Is Steve Borthwick the Worst England Head Coach Ever?

I first asked this question in 2023, after England had been demolished at Twickenham by France and then suffered their first ever defeat to Fiji. At the time, I reached the fairly emphatic conclusion that Steve Borthwick was without doubt the worst England head coach I had seen.

In fairness, what followed forced me to reconsider. England reached the semi-final of the 2023 Rugby World Cup and came within a point of beating South Africa. There were signs, however fleeting, that Borthwick might be building something. England still were not particularly attractive to watch, but World Cups are about progressing and winning rather than collecting style points, and England got much further than most of us expected.

He deserved credit for that, and he deserved more time. Time is important for any leader taking over a failing organisation, but only if that time eventually produces clarity, confidence and visible progress. Nearly three years later, England still appear to be searching for all three.

Nearly three years later, following another thrashing by South Africa and England’s fifth consecutive defeat, I find myself asking exactly the same question again. The difference this time is that Borthwick cannot hide behind the excuse of having only just arrived. South Africa beat England 45–21 at Ellis Park, scoring seven tries and racing into a 17–0 lead inside the opening 12 minutes. England briefly dragged themselves back into the contest, but by the end they had been comprehensively overpowered, outthought and outplayed. They also finished with 13 men after Tommy Freeman and Guy Pepper were sent to the sin bin, continuing an appalling disciplinary pattern which has now seen England receive at least one yellow card in eight consecutive matches.

Steve Borthwick has had the time, resources and authority to shape England in his image. The question now is whether that image represents progress, or a talented team trapped by its own systems.

There is no disgrace in losing to South Africa at Ellis Park. They are the world champions, they are phenomenally strong and they are led by a coach who has built one of the most formidable sporting cultures in the world. The problem was not simply that England lost. It was how predictably they lost and how many of the same weaknesses appeared yet again. The slow start. The indiscipline. The inability to deal with pressure. The periods of decent rugby that lead nowhere. The complete lack of control when the opposition raises the intensity. The strange sense that England are permanently waiting for the match to come to them, rather than taking any responsibility for shaping it themselves. In any other sector of business, when a capable team repeatedly freezes under pressure, fails to respond when circumstances change and waits for direction rather than taking responsibility, you do not keep blaming the individuals. You look at the environment the leader has created.

We have now watched this pattern for long enough to know that it is not an unfortunate coincidence. It is what this England team has become, and the excuses have run out.

When the same weaknesses appear again and again, they stop being isolated failures and become the record of the leader

When Borthwick took the job in December 2022, he inherited a troubled side from Eddie Jones and had only a matter of months to prepare for a World Cup. Whatever anyone thought of his appointment, it would have been unreasonable to expect him to transform English rugby overnight.

That was then.

Borthwick has now had several complete international campaigns, his own coaching appointments, extensive training camps and the backing of one of the wealthiest rugby unions in the world. He has had time to select the players he wants, introduce the systems he wants and establish the culture he believes England need. Senior leaders eventually own the culture beneath them. They may inherit the problems, the personnel and the poor habits, but after enough time those things either change under their leadership or become part of their leadership record.

What exactly has that time produced ? England entered the 2026 Six Nations with optimism after a lengthy winning run and opened the competition by beating Wales 48–7. They then lost four matches in succession, including a record Irish victory at Twickenham and England’s first ever defeat against Italy. They finished fifth, their worst placing of the Six Nations era. The defeat against South Africa has now extended the losing run to five Tests.

England do not merely lose under Borthwick. They continue to collect the wrong kind of history.

A record home defeat against France.

A first defeat against Fiji.

A record Irish victory at Twickenham.

A first defeat against Italy.

Their worst Six Nations finish since the tournament expanded.

When the same weaknesses appear again and again, they stop being isolated failures and become the record of the leader.

The occasional historic defeat can happen in sport. Teams improve, standards change and no country has an automatic right to beat another. However, when unwanted records begin arriving this regularly, it is no longer possible to dismiss them as isolated bad days. At some point, they become the record of the coach. As is well known, the privilege of leadership is that you are credited when the organisation succeeds. The price of leadership is that persistent failure eventually belongs to you as well.

