Alan Watkins: Irish revel in high life as club and country prosper

The four teams left in the Heineken Cup more or less reflect the strengths of the nations involved. There are two from France and one each from England and Ireland. The final will be between a team from France and a team from England or Ireland. This is as it should be, and no one can complain.

Over the years, however, the competition - which took some time to take off, but is now one of the most fascinating in world rugby - has begun to demonstrate its own predictable features. There is nothing wrong about this. It shows that the Cup has become an institution.

Thus Toulouse almost always do well. So do Munster, but without once carrying off the championship. Less easy to explain is the relative failure, year after year, of Leinster, who have, on form, the best centre partnership in Europe in Brian O'Driscoll and Gordon D'Arcy (though the latter usually plays on the wing for the province). Leinster always start the competition as the smart-money favourites.

Then again, why are the Llanelli Scarlets the only club from Wales to make regular progress in the Cup? And why is it that they always falter at either the quarter or semi-final stage?

On Friday at Stradey Park, they were beaten by a better side in Biarritz, as Scott Quinnell, Stephen Jones and the coach, the twice-disappointed Gareth Jenkins, generously acknowledged after the match. But if in justice they should not have won, they undoubtedly could have done, if Mark Taylor had not hung on to the ball twice instead of giving it out and Leigh Davies had not kicked ahead instead of passing. At that stage Biarritz were only 15-10 ahead.

But why, year after year, should it be left to Llanelli to uphold the honour of Wales? Why should Cardiff Blues not do their bit as well? Trading simply as Cardiff, they were, for about 40 years, the best club side in Europe and, possibly, the world. Great players from Llanelli would go east just to play for them. Cardiff was the Byzantium of the Welsh rugby world. No longer. The Blues are merely an ordinary side who go up and down, chiefly down.

Likewise Swansea, now part of the Neath-Swansea Ospreys, had an unrivalled record against touring sides from the southern hemisphere, not to mention their frequent wins over the Barbarians in the traditional Easter Monday fixture, now sadly defunct.

Even before the advent of professionalism, there were signs of a change in the balance of rugby power. This was so not only of clubs, with previously disregarded outfits such as Wasps and, for a time, Saracens being able to lord it over the likes of Cardiff and Llanelli.

The same developments could be observed in countries as well. Not so long ago, New Zealand and South Africa were at the top. Then came a second block, consisting of Australia, France and Wales. Argentina and (it is now forgotten) Romania were coming up on the blind side, ready to join England, Scotland and Ireland in the third block.

The change in the last few years is commonly expressed by saying that the southern hemisphere has lost its superiority. This is true as far as it goes. But the real change is that, as their not altogether convincing record in successive World Cups demonstrates, New Zealand have lost their supremacy.

To a certain extent, they have brought their troubles on themselves. It was madness of the displaced coach, John Mitchell, who seems to take a delight in cutting off his nose to spite his face, to go into the recent competition in Australia without a recognised place-kicker in Andrew Mehrtens.

It was equally crazed to drop Christian Cullen at full-back. And, if there was a case for including Carlos Spencer in the side - as there clearly was - there was no reason why either Spencer or Mehrtens should not have been accommodated at second five-eighths.

But the real reason why New Zealand have declined is that, compared to Australia, it is a poor country. South Africa remains an increasingly troubled land, with the highest crime rate in the civilised world. France, by contrast, is a prosperous nation where - despite anti-French propaganda in the English press - things actually work. England is less efficient than France, not least in its railways, but there is a lot of cash about the place all the same, as there is not in my native land.

And Ireland? Surely it does not fit my thesis about national wealth. But it does. When I used to pay occasional visits to Sunbury to watch London Irish, I would observe that, of the exiled clubs, the Irish had easily the most prosperous supporters, with camel-hair overcoats, silk scarves, brown trilbys and Havana cigars. They have all this and Europe too, so perhaps we are subsidising Ireland's deserved success on the rugby field.