The guy showed me a selection of bullets which was interesting, but saved the best till last. When his group was out lamping foxes or hunting deer, this was the piece de resistance. They called it the light switch. The poor creature would be in mid-flight and wouldn't realise it was dead . . . lights out!

Somebody hit the light switch in Ireland's recent test series. How do I know?

Well because the switch was pressed at the same time in every game. It wasn't a coincidence . . . Ireland were still running but they were dead. Why did it happen?

How come Ireland didn't score in the last 30 minutes of every test, particularly when they had enough possession in those final half-hours to get close?

These matches are important. Yes, primarily they're about financial obligation . . . Ireland have to reciprocate in our summer so the NZRFU and ARFU can pay their players. The IRB in 2004 and 2005 sent out missives to the unintelligentsia . . . "concern over player burnout", "first priority was to lessen the burden and work load", "cut the fixture list" etc. So instead of playing their usual two matches at the end of the season, Ireland had to play three. That's three in 14 days. Back to Boxer in Animal Farm . . . "I must work harder" . . . who decides? Who draws up the schedule? Is it the IRB? Is it the IRFU? Or is it Murdoch? Never mind.

Player burn-out isn't our problem or priority anymore . . . we've got to pay the piper.

Sure won't Australia, South Africa and the Pacific Lions come over and fill the house so the IRFU can pay their players . . . greedy bastards!

Ireland were fatigued, of course they were, but they were still going and needed to play with a good deal more wit. The resolve was there. It manifested itself in all three games even late into the second half. When Ireland were put under pressure it was the brain which was deprived of oxygen and the lapses in concentration which cost them.

Let's go back to why these games are important. We should save a bullet for any player who says in a post-match interview that the squad will take the positives from the match and learn from them. The biggest positive is that all the front-liners played in three matches of titanic intensity . . . all of which they lost. If they don't know why they lost them and learn, then the whole series will only have been an exercise in revenue generation.

I sometimes think that all the perceived changes in the world order is a myth. I am sure that all the boats rise with the same tide . . . but the status quo is preserved. I remember playing a series against Australia in Sydney and Brisbane against a far better team than the one Ireland played against. John Eales, Michael Lynagh, Nick Farr, David Campese, Tim Horan, Jason Little . . . no shortage of quality there. We were fit enough but tired because we had played all the provincial sides, Australia A etc.

We hadn't played a season of Heineken Cup or Celtic League though. We gave a reasonable account and lost both tests but only by smaller margins. We all got pissed after each test (no bar-diving) and went home to our day jobs. Any sense of perspective on why we lost lasted until we got off the plane. These professionals should have the essentials burned into their hard-drive.

There are still the disparities which don't seem to get any closer as the years go by . . . body size, body shape, leg speed, power, acceleration over the first five or 10. The most glaring deficiency is the midsection . . . hip, thigh and abdominal muscle . . . it's how the Sanza teams generate all their thrust, stay strong in the tackle, stay on their feet, launch offensive tackles. These factors always stay the same . . . they always have the advantage.

The reason Ireland were very competitive in the first 50 or 60 was that they played a certain type of game in that first period . . . the complexion then changed and they ended up playing a different type of game in the second period . . . a type of game that they couldn't control . . . which is why they shipped the points that cost every test match.

Does Ireland's style of play reflect the coach's personality? Of course it does.

Our coach's gameplan is predictable and conservative, but efficient.

Kick for position off slow ruck ball, even off good ruck ball, run good quality set-piece possession 40 yards from our line . . . be very competent in tight play. Get down and dirty at line-out time on the opposition throw . . . slow ball down at the tackle zone, scramble with effect, but most importantly play the game in the opposition half.

Apart from Neil Best's (right) try in the Australian test . . .

which depending on your perspective was either a fluke or the embryonic passage of play into a new departure . . . Ireland scored all their points from close in. Their opponents could and did score from anywhere.

Stats can be misleading. I saw in one test in the Six Nations that one team put in close to 120 tackles and their opponents put in 48. Logic tells you that the team who had to put in all those tackles was on the back foot. The team that made 120 tackles won by 20 points . . .

funny old game. Ireland's tackle count was lower than Australia's and New Zealand's.

But the stat that really mattered was possession in the second half . . . in all three matches possession was near parity. So how come they shipped so many points?

This is where the complexion of the game changed. Ireland's gameplan changed because they couldn't control the ball or set the pace of the game. As the intensity ramped up, Ireland started to run ruck ball with little effect. They couldn't get phases going and most of their quality set-piece ball which they would ordinarily move had to be kicked as it was won well into their own half. They were unable to maintain pressure and aggression at the tackle zone and at lineout time. The efficiencies of their game went down 25 per cent and it showed when some of their try concessions came off first phase, some off first phase from a turnover. Southern hemisphere sides can keep the ball for as long as they need . . .

their presentation of the ball at the breakdown is simply astonishing and their collective clean-out of the ruck is equally ruthless.

When you have the confidence to keep the ball for long periods it's only a matter of time before cracks appear. So what should Ireland do when the game loosens up after 50 or 60? Still try to play the structured game or scramble and flow as time on the ball becomes easier to come by?

This team doesn't operate at its optimum when things loosen up. The French game in Paris was over after 40 . . . so Ireland's second-half performance was not an accurate reflection . . . but they maintained their structures well against England when it mattered . . . no problem against Six Nations opponents but for Sanza sides they struggle going into the last 20. So the choice is try and follow as the game opens up or close down and remain in the same structure.

It was tremendous exposure for the front-liners . . . if they have an opinion they should not be shy. I have a funny feeling that when any game becomes fluid due to pressure between now and the World Cup that strait-jackets will be introduced. Ireland will struggle to knock off Australia or South Africa in November, not because they haven't learned from playing in this series . . . it's just that the coach will revert to type.