Steve Borthwick out to spring biggest surprise on France since Edward III

There has been an understandable reluctance bordering on a collective amnesia within the England camp to confront the reality of France's last visit to Twickenham.
'We haven't mentioned it, actually,' Henry Slade, the centre, said earlier this week. 'It's a very different squad, and it's a very different team to who played that weekend. That's the first time I've thought about it actually.' Another survivor from that game, captain Maro Itoje, appears to have had his mind wiped by one of those flashing devices from the Men In Black films.
So as a public service announcement, let the record show that the last time Antoine Dupont and company came to town they ran in seven tries with almost embarrassing ease to inflict a 53-10 defeat, a record home loss in 154 years of English rugby history. No wonder a form of PTSD has emerged among the survivors where either it has been entirely forgotten or deemed a minor scrape rather than a deep scar.
Immediately after the rout, head coach Steve Borthwick repeatedly referred to the gap between England and the leading nations. 'Coming into this role I knew this was going to be a big challenge,' Borthwick said. 'I've been very clear there's a gap and the job is to try to close the gap as quickly as we can and I think you see how big the difference is.' Privately he was even more scathing about the physical conditioning of his players.
This was supposed to be rock bottom from which English rugby could only ascend upwards; the line in the sand past which they would never go backwards. And yet here we are two years on and Borthwick's side stand on the cusp of making some more, unwanted, history.
A loss on Saturday would confirm England's worst run of eight successive defeats against Six Nations and Rugby Championship teams. When you compare this current Borthwick side to the starting XVs of the dog days of the Andy Robinson era or even further back to the barren 1970s, it is difficult to subjectively say this the worst England team of all time. But statistically that is how they will be remembered.
Unless of course they spring the biggest surprise on the French since Edward III invaded Normandy at the start of the Hundred Years' War. Borthwick, too, must rely upon English misdirection and a dash of Gallic arrogance to overcome what would appear to be overwhelming odds (actually a six-point handicap with most bookmakers).
So once again, Borthwick has reorganised his forces. 'The early signs are that France persisted with their long kicking game to push [teams] back as far as possible. So that then leads to making decisions about your counter-attack and your run-back strategy, versus your kicking strategy,' Borthwick said.
Marcus Smith shifts to full-back and will need to be given the role of Harry Hotspur in initiating rapier attacks with any sniff of broken field. In comes Fin Smith – potentially the Black Prince? – and Tom Willis, who looks every bit the spit of a 14th century English longbowman, for first starts at fly-half and No 8 respectively. These are bold calls, perhaps the most striking since Borthwick promoted Marcus Smith ahead of Owen Farrell at fly-half in this corresponding fixture two years ago, which as we know, did not end too well.
Does the fact Borthwick altered the key cogs in his line-up from the 27-22 defeat by Ireland indicate a weak-minded vacillation? Or is it a sign of hard-nosed pragmatism opposite a superior force, much as Edward III did at the Battle of Crecy?
Yet this in itself indicates that the gap remains between England and the top tier of countries. Certainly, it is no longer a chasm. Borthwick's team knocked off Six Nations champions Ireland at Twickenham last year and came within a long-range Thomas Ramos penalty of claiming the scalp of France in Lyon. This was the start of a now familiar pattern of England failing to hold on to second-half leads, which continued through to Dublin last week. It has become a self-reinforcing narrative that England are desperate to shatter.
There is hope. France are missing some key men, including fly-half Romain Ntamack. His replacement Matthieu Jalibert is equal parts talented and temperamental. Last year England severely stressed France's defence with their high-tempo attack, encapsulated by Tommy Freeman's beautifully constructed try that looked to have snatched victory.
The pessimists will remember Dupont was missing that day. And those with shorter memories will look at the results in the Champions Cup this season in which the aggregate score between Toulouse and Bordeaux, who supply the bulk of France's starting XV, against English opposition is a staggering 255-78. Or even to last Friday night when Les Bleus demolished Wales 43-0 without seeming to get out of third gear.
From defence to attack to set-piece, it is very hard to make a case that England are stronger in any department than France. Which is why Borthwick has been forced to shuffle his playmakers in the hope of catching France off guard. A blowout French victory seems just as probable as a tight English win.
Another home loss to France – no matter how gallantly fought – would not be forgotten so quickly this time, particularly when Bill Sweeney, the Rugby Football Union chief executive, is desperately scrambling to save his own skin. And another humiliation on the scale of two years ago might spell the end for both Borthwick and Sweeney.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Times

