Choking or...

For me this is the single best explanation of the AB World cup woes. I dont think its dead accurate but is for me what I have been trying to get across for years. It might look like weak psycho bable to some but I reckon its on the button.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/5422951/Psychologist-Put-Rugby-World-Cup-out-of-mind

The AB's generally focus on winning by fronting and largely executing the gameplan that wins them test after test.

I reckon theres a mindset that rather than executing the gameplan this mind not connecting to the body alignment thing is real.

"But the advent of the World Cup and professional rugby has altered that.

"The opposition has caught up. Time and again we see the team play with exuberance in pool play then tighten up when the knockout phase arrives."

The All Blacks, like other New Zealand national team typically became preoccupied with the result - the need to win.

"One of the fundamentals of sport psychology is to control the controllables.

"Every athlete can parrot that expression, but not everyone can do it. Their thinking patterns go from what to do right now, in the game, to the result.

"It heightens anxiety and leads to players tensing up. The mind and body are not aligned."

This focussing on the result rather than whats at hand means for long periods of the second half- the period where the thought of winning becomes the only thinking means the task at hand is not attended to. This has happened time and time again in our knockout matches. From minutes 30-60 or 70- nothing in attack, and mistakes in defence.

People might rubbish it and yes the other team had something to do with the loss. My comments are purely about the team not executing its own gameplan, falling short of its own standards and quite simply....CHOKING. At least I can admit it-always have always will if they continue to lose matches like 2007 and 2003 in the manner they did.

This in particular, is powerful...

"Every athlete can parrot that expression, but not everyone can do it. Their thinking patterns go from what to do right now, in the game, to the result."

I've seen it and felt it in my days and see it all the time in my tournament snooker- particularly playing someone you should beat.

There's a great book called Bounce by Matthew Syed that explores this topic and others in depth. Well worth a read

I notice the words choke or choking are'nt mentioned once....

The choking is the disconnect. The mind dealing with the result when it should be dealing wiyh whats in front of it.

Gary Kirsten the ICC world cup winning coach was asked why South African cricket "chokes"

He said that it is the inability to make the right choices under pressure.

According to him the way to improve chances of not "choking" is to play experienced players who have made the right choices in the past, and chances are better that they could make the right choices under pressure, than a young inexperienced player.

biltongbek wrote:Gary Kirsten the ICC world cup winning coach was asked why South African cricket "chokes"

He said that it is the inability to make the right choices under pressure.

According to him the way to improve chances of not "choking" is to play experienced players who have made the right choices in the past, and chances are better that they could make the right choices under pressure, than a young inexperienced player.

The flip side to that though Biltong, is that if your experienced players have only ever made the worng choices under pressure (i.e choked) in the past, then surely their chances of now making the right decisions could be worse as the may become tense at the key decision making moment, frightened by the possibilty of taking the wrong option and failing again.

There is an argument that younger players who have not been tainted by failure and therefore do not necessarily fear it are then more likely to have the freedom within themselves to make the right decision at the right time and get the job done.

Not saying either theory is correct by the way, merely playing devils advocate!

An interesting point to note is that only good or experienced teams can choke as they have the weight of expectation. It has been proven that lesser teams or players actually improve when they are put under more pressure. It seems that the basic processes and actions which normally appear 'natural' become laboured when put under extreme pressure.

True Pete, but when looking at the All Blacks they have won 85% of their tests, so there should be plenty of positive experiences to draw from.

Let's just be honest here for a moment, the guys in the squad only experienced 2007, and the match vs France there were a number of reasons why they lost, forget about debating the point of the forward pass, it did happen, but does it happen in almost every match these days.

Carter was off and his decision making ability for the all Blacks are vital, McCaw was raw then as a captain, he has another four years under the belt, with plenty of positive experiences.

PerryGee wrote:An interesting point to note is that only good or experienced teams can choke as they have the weight of expectation. It has been proven that lesser teams or players actually improve when they are put under more pressure. It seems that the basic processes and actions which normally appear 'natural' become laboured when put under extreme pressure.

