The All Blacks,NZRFU,and RWC`s

First topic message reminder :

Bored,I have been musing over the enigma that for most of time post 1987 the AllBlacks were the most successful team in the World between RWC`s.Now I do not dispute that in most cases THE best team inthe RWC won it BUT was thinking of NZRFU knee jerk response to failure.Sacking of the Coaches it is not uniformerly true for all the Coaches but in the Cases of John Hart,and "Grizz"Wyllie both who had better
win stats than Henry and Co.Who given another 4 years COULD have had an either better record than the 3 wise man and delivered a RWC sooner.In effect the NZRFU tore up the rule book and started from scratch every 4 years all continuity was lost.I have the greatest respect for Henry and Co. as I have for Wyllie and Hart.Also I think that had not Robbie deans been involved in 2003 he would have been appointed Coach over Graham Henry.

Over the period of 7 years SCW built a very special team it no one disputes it.BUT like NZ 1991 and 1997 they did`nt build on the foundations the result
a slump England are still suffering.There are signs that things are improving I really hope so.Clutching to the when Jonnys fit everything will be alright blighted England for nearly a decade.Fly halfs some with a better all round game than Jonny were spurned or treated shamefully.As were Coaches like Clive Ashton
,Neil Mallender would have taken them on but for" the Blazers" attitude .Now we have a bring back SCW band wagon rolling,forget it by 2004 he realized the way the wind was blowing.He even tried Soccer management and after the 2005 Lions debacle?.England have a good young squad to build on 2015 unlikely 2019 with proper development very possible.The grassroots infrastructure in NZ and SA is legend They arn`t the 2 most successful sides in the history of the game for nothing.They build from the bottom up,not recycle overseas imports as seems to be the recent trend in NH.

Sometimes the credit has to go to the team that beats a run, motivation is only one side of the coin.

When we lost to England to end our winning streak, we didn't lose motivation, we were not at our best and they beat us by being better on the day.

Its hard to know which is down to motivation and which is due to just not being the bette team on the day. The Irish tests for me were a perfect model of the way motivation works.

Three matches, the same three sides in three weeks. Competely different results.

Test one, first for hansen, first for a while, new players, a record on the line to lose.

Result. A top performance by all players, Ireland were beaten all round. Good debuts etc.

Second test. Complete reversal. Ireland came to play. They were not going to be intimidated again. NZ on the othe hand had no reason to be as apprehensive a the first test. Confidence was back, the 'norm' re-established.

Boom. NZ well and truly reminded of the need to never be complacent. Regardless of what the ABs thought, Ireland gained the upper hand in the motivation stakes.

Consider the changing room energy of both sides before both matches.

Third test. ABs after a sharp reminder that they could lose the series, could lose a one hundred year record etc etc. Came out and played a blinder. 60-0.

Ireland meanwhile will have had a natural drop off in the motivation stakes. The impending threat of being thrashed again had gone they may have thought. Maintain the levels and all will be ok.

The only thing that explains the three completely different results for the same teams are the motivation levels.

Certain factors must be there to want to win a test and when you win x many in a row those factors become less obvious.

In our pre hong kong run I coud see henry clearly struggling to come up with ways of motivating the side to the required levels when te only real reason besides not losing was to maintain a winning run.

Motivation has everything to do with it, there is no doubt about that.

Before I carry on I want to tell ou a little story.

In the early nineties when I played for Edenval, we had our first match against Wanderers who were then just relegated to the second division of the Golden Lions club competition, they beat us by 50 odd points.

Now Edenvale wasn't a big club, we had 3 senior teams and 2 under 18 teams,

Anyway, our last match of the season after a lot of infigthing in our team (our backline was real bad in defence) our captain called us together and begged everyone to at least for this match not blame each other but stand together and try our best (even though we knew Wanderers were far too strong)

So we went onto the field and lost by only 16. At haltime I heard the Wanderers captain go to his coach and said to him this was not the same team they played in the beginning of the season.

