England need a director of rugby above Borthwick
Coach, squad and RFU would all benefit from expert acting as overseer and sounding board
How could the most highly paid coach in international rugby be properly held to account by a group of part-time volunteers?
Steve Borthwick’s damning assessment of the state of the England squad he has inherited from Eddie Jones should, if nothing else, set alarm bells ringing in the Rugby Football Union’s boardroom at Twickenham.
It is a little over 10 months since the RFU backed the tenure of Jones, who at the time was under fire following a Six Nations campaign in which England suffered three defeats for the second successive season, insisting they had been “encouraged by the team’s solid progress”.
When further explaining this to frustrated England supporters, positive developments were hailed in terms of new players coming in, leadership on the field, maturity and composure in critical moments, spirit within the camp and “hitting certain objectives along the way”.
So what are the supporters to make of Borthwick’s analysis after the defeat by Scotland? He said that, having studied all the data, the England team he inherited from the autumn campaign
“weren’t good at anything”.
England finished last year in the bottom three of tier-one countries for tries scored, defenders beaten, line-out steals and tackle successes while Borthwick highlighted the scrum – where the team were ranked 11th in the world – and the breakdown as key areas where they have been left behind.
And this after seven years of Jones in charge and spending millions on the promise frequently delivered by the former head coach that all would be right when the World Cup came around.
How is it possible that almost every facet of England’s play and culture requires a complete rebuild, with just four competitive games left before the squad head to France?
Some might argue that Borthwick is attempting to buy time by distancing himself from the previous regime. Yet those who say that do not know the man. As he has shown throughout his playing and coaching careers, all he cares about is doing what is best for English rugby. But will the structure allow him to deliver? One must only cast an eye across the Irish Sea to admire what Ireland have achieved with a fraction of the playing resources.
Jones always refused to consider working with or under a director of rugby – the system Ireland use – and was instead line-managed by Bill Sweeney, the RFU’S chief executive. Sweeney has insisted he held Jones to proper account, but it is fair to ask how he could have kept abreast of all the nuances of team affairs and strategy, given his responsibilities to run the entire game in England. The only other scrutiny came from the anonymous review panel that met intermittently, only suddenly to bare its teeth and sack Jones in December.
Last month Sweeney defended the decision for the panel to remain anonymous because they were “giving up their time to do it” and did not want to be named because of the high level of scrutiny that would follow.
The question is how could the most highly paid head coach in international rugby be properly held to account by a group of part-time volunteers who were worried about what would happen if their decision-making process became public?
What is most alarming is that the RFU board had plenty of warning about the inadequacy of the structure. In 2018, Jeff Blackett, who went on to become president of the RFU, delivered a stinging assessment of the model in his final presentation as chairman of the Professional Game Board, in which he urged the board to consider making Jones answerable to the director of professional rugby. Jones dismissed that as “the most faulty argument I have ever heard in my life” and it was kicked into touch.
It is no surprise Jones was not a fan. Telegraph Sport has seen further details of the report, which criticised Jones for paying “lip service” to the PGB and giving a presentation that was already in the public domain. It said proper scrutiny was impossible because he reported directly to the chief executive and was given “significant latitude through his contract”.
“My concern is that at present the RFU hires a head coach, and effectively leaves everything to do with England’s success to him,” wrote Blackett in his secret report. “We all bask in the reflected glory if he does well, or sack him if he does not. It’s been the way in which all head coaches have been hired since Sir Clive Woodward and all before Eddie have ended in failure. It seems to be a high-risk strategy. It is said that head coaches of any value will not work in any regime other than reporting directly to the CEO.
“I simply do not agree. This is one of the most prestigious, highly remunerated and sought-after jobs in world rugby and the person who is selected should work under whatever regime is required.”
And so as Borthwick begins his major rebuilding job with the squad, it is fair to ask if the RFU should also examine its own coaching management structure, almost five years since being warned it was not working.
Conor O’shea, a former national head coach with Italy who also guided Harlequins to the Premiership title, is the RFU’S director of performance and is overseeing the impressive work by England’s age-grade coaches to improve the supply line to the senior national side. An enhanced role to work with Borthwick, to hold him accountable and act as a regular sounding board would be a positive step forward, however belated.