jeremy Guscott savaging Robinson on television, yet he is now a Rugby Union legend and treated as one of their own.

I do hope Burgess and England have a successful tournament however I am sure many in the media are already writing their articles bashing Burgess' selection just waiting for England to lose.

Surely the person to criticise is Stuart Lancaster by stating the lamentable fact that after having 4 years to prepare, a Rugby League convert who has only played the game for 10 months is the best option England have got.

In my opinion England will not win the World Cup and the main reason I believe this is Stuart Lancaster.  His selections, and more importantly his substitutions, have cost England matches in recent years. I do not understand why he is so obsessed with making so many changes in the final 20/25 minutes of matches all over the field. I hope he has learnt from past mistakes and we will not see it again in this tournament.

Ultimately, worst of all I will watch Sam Burgess being wasted at this tournament wishing he was with the England Rugby League for their 3 match test series with New Zealand in early November.  

Eastmond Heads To Bath As League Continues To Lose Its Stars

Eastmond on his way to bath 

With the recent announcement that Kyle Eastmond is leaving St Helens to join Bath it is a sad day for the game. One of the future stars in Rugby League will have left at the age of 21. He has conquered nothing in Rugby League with no winners medals.

'One that left earlier'
Ashton proved great success in Union

I could understand if he had won everything and wanted a new challenge like Jason Robinson did. I do believe that losing these players at an increasingly early age should worry the RFL. Before it was the older players Robinson, Andy Farrell and Henry Paul but recently Chris Ashton and now Eastmond both in their early 20's. Lee Smith also left and although he came back it is worrying how many good young players are being tempted. Maybe it is the money, Rugby Union has far greater financial power. Maybe its the prospect of playing in competitions such as the Heineken Cup or on the International stage in the Six Nations or in World Cup's in front of 80/90 thousand. League lacks these competitions competitiveness. 

Despite New Zealand's recent triumphs in League, which has been great to see, it is still only them and Australia. England are a far away third and after that you really are struggling. Union is now thought of by the world when people say Rugby. The Rugby Football League (RFL) were slow to react and Union stole a march and the initiative. As a result League has been left behind. The game itself is great  and as a spectacle is second to none. It has a host of famous fans from others sports including the likes of Ryan Giggs and Wayne Rooney. The newer rules introduced are good e.g. the idea of the 40/20 in 1999. 

Forward thinking- Video Technology 

It move to a summer sport has been a success and it has always been trying to improve e.g one of the first sports to use video technology in 1996, another major success. This has since been copied by Union as well as many other sports. It is a different game to Union as has pace, freedom and constant play. However the people who run Union have got the marketing side right. I know there is an argument for the coverage Union gets over League for many reasons such as background and snobbery however for me the RFL could and should have done more. In Union players have higher profiles due to the marketing and they have spread the game worldwide. Though still true that there is only 9 genuine teams. Although they have developing sides and the game is very strong in France (unlike League) and South Africa where League is non-exsistent. Having been left behind it is very tough for League to compete. The losing of stars also doesn't help. If Sam Tomkins of Wigan was now to leave it would be a disaster. The RFL must act as otherwise the game will go into further decline. It can not survive in England with many of the teams coming from only two counties. 

For too long people in the North of England want the game to be kept in the M62 corridor. They like it as 'their game' that no one really knows about. However this attitude for me must change if the sport is to get national recognition and international success.

Many will argue that it is flattering that other sports come and take the players and that the system of youth development is so good these players will be replaced and the game continued. For example I hear Jonny Lomax is to replace Eastmond. He is another young up and coming star. However despite the fact that I agree with this view I do not think it is healthy for the game. 

I do not really understand Eastmond's decision as he could have achieved so much and I would liked him to have seen the Australian NRL as a bigger challenge then going to Union. Union domestic game is poor as the only care is for the Heineken Cup and so for me the International pull and money may have done it. I wish him all the best however feel it is a mistake that he will later regret.