Expectation - Good or Bad Thing?

 I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm not convinced that having the ascendency or momentum has been a good thing here - It's a bit like Ireland tending to play better when they are not the favourites. In the first Test everyone was saying that if Aus lose then the series is over and hence they were going to give it absolutely everything - It was tight but in general I think the Lions without playing well deserved to win. So the Lions have the momentum and go into the 2nd Test now carrying the weight of expectancy - It seeemed a little too heavy however and the rest is history. Now the weight of expectancy is on Aus and suddenly they have it all to lose and little to gain. I think this will work in favour of the Lions and I believe we will succeed.

This "weight" of expectancy and "momentum" can really inhibit a team IMO. Your thoughts?

Why are we surprised that the Lions lost, if you pick out of form or players returning from long injury lay offs in games/series like this you will pay the price.

Gatland has made mistakes from day 1, saying his going to pick on form and then select out of form players has sent the wrong message to the rest of the squad, some of those guys must be wondering what they have to do?

Victor, who did Gatland pick for the first test who was out of form?

O'Driscoll
Phillips
Croft
Warburton
Heaslip

The psychology of matches is very important and overlooked. I disagree though that momentum is necessarily an inhibitor of performance. Look at Wales in 2012 and 2013. Oh so close but couldn't get the win. The body language of the Welsh players in the Ireland game was telling among the senior players. Downcast and resigned in the first half. Confident and keen in the second half. The latter set up their performance in Paris and that momentum culminated in the England performance.

Here the Lions won the first game but in the second game they played like they were protecting that lead whereas Oz played like they needed to win. A nervous performance but one that had hunger.

Oz go into the third test with momentum but know they still have to win. Lions go in with a loss but have the same pressure to win. I think it's even on that front but the context of the game will be telling. If one side gets ahead the weight of expectancy can become a problem for the other side. It can bring out a do or die attitude which can be positive and negative.

VictorU3 wrote:O'Driscoll
Phillips
Croft
Warburton
Heaslip

no evidence that any of these players were off form going into the first test - none.

The tactics have been poor as has the execution, but these players were not off form.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:The psychology of matches is very important and overlooked. I disagree though that momentum is necessarily an inhibitor of performance. Look at Wales in 2012 and 2013. Oh so close but couldn't get the win. The body language of the Welsh players in the Ireland game was telling among the senior players. Downcast and resigned in the first half. Confident and keen in the second half. The latter set up their performance in Paris and that momentum culminated in the England performance.

Here the Lions won the first game but in the second game they played like they were protecting that lead whereas Oz played like they needed to win. A nervous performance but one that had hunger.

Oz go into the third test with momentum but know they still have to win. Lions go in with a loss but have the same pressure to win. I think it's even on that front but the context of the game will be telling. If one side gets ahead the weight of expectancy can become a problem for the other side. It can bring out a do or die attitude which can be positive and negative.

Kia - England had the momentum going into the Wales match in the 6 nations - NZ usually ahve it in world cups against France yet it seems to weigh them down. It's a fine line and it can work both ways but now we have a Lions team whom I believe are hurting against an Aus team which has expectation. At this juncture i would take the hurt as the best motivator but of course selection is king here and we will have to wait to see if Gats is going to take it to them and show is hand (which I hope he will)  

England for me were losing momentum. Italy saw the rails coming off and they prepared mentally by thinking they could recapture the form against NZ instead of focusing more on their shortcomings in the matches leading up to Wales.

Nz have won more RWC games against France than lost including two finals. Nothing should be taken away by the 2 French performances that saw them win. They required something special on attack and defence.

Okay I'll say it.................. and I was thinking along Ruby's lines a few days ago and wondering what might have been had Australia had a really good start last weekend and scored one or two quick tries.

Would the shock to the system have actually played into the hands of Lions more ...in that they'd be forced/motivated to then play a less kick-away game? Being behind due to early tries is like having your head ducked in ice water.  It's a wakener.

Same for next week.  I don't think it would be a tragedy if Australia hit hard early and scored a try or two.  Then that defiant rage, that hasn't been there so far, would perhaps be forced out into the open.  The Lions still might lose but they're a different beast when the blood is up and they've tasted it (the Welsh, the English, the Irish and the Scots)

 I'm with you Kia and perhaps we're splitting hairs - You could see that england were losing momentum following the Italy match as could I but that was brushed under the carpet as if it was some sort of blip - They then came with expectation and amybe they and the media  would have been better off focussing on the Italian game which revealed a lot rather than starting to eulogise.

Coming back to my original point; I believe Aus now have the momentum and expectation and I'm not convinced that's a good thing but selection remains Key of course

I don't understand how the Aussies winning the 2nd Test (and keeping the series alive) while outplaying the Lions is somehow a bad thing for the Aussies.

I'd like to think it was, but can't see it myself.

The nature of the win last week will mean they won't be under illusions as to what awaits them. Just like they knew in the first test they could've won they know they could've lost the second. The error rate was too high and that's what they'll focus on. Neither coach will chance his arm. The team that minimizes their error rate and maximizes their opponent's will decide this for me. Not who takes the game to the other.

Cyril wrote:I don't understand how the Aussies winning the 2nd Test (and keeping the series alive) while outplaying the Lions is somehow a bad thing for the Aussies.

I'd like to think it was, but can't see it myself.

Well, out-shifty feeting them and out-offloading them... but that 1 point in the difference says they had a tough time making the dancing feet tell on the scoreboard.  Not suggesting they're a dud side by any means but they had as tough a time winning as the Lions had trying not to lose.  'Outplaying' doesn't really register with me, in either test, for either side.  Just different attitudes/tactics colliding and pretty much stalemate so far style wise

offload wrote:

VictorU3 wrote:O'Driscoll
Phillips
Croft
Warburton
Heaslip

no evidence that any of these players were off form going into the first test - none.

The tactics have been poor as has the execution, but these players were not off form.

 
Lol....
I also missed Lydiate off the list

VictorU3 wrote:Why are we surprised that the Lions lost, if you pick out of form or players returning from long injury lay offs in games/series like this you will pay the price.

Gatland has made mistakes from day 1, saying his going to pick on form and then select out of form players has sent the wrong message to the rest of the squad, some of those guys must be wondering what they have to do?

Yes Hersh