Some experts give their opinion on Ireland's performance in the World Cup

1. Why did we fail?

Fergus Slattery

"I find it extraordinary that nobody has given credit to Argentina. They were the best side in the group and were always going to beat either Ireland or France. They have better players and a better team structure than Ireland. It shouldn't be a surprise. The expectations of the Irish side were exaggerated. They performed reasonably well in a Six Nations where the standard was somewhere between poor and mediocre."

"I have absolutely no views on the review process. I just think that we've got serious weaknesses in terms of strength in depth. The key areas should be addressed in the short to medium term."

"Some of the statements from Eddie O'Sullivan are bizarre. I'd just love to know what the management are doing. Are they building for the next World Cup or the Six Nations in 2008? We have eight or nine players who will endure up to the next World Cup but we must copper-fasten the other six or seven positions. This might not be achievable before 2008 but they certainly need to address these problems. If we don't we could start slipping."

"The Welsh attitude is if they get a bad result they fire their coach. This approach has been a disaster. The one advantage of retaining Eddie O'Sullivan is continuity. But there also has to be accountability. I wouldn't hang Eddie O'Sullivan because of the performance in the World Cup. Everyone, including O'Sullivan, over shot. The players are more culpable than the coach."

Conor O'Shea

"We dominated teams physically six months ago but lost the collisions in this World Cup. You have to be inside the camp to know the reasons for that. Rugby is a collision sport. If you lose these collisions you are on the back foot. If you are on the back foot you lose. Certain players under-performed but it all comes back to the collision areas. You lose the ability to offload, you lose the ability to implement your kicking game and your attacking strategy fails."

"Every union conducts a review process after every tournament. It shouldn't be done in any different way than it has been done before. I'm sure the players will have a voice in it as well as the coaches. It certainly seems to have worked for the last three or four years so why should they change it after this particular tournament?"

"No, I don't think that is the way forward. Everything that will happen must come from the review process. Quite obviously things have not gone the way they planned but from the bitter experience of '99 I know the players and coaches hurt more than anyone in the public. They went in - excluding the warm-ups - after four years of outstanding achievement and on the back of the provinces doing exceptionally well. Everyone had high expectations."

"No. Four years ago it was seen as foresight and great planning. Because the World Cup hasn't gone well everyone is saying it is shambolic. My personal view point is Eddie O'Sullivan is a great coach whose track record speaks for itself. If he has the faith of the players, he is the best coach Ireland could have. The easy thing to do is call for his head."

Trevor Brennan

"Only the players and coaches can answer that question. Something is not working. We rested players during the summer who probably should have been playing. Players didn't have enough game time going into the World Cup. They have been over-trained. Five months in camp is longer than any other country and too much time to be cooped up in hotels. It's painful. You're bored. Other than that it is just a guessing game. Or maybe the crying game."

"What we need is honesty. A policy where people are allowed speak out without fear of punishment. But no player is going to speak out against a coach while they still have prospects of playing for their country. It's been proven in the past that anyone who speaks against the coach or organisation will not play again. It needs to be confidential. If I was in the media's position I would highlight the fact that no one is willing to talk."

"Eddie O'Sullivan signed a four-year deal. He is not going anywhere and he has made that point clear. No matter what I or anybody else say he has at least until the next Six Nations to prove himself. I do think he should be given until then but the only improvement would be to win the Grand Slam."

"I've already said the four-year contract was a mistake. I think he got it for winning three Triple Crowns and for beating Australia and South Africa. He was the best coach available to them. Maybe he had an offer of a move somewhere else that forced the union's hand. We don't know why."

Kieron Dawson

"Physically they were out-muscled by a lot of teams. Was the physical preparation there? Did they get too much rest? Were they wrapped up in cotton wool too much? It is very hard to say. It couldn't have been a happy camp internally with seven players barely used. Preparation and selection within the tournament are questionable."

"There is going to be a conflict of interest for an internal review as the guy in charge has a four-year contract. I think they were unlucky that the team peaked a year too early. It happened to Australia and New Zealand in the past when coming into the World Cup they were stale or that year older and missed the boat."

"The geography of world rugby has changed. The Six Nations is not as important any more. The Tri-Nations is used as a preparation for the World Cup. Clive Woodward took a similar stance. He said judge me on the World Cup. We can clear the decks and implement a four-year plan. This would freshen up the squad. That's what happened after the 1999 World Cup when the current core came in after the disaster against England in the next Six Nations."

"There are no outstanding candidates to take over the job from Eddie O'Sullivan. I think the timing of it was bad. That should have been included in the post-World Cup review. Maybe there was a bit of duress placed on the IRFU going into the tournament. A knee-jerk reaction to get rid of the coach would not solve the problems."