RFU’s Six Nations review lacks transparency; fans deserve better

The Rugby Football Union’s response to England’s disappointing Six Nations campaign has failed to provide a complete picture, leaving fans frustrated. Unlike French TV directors who have been criticized for limiting rugby coverage, the RFU now stands as the market leader in withholding information.

In an ideal scenario, RFU chief executive Bill Sweeney and head coach Steve Borthwick would have held a joint media conference to present a united front and explain why the status quo remains justified despite England’s four championship defeats, the worst since 1976. Instead, the RFU issued an email statement best summarized in four words: “Nothing to see here.”

The approach has a major drawback: England fans are not stupid. The RFU statement read: “England’s underperformance across the Six Nations was not the result of a singular failure or issue.” That implies multiple failings, yet in a high-performance environment, one might expect the entire management team to face scrutiny rather than receive blanket endorsement through the next World Cup.

On closer inspection, the main deficiencies identified were “discipline, execution of opportunities and making the most of key moments.” Such platitudes invite ridicule. Next they might say the key to winning is scoring more points. Even if the RFU wants to protect trade secrets, the lack of transparency raises more questions than it answers.

The statement leaves everyone deciphering the most beige prose since magnolia paint became popular. As detailed in these pages shortly after the Six Nations, the RFU never had real appetite for a coaching change. Doing so would require wooing a top-class replacement while most leading candidates are under contract elsewhere.

The RFU can ill afford more severance payments after sacking Eddie Jones before the 2023 World Cup. With the countdown to the 2027 World Cup already underway, the thinking appears to be: better the devil you know, especially with a test against world champions South Africa in Johannesburg less than two months away.

But what if England collapses at Ellis Park, stumbles against Fiji at Everton’s Hill Dickinson Stadium, and then loses in Argentina? RFU sources insist Borthwick and his staff have backing until next year’s Australia tour, but the statement stops short of explicitly guaranteeing that. Perhaps a sliver of wriggle room remains.

Ultimately, the RFU has spurned a chance to reset the narrative. If Borthwick is absolutely the right man—and no one disputes his technical coaching ability—then say so. If the structure is tip-top, shout it proudly. Sometimes the biggest problem with English rugby is not the head coach but the clunky machinery beneath him.

The big hope is that England’s improved performance in a 48-46 loss to France in Paris reflects their true potential. Without the weight of expectation, the talent was visible when given license and encouragement to blossom. There is hope for a turnaround.

Few South Africans expect much from the visitors at Ellis Park, a situation where England often responds positively. Over the next 18 months, the RFU will pray for evidence that coaches, conditioning staff, and players are aligned and pursuing a gameplan that fits the squad. If not, Borthwick will not be the only one under renewed pressure.