16 minutes ago

• New York Times

Why are Bayer Leverkusen ready to pay more than £30m for Jarell Quansah?

Twelve months ago, in their bid to avoid breaching the Premier League's profit and sustainability rules (PSR), Newcastle United approached Liverpool about a deal that would see forward Anthony Gordon move to Anfield and defender Jarell Quansah go in the opposite direction. Liverpool told their Premier League rivals that they had no interest in selling their young centre-back. The 2023-24 campaign had been a breakthrough season for the 22-year-old who began the season as fifth choice but ended it as Jurgen Klopp's preferred partner to Virgil van Dijk. He started 27 games in his 33 appearances. Advertisement It looked like Liverpool's academy had eased concerns about finding a successor to Joel Matip and saved the club a significant transfer outlay. So, a year later, as Bayer Leverkusen edge closer to finalising an agreement with Liverpool to sign the defender for a fee of £30million (€35.1m; $40.4m) plus add-ons, how did we get here? And why are the German side preparing to make him one of their most expensive signings? A move to the Bundesliga is one thing, but the sums involved for someone who made just four Premier League starts last season are surprising. Liverpool's data department will no doubt have run the numbers to assess Quansah's value compared with other centre-backs at a similar age across Europe, with Michael Edwards (previously the club's sporting director and now CEO of football with owners Fenway Sports Group) renowned for his record of delivering profitable returns on Liverpool's squad players. The most comparable example last summer would be 23-year-old centre-back Sepp van den Berg, who departed for Brentford for a fee of £20.2million. That was twice the market value placed on him by Transfermarkt at the time (£10.3m, a crowd-sourced figure). Quansah's current value on Transfermarkt is £17.1m. Other examples of Liverpool's profitable outgoings include Fabio Carvalho (that deal could be worth up to £27.5m), Dominic Solanke (£19m plus add-ons), Rhian Brewster (£23.5m) and Jordon Ibe (£15m), meaning Liverpool's efficient sales approach should come as little surprise among the fanbase. In today's market, Liverpool could point to similar centre-backs who have recently signed in the Premier League as an anchor point for their own negotiations. Maximilian Kilman's £40m move from Wolves to West Ham United would be a salient example that Liverpool could have calibrated on, with Joachim Andersen (£30m) providing a clear ballpark of the modern-day centre-back. Advertisement Liverpool would have still maximised the market if Quansah's £30m-plus sale goes through, with fellow young English centre-back Taylor Harwood-Bellis being the closest comparison to the 22-year-old in the past 12 months. With Harwood-Bellis moving from Manchester City to Southampton for £20m last summer (almost perfectly aligning with his market value), it shows that Liverpool would be foolish not to profit from the fee proposed for Quansah. This time last year, Liverpool's evaluation would have been higher. Having signed a new long-term contract in October, Liverpool were able to retain value based on the potential he has shown, but it highlights the difficult 2024-25 campaign Quansah endured, which saw him make 25 appearances, 13 of which were starts. Projected to be the club's future starting centre-back for the next 10 years, he only managed one as fourth choice as Joe Gomez was selected ahead of him when Konate was out for over a month in 2024. He suffered setbacks that he had to bounce back from. The first came on the opening day of the season when he was substituted at half time in Liverpool's 2-0 victory over Ipswich Town. Following a solid pre-season, Quansah was selected ahead of Ibrahima Konate but with Arne Slot unhappy because of his side's collective poor duel success rate, he sacrificed the young defender. His confidence was knocked and that was evident in the following performances. The sight of Quansah slumping down in his chair after being substituted towards the end of the 3-2 victory over Brighton & Hove Albion in October offered a snapshot into how things were going. Quansah had played well for 75 minutes, but then gave the ball away in the build up to Brighton's first goal and the second saw a shot deflect off him, wrong-footing Vitezslav Jaros. There was some serious misfortune, too. Quansah scored two own goals last season against West Ham (Carabao Cup) and Chelsea (Premier League). Both involved