The northern hemisphere mentality

Yesterday, the northern hemisphere's top three sides all lost to the southern hemisphere's top three sides albeit by a small margin. Despite the defeat the Irish captain described himself as "proud" as did the English coach. Is our mentality of being proud to come close to them holding us back? The Welsh were in a position where with just under 90 seconds to go they had the ball around the halfway line yet they kicked it to the opposition. Is it more mentality than ability that holds us back?

123456789 wrote:Is it more mentality than ability that holds us back?

I'd argue that having a strong mentality is part of a player's ability and is just as important as being fast, strong and skilful.

Being strong mentally is something that can be learned both through winning (we know we can do it), losing (we don't want to do that again) but some players/teams seem to have more of an ability to close out a game or dig deep when it matters.

No, in a word.

Physicality, technique, skills, tactics and decision making is where the gulf is. Tangibles in other words. I don't think there's a mental block, or some psychological issue behind all this, certainly not to any determinative level.

I'm sure posters on here will recite the usual garbage: "but did Ireland really BELIEIVE they could win"....yes. They just didn't exeute sufficiently well to see themselves over the line.

What about Wales? I thought the Welsh tactics were frankly awful in that game. Yes, some players failed to execute, but the game plan based on absorbing pressure and kicking the ball away badly has nothing to do with mentality. There's no doubt the Welsh believed they could beat Australia.

England? Beaten by a better side frankly. The reason the game was close is because Youngs had a strong game and the South Africans took their foot off the pedal. That wasn't a mentality defeat. It all came down to power and execution.

Scotland? Well we defeated both Australia and Fiji, so I guess the mentality point doesn't really stack up there.

Fact is that Ireland, who are not as good as NZ at rugby, ran the World Cup winners within a whisker on their own patch. So they should be "proud". I see no issue with that. What Lancaster actually said was that he was proud of the way that England fought back in the game, not that he was proud of the result or the overall performance. England were slaughtered in the 1st half, by a vastly superior side. Fair play to be proud of the second half effort. I don't think that is any evidence of some sort of losing mentality.

We, all NH sides, need to improve on physicality, skills and execution. The coaches need to be smarter with tactics as well. Let's work on those things before we get the shrinks to run our rugby teams.

I think it applies to the Celtic teams. Mentally they are not strong. Ireland cant handle any real expectation when they are favourites. They prefer being perennial underdogs. Wales just seem to have an inferiority comple when it comes to the SH sides and Im not sure they have the belief or poise despite having the players.

England have won a world cup though lets not frget so I dont think the same accusations can be made at them. I think Lancaster being proud is more a reflection on a youngish and inexperienced squad he is trying to mould at the moment and in England I think this transitional period is recognised so expectations are not high at the moment.

it is mentality .Heroic defeats are celebrated were celebrated certainly in Englands case yesterday. In the SH no one cares how heroic or how good the team played if they didnt win.

'Winning mentality'... the last refuge of the scoundrel. Confidence build from repeatedly doing the basics excellently. England were hammered in the 1st half but came back to 'win' the 2nd half (points-wise, anyway) - was that grit, mentality...?. Wales took the GS by winning some tight games that could have gone either way - and I've constantly read they now possess the mentality to grind out ugly wins. Ireland matched the RWC winners til the very last minute - but I still saw BOD knock the ball on a couple of times at the end. These 3 teams lost because the oppo had faster stronger and more skilful players who executed a smarter gameplan over the full 80 minutes.

Gordy wrote:I think it applies to the Celtic teams. Mentally they are not strong. Ireland cant handle any real expectation when they are favourites. They prefer being perennial underdogs. Wales just seem to have an inferiority comple when it comes to the SH sides and Im not sure they have the belief or poise despite having the players.

England have won a world cup though lets not frget so I dont think the same accusations can be made at them. I think Lancaster being proud is more a reflection on a youngish and inexperienced squad he is trying to mould at the moment and in England I think this transitional period is recognised so expectations are not high at the moment.

