By Gary Watton
April 30 2013

Congratulations [and failte] to Leinster coach Joe Schmidt on his predictable upgrading to become coach of the national team. By opting for the coach of the country's most successful team, the IRFU have again revealed themselves to be a bunch who like to play it safe and who are not liable to think outside of the box: so typical of conservative old men in suits! This was after all their rationale behind the appointment of Declan Kidney, who was then the head honcho of high-flying Munster. Well, Mr Schmidt, it's most unlikely that you will ever read this lovely piece (or indeed anyone for that matter), but please permit me the liberty to offer thee my two cents of coaching advice.

As someone who never excelled at amateur rugby, let alone professional rugby, the very idea of yours truly dishing out 'expert' coaching advice must be as illogical and ludicrous as me suggesting to a professional golfer how he should drive a golf ball off the tee. Mind you, there is a welter of so-called rugby brains out there whose celebrated and hyped wisdom doesn't necessarily surpass my own expertise, so yes let me proceed by urging Mr Schmidt how he should proceed.

Firstly, the tag of being a 'Leinster man' may become burdensome if the good people of the other three provinces reckon that their young heroes are being overlooked. Schmidt must not become too preoccupied with appeasing any particular province that feels aggrieved by his apparent selection policy. He must resist the temptation to deliberately omit Leinster players in order to placate the other provinces. By the same token, he must not think that the Ireland team is Leinster in disguise. I guess that ultimately he will take the sensible view that the buck stops with him, and consequently in his pursuit of success Joe has to be prepared to load the first XV with Leinster players if that is what it takes or offload the Leinster personnel if they become surplus to requirements. However, throughout his tenure, suspicious eyes may be cast at his judgments, bearing in mind his Leinster curriculum vitae.

Secondly, I would like to see the team jettisoning the apparent tactic of the line-out catcher throwing the ball down to the scrum-half whilst airborne. This may look impressive and it may be designed to trigger a quick circulation of the ball to the back division but I belive that our strength lies with the strategy of catch and drive. With our tried and tested rolling maul policy, we can suck in the opposing pack and gain many hard yards before releasing the ball to our backs. Admittedly, this could be slower ball than that which is propelled from the line-out catcher to the scrum-half [which supposes that the scrum-half will catch each time!], but the opposing forwards can be placed in disarray from the rolling maul, and once they have become disorientated and lost their bearings, then it is difficult for the opposing back row to act as cover for their defence when our backs receive the ball. Agreed?

Thirdly, it kind of goes without saying, but as our rugby players sometimes appear to be slow learners, if we are struggling in the scrums [and God knows it has been known to happen] then the Number 8 needs to release the ball as soon as possible to the scrum-half. There is no logic in us keeping the ball in the scrum if we are under pressure in that arena. By the same token, there is no morsel of intelligence in kicking for touch if we are struggling in the line-outs and stand little or no chance of stealing the ball at any such set-piece. Kicking the ball into touch and presenting the opposition with a line-out is tantamount to surrendering possession. It's plain stupidity.

This brings me on to the sheer and utter stupidity of kicking the ball into enemy territory and then forlornly chasing down the opponent who has retrieved it. Kick and chase is the strategy for a team devoid of tactics. It is a ploy suited to teams who are not comfortable with the ball in hand. However, I beg to ask anyone: how the hell is a team reasonably expected to win a match without much possession? Yes I know that it can and does happen, but I would subscribe to the theory that it is infinitely more easier to win a match with the ball than it is without it. How often have we seen the great southern hemisphere teams play a match without the lion share of possession?   

I have heard that media sage Philip Matthews suggest that Ireland should not allow themselves to "play too much rugby" in their own half which is an absurd code for let's hoof the ball forward and see what happens. When our fly half and scrum half over-indulges in Garryowens and punts into enemy territory, they are sending out the message that we are incapable of running with the ball in hand. What makes the situation most irritating of all is that Ireland [seemingly more than any other Six Nations team] are frequently guilty of infringements at the breakdown where our eagerness to retrieve the ball THAT WE KICKED AWAY results in us conceding a penalty! Where is the logic in kicking the ball away and then at the subsequent ruck when we have tackled the man in possession, we are guilty of a violation which results in a penalty? Ireland's recent flawed approach has been an anxiety and impatience to win the ball, then kick it away, then a mad desire to win it back, then kick it away again, repeat ad nauseam. It's enough to drive anyone to a Baileys or a Magners or a Harp!

Please Mr Joe Schmidt, earn your salary and restore Ireland to the top of the European summit with a team, oozing fitness that plays for eighty minutes and doesn't wilt after an hour. Let's see us keeping the ball in hand. God knows we are not short of dynamic backs. With a bit of intelligence and logic, Ireland can and should be a rugby union superpower again. Finally as a 'coach', please coach Rory Best on his erratic line-out throws and remind him that we have jumpers at the front and middle of the line-out as well, in case it has escaped his attention!

Here endeth the lesson. Amen.