PerryGee, not entirely true, when you look at the Protea squad that went to the ICC world cup, there were a lost of inexperienced players in that team, and the weight of expectation and pressure is the same.

For sure the AB's players have plenty of positives to draw from, and certainly SHOULD have enough to get the job done. The main issue for them is the expectation and fear of failure, which can paralyse them at crucial moments. The main issue for them, and every team is how to overcome that, with the options being the having an the experienced side who can keep calm and know they will make the right decisions, or having the young side and try to overcome it with youthful exuberance and no fear of failure.

For what it's worth, I think that it, like most things in life is about balance. Having both the Ying, and the Yang. The AB's have this, with the old heads of Muliaina, Carter, McCaw, Thorn and Mealamu being complemented by the youthful exuberance of the likes of Franks, Whitelock, Guildford and Dagg.

I do not think they will 'choke' this time and neither do the bookies, who have them as such overwhelming favourites that yesterday I saw odds of 4/5 for them to win it against odds of 7/4 any other team.

Sorry Biltong, I'm not much af a cricket fan,how did the Proteas go?

They choked again.

That is now the umpteenth ICC tournament where they don't make the semi finals. lost by 49 runs to NZ in the quarters, they have been favourites almost every tournament, and yet strike out in every knock out match they play, after beating everyone before that.

A story very similar to the All Blacks.

So surely it went to form if they had a lot of inexperienced players in the team and they then lost?

PerryGee wrote:So surely it went to form if they had a lot of inexperienced players in the team and they then lost?

Yes, that's why I say, inexperineced players has as much weight of expectation on them as experienced players, and that's what Gary Kirsten alluded too.

Play experienced players they should in theory be able to make better decisions under pressure than inexperienced players.

I can't see the All Blacks not win this time round.

They are at home, the country is expecting a win, the All Blacks don't easily lose there.

I agree with you about New Zealand but I felt the same at the last World Cup and they stuffed it up. What they need to do is go into the tournament and try not to think about the end goal. However I think that due to the media and general public this will be impossible. This time, there are potentially more reasons to choke as the weight of expectation grows AND it is in their own back yard.
Conversely, if they manage to win it under these conditions, nobody can ever really level the 'Choker' tag at them again and they will finally have the monkey off their back.
I remember being an England fan in 2003, it wasn't so much fun when you are expected to win. Much better in 2007 when we were underdogs in the knockout stages.

Theres such a thing as overthinking.

Still its a new one for Geryghost to use in his excuses book. New Zealand are too used to winning.

Let's be honest, the All Blacks are the best team in the world about 80% of the time, but at RWCs they have perhaps failed to raise their game to match sides that have built to peak for the 4 year cycle in 91 and 99 (two exceptional Australian sides) and 2003 (England's best ever side).

Obviously they won in 87 (and I saw some highlights of that tournanment recently - I'd forgotten what a brilliant try the Kirwan one v Italy was). So it's only really 95 an 2007 where they have been favourites and failed to deliver the title. 95 was a very particular set of circumstances, and the final was a fabulously intense game with the Boks taking the fairy tale win.

2007 was probably the closest to a real choke - the refusal to change tactics and just keeping battering away at the French defence showed the importance of (the injured) Carter's tactical nous. I still can't believe they didn't try a drop goal with the ball in the France 22, but then tried one from near the half way line - back to Woodward's T-Cup:Thinking Clearly Under Pressure. Sadly lacking that day.

Still don't see anyone beating them this yer, but there is always that nagging thought that the weight of expectation might hinder them if they get into a similarly tight match situation in the knock-out stages.

dummy half
no way did the All blacks come anywhere hear choking in 2007,at no stage in that tournament did the ABs have an insurmountable lead in the tournament.in that instance I would have thought that was panicing not choking.
An example of choking is Greg Norman,final day 1996 Masters,he had an insurmountable lead over Nick Faldo,leading by 6 shots on the 9th hole.missed putts etc .Faldo won.

