John O'Sullivan talks to four products of Australian rugby who have plied their trade in Ireland. Matt Williams, Keith Gleeson. Jim Williams and Andrew Farley give thier views on the similarities and differences between the game on these shores and Down Under. 

1 - What are the differences/similarities in the physical and mental approach to the game in Ireland and Australia?

Matt Williams (Former New South Wales, Leinster and Scotland coach): The Irish attitude has changed a great deal. One of the things that I loved most in my time with Leinster was the fact that the players were like sponges, willing to soak up information.

The Aussies were never threatened by change but while they were once at the forefront technically that is no longer the case. National character traits come out in the way that Ireland play but that's no longer the case with Australia. The Aussies are far from laid back and have become dour.

Keith Gleeson (Former New South Wales and current Leinster flanker): I don't think there are any physical differences. In Australia there is that ingrained mentality that we are going to win, bred by a very successful field-sport culture. It's starting to come into the Irish psyche and there is a change in mindset. There is no question of accepting second best or not working hard to improve.

The Aussies have that innate competitiveness that comes from being a country stuck in the middle of nowhere.

Jim Williams (former ACT Brumbies player, Australian international, Munster backrow forward and current Munster assistant coach): I think there are small cultural differences. The Irish are very laid back and slower to change. When I was involved with the Brumbies change was dramatic and the players were unquestioning. There was no debate on the matter as it was simply a case of 'I'm telling you this is the way we are going to do it from now on'.

I think things have changed and are changing in Ireland since the advent of professionalism. There is an awareness that things needed to change and for the long-term development it's important to realise where the game is going and how best to get there.

Andrew Farley (former Australian underage international and current Connacht captain): I don't really see too many differences in terms of the physical preparation of teams. One aspect that does stand out is the fact that I started playing rugby in Australia as a seven-year-old and concentrated on that sport.

In Connacht they are more likely to begin playing Gaelic games and then branch out into rugby. In Australia you start the education of players in the skills of the game at a much younger age. This allows for a quicker development.

2 - The schools rugby systems in Ireland and Australia both play a huge part in the development of players. How do they compare?

Matt Williams: Very similar at a superficial level but there is one marked difference: in Australia they don't play cups. It is all league based. Schools are grouped into leagues of about eight to 10 teams like the GPS and they play on a home-and-away basis with the champions being the best team over that 18-match period.

I was jumped on before for criticising the cup format in Ireland. It's all about winning - not developing players - where high-pressure, poor-quality rugby can be rewarded by winning.

I don't agree with the concept.

Keith Gleeson: It's fair to say that both countries place a huge emphasis on the schools to develop the internationals of the future. The Australian system is a little more condensed than the Irish model and there is a greater emphasis on playing other sports as well as rugby in Australia.

I played a lot of basketball growing up and that helped to develop the motor skills that helped my rugby. It was a skill sport with attack and defence. It's a league format in Australia and that meant plenty of games, rather than the knock-out cups here.

Jim Williams: In terms of the private schools in Australia it was massively important and there seems to be a similar attitude here. Underage club rugby in Australia would be bigger there than the equivalent here. There's no doubt that the schools have been a great breeding ground for international talent in both countries.

The countries also share the fact that there is competition from other sports, rugby league back home and Gaelic games here. I would say that the structures share a lot of common bonds with young Australian players probably playing a bit more club rugby at underage level; a couple of matches at the weekend.

Andrew Farley: I think they do compare very favourably. I went to a private boys' school that would have been similar to Blackrock or Clongowes. In New South Wales and Queensland there is a big schools rugby culture similar to Ireland.

I played in the Combined Associated Colleges tournament in Brisbane. It was played on a home-and-away basis in a league format and we played 20 competitive games a season to decide the champions. There was huge public support - as there is here - and it was very important as players slogged hard to get from the high-profile schools game through Colts rugby to the high-profile Grade rugby structure.

3 - Do the patterns and styles of play that Australia and Ireland produce at international level reflect the competitions in which the nations play: the Tri-Nations/Super 12 package in the Southern Hemisphere and the Six Nations/Heineken European Cup in the Northern Hemisphere?

Matt Williams: As a general rule of thumb I think it is applicable. Conditions are a factor but for either country to be successful they have to develop a more rounded game. The Aussies are currently struggling to win Test matches because they are struggling up front in the set-pieces yet the skills quotient in their back play is right up there with the best.

Ireland's set-piece play is generally strong but they need to work a little on the skills aspect. You can't let your environment completely smother the way you play the game.

