RUGBY ANALYST: Ireland's back three kicked nearly every ball that came their way, which conceded possession immediately and allowed another wave of attack to build

MAD AS it may seem, I do still think Saturday was a great chance to beat New Zealand. The All Blacks, from the very off, were off. The famed haka has lost its edge, with tongue-wagging predominant. Do we really need to know the length of Ali Williams' tongue?

In the recent past Ireland have started at great pace and forced New Zealand into conceding scores and mistakes. On Saturday New Zealand did not play well. That's New Zealand the team. Individually, there were some outstanding displays, and it was in their chains of three that they dominated. Simple inter-play, changing of angles and creating space was the key.

As a group, the All Black lineout was pedantic, with untidy tap-backs, and their back play very lateral; they were happy to shovel the ball over and back with no urgency or hard running. The problem for Ireland was their tactics - or "kicktics" - were exhausting. A sub-prime performance.

The score stood 3-3 in the 38th minute. Not bad? By full-time Ireland had made 84 tackles to New Zealand's 83. Not bad? Possession was close, too, at 49 per cent for Ireland to New Zealand's 51 per cent. But New Zealand carried the ball 60 per cent more often than Ireland. So by half-time Ireland had already set their own trap. You can't continue to work your socks off for possession and kick, kick, kick it back to the best ball-carrying team in the world. It's exhausting.

Ireland missed three times the tackles and made only 21 per cent of the metres gained.

The unfortunate point is, in nearly every other department Ireland had equity. The ELVs can't be blamed. So as the game drifted along boringly, the inevitable was glaring. Even the cameramen were slowly inching their way towards the Irish dead ball area, a sign that's worse than "fogra, fogra, end of match positions". Croke Park is a magnificent stadium, at its best for the anthems, but it's the worst place to watch a poor game of rugby. If I had a remote control nearby I would have simply switched it all off.

For long periods I drifted off to following individual players while ignoring the overall game. I then started comparing those individual's statistics. Height, weight, etc. Finally, I then tried to figure out why New Zealand can put 22 points on Ireland without playing well as a team, because their physical statistics don't indicate athletes to be feared. That said, I finally realised it is in the one-on-one contact the New Zealanders are supreme, and only David Wallace and Luke Fitzgerald mimicked them successfully.

New Zealand missed tackles, but the 83 they made were bone-shattering. Their technique is worth examining. They plant their feet well in advance of contact in a very aggressive stance where their centre of gravity is always below the ball-carrier's. Inevitably the ball-carrier was dominated. Watch their hip action in contact. It generates real power. Compare that to the average body position of the Irish.

Furthermore, their defence does not terminate when the tackled player hits the deck. To a man the All Blacks spring to their feet and dominate the vital ensuing seconds. More often than not they win the ball, or better still they slow it down so much it forces the opposition into the dreaded kick.

On the flip side, we know there are several in the Irish team who can challenge the best defences. But alas it was only Wallace and Fitzgerald's time on the ball which, through hard, powerful running, allowed them to dance around into space.

When in possession the All Blacks used the same concept of dominating the opponent by utilising pace, power and an ability to keep the defender weak. Mils Muliaina at full back demonstrated the difference between the sides. He and many of his team-mates attack the weakest part of the defender, an inside shoulder, or, worse again, a weak defender. They were prepared to create mismatches and exploit them.

Physically New Zealand's back three are similar to Ireland's, but Ireland's back three kicked nearly every ball that came their way, which conceded possession immediately and allowed another wave of attack to build. Conversely, Muliaina, in particular, countered hard and fast, causing consternation within the Irish defence.

Of course, Saturday's game is a timely reminder that Irish rugby at all levels must risk a running game, with all the strain it brings on skills, in order to enhance the end product at international level. We tend to be a nation that perfects the unit skills of scrummaging, lineout, phased play, patterns, etc. If you stroll into any rugby club this week you'll find forwards (fatties) practising their lineouts ad nauseum, followed by some wildebeest scrummaging. Separated from them the backs (girlies) will be running unopposed fancy moves designed to score off first phase. And never the twain shall meet.

How many schools and clubs spend real and consistent time on the tackle, the breakdown, broken-field play and counter-attacking? In most matches there'll be about 30 lineouts and 20 scrums, but there'll be over 175 tackles/breakdowns, not to mention broken-field play. So where should our time be spent?

With Argentina around the corner Ireland must embrace their strengths. This group of Irish are more than capable of keeping possession and running hard at the Argentinians. However, a reshuffle of personnel is required.

PS: The ELVs have been designed to enhance the pace of the game and create a better spectacle. However, amendments are required, specifically to the ever-growing relationship between the referee and his assistant. Did you notice Cobus Wessels waddle out onto the pitch at a pensioner's pace to highlight Tony Woodcock's indiscretion? After that mammoth journey a long debate ensued, then a decision and finally a 10-page essay to the player and captain.

How long did all that take?