RUGBY/World Cup review:The Ireland players and those who pay to support them are entitled to feel taken for a ride, writes Gerry Thornley

In the fallout from the predictably unrevealing report into Ireland's World Cup campaign, it's hard to know who will feel they were taken for the biggest ride: on the one hand, the many thousands who spent a fortune following the debacle as it unfolded in France and/or watched from home or, on the other hand, the players who contributed frankly to the review process.

To the vast majority of people out there, this will be seen as a whitewash in which the Irish Rugby Football Union have treated them with virtual contempt. Bearing that in mind, the IRFU powerbrokers would do well to remember the game does not belong to them; they are merely custodians of a game that belongs to all those who partake in and support rugby.

And those participants and supporters were entitled to a far clearer insight into why an exceptional group of players under the guidance of a well-paid retinue of back-up staff (all single-handedly picked by Eddie O'Sullivan over the last six years) came up so short.

Many of the players needed persuading to contribute to the, initially, written questionnaire as devised by Genesis and the Irish Rugby Union Players Association, and the ensuing one-on-one interviews. They would have been deeply sceptical as to the prospect of anything other than a cosmetic exercise. Even though assured of anonymity, they were fearful of being seen to bite the hand that fed them and of repercussions for speaking honestly.

Now that many of them will indeed see the review as a cosmetic exercise, their fears about repercussions will be more keenly felt.

It is my understanding that several members of the World Cup squad, frontliners as well as fringe players, were highly critical of the coaching, strategy and selection policy in the World Cup, and particularly so of O'Sullivan, and would advocate a change of head coach. Some of those who retain the belief O'Sullivan is a good coach still would like a change of voice and direction.

O'Sullivan is already the longest-serving coach in Irish rugby history, with six years and 70-plus matches in charge, and no head coach has been in charge for three World Cup campaigns.

Not even Clive Woodward saw out a third term after winning the Cup in his second attempt, and as Eddie Jones said this week, "I just think he (O'Sullivan) has had enough time there. He's had two goes at the World Cup and both have been unsuccessful. They have had as good a team as they've ever had and they needed to deliver."

However, few of these submissions by the players, incredibly, appear to be part of the brief outlined to Brian Porteous or revealed to the committee, much less the public. Furthermore, apparently, the information gathered by those interviews with the players had not been fully collated prior to the presentation of the review to the 22-man committee or the issuing of the statement that followed.

The changes, such as they are, were yesterday described as "cosmetic" by the former Ireland captain and coach Ciarán Fitzgerald, who added, "The collective umbrella they're hiding behind doesn't do anybody any favours."

That said, the advent of a new backs coach - albeit one unlikely to be in place for the forthcoming Six Nations - can only have been instigated by the responses of players, and the chief executive, Philip Browne, accepted as much on Morning Ireland yesterday.

This is richly ironic given O'Sullivan was initially co-opted onto the Ireland coaching ticket as a specialist backs coach in 2000 - with telling effect, it has to be said. And having agreed to the contrived marriage that was the O'Sullivan/Declan Kidney ticket, he ultimately marginalised Kidney as backs coach before letting him go after the 2003 World Cup, vowing to assume that responsibility himself.

O'Sullivan was also, of course, backs coach on the ill-fated Lions tour to New Zealand two years ago.

As for a "manager" (a sop to the media?) and "psychologist", this too smacks of after-the-horse-has-bolted, and the latter recommendation lacks credibility if we're to believe it arose from the review, because The Irish Times has learnt the IRFU began looking for a rugby psychologist almost a year ago. Furthermore, they had the world's most renowned expert in this field, Ken Hodge PhD - an Australian from the University of Otago - lined up last June but he turned the job down, and they lined up somebody else from abroad at least two weeks ago.

Ireland, by the way, had a back-up staff of 17 at the World Cup, two more than the norm established and paid for by the IRB. So now they're going to have a staff of 20?

With a backs coach, a defensive coach, a forwards coach, a kicking coach and a manager, what exactly will the head coach's role be aside from picking the team? Does he tell all these coaches how to coach?

Trotting out the party line, as outlined by O'Sullivan the morning after Ireland's all too predictable exit at the hands of a far-better-coached and better-prepared Argentinian team, that the team lacked sufficient match practice simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. South Africa, the champions, Argentina and all the Northern Hemisphere teams all had a maximum of three preparatory matches as well. Two of the Springboks games were against Namibia and Connacht; two of Argentina's were against Chile and a Belgian side reinforced by retired or semi-retired French players.

There was also no obvious upturn in Ireland's performances in four games, despite O'Sullivan picking largely the same team.

A golden opportunity for Irish rugby was lost in France this year, and one wonders when there will ever be an opportunity on this scale again. For unlike many in the IRFU, the Irish rugby public, the world game and the players recognise that the World Cup far exceeds the Six Nations as rugby's ultimate testing ground.

Even so, it leaves a question: If things continue to go pear-shaped during the Six Nations, who will take responsibility then? Who will be accountable? No doubt it will be the classically Irish, catch-all cover-up of "collective failure". A handy one that, it absolves any individual of any culpability. Everyone is responsible means no one is responsible.

A parable for our times perhaps.