Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Four England talking points after they blow it again down the finish

By Liam Heagney at Allianz Stadium, Twickenham
Freddie Steward looks on during Saturday's England loss to South Africa (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

Not even Tarantino at the peak of his filmmaking powers could have concocted the crazy England rugby revenge plot twist suddenly confronting the RFU next weekend at Allianz Stadium.

ADVERTISEMENT

It was 23 months ago when the blazers abruptly cut Eddie Jones loose, believing they were moving on to better and brighter things with Steve Borthwick at the helm of the England men’s national team.

Now these very same English administrators who sacked Jones are facing the dubious prospect of potentially seeing the Australian swagger back into the joint and inflict what could be the mortal blow to Borthwick’s reign.

Video Spacer

Rassie Erasmus sums up South Africa’s performance against England

Springbok head coach Rassie Erasmus did not want to sound arrogant when describing his team’s win against England at Twickenham on Saturday.

Video Spacer

Rassie Erasmus sums up South Africa’s performance against England

Springbok head coach Rassie Erasmus did not want to sound arrogant when describing his team’s win against England at Twickenham on Saturday.

The script was for ‘Borthers’ to take the team all the way through to the 2027 Rugby World Cup, steeled by the five-year deal agreed upon when he was headhunted from Leicester to stabilise England after they had lost their way under Jones.

It was a loss to the Springboks that was the finish of Jones, an Autumn Nations Series featuring just one win, one draw and two defeats forcing the RFU to act ruthlessly. But if that Jones record was bad, where does that leave Borthwick’s current luckless run?

Team Form

Last 5 Games

1
Wins
4
1
Streak
4
19
Tries Scored
25
22
Points Difference
99
3/5
First Try
4/5
4/5
First Points
4/5
3/5
Race To 10 Points
4/5

Saturday’s loss to the Springboks was a fifth in succession for England, the third in a row at home for the first time since 2006. Seven Ls in nine if you spin the lookback back to late February.

The head coach insisted in the aftermath that he believed he retained the full support of the RFU and that they were still committed to his long-term project. A defeat to Jones’ Japan, though, would surely result in blood on the floor.

ADVERTISEMENT

Borthwick’s team haven’t yet been booed off at Twickenham in recent weeks. Their performances in respective two, five and nine-point losses were far from dire; they were within a whisker of beating New Zealand and Australia, and they were in front of South Africa 12 minutes into the second half of another cracking entertaining match.

However, you have to imagine that if Jones serves up the glacially cold revenge of a sixth successive England loss, then the home fans would surely give the Borthwick the bird – as happened to Jones two years ago – and force the RFU to publicly come out and either back or sack their man before the next Six Nations.

That would be a devilish situation for the RFU to find itself in, and the potential for it to happen will ensure an intriguing build-up to next Sunday’s series ender. In the meantime, what is to be made from losing to the Springboks? Here are the RugbyPass England talking points from their fifth loss in five:

The Felix fudge
It’s the elephant in the room, what the f*** really went down with Felix Jones. Praise was heaped on the new-joiner earlier this year after he arrived in from helping the Springboks to a second successive Rugby World Cup win.

ADVERTISEMENT

“A work ethic that is astounding,” enthused Borthwick during the early days of the partnership that ultimately only lasted eight matches before the Irishman rocked the England set-up with his resignation.

Borthwick stubbornly insisted that Jones would remotely work out his notice, focusing on “specific projects regarding analysis” from his Dublin base.

However, that fudge was shown up to be nonsense this week when newly promoted senior coach Richard Wigglesworth revealed he had no contact with Jones even though it was his old team, the Springboks, who were coming to London town.  That admission was terrible for the optics of Borthwick’s England set-up.

In the meantime, the aggressive blitz that Jones had implemented has gone up in smoke with Borthwick’s wedding usher, Joe El-Abd, now installed as defence coach. That smacks as too cosy an arrangement.

A dozen tries have been leaked in three matches, South Africa exposing Freddie Steward to add four to the respective three and five tries scored by New Zealand and Australia, tarnishing the credibility of Borthwick’s environment as Jones wasn’t the only high-profile departure.

Adding to the intrigue was the head coach’s ropey defence that he wasn’t privy to the alleged bullying of staff and strained relationships with players that occurred on Jones’ watch – allegations made in Danny Care’s new autobiography about a time when Borthwick was one of Jones’ assistants. He can’t not have sensed what was going on.

The final question at Saturday’s post-game media bunfight was about the Felix Jones situation, though, and what impact it was having. “I am very confident with the whole management team we have coaching,” retorted Borthwick with a ‘nothing to see here’ spin.

“Ultimately we are getting in positions to win the games which says there is a lot of things being done really, really well… we will be a better team because of these painful experiences.”

Attacking weakness
There has undoubtedly been an improvement in the England attack as eight tries have been scored over the last three Saturdays, but as good as that sounds they have a wounding issue turning pressure into points in the opposition’s 22.

Look at how they squandered chances to take advantage of South Africa being a man down for 10 minutes and the gap at what should have been a reduceable nine points.

They were blunted and damningly held scoreless, a failure that was a poor reflection given how rivals such as Ireland are devastatingly good in these power play situations where the opposition is a man short.

Overall, they had 10 entries into the Springbok 22 throughout the match yet only averaged 1.7 points per visit in contrast to the visitors whose eight entries averaged 3.2 points.

Against Australia, England visited 12 times for an average 2.8 points, less than the Wallabies who averaged 4.3 points from their nine visits, while the numbers versus New Zealand were seven visits for 1.8 points compared to seven Kiwi visits for an average of 3 points.

England are scoring, but not at the giddy rate they need to due to their porous defence on the edge, and their decision-making in the opposition 22 must be sternly reviewed, especially as their latest second half produced a meagre three points.

Why Maro Itoje didn’t point at the posts to cut the two-score deficit late on instead of having Marcus Smith kick to the corner was something that didn’t reflect well on him.

In a results business, they simply can’t continue to be outscored in the closing parts of matches and can’t keep relinquishing leads. It ultimately only damages confidence.

Steve’s pearl-clutching
One thing that especially grates about Borthwick’s description of his team is how they are always described as “young” and “learning” compared to the opposition who are always more experienced and streetwise. It’s pearl-clutching that doesn’t wash.

Yes, there are some fascinating new additions to the set-up performance boss Conor O’Shea hasn’t been shy in touting that ‘generational talents’ are coming through the pipeline.

But the truth is that Borthwick’s England are not inexperienced. A dozen of Saturday’s starters were inherited from the Jones era, with eight of them even involved in the run to the 2019 Rugby World Cup final, not new players handed debuts on the current coach’s watch.

When you added in Saturday’s six ‘inherited’ subs, it made for a match day 23 in which just five players have been newly capped in 2023 or 2024. Even if England were predominately young and learning, which they aren’t, they still need to be winning here and there to instil the belief that they really do have what it takes to become the best.

Put another way, you wouldn’t get away with losing five on the bounce in New Zealand, South Africa or Ireland without calls for the coach’s head, but Borthwick seems to think that ‘young’ and ‘learning’ gives him a free pass. It shouldn’t.

The generous wedge he is earning demands a forensic performance review of his stewardship, even if a win is finally delivered next weekend against the Japanese.

Related

Jamie and George
How often do we keep getting reminded by coaches and players that rugby is a 23-man game? Too bloody often. Take England skipper Jamie George. He produced his best performance of the autumn on Saturday yet was still hooked on 49 minutes and proceeded to defend his replacement.

“It certainly doesn’t leave a leadership void,” insisted the captain who a year ago, without being captain played the full 80 minutes in a number of Tests at the World Cup, so crucial was be seen at the time to the England cause.

“We have leaders all the way across the field. If you look at the team that was on at the end, there was plenty of leaders in that team.

“If you speak to every player they will always want to play every moment of every game but the hooker jersey is an 80-minute performance across two players and when you have got the likes of Luke Cowan-Dickie or Theo Dan coming off the bench then the things they can add and I think you saw that with Luke Cowan-Dickie tonight.”

We don’t think we did. Cowan-Dickie’s had a lack of sharpness which contributed to England’s flawed rescue effort, so why didn’t we see more of George? What is going on behind the scenes with this new ‘hook him early’ tactic?

It’s a general theme of the Borthwick era, his ineffective use of the bench for the greater good, and Saturday’s latest evidence included George Ford being left unused and kicking his heels.

The veteran – an enhanced EPS contracted player on big RFU dosh – had two error-ridden cameos over previous weekends and would hardly have had Twickenham cheering his introduction if he came on, but why select him as a sub if he wasn’t going to be used?

It was essentially the waste of a pick, proof that rugby isn’t the 23-man game it is constantly made out to be and a decision that undermined Borthwick’s ‘young’ and ‘learning’ claims about his squad. Imagine if Fin Smith was on the replacements and what he would have taken from getting a run.

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

9 Comments
H
HU 31 days ago

guess those who don't like England will be very supportive of Steve Borthwick to stay .....

T
TI 31 days ago

Steward is a defensive liability at the international level.

Dude costs England two tries per game. How many proofs does Borthwick need to see?

C
CM 31 days ago

Meanwhile Scotland blood a 19yr old as Borthwick ignores all the form backs and forwards. Borthwick's choice of coaches and players has proven to be awful. Ford fails yet is still chosen. Thank goodness Ben Youngs retired or Borthwick would play him.

T
Tom 31 days ago

He would still have Youngs and Farrell if they were available.

