Root-and-branch evaluation the way to go

Eddie O'Sullivan has had his coaching values rocked to the core. There are two ways to approach the current scenario and the IRFU are staying true to traditional type.

You can follow the football mentality, where people are fired in the immediate wake of failure, like Wales, who are on their sixth coach in nine years. It is a completely unsatisfactory situation.

Or you can evaluate and move forward.

O'Sullivan is not an elected politician; he is a contracted employee. He has not broken any law of the land. He is simply a coach whose team has not performed.

The review and the process are not personal. It is about rugby. If the head coach embraces it and is prepared to change, the relationship with players and staff will grow. The head coach must accept that ultimately the World Cup plan did not work and that without the evaluation process the key relationships will deteriorate. This leads the coach to "death by 1,000 cuts".

A personal review of the head coach, for his own private viewing, should also be conducted. I had this done to me at New South Wales, Leinster and Scotland. It pointed out strengths I didn't realise I had and weaknesses to which I was blind. The process, if accepted by the coach, is both rewarding and uplifting. It is, as we say in the business, a "coachable moment".

You need openness, humility and a willingness to succeed - even if the price is holding your hand up and admitting you got things wrong.

I always had an outsider run our evaluations. A third party, with no axe to grind, is essential. It must also be done in a concise timeframe. The role is not to decide the fate of the coach but to pinpoint areas and systems that need to be improved.

This creates an environment where it is safe for people to be honest and the head coach can acknowledge the need for change.

It is essential that players - senior, junior, starting, the bench, non-selected - are all involved. The evaluation is not looking for blame or excuses; it is looking to ask how can we get things right in the future.

Remember, O'Sullivan was given power comparable in rugby circles only to Clive Woodward's reign in England. It means he must be answerable in failure in order to get it right in the future.

Areas that need to be evaluated include the dynamics of the relationship of the head coach with all the groups involved; the skills preparation, especially passing out of contact and kicking out of hand (which falls under the remit of Brian McLaughlin); the defensive system and counterattack systems (Graham Steadman); the tactical preparation for Argentina's kicking game that everyone except the team knew was coming (the whole management); and the psychological preparation that was so evidently missing (the whole management).

Questions must be asked. At what stage did the team sit down and prepare for a pool that had so many variables? Players and staff seemed shocked at results, opposition tactics and performance. They failed to prepare for the what-if scenario. What if Argentina defeated France? What if we failed to get a bonus point against Georgia? What if a senior player was dropped in the early stages (Peter Stringer)? What if several players were not used at all?

Mental skills allow players to be comfortable when the environment is uncomfortable. What was the team's preparation for uncomfortable scenarios?

All these questions require answers better than those that have been coming out of the camp. The "I don't know what went wrong" and "I don't have a magic wand" mantras are not acceptable. The players need to see there is a way forward. They need to see a plan that will lead to winning or their faith in the coach's ability to lead will evaporate.

In the longer term, is the international programme from one World Cup to another producing 30 players with the full set of competencies? The answer is categorically no. There are physical, mental and psychological skills that make a player capable of performing at a World Cup.

Paddy Wallace was in the 2003 World Cup squad but outside Ulster he is barely recognisable. Eoin Reddan was dropped in as an emergency option. He did well but why not cover this possibility by utilising the Wasps scrumhalf in the preparatory stages? This column made this point ad nauseam during the past year.

A policy should be looked at to broaden the player base. The Six Nations is there to be won as a championship but why not use the autumn internationals and southern tours for experimentation?

How the assistant coaches interacted with the players under the pressures of the World Cup also needs evaluation. A powerful staff is essential for a powerful performance. Just look at the New Zealand model, which has three world-class coaches in their own right. Dynamic people are required at the cutting edge of rugby.

If Eddie O'Sullivan is to survive he must embrace the evaluation process. A lot of attitudes have to change.