DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 154926--------------------------------------------------
Life after Steve Borthwick is more complicated than it looks
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: June 1, 2026, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post-World Cup succession plan must make England as successful
as possible while also addressing other recognised issues
Brian Moore
Published 01 June 2026 7:00am BST
The Rugby Football Union has backed Steve Borthwick to remain as
head coach until the 2027 Rugby World Cup
There has been plenty of talk recently about England’s coaching
and management succession post-World Cup. It has taken place
informally but the questions raised are interesting when you try
to form an opinion on what needs to come after Steve Borthwick.
This is where conventional logic and free thinking collide. What
emerges must not only fulfil the primary requirement of making
England as successful as possible, but must also achieve this
within a framework that supports other recognised issues.
You should pick the best person for the job, irrespective of
where they come from. This is a simple proposition, but its
validity depends on your definition of what is best and that has
more facets than you would initially realise. For example, when
Eddie Jones was appointed as England’s head coach, there were
protestations that coaches with better CVs had been overlooked.
This clamour failed to acknowledge that, of all the names
touted, only Jones and Jake White, the 2007 World Cup-winning
Springbok coach, were available and wanted to do the job. Much
of the discussion was otiose because of that simple
practicality.
Some will say that already having coached a World Cup-winning
team is the best qualification going, but given the rapid
advances made by modern rugby, after how long does that
seemingly unassailable attribute wane, or does it never go away?
Moreover, if you make this the absolute qualifier, how does any
talented, modern coach overcome this hurdle? If that were the
case, what does it do for the coaching pathway in England? Such
a requirement would effectively mean that all English coaching
talent would have to move elsewhere and gain success before they
became preferred for the top job of their own country.
Must the likes of Lee Blackett, England’s attack coach, prove
themselves elsewhere before being given a shot at the head coach
job?
Whoever eventually makes the decisions must answer what I call
the “all in, all out” conundrum. A version of this arises in
most sports, as it has become part of English sporting culture.
Do you give the head honcho the freedom to bring in all his
picks in the other management and coaching positions? There is a
lot of force behind this approach because who would want to be
judged without having full control over their operation? On the
other hand, this method is costly because you must deal with
redundancies and new contracts. In big business you do not get
rid of the whole board and senior managers just because you get
a new CEO. Those further down the structure would argue that it
is unfair to penalise them – why can the new outfit not simply
accommodate a person who is doing their job well?
Whichever route you take on “all in, all out”, the results are
uncertain. Sometimes a totally fresh approach can invigorate a
squad and every coaching regime’s effectiveness has a natural
time limit, after which it shows diminishing returns.
Alternatively, the lack of continuity regarding squad contact
can remove familiar anchor points, not just in terms of the
tactical approach to the game and training, but also regarding
the emotional resonance within a squad. Good coaches need to be
effective relationship managers if they are to have anything
other than short-term success. Ruling through fear, and the
“Great Man” theory of leadership only works in restricted
contexts. Like it or not, modern players are different and
respond differently.
The list of conundrums to solve is too long to set out every
nuance, so I will point out a final consideration – one that is
central to every coach’s journey. At what point do you decide
that a unit coach or an assistant coach is ready to take the
jump to being in charge of the whole shooting match? Every
successful manager or coach has faced this issue on their
ascension to the top of their profession, but neither they nor
the people who appointed them could be certain that they were
ready to take that step. There is simply no way to solve this
problem without a degree of unevidenced faith.
Andy Farrell, John Mitchell, Ronan O’Gara and Phil Dowson will
come up in discussions, as will the cases of Lee Blackett, Sam
Vesty and even Stuart Lancaster. Whoever is chosen, I believe
that two central tenets of management and coaching must prevail.
First, the job of selection is far more important than any
tactical acumen. Secondly, both northern and southern hemisphere
input is required in the management and coaching teams.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1