Eddie O’Sullivan has come out with his hands up. He may be three months late but, hey, it’s a start. What annoyed people most about Ireland’s World Cup – apart from the awful rugby – was that nobody, with the honourable exception of Brian O’Driscoll, said sorry, it was our fault.

At his press conference, the morning after the defeat by Argentina at the Parc des Princes 12 weeks ago, O’Sullivan looked too wounded and too defensive for humility. It was a surreal affair attended by a television crew making a comedy DVD. Only grudgingly did the coach admit that maybe Ireland could have played more rugby in the build-up to the tournament.

Philip Browne, the IRFU’s chief executive, made things worse with his unfortunate choice of a four-letter word on RTE Television later that evening. And then shutdown. Any time O’Sullivan was approached for interview in the following weeks, he had to decline. He knew everyone’s interests would be served by talking but he couldn’t preempt the findings of the Genesis review.

So not until last week – Wednesday afternoon, in Citywest Hotel, to be precise – did he own up to his part in the car crash that was Ireland’s Rugby World Cup 2007.

“Look, I made a balls of the World Cup,” he told The Sunday Times. “Hands up, it went badly wrong. I now know why. I’m not hiding behind anything. I got a strategic aspect of our build-up wrong and it hurt us badly.”

He knows this won’t be enough for the vultures in the media – and the odd one on the union committee – who will be satisfied only when his head is on a stake outside Lansdowne Road, but he was still happy to give his side of the story: about the contract, the review, the rumours, the hotel, the media and the future. But first, how it went wrong.

PO’R: So it was all down to lack of match practice?

EO’S: It was the biggest single problem, the biggest single mistake, and I got it wrong, 100%. I had a limited window of 12 weeks from the end of last season and, if I had my time again, I would certainly have spent a lot more time preparing to play rugby and cut our fitness preparation by two to three weeks minimum. And I would have played another two full matches in the build-up, try and get high-profile games. I think that would have got us ready.

PO’R: But Argentina seemed ready to play on the same number of warm-up games and they had France first up.

EO’S: A factor in that is that all their players played to the end of June in the French championship so the lag time before their next game was quite short. Southern hemisphere teams also played right to the end of June, whereas we were finished in May.

Just to balance it up, had I cut the fitness short and exposed the squad to full-on Tests, let’s be realistic, there would have been injuries and they could have been to key players. If I’d gone down that road, I would have been criticised for being reckless.

PO’R: So your players were fit and stayed largely injury-free. How come they looked so flat?

EO’S: Because there’s a difference between general fitness and rugby fitness. A fella can be lifting as much weight as he wants and doing all the sprints but it takes time to translate that on to the pitch. Can you imagine the provinces trying to play their first few Heineken Cup matches in September, where a loss or two is catastrophic?

PO’R: But that doesn’t explain why Denis Leamy and Gordon D’Arcy, players we associate with busting tackles, suddenly looked so depowered.

EO’S: I don’t want to talk about individuals but I think the problem was with confidence more than anything. There’s a chicken and an egg as regards confidence. It had to do with the way we were trying to play. If you look back at the previous season, we ran with the ball, took risks and off-loaded, and that was how we wanted to play at the World Cup. It’s a high-risk game and if it starts to go pear-shaped, that undermines confidence and fellas struggle with their form.

As the tournament went on, we recognised that and tried to kick more, at the same time recognising that the successful teams were kicking a lot more whereas the teams who ran, like Wales, ourselves, Australia and even New Zealand, got into trouble.

PO’R: Is Spala [and its cryotherapy chambers] overrated?

EO’S: I think that’s very harsh. We’ve been going there since 2001, before I became head coach, and it has always worked well for us. It can be mentally tough as well as physically. The only difference this year is that we were playing four or five weeks after being there – normally we don’t have a Test until November. It goes back to the fact that we were trying to play Test rugby very early in the season. I don’t think there’s anything sinister lurking there, in a physiological sense.

PO’R: Let’s talk psychology then. Doesn’t it breed complacency if 15 players are so separate, so untouchable as someone put it, even in Spala?

EO’S: That’s unfair to those players. They worked exceptionally hard. The thing was they’d had a tough season and didn’t need to go on tour to Argentina. No-one argued with the idea of resting them. It meant they were two weeks ahead of the tourists in terms of conditioning so there was a good reason for them to train separately.

PO’R: But then they play all four pool games. Isn’t competition for places one of the most important components for any successful side?

EO’S: In a perfect world, I wanted to pick the best team against Namibia, bang out a good result, rotate a bit for Georgia, and then, let’s be sensible, pick my best team for France and Argentina. I was worried after the warm-up game against Italy in Ravenhill because there was clearly something amiss. Then we played so badly against Namibia and I couldn’t rotate for Georgia because then you’re expecting fellas who played poorly in the first game to be ready for the third game, against France. These guys needed rugby. I had to stick with them for four games. Incidentally, it’s nothing different from what we do in the Six Nations.

PO’R: But this was to be seven straight weeks, at best. No breaks.

EO’S: Correct, but we were in a very difficult group. Other countries had more latitude because they had just one big opponent in their pool. We had two, and Georgia turned out to be bloody tough.

PO’R: The flaw in the selection system became apparent when Eoin Reddan made only his second Test start in the most important game of the season.

EO’S: Fair comment. What I will say is that if you really want to start using your squad, there are limited opportunities. We played 26 players in the November Tests but I had no latitude in the Six Nations. You don’t as Irish coach. The Six Nations is a huge tournament for us and it’s a strategic decision by the Union to put our best foot forward. We were trying to win a Grand Slam. If we experiment, it might cost us a game.

PO’R: Is there anything else you would

change in the build-up, given another chance?

EO’S: [Pause] By and large, no. Not playing enough rugby was the biggest mistake we made.

PO’R: It has emerged from the IRUPA player survey that there was no obvious contingency plan for Argentina beating France in the tournament opener. Is that the case?

EO’S: Certainly, once that happened, the whole pool landscape changed. Had France beaten Argentina and ourselves as the seeding had it, we would have gone into the game against Argentina having to win by one point to put us into the quarter-final – as in 2003. Now, there’s no doubt in my mind we would have gone very close to doing that. Instead we had an impossible task on the day.

PO’R: But did Argentina winning that game panic you into a desperate attempt to rack up the tries against Namibia, just in case it came down to try differential?

EO’S: The off-load game was what we wanted to play because we knew we had to if we wanted to beat France and Argentina. Unfortunately, we weren’t yet ready to play that game and we made lots of errors. We had a huge number of line-breaks against Namibia but couldn’t finish them off.

BY THE time Ireland had scraped past Georgia, the rumour mill was whirring out of control. In the absence of an explanation for Ireland’s atrocious performances, throwaway chatroom remarks were transformed into gospel within hours. There was a Leinster-Munster split; one player was being forced to train through illness; another had been seen dashing furtively into a Bordeaux hotel with a strange woman, who turned out to be his wife. And these were the milder murmurings.

Asked afterwards what was the most disheartening aspect of the tournament, Denis Hickie said it was constantly having to deny groundless rumours about teammates, some of which made their way into print. And the most serious allegations just happened to be about Ireland’s chief playmaker.

PO’R: Of all the rumours, the ones that had been gathering momentum for months concerned Ronan O’Gara. Did you consider addressing this problem before the World Cup?

EO’S: I didn’t address it because it was just scurrilous rumour and how do you address scurrilous rumour? You suddenly make an announcement and breathe life into it? There were lots of rumours and they’ve all come to nothing. What was written about Ronan O’Gara during the World Cup was a disgrace, a slur on the journalist that wrote it rather than him. You can’t win in these situations. All you can do is let the truth come out eventually. And the truth is there was no trouble. Geordan Murphy never tried to walk out. Nobody was dragged out of bed in the middle of the night and dressed down because of what they said in the media. In fairness to the lads, they had a pretty awful time. We played really badly but they stuck to the job till the end.

PO’R: Do you think the talk about O’Gara’s private life was behind his poor form?

EO’S: I don’t think he was that distracted. He’s a strong character. Of course he was shipping some flak but remember this, if you’re effectively the quarter-back of the side, your life is made easier or more difficult by the other 14 guys around you. If they are playing badly, the pressure all comes on you, and you make 60-70% of the decisions on the pitch, under pressure.

PO’R: Did Brian O’Driscoll insist on a change at scrum-half?

EO’S: No, that’s very unfair. People will believe what they want to believe but Brian O’Driscoll has never come to me and demanded a selection – ever. He has always said to me, ‘You pick the team.’ It was a hugely difficult decision for me but I felt a change of scrum-half could be a catalyst for us.

PO’R: Should you have chosen a different team hotel?

EO’S: A good question. We scoured Bordeaux for hotels and that was the best. Other international teams have stayed there. I actually fought to get that hotel because the initial offers were dreadful and some were even further out. The facilities were good. We would have preferred being closer to town but no-one was out there saying it was a disaster.

A WHITEWASH – that was the general reaction to the Genesis Report, or at least to the part of it for public consumption. You wondered what people actually expected to come out. That the rumours of disharmony were true? Or that the players all wanted rid of O’Sullivan but only dared say so in an anonymous survey?

According to the players I have spoken to, there is no overwhelming antipathy towards O’Sullivan. The pressure is coming more from the Union, which doesn’t like the virulent criticism it has received in the press for offering the coach a four-year contract extension before the World Cup.

Clearly there has been a move to dilute O’Sullivan’s power by the proposal of a manager and a backs coach. On radio last Tuesday, Philip Browne said those recommendations had emerged from the player survey, though the chief executive of IRUPA, Niall Woods, sounded less convinced of this in conversation during the week. He didn’t wish to be quoted, however.

The Union has been trying to impose a manager ever since Brian O’Brien vacated the post two and a half years ago, to be replaced by a logistics man, Ger Carmody. Carmody has impressed everyone close to the team with his organisational abilities but what has been clear for a while is that O’Sullivan has lacked a sounding board or a dissenting voice.

To be effective, that person must be someone with direct experience of the professional game, and young enough to be in touch with the players, yet not be bullied by the coach. The Union may want to keep in touch but imposing a watchdog figure on O’Sullivan is asking for trouble. No doubt all this came up for discussion at the get-together for squad and management in the Berkeley Court on Thursday evening, described variously as Christmas bash, World Cup reunion and clear-the-air session.

PO’R: At the 2003 World Cup, you said you hoped you would last until 2007 and that would be long enough. What made you decide you wanted the job for over a decade?

EO’S: When I said that in 2003, my attitude was I could guarantee I’d be hungry to do the job till now and I don’t know after that. Well, I still have the same hunger. I’m sorry but I do [laughs]. It’s the ultimate prize for a coach and if you still can make a good job of it, why not?

PO’R: Is there not a danger that players can tire of the same voice?

EO’S: You have to be aware of that and I am aware of that. It is a little bit different, though, from a club or provincial coach, where you see fellas Monday to Saturday or Sunday, week after week. An international coach only has certain blocks of time where it’s up close and personal, usually a maximum of four months of the year where you’re cheek by jowl. I do get feedback from the senior players, which helps to keep it fresh. They didn’t burst into applause when I told them my contract had been extended, either this time or in 2003. And if they did, I’d panic.

PO’R: Keith Wood has said that you made the mistake of trying to be a one-man band. Have you had too much on your plate?

EO’S: I didn’t think so at the time, because I was just getting on with the job, but maybe there’s something in that. When Brian left there was a void I tried to fill myself and made a lot of effort to do so.

But if there’s a need for a sounding board, someone I can liaise with, that’s all good.

PO’R: Will you have a say in who fills these positions?

EO’S: Absolutely. As the Union said to me, these are people I’ll be working with. Certainly I’ll pick the backs coach, he’s a member of my staff. That’s down to me. People ask whether a new backs coach will undermine me because I used to coach the backs. Well, if you’re sensitive about it, it might. But let’s be honest, coaching a back line is not about the 20 or 30 minutes on the pitch every day, it’s also about the hours and hours that go in off the pitch, preparing and analysing. That’s something I’ve been trying to do. I don’t think I’ve been doing it badly. We weren’t a bad backline in the Six Nations. But if this part of the process is helping me to stand back and get a better overview, then that’s good.

PO’R: So you don’t feel your power has been diluted?

EO’S: Not at all.

THE past week has been a reminder of the flak that was flying in France and on his return. The ammunition will be loaded again in a few weeks – Ireland’s Six Nations opener against Italy is less than six weeks away, with a squad due to be announced after the next round of Heineken Cup games.

This time last year, O’Sullivan was the only contender to coach the 2009 Lions and short odds to coach Ireland to their first Grand Slam in 59 years. Now, contract extension or not, his job is on the line in the Six Nations. Should Ireland lose one of their three home fixtures – Italy, Wales or Scotland – he is surely in trouble. The week of the Wales game will be particularly tense. Wales travel to Croke Park under the stewardship of Warren Gatland, O’Sullivan’s predecessor as Ireland coach. The nature of their relationship? Put it this way, they haven’t spoken a word to each other since December 2001, the month Gatland was sacked.

This time, O’Sullivan’s position will be under the microscope. For all the talk of new backs coaches, managers and psychologists, perhaps the most telling point is that O’Sullivan’s back-up staff, apart from those who are IRFU staffers, such as video analyst Mervyn Murphy, are out of contract at the end of the Six Nations and must wait until after the tournament to see whether their services are required. There is the unmistakable sense of a coaching staff on its last chance.

PO’R: Have you had to endure any abuse from the public over the World Cup?

EO’S: I’ve met quite a few people in the supermarket and in the car park and not one has said anything nasty to me. The report that I was booed at the RDS was pretty disgraceful because it wasn’t true. I thought that was a slur on the Leinster supporters and I heard afterwards that a lot of them were upset to be depicted that way. People write stuff about you. I’m human, so I prefer to be praised than criticised.

The only thing that worries me about this job is my kids, who are now 18 and 15 and old enough to read newspapers. Some of the things said about me on a personal level wouldn’t help them. I’ve always tried to protect my family. I don’t worry about myself, I just keep reminding myself that what people write and say are only opinions, not gospel.

PO’R: Is your job on the line this Six Nations, regardless of any contract?

EO’S: Of course. It’s always on the line to an extent and there is an extra bit of pressure because we’re coming off a bad World Cup. It still leaves a sick feeling in the stomach every time you think about it. You can obsess about what if my next few games go pear-shaped but there’s no point. You give it your best shot. I think it will come right because we’ll be battle-hardened, which we weren’t in France. Some of the players’ form has been mixed but when we come together for the Six Nations [on Sunday, January 20] all bets are off.

PO’R: Do you respond well to pressure? To all the mud-slinging?

EO’S: I think I do. I’m not being arrogant. If you’re in this business, it’s a challenge all the time. If I didn’t want to take these risks, I would have stayed in teaching. You’ve got to expect there will be periods where it will go badly wrong. And if you can’t get yourself up for that, you’ve no business here. The mud-slinging? It means you’re even more up for it. Big time.

What a year: 2007 in Eddie O’Sullivan’s words

"The boys all put their bodies on the line for 80 minutes and when the win is snatched away from you at the death it is as cruel as you can get. I have no complaints about effort" Absolving his players after France snatch a 20-17 win at Croke Park

"It was one of our most complete performances" Relishing the 43-13 win over England, Ireland’s fourth in succession against England

"In this situation you should never die wondering. We cannot change it now and I would not want to. I am very happy with that performance" Defending Ireland’s high-risk approach in the final minutes in Rome, which ultimately cost them their first Six Nations since 1985

"A timely vote of confidence in me and my coaching staff when we are about to embark on our World Cup challenge" Welcoming a four-year contract extension, which ultimately became a stick with which his critics hit him – and the IRFU – repeatedly

"It wasn’t a phenomenal performance but we showed a lot of guts at the end. We’ve had two nerve-racking games and I hope they stand us in good stead for the game against France in Paris" Searching for positives after a pants filling 14-10 win over a second-strength Georgia

"We got blown off the park by the referee" Searching for excuses after losing 35-3 to France

"I am totally committed to this job. I have a contract and I intend to honour it. Things have not gone to plan but there is no reason to walk away" Talking tough after losing to Argentina