one of his team-mates — Wataru Endo and Van Dijk respectively — booting the ball at him from less than a yard away and it rebounding into the net. Wrong place, wrong time and very little he could do about it. Advertisement His performances were a mixed bag, which was not helped by a lack of consistent action. In January, a positive showing against Lille in the Champions League was followed by a poor one against PSV a few weeks later. Understandably, when playing next to Van Dijk, he looked comfortable, but less so when he didn't. Stylistically, Quansah is not afraid to stick a foot in when the ball is there to be won. Comparing his 'true' tackles — which denote tackles attempted plus challenges lost plus fouls committed — with his fellow centre-backs since the start of 2023-24, only five players average more than his 4.9 per 1,000 touches. Such is his imposing frame, Quansah backs himself to step into a challenge on the ground or in the air (4.9 aerial duels per 90 minutes). The difficulty has been his success rate in those challenges, with a true tackles win rate (63 per cent) that is in the bottom half among his positional peers. Aerially, his 65 per cent win rate is good enough for the 21st-best in his cohort, but notably lower than fellow centre-backs Konate (71 per cent) and Van Dijk (77 per cent). Slot spoke positively about the centre-back's mentality during the second half of the season and was pleased with his performance levels. His most memorable moment of the league campaign came via a crucial late interception in a 2-1 victory over Wolverhampton Wanderers (below). However, the Dutchman's comments following the 3-1 defeat by Chelsea in May offer the potential reason why Liverpool are comfortable letting him go. In a similar fashion to the Brighton game, Quansah did fine but scored an own goal and conceded a late penalty, fouling Moises Caicedo after Dominik Szoboszlai's attempted pass to him lacked sufficient power. 'Jarell is fast, strong and comfortable on the ball,' Slot told reporters. 'He has every ingredient a centre-back for this club should have. Now the last parts should be consistency in his performances.' 'To play in this team, you need to be really, really, really good and he is competitive with the other ones. But he was maybe a bit unlucky that the other ones stayed fit throughout the whole season and they have so much consistency in their levels. Advertisement 'Jarell has had consistency as well but one moment can change the perception of a game. One moment can also lead to us losing or winning a game of football. These small details can make a big difference in a season. That's why to play at Liverpool you need to do so many things well at the highest level — but the moment you do so, he can play here for so many years to come.' Liverpool were not actively looking to sell Quansah this summer and value him as a young squad player with potential to become a regular England international. But as with others on the edges of Slot's squad, there is a price where a sale would be sanctioned. And in a World Cup year, it is understandable for the defender to be seeking more game time in the hopes of making Thomas Tuchel's squad next summer. Yet with Liverpool now needing to bolster their own centre-back options this summer, there is an irony in that the profile of player they would be most closely linked with would be someone like Quansah. Financial implications notwithstanding, there is a curiousness to the exit of such a young, promising English talent that is already attuned to Slot's way of playing. In Leverkusen, he is joining a side that are remodeling their defensive unit in a summer of change after manager Xabi Alonso departed for Real Madrid and Erik ten Hag replaced him. Liverpool have signed Florian Wirtz and Jeremie Frimpong, while fellow defenders Jonathan Tah (Bayern Munich) and Odilon Kossounou (Napoli) have left. Fellow centre-back Piero Hincapie could also move on. Goalkeeper Mark Flekken has already arrived from Brentford and Quansah will not be the final defensive arrival this summer as they overhaul that department. For the German side, this is an investment in potential. Slot has shown his ruthless side, allowing the next stages of Quansah's development and the natural growing pains young players go through to happen away from Anfield. Last season did not make Quansah a bad player in only his second season at senior level. He has shown he has the ability to play at the top of the game, and this could be the perfect move for the defender to prove that again.

