Donal Spring/Rugby Analyst:  After the performance of Namibia against Argentina in their opening game Ireland are expected to win our second game comfortably tomorrow. It is slightly ironic that our record against the Namibians is two losses from two matches.

It must have been tempting for Eddie O'Sullivan to make more changes for tomorrow's match and I can understand his logic, this is the team's last game before the vital match against Argentina when the latter will have three games under their belt.

His options in most positions are fairly clear but the exception seems to be at full back. Girvan Dempsey is clearly the first choice but I have heard varying opinions expressed about who would replace him if the need arose. I suspect if the game is going according to plan we might see a lot of early changes, including at full back. The coach will be anxious to take as many of his more important players off the pitch as soon as possible.

There has been talk in the media that the biggest concern for Ireland in this game is picking up more injuries. That is a worrying thought because you are more likely to pick up injuries when trying to avoid them.

I suspect O'Sullivan still has not made his mind up fully between David Humphreys and Ronan O'Gara. Having watched both of them perform over the last number of seasons I have come to the conclusion that while Humphreys is probably the better performer against weaker countries, O'Gara is the better option against stronger nations. Top teams have in the past targeted Humphreys's defence as a weak area and have exploited it. As always seems to be the case in Ireland the number 10 debate will continue to run.

It is good to see John Hayes playing from the start but there must be concern about the injury to Reggie Corrigan's shoulder. We certainly need our best front row on the pitch against the Argentinians who will as always target the opposition's scrum.

The new back row will be very anxious to make an impression but it is hard to see one of them getting into the starting line-up. The absence of David Wallace may still be shown to be an error.

The England v South Africa match appears to be the only real game this weekend, even if England are hot favourites. It is hard to understand the decline in South African rugby. Various views have been expressed including the imposition of quotas. How a nation that could put 60 points on France in Paris a few years ago can perform so badly is hard to reconcile.

It may be time for the South Africans to stop looking inwards and take advice from outside.

After the nasty encounter at Twickenham it will be interesting to see how they shape up to each other. The South Africans, in particular, will remember the criticism after that game. Hopefully, it will be a competitive match of high quality. The tournament certainly needs one.

On another note I would agree with O'Sullivan's suggestion in the debate about the decoy runners. It should be illegal to deliberately pass the ball behind players' backs in open play. The only purpose of the decoy runners is to obstruct. This is an import from rugby league. Rugby union, in fact, is beginning to look more and more like league.

To stop this trend we need to make the breakdown more competitive. At the moment only the first or second opposition player to arrive at the breakdown makes an attempt to compete for the ball. By and large the opposition resign themselves to defending straight away. This makes possession predictable and has left the field cluttered. The great Gerald Davies was recently lamenting the presence of so many forwards in the middle of the park.

While I admire the greatly improved skills and handling distribution among forwards, particularly front-five forwards, the absence of competitive breakdowns between full packs has damaged the game as a spectacle. One way of introducing more competition for the ball after the tackle would be to put some pressure on the ball carrier to roll away when he goes to ground. At present it is far easier for the tackled player to protect the ball and in many cases the player in possession goes to ground deliberately without being tackled to prevent the opposition from competing for the ball.

Surely a player who dives to the ground without being tackled should be penalised, if not for the very fact of going to ground deliberately then at least for not releasing the ball or rolling away from it immediately?

Another aspect of the game I would like to see referees becoming more strict about is the protection of the ball at mauls. It is ridiculous what some teams are allowed to get away with. I am thinking particularly of England. The sight of Neil Back holding on by his fingers to his colleagues while the rest of them drive the opposition forward is ridiculous. Back is not properly bound to the maul and is not part of it.

As a competition the tournament has not really taken off yet. I believe the number of one-sided games are damaging the whole thing. Neutral sports people have been very critical about these matches, and rightly so, as it is difficult to see the point of them. It only serves to show the small number of nations in which rugby is a serious sport.

It is clear the weaker rugby nations, particularly the economically weaker ones, will need a lot of assistance to bring them up to a competitive level. Are the better-off countries going to provide this finance? They should but they won't. The demands which professionalism has brought mean what resources they have will go to meeting their own needs. So it looks like the strong will get stronger, in some cases by exploiting the weaker, as has been the case in the southern hemisphere for many years.