Did England play like that because of Steve Borthwick or in spite of him? For all that the Rugby Football Union will deep dive, look under the bonnet, get into the weeds – pick your own favourite bit of corporate speak – it is the fundamental question that Bill Sweeney and his review panel must ask in the coming weeks. Did Borthwick liberate his players against France, or did they take matters into their own hands?
As usual, the panel will include input from Sweeney and Conor O’Shea as well as those from outside the building who insist on anonymity. It is said that despite the huge upswing in performance in defeat against France, the RFU is still determined to establish what went wrong during this Six Nations. That is a positive sign because when the dust settles, this still goes down as their worst-ever championship. The noises coming from the RFU suggest that they will not be blinded by the razzle-dazzle in Paris, that Borthwick still has a case to answer.
A memo for Sweeney: do not drown in a deluge of data, do not get bogged down in too much detail. Address England’s desperate discipline, scrutinise Richard Wigglesworth’s role as coach of a porous defence, the absence of clear thinking in the final minute, but do not conclude that improvements in “lower body strength and appropriate skill modifications” are needed to resolve breakdown indiscipline, as was bizarrely the case in 2021. Instead, Sweeney must assess what was behind the renewed approach against France, and what will ensure England stick to it in the future.
If Borthwick instigated it, if it was all smoke and mirrors that they would double down on the kicking gameplan, it does not paint him in a particularly good light because the obvious question is why it took until round five for England to perform in a manner that captivates supporters. Different opponents require strategic tweaks but England were unrecognisable in outlook and approach in Paris.
If it was the players, then it hints at a questioning of Borthwick’s authority. There has been nothing emanating from the camp that suggests even a jot of mutiny, whether uttered publicly or privately, but there is a difference between revolt and taking responsibility. The manner in which Maro Itoje has extolled the virtues of showing character of late certainly suggests that the penny has dropped that rugby by numbers will only get you so far.
Indeed, Sweeney and his panel must be rigorous in ascertaining what the players think. Clearly, there is backing for Borthwick, for the “clarity” he brings, for the environment he cultivates, but how do the players really react when they are asked to tighten up because, as Saturday night showed, there is so much talent with which to let loose?
“It would have been so easy 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,” said Jamie George in the aftermath of Saturday’s match. “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. Our togetherness has been a huge strength of the team for 12 plus months.”
The next pressing question for the panel to address is why England so often need their backs against the wall to produce a performance like Saturday’s. Ollie Chessum was in a prickly mood all week. He addressed the squad the night before and proceeded to deliver his best performance in an England shirt. His furious celebration after his first try was, in microcosm, a demonstration of the passion and intensity with which England played. But why does it take a feeling that they have been slighted for England to find the right emotional pitch?
Is it an indictment of Borthwick and his coaches’ inability to press the right buttons, is it further evidence of overdue accountability being taken by the squad or is it something deeper than that? Because, while Borthwick’s tenure has been pockmarked by performances born out of intense scrutiny, it is a problem that predates him.
Perhaps it is a problem with the English psyche because playing with “character” is far easier when there is a common, higher cause to fight for. For some, such as South Africa, it is unbridled patriotism. For others, it is for the head coach, as demonstrated by Scotland’s response to their opening defeat by Italy in support of Gregor Townsend. For England, there are blurred lines between patriotism and nationalism while their performances against Scotland and Ireland did not look like a squad fighting for their coach. Then came their Parisian riposte and a willingness to fight for a collective cause amid a feeling of being chastised. Hell hath no fury like an English rugby player scorned.
“It’s an excellent programme as a whole,” George said. “Honestly, 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. Not many other teams would go out and perform like that under that sort of pressure.” That may be so but the key issue will be whether the RFU believes this current England environment is set up to ensure performances like that continue.
