The identity of the English rugby team seems to be elusive, as pointed out by the lack of clear answers to inquiries regarding what England aims to become or how it’s seen by other teams. Steve Borthwick’s team faces a challenging situation with two more Six Nations matches on the horizon.
Consider a simple task such as describing England’s rugby team in one sentence. This is noticeably more straightforward for their competitors. Ireland, for instance, is characterised as a sleek, relentless and meticulous squad. Wales, while inexperienced, show incredible determination, and Scotland are recognized for their deadly counterattacks. Outside of the Six Nations, South Africa’s rugby team is likened to a force that ploughs through steadfast challenges, whereas New Zealand exhibits a unique blend of agility and ability. England’s identity, however, remains obscure.
Even Sam Underhill, known for his profound insights as part of the team’s most eloquent athletes, finds it tough to pinpoint England’s nature. According to him, the English side seeks to be robust alongside a significant focus on game set pieces. Historically, they’ve prioritised a solid defence and continuously work towards enhancing their offensive strategies. Yet, due to his involvement, the perspective he can offer is limited, contributing to the aforementioned challenging quest for an identity.
The problem is exacerbated by Borthwick’s policy of tailoring strategies specific to the enemy team, which inhibits the formation of a coherent identity. This method subjects England to claims, highlighted by Will Carling’s comments, of being excessively dependent on analytics, consequently revealing too much about their opponents.
Another part of the issue is that, despite their constant efforts to unify, the team consists of players from ten separate clubs, each with unique viewpoints, concepts and techniques. This problem has gained traction this week because Ireland, unlike England, finds it much easier to come together given their homogeneous internal structure.
“Comparing us to Ireland would be inappropriate as their team spends a lot of time together and their attack is extraordinary,” states Dan Cole. “Their players have a good understanding of each other as they practice together virtually every day of the year. However, we are in a different situation as we assemble for various tournaments, with fresh faces in each squad and team members used to playing in diverse styles from their respective teams. This diversity in game approaches is indeed a boon, but it can also be a hindrance as we try to establish a consistent approach that reflects English style, which could potentially contradict the ingrained strategies of certain players or teams.”
If synchronising is tough, it becomes even more challenging to maintain it when the going gets tough. This was evident after the team’s defeat to Scotland when Maro Itoje criticised his fellow players for their reckless gameplay, calling it ‘tip-tap rugby’ and ‘hot potato’. It was clear that each player had a different response to Scotland’s first try – some chose reckless abandon while others stuck to a more direct strategy.
This was also an issue during England’s preparation for the World Cup, with criticisms of the rigid gameplay that wasn’t delivering. However, when they landed in France, they seemed to have adopted a more combative approach in response to the negative feedback over their home defeat to Fiji, and this led to a unified commitment to their tactic of heavy kicking.
Though it did not gain them many fans, England, at least, had their strategy clear. When Courtney Lawes was asked about this during the initial rounds, his answer was definitive: “We’re primarily a defensive team,” he confirmed. “That’s our stronghold. We are experts at using the aerial kicking strategy to regain control of the ball.”
Recently, England made changes to their defensive system under Felix Jones, with plans to make their game more wide-ranging. However, despite these claims, there isn’t much evidence of them practicing this new style due to an astonishing 25 handling mistakes during the game against Scotland.
As we approach our imminent showdown with Ireland this weekend, there’s a lot you need to be clued up on! The English team has been struggling somewhat, failing to achieve more than two tries in a single match since their victorious game against Chile in September. Descriptors such as “transitional” are thrown around, with talks of the World Cup cycle in the mix. But, the stark reality is that England is on the brink of experiencing a fourth consecutive Six Nations with only two victories, a cycle that is proving increasingly challenging to break. Any hope that the forthcoming “hybrid” contracts will fix this seems optimistic at best.
The contention then arises; should Borthwick have remained steadfast in sticking with the minimal yet successful game strategy that led them to the World Cup semi-finals? Without a firm team identity, it becomes an uphill task for players to synchronise their movements and tactics. Absence of a specific, tried-and-tested gameplay approach can lead to confusion and potential unravelling of the team, as exemplified in the Murrayfield instance.
Heading into the home game this Saturday, England are perceived as significant underdogs. Nonetheless, this serves as a suitable situation for England since they will likely possess less ball time than Ireland and excel more in vexing top-tier opposition as opposed to imposing their style of play onto them. Nevertheless, with Carling voicing his concerns recently and murmurings of discontent growing, defeat could spell disaster for Borthwick, casting a spotlight of scrutiny on his position for the first time. — The Guardian