All in all, the 2002/2003 season was not a bad time to be an Irish rugby supporter. After going through the - mildly embarrassing - World Cup qualifying stages and securing a place in the perilous Pool A, the international team turned their attentions to an Autumn Fixture List of Australia, Fiji and Argentina. The latter two were beaten, and history was of course made on November 9th when Ireland registered their first win over Australia in more years than people care to think about. Keith Wood was out, but Brian O'Driscoll was - by all accounts - doing okay. The team looked good and importantly, familiar. No more chopping and changing, Ireland seemed to have found a relatively solid starting XV that didn't deviate from the script too much. Life was rosy.

Everyone was looking forward to the 2003 Six Nations, and against Scotland at Murrayfield the Irish once more proved their supporters voices of optimism. Breaking the 18-year record of losses at Murrayfield, the Ireland team ran out comfortable winners in a game that saw David Humphreys, only in the side as a replacement for the Celtic League final injured Ronan O'Gara, on top form. Geordan Murphy also managed to secure a place, taking full advantage of an injury to Shane Horgan and then switching to fullback when Girvan Dempsey crocked as well. Brian O'Driscoll, captain once more at only 24 years old, played a superb game as did the entire team. What hopes! The rest of the tournament followed; the fantastic second half against Italy when Ireland showed how dangerous they are with ball in hand, the gutwrenching closeness of the French game at Lansdowne Road that resulted in an Irish victory, the last-gasp win over Wales that did no one's blood pressure any good. It set up a Grand Slam showdown with England at Lansdowne Road on March 30th 2003, one a lot of supporters felt was simply too close to call.

In the end, Ireland could have been the most amazing team in the world and England would still have won. My own personal theory is that England needed - NEEDED - to win that Grand Slam after their Autumn successes and the number 1 ranking in the world. If Ireland had won it, it would have been nice, a fantastic achievement - but they didn't need the trophy like England did. Ireland could draw a lot from their campaign but England would draw nothing unless they were crowned champions. However, despite the Lansdowne loss, the Ireland team were going place and making team's start to pay a little more attention. Safe for a disappointing mauling by Australia - who not only wanted to revenge, but were contesting against a highly weakened Irish team - Ireland's season finished on a note that left a lot of room for improvement, but a safe knowledge that optimism wasn't such a daft concept.

So now, with under three months to go until the World Cup kicks off in October, the question of what Ireland should be looking to achieve in the World Cup is raised.

For some teams - Australia, England, New Zealand, possibly France - the World Cup is about winning it. For others - Georgia, Russia, the USA - it's about testing yourself and seeing if you have what it takes. For Argentina, Scotland and maybe Italy it's about trying to take the next step up to beating the big boys and becoming real contenders. For Wales and South Africa it is about rebuilding. So what is it for Ireland? Are they looking to take the next step up, or test themselves? Should they realistically be going in to the competition thinking the William Web Ellis cup could be coming back to the Emerald Isle?

Maybe that's not such a daft concept. Ireland could - and I stress "could" - win this World Cup. The first team team on full form and fit, the conditions suitable and a large chunk of luck and although unlikely, it could actually happen. Rugby is a wonderfully unpredictable game and form is just one of those things. Team's have off-days. What's to say Ireland won't meet Australia when the current holders have an off-day? Like I said, a large chunk of luck, but Ireland do have the talent to do it.

But am I being defeatist? It's something I've been accused of in the past, and maybe I am. Maybe Ireland shouldn't be thinking about luck or playing a team when they're having an off-day, maybe they should just believe they can do it. They are to good to be testing themselves now, there's no need to rebuild and it's not about taking the next step up. Ireland are a damn good team who can beat anyone on their day. With a little more self-belief they might actually get there, but I think this World Cup is too soon. For my money, which may not be worth a lot, this World Cup should be about seeing how far Ireland can push themselves.

In the 1999 World Cup, England thought they'd win but now Clive Woodward admits that they needed that loss to remind them they weren't invincible. In the mean time, he has created an England team who are scaring the Southern Hemisphere and entering this World Cup as second favourites. What's to say Ireland cannot do the same? They could learn from this World Cup and then go on to build and make a serious challenge come 2007. They're already making waves against the so-called "big boys" so take this World Cup as a learning experience and then build.

Well, that's a flawed plan. Some of the current squad will not be playing in 2007, or it's highly unlikely that they will be due to age. The Autumn Tests are fine if you use them as building blocks for the Six Nations, because the coaches can be fairly confident their squad will be the same or similiar come the following February and then the lessons learnt in the Autumn will help the team no end. You simply can't do that with the World Cups as the time between is so large. Form is unpredictable - maybe Brian O'Driscoll will slump and get dropped, stranger things have happened - and due to age also, using the World Cup as a building process is no good.

So what's the point of it for some nations? Wales, Scotland, Italy - they're not going to win it and they must know it. So what's their motivation? Maybe they can be optimistic and believe they have a real shot, but deep down they must surely be aware that they're aiming too high. So what do they use the World Cup for? Well, what can it be apart from a building tool? Do they plan to go through the World Cup with one eye on the next years' Six Nations? That's not so stupid, as in rugby you take each tournament as it happens.

Where do Ireland fit in amongst this, then? They can beat the "big boys" and although not realistic, it wouldn't be completely absurd to imagine them winning. Yes, recent humiliations against England and Australia didn't help the cause, but I've tried to explain those away. On both occasions they were up against opposition without their full first team and without the real need to win anything. The Australian game was a setback and could knock confidences, I was in particular, disgusted by the way the players' heads dropped. At times it seemed on Geordan Murphy gave a damn about things - and before I'm accused of having a bias towards the Tigers man - rewatch the game and you'll see what I'm talking about. The team should have kept on playing but they just sat back, in the knowledge they'd lost, and tried to actually get something out of the game at least. It was a real shame and I hope they can shake it off when the real team returns.

I'm going round in circles here, trying to draw a conclusion and point out what I think Ireland should be hoping for at this World Cup. However, I don't have an answer. Part of me believes they are good enough to go for the prize, but part of me thinks they're not quite there yet and it should be used as a building block. So, in truly poor journalism, I have no conclusion to draw. Whatever happens, it will not be easy. Argentina are getting better all the time and we all know what Australia can do, so maybe it's not totally defeatist to just hope Ireland make the knock-out stages.

But where's the fun in that?

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

• Digg
• Delicious
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon