Ireland 2010: what went wrong?

by Brendan Cole

What happened to Ireland?

To review briefly, they were beaten by France and Scotland and won against Italy, Wales and England. But from start to finish, Ireland did not perform at their best: only the performances against England and Wales got any near the higher of the scale. Arguably, France and Scotland were the only teams with enough strategy, confidence and energy to kick the door in and fully take advantage of obvious Irish weaknesses.

Italy did not have the quality, Wales put in their worst performance of the tournament and England faced Ireland on their best day but still threw the match away despite having done enough to win it. That is not to take way from the Irish victories: they were deserved. But they had nothing of the inexorable belief and sense of inevitability that characterised last year’s campaign from day one.

The common denominators from game to game in 2010 are clear: ineffective tackling, poor defence, poor discipline, a risky approach to attacking play and a scrum that constantly came under pressure.

Ireland defence geared towards stopping flat attacking alignments

Defence first: As in 2009, Ireland came up hard and looked to shift sideways when the ball was in the air, looking to hit man and ball and force either standstill or an opposition mistake. They did not commit to the majority of rucks, instead fanning out either side of the tackle area. It is a method designed to give problems to flat lying attacks.

Unlike 2009, not one opposition team obliged by consistently attacking in this way. Instead, they aligned wide and deep and made long, easy passes to big players who could catch the ball easily and then dictate the tackle situation by taking momentum into it.

Wales, France and Scotland were all able to march Ireland back deep into their own '22 from the half-way line on several occasions: only England were prevented from making territory gains for long periods. Ireland rarely if ever tackled man and ball on or behind the gainline and never even sniffed an intercept. France in particular were able to draw Ireland up a few yards, make them hesitate, and then cut them to pieces in the open field. Paris was a masterclass on how to dominate a blitz defence.

Tight five problems at heart for Ireland

But the problem up front contributed to the defensive difficulty. Only against a Welsh side shorn of the majority of its first choice 1-5 players did Ireland perform well in the tight annd even on that day, the defensive system yielded easy yards and had some let-offs. 

Overall, Ireland were pressed at scrum time to a far greater extent than in 2009. Obviously, the Irish weakness had been spotted. France fielded a 5'8 prop in Thomas Domingo and gave up oodles of lineout ball. But they had clearly decided that the path to smashing Ireland was through the scrum and other contact areas.

Ireland's attacking strategy is also open to question. Ireland hardly passed at all last year and were slammed in some quarters for their caution ('boring', said Marc Lievremont).

Whether in response to that criticism or not, a policy decision to attempt risky attacking plays and be more expansive, as well as a focus on the first 20 minutes of the game was evident. It cost them dearly. Ireland were frenetic in the opening 20 in Paris but the French simply soaked it up and were able to smash their exposed jaw as soon as the chance arose.

The also opened in helter skelter fashion against Scotland and though it yielded one try, it cost another. The policy of attempting risky offloads also inevitably meant that Ireland would have to face more scrums - exposing their weakest flank to even more pressure.

The laws/interpretation issue that blew up in the Wales match is also a concern. On a point of fact, the issue was flagged up before the tournament and had been widely discussed in the rugby world. Leaving that aside, what is disappointing is that instead of seeing the new interpretation as an opportunity or challenge, Ireland decided to look on it as a pure negative.

Ireland failed to adjust to evolving situation

If defence has become harder than attack must - by definition – be easier. But Ireland did not appear to change any part of their game to that into account and their attacking policy remained one in which risks continued to be taken at the expense of ball retention.

All in all, it's been a disheartening year for Ireland. They are not the first team to trip up while attempting to develop and there are echoes of RWC 2007 in how real positives have been damaged instead of nurtured: the decision to try to become an 80 minute team in particular was a failure. Great Cup teams - just think of the Kilkenny hurlers - absorb and counter-punch. But Ireland tried to play like a League team in what is essentially a Cup competition.

To conclude: there is no doubt that this is a pretty negative review. The strides made by Keith Earls, the excellence of Tommy Bowe, the brilliance of Tomás O'Leary against England and the real attacking verve that Ireland occasionally showed have not been a big part of it.

Obviously, Ireland can bounce back. However, they have been damaged and the wounds are more than superficial, just as the shortcomings are go deeper than luck and fine detail. On the selection front, Declan Kidney is in a delicate position with his out-half selection. His tight five must also be looked at, as must getting more size into the team in the heart of the backline.

Additional specialist coaching must also be considered. Team of the tournament France employed a sports psychologist and while some will say that Kidney fulfils this role a one-to-one expert might be just what Ireland need. A specialist scrum coach - possibly from outside the Irish system - may also be needed to give Ireland real direction in this exceptionally weak area.  

The ingredients to build a more robust side are there and Kidney is well used to having his teams sharply criticised. They have a tendency to come back even stronger after tough times.

But change is needed: the next few months will be fascinating......