LONG READ Should England stick or twist with Borthwick? RWC27 clock cannot be used as an excuse

Stick or twist? It is the question that hovers over Union kingmakers when results dip, confidence in the head coach ebbs and a World Cup starts to loom into view. For the RFU, after the Six Nations from hell for England, that conundrum now centres on Steve Borthwick.

With only 18 months until the 2027 tournament in Australia, England’s hierarchy have a critical decision to make.

There are likely to be 16 Tests left for the side before the tournament begins. That is not an abundance of time – but equally the hour-glass is not on its last grain here.

The RFU should not feel boxed in by the time factor. The idea that Borthwick must be given the remainder of the World Cup four-year cycle simply because he has already been in position for the majority of it is fanciful.

The belief that a head coach needs a full cycle to create a side capable of contending for the sport’s biggest prize has traditionally shaped international rugby. It is neat, familiar and often repeated – particularly by head coach’s agents. It is also a myth.

Yes, there are plenty of examples of long-term projects bearing fruit. Logically so, given that this is the ideal. Some are real slow-burners.

South Africa have won two World Cups on the back of emergency pre-tournament surgery which, at the time, smacked almost of desperation.

Clive Woodward took six years to scale his Everest with England. His team evolved over time and learned from their mistakes, layering on experience and tactical clarity until they eventually became world champions. But to treat that as the only model is to ignore how often international rugby has shown the opposite.

South Africa have won two World Cups on the back of emergency pre-tournament surgery which, at the time, smacked almost of desperation.

In 1995, Kitch Christie was summoned to replace the axed Ian McIntosh after a series defeat to New Zealand only nine months before the Boks’ own home World Cup.

It was, in his own words, an “ambulance job” which needed a rapier focus and universal buy-in but Christie, under huge pressure to deliver, pulled it off.

He won all his 14 matches in charge as South Africa became world champions. Their story became a film.

The Springboks were in an even more wretched state when Rassie Erasmus took over as head coach in 2018. Up a creek without a paddle under Allister Coetzee, they had slipped to No 6 in the world rankings and had just been humiliated 57-0 by the All Blacks.

But Erasmus turned the super tanker around and by the following year, his Springboks were world champions too.

South Africa are the masters of this sort of quickfire revivalism, but they do not hold a monopoly on it. Michael Cheika almost pulled off a similar trick with Australia. His predecessor Ewen McKenzie’s reign had unravelled amid poor results and damaging off-field discord, leading to the emergency call for the charismatic Waratahs coach a year out from the 2015 World Cup.

His early months were testing and the 2014 European tour offered only patchy encouragement, but by the time of the World Cup, Australia were transformed. Aided by his inspired breakdown double act of David Pocock and Michael Hooper and the inspired reintroduction of Matt Giteau under a relaxed overseas selection policy, Cheika’s Wallabies surged to the 2015 final where it was only one of the greatest sides in history, the back-to-back All Blacks, which stopped them going all the way.

If Borthwick could take over so late and still produce a World Cup run in short order, then his backers at the RFU can hardly pretend a successor would need four years to make an impact.

So the turnaround can happen anywhere. Borthwick himself is proof of the dramatic progress that can be made in a short window. He had just nine Test matches between his appointment as England head coach and the 2023 World Cup in France after Eddie Jones’s dismissal. It was hardly ideal, and England lost six of them, yet they still finished third. Had it not been for Handre Pollard’s nerveless late penalty for South Africa in the semi-final, they would have reached the big dance itself.

The rugby was at times so ugly as to be almost unwatchable. England also benefited from a favourable side of the draw. But facts are facts – Borthwick got England to the last four and within touching distance of something even bigger. With minimal time at his disposal.

Ironically, that knowledge may work against him now. If he could take over so late and still produce a World Cup run in short order, then his backers at the RFU can hardly pretend a successor would need four years to make an impact.

That is as it should be. The RFU, in its review, must resist being swayed by the mythology of the four-year cycle. If Borthwick stays, it should be because the Union believes he is still the right man to lead England to Australia. If he goes, it should be because the RFU believes someone else gives them a better chance of winning the World Cup.

What cannot be allowed to creep into the thinking is the excuse that England are simply too far down the road with him to make a change now.

That is not to say replacing a head coach – and by extension his coaching team – is painless or risk-free. Change comes with no guarantees.

But tactical adjustments, selection shifts and cultural recalibration can be embedded far faster than convention likes to admit, particularly in international rugby where clarity often trumps complexity in importance.

The RFU may conclude that the downturn was a stumble rather than a dead end and that Borthwick has earned the chance to retune the orchestra.

Borthwick has World Cup-related arguments in his favour. He has served at one already as a head coach last time around and has previous tournament experience as an assistant to Jones with England and Japan. That matters.

But after England’s 12-match unbeaten run appeared to suggest they were approaching lift-off velocity, the Six Nations was sobering. Results regressed badly and, until the final-round display in France, the collective under-performance was alarming. In that context, it is only natural that questions should be asked about the head coach.

The RFU may conclude that the downturn was a stumble rather than a dead end and that Borthwick has earned the chance to retune the orchestra.

Equally, they must acknowledge that international rugby has shown time and again how quickly a new coach can alter the direction of travel.

Stick or twist? That decision will define England’s road to Australia. But one thing is clear – the clock cannot be used as an excuse.