Madam, - Like most people, I shared the disappointment of Ireland's Rugby World Cup performances. It is very understandable, given the high profile of the game, our recent successes and the consequently heightened expectations, that people should have strong feelings.
Strong feelings, passion, intensity - that is what makes sport great. Analysis, constructive criticism and frank appraisal are justified - especially in a professional game where large sums of money are now involved. There should be accountability and responsibility. However, I feel that the tone and colour of some of the criticism has gone beyond what is fair and reasonable. Phrases such as "national disgrace" and "shameful" and personal and sneering attacks on players and coaching staff are over the top.
I do not for a minute disagree that there should be rigorous assesment, evaluation and accountability by all qualified to offer frank input. As Matt Williams argued thoughtfully this week in your pages, it should be comprehensive and balanced and should set out clear conclusions.
No one doubts the importance of the coaching staff, given the technicalities of so many aspects of the modern game, be they physical, organisational or managerial. However, some have adopted the trend, started by the English tabloid press, of reducing the whole series of factors which make up a successful or unsuccessful team into the person of one individual or his staff. If a team loses, the coach is a "muppet". Or a "turnip". It is no surprise that Ireland's rugy players, to their credit, have refused such a simplistic assessment. After England's success in the last Rugby World Cup, one of the players said that 90 per cent was due to the players, 10 per cent to the coaching team. In soccer, only three sides have won the English Premier League in recent times. Are all the other coaching staffs useless? No. Clearly there are many factors involved. By all means be critical, but be balanced.
The sneering, belittling and angry tone, seen not just in rugby, is one of the less attractive features of our Celtic Tiger land. It was surprising and disappointing to see your Editorial last Tuesday use the word "shameful". As other letter-writers have said, this is a word to describe actions involving deliberate and conscious wrongdoing. Or, in this context, a deliberate lack of effort. Few people would say there was lack of effort.
Yes, there is disappointment around, understandable disappointment. Yet, as Keith Wood has pointed out, no one's disappointment will come remotely close to that of the players and their coaches. When a dream dies, it is tough. Yes, they are big boys. Yes, they are well-paid professionals. That is no reason why they should not be treated fairly and with balance. - Yours, etc,
HUGO MacNEILL, Killiney Hill Road, Killiney, Co Dublin.
Madam, - The reason we came third in our Rugby World Cup group is quite simple. We were the third-best team. If you think this is the wisdom of hindsight, all I can say is that I backed Argentina to win not just the group, but the whole competition at 66 to 1.
Let's look at last season. We played extremely well in beating the worst Australian team in 30 years and played well in beating the South African second team. During the Six Nations Championship we played poorly against mediocre Welsh and Scottish opposition. We played well against France and a shockingly poor England team and then played some very good rugby against a game, if limited, Italy. Finally, Munster and Leinster, which comprise the bulk of our team, both had poor seasons post-Christmas. France and Argentina are all-round better teams than ours. Georgia and Namibia are more naturally physical teams than ours.
We have two genuinely world-class players in Brian O'Driscoll and Paul O'Connell, and maybe six or seven others of legitimate international class. That's not enough to compete with the top teams. Our problem is quite simple: we don't produce enough naturally big, strong men. This is a problem common to Scotland and Wales also.
Unfortunately, rugby union has become a quasi-wrestling/weightlifting sport. American football is the only field sport that is more physically combative - and the sporadic nature of gridiron and its use of special teams reduces player stress. As rugby union players spend more continuous time on the field, it is probably a physically tougher sport than even gridiron.
To play rugby at the top level you need to be a natural six-foot, 100-kilo hard man; and then you need to spend countless hours in the gym. We, along with our Celtic cousins, are just not suited to this game. - Yours, etc,
HUGH MULLEN, Coulson Avenue, Dublin 6.
Madam, - I was most disappointed at the unsporting behaviour of the Irish captain, Brian O'Driscoll, during the Argentina-Ireland game last Sunday. after scoring a wonderful try, he engaged in the provocative action of "sledging" all Argentinian players within earshort.
Brian O'Driscoll is rightly revered by thousands of young people in this country for his unique talent as a rugby player. However, the adulation he receives also imposes on him a duty to set a high example to sports enthusiasts. I sincerely hope that on the next occasion I attend a schools rugby match I do not witness any of the players aping our captain's unseemly actions. - Yours, etc,
JAMES AITKEN, Cedarmount Road, Mount Merrion, Co Dublin.