C
CW 31 days ago

I'll say it again. The England players are really good but they have shown consistently that they are not world beaters in every position. New World Cup cycle. Bring in new side based on young players who can be word beaters in 27. This team won't. Pollock, Fasogbon, Hill, Tizzard, Fitz-Harding for Skipper, Ibitoye, Lesowzki, Kenningham, Tom Willis, Retain the Smits and Mitchell. Current pack is overrated, especially the 4 - 8. You need to be able to defend and carry and be up for the fight. 12 13 and wing channels are one dimensional. If England doesn't change it will be also-rans for a long time.

c
ch 31 days ago

You can't have wholesale criticism of Borthwick when he brings on Ford for Smith and then criticise him when he doesn't. Why was Ford on the bench? In case Smith was injured of course.

D
DP 31 days ago

A conspicuous absence of chest thumping and jeering in opposition faces from Maro Itoje… seldom gets to enjoy these unsportsmanlike traits against the Boks who manhandled him from start to finish. A most enjoyable and rewarding sight…

T
Tom 31 days ago

Why Maro Itoje didn’t point at the posts to cut the two-score deficit late on instead of having Marcus Smith kick to the corner was something that didn’t reflect well on him.

Hindsight bias. This was the correct decision. England needed to score a try at some point to win the game. SA were down to 14 and had just been given a warning for consecutive penalties that they would be sent down to 13 if the penalties continued. If that isn't the right time to kick to the corner, I don't know what is...

A
AV 31 days ago

100%

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 51 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Like I've said before about your idea (actually it might have been something to do with mine, I can't remember), I like that teams will a small sustainable league focus can gain the reward of more consistent CC involvement. I'd really like the most consistent option available.


Thing is, I think rugby can do better than footballs version. I think for instance I wanted everyone in it to think they can win it, where you're talking about the worst teams not giving up because they are so far off the pace we get really bad scoreline when that and giving up to concentrate on the league is happening together.


So I really like that you could have a way to remedy that, but personally I would want my model to not need that crutch. Some of this is the same problem that football has. I really like the landscape in both the URC and Prem, but Ireland with Leinster specifically, and France, are a problem IMO. In football this has turned CL pool stages in to simply cash cow fixtures for the also ran countries teams who just want to have a Real Madrid or ManC to lose to in their pool for that bumper revenue hit. It's always been a comp that had suffered for real interest until the knockouts as well (they might have changed it in recent years?).


You've got some great principles but I'm not sure it's going to deliver on that hard hitting impact right from the start without the best teams playing in it. I think you might need to think about the most minimal requirement/way/performance, a team needs to execute to stay in the Champions Cup as I was having some thougt about that earlier and had some theory I can't remember. First they could get entry by being a losing quarter finalist in the challenge, then putting all their eggs in the Champions pool play bucket in order to never finish last in their pool, all the while showing the same indifference to their league some show to EPCR rugby now, just to remain in champions. You extrapolate that out and is there ever likely to be more change to the champions cup that the bottom four sides rotate out each year for the 4 challenge teams? Are the leagues ever likely to have the sort of 'flux' required to see some variation? Even a good one like Englands.


I'd love to have a table at hand were you can see all the outcomes, and know how likely any of your top 12 teams are going break into Champions rubyg on th back it it are?

120 Go to comments
f
fl 4 hours ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Right, so even if they were the 4 worst teams in Champions Cup, you'd still have them back by default?"

I think (i) this would literally never happen, (ii) it technically couldn't quite happen, given at least 1 team would qualify via the challenge cup, so if the actual worst team in the CC qualified it would have to be because they did really well after being knocked down to the challenge cup.

But the 13th-15th teams could qualify and to be fair I didn't think about this as a possibility. I don't think a team should be able to qualify via the Champions Cup if they finish last in their group.


Overall though I like my idea best because my thinking is, each league should get a few qualification spots, and then the rest of the spots should go to the next best teams who have proven an ability to be competitive in the champions cup. The elite French clubs generally make up the bulk of the semi-final spots, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean that the 5th-8th best French clubs would be competitive in a slimmed down champions cup. The CC is always going to be really great competition from the semis onwards, but the issue is that there are some pretty poor showings in the earlier rounds. Reducing the number of teams would help a little bit, but we could improve things further by (i) ensuring that the on-paper "worst" teams in the competition have a track record of performing well in the CC, and (ii) by incentivising teams to prioritise the competition. Teams that have a chance to win the whole thing will always be incentivised to do that, but my system would incentivise teams with no chance of making the final to at least try to win a few group stage matches.


"I'm afraid to say"

Its christmas time; there's no need to be afraid!

120 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Will Bristol's daredevil 'Bears-ball' deliver the trophy they crave? Will Bristol's daredevil 'Bears-ball' deliver the trophy they crave?
Search