England Are Less Than the Sum of Their Parts

The great frustration is that England have some exceptional rugby players.

They have forwards capable of competing physically with anyone, talented young backs, experienced British and Irish Lions and players who look dynamic and intelligent when representing their clubs. There is pace, power, skill and depth throughout English rugby. Yet place many of those same players in an England shirt and they often appear constrained, indecisive and frightened of making a mistake. I have seen the same thing happen in businesses throughout my career. Talented people are recruited into an environment where every decision is over analysed, every mistake feels dangerous and compliance is valued more highly than judgement, and they gradually stop taking responsibility. They wait for permission, follow the process and protect themselves. The organisation then wonders why its best people no longer look like its best people. Ultimately, that has to come back to failed leadership.

The organisation wonders why its best people no longer look like its best people

I do not expect England to throw the ball around recklessly from their own try line or attempt to play exhibition rugby against South Africa. International rugby requires tactical kicking, defensive structure and the ability to play without the ball. What I do expect however, is for the players to look as though they understand what they are trying to achieve, and play like they met each other before kick off. Too often England kick because the system tells them to kick, not because the situation demands it. They carry the ball without much conviction, go to ground without generating quick possession and then resort to another contestable kick in the vague hope that something useful will happen. When they do attack with pace and ambition, they often look dangerous. The trouble is that this usually happens after the original plan has failed and they are chasing the game. A leader can force compliance with a system, but real performance comes when people understand it, believe in it and have the confidence to adapt it. England often look compliant. They rarely look committed to what they are being asked to do. That is not control. It is desperation briefly disguised as freedom.

Borthwick appears to believe that matches can be won through enough information, enough preparation and enough control of small statistical details. None of those things is unimportant, but rugby is still played by human beings. Players need confidence, clarity and the freedom to make decisions when the picture in front of them changes. The best coached teams have structure, but they do not look suffocated by it. South Africa are a perfect example. Everybody knows how physical and tactically precise they are, but they also play with personality, instinct and complete belief in the system around them. Rassie Erasmus has built an environment in which players seem empowered by the structure. Borthwick has built one in which England often appear imprisoned by it. The best leaders create clear boundaries and then trust talented people to operate within them. They do not remove structure; they make it simple enough that people can still think when the pressure arrives.

Rassie Erasmus has built a structure that appears to free his players rather than restrict them. South Africa play with clarity, personality and complete belief in what they are being asked to do.

Being intelligent is not the same as being a leader

I have no doubt that Steve Borthwick understands rugby in enormous technical detail. He is clearly conscientious, hardworking and analytical. Those qualities helped him become a respected forwards coach and contributed to his success with Leicester Tigers. But the England job requires more than technical expertise. It requires presence. It requires communication. It requires the ability to inspire a squad and make difficult decisions under extraordinary pressure. It requires a leader who can sense when a match, a tournament or an entire coaching tenure is slipping away and do something meaningful about it. Management is planning, analysis, preparation and control. Leadership is creating belief, giving clarity when people are uncertain and changing direction when the plan is no longer working. Borthwick appears highly capable in the first category. I remain unconvinced by the second. In any organisation, when the leader’s message is unclear or overly technical, people fill the gaps themselves. Confidence falls, informal voices become more influential and different parts of the team begin operating from different interpretations of the plan. On a rugby field, that hesitation is exposed instantly.

Management is planning, analysis and control. Leadership is creating belief, clarity and the courage to change direction

Borthwick’s public reaction to defeat is almost always the same. He talks about reviewing the performance, examining the areas that need improvement and preparing for the next game. There is nothing technically wrong with that, but it increasingly sounds like corporate management language being used to avoid confronting an obvious problem. Reviews only have value when they lead to different decisions. In any form, a leader who holds the same review after every failure, reaches broadly the same conclusions and then continues in broadly the same way is not learning. He is documenting repetition.