The point is by getting together and motivating each other we did much, much better.

So yes motivation is everything, but it comes from both teams, it isn't all about whether one team loses motivation and therefor loses.

Motivation can also be spent, when you look at Ireland, they were up for the task in the second test, by the third test the motivation was still there, but the mental edge was spent that could have carried them through another competitive match.

Just want to add to what I said above.

Sometimes you are just mentally spent, or for a want of a better description mentally fatigued.

Perhaps biltong but I believe being mentally spent is a choice, its not imposed. You can be physically spent...ie the body just won't go where the mind tells it. But motivation is about finding a way through the pain and the barriers. Doing what it takes to get over the line.

Its something the individual participants will have truckloads of at the olympics where their motivation levels can be measured more accurately than it can than in team games like rugby.

Motivation to win gold will come in two ways. The motivation to train and prepare over a long period- usually four years, to constantly ensure performance levels will keep the athlete up with the very best, usually measured by a time, a distance etc and compared to others.

The other will be the motivation on the day, and the ability to convert that motivation into gold.

Usually, the one who combines the best of both will win on the day. A mix of the two is usually the difference between upsets and poor performances.

You cam be as physically prepared as you can be but if the mind doesn't want it more than anyone else, performance will be affected.

In rugby there's also collective motivation, which is really individuals motivated towards the same goal, as per your example. The cumulative effect of that is powerful and is whay I meant by the irish tests.

Oh your mind can be spent talyor. the mind is a muscle mate, it needs as much training as any other

I disagree with you Taylorman, you get two types of motivation, internal and external.

Internal motivation is part of your DNa, it is in your character, external motivation can take you to the edge, it sweeps you up alongwith your teammates to that point of collective excellence, but it doesn't last it gets spent.

In the sales industry you will find salesmanager and motivational speakers by the dozens who will use their personalities, their abilities to wind people into frenzies making them beleive they can achieve great sales, great wealth and they will all be up for it, until they meet the first resistance, then one by one that mental strength fails.

Now imagine what Declan Kidney and his chronies had to do to wind those Irish boys up mentally for that test. Then imagine the mental exhaustion after.

The Ireland series wasn't about motivation to me. There were technical reasons for all three results. Brilliant analysis of Ireland and almost perfect plan execution in test 3 was not just about motivational sea
Saw.

Biltong wrote:I disagree with you Taylorman, you get two types of motivation, internal and external.

Internal motivation is part of your DNa, it is in your character, external motivation can take you to the edge, it sweeps you up alongwith your teammates to that point of collective excellence, but it doesn't last it gets spent.

In the sales industry you will find salesmanager and motivational speakers by the dozens who will use their personalities, their abilities to wind people into frenzies making them beleive they can achieve great sales, great wealth and they will all be up for it, until they meet the first resistance, then one by one that mental strength fails.

Now imagine what Declan Kidney and his chronies had to do to wind those Irish boys up mentally for that test. Then imagine the mental exhaustion after.

I think you're referring to the source of any motivation biltong. No one or nothing can motivate an individual other than the person themselves. Someone can rant and rave and holler all they want but unless the individual chooses to take it on board as a source of motivating themselves then its pointless.

Same with the salesman theory and declan kidneys efforts. Its the diminishing effect of the source that affects the levels of motivation for the individual. The upshot of that is they need to find other ways to maintain the levels. Because what used to work as a source of motivation no longer does.

This was my original point re henry.

Just don't get this mental exhaustion thing. The mind is capable of a lot more than I think we give it credit for and I think mental exhaustion in reference to sporting performance is in effect selling it short.

The mind can be trained to handle far many things beyond the realms of losing in any sporting contest. To refer to mental exhaustion in a sporting context is merely a sign of weakness and more the reason for any loss than anything else.

Upsets in history are full of examples where a contest was won primarily because on person or team wanted it more.