Great sensible discussion guys. Perrygee that was what i was inferring. Paralysis as favourites. Thinking about winning and not focussing on the task.
Disconnect. Frustration. Ineffective. At the same time the lift from the french.
1987 had no precedent and abs after having lost to france and oz in 1986. As well as the cavaliers despite having home expectations were in unchartered territory.
2007 They were very much faves and are this year.
I agree a much bigger expectation.
They need an approach they had going into last saturday.
Apprehension.
Going in as obvious favourites will trigger this disconnect.
This is unavoidabke. Its how they deal with it that matters.
2007 and biltong i believe the proteas example is exactly the scenario i mean. Disconnect between performance and result.
Perrygee will see if i can find that book.
And perhaps lend it to henry.

I don't think New Zealand have ever bottled it at a World Cup.
In 1991 they lose to a better Australian team.. period.
In 1999 France caught fire like only they can and blew New Zealand away.
They didn't bottle it, they simply lost games to better teams on the day, if you want to see bottling it, look at Wales Vs Fiji in 2003, or Wales Samoa 1999, they were real upsets against teams that went into hiding for periods of a match as a result of agressive play from opposition players.

Might not be called choking laurie and its not about the lead or score. Its about the performance. NZ might even have scraped in for that match but the low level performance was certainly there second half.

It could happen again but i agree wiser heads this time might avoid it but certainly every team playing the abs come knockout will lift purely because of the precedents set by previous ab teams in that you're more likely to beat them in a world cup knockout than ANY other time.

Taylorman wrote:Might not be called choking laurie and its not about the lead or score. Its about the performance. NZ might even have scraped in for that match but the low level performance was certainly there second half.

It could happen again but i agree wiser heads this time might avoid it but certainly every team playing the abs come knockout will lift purely because of the precedents set by previous ab teams in that you're more likely to beat them in a world cup knockout than ANY other time.

Teams only try when its a world cup, the NZ victories outsdie of that should be discounted. Its the same argument as teams lift their game against England really, because those games matter more.
Over the last decade England have been brilliant, New Zeland average. Fact.

Yawn. This rubbish still?

Fact is NZ lost in 1991 because they weren't the best team.

In 1995, NZ narrowly lost whilst a majority of the team were unwell for whatever reason. Close but not a win.

In 1999 NZ played guys out of position and this was exploited by France, with endless chip kicks causing problems behind the defensive line. NZ were not the best team on the day.

In 2003 NZ played guys out of position and this was exploited by Australia. Mils' early try was ruled out by the TMO and the next phase led to a full-length intercept try as Leon MacDonald rather than Umaga/Carter mis-read the move. 14 point turn around. NZ didn't recover.

In 2007 NZ suffered in the "game from hell" as Henry puts it, a team that could have done the business suffered injuries to both Carter and Evans leaving NZ short of game-readers running the back line. Wayne Barnes weighed in with one of the worst refereeing performances in the cup's history and NZ were bounced.

The important thing is that this ridiculous "pyschological" nonsense isn't given oxygen to propagate, before the guys start believing it. At the end of the day the gap between the top few nations in the world is small and on the day small factors which aren't within the teams control can upset the odds.

The ABs have a good chance of winning, probably better than any other side. But at the end of the day their odds are less than the odds of ANY other country winning it collectively.

The "choker" tag is more based on schadenfreude and tall poppy syndrome than having any psychological basis and frankly recruiting these hoodoo bandwagon jockeys to peddle their nonsense is counter productive.

Oh Greyghost stop with the sensible posts with reasonable and well argued points. It doesnt suit you.

I'd have a hard time arguing with you there no matter how much I like to poopoo.

I disagree with NZ being favourites in 95. France won 2-0 and Aussie holding the Bledisloe. England were heavily favoured as well.

I am a bit like Emack in that I value every test and lament that they don't get the value they deserve in the shadow of the World Cup.

I think NZ play consistently closer to the optimum level of performance than any other nation. However other nations who don't share that level of consistency have greater peaks and troughs in form, while NZ's high standards mean that there isn't as much room for improvement as there is for other sides. Meaning that as a team peaks they are more likely to catch NZ out and beat them, a la France. Unless NZ maximise their improvement capability in which case I don't think anyone will beat them. Hope that makes sense.