England supporters do not need to be told that the players are disappointed. We can see that.

We do not need to hear that lessons will be learned. We have been hearing it for years. We need to see some evidence that the lessons are actually changing anything.

After the defeat in Johannesburg, England captain Jamie George acknowledged the frustration surrounding the team, while Borthwick again concentrated on preparation and improvement ahead of Fiji. His position is now openly being questioned, particularly because defeat would give England six consecutive losses for the first time since Andy Robinson’s final year in charge. That comparison should terrify the RFU.

Was winning the premiership really enough?

Borthwick’s main qualification for the England job was the transformation of Leicester Tigers, culminating in a Premiership title in 2022. That was an excellent achievement. Leicester were in a mess when he arrived and he restored their standards, organisation and competitiveness.

It was also one successful club campaign. International coaching is a completely different challenge. At a club, coaches work with players almost every day. They can recruit for specific positions, drill patterns repeatedly and gradually build an entire squad around a preferred style.

An international coach receives players for relatively brief periods, often carrying habits from several different clubs. He must simplify complex ideas, establish trust rapidly and create a team capable of adapting during matches when the original plan stops working.

Borthwick proved that he could rebuild Leicester. He had not proved that he could lead England. The RFU chose to believe that one qualification automatically led to the other. Nearly four years later, it is reasonable to ask whether the appointment was based on enough evidence. This pattern s repeated in many businesses. They make the same mistake when they promote their strongest technical operator into the biggest leadership job and assume the skills are interchangeable. Sometimes they are. Often they are not. The ability to design a system or improve a department - whilst undoubtedly critical, is not necessarily the ability to lead an entire organisation through pressure, scrutiny and change.

Claudio Ranieri won the Premier League with Leicester City, one of the greatest achievements in English football history. Nobody seriously suggested that this automatically made him the ideal England manager.

Sometimes a coach is perfectly suited to a particular team, group of players and moment in time. That does not mean he has the range, personality or leadership required for every job above it. I increasingly believe that this is the reality with Borthwick.

The discipline is unforgivable

England’s discipline deserves particular attention because it can no longer be treated as a technical issue requiring a minor adjustment.

They have received at least one yellow card in eight consecutive matches. Against South Africa they ended the game with 13 men, having once again made an already difficult task almost impossible. How many times have England supporters watched their team play a major international with 14 men and been told afterwards that discipline must improve? It is almost part of the national rugby identity now: plenty of talk during the week about remaining composed, followed by another avoidable card as soon as the pressure increases. This is not merely the responsibility of the individual players. When the same problem persists across different selections and different matches, it reflects the environment around them. Either the standards are unclear, the coaching is ineffective or the players are not responding to what they are being told. In any workplace, a standard that is repeatedly breached without meaningful change is not really a standard. It is an aspiration.

None of those explanations reflect well on Borthwick. You cannot repeatedly surrender players against the best sides in the world and then talk about narrow margins. There is nothing narrow about voluntarily playing with fewer men. England have spent years learning this lesson and still behave as though each card is a completely unexpected development. A strong leader has to establish whether the problem is understanding, capability or attitude. If players do not understand the standard, coach it more clearly. If they cannot deliver it, change the preparation. If they repeatedly choose not to deliver it, change the personnel. What cannot continue is the same behaviour followed by the same public promise to improve.

So, Is He the Worst?

Purely on statistics, the answer is probably not. Andy Robinson won nine of his 22 matches and presided over a seven-match losing sequence. Borthwick reached a World Cup semi-final, came within a point of eliminating South Africa and has overseen occasional performances that showed what this team might become.

Those achievements matter, but statistics do not tell the whole story. Borthwick is not being judged against a weak player pool, a bankrupt governing body or a team without resources. He is in charge of one of the most heavily funded rugby nations in the world, with access to an enormous professional playing base. England should not necessarily be the best team in the world, but they should not repeatedly look so much worse than their available talent. The fairest measure of leadership is not simply the quality of the people available, but whether the leader consistently gets more or less from them. Great leaders create collective performance greater than the individual parts. Poor leadership can make exceptional people look ordinary.