SO What??? That was ten years ago.

This is a pretty new team with no experience of beating a SH team. They need to build that up again.

We lost....nothing to do with Mentality...its down to the fact that the Saffas could scrummage a pack of rhinos...and were would struggle against schoolgirl XV

Yes, mentality is the x-factor that makes the difference between a talented player and a world class performer.

But when it comes to team sports, each member has to buy-in to the collective mentality in order to make something better than the sum of the parts.

We can see the gap in talent is closing between the hemispheres, perhaps closing quicker than some imagined prior to the start of the summer tours (Scotland anyone?), as we saw yesterday though, there is still some way to go and the final piece of the jigsaw, is without doubt, the winning mentality.

"C- : must do better" would be my report card comment on the tours so far.

Bullsbok wrote:it is mentality .Heroic defeats are celebrated were celebrated certainly in Englands case yesterday. In the SH no one cares how heroic or how good the team played if they didnt win.

Not in my house they weren't, I must be in the wrong hemisphere.

Playing well and losing is certainly appreciated more in the north. You often hear them saying they're proud of their performance and their effort. You rarely hear that from southern teams.

But I don't see it as a major factor. Someone like O'Driscoll could say he's proud of how well his team played. Does that mean he's mentally weak? I'd say O'Driscoll is one of the mentally toughest players of the pro era and is extremely competitive with a very strong winning mentality. But he's never played in a team good enough to beat the All Blacks. There's been a few close encounters. But the All Blacks are the best rugby team for a reason.

Sometimes I think the "win at all costs" mentality can go over the line too though. I'm sure you can think of examples.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:it is mentality .Heroic defeats are celebrated were celebrated certainly in Englands case yesterday. In the SH no one cares how heroic or how good the team played if they didnt win.

Not in my house they weren't, I must be in the wrong hemisphere.

I always thought you belonged down south, being proud of the "thuggish" tag and all.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:it is mentality .Heroic defeats are celebrated were celebrated certainly in Englands case yesterday. In the SH no one cares how heroic or how good the team played if they didnt win.

Not in my house they weren't, I must be in the wrong hemisphere.

Well said mate....i dont celebrate defeats!!

I'm not a happy bunny Biltong.

I couldn't give a monkey's how many "positives" people keep drawing from the England performances - to me there are just two massive negatives and they're right there in the scorelines.

I want Lancaster to pick a team that's going to do battle with SA on the gainline and smash them back the way they've just come from... major drawback being, he's not got those players.

On the black arts front, both teams appear to be made up of pussycats, I haven't seen an act worthy of looking at twice, let alone the attention of the citing officer.

Yep, we miss Bakkies and Lawes, those are men amongst pssycats.

Lovely stuff.

PJHolybloke wrote:We can see the gap in talent is closing between the hemispheres, perhaps closing quicker than some imagined prior to the start of the summer tours (Scotland anyone?), as we saw yesterday though, there is still some way to go and the final piece of the jigsaw, is without doubt, the winning mentality.

Sorry, don't agree. You are deluded if you think the "final piece of the jigsaw" for any of those NH sides losing yesterday was mentality. England were completely demolished in the first half, the pack taken to the cleaners. That has NOTHING to do with mentality.

I think you're confusing mentality with skills, physicality, technique and tactics.

Belief does play a part though Scot. But belief can be built up fairly fast with a run of results if you ask me. I've seen it happen with Munster and Leinster. And Wales in the 6 Nations. A steely self belief that's hard to break can be built up in one or two seasons, with a good team.

The Aussie's seem to have an innate self belief and never say die attitude in every sport they take part in. It seems to be a national trait. But it's not something that any good side can't acquire.

The OP has a point. There is a mental barrier there and that has to be overcome.

Don't underestimate the power of belief. TeamA can be better than TeamB but if TeamB has more belief it makes up for a lack in ability to a degree. In tight contests it can be the deciding factor.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:We can see the gap in talent is closing between the hemispheres, perhaps closing quicker than some imagined prior to the start of the summer tours (Scotland anyone?), as we saw yesterday though, there is still some way to go and the final piece of the jigsaw, is without doubt, the winning mentality.

