Don't know about Sam Burgess, but there's a good account from Benji Marshall following his U-turn back to the NRL after 6 games of RU in 2014: http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league ... zqyah.html

Don't know about Sam Burgess, but there's a good account from Benji Marshall following his U-turn back to the NRL after 6 games of RU in 2014: http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league ... zqyah.html

Interesting that Your Call on 5 Live this morning was about Sam's return to RL - lots of talk about RU's failure to manage him properly and how the U-turn was an embarrassment to RU. I remember no such debate when he made the switch in the first place - the news then was all about the value to RU, with no lamenting the loss to League.

Jon Wilkin gave an intelligent and reasoned contribution by the way - avoided the temptation to talk up RL in favour of RU, but was very clear about Burgess' qualities as a man and a player - and how those qualities would be utilised in RL.

I do think Wilkin speaks well and intelligently on TV.

Wilkin unscripted is superb. Unfortunately this appears to happen less and less these days. Either he's toeing the line to curry favour with his pro-establishment BBC benefactors - or he's wearing his player's union hat.

One or the other - the end result invariably seems like it's been spat out of a giant risk-assessment calculation.

IMO, punditry has nothing to do with the number of syllables you can stuff into a soundbite. You have to be willing to say those unpleasant things which need saying - even if by doing so you are risking your career.

Far too many players appear to act as though SKY & the BBC are a revenue stream which can and must be milked for as long as possible once the foot is in the door. The idea that punditry is a career rather than a temporary sounding board for honest opinion is a relatively new phenomenon (mostly derived from the Premiership). No player is so interesting that we must be forced to suffer him for decades - especially when he's doing his level best to be anything other than spontaneous, independent and, well ... honest.

Well, as someone who sat through the first thousand years of Alan Shearer's reign on MoTD... I agree!

I thought Wilkins analogy of the two codes was very good. Comparing Union to Chess (More technical, slower, specific roles) and League to Draughts (More Open play and faster). Wilkin and l should imagine many league players fully understand that the technical restrictive side of union is difficult to muster. Far easier for a Union player to adapt to Leagues running game, I can't think of one high profile British League Player to become a star player in Union other than Robinson.

The problem with Sam as mentioned is the England set up which is far more technical and restrictive than the All Backs, Australia, Argentina and Wales who have better passing games.

Comparing RL to checkers is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

It was a good comparison in the context wilkin was using it - If you think of union as chess, then league is checkers. The simpler more open game. I don't understand what's so ridiculous.

In context, it made perfect sense; he talked about the beauty of league being in it's simplicity - and that it required a greater level of work rate and intensity - both qualities that Burgess can deliver on in spades.

On the punditry point - Peacock had sufficient bottle to call out the snobbery of RU in the test preview earlier today - much to Davies' annoyance. Good on him for that.

Anyhow - while RU gazes at its own navel for the next 12 months, Sam is back in the game; and the next big name who Farrell targets will likely think twice, having seen Burgess' treatment at the hands of the RU establishment.

Except it carries with it the stereotype of chess being a game for intelligent, thoughtful people and checkers the game for everyone else who can't get the hang of chess.

League is every bit as complex and challenging to play well as Union, but with fewer arcane laws to confuse the watching viewer.