On GAA: For all the furore created by last Friday's second Test in Melbourne, the violent incidents created a smokescreen behind which the worrying ineptitude of Ireland's performance was obscured. But neither is there any point in ignoring the worst indiscipline controversy of the modern series. Up until now this problem has been kept in check through the co-operation of both the GAA and AFL.
It hasn't been one-way traffic, but, in general, Ireland have little to gain from mixing it physically. The underlying difficulty stems from the fact the Australian game permits far more physical contact than Gaelic football. Consequently, any spill over is going to come from one side and that has been the experience, as reflected in the preponderance of Australians to have picked up suspensions over the years.
In addition to this basic conditioning is a recklessness and, at times, ambivalence to violent play. The AFL has largely purged the worst excesses of their game and players generally get substantial suspensions for misbehaving. It is, therefore, dispiriting to record that at international level Australian players occasionally like to indulge in behaviour that they wouldn't get away with in their own game.
From the first resumed series in 1998, which featured a "bench clearance" (substitutes racing on to the field to get involved in a brawl) despite such things having been stamped out in Australia, to captain Chris Johnson's thuggery last Friday, AFL players have stepped outside the bounds not alone of what IR allows, but what is permissible in their own game.
For instance, Jason Akermanis has been one of the great talents in the Australian game and a Brownlow medallist (player of the year), but despite this and a Jim Stynes medal for his displays in the 1999 series, he decided to indulge himself in borderline psychotic behaviour on the 2000 tour, earning a series suspension for his assaults on Peter Canavan, who ended up with a one-Test ban for retaliation.
By and large the AFL and the GAA have been responsible about dealing with these outbreaks, but there has been evidence of slippage recently. Last year there was a premeditated assault on Ciarán McDonald and Seán Ó hAilpín - two of Ireland's best players from the previous week - before the second Test in Croke Park. It made no difference and came across as a fairly pathetic response to being played off the field. Maybe because the series was won so easily no action was taken. In retrospect, that can be seen as a big mistake. It represented a loosening of necessary discipline.
Kevin Sheedy has been a great success as Australian coach in devising a game plan and getting the players to implement it. He is regarded as colourful character in the Australian game, but he has been reckless in the promotion of foul play as an attraction of the international series.
Last week he tried to incite Irish manager Peter McGrath into endorsing rough-house tactics. Wisely, McGrath declined. On Friday Sheedy said he was expecting Ireland to dish it out next year and it is up to the AFL to have a word with him about modifying his approach in that respect.
But, equally, there is ambivalence on this side of the world. After the first Test there were loud calls for Irish players to get stuck in and stand up to the Australians. Having implicitly advocated rule-breaking, some of the same people are now outraged at the mayhem that resulted.
Within the GAA there is ambivalence about violence. The championship season just gone saw the effective breakdown of the disciplinary system when the facility to press video charges was effectively dismantled leaving foul play unpunished.
Attempts to crack down on foul play at the start of this year were greeted by howls of abusive reaction from many of those directly affected and the GAA promptly backed off.
It is to be hoped the review of the second Test results in firm action being taken against whichever players merit sanction. The GAA also have a duty to impress on the AFL that further scenes like last Friday's will kill the series. Seán McCague, when president, issued a firm rebuke during the 2002 series, threatening Ireland's future participation, because of indiscipline relatively harmless compared to this year's. At the time it was seen as an over-reaction, but it laid down a marker and was followed by supportive comments from the AFL.
Yet the inability to compete poses far more of a threat to the series than indiscipline. The twin pillars of the concept's continuing viability have always been evenly contested series and good crowds. Whereas the latter has held steady - with near capacity attendances in Australia over the past fortnight and the usual 100,000-plus last year in Ireland, both of the most recent series have been a grave disappointment in terms of competitiveness.
One probably led to the other. In 2004, Australia sent over a team with an emphasis on physique. They were slow and at odds with the round ball. Reservations at the time that Ireland had selected too many ball players were unfounded as the home side romped the Tests. That success lulled McGrath and his management into a false sense of security so many of the same players were again selected, but in the face of an Australian challenge that had been transformed, the original reservations were vindicated.
More alarmingly from an Irish perspective, a number of established internationals had a poor or below-par series. Of players with a proven record only Tom Kelly played to a consistently high standard in both Tests. Brian Dooher was the best of the newcomers.
Hopefully the invisible pendulum that has regulated the game over the eight series to date will swing again and restore some equilibrium in the year or two ahead. But Ireland will have to heed the example set by the AFL this year.
By appointing a club coach like Sheedy who used the full range of video analysis techniques to break down International Rules and reconstruct it as a version of Aussie Rules with a round ball, the Australians moved the game to a higher level.
That should have been the story of the series.