New York Times

16 minutes ago

• New York Times

Crystal Palace and Lyon in Europa League is a problem – but multi-club crackdown is too little too late

It's there in black and white. On the pitch and off it, football's rulebook can often be infuriatingly vague, but article 5.01 of UEFA's regulations for its club tournaments is pretty straightforward. 'No one,' it reads, 'may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.' Advertisement It goes on: 'No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition' — by which it specifies 'holding a majority of the shareholders' voting rights' or 'being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club'. That is why Crystal Palace's dreams of competing in their first European campaign hang in the balance. The Premier League club's largest shareholder, Eagle Football Holdings, also owns the biggest stake in French club Lyon, who, like Palace, have qualified for next season's Europa League — and that creates a problem. And so it should. Why on earth should UEFA, European football's governing body, allow any two clubs under the same ownership or management structure to enter the same competition? Of course there should be rules to guard against such conflicts of interest and threats to integrity. Palace have spent the past couple of weeks quietly making their case to UEFA, pointing out that while John Textor of Eagle Football Holdings is indeed their largest shareholder, he has just 25 per cent of their voting rights. Indeed, in an interview with The Athletic in May last year, Textor found himself conceding that his vision of integrating Palace into his Eagle Football empire with Lyon, RWD Molenbeek (Belgium), Botafogo (Brazil) and FC Florida (United States) had proved unachievable because the south London club are effectively run by chairman Steve Parish. Palace's other investors have put pressure on Textor to sell Eagle's 43 per cent stake. Woody Johnson, owner of the NFL's New York Jets, has made an offer but is yet to meet his valuation. A consortium of sport and entertainment executives, which includes the NBA star Jimmy Butler, has also held discussions with Textor. It remains to be seen whether such a move would satisfy UEFA's club financial control body; the deadline for teams to make and register changes to their ownership structure, ahead of participation in the coming season's European competitions, passed on March 1. If Palace are expelled from the Europa League, they cannot drop into the third-tier Conference League because, summing up this whole tangled web, the Danish club Brondby have already qualified for that competition and are owned by Global Football Holdings, an investment vehicle led by Palace part-owner David Blitzer. And Brondby, like Lyon, would take precedence over Palace because UEFA's rules stipulate that in issues relating to multi-club ownership, priority is given to the team finishing in the highest position in their respective domestic leagues. Advertisement Sympathy will flow naturally for Palace if the UEFA decision goes against them. Everyone could see what winning the FA Cup last month meant to their supporters, the first major trophy success in their history, but it was also warmly welcomed by the wider football community because beating Manchester City in the final was an underdog triumph of the type that has become depressingly rare in the sport — not least in England, where trophies had appeared to become the preserve of a handful of rich, powerful clubs. Sympathy also flows naturally for Drogheda United, of the League of Ireland, who have already been excluded from next season's Conference League because of the possibility — only a one-in-15 chance in the second qualifying round — that it could have brought them into direct competition with Danish club Silkeborg, who are also under the ownership of the Alabama-based Trivela Group. Reading through Drogheda's statement last Monday after their appeal was rejected by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, you could not help but feel their anguish: a 'community-driven club… who fight every day to punch above their weight', who felt that a first European campaign in 12 years, by virtue of winning the FAI Cup for only the second time, would have been 'transformational… not just financially, but emotionally for our players, our staff, and our community'. But like it or not, there is still a conflict of interest — whether potential or actual — when two clubs in the same competition are operating under the same ownership. There are, as of last June, regulations to prevent it. And so there should be. What kind of governing body would UEFA be if there were not? The problem is that UEFA's belated clampdown on multi-club ownership goes nothing like far enough. It doesn't deter multi-club ownership at all. It just seeks to offer a semblance of compliance — a little window-dressing, really — where UEFA's competitions are concerned, as if the only issue with multi-club networks is the relatively small (but fast-growing) threat of teams under the same ownership playing each other, rather than the much more serious issues of them losing their sovereignty, losing their identity, losing their purpose. Advertisement UEFA's most recent benchmarking report, titled 'the European Club Finance and Investment Landscape', detailed that 105 top-flight sides across Europe are now part of a multi-club structure. That includes 15 in the Premier League, 11 in Italy's Serie A, 10 in Ligue 1 in France, nine in Spain's La Liga and six in the German Bundesliga. Some clubs have done very well out of multi-club ownership — perhaps most obviously RB Leipzig, Red Bull Salzburg and Girona — but as the phenomenon has grown, the success stories have come to be vastly outweighed by the number of historic names across Europe whose identity and ambitions have been sold to overseas investors (usually, but not always, from the United States) who regard them as little more than stocks in an investment portfolio. Some of those investors can at least claim to offer some level of expertise. Many do not. One