Like many Ulster Rugby fans, The Archipelago has experienced Brian McLaughlin’s coaching first-hand. As a mediocre schoolboy player, I at least learned one important lesson in the game from McLaughlin – the only proper way to tackle someone is by going “cheek-to-cheek”. For those unfamiliar with the famous dictum, the idea is to get your face and plant it, firmly, into the buttocks of your opponent, while wrapping your arms around his legs and driving straight through.

Throughout my short-lived and ill-famed playing career, I may well have suffered from the kind of handling skills that made Massimo Taibi and Roy Carroll anti-heroes of sorts, had the pace of a Nissan Micra vibrating its way along the inside lane of the M2 and took longer to change direction than a cargo ship but, hell, at least I knew how to tackle. Based on performances at times throughout last season, some Ulster players could learn as much from McLaughlin’s adage as I did at 11 years old.

Not to pick on Andrew Trimble alone – there are other culprits as well - but with his height and build, he should be a ferocious defender; he should be cutting his opponents in two, as we have seen him do in the past, yet out on the wing, he seems to lack the confidence to commit to the tackle. Letting the man past and taking him down may be the safer tactic, it may keep the tackler in the game but it puts the rest of the defence on the back foot.

When the defence scrambles backwards, it’s harder to compete at the ruck, it’s harder to slow the ball down and it becomes more difficult to realign the defence again. As has been stated in this column many times, Ulster’s defence was not as poor last season as the win:loss ratio suggests but it was also far from perfect. Even against Llanelli Scarlets on the opening day of the season, Ulster struggled when the ball was spread wide. It is no coincidence that the teams who ran up big scores against Ulster did so, mostly, by running the ball through the backs.

That is not to say that these problems can be attributed, entirely, to the defensive failings of one, or even both wingers. The issue runs deeper than that; there were too many missed tackles that created the space that forced Ulster to scramble back and one too many defensive misalignments once the scramble was over. The best teams defend so well, not by scrambling, but by preventing the situations in which scrambling is required.

This is why Trimble highlights the problem perfectly. In ways, Ian Humphreys, too, has contributed by they aren’t the only players to have missed tackles. The point is that McLaughlin may well be the man to get that confidence out of Trimble, or even Humphreys. In my schoolboy days, I feared no player in the tackle. No matter how much bigger, stronger or faster than me they were. No matter how good their step or their hands, I was confident that if I went cheek-to-cheek, then he would go down. If someone can instil that same confidence in Trimble or Humphreys, one of Ulster’s major defensive failings could be rectified in one swoop.

In my last column, I openly stated that I did not feel that Brian McLaughlin was the best man for the Ulster job. I am not so fickle as to abruptly change my mind out of a blind desire to see Ulster succeed on the park. His void of experience as a head-coach in the professional game, especially with a young and inexperienced Ulster team short on natural leaders, is still a worry. His qualities as a coach should not be underestimated, however; his involvement with Inst, Hinch and Ireland show that he certainly has the technical ability to get the best out of groups of players at all levels, and at times, groups of players with severe resource constraints attached.

With the various other components of the management changes that have accompanied the appointment, I am much happier with this selection than I otherwise would have been. McLaughlin, as a straight swap for Matt Williams, would not have worked. For McLaughlin to step into Ulster Rugby and attempt to lead the players on the park, while also learning and adapting to the other rigors of the role would have been exceptionally difficult. By handing many of the external rigors to David Humphreys, Ulster Branch have removed the single largest barrier to McLaughlin leading Ulster on a path to success.

In many ways, almost the same thing, or at least, the same thing in reverse, could be said about David Humphreys – his tactical nous and knowledge of the professional game cannot be underestimated but his coaching ability and experience are negligible at best. With McLaughlin’s thirty, plus, years of coaching experience at all levels of the game by his side, Ulster Branch may finally have found the best outlet for David’s own talents. As stand-alone actors, McLaughlin and Humphreys do not have the attributes required of a professional rugby coach but together, they may prove to have, not only those required, but a little more as well.

Ultimately, the real questions must still be answered on the pitch but the willingness of the Ulster Branch to look, at least a tiny bit, outside of the box this time around is a positive move for Ulster Rugby. In the opinion of this column, any changes to a management structure that, throughout the professional era, has failed to deliver on a consistent basis at Ravenhill, must be seen as a positive step, or at least, as one in the right direction. These appointments may not be perfect and are certainly not what a lot of Ulster fans expected, or wanted, but it’s an attempt, at least, at finding a more dynamic and even innovative solution to a problem that has long beset Ulster Rugby. For that, Mike Reid and Ulster Branch deserve at least a little credit.