Sam Burgess believes England 2015 World Cup campaign undermined by Mike Ford

[twitchy]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... ndermined/





Sam Burgess believes England’s ill-fated World Cup campaign in 2015 was undermined by Mike Ford, then his head coach at Bath, and that he was used as a “pawn” to “sabotage” Stuart Lancaster.

Burgess has also revealed that George Ford stopped speaking to him in the build-up to the crucial pool match against Wales that England lost 28-25 before exiting their home tournament with defeat by Australia.

In a candid and comprehensive interview on the House of Rugby podcast, Burgess said that he rang Eddie Jones four years later to advise the Australian about how to avoid a similarly disastrous campaign in Japan.

According to Burgess, who was selected for England’s World Cup squad just over 18 months after arriving in the 15-a-side code from South Sydney Rabbitohs as an NRL champion, “politics” meant he was selected to start at inside centre to face Wales, with George Ford dropping to the bench.

“I just felt that people behind the scenes were playing a deeper game,” Burgess explained. “I think the biggest thing was that Mike Ford wanted the England coaching job.

“With George being his son, I think that infiltrated into the camp. After me starting against Wales, my relationship with George completely changed. He wouldn’t talk to me.

“We lost, fell out of the World Cup and that’s when I went back to Bath and I couldn’t sit in the same room as Mike. I had to tell him I couldn’t play for him anymore [because] I’d lost respect for him.”

In conversation with co-hosts Alex Payne and James Haskell, a former England colleague, Burgess voiced his frustration with Mike Ford’s public insistence that Burgess would remain in the back row for Bath, who reached the 2015 Premiership final, regardless of his exploits with England.

Burgess also questioned why George Ford, who replaced him with 70 minutes gone and England leading 25-18, had been brought on at all against Wales.

After the World Cup, Burgess told Mike Ford, now defence coach at Leicester Tigers,that he felt “like a pawn” in Ford’s “game of chess”. He subsequently secured a return to South Sydney.

Burgess, who announced his retirement from rugby league last October at the age of 30 due to complications with a shoulder injury, now coaches defence as part of a varied backroom role at South Sydney and works as an NRL pundit.

[Mellsblue]

Love the idea that the Fords sabotaged the World Cup campaign so MF could take over. Standard Burgess - it couldn’t possibly be my fault. That’s pretty common amongst world class athletes, and Nicklas Bendtner*, but Burgess is one of the better ones at taking this belief public.

* http://en.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/72181.html

[Tigersman]

Juicy.

Although I don't like Ford and do think he is a snake.
I suspect there is more to this story than Burgess leads on TBH. Not like he has the cleanest of records in terms of being two face.

Like is he accusing George ford of losing the game to get Lancaster fired and Mike hired?

Sports writers will eat this up.

[fivepointer]

Burgess was ridiculously overhyped and should be eternally grateful that he was given an opportunity at Bath, gained caps for England that were never justified and had the amazing good fortune to play in a home WC.
He got far more than his ability in Union deserved.
What a feckin' tosser.

[Puja]

It's amazing how for 5 years, absolutely no-one has heard even a whiff of a rumour about this nefarious plan by Ford to take over England using Burgess as his pawn. I mean, it's absolutely not off-brand for MFord, but no-one mentioning it at all? In 5 years?

What a load of shite from someone who no longer has any relevance in his own sport and won't stop whining that union was horrible and mean to him despite the fact that he's practically forgotten by followers of this sport.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

If he'd said 2007 or 2011, I'd have had some sypathy; but 2015? Yeah, that's some leap to think that George threw a game in order to get his dad an RFU job after being ditched the RFU

[Mikey Brown]

I don’t even understand the plan. What is he suggesting either Ford actually did?

Why were they not speaking when he returned to Bath? Is it because we were beating Wales before Ford senior had Burgess subbed off (somehow) so that Ford junior could come on and throw the game?

[Puja]

If he'd said 2007 or 2011, I'd have had some sypathy; but 2015? Yeah, that's some leap to think that George threw a game in order to get his dad an RFU job after being ditched the RFU

And Mike Ford missed out the crucial final step of the plan, which was to actually apply for the England job once it had been vacated! That fool!

On first reading I had actually assumed that MFord was in the England setup during this alleged coup cause, you know, that's what he does. It actually took a second of thought to remember that he wasn't actually involved in the England setup in 2015 and thus this already batshit insane theory went an extra level more crazy.

The thing that is most annoying isn't the conspiracy theory, but him traducing MFord for publically saying he was going to stay in the back row. Ford had played him consistently in the back row. They'd lost Fearns because of it. They'd given him one-on-one coaching with Louw about it. They'd played him there in the Prem final. Of course they saw him as a back row. And he was showing signs of turning into a pretty useful option there too before he chucked in the towel and went crying back to mummy because the union boys were meeeeeann to meeeee!!!

