The question reverberating through English rugby circles isn’t whether Steve Borthwick’s position is secure – the Rugby Football Union has publicly backed him – but rather, what truly sparked England’s improved performance against France in their recent Six Nations clash. Was it a tactical shift orchestrated by Borthwick, or did the players, frustrated with earlier results, take matters into their own hands? This is the central inquiry Bill Sweeney, the RFU’s chief executive, and his review panel must address in the coming weeks, as they dissect what was ultimately England’s worst-ever Six Nations championship.
Despite the encouraging display in Paris, the RFU isn’t prepared to overlook the broader failings of the tournament. Reports suggest the governing body is determined to understand the root causes of the team’s struggles, acknowledging that the positive showing against France doesn’t erase the overall disappointing campaign. The focus will be on identifying what prompted the change in approach against France and, crucially, how to ensure England can replicate that intensity and tactical flexibility consistently.
Sweeney has been cautioned against getting lost in excessive data analysis. The priority, according to sources, is to address fundamental issues like discipline, scrutinize the defensive coaching under Richard Wigglesworth, and evaluate decision-making in critical moments. But, the core question remains: was the renewed approach against France a calculated move by Borthwick, or a response driven by the players themselves?
If Borthwick was the architect of the change, the delay in implementing it – waiting until the final match of the tournament – raises questions about his leadership. Why did it take until round five to see England play with a freedom and attacking intent that resonated with supporters? While tactical adjustments are necessary against different opponents, the transformation in Paris was stark. If, however, the players instigated the shift, it suggests a potential challenge to Borthwick’s authority, even if no overt dissent has been publicly expressed.
Maro Itoje’s recent emphasis on demonstrating character hints at a growing awareness within the squad that a purely tactical approach has limitations. Jamie George, speaking after the match against France, emphasized the team’s unity, stating, “It would have been so effortless for us to splinter off, and I’ve been part of many teams that have, and there’s been whispers in corridors and there’s been doubts about gameplan and personnel,” but adding, “Honestly, there has been none of it. We’ve been clear. We’ve been confident in the people that we have, staff and players, and we have stayed so tight.”
The RFU review panel must also investigate why England consistently requires a crisis to unlock their potential. Ollie Chessum, reportedly in a determined mood leading up to the France match, delivered his best performance in an England shirt, his try celebration a visible display of passion. But why does it take a perceived slight to ignite that level of intensity? Is it a failing of the coaching staff to inspire that emotional pitch consistently, or does it reflect a deeper issue within the squad?
The Search for Consistent Intensity
The issue of needing adversity to perform isn’t new; it predates Borthwick’s tenure. Some suggest it’s a cultural problem, with teams like South Africa drawing strength from national pride, or Scotland rallying around their coach, Gregor Townsend, after a disappointing start to their Six Nations campaign. For England, the lines between patriotism and nationalism are blurred, and previous performances against Scotland and Ireland lacked the same fighting spirit displayed in Paris. The Parisian performance, fueled by a sense of being underestimated, demonstrated a collective willingness to fight.
George reiterated the team’s strong internal environment, stating, “It’s an excellent programme as a whole…the togetherness and how tight we have been over this period of time is the biggest indicator that the right people are in the room.” However, the crucial question remains: can the RFU create an environment that fosters that level of performance consistently, without needing to be backed into a corner?
The RFU’s assessment will be pivotal in determining the future direction of England rugby. The backing of Steve Borthwick, as reported by Laredo Morning Times and MSN, is contingent on a thorough investigation into the team’s shortcomings.
The coming weeks will be critical as the RFU attempts to unravel the complexities of England’s Six Nations campaign. The ultimate goal is to establish a sustainable path to success, one that doesn’t rely on moments of crisis but instead fosters a consistent level of performance and a clear sense of purpose. The future of England rugby may well depend on finding the right balance between coaching direction and player agency.
What do you think was the biggest factor in England’s improved performance against France? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
