EDMUND VAN ESBECK/On Rugby:  During the week the Ireland squad assembled to reflect on the events at Twickenham last Saturday. A very important part of the assembly was to study a video of the match. It will not have made for very pleasant viewing, but I have no doubt that every aspect of the match will have been analysed in detail, and many segments of it played over and over again.

It will have been a case of an in-depth look, and, let us hope, a telling learning process. Make no mistake about it, there is much to be learned from the performance in Twickenham. But before turning to the many areas where the play of the Irish team fell lamentably short of requirements, I would ask one question and I am sure the management team and the players have addressed it.

Did Ireland go to Twickenham with a fear factor that inhibited them? I know we heard prior to the match that there was confidence that this would be a performance that would test England. After all, Ireland had beaten England as recently as October. But this was different, this was Twickenham. I wonder if, deep down, doubts remained. England's record at Twickenham is intimidating, the last championship match England lost there was in 1997 to France. How much did the 50-18 defeat two years ago lodge in the Irish players' minds?

From a very early stage of the match last Saturday, there was reason to feel acute anxiety about Ireland's performance. There was a lack of conviction, confidence and authority about Ireland's play that took one back to Murrayfield in September and Twickenham two years ago.

Unfortunately, those doubts gained more substance as the first half progressed. It was very hard to equate this Ireland performance with the vibrant nature of their play a fortnight earlier.Why so acute a difference? I know this England team is of a different dimension and standard to the Welsh. Nonetheless, I think the question is worth asking and I hope that the Ireland players and management have asked themselves that question.

I cannot escape the conclusion that Ireland went into that match more in doubt about their ability to match England than conviction that they could.

This is, unquestionably, a very good England team, perhaps the very best the country has produced: strong in all areas, tactically aware and with the ability to play to their strengths and exploit the opposition's weaknesses. But Ireland asked no questions of England last Saturday as they had done so very well in October. Ireland missed Keith Wood for his play and his leadership. But he was missing against Wales a fortnight earlier and Ireland still prospered.

Making all due allowances for England's superiority in the forwards, their flair, pace and perception in the backs, the reality is that Ireland made life easy for England by falling down in so many basic elements. England can scarcely have believed their luck. Good though this England team is, Ireland made the side look even better.

Let us start with the restarts. Last Tuesday in this newspaper a point was made very forcibly about Ireland's deficiencies in this important area. It was absolutely valid. England's play in that area and many others was of a different quality. Granted, when the result of the match was in no doubt, Ireland did win some possession, and did put England under pressure.

Ireland's lineout was a shambles; just as it was a bad day for David Humphreys, so also for hooker Frank Sheahan. But they were just two of too many. We often hear about the importance of the basics and one can never overstate their importance. Well, Ireland fell down in many of those last Saturday and that had nothing to do with England's brilliance.

The Ireland team made a lot of trouble for itself. Then we had the number of missed tackles. The count of 49 tells its own story. One man who emerged with great credit last Saturday was Denis Hickie; would that others had played so well.

So is this a bad Ireland team? No, it is not, but it is a team that gave a very bad performance last Saturday and contributed to its own destruction. And I believe that much of the trouble for the sub-standard performance was due to the fact that, fundamentally, the Ireland team was inhibited by the Twickenham factor.

Now the players and management must steel themselves for the assignment against the Scots tomorrow week. It is a very big match for all concerned and Ireland must prove they can come back after last weekend. The selection of the team will be as interesting as it will be revealing. But the management may be in a forgiving mood after all the side has attained much in the recent past.

Geordan Murphy is ruled out and that should bring Shane Horgan in. Humphreys will be under pressure from O'Gara; Sheahan from Shane Byrne as Wood is not fit; Mick Galwey could lose out to Paul O'Connell, but Galwey may well start and surely be included in the 22. The back row, too, could undergo change and Simon Easterby could edge out Eric Miller.

In conclusion, the decision of European Rugby Cup (ERC) to fix the Castres-Munster European Cup match for Beziers is nothing short of shameful. The statement made by ERC chairman Jean Pierre Lux was patronising, sanctimonious waffle. The French have got their way yet again. My confidence in the ERC as currently constituted is zero.

What a loss Tom Kiernan is to that body.

Last season we had the disaster of Lille and were assured that nothing of that nature would happen again.

Furthermore, we were told that provisional venues had already been pencilled once the semi-finalists were known, and that was well in advance of the semi-final draw.

Yet it was almost a fortnight after the draw was made that eventually we were told Beziers would be the venue - and how pleased ERC was to announce that.

Well here is a question for ERC and for Ireland's representatives on that body, Noel Murphy and Peter Boyle: what venue had been provisionally arranged in event the of a Castres-Munster semi-final? Will a video referee be in place, as promised, this season?

The Irish rugby public and, particularly the Munster rugby public, is entitled to answers.