of the fastest-growing multi-club networks in recent years was that of 777 Partners, which bought significant stakes in teams in Spain (Sevilla), Italy (Genoa), Belgium (Standard Liege), France (Red Star of Paris), Germany (Hertha Berlin), Australia (Melbourne Victory) and Brazil (Rio de Janeiro's Vasco da Gama). Shortly after it agreed a deal to buy Premier League side Everton — for which it failed to raise the necessary funds — the 777 Partners empire crumbled, plunging its entire stable of clubs into uncertainty or worse. As outlined in this column in 2023, there are so many reasons to be concerned by the rise of multi-club ownership and UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin's apparent ambivalence to the issue. As important as the sporting integrity question is — the idea that, for example, Palace could come up against Textor's Lyon in the Europa League — it is far less of an issue for the future of football than the existential threat multi-club ownership poses to teams, and indeed to entire leagues, if they serve as mere satellites to those at the top of the chain. But UEFA's long-awaited crackdown only addresses that single issue. It merely requires clubs to jump through a few hoops so that, on paper at least, the appearance of any conflict of interest is averted. Advertisement City Football Group, for example, was required to transfer its shares in Spanish side Girona to independent trustees as a temporary measure through a 'blind trust' structure, under UEFA supervision, to be cleared to play in last season's Champions League, because Manchester City were already in that competition. INEOS was required to do likewise with their shares in France's Nice to play in the Europa League, where they could have faced Manchester United, where INEOS chairman Sir Jim Ratcliffe owns a 28.9 per cent stake and has control over sporting matters. In the final weeks of last season, Nottingham Forest announced that Evangelos Marinakis had diluted his control of the club — placing his shares in a blind trust, submitting documents to Companies House in April to say he was no longer a 'person with significant control' of NF Football Investments Limited — to ensure that they would comply with UEFA regulations next season if they ended up in the same competition as his Greek team, Olympiacos. In the event, Olympiacos won the title, so will play in next season's Champions League, whereas Forest ended up in the Conference League. And so, on June 12, there was a filing at Companies House to report that Marinakis was a person with significant control at the City Ground once more. As for whether anything ever really changed beyond the paperwork, we can only take Forest's word for it. But it is worth noting that after Marinakis went onto the pitch to remonstrate with head coach Nuno Espirito Santo after the 2-2 draw with Leicester City on May 11, the club issued a statement in praise of 'our owner' and extolling the strength of 'his leadership, not just through words, but through action and presence'. Please excuse the tangent. The point is simply to underline that, even with his shares placed in a blind trust, Marinakis appeared to be more hands-on at Forest than your typical long-distance Premier League owner would be — more involved than Textor at Palace, certainly. But because this essentially comes down to paperwork, a box had been ticked. Why or how Palace and Drogheda failed to jump through those particular hoops by March 1, only they know. Palace could easily claim that multi-club ownership is so far off their agenda that it did not cross their mind back in March — European qualification likewise, perhaps — but when they have not one but two significant investors with controlling interests in other teams, it looks like a serious oversight. As for Drogheda, they won the FAI Cup last November, so surely they had ample time to ensure compliance. Advertisement That emotionally-wrought club statement last week mentioned 'months of engagement, constructive dialogue, countless hours of legal preparation, and multiple proposals based on frameworks that have been accepted in the past' but said that ultimately the club had 'come up short'. Whatever their frustration, the club — and they appeared to be talking for their owners here — said, 'We accept responsibility and we're sorry.' It is genuinely a sad situation. When you think of the various abuses, loopholes and suspicious activities that multi-club ownership allows, no one would suggest that Drogheda (or indeed Palace) are anywhere near the crux of the problem. Drogheda's is a regulatory failure of the type that the big beasts of European football would never make. Or if they did, they would have enough weight behind them — in terms of power, finance and legal backing — to give them every chance of finding a way around it. But none of these blind trusts or cosmetic reshuffles come close to addressing the issue in a meaningful way. The further and deeper the tentacles of multi-club ownership spread, the closer we come to a scenario where, in future, football could be dominated by a handful of rival networks who own the biggest teams in every league on every continent — and whether those networks are owned by energy-drink manufacturers, venture capitalists or sovereign wealth funds, whether or not those sides are temporarily placed into blind trusts for appearances sake, it is a nightmarish vision for a sport whose popularity since the 19th century has been based on the very simple and very appealing principle that clubs exist simply to represent their community. The football authorities have never shown the slightest appetite to tackle the multi-club issue, and it somehow feels entirely typical that the crackdown centres on paperwork. Should two clubs under even partial control of the same individual or entity be allowed to compete in the same competition? No, they should not. But when it comes to addressing the issue of multi-club ownership, excluding clubs like Drogheda and Palace would achieve nothing except to underline the importance of getting the paperwork right.

