The opening stanza of Bob Dylan’s prophetic number, The Times They Are A-Changin’, feels as fresh now as it did back in 1962, in the middle of the political firestorm of the Vietnam War. The sands may have shifted, but the relevance of the words is more urgent than ever. Even the tightly-knit world of rugby is in a rare state of flux. “You better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin’.”
NZR sacked the head coach of the All Blacks mid-term after he posted a respectable 74% win rate, while Australia are still climbing back towards the lower ledge of respectability in the global game. The British and Irish Lions squad which appeared to have planted its flag on a rugby summit by winning the three-Test series in Aussie featured no fewer than 19 Irishmen and 14 from Leinster alone. Only a few months later, that deep pool of talent looks to be skating on thin ice after Ireland’s 36-14 loss in Paris on Thursday.
Wherever you roam, north or south of the equator, the waters have risen, as if you’re living on a high-risk rugby floodplain. Except maybe South Africa. Right now, Ireland is the focal point of that question; whether there is a lifeboat to be built, whether radical change is supportable. Not just in the emerald isle, but for the future of the game as a whole.
When Jacques Nienaber took over the senior coaching reins at Leinster on the high of repeat World Cup success at the end of 2023, I pointed out “the Nienaber methodology is not something which can be pleasantly added to what has been taught before, like whipped cream on top of a baked cake. It will demand a total change in attitude and energy, and it may even result in Leinster losing some of their sophistication with ball in hand. Will the trade be worth it? Or will it turn out to be a capital Faustian pact?”
Just before Christmas I wrote a review of Brendan Fanning’s fine book Touching Distance: Irish rugby’s great battle with expectations, where the question remained the same – only more urgent and underlined in bold. Ahead of Joe Schmidt’s last hurrah at the 2019 World Cup, Irish players were pleading with senpai Johnny Sexton behind closed doors, ‘Are we going to play any rugby?’ The current crop may be asking the same question now.
Two days after the dust had cleared on Ireland’s loss to France, a group of respected ex-players-turned-pundits, and Leinstermen one and all – Shane Horgan, Rob Kearney and Ian Madigan – debated the fallout on Virgin Media Sports. The common theme was the erosion of the handling skills built by first Joe Schmidt, then Stuart Lancaster, in the Nienaber era. Madigan highlighted the players were ‘caught between two systems’ defensively, before first Horgan called it an ‘unforeseen consequence’ of the South African’s appointment; then Kearney drew the quintessential conclusions.
“The guy we’ve not mentioned is Stuart Lancaster. Joe Schmidt came in and made us a really good passing team. Stuart came in and ensured our forwards could ball-play just as well as the backs.
“That’s why you got the Leinster and Ireland shape with multiple options at the line at any given time.
“Ireland are reliant on [their] provincial coaches and players doing their basic ball skills all the way through the year. When they come into camp, their catch-pass is already at a certain level [of competence].
“It’s almost too late for international coaches at that stage. It has to happen day-to-day at provincial level.”
“I do think Leinster in particular, their attack and their handling have regressed since Stuart Lancaster has left.”
Rob Kearney is right. The Leinster attack has steadily deteriorated since Lancaster left, and the Ireland offence has been faithful to a tee, doubling down on that decline.
A quick glance backwards reveals prime Ireland at their 2023 Six Nations, Grand-Slamming peak were scoring from a wider variety of situations, with 35% of their tries coming from counterattack and 65% from set-piece launches. The same stats from the most recent tournament in 2025 saw counterattack tries drop to a mere 14%. Ireland built an average of 110 rucks per game in 2023, but only 90 two years later. Coincidentally, they built the same number in Paris at the weekend.
This crisis belies a bigger issue in the direction of the game. When the lawmakers decided to remove the possibility of constructing a protective ‘pocket’ or screen ahead of the receiver of high kicks, the well-intentioned aim was to create a one-on-one contest for the ball in the air. Defenders had to get out of the way of chasers and retire behind the ball instead angling in towards the catcher and stopping in front of them.
Now look at the impact, via a comparison of Ireland’s heyday with the three matches in the first round of the 2026 Six Nations.
The number of rucks has stayed the same, but the number of kicks has risen by 19 per game, to very nearly one per minute. Two of the games were played out in heavy rain, but even the third at Twickenham featured 80 kicks in fair conditions. The team which built the fewest rucks in one game [Italy, with 58] beat the team who set the most – Scotland, with a massive 139.
Is there a place for multi-phase rugby in the modern game? Are handling and passing skills executed deep into the phase count an endangered species? The remainder of this year’s tournament will go a long way to telling the tale of the tape. The refereeing guidelines around the kick-chase may yet need another tweak.
One of the teams which has read the runes and adapted the quickest is Steve Borthwick’s England. The big Cumbrian has always preferred a kick-heavy tactical approach, and at the 2025 Six Nations England were already launching 36 kicks per game into orbit, six more than the competition average. With George Ford now preferred at number 10 to Fin Smith, and Tommy Freeman’s shift to centre allowing the selection of another big aerial athlete on the right wing, the trend is likely to continue.
