The RFU's chief executive, Ian Ritchie, has ignited a storm of debate in this country and attracted global attention — for saying England's inability to win the RBS Six Nations is 'unacceptable'. After a fourth consecutive second place in the championship, the man in charge of the union — and national coach Stuart Lancaster's boss — delivered a forthright verdict about the need to aim higher. Among those objecting to his views was Sir Clive Woodward, who argued passionately in these pages that the timing was wrong and that Ritchie had scored a 'massive own goal'. RFU chief executive Ian Ritchie (right) chats to Lancaster at England's base in Pennyhill Park in Bagshot . Tom Wood (left), Courtney Lawes and Chris Robsaw leave the pitch following their 55-35 win against France . England have claimed just one Six Nations title since their 2003 World Cup triumph in Australia . Yet what was he supposed to say in the circumstances? Let's be clear; this was a damned-either-way scenario. Imagine if Ritchie had declared that he found the outcome — another campaign without silverware — to be perfectly acceptable. He would have been widely castigated for failing to drive standards, for setting the bar too low. He would have been condemned for sitting on the fence and refusing to demand better. Instead, he made it plain that he and the RFU are not about to settle for title near-misses. If it was meant as a suited boot to the behinds of the coaching staff, then it was unnecessary as they know precisely what is required. When Lancaster sat down to reflect on Saturday's 55-35 rout of France at Twickenham, he wore a despondent look. There was barely a flicker of consolation in the match result. He is well aware that anything other than first won't do. Lancaster (second left) consoles his players  after they fell just six points short of a Six Nations title . Amid a raging discussion on this polarising subject on Wednesday, some observers even questioned Ritchie's right to dip a toe in these waters at all. The thrust of the point from the dissenting voices was that he is in charge of the business and should leave Lancaster and Co to run the England team. This simplistic outlook ignores the glaring truth: that Ritchie controls the appointment of coaches. Soon after taking up his post he was the man who — following consultation with a panel of rugby experts — opted to give Lancaster the head coach role on a full-time basis, after his impressive interim audition. Earlier this season, Ritchie authorised the agreement of new six-year contracts for Lancaster and his three assistants, Andy Farrell, Graham Rowntree and Mike Catt. So while he may not have the deep-rooted rugby knowledge to precisely criticise performances, he is an employer who must monitor the efforts of his leading employees. He is only one administrative step removed from the running of the team. Ritchie (left) and Lancaster talk in the Twickenham stands prior to England's clash with New Zealand . In the rush to hand out bouquets or throw stones at the end of this year's home World Cup, Ritchie will be either acclaimed or damned by association with the England team as the man on whose watch the whole countdown and campaign took place. Should his young coaching team and their squad fall short of the country's expectations, the chief executive's head will be above the parapet, so it is only right that he can voice his hopes and fears from time to time. That matter of expectation is significant. Ritchie doesn't need reminding that the RFU are the richest union in the world and England have the greatest depths of playing reserves. With that in mind, to have won just one Six Nations title since the World Cup triumph of 2003 is absolutely unacceptable. Thus, what he said amounts to fair comment. Stuart Lancaster with his tight-knit coaching team of Graham Rowntree (left), Mike Catt and Andy Farrell . Among the Celtic nations in particular, the reaction to his post-championship verdict has led to yet more predictable and tedious references to perceived English 'arrogance'. This accusation is utter nonsense. It is entirely logical that a country — or a club, for that matter — with vast resources would have higher expectations and demands than those with less clout in terms of finance or personnel. Look at football's Premier League. The likes of Chelsea and Manchester City would aim for the title and consider anything else to be a let-down. It does not mean they have a divine right to win it, but their benchmark naturally must be higher than rivals with fewer resources. Ireland, meanwhile, are heading to the World Cup with back-to-back Six Nations titles . So it is not arrogance for the English to bemoan a paucity of championship successes. Consider this. In 2012, Scottish Rugby chief executive Mark Dodson outlined a strategic plan which included the target of winning a Grand Slam by 2016 — and also the World Cup. At the time, he said: 'The goals we've set reflect our ambition for the game in Scotland. With unity, and support from the whole nation there is no reason we can't achieve those goals.' The truth is somewhat different, but no-one dismissed this as Scottish arrogance, just wishful thinking. Ritchie is not guilty of arrogance for demanding that England win trophies. He is also not venturing outside his remit. He is aiming high, as is his right.
RFU chief executive Ian Ritchie branded England's second-placed Six Nations finish as 'unacceptable'
It was England's fourth consecutive second place in the championship . Sir Clive Woodward felt Ritchie's comments were made at the wrong time .