Puja

[Puja]

I don’t even understand the plan. What is he suggesting either Ford actually did?

Why were they not speaking when he returned to Bath? Is it because we were beating Wales before Ford senior had Burgess subbed off (somehow) so that Ford junior could come on and throw the game?

GFord used his mental powers to make Barritt press despite being short of numbers and thus give away the crucial try. Then he made Brown go off on his own to give away the turnover penalty that put Wales in the lead. Then he called the lineout to the wrong place and made our forwards do the world's slowest maul drill to give away our last chance.

It's all obvious when you look at it. Wake up sheeple!

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I don’t even understand the plan. What is he suggesting either Ford actually did?

Why were they not speaking when he returned to Bath? Is it because we were beating Wales before Ford senior had Burgess subbed off (somehow) so that Ford junior could come on and throw the game?

GFord used his mental powers to make Barritt press despite being short of numbers and thus give away the crucial try. Then he made Brown go off on his own to give away the turnover penalty that put Wales in the lead. Then he called the lineout to the wrong place and made our forwards do the world's slowest maul drill to give away our last chance.

It's all obvious when you look at it. Wake up sheeple!

Puja

Jesus Christ, it must torment you having such a good memory of that day. I was still trying to work out whether Farrell was playing 12 yet at that point.

[Puja]

I don’t even understand the plan. What is he suggesting either Ford actually did?

Why were they not speaking when he returned to Bath? Is it because we were beating Wales before Ford senior had Burgess subbed off (somehow) so that Ford junior could come on and throw the game?

GFord used his mental powers to make Barritt press despite being short of numbers and thus give away the crucial try. Then he made Brown go off on his own to give away the turnover penalty that put Wales in the lead. Then he called the lineout to the wrong place and made our forwards do the world's slowest maul drill to give away our last chance.

It's all obvious when you look at it. Wake up sheeple!

Puja

Jesus Christ, it must torment you having such a good memory of that day. I was still trying to work out whether Farrell was playing 12 yet at that point.

My memory's not that great (despite being at the match ); I actually went and looked at some highlights to see whether Ford was even involved in any of the big moments. As it turns out, the only one he had any input into was the kick to the corner, which he drilled to within 5m of the line, like the obvious traitor that he is.

Burgess is so obsessed with the idea that people blame him for the RWC defeats and is missing the point that no-one does. He's right, he was solidly bang average in both big games and did very little actively wrong - the mistakes came from dropping Ford for Farrell, putting Barritt at 13 and just generally not being in the same class as a very good Australian side. What everyone criticised him for was being a self-centred tourist who took up a load of oxygen and then flounced off at the perception people were mean, leaving Bath and MFord firmly in the lurch after they'd put a lot of time and effort into helping him achieve what he wanted out of his excursion.

Puja

[Digby]

Burgess was utter shite in attack against Wales, but so were Farrell and Barritt, and Burgess has the excuse he was a bad flanker picked at 12. I still think it's a shame Burgess didn't come earlier to play 6 or stick around to play 6, because he certainly had ability

[Digby]

And I know I've said this a few times before but Burgess is comedy gold for the final Aussie try, he spends so much time being in the wrong place unable to influence events that Homer might tire of the story, and he was a man who liked an epic

[Mikey Brown]

This is actually making me want to rewatch these games.

[Danno]

Is Burgess hoping for a late entry to the US election race?

[Danno]

Burgess was utter shite in attack against Wales, but so were Farrell and Barritt, and Burgess has the excuse he was a bad flanker picked at 12. I still think it's a shame Burgess didn't come earlier to play 6 or stick around to play 6, because he certainly had ability

Oh **** me, did we pick Barritt at 13?

[Puja]

Burgess was utter shite in attack against Wales, but so were Farrell and Barritt, and Burgess has the excuse he was a bad flanker picked at 12. I still think it's a shame Burgess didn't come earlier to play 6 or stick around to play 6, because he certainly had ability

Oh **** me, did we pick Barritt at 13?

As seen here as the last man on the defensive line:


A pretty decent 12, but an absolutely dire 13 with absolutely no idea how to position himself in defence in the wide channels. Just watching him continue to press up, despite the clear overlap, even after the pass has clearly beaten him, makes my brain hurt.

