Tour has raised more questions than answers

Analysis: That was a very disappointing Irish performance. It raises a question: what was the purpose of this trip?

No one has told us, but Eddie O'Sullivan's selection policy pointed only towards the goal of winning. After three losses, therefore - and this was the worst of them - viewed in that regard they failed.

They haven't developed anyone, except maybe Neil Best, and the use of the squad or the bench was non-existent. The strategy of the tour was flawed. And sadly, apart from the dying moments against England and the second half in France, we've not seen the backline play with the fluent cohesion they can.

Let's look at the benchmarks that have been set. An Irish team won the European Cup, another Irish team reached the semi-finals, and they had a one-two-three in the Celtic League. What's the goal of the national team? It should be winning some piece of silverware. Okay, there's a new trophy for the Triple Crown, but all three of their rivals were virtually a shambles. Ireland can't help that, but to varying degrees, England, Wales and Scotland were in a shambolic state when Ireland met them.

On Saturday, when the Irish went 15-11 up, I thought for a moment "here we go". But at crucial moments the skills and concentration levels let them down. They looked a tired side in the last 25 minutes. They certainly didn't appear to have the enthusiasm of the Wallabies in the last 25.

With, I admit, the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, playing the same team on three successive Saturdays against the All Blacks and the Wallabies just didn't work. Ireland would have been better served targeting the first and third Tests, and making more use of the bench along the way. But the Irish bench is very weak, with the notable exception of Mick O'Driscoll.

It is not a bench that adds impetus, but I would suggest that the next-best players aren't being picked. At 16, 17 and 18 there are other players with better credentials who would also put more pressure on the frontline players.

Some of them might not be around after the World Cup, but they would be more than capable of playing for 20 or 30 minutes at Test level. And those that have been picked in their place just aren't being blooded. You can't say you're blooding for the World Cup and then not play them. You can't have it both ways.

What was the objective of this trip? At the end of a long season, England's philosophy was to leave their best players at home to recuperate, and develop a second tier while saying results might suffer. And good luck to them; they probably achieved their objective. As that wasn't the case with Ireland, the performance on Saturday was unacceptable in my opinion.

Once again, the backline was not cohesive and did not perform to its potential. Their game is overly complicated and their depth is too repetitive. Whether attacking the outside-centre channel or closer in, their alignment is very similar. They are also running across the pitch too much, toward the defender's outside shoulder. They are not attacking the inside shoulder enough, which is very disappointing.

I would also still maintain that the back row is not balanced enough. The backrowers being used are all fine players but as a unit they are not performing to the necessary standard. They need a genuine, on-the-ground player, like Keith Gleeson or Shane Jennings. David Wallace is a fantastic runner, but he's being wasted at the bottom of a ruck. He should be the runner.

Now the run-in to the World Cup begins, but this tour has raised more questions than answers. Ireland are capable of a massive performance at next year's World Cup, but the current thinking and planning for the next World Cup will not deliver the results that this team deserves.

The rest of this summer, the close-season, should demand a change of direction.

Hiding behind a Triple Crown win against substandard opposition will not produce performances in the World Cup. A fool's gold.

(In an interview with Gerry Thornley)