In sport the location of the thin line between genius and madness is often governed by the result. Win and you get to write the narrative, lose and the whole world gets to critique the defeat, armed with the certainty of hindsight.
In the build-up to last Saturday’s game at the Aviva Stadium, the talk was of France’s 7-1 forwards-to-backs split on the bench. Post-match the majority of column inches were taken up by Antoine Dupont’s unfortunate injury and the verbal pot shots aimed by French coach Fabien Galthié at several Ireland players.
For me, the work of France’s defence coach Shaun Edwards had a massive impact on the outcome. The way he set up the team in that facet of the game was nothing short of brilliant, trading on emotional energy to underpin technique and organisation.
Is it easy to over-react to Ireland’s French defeat?
After 20 minutes France had made three times the number of tackles as the home side, a trend that largely continued to the interval. Ireland had plenty of possession in the right areas of the field, with the set piece providing a more solid platform than had been mostly the case in previous matches.
Andrew Porter: ‘Fabien Galthié can say what he wants, I’ve done nothing wrong. I sleep well at night’
Gordon D’Arcy: Shaun Edwards makes a compelling case for the defence in France’s victory
Furlong, Lowe and Kelleher take part in Ireland training ahead of Italy trip
France buy-in to monster pack blueprint shows that rugby needs to pick a lane
The Irish ability to trouble defences leans heavily on winning the gainline and then relying on quality decision-makers – Jamison Gibson-Park, Sam Prendergast or Jack Crowley – to pick the right options against a disorganised, retreating defence.
The teams that have managed to nullify Ireland’s attacking threat have done so by targeting the set piece and producing disciplined, aggressive, connected defence. In the past Ireland have struggled to find another way to win; our kicking game is not as prominent as it used to be, and we are not a natural counter-attacking team.
There is a blueprint to stop every team. Success is determined by executing the game plan. In my day we got close to winning against the top three teams in the world several times, in particular New Zealand, and the difference usually came down to a creative moment or two from special players.
Edwards drilled his players as to what to expect from Ireland and they executed the plans put in place to frustrate and thwart the home side superbly. Ireland were left scrambling for direction when in possession as they tried to find that definitive line breach that would yield points.
We are used to Ireland finding solutions, but this time they didn’t. France set their stall out early, conceding three penalties on Irish possessions for infringements at the ruck. The visitors were content for Ireland to have the ball.
France simply fanned out from a ruck, filled the width of the pitch with blue jerseys, covered off space and whenever possible pursued two-man tackles to muddy the delivery of Ireland’s ball. One French defender stayed and caused havoc at the breakdown, which crucially allowed time for team-mates to reset against a familiar Irish attack shape.
Sometimes in matches like these you can be guilty of ignoring the space due to the suffocating physical intensity, when the panorama shrinks to a very narrow focus. The work-rate of the French players was first class. Even with the benefit of rewatching the match, it was hard to find space that had an Irish player in it on which we failed to capitalise.
Ireland were dragged into a game they don’t play well, one-off runners that barrelled into heavy human traffic, with limited options to play out the back. Twice in the opening 15 minutes, Simon Easterby’s side tried to go around the French press defence, first to Dupont, which almost resulted in a try, and then when Louis Bielle-Biarrey met Calvin Nash man-and-ball.
The longer Ireland were in possession, the less likely they looked to score. This is as much an Irish shortcoming as it is a French defensive masterclass. I’ve played in games like these where the offence is suffocated, where defenders are in situ even before you have the ball, where almost every passage of play is undermined by the wrong choice that swings things in the opposition’s favour.
On the good days, somebody takes a risk, it breaks the negative spiral and encourages or inspires others to do the same. Conversely, when you’re on the side losing, everyone retreats into themselves just a tiny bit. It’s about a pass held, a line missed, a kick that drifts too long, as the game slowly slips away.
France kept players out of the ruck unless it was a genuine opportunity to steal the ball. Grégory Alldritt’s turnover on 15 minutes marked the end of that early glut of Irish possession and proved a massive momentum swing.
Ireland’s failure to score in that opening quarter galvanised France, while it would have drained the home side a little, physically and mentally. In one such instance Dan Sheehan broke off a maul but had his options reduced by Dupont, who stood in the passing channel.
I have made the point before that there are natural limitations to the Irish system, one of which is to ask the same players time and time again to tog out and expect the same massive overperformance. Contrast this with France.
After a lacklustre display/result against England, Galthié made sweeping changes, and elicited a barnstorming victory over Italy in the next match. Players were made aware of the consequences of underperforming.
We do not have that depth within our system, so there will always be hiccups when you are drawing largely on the same group of players, injuries notwithstanding. There are alternatives, or at least there should be.
Last Saturday Ireland fielded a handful of players who are not regular starters for their province in the matchday 23. It may not be palatable, but this loss has the same foundations as some others that have come before.
The priority, and it’s unavoidable, comes next in addressing the manner of the defeat in terms of selection. Taking responsibility is one aspect, the other is driving an appropriate response, a backlash to the disappointment of the defeat.
While there is no question over the effort individually, players will take this loss personally. The need to take note of wisdom offered by the late Nelson Mandela, who once said: “I never lose. I either win or learn.”
Ireland have not become a bad team overnight, just as France have not suddenly become the best team in the world. This was a setback, but one rich with lessons. The challenge now is not just to move on but to evolve. If Ireland can channel this disappointment the way France did after their own humbling defeat, they won’t just recover, they’ll come back stronger. It’s what champion teams do.