Sorry, don't agree. You are deluded if you think the "final piece of the jigsaw" for any of those NH sides losing yesterday was mentality. England were completely demolished in the first half, the pack taken to the cleaners. That has NOTHING to do with mentality.

I think you're confusing mentality with skills, physicality, technique and tactics.

Really? So, lets for example explore Wales' game, that's the obvious one. How about if they had complete confidence as a team that they could hang on to the ball for 90 seconds without cocking it up or conceding a penalty, maybe then they wouldn't have booted possession back to Australia and conceded the penalty that lost them the game. Panic and fear are two states of mind that come under the heading MENTALITY.

That game finale had fragile mentality written all over it, disagree all you like.

I blame priestland...for an utter shambolic decision..to boot it away....

GeordieFalcon wrote:I blame priestland...for an utter shambolic decision..to boot it away....

I blame the lack of collective mentality, I understand some of the forwards were a little disgruntled...

England got beat by more than a small margin they should count themselves lucky that Steyn didn't have his kicking boots on

When will this myth be put to bed. Winning mentality and winning skill are the SAME thing in as much as they come as a pair - you derive the former from having the latter. WM is not some genetic but at the same time some ethereal quality that you have/have not. To use a possibly unpopular example - England footballers are pilloried for not being able to take penalty kicks in big competitions and this is blamed on 'mentality'. It actually is a skill to be able to constantly put the ball in the corner with sufficient pace such that a goalie physically can't reach it. England footballers are notoriously unskilled so of course they lack confidence. And just look at the number of forced and unforced handling errors England made on Sat. And for all their 'brutishness' look at how well SA performed their game plan - running at pace into the tackle, quick presentation of the ball, exploiting the space their ruck dominance gave them, good kick with good chase, etc. The NH need to work on core rugby skills. FGS England are even talking about playing a hooker who can't throw the ball in and a winger who can't defend - is this because these guys have this winning mentality?

I once read that the Southern Hemisphere have a winning mentality because they seek the approval of the English Superior almost like the son who must beat his dad to make mummy love him more,
same person also reckon all the old colonial nations finish there sentences with up speak i.e. 'in a higher pitch almost sounding like every sentence is a question' because they seek approval from the Superior English!

I think they are just better thats all.

Of course the Welsh, Scottish and Irish were entirely blameless in all of the exploits of the British Empire weren't they View?

Innocent bystanders.

Nothing but the pesky English to blame.

There's a mentality issue right there.

The SH nations are better because they put far more emphasis on Rugby than their NH counterparts. What is amazing is that NH sides get as close as they do, perhaps the SH nations lose focus and bottle it at times.

The Great Aukster wrote:The SH nations are better because they put far more emphasis on Rugby than their NH counterparts. What is amazing is that NH sides get as close as they do, perhaps the SH nations lose focus and bottle it at times.

Nope i disagree , England put everything into football and they are still crap

PJHolybloke wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I blame priestland...for an utter shambolic decision..to boot it away....

I blame the lack of collective mentality, I understand some of the forwards were a little disgruntled...

I blame the tactics of the Welsh throughout the 80 minutes. They kicked the ball away on numerous occasions, usually with a poor chasing game to go with it. They seemed happy to absorb pressure and defend, then kick the ball away whenever they got it. I think the coaches had over-emphasised the important of territory before the game, and failed to emphasis the important of possession. Wales have excellent strike runners, and had they taken more time with the ball, I'm sure players like North and Cuthbert would have had half chances to break the line.

I thought Warburton gave the tactics up slightly at the end of the game. He mentioned the danger of being caught sealing off and giving away the penalty within kicking range. Wales had obviously decided that Pocock was too big a threat to risk giving him the chance to turnover ball. Stupid tactic in that match scenario. They should have stuck the ball up the jumper, taken an age between each ruck (as seems to be permitted these days), and if there was to be a kick, it should have either gone off the park, or been such a kick that there were Welsh players competing underneath it.

