ONE OF the most enduring images of Irish rugby is the young Brian O'Driscoll about to score a hat-trick of tries for Ireland against France in the Stade de France. O'Driscoll resembles a precocious youngster playing at underage level in a team where he is the most junior member. His jersey is clearly too big for him. The sleeves come down below his elbow and the shirt is not tucked in. It trails behind him at the back like an afterthought, writes RONAN McGREEVY
In the nearly 10 years since that memorable day in Paris, the only thing the new Irish jersey has in common with its predecessor is its colour and the shamrock. For a century beforehand, the Irish shirt remained basically unchanged before the professional era made it a commodity like any other.
The ergonomic, skin-tight Puma version was unveiled last week with a marketing spiel which would make the traditional “boot and bollock” brigade in Irish rugby choke on their G&Ts.
The shirt “features a revolutionary double layer construction . . . to lift moisture away from the skin” with “seams and ‘pumaflex’ stretch panels” which are “strategically positioned to improve the player’s freedom of movement”.
An athletic fit ensures that “each garment supports . . . the muscles as best as possible to improve confidence and reduce fatigue while also limiting any unnecessary fabric that can be grabbed by an opposing player.” While much of it sounds like PR puffery the trend towards skin-tight shirts has changed the whole nature of rugby tackling.
England World Cup winning manager Clive Woodward, who was a sucker for the small detail, noticed that winger Jason Robinson would have scored a hat-trick of tries in a Six Nations match against Scotland had his jersey not been pulled as he made for the line. England won the 2003 World Cup wearing the shirts.
They were designed to also give players a psychological edge over their opponents showcasing every rippling bicep and pectoral muscle. Unfortunately these modern jerseys are unforgiving to those who do not have the physique of professional athletes – which is just about every rugby fan. Unlike its loose-fitting predecessors, it will be particularly unflattering to those with a beer belly.
“I remember the one-size-fits-all jersey we used to wear,” says former Irish winger Denis Hickie. “It got very wet, it was baggy, guys were grabbing it all the time. We used to have to have long-sleeved shirts and if you wanted them short, you had to cut them off yourself with the result that you had a hole big enough to put your leg through. I’ve got the pictures to prove it.
“Grabbing somebody by the shirt just doesn’t happen anymore, but, that said, it is a technology that everybody has so it is not likely to make a difference.”
Former Irish flanker Fergus Slattery, who won 61 caps in a long and brilliant international career, says his most enduring memory of the Irish jersey was having to pay for it. “If your socks or your jersey got damaged, you had to fork out. We got nothing off the IRFU.” He describes Puma’s claims as “marketing blurb” and part of the modern-day strategy to sell as many shirts as possible.
“If any rugby player is concerned about where his sweat is going, he’s got a serious problem and the jersey isn’t going to sort it out,” he says.
A study carried out by Loughborough University found the Canterbury rugby shirt, which was the predecessor to the Puma jersey, improved performance by 2.7 per cent in cycling trials by regulating the body temperature better.
Dr Giles Warrington, a sports and exercise physiologist at the School of Health and Human Performance at DCU, says there is some substance to suggestions that shirts which can deal efficiently with sweat help improve performance.
“When you exercise you produce a lot of heat. The way that your body removes the heat by evaporation is your best defence against the body overheating.
“Anything that improves that mechanism of removing sweat can be advantageous. It can be useful in terms of temperature regulation.”