Sorry folks, but at the risk of behaving like a dog with a bone, we can't let this one go quite yet. Given the lofty defenders of the IRFU faith have stated their case, in these very pages as well as elsewhere, we are compelled to stand up for ourselves.

Of course, I'd much rather be looking ahead to the Celtic League final between Munster and Leinster, as mouth-watering a game between two Irish sides as one can recall in many years. But lest we forget, it was the IRFU themselves who announced Warren Gatland's removal on the very afternoon Leinster and Ulster were about to stage Celtic League quarter-finals. So much for helping their preparations then.

Whether it was planned to take place close to the following morning's World Cup draw in football, or if that was just a bonus from the IRFU's viewpoint, is another matter. But if the union thought their standard practice of a brief statement backed up by one token spokesperson (with neither providing an answer to the question "why?") would constitute a public relations coup, then they were clearly mistaken.

The public outcry was tangible and cannot be dismissed as some sort of theatrical mob without minds of their own by those on the main stage. As one of the many emails sent to this office, from a recently retired player no less, stated: "The sooner the IRFU realise they are there for the public rather than the other way around the better."

There was also genuine shock and disquiet among the players over Gatland's dismissal, which of course was expressed off the record. In all my time as a journalist I have never embellished a quote, never mind concocted one. This does not mean that the players were in mutinous mood or even in any way opposed to Eddie O'Sullivan taking over.

The fact that the new management ticket had a harmonious meeting with Keith Wood the day after the announcement of Gatland's dismissal is beside the point. Even if they broke into song and embraced each other. This doesn't alter the clear impression that the players, generally, were as shocked as the public. Now that is revealing.

That the new management ticket will have equally harmonious meetings with all the players from their first get-togethers onwards is equally as likely. Life goes on, especially in sport, where coaching/management changes are hardly unusual. That is a separate issue altogether. There is no hostility towards the new regime whatsoever, nor has that been implied here.

The degree to which Gatland should be credited with the turnaround since the last World Cup is, by its very nature, a subjective judgment. Nothing about the performances or the comments of the players dissuaded this writer from the belief that Gatland was still the primary influence in terms of selection, coaching and tactics. Most of all, he deserved to be judged on results, yet clearly wasn't, unless we agree with the notion he didn't provide the union bigwigs with the consistency they were looking for, and that he shouldn't be forgiven for botching up a grand slam that was his on a plate. I look forward to all these grand slams and World Cups we are about to win.

The charge that he had lost his drive and enthusiasm is not only secondary to results, but also one this writer disputes. As for the inescapable feeling that he suffered for being a New Zealander, and one unused to and not streetwise enough regarding the political ways of Irish rugby, that remains entirely valid.

Just because Gatland was preceded by a fellow Kiwi and an Englishman doesn't prove it wasn't a factor either. In fact, it contributed to the undoubted mood swing toward installing a native Irish coach, next time around. Supporters of Gatland's removal heralded a new "native Irish" ticket. The Eddie O'Sullivan-Declan Kidney coaching partnership also helps the IRFU to camouflage the dearth of native coaches underneath the top tier.

Furthermore, Gatland wasn't as communicative as he should have been with influential committee men. Whatever the import of this, again one can't but wonder if Gatland had been a native Irish coach he'd have been wiser to all of this.

The whole episode has left a bad taste and has angered a great many people, supporters and those involved in the very heart of the game. Anybody who can't sense that is in a cocoon.

And however flawed the decision to remove Gatland was, the IRFU's decision to join O'Sullivan with Kidney is fundamentally flawed. By rights, and in line with virtually any other national or club team in professional sport, the coach should be allowed to choose his back-up team.

After all, the strained relationship between Gatland and O'Sullivan, and their conflicting contractual arrangements, were supposedly contributory factors in the coach's demise and the disruptive ending of that regime.

Adding to the intrigue has been the public comments and widespread observations that the two men do not particularly get on, though as Danny Blind once said of a famous Dutch football squad, "You don't have to like your team-mates to play with them".

Nor do they seem to share obviously similar coaching philosophies. Reading all the profiles of O'Sullivan, it was striking how much was made of his being a strict disciplinarian, how much he likes to have patterns of play planned in advance, whereas the essence of Kidney's success has been to empower the Munster players, to encourage their decision-making on the pitch.

There are gloomy forecasts out there from some who know both men, but the pragmatism and adaptability of both O'Sullivan and Kidney may well make it work.

You'd certainly hope they'll make it work -for it would be a crying shame if the good work of the last couple of years went undone - and that the enforced partnership runs its course to the conclusion of 2004, allowing a seamless transition of power. Stability is best.

But it still smacks of an Irish solution to an Irish problem.