Ireland's Grand Slam success was built on defence: the idea being to exert maximum pressure on the opposition. Now they must go for a higher risk strategy if they want to keep ahead of the chasing pack, writes GERRY THORNLEY

IF THE truth be told, the 2009 version of the Six Nations wasn’t exactly a vintage year, just a vintage outcome. The Golden Generation were in danger of becoming the Unfulfilled Generation, and given Ireland had waited over 60 years to add to their only Grand Slam, we’d have taken it any way it came. Pragmatism reigns, and the IRB’s games analysis would suggest pragmatism won out as well.

Declan Kidney is an extremely smart, clever coach and the influence of Gert Smal and Les Kiss, especially, would appear to have been profound. Clearly Kidney had absorbed the lessons of previous near misses, as had the entire coaching ticket from global trends. More than anywhere, one suspects, the Irish think tank took a leaf out of the South African manual for global supremacy as well as listening to the entreaties of their forwards at the famous Enfield Marriott get-together in December 2008.

Far from being the highest passing team as in the recent past, Ireland became the lowest, both in number of passes and rate of passing. In one match they made just 82 passes. Very few Irish passing movements contained more than three passes. Only one passing movement in every 38 contained three or more passes, compared to one in 15 for the other five teams.

Ireland focused much of their energy on generating and maintaining pressure on the opposition, through their efforts closer in and through their kicking game. No team retained the ball as much at ruck time in the 2009 Six Nations. Ireland turned over possession only seven times in almost 500 rucks and mauls, a ratio far better than any other team. Ireland kicked the ball on average 36 times per game (from 29 in 2008) which was equalled only by Italy. Interestingly, Wales had kicked most (31 times) when winning the Slam in ’08. What undid Wales last year was that they stopped scoring from turnovers or long-range (only one try originating from their own half), and began leaking tries, overall going from a 13-2 try count in 2008 to 8-7 in 2009.

In a tournament of few mauls, Ireland mauled far more than any other team, and of seven maul turnovers, six were achieved by Ireland. Like Wales in 2008, another bedrock was a much improved defensive effort, Ireland conceding only three tries, none of which started inside their own half. “Their forwards were the least likely to pass the ball – and often significantly less likely,” reads the IRB report. “Their backrow, for example, passed the ball on only 13 per cent of occasions, while the backrows of the other five teams passed on no less than 35 per cent of occasions.”

Ireland kicked almost all restarts short, thereby maintaining constant physical pressure on their opponents. They were the most successful team in winning opposition throws and 75 per cent of their tries came from lineout possession. This approach was complemented by other major factors – 11 of their 12 tries were converted, making tries worth an invaluable seven points. They were the least penalised team. They obtained more possession than their opponents in four of their five matches. Their distinctive and clearly defined approach to the game – and its successful implementation – brought Ireland a reward last seen over 60 years ago.

Increasingly, match statistics have shown that it is often easier – bizarrely – to win games now without the ball rather than with it. In the 2009 Six Nations, the winning team had the most possession in only seven games of the 15.

Last summer, the Springboks – arch exponents of a new, defence-based and kicking-orientated game that brought them the World Cup in 2007 and took the Pumas to the semi-finals – brought such pragmatism to a new level.

In the first Test against the Lions (which South Africa won 26-21) the Boks held possession for a total of just 11 minutes 59 seconds (the Lions for 19 minutes 50 seconds, which is fractionally above the Test average). In the previous five years of both Tri-Nations and Six Nations competitions, only once did a team hold on to the ball less, and it was when South Africa lost to Australia 49-0 in 2006. Mike Phillips passed the ball more (75 times) in that first Test than the Boks in total (49 times), with the Lions tally standing at 195.

Despite the lack of possession, the Boks still managed to kick the ball 36 times, 30 per cent more than the Lions. The Boks therefore averaged 1.4 passes per kick, whereas the Lions averaged 5.7 passes per kick.

The Boks eased up on this strategy, most notably in the final dead rubber and after making 10 changes to their starting line-up. Come the Tri-Nations though, and they were back to type. The Boks averaged 85 passes per game across the Tri-Nations, as compared with 125 for both Australia and New Zealand. The Boks also on average made 40 per cent more kicks per minute of possession.

And in the Tri-Nations decider against the All Blacks in Hamilton, which the Boks won 32-29, they made just 43 passes, whereas Jimmy Cowan, the All Blacks’ scrumhalf made 30 per cent more passes than the entire Bok team. The South Africa centres touched the ball eight times and made a total of two passes, while the New Zealand centres touched the ball on 43 occasions and passed the ball 21 times.

Throughout the season an organised kicking game, superb lineout, largely solid scrum and long restarts all served to help keep the pressure on the opposition, as the Boks’ chose where (your half) and when (rarely) they wanted the ball.

Last season, Ireland adapted to the changed climate and played a lower passing, higher kicking game. But don’t blame them or the Springboks. The “running game” may be ill, but it’s the referees and the law makers who are to blame.

In this campaign, if last November’s matches were anything to go by, Ireland will attempt to build on last season’s success with more expansive, broader strokes. In other words, a higher risk strategy based more on ball retention, in part because they know that their opponents will have done plenty more video and statistical analysis of Ireland than even the IRB. But also because they know that the Ireland game will have to evolve, even if this in turn makes retaining their crown slightly more difficult.