The quality of England’s kicking game left Wales a long, long way distant in their wake at the old cabbage patch in the last game of the weekend. The clues to the potential of England’s new midfield of Ford, with club colleagues Fraser Dingwall and Freeman, were almost universally positive. Freeman topped all ball-carriers with 14 runs for 154 metres and no fewer than nine – yes, nine – breaks or busts. Dingwall had three break or try assists while Ford conducted the orchestra, deservedly winning the player of the match award.
England run a typical shape utilising all three players in structured attack. Accurate decisions in the teeth of traffic, and the ability to offer all three options with equal facility are key to its success.
Numbers 12 and 13 run hard and straight, while 10 runs the arc to link with the remaining outside backs. There is no more than a metre between all three of them at the point of contact. England began by establishing the dominance of Freeman on the short ball.
— William Bishop (@RPvids1994) February 8, 2026
As soon as Dingwall sees the Wales 10 at the tip of the defensive triangle, he moves the ball on, and Freeman’s power takes him all the way up to the goalline. With Wales down a man in backline play late in the half, the Saints inside centre kept the ball to narrow the defence on second phase.
— William Bishop (@RPvids1994) February 8, 2026
The most difficult skill of all is timing the pull-back pass to the 10 running the arc, because the pass has to be delivered in the teeth of contact, and without looking at the target.
— William Bishop (@RPvids1994) February 8, 2026
Dingwall’s first contribution is a deft pull-back to Ford at the line to release Tom Roebuck in space, then he is on hand again to take out the last defender and deliver the scoring pass to the same player.
Wales’ attempts to utilise the same shape in attack showed just how far they have fallen behind the standards demanded by the modern top-tier game.
— William Bishop (@RPvids1994) February 8, 2026
Wales want to get Louis Rees-Zammit on to an outside arc, and into the space beyond Dingwall [in the red rectangle] but the Northampton man is in perfect position to neuter the two Welsh options. If 13 receives the ball straight ahead, he is directly in front of him; if the Welsh full-back gets the ball he is primed to push off his inside foot and shut down the space. Those who know the shape intimately, know equally well how to attack from it and defend against it.
Thia Six Nations will be a litmus test for the current trajectory of professional rugby. Will the new rules governing the contest in the air improve the spectacle, or diminish it? Will there be too much kicking? Is multi-phase attacking rugby already a relic of the past?
Right now, England and France appear to be well ahead of the game: England with the precision-tooled accuracy of their kicking game, France with their burning desire to counterattack at every opportunity. It is Scotland and Ireland who are suffering the most. The times they are a-changin’, and for some at least, they are moving just a little too fast for comfort.
Watch all the upcoming SVNS action for FREE on RPTV!
*Available live in select territories
I have been saying it since the change came in - any law that encourages a team to kick for lottery outcomes is a bad law. It hasn’t helped that we are awful in the air but anybody who doesn’t see how making it easier for an attacker to access the high ball (running forward and required only to get one hand up to tap it back) isn’t paying attention.
It wasn’t even an unintended consequence - this was a very predictable outcome and dimishes the sport. Get rid of it.
I listened to Madigan on Irish Indo podcast also. He made the point about Leinster being a counter rucking team, which slows opposition rucks down and allows the defense get set and ‘rush’ the next phase. They might get around the defense but the line gets up so high that the scramble can get it.
Ireland are a poaching team. One guy into the ruck to poach and if he doesn’t win the space he is smashed out. On Thursday France were generally dominating tackles but Ireland were often caught between rushing and drifting often hesitating when it was clear the rush was late. France could easily get around or through with the line not high enough resulting in an ineffectual scramble also.
When Felix Jones was free I was praying we would sign him and then have a continuity from Leinster to Ireland. Farrell was never going to do that, obviously Easterby is there for the long haul.
This could explain the ‘intent’ in that they were trying to do what was not possible to do i.e. rush the French defense who were getting quick ball.
The Italy match may reveal if any of this is addressed or can be addressed.
Ireland need a lot of work with their Garrowen’s and need to attack off turnover as you’ve said before.
Systems of defence are intimately connected to work at the BD EE.
So Easterby’s defence tends to defend on square and that means a single jackal - and Ire have had some good ones in Beirne, JVDF, Kelleher, Lowe, Bundee etc.
Nienaber’s D wants to defend out-to-in and that means more pressure to slow or turn over the ruck. You can see Leiunster doing this with second efforts, counter-rucks, reachover attempts at every BD.
Then they can identify and tee off on the likely receivers on the back of that.
The two systems are as alike as chalk and cheese - so as you say, they needed someone like Felix Jones to coach the blitz with Ireland.
So the continuity which Ireland have always prized betweent their provinces and the national side hsas ben lost.