Sometimes the sporting line between inglorious failure and glorious success is ridiculously fine. Would it really have been the "worst ever" on Saturday if, say, David Humphreys had landed a late drop goal? Would the Irish crowd, public and media have generally been so damning?

This is not to say that a last-ditch 19-17 win would have made Saturday a good Irish performance or even a good game. But "the plucky Irish" might have got more of an airing in such a scenario: At least Humphreys would have delivered when it mattered. At least this team would have done what no other Irish team had done for a decade and beaten the Scots. It would have been a start, something to build on.

Instead, it was the `worst ever' and this team has little tangible to build on. Remember, after all, the starting point of the 1985 Triple Crown. Mick Doyle's newly built young team went to Murrayfield and threw it about from the off. Admittedly, they didn't undermine their positive intentions with a host of basic errors, and they had the nerve to complete a couple of well-worked moves.

But, entering the last move of the match, Ireland were still losing. Paul Dean worked a midfield loop and a talented Irish back-line put Trevor Ringland over in the corner. Uncle Fred nearly had a fit. We all did. In the face of some hostility - Deano had his critics then, by the legion - Doyler took a gamble and it deservedly paid off. Ireland went on to win the Triple Crown thanks to a last-ditch drop goal by Michael Kiernan against England. The line remained fine until the end.

On Saturday, Brian Ashton took a gamble on Humphreys and it didn't pay off. It always was going to be a bit of a gamble. As I'd pointed out beforehand, Eric Elwood has a much higher winning percentage when playing for Ireland (nine wins and a draw out of 21 games, as against one out of eight for Humphreys). Even if Ashton was aware of this, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't, it probably wouldn't have made any difference.

Ashton wants an out-half who can transfer the ball quickly between the hands and there was enough evidence on Saturday to see why Humphreys was chosen. Some of his distribution was the best seen by an Irish out-half at the venue since Brian Smith seven years ago.

Nor did Humphreys miss a tackle. He also landed three place-kicks out of three (while Rowan Shepherd was missing four out of six) and landed a perfectly struck drop goal.

Unfortunately, he miscued two restarts (which, psychologically, may have led to him cautiously kicking at least one other a mite too long) and at the death was as culpable as anyone of Ireland's collective loss of nerve. Twice he kicked, and once directly out on the full, and then his late drop goal attempt fell well short.

This supports the theory that he is mentally fragile. Maybe then, he isn't a "winner", though a win of any hue might have done so much for him - as well as the rest of this team.

Had Elwood been there then, who knows, maybe he would have controlled things better. His restarts are better, and he is also a particularly strong defender, both in contact himself and in vocally organising those around him. His greater physique also allows him to take the ball onto the gain line himself and be more of a target for his back-row. Elwood is also a very effective tactical line-kicker, a better percentage man.

But, bearing in mind Ashton's philosophy, would he have launched his backs as well, and put the ball and the man into space as Humphreys did? There were few distinguishable moves across the back-line against Canada. Ireland's best play that day came from attacking the narrow side.

Which is not to say that I'm convinced he can't move a back-line. When asked to do so this season for Connacht and Galwegians (and he wasn't asked too often for Ireland in the past) Elwood's back-line has often delivered. What's more, both teams have played winning rugby.

Both have strengths where the other man has weaknesses. So it is that opinion is polarised. Amid long, informal post-match inquests, I elicited the views of several former Irish half-backs. A couple told me that there's no future in playing Elwood, that if we're ever to start playing the modern international game and look beyond eking out wins against our fellow Celtic nations, and actually start running the ball in Paris rather than just kicking it back at the French with ne'er a hint of a try, then we have to go with Humphreys.

Another couple told me that Eric is the only man for the job (and in one case was thus disagreeing with a long-time friend and one-time teammate). That `yer man' is too flaky and that Eric is more of a winner and that we desperately need a win.

Even while failing to agree among themselves, I envy them their clarity. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Given the need for a win over the Scots, I'd had a preference for Elwood. After all, Jim Telfer took a similar horses-for-courses strategy. Add in the pre-match concern about the lack of physique and experience in the 9-10-12-13, and it's clear that Humphreys probably needs stronger men around him than that.

So it's partly dependant on who's around them. To drop Humphreys now might spare him further scars in Paris. But it would also consign him to the psychological Irish rugby scrap heap (if there's any room left). What's best for the team? In the short-term, possibly Elwood. In the longer term, possibly Humphreys.

It's Ashton's choice and given he has a six-year contract and a long-term strategy, one could well see him retaining faith in Humphreys.

Similarly, the choices elsewhere do not make compelling evidence for change. What this team needs besides a win is some continuity of selection. After looking at 29 players in four games this season, and 39 in eight games under this management, the selectors ought to be hitting on a settled side. Beside, Paris has been the graveyard of so many once-capped players, especially outside centres and open-side flankers, that this is hardly the time to blood the likes of Killian Keane.

It's about preservation now, and obtaining "a performance." Changes (voluntary anyway) should be kept to about two or three. Though it will be harsh to scapegoat Brian O'Meara in any way, the return of Conor McGuinness might add to the tactical leadership and the threat off the fringe.

The back row had looked a better balanced unit and defensively this was undoubtedly so. But although some of his handling in open play was excellent, some of Eric Miller's basic number eight play was again disappointing, as was Kieron Dawson's performance. Given this, the selectors might now consider promoting Victor Costello and moving Miller to the open side. A better, offensive back-row unit would also give more space for the backs. But then this raises questions about the back row's defensive balance.