Brian Moore tells it like it is:
It must rankle with Cipriani and others, whatever they say in public, that the selection parameters of experience, promise, performance in training, opportunity to state a case, loyalty and so on are highlighted or downplayed according to each player.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of recent union convert, Sam Burgess. His experience and achievements in League are outstanding and are evidence of character and talent. They have limited relevance to union until they are backed by solid performances at all levels in his new code.
Burgess’s case remains one of hope and promise on the field; none of it is public.
To those who say he brings something different or special, you have to ask what is it and when will we see it? Presently there is not one game to which you can refer that supports any of the claims made. There is no Burgess performance which strongly hints, let alone proves, that he is egregiously better than many other players available.
Perhaps the most contentious of all the claims made for Burgess is his presence and its effect on the squad. If you have not played at Test level and, more importantly, not had tournament experience, you cannot appreciate how much difference one player can make, positively or negatively.
Even if you have, you cannot definitively know what Burgess brings to this squad because you haven’t seen and experienced it. If it is as important as made out then it might justify selection but if he is not a starting Test player then the case for his direct affect on the team is weakened.
What nobody should pretend is that his selection is not a gamble, the extent and wisdom of which can only be decided later.
This leads to the legitimate question of why the gamble had to be made now, without waiting for Burgess to furnish proof of his union credentials?