Fox Sports

42 minutes ago

• Fox Sports

Gündogan has two goals, Haaland scores as Man City routs Al Ain 6-0 at the Club World Cup

Associated Press ATLANTA (AP) — Ilkay Gundogan had a pair of goals, Erling Haaland scored on a penalty and Manchester City locked up its spot in the knockout round of the Club World Cup with a 6-0 rout of Al Ain on Sunday night. Claudio Echeverri, Oscar Bobb and Rayan Cherki also scored for City, which is trying to put an encouraging capper on a disappointing season. The English powerhouse finished third in the Premier League after four straight championships and went down to Real Madrid in the knockout playoff of the UEFA Champions League. With an entirely new lineup after a 2-0 win over Morocco's Wydad in the opening group game, Man City produced a dominating performance in Atlanta against an overmatched club from the United Arab Emirates. The time of possession was a staggering 74% in favor of the English side, which outshot Al Ain 21-5. Haaland buried the penalty for his 32nd goal of the season across all competitions after a video review found that Rami Rabia took down City's Manuel Akanji in the area on a corner kick. Cherki, one of City's high-profile signings, scored his first goal for his new club in the waning minutes. The expected result sent Man City and Italian club Juventus (both 2-0-0) to the Round of 16 from Group G. Al Ain has been blown out twice, losing 5-0 to Juventus in its opener. Manchester City is the reigning club champion, winning the title in 2023 under the former seven-team format. Key moment After Gündogan flicked in an early goal over the head of keeper Khalid Eisa, Echeverri assured this would be an easy night for City in the 27th minute. With a free kick from just outside the area, he curled a shot over the wall that left Eisa frozen on one knee while the ball ripped the back of the net. Takeaways Man City will face Juventus on Thursday in Orlando to determine which team claims the top spot in the group. Then the real work begins for both clubs. ___ AP soccer: