Why RFU’s key Steve Borthwick decision ‘deliberately lacked detail’ amid Sir Clive Woodward’s anger over vague statement

The RFU have come under fire for the process which led to Steve Borthwick’s reprieve, but the governing body insist there is a good reason why the finer details are not released to the public.

England’s head coach was spared the sack earlier this week after a review into their dreadful Six Nations campaign found in favour of the 46-year-old.

Borthwick’s job was at risk following the recent competition which saw them suffer four successive defeats, including a first-ever loss to Italy.

He has now been backed to take the country into the Rugby World Cup, but the exact reasons why have not been revealed.

Vague RFU statement

While reports have surfaced of the head honcho receiving support from the players and coaches, the RFU have withheld the finer details of the inquest.

According to the Telegraph that is so they don’t “betray the confidence of future contributors”.

The vagueness around the review has received criticism, most notably from 2003 Rugby World Cup-winning head coach Sir Clive Woodward, who was scathing of the RFU.

“The RFU talks openly of conducting reviews after every major campaign. This is ineffective. In the time taken to uncover what went wrong, the tournament has come and gone (and been lost),” he wrote in his Daily Mail column.

Want more from Planet Rugby? Add us as a preferred source on Google to your favourites list for world-class coverage you can trust.

“All you achieve is to question the credibility of your head coach. Elite sport moves fast. Solutions for fixing the 2026 Six Nations will not necessarily suffice for South Africa away in July, just like the recipe for winning 12 matches in a row did nothing to guarantee success in the Six Nations.

“High performance is an evolution and end-of-term reviews are too slow. I did not expect the RFU to share anything meaningful. But I did chuckle when I saw the line about England’s performance being undermined by ‘discipline, execution of opportunities and making the most of key moments’.

“This was obvious in February. What have they been talking about for two months?”

Hints of ex-All Blacks boss with Steve Borthwick reprieve as reasons for RFU’s huge decision emerge

‘Zero accountability’

Woodward also addressed the issue with the anonymous contributors whose names the RFU are so determined to protect.

The former England boss states that he is “embarrassed” for them and claims that it undermines the actual process.

“The RFU love a review because it offers zero accountability,” he added.

“This brings me to my next point. I am embarrassed for those people involved in the decision-making who want to remain anonymous. How can we trust a process when those involved aren’t willing to put their name to it?

“Borthwick, his coaches, and the players have taken heaps of stick. Why should they play judge, jury, and possible executioner without any of the same responsibility? How can you call yourself an expert if you are not willing to be accountable?”

READ MORE: Sir Clive Woodward blasts RFU review that only ‘questions the credibility’ of Steve Borthwick