Burgess didn't lose us the game - picking both him and Barritt did. As soon as Joseph was ruled out, we should have picked Slade rather than worrying about Wales being a bit big and regressing to Farrel plus our biggest possible midfield.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I don't give a toss about Burgess but I still have reservations about George Ford which puts me at odds with most on here. What I do not understand is his application of his skill-set and its interpretation by this board on the one hand and rugby punditry on the other. Why do most on here want him at 10 ahead of Farrell when, just this week, all the pundits in the DT (half a fozen or so) picked Farrell in their Lions XV? Nobody even mentioned Ford.

Did Ford stop speaking to Burgess? Who gives a monkey's foreskin now? But, is there a tiny smidgeon of doubt about Ford's team ethic? Might that account for his status in punditry's rating?

It's the old Ford/Farrell thing. Will it only go away when both are off the scene? I think I look forward to that, if only so that we have a playmaker who has no high-profile paternal coaching influence.

[Which Tyler]

Burgess is so obsessed with the idea that people blame him for the RWC defeats and is missing the point that no-one does. He's right, he was solidly bang average in both big games and did very little actively wrong - the mistakes came from dropping Ford for Farrell, putting Barritt at 13 and just generally not being in the same class as a very good Australian side. What everyone criticised him for was being a self-centred tourist who took up a load of oxygen and then flounced off at the perception people were mean, leaving Bath and MFord firmly in the lurch after they'd put a lot of time and effort into helping him achieve what he wanted out of his excursion.

And from a cub perspective, we were pissed off at the way he'd built up this image of himself as being a man of his word; we sacrificed Fearns and Devoto on the alter of accomodating [Redacted] - and a shit tonne of training time developing moves explicitly for him - and he plays not 1 single minute for us after the RWC.

For his England career - we're pissed off about how he was used and rushed in too early - which is nothing to do with the man himself.
For his club career - we're pissed off with himself for his sheer arrogance, entitlement, and sacrifices the club are still paying for now.

I still have no recollection of anyone particularly ragging on [Redacted] for his play in the RWC - beyond being out of position on occassion - usually accompanied with a "as you'd expect"

[Digby]

Oakyboy already setting out a strong position against Grayson, and against the causes of Grayson

[Scrumhead]

I don't give a toss about Burgess but I still have reservations about George Ford which puts me at odds with most on here. What I do not understand is his application of his skill-set and its interpretation by this board on the one hand and rugby punditry on the other. Why do most on here want him at 10 ahead of Farrell when, just this week, all the pundits in the DT (half a fozen or so) picked Farrell in their Lions XV? Nobody even mentioned Ford.

Did Ford stop speaking to Burgess? Who gives a monkey's foreskin now? But, is there a tiny smidgeon of doubt about Ford's team ethic? Might that account for his status in punditry's rating?

It's the old Ford/Farrell thing. Will it only go away when both are off the scene? I think I look forward to that, if only so that we have a playmaker who has no high-profile paternal coaching influence.

Most rugby pundits are pretty clueless and, with some exceptions, the general standard of rugby reporting is awful IMO.

As for Barnes, Lord Bald, McGeechan etc. can you honestly tell me that you read/listen to what they say without regularly thinking WTAF?

[Mellsblue]

In Barnes’s defence, he’s more in line with RR’s thinking these days.
Geech and SCW are yesterday’s men. By example, allegedly, a lot of issues at Leeds/Yorkshire, both on and off the field, had Geech’s involvement to varying degrees.
Even Dallaglio, a man so impartial that Farrell Jnr used to babysit for him, has stopped the love bombing.
That Gatland, and others who view the game through the same lens, love him is no surprise. Same can be said of plenty others who still believe big is best. Important to note that Gatland also moved him to IC after one game in NZ so it might be that the thought of Farrell at 10 is better than the reality, even when playing Gatball.
It would interesting to see how Ford v Farrell would be perceived in NZ. Barrett tends to give up yards in d, like lots and lots of 10’s, yet is feted due to his attacking prowess.
There were also plenty of pundits who had Ford in or on the bench of their RWC team.


More importantly, how did this become a F v F thread. Ah yes.....

[Tigersman]

One thing I really dislike about Lancaster doing well at Leinster.
Is how desperate people have become to shift blame from him in regards to the 2015 RWC.
First it was the likes of Vunipola and Easter stuff.
Then their was this massive thing that England was actually run by Farrell senior.
Now it's Mike Ford comments to the press.

Whereas Eddie Jones who actually won things got 100x more stick from the press.

[Stom]

Could it not simply be that Eddie is a bit of an arse, while Burt is a nice guy?

[Mellsblue]

Could it not simply be that Eddie is a bit of an arse, while Burt is a nice guy?

Yep. Plus parachuting in SH players and not being English.
That said, the vitriol aimed at him, and Robshaw, at the time was bad. Things have mellowed with time.