Keith Gleeson: When the game went professional the Super 12 had a small supporter-base and to increase that it became an attack-oriented tournament. People wanted to see tries and you often got a 45-32 scoreline. That style of play made its way into the national side. Over in Europe it was more a set-piece-oriented game.

New Zealand have meshed the best of both by working on the tight-five skills while retaining the ball-handling ability of the more expansive approach

Jim Williams: That's probably a fair assessment. Conditions are always a barometer of what a team can do. The hard, fast paddocks in the Southern Hemisphere, in particular Australia and South Africa, allow for a high-tempo, more expansive game.

New Zealand is probably closest to the general weather conditions that prevail in the Six Nations/European Cup tournaments. But I do think that the gap between Ireland and Australia and the way they play the game has closed massively.

Andrew Farley: The competitions are emblematic of the weather conditions that prevail. Dry, hard grounds lend themselves to one brand of rugby where the ball is kept in the hand. It's easier to perform the skills and it leads to a faster game where the emphasis is on how teams use the ball. So it is fair to say that the manner in which the Wallabies play is a product of their environment.

On cold, wet rainy days, which prevail here, it's more about a physical and mental battle. It's about adapting to the conditions that often narrow the parameters of how you can play.

4 - How much is the weather a factor in determining the way the game is played in Australia and Ireland?

Matt Williams: I used to explain to people at home that in 2000, for example, from July to Christmas, it rained every day we had a session but we didn't use it as an excuse. I am enormously proud of the way Leinster played, often in atrocious conditions.

We never used the weather as an excuse to hide behind. We played an expansive game that was entertaining and practical. We hammered Toulouse and there are not many teams that can say that. I wouldbe happy to compare the way we played with any team.

Keith Gleeson: When you're a young player it's much more pleasant to be trotting out to be greeted by sunshine. In Australia it's still warm in the winter. It's about catch, run and pass on excellent playing surfaces.

Here from November through to February about 50 per cent of the games would be played in the wet. You still have to be adaptable but the conditions will also dictate the parameters of the patterns that are sensible for any given match.

Jim Williams: The important thing is to be able to adapt and as Australia showed in 2002 they just weren't able to do that. The more rounded a team's skills and patterns are the better they're going to cope.

In that match Ronan O'Gara gave a master class in positional kicking whereas Australia simply did not have the players to turn Ireland around. Bad weather is not an excuse for poor skills but you have to be a little smarter and the basics matter more.

Andrew Farley: It is huge. But it is not an excuse for poor skills. You just have to factor in the conditions and often they'll dictate how a team will play, like with the wind and against it. It's not different from Gaelic football or hurling here. There's a tremendous amount of skill in those games but the weather has a huge input on a given day. I strongly believe that the skill levels in Ireland are good. Every team has an off day as Ireland did last week. Teams must be adaptable and manage the conditions rather than let the conditions manage them.

5 - Ireland are ranked seventh in the world. Does the game in Ireland have the depth in personnel and structures to successfully climb the rankings and stay there?

Matt Williams: I think that post RWC '99 in Lens Irish rugby realised they needed to introduce radical changes and did just that. The emphasis on the provinces and the emphasis on conditioning, diet and getting the right preparation for players helped to bring about success in that period.

Amongst the smaller nations in the world game it is getting tougher to stay alongside those with significantly bigger pools of players. You have to be a little more innovative and manage your resources cleverly.

Keith Gleeson: Australian and Ireland are similar in that they don't have a huge playing base. At international level if you have the top 25 players available then they'll be competitive but once you go outside that, it's harder to fill the gaps - the bigger countries can manage that. Ireland have worked hard to put the structures in place and they just need to extend the quality of players.

They need to get the provincial squads up to a 35-man roster that can slot in seamlessly with no dip in talent. There is fierce competition to get into the Aussie franchises. Ireland are getting there, though.

Jim Williams: I don't think there is much difference between the sides ranked from third to seventh in the world rankings other than consistency. Countries that have greater pools of players to draw from won't have too many lean years but that doesn't mean they're not beatable.

The Kiwis are physically big blokes and that is a good starting point. Ireland, though, have some very good young players coming through like (Andrew) Trimble, more so than before in my time here.

Andrew Farley: I think the structures are good in Ireland. The are 120 players franchised to the provinces and underneath that you have an AIB League system that along with the academies feeds the four franchises.

Another progressive step is the introduction of provincial A matches that offer young AIB League players a chance to step up - it shows that there is both an interest in and an outlet for them.

Provinces should only be allowed to ring-fence 22 players and then the talent should be distributed where it's needed. The best players have to play all the time, not sit on the bench in one province while another would cry out for them.

You want four franchises with international-quality players.