Personally I think that has nothing to do with mentality. These are tactical decisions, skills and execution.

Yes I say that yesterday. "Proud" to lose. What does it mean?

Contrast all blacks who treating the victory like a loss. South Africa who upset they let England make a come back. And Australia who think even with so many missing players out they should make a better win over Wales.

It comes down to context. The All Blacks are unquestionnably a better side than Ireland, and stuffed them a week previously. I think it's fair for BOD to say that he was proud with his players, despite falling short to a last minute drop goal.

Similarly England. I don't think Lancaster was "proud" of the result or the overall performance, I think he was saying that he's proud that despite being totally outgunned in the first half, and outplayed, England showed enough grit to fight back into the game (although the SA substitutions did help in that regard). I think it's ok to be proud in that scenario.

Were NZ fans not proud of their side in 1995 running SA close despite allegedly not having slept or been able to keep down fluids or food for 24 hours. If that's true, surely there must be some pride in keeping it such a close game. That's if it's true of course.

I think sometimes teams can be rightly proud in defeat. Obviously not if the sides are closely matched, but when one is clearly better than the other, and the game is extremely close, why not be proud? Doesn't mean you have to accept it, or be happy about it.

As a personal example, I was proud of Scotland performance against Wales at the Millenium in 2010. We lost to a last minute try, but in the context of our performances so far in that tournament, and the way we played that game, I was proud despite the defeat.

The ABs should expect to beat Ireland by at least 20 so it was a big under performance by them.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I blame priestland...for an utter shambolic decision..to boot it away....

I blame the lack of collective mentality, I understand some of the forwards were a little disgruntled...

I blame the tactics of the Welsh throughout the 80 minutes. They kicked the ball away on numerous occasions, usually with a poor chasing game to go with it. They seemed happy to absorb pressure and defend, then kick the ball away whenever they got it. I think the coaches had over-emphasised the important of territory before the game, and failed to emphasis the important of possession. Wales have excellent strike runners, and had they taken more time with the ball, I'm sure players like North and Cuthbert would have had half chances to break the line.

I thought Warburton gave the tactics up slightly at the end of the game. He mentioned the danger of being caught sealing off and giving away the penalty within kicking range. Wales had obviously decided that Pocock was too big a threat to risk giving him the chance to turnover ball. Stupid tactic in that match scenario. They should have stuck the ball up the jumper, taken an age between each ruck (as seems to be permitted these days), and if there was to be a kick, it should have either gone off the park, or been such a kick that there were Welsh players competing underneath it.

Personally I think that has nothing to do with mentality. These are tactical decisions, skills and execution.

I kind of agree, but I don't think you can dismiss mentality entirely. To be able to make decisions and execute them you need skills and composure. That was sadly lacking yesterday, particularly in those dying minutes.

viewtothegym wrote:I once read that the Southern Hemisphere have a winning mentality because they seek the approval of the English Superior almost like the son who must beat his dad to make mummy love him more.

that's true, we feed off the acknowledgement of the Crown.

Who is the English Superior these days?

Rebekah Brooks or Lord Brooke (Peter Leonard Brooke, Baron Brooke of Sutton Mandeville CH, PC)?

I always get those two mixed up. They look so similar.

Linebreaker wrote:Who is the English Superior these days?

Nun of the above.

This just in Queen Elizabeth II has a message for Biltongbek.

PJHolybloke wrote:This just in Queen Elizabeth II has a message for Biltongbek.

Tell her to send a stronger team next time, specifically some MEN.

You made hard enough work of beating the ladies yesterday...

PJHolybloke wrote:

You made hard enough work of beating the ladies yesterday...

We did only play for 25 minutes.

Again, back to the op..........i almost long for the days of old school english 'arrogance'.....any one of the after match interviews to stand up and say: 'we got beaten....we should have won....NOT good enough'