| Having trouble reading this newsletter?
Click here
to see it in your browser. This email was sent to [email address suppressed]. You are receiving this newsletter because you subscribed on our site. Click here to instantly unsubscribe from our Performance Talk newsletter. |
 |
||
 |
 |
Performance Talk - Issue 1 - October 2007 What went wrong?
“It is a reminder that at this level, it’s all in the mind” “After four years of plotting and planning and winning almost all of their games, the vital ingredient was still missing.” NZRU comments “I can’t explain it … I don’t know what happened.” “We wouldn’t change anything. Everything seemed perfect; I just don’t know what went wrong.” “We believe as an organisation we gave this campaign our very best shot – but clearly we came up short”
Despite the very best efforts of all those involved in the NZRU, an estimated $6 million in extra funding and a team many believed was the best we have ever assembled, the All Blacks have just recorded their earliest exit from the Rugby World Cup since its inception 20 years ago. So what went wrong? Why did this group of highly talented players capitulate when the majority of rugby enthusiasts around the world believed the Webb Ellis trophy would spend the next four years taking pride of place in the country that has adopted the sport as its national game?
As can be expected, the fallout from the All Black’s shock loss to France in the quarter final has ignited a discussion that may once again, as has been the case following the previous failed campaigns, offer little insight as to what really went wrong inside the AB’s. The reason as to why this is likely to happen is because AB management believed they did everything right. They believed they prepared their team ‘by the book’, hence the reason they are in a state of disbelief, just like the nation they represent.
There has been suggestion the AB’s were out of form. In my view they were not out of form physically. In fact athletes rarely go out of form physically. Unless they are injured, their ‘form’ (good or otherwise) is simply indicative of their mental state. This is because people always perform to their mental state. What is clear is the AB’s were ‘out of form’ mentally. This explains why no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to correct things. Not once did it appear they took the time to reset their state in order to regain control of the game. As such they became dejected, lost confidence in themselves, faith in one another and as such experienced the trauma of knowing the game they ‘had’ to win to keep their dream alive was slipping away. I believe Graham Henry and his assistants did a good job preparing the AB’s physically but they, like their predecessors, proved they were ill equipped to develop the team mentally.
Over the past twenty years virtually every major New Zealand sports team (incl NZ Rugby, Cricket, Golf, Netball, Hockey, Rugby League etc) have fallen short of expectations (apart from some outstanding one-off performances). Why is this? Why do so many of our athletes fail to perform to their potential even though they have the skills to succeed? Why do so many of our best athletes perform one day but then fall apart the next? What happens to them? What changes? If it is the same physiology attempting to do more the less the same thing, they should be able to do it day after day (assuming no injury or illness and sufficient recovery time is allowed). If they can’t it is because something has changed. As it is unlikely to be the physical body that has changed, it must be the mind. Top performers believe 90 – 95% of the equation is mental Belief is fundamental to success. The belief the AB’s had in themselves had a significant impact on their performance. Even though they ‘assumed’ they had ‘belief’, their results proved otherwise. The belief they longed for proved to be nothing more than wishful thinking – blind optimism at its best. Their state of mind was fragile, unreliable and uncontrollable. It was clearly evident right from the start, when they lined up to do the haka – hence the reason most of the players the camera focused on were unable to maintain stable eye contact with their opponents.
The reason the All Black squad are lost for words is because they know they followed the process as outlined by the experts - the performance advisors and sport psychologists contracted to support them. If we were to believe the reason for such a dramatic failure was mental, why did the AB’s lack the so-called mental ‘toughness’ when they presumably followed the process recommended by the experts? (I believe mental strength or toughness is simply an athlete’s ability to create and maintain an appropriate high performance mind-set despite external influences). In my opinion, we will be none the wiser as to what really went wrong following a review because the team used what will be considered a robust and well executed process. It is easy in hindsight to criticise the All Blacks for failing to at least make the final. It is easy to pick holes in a programme many believed would prove fruitful if managed well. Graham Henry’s rotation policy developed depth in the squad which would have had enormous advantages had key players experienced injury. His insistence that key players be rested from crucial Super 14 games in an attempt to preserve the true capability of our game breakers was controversial but nevertheless it was supported. If the conclusion for this failure is based on such findings we will once again miss the point. The point is this. The AB’s capitulated mentally ... just like they did four years ago and the two campaigns before that. They proved they were unable to create and maintain an appropriate high performance mind-set and the results prove that. To try and blame the failure on Henry’s rotation or resting policy is nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate the extreme disappointment (and subsequent disapproval) expressed by the New Zealand public.
Does the loss to France mean the AB’s are weak minded … OR does it suggest the process they use to develop their mental game, just like NZ Cricket and others, is considerably less effective and reliable than we are lead to believe? Having specialised in this field for many years, I believe it is the latter. Why? Because every player NZ has ever selected, including the 2007 All Blacks, has at times demonstrated they have the mental strength to excel. The problem is they have once again proved their inability to ‘create’ the appropriate state when they need to. Many years ago I came to the conclusion the process sport psychologists advocated was flawed. The rationale behind this view was based on evidence – i.e. the incredibly high number of leading athletes who use the process and yet fail to perform. Research suggests less than 10% of all athletes competing in a major competition will achieve a personal best even though many of these athletes, like the AB’s, have been using the recommended psychological approach for years. In my opinion, this is the reason why most elite athletes fail to perform to their potential. Surely if the vast majority of our most respected athletes are getting it wrong so often, there must be a flaw in the process they are using?
Many believe an athlete’s performance is determined by the combination of their skills, knowledge and experience. Whilst the combination of a person’s skills, knowledge and experience indicates their ‘potential’ to perform, it does not govern their ‘actual’ performance. Their State of Mind does. Our state of mind is the key. If our state of mind is a 2 out of 10 (appropriateness based on intentions), we will produce an equivalent performance (2 out of 10). If our state of mind is a 4 out of 10, we will produce an equivalent performance (4 / 10). If our state of mind is a 6.75, we will produce a performance of 6.75 – irrespective of how hard we try or how well we are physically prepared. I am confident if we were to assess the AB’s physical capabilities they would prove superior to virtually all other teams in the competition. Their speed, strength, skill and experience earned them the title of ‘favourites’. This did not come about by chance. It came about because they outclassed, outperformed and overpowered almost every other team they came across during the past two years. Disappointingly however they were unable to access, and therefore demonstrate, their true potential when it mattered.
The principles which govern performance are the same in business as they are in sport. The way your team ‘thinks’ determines their ability to perform. It is not the combination of their skills, knowledge and experience that ultimately matters but rather it is their state of mind. You can have the best skills and experience available to you, but unless people are in the right frame of mind, success is almost impossible. If you are serious about performance, and want to build a team who have what it takes to excel, call us, we will show you how to get it right. Not just occasionally – but when it matters most.
www.craigsteel.co.nz ph 09 528 9263
|
|
|
25 October, 2007 In this Issue Performance Talk - Issue 1 - October 2007 Other News New Website We have recently refurbished our website. Please feel free to visit us at Pass it on Know anyone who might be interested in our news? Click here to forward this email to up to 5 friends at once. |
|
|