Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Mercer opens up on his 'debate' with Borthwick after Six Nations snub

By Josh Raisey
(Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

Zach Mercer has been quite outspoken about his ongoing England omission and, as a result, there have been fears that he has sabotaged any chance of working his way back into Steve Borthwick’s plans.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 26-year-old has not taken his World Cup, Guinness Six Nations or even his England A snub lying down, and has publicly questioned how he has been handled, particularly regarding having so little time to prove himself in camp with England before the World Cup last year.

Borthwick has not shied away from the topic either, and has publicly addressed the former Top 14 player of the year’s omission and his reasoning behind it.

Video Spacer

Jesse Kriel on the Springboks’ rush defence | RPTV

Springbok Jesse Kriel discusses the famed rush defence and the pros of mastering it. Watch the full chat exclusively on RugbyPass TV

Watch now

Video Spacer

Jesse Kriel on the Springboks’ rush defence | RPTV

Springbok Jesse Kriel discusses the famed rush defence and the pros of mastering it. Watch the full chat exclusively on RugbyPass TV

Watch now

Mercer recently revealed what those discussions looked like from his side when joining The Rugby Pod this week. The No8 suggested that his relationship with the England head coach may not be as frayed as some might have thought, saying that his communications after missing out on the Six Nations were “very constructive”.

While he did confess that he does not exactly know where he stands in the pecking order of England back rows, he added that he does not think he is “far away from the squad”.

“To be honest, we were very open and honest with each other about it,” the two-cap international said.

“He just said in the Six Nations the balance of the back row didn’t fit me in it. Obviously I disagreed with him, but it was a very constructive conversation. It wasn’t one-sided or I just accepted it or he just accepted it. We had a bit of a debate, which is always good.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I wouldn’t say I’m far away from the squad, but I don’t really know where I stand in that pecking order at the moment.

“But it doesn’t really fuss me at the moment. If I don’t play for England again, I’d be devastated but I have done it, I’ve done it twice already so no one can take that away from me.”

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 4 hours ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

16 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific
Search