That is why Borthwick belongs in the conversation about England’s worst coaches. It is not only the defeats. It is the waste. It is the waste of talented players, the waste of promising moments and the waste of time spent waiting for this constantly discussed evolution to become visible. England occasionally produce a performance which suggests the corner has been turned, only to follow it with another collapse. Every minor improvement is presented as evidence of a long-term plan, while each major failure is treated as an isolated setback.

Eventually, you have to stop judging the plan by what it might produce and start judging it by what it has produced.

Fiji Cannot Become Another Review Meeting

England now face Fiji in Liverpool with Borthwick under more pressure than at any point since taking the job.

Fiji are no longer opponents who can be dismissed as wonderfully skilful but tactically naive. They are an increasingly organised and dangerous international side, as England discovered rather painfully in 2023. Nevertheless, England should beat Fiji at home. That is not arrogance. It is a reasonable expectation based on England’s resources, professional structure and playing depth.

If Borthwick is to change course, it cannot be through another layer of analysis. He needs to simplify the game plan, reconnect with his senior players, make individual accountability unmistakably clear and give the team permission to make decisions in front of them. He also needs to make difficult selection and coaching decisions without protecting what has gone before. Course correction begins with an honest admission that the current course is wrong.

In business, when a strategy is clearly failing, strong leaders do not continue defending it simply because they designed it. They separate their ego from the plan, retain what works, discard what does not and explain the new direction clearly. Weak leaders keep refining the same failing model because changing it feels too much like admitting they were wrong.

Should England lose, it would be their sixth consecutive defeat and the clamour for Borthwick’s dismissal would become deafening. At that stage, the RFU should not disappear into another internal review and emerge several weeks later to tell us that everybody remains aligned.

Aligned with what? Five consecutive defeats? Historic losses? Repeated disciplinary failures? A team which still has no consistent identity after nearly four years? No, I'm afraid that sometimes leadership means having the courage to admit that the appointment has not worked.

So who what is my view now ?

When I wrote the original version of this article, I said Borthwick needed to look in the mirror, fumble in his jockeys and find his bollocks. It was deliberately crude, but I stand by the sentiment. England need courage from their head coach. Courage in selection, courage in tactics and courage in the way he speaks publicly about the team. Not another carefully managed statement explaining that everyone is working hard and remains committed to the process. The supporters quite frankly have had enough process. They want an England team that begins matches awake, keeps 15 men on the pitch and plays as though wearing the shirt is an opportunity rather than a burden. They want players trusted to make decisions rather than appearing terrified of departing from a plan. Most importantly, they want to believe that the team is progressing towards something better. At present, I do not believe England are anywhere near that. To recover from here, Borthwick has to do what any leader facing a failing strategy must do. Admit what is not working, simplify the message, rebuild confidence, trust capable people to make decisions and hold everyone, including himself, properly accountable. That would not guarantee success, but continuing to do broadly the same thing will almost certainly guarantee more of the same failure.

Is Steve Borthwick statistically the worst England head coach ever? Perhaps not. Has he had sufficient time and resources to prove that he is the right man to lead England into another World Cup? Absolutely. Has he proved it? In my opinion, absolutely not.

Borthwick is intelligent, diligent and probably a very decent man. None of that automatically makes him an international head coach, and it certainly does not entitle him to remain in the job indefinitely.

England have spent too long looking like less than the sum of their parts. The same weaknesses continue to appear, the same excuses continue to follow and the list of historic embarrassments continues to grow.

Lose to Fiji and the argument should be over. Even victory will only postpone the larger question, because beating Fiji at home should be an expectation, not proof of a revolution.

So, is Steve Borthwick the worst England head coach ever?

Maybe not quite.

But after nearly four years, five consecutive defeats and another humiliating lesson from South Africa, I am no longer remotely convinced that he is capable of becoming the coach England need. And frankly, the RFU have already wasted enough time waiting to find out.

Agree ?