Why England’s defeats cannot be blamed on the PWR having too many Canadian players

By Jacob Bassford

Three tests against Canada, one draw in Exeter and losses in Toronto and Ottawa respectively, and the Red Roses are in very unfamiliar territory.

In his post-match reaction to a first successive defeat for England since 2016, head coach John Mitchell drew focus to the significant presence of Canadians in the PWR, and warned of the long-term impact on England.

So why perhaps did he draw attention to this, and why in many ways he is wrong to do so.

For exclusive stories and all the detailed rugby news you need, subscribe to The Rugby Paper website, digital edition, or newspaper from as little as 14p a day.

Canada’s PWR influence

Mitchell is not incorrect in the significant impact Canada has on Premiership Women’s Rugby in England.

The reigning champions Saracens count all-action second row Sophie de Goede, scrumhalf Liv Apps (2025-26 PWR Player of the Season) and Julia Omokhuale as crucial fulcrums of their team.

Saracens head coach Alex Austerberry has also plied his trade with Canada, with Canada’s head coach Kevin Rouet also spending time coaching at the North Londoners.

Of Canada’s 36 player squad announced ahead of WXV, 14 of them played for PWR clubs in the 2025-26 campaign.

Meanwhile, Loughborough Lightning head coach Nathan Smith will be bringing back four players with him to the East Midlands after his assistant coach stint with the Canucks.

With both the coaches and the players, there is a deep familiarity of how the England players operate and do their business.

Mitchell was therefore correct to identify that as an asset to the Canadians in this year’s WXV.

England’s tactical failings

When you examine Mitchell’s comments a bit deeper, they become an ill-conceived attempt to deflect from England’s marked inability to adapt to Canada over their three Test matches.

Canadians players have incredible insight on English players due to the PWR, but that also obviously works vice versa.

Yet, clearly the Red Roses players and coaches under-utilised that.

In all three Test matches England reverted to their previously bulletproof gameplan of bullying Canada in the pack and set-piece, and had no other answers when Canada demonstrated they could significantly decrease that advantage.

Multiple international head coaches will be kicking themselves that the solution to stopping the Red Roses at maul-time was actually quite straightforward… give England the front at the lineout then sack the maul before it it forms.

Whereas, Canada have clearly evolved, England have stood still.

Squad depth concerns

Even with injuries, retirements and maternity-related absences, the Red Roses coaches have not built as much depth as they should, particularly when the start of a World Cup cycle is the opportune moment to do so.

Bryony Field aside, no new cap has cemented themselves in this Red Roses team since the World Cup.

Mitchell has only rotated when forced, and that was exposed when England’s back-three were particularly shown up.

Emma Sing continues to be under-utilised in the midst of Ellie Kildunne’s shaky form whilst Mia Venner demonstrated her resourcefulness in the third Test against Canada.

This is where Mitchell’s comments about Canadian players blocking England falls flat on his face.

The likes of Reneeqa Bonner and Millie David are not being blocked by non-England internationals for Bristol Bears, so Mitchell has to have his cake and eat it.

Either rotate and build depth, or accept the consequences when his trusted players are out-of-form and replacements are not as battle hardened as they should be.

I am surprised no one thought to ask Mitchell who he thought was being blocked by Canadians or other non-England internationals in the PWR clubs.

I am happy to be corrected otherwise, but I cannot think of a single player who is being blocked by non-England internationals for a PWR club that is international quality.

The central contracts debate

It is also worth highlighting that England’s pathway teams are nowhere near as dominant as the senior Red Roses.

The U21s recently lost to Ireland and were obliterated by France.

The French league also possesses a substantial number of Québécois players in their division, so it does not seem like that is negatively impacting their pathways.

Currently it would seem that the RFU pathway is not developing enough young PWR-standard talent, and maybe that is starting to sow a bit of panic in the Red Roses coaching booth.

So let’s ask ourselves why do the PWR rely on Red Roses as well as non-England international talent.

From the players perspective, the PWR being the best women’s league in the world is not just marketing, it is currently fact.

From the clubs’ perspective, the strategy of having plenty of non-England internationals in your squad makes sense when you remember the league is semi-professional.

The full-time advantage

The only full-time players are centrally contracted international players, the rest work around off-pitch careers or university studies, the majority of whom are not even paid match fees.

Most non-contracted players in the league then can only train on evenings.

Therefore, for the clubs, with sponsorship and attendances still a far cry from the international game, it makes financial sense to have players who are centrally contracted to their international union and can train more full-time to have a squad that can win the league.

It surprised me that the RFU did not decide to expand the number of centrally contracted players when contracts were renewed this July.

The RFU currently have 32 contracted players, plus six players on transition contracts.

This was after a Six Nations where England had to really call on the reserves amongst injuries and players on maternity leave, calling up semi-professional players such as Christiana Balogun, Sydney Gregson and Daisy Hibbert-Jones to the wider squad.

With Canada (as well as New Zealand and France) catching up to England, the Red Roses need more depth and more players who are playing full-time, having only a maximum of 38 players on some form of contract heading into the next world cup could be a costly mistake by the RFU.

To me, this is more a pressing issue than the amount of non-England internationals in the PWR.

Why the PWR needs overseas talent

To summarise, there are plenty of reasons why it is a good thing to have Canadians and other non-England internationals in the PWR.

From a quality standpoint, there are just not enough English-qualified athletes currently that can play and train at the same standard of the Red Roses to have a compelling league.

For the PWR to stay as the best league in the world, it will need to have world class players throughout the division.

And if the PWR was to merge with the Celtic Challenge clubs in the medium term, the English clubs are not going to be happy with the RFU if they have to increase their English Qualified Player quota and world class Canadian players suddenly flock over to the Celtic clubs or join the Elite Une in France.

Ultimately, to stay as the best team in the world, you want your Red Roses constantly playing against the best players in the world.

For Mitchell and the Red Roses coaching team then, to keep England at the very top of the game they need look at themselves and learn from the mistakes made since the World Cup final.

The answer is not demand something that would negatively affect both Canadian and English rugby.

This article can also be found on Jacob Bassford’s Substack.

READ MORE: Vicky Macqueen: Losing now could be best thing for England