BRACE yourselves for the Eddie and Warren show. The Rematch, The Return, The Revenge. A film crew from BBC Wales has already shot a series of interviews with various protagonists in the mystery that unfolded a little over six years ago, the one where Warren Gatland was sacked by the IRFU when he was convinced he’d be given a contract extension until the 2003 World Cup. This mini-melodrama will be presented under the title Who Gunned Gatty?

For most followers of Irish rugby, this will seem like a rhetorical question. Surely everyone knows the assistant did it, by manoeuvring and politicking behind Gatland’s back. The Dagger O’Sullivan.

Gatland has already accused O’Sullivan of chicanery most foul. “For me the important thing was doing what I felt was best for Irish rugby,” he says in Brendan Fanning’s From There to Here. “I wasn’t dealing with political things and making phone calls and ringing the president and getting them onside.” Ouch.

The plot comes full circle this week, when defeat by Wales could signal the end of O’Sullivan’s reign as Ireland coach. But it is too simplistic to say it was all down to Eddie. A few people had had enough of Gatland by November 2001. He let his relationship with his employers deteriorate to breaking point. He detested having to explain himself to men he saw as being out of touch with the modern game. The union disliked being told how to run their business by the coach.

The Gatland-O’Sullivan alliance seemed to work. O’Sullivan had a positive impact on Ireland’s back play and results improved. But tension emanated from O’Sullivan’s determination to get the top job. The pressure on the union increased when USA Rugby made O’Sullivan a highly attractive job offer.

However, O’Sullivan refutes the suggestion that he manipulated the committee men and it is naive to suggest that the IRFU made their decision based on what O’Sullivan said. It’s now clear Keith Wood’s testimony was far more influential.

Gatland had always seen himself as a players’ coach but there was a tension in his relationship with Wood. One night, when we asked Gatland how he rated his hooker, he replied that he was “a good Barbarians player”. By late 2001, Wood didn’t rate Gatland highly either. He had just returned from a Lions tour when he had worked with Phil Larder and it confirmed his belief that Ireland needed a defence coach and a scrum coach. Wood asked for the coaching staff to be beefed up and resources were available, but Gatland was slow to respond.

“I had issues with Warren,” Wood said last week. “He did a remarkable job at the start when we badly needed structure and consistency of selection. But we needed to make changes that year, in getting additional coaches and things, and those changes weren’t forthcoming until Eddie came in.”

Gatland was clearly hurt by what happened, and wondered if he’d paid the price for not being Irish. The IRFU did want an Irish coach in charge sooner rather than later but, in reality, they were making a business decision. They looked at Gatland’s success rate of just under 50% and reckoned they could do better. Over the next two years, O’Sullivan increased that to over 70%.

As it happened, things worked out well for Gatland. He blossomed at Wasps and has used the Ireland experience to his benefit in his new job, bringing in his own team of assistants and taking steps to ensure he will not be hurt by player power.

Now it’s him and Eddie. Those who know Gatland say he doesn’t hold a grudge. This week he gets the perfect opportunity to prove it.

The plot comes full circle this week, when defeat by Wales could signal the end of O’Sullivan’s reign as Ireland coach. But it is too simplistic to say it was all down to Eddie. A few people had had enough of Gatland by November 2001. He let his relationship with his employers deteriorate to breaking point. He detested having to explain himself to men he saw as being out of touch with the modern game. The union disliked being told how to run their business by the coach.

The Gatland-O’Sullivan alliance seemed to work. O’Sullivan had a positive impact on Ireland’s back play and results improved. But tension emanated from O’Sullivan’s determination to get the top job. The pressure on the union increased when USA Rugby made O’Sullivan a highly attractive job offer.

However, O’Sullivan refutes the suggestion that he manipulated the committee men and it is naive to suggest that the IRFU made their decision based on what O’Sullivan said. It’s now clear Keith Wood’s testimony was far more influential.

Gatland had always seen himself as a players’ coach but there was a tension in his relationship with Wood. One night, when we asked Gatland how he rated his hooker, he replied that he was “a good Barbarians player”. By late 2001, Wood didn’t rate Gatland highly either. He had just returned from a Lions tour when he had worked with Phil Larder and it confirmed his belief that Ireland needed a defence coach and a scrum coach. Wood asked for the coaching staff to be beefed up and resources were available, but Gatland was slow to respond.

“I had issues with Warren,” Wood said last week. “He did a remarkable job at the start when we badly needed structure and consistency of selection. But we needed to make changes that year, in getting additional coaches and things, and those changes weren’t forthcoming until Eddie came in.”

Gatland was clearly hurt by what happened, and wondered if he’d paid the price for not being Irish. The IRFU did want an Irish coach in charge sooner rather than later but, in reality, they were making a business decision. They looked at Gatland’s success rate of just under 50% and reckoned they could do better. Over the next two years, O’Sullivan increased that to over 70%.

As it happened, things worked out well for Gatland. He blossomed at Wasps and has used the Ireland experience to his benefit in his new job, bringing in his own team of assistants and taking steps to ensure he will not be hurt by player power.

Now it’s him and Eddie. Those who know Gatland say he doesn’t hold a grudge. This week he gets the perfect opportunity to prove it.