Reasons to be cheerful in spite of new order

AS WE have come to the end of the Five Nations Championship, it is appropriate to ask where exactly rugby union stands. No easy answer presents itself, but there was no sign that the new order of professionalism did much for standards. In addition, the Coming weeks will have a profound bearing on the future of rugby.

There were those who clamoured for the game to go open, to go professional. The transition, we were told by advocates of the new order would be relatively smooth. Things would settle down after an initial flurry of activity. The traditionalists and so-called conservatives would be put firmly in their place as the game prospered and standards improved.

Pay and be happy was the stated philosophy. There was plenty of money in the kitty, it was just that the tight-fisted rugby unions did not want to loosen the purse strings. Never mind about the necessity of paying for game development, improving grounds and facilities. Men referred to by Will Carling as irrelevant - though it was put by him in more vulgar fashion had had their day. It was time for involuntary redundancy: goodbye and not even thank you very much. This was the age of player power.

Many of those men, and scores like throughout these islands, had played the game, had played for their countries, and gave something back to the game because they loved it. They had families to rear, budgets to meet, bills to pay, but they were not in the game for money. They were in it for the pleasure it gave. For most, it was and is a life-long love affair.

Rugby has, at times, been shackled by conservatives, who resisted change. Some of those men held power at Lansdowne Road, and in the hallowed halls of Twickenham, Cardiff and Murrayfield. But nowhere was the conservatism mores pronounced than in clubs.

Self-preservation and, self-interest are powerful motives. For instance, who was it that withheld progress in this country by fighting against attempts to give this country a level of competitive rugby that is essential? As we reflect on the championship, there are a few questions to be asked and answered. It has not been a championship of great quality. Players have got large sums of money, but have given little in return. Players have been enriched - the game has not. That is scarcely surprising. It is early days in the professional era, of course, but' the road ahead looks hazardous. Sadly, the advent to professionalism has, in some regards, been nothing less than a price-fixing conspiracy. It has' certainly done nothing for the morality of rugby or increased loyalty to a cause.

On the field, England won the championship, playing in an unimpressive manner. England scored fewer tries (three) than any other of the nations in the championship. One of those was a block down, scored by Jeremy Guscott against Wales. England failed to score a try away from home and failed to score a try in two of their four matches.

Ireland, France and Wales all failed to win away from home. Scotland, alone of the contenders, won their two away matches, but they lost to England at Murrayfield. England won the title on points difference, just as Ireland finished bottom because of inferior points difference to Wales - a legacy of the 45 points conceded to France.

FROM an Irish perspective, one win from four matches was not the return expected. Yet again, Ireland failed to win their first match in the championship, even though it was at home. In retrospect, I think the selectors and many others were lulled into a false sense of security by the win and performance over Fiji. That was followed by the victory over the United States. Realism hit when Scotland outplayed Ireland tactically.

Worse followed against France. The selectors inevitably had change forced on them. There is no doubt that some of those changes have proved prudent. They have brought young players to the international scene who have given sufficiently encouraging performances to suggest better days ahead.

It illustrates the considerable changes that three of the players Simon Mason, David Humphreys and Mark McCall who played against England were not in the 29-man panel put under contract prior to the championship. Eight of the Ireland A side who played against England last Friday were also not among the original contracted players.

In the six matches Ireland played this season, only four players played in all six. They were Jonathan Bell, Nick Popplewell, Gabriel Fulcher and David Corkery. Simon Geoghegan would also have played in all six, but he missed the match in Paris because of a hamstring.

When one compares the team that played at Twickenham with the side that played against Fiji, there were eight changes and three positional alterations. Geoghegan, Bell, Popplewell, Wallace, Fulcher, Davidson and Corkery were the only survivors.

Geoghegan played on the left wing against Fiji and on the right against England. Davidson played at blind-side flank against Fiji and in the second row against England, while Corkery played on the open-side flank against Fiji and on' the blind-side against England. Paul Wallace, having played against USA and Fiji, lost out to Peter Clohessy against Scotland and France, but was recalled against Wales when Clohessy was suspended.

In the six matches, Ireland used 27 players. Of that 27, nine were new caps. The appearances of two of those new caps, Henry Hurley and Sean McCahill, were as temporary replacements. All the other new caps were selected and played in matches. They were Mason, Kurt McQuilkin, David Humphreys, Chris Saverimutto, Allen Clarke, Davidson, and Victor Costello. Paul Burke's only appearance this season was as a replacement against USA.

What is encouraging is that five of the nine new caps played last Saturday - Mason, Humphreys, Clarke, Davidson and Costello - and they all played with distinction. Bearing in mind that the appearances of Hurley and McCahill were as temporary replacements, only two of the newcomers were dropped. They were McQuilkin and Saverimutto.

The Sale scrum-half was dropped after the match against Scotland, while McQuilkin was dropped after the match in Paris. He was a replacement against Wales, but was subsequently injured. Saverimutto has been a replacement in all three matches since he was omitted. The Ireland management will be rightly pleased with the return from the new men.

Did Ireland make progress during the season? Certainly, in some respects. The most pleasing aspect for the management is that they introduced players to the side who look destined to make a significant contribution in the days ahead. Their full-hearted efforts were a welcome contrast to the indulgence they had shown with regard to selection in the second row area.