'I used to watch the Bledisloes growing up... to actually be starting in one is a dream' - Robertson

I'm surprised you still cannot see beyond your own myopia regarding NZ 10's JW. That two part-time 15's are still competing for the shirt with one well into his 30's should tell you everything. If Burke had played full season at 10 for the Saders he only had to bide his time to get a shot in black.

I think that is pretty much exactly the reason he left when he did. I also don't think it means he totally have up. Essentially doing what Leicester did.

Nothing of value in this letter. There is no definitive drive towards something better. Just more of the same as usual. The most successful WC team is getting snubbed again and again for WC's hosting rights. What will make other competitions any different?

My beloved rugby is already a global sport. Why is there no SH team chosen between the Boks, AB's, Wallabies and Fiji? Like a B&I Lions team to tour Europe and America? A team that could face not only countries but also the B&I Lions? Wouldn't that make for a great spectacle that will also bring lots of eyeballs to the sport?

Instead with an Aussie in charge, rugby will become more like rugby league. Rugby will most likely become less global if we look at what have become of rugby in Australia. He can't save rugby in Australia, how will he improve the global footprint of rugby world wide?

I hope to be proven wrong and that he will raise up the sport to new heights, but I am very much in doubt. It's like hiring a gardener to a CEO position in a global company expecting great results. It just won't happen. Call me negative or call me whatever you'd like, Robinson is the wrong man for the job.

Would the pinnacle of the game really not be reached in the very near future by playing for a team like Toulouse? Burke might have put himself in a position where holding down a starting spot for any nation, but he could be putting himself in the hotbed of a new scene. Clearly he is a player that cherishes International footy as the highest level, and is possibly underselling himself, but really he might just be underselling these other nations he thinks he could represent.

Burke’s decision to test the waters with either England or Scotland has been thrown head-first into the spotlight by the relative lack of competition for the New Zealand 10 shirt.

This is the most illogical statement I've ever read in one of your articles Nick. Burke is behind 3 All Stars of All Black rugby, it might be a indictment of New Zealand rugby but it is abosolutely apparent (he might have even said so himself) why he decided to test the waters.

He mattered because he is the kind of first five-eighth New Zealand finds it most difficult to produce from its domestic set-up: the strategic schemer, the man who sees all the angles and all the bigger potential pictures with the detail of a single play.

Was it not one of your own articles that highlighted the recent All Black nature to select a running, direct threat, first five over the last decade? There are plenty of current players of Burke's caliber and style that simply don't fit the in vogue mode of what Dan Carter was in peoples minds, the five eight that ran at the slightest hole and started out as a second five. The interesting thing I find with that statement though is that I think he is firmly keeping his options open for a return to NZ.

A Kiwi product no longer belongs to New Zealand, and that is the way it is. Great credo or greater con it may be, but the free market is here to stay.

A very shortsighted and simplistic way to end a great article. You simply aren't going to find these circumstances in the future. The migration to New Zealand ended in 1975, and as that generation phases out, so too will the majority of these ancestry ties (in a rugby context) will end. It would be more accurate to say that Fergus Burke thought of himself as the last to be able to ride this wave, so why not jump on it? It is dying, and not just in the interests or Scottish of English fans.

But I cannot agree with your summary of England's style.

England were never 'running an Irish-style attack' in the 6N. Their average # of rucks won was 73 to Ireland's 107 per game in the tournament. If you run an Ireland attack you dominate possession of the ball.

So the signals were far too weak to support your claim.

Likewise the Labit/Quins attack theory. They scored some good tries on the counter v. Ireland and off set-piece v France, but that is the limit of what you can say.

There some flickers of life in attack, but generally life was dominated by the development of Felix Jones' D. And defence was the main concern in November after he left.

To pinpoint Marcus Smith as the main problem is off point.