Some of the best defence you will ever see, injuries, people out of position, bad decisions under pressure and GG's best friend all contributed.

Hopefully we can play to our potential. This will not only eliminate the chance of variables affecting a result, but also be fantastic to watch.

The fact of the matter is as disney points out, the All Blacks play to their peak most of the time, there isn't much more to improve on.

Other teams brings everything to the tabe come world cup, they lift themselves because it only needs to be done for 7 weeks if they get that far, these teams do not have the ability to play to their full potential all the time, why I don't know.

But that is the reality. A win vs New Zealand at the world cup means everything to them.

The shame with both 2003 and 2007 is that the ABs had better combinations sitting out the matches with a mistaken eye on the next round. That smacks of arrogance, hands ammunition to the mockery of rival fans and does a disservice both to the tournament and the All Black legacy. It also makes the coaching staff look aloof and naive.

I think Henry, Hanson and Smith have learned from that experience and hopefully we'll see a settled, strong AB combination throughout the tournament to whatever stage they manage to progress.

TheGreyGhost wrote: That smacks of arrogance,

Funny you should say that....

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote: That smacks of arrogance,

Funny you should say that....

Don't push it.

TheGreyGhost wrote:The shame with both 2003 and 2007 is that the ABs had better combinations sitting out the matches with a mistaken eye on the next round. That smacks of arrogance, hands ammunition to the mockery of rival fans and does a disservice both to the tournament and the All Black legacy. It also makes the coaching staff look aloof and naive.

I think Henry, Hanson and Smith have learned from that experience and hopefully we'll see a settled, strong AB combination throughout the tournament to whatever stage they manage to progress.

I for one am still dirty on the politics that kept Mehrtens and Cullen out of the 03 squad and that kept a fit Umaga on the bench leaving Mortlock to have a field day. Selecting 3 of the world's most dangerous back 4 ever out of position in 99 was also stupid, and so was picking an unfit Carter and Mils at 13 in 07. Sure injuries happen but the people that they've put in place to cover said injuries have been the wrong ones.

Agree with GG about the coaches having learnt from last time. We've never had an AB coach return for a 2nd Cup and I believe this is an advantage we have at present, especially a coach chastened by the happenings of the previous tournament.

Biltong what do you make of the Boks bringing in the WP defence coach (sorry to go off topic just very interesting)?

Out of NZ's 75% ratio a fair few have been close calls and come from behind wins. The ability to perform under intense pressure has always been there, if not then the win ratio wouldn't be as impressive as it is. The one game at a time policy is the way to go. Sure in the final let the prospect of lifting the trophy motivate you, as it is the game in which it is decided. But never forget how important each game is to get to said final.

2003 And 2007 i sat there for two entire periods of inept attack on the abs behalf. Something they have hardly ever repeated outside world cups.
Gg the intetcept happened 10 minutes from the start of the match and with 70 minutes left youre saying 14 was too much to peel back.
Youd be hard pressed to find any test where abs didnt score 14 in 70 minutes.
Like the abs on the day youre treating a knockout match as something tougher for them. When it shouldnt be.
2007 The french try happened early enough to recover from yet nothing.
French just stand up offside and all and we do nothing but wait for a penalty?
Unbelievable. Disconnect.
Ignore the uncontrollables for once. Ref. Passes etc.
Did an ab team do the best they could in those 2 halves of rugby.
Not by a longshot.

Disney, he is touted as the besty defensive coach in SA, and the results of the last two seasons for the Stormers confirm that.

I suppose the good thing about it is Jean De Villiers and Jaque Fourie know him and his systems well.

The other side of the coin is who does the attacking plans, with Rassie Erasmus involved as well we might play good structures and be good on attcking with turn over ball, but perhaps a little short on flair

I know you Kiwi's won't listen to this but relax. You will win the World Cup this time. I'm 90% sure. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Psychobabble love it,IF the Media and the All Blacks treat each RWC as just
another match they`ll be fine.
They now need a plan B as well,it may have escaped the peoples notice.
BUT in the event of a tied game in a RWC after 120 minutes a penalty shoot out decides.Drop goals DIFFERENT players for each one.