We've all done it. Work hasn't been going so well of late. Money is tight and for the last couple of nights you haven't slept soundly. You arrive home, later than usual, having spent an extra hour in the office, not a total waste of time, it turns out you have discovered a talent for finger-drumming the intro to the Queens Of The Stone Age "Song For The Dead" on your desk. When you finally decide, after a second encore, to leave the working day behind, traffic is as heavy as the downpour that grafts your clothes to your skin. As you sit at the kitchen table with a towel, having shed your apparelled flesh and longing to do the same with the unseen outer layer, the veneer that the banalities of living demand, your other half asks innocuously, "did you get the milk?"
The rupture in you is so bilious in nature, that an observer may reasonably infer that you had been greatly wronged. An admission of waned love or of an infidelity, perhaps? But such conclusions would be wrong.
Get to the point, I hear you say. Well, the point is this: sometimes we misdirect our anger. After Ireland's narrow loss to Wales in yesterday's Six Nations opener, the laser-pointer of blame was not turned inward, but rather, outward, and came to rest on referee, Wayne Barnes.
The referee's decision to penalise and yellow-card Stephen Ferris in the last minute, thus handing the winning points to Wales, was harsh. And his decision to only sin-bin Bradley Davies (or that of touch-judge Nigel Pearson, who, incidentally, is the referee for next week's clash in Paris) was poor. But the referee did not lose Ireland the match. We know this. Our frustration is with the team, if not the players then the management, but we are pretending that we're mad at the referee. Wayne Barnes could have remembered the milk and Ireland still may have lost. The concession of a soft penalty at the death does not transform Ireland's performance from a poor one. We have to ask ourselves why was Ireland's performance so?
The idea that the best three back-rowers in the country constitutes the best back-row is false. O'Brien may be the best International seven in Ireland, but he's also the best number six and the best number eight, and from either of these positions he would see a lot more ball-in-hand, where he is a more potent weapon. The Irish coaching ticket must mould a player, such as Peter O'Mahony, in the cast of a genuine openside flanker and decree that his Provence must follow suit.
(To deviate from the script slightly, why is it that Heaslip at seven is not being discussed? He is excellent on the ground and whilst terrific with the ball, is not the carrier that O'Brien is, so why not swap them? Though I grant you that this would be a risk and would only serve to paper over the cracks.)
The irony of my reaction to the back-row conundrum (I'm not alone, listen to George Hook's here), is that this is probably the only game in this Six Nations where Ireland will be tested on the ground in the manner Wales did. For only Wales possess an openside flanker in the style of, and the calibre of, Sam Warburton. So we'll get away with it for another few matches, until we come up against Wales again, or the Wallabies, or the All-Blacks and sure we're supposed to lose against the last two. What good are ball carriers if you can't get the ball?
At scrum-half Colm Murray was inconsistent, by no means poor, but Redden should be paired with Johnny Sexton. Murray and Sexton as half-backs highlight an inconsistency in how the coach wants his back-line to play and likewise the coupling of Redden and O'Gara.
In midfield, Gordon D'arcy's form is poor, and over the last year, inconsistent. Yesterday, Ireland played two 12s and conceded a lot, in terms of physicality, to their Welsh counterparts. But this defeat offers us an opportunity to work on an exciting hunch; that Tommy Bowe can excel at centre. Against Rougerie and Fofana, I fear Bowe is Ireland's only hope. It's got to be worth a try (pun intended), right?
But I know, I don't need to be told that this is the stuff of fantasy. Ireland will not make changes of the magnitude called for here. That is Declan Kidney's prerogative. But if Ireland fail to perform in France, then probing questions should be asked about the progress of the team since the Grand Slam and the introduction of the E.L.Vs. Even if they do perform well, one off performances have not been the issue, more, it's the doubts over consistency that nag. Whatever the outcome, people will continue to scratch their heads and wonder, why can't the players take their provincial form onto the international stage? Is Kidney's coaching pedigree compatible with how Leinster coach their backs, both in the senior team and at academy level (which raises questions over the future development of the team)?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, compensating for O'Driscoll's absence, particularly in defence, proved to be an insurmountable challenge. Not merely in his duties as a centre but in his role as a pseudo-back-rower. We saw McFadden, by BOD's omnipotent fiat, shooting out of the line on two occasions (that I can recall), but that was the only glimpse we saw any BOD-like apparitions and in general our defensive line-speed was poor.
Ultimately, six days is not long enough to go away and dream it all up again, but the players must take charge on the field and recognise where a game plan is, or is not, working. At the start of the second half, Ireland attacked around the fringes of the ruck, where Wales were light on numbers, and for a time, began punching holes that drew the Welsh defence in, thus creating space out wide. I will be surprised if Ireland go out on Saturday and mirror their timid performance at the breakdown. We must not so easily kick possession away and give the French back-three a counter-attacking platform. This, coupled with high intensity play would be a good starting place at the Stade de France.
No comments:
Post a Comment