Psychological barriers

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:46 pm

Well some of the NH teams touring this summer haven't beaten their SH rivals at home or away for some time. Indeed some haven't beaten them ever as in the case with Ireland and NZ. Scotland, funnily enough, had probably the best record over their rivals than any of the other teams in terms of the oppositions they face and the last time they beat them.

So how much of a psychological barrier is it to have never beaten a team or to have not beaten a team in ages? Firstly, in this professional age I think most teams go into a match thinking they are capable of winning and indeed will win. The teams facing NZ, Aus and SA are too good not to think like that. When the anthems are played or in some cases the haka is performed, adrenaline kicks in and the players are pumped up and ready to get stuck in.

But to my mind, it's not so much the opening moments of the match or indeed the first half that is important. Most teams are in with a shout at the halftime break. Often where I think many NH teams have come unstuck in the past is in the closing moments of the match. If the opposition is up on the scoreboard and controlling the game, that is where the psychological barrier lets out the wind from the sails. We are naturally optimistic and full of hope at the start of a game. But as the clock ticks on we get brought closer to the cold hard reality and that's where frustration sets in and where mistakes are made. Composure and cool heads are called for not to mention self belief in the dying stages. Wales seemed to me to turn a corner in this 6N. They were often a man down but never gave up and attacked with purpose and intelligence. Can they replicate that cool calculated thinking against Australia? Scotland's win does Wales no favour but what might work in their favour is the realisation that this Australian side is beatable and Wales do have the players to do the job.

Similarly, Ireland and England have enough talent to pull off victory in the two toughest places in world rugby to tour. But how much does success depend on having the right mental attitude? I heard a comment that Ireland might not be taken seriously by the ABs. Their record against Ireland shows that Ireland are always taken seriously. To me it sounds more like wishful thinking. Ireland have to have that burning desire to beat the ABs and I don't doubt that they have that. But they need to prove that on the field and they showed in the RWC last year that in the right frame of mind, they are a huge threat. But I think one strength of the ABs that is often underestimated is their mental strength and familiarity with getting in the right frame of mind to get the job done. England and Ireland and Wales have all put in performances that are noteworthy but they have a perfect opportunity to not only get an historic win but also make a significant deposit in the psychological bank that will produce benefit for years to come.

by **Biltong** Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:49 pm

In my industry we talk a lot about motivation and self belief.

It is commonly belived that external motivation and reassurance only lasts for a specific period in time, once the going gets tough or the challenge seems insurmountable it is ultimately inherent belief in one self and internal motivation that makes you succeed or fail.

by **rodders** Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:52 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: But I think one strength of the ABs that is often underestimated is their mental strength and familiarity with getting in the right frame of mind to get the job done.

Not by me it isn't, thats the biggest difference imo....

I don't think the ABs will underestimate Ireland at all but the public perception is that Ireland have no chance, or very little. Expectation is very low on our side and I think that may bring out the best on us.

by The Great Aukster Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:08 am

biltongbek wrote:it is ultimately inherent belief in one self and internal motivation that makes you succeed or fail.

Inherent talent and belief, beats belief every time.

Ireland have a talent shortage not a psychological barrier.

by Feckless Rogue Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:16 am

Ireland have never beaten New Zealand. But do you not agree that every single time the two nations have met in over a hundred years, New Zealand have put 15 players out on the field that are considerably better at rugby than the 15 Irish guys. I think that is the main reason behind Ireland's lack of wins to be honest.

by Shifty Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:20 am

I think Scotland always find a way to lose to Wales, even if they have to let them score 3 tries in 2 minutes they probably find a way to let Wales do it! Whistle

by slartibartfast Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:21 am

Yeah, theres far too much puty in to the winning mentality thing

Wales have been deemed to have mentally tuned a corner - but that magically coincides with players form for both club and country.

As feckless says... SH sides have been simply better.

by Bullsbok Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:28 am

biltongbek wrote:In my industry we talk a lot about motivation and self belief.

It is commonly belived that external motivation and reassurance only lasts for a specific period in time, once the going gets tough or the challenge seems insurmountable it is ultimately inherent belief in one self and internal motivation that makes you succeed or fail.

I too think its all in the head . Its not so much about better players because lets face it everyone has 15 players on the pitch at one time and to suggest the other team has 15 better rugby players than you is just ludicrous . The only country with a case of 15 players that cant physically compete with everyone else is Japan because they are just smaller than everyone . Otherwise everyone else should theoretically have an equal chance of beating the other team. Its just mentality and belief . Perfect example is France. They went toe to toe with All blacks and could have won . Yet they previously lost to Tonga with just about the same team . What changed between Tonga and NZ ? Mindset belief , mentality.

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:40 am

Bullsbok sometimes games(esp france v nz) could be looked at the other way- NZ had the mindset problem v France. It was a pretty poor final to say the least.

But the point still stands- Rugby is a sport where mindset and perhaps conflicting styles is more important. Teams have unusual rock paper scissor type record v teams(ireland beat england, england beat france, france beat ireland)

by Taylorman Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:43 am

I think its wider than just the mindset. the AB's just dont turn up and have the better 'belief in winning' every match.

Much of it is the structure we have in place- its by no coincidence that NZ teams at the international level regularly find their ways to the top- womens, 7's, age group and the AB's.

Without this structure we wouldnt win anywhere near as much as we do. The same can be said for the fact that we have this nice little niche in global world sport that allows us to get to the top.

If the USA, England, Russia, Australia and about 30 other countries ONLY played rugby as a sport, we would hardly ever win a match against a top 20 country.

Unless its a fact that Kiwi's actually have a tougher mentality than peoples of most other countries year after year, decaded after decade (an unlikely scenario) or, we have a structure that allows for winning rugby and its that winning by previous generations that allows and supports a strong belief system in our players, teams etc as a whole.

by The Great Aukster Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:46 am

Bullsbok wrote:
biltongbek wrote:In my industry we talk a lot about motivation and self belief.

It is commonly belived that external motivation and reassurance only lasts for a specific period in time, once the going gets tough or the challenge seems insurmountable it is ultimately inherent belief in one self and internal motivation that makes you succeed or fail.

I too think its all in the head . Its not so much about better players because lets face it everyone has 15 players on the pitch at one time and to suggest the other team has 15 better rugby players than you is just ludicrous . The only country with a case of 15 players that cant physically compete with everyone else is Japan because they are just smaller than everyone . Otherwise everyone else should theoretically have an equal chance of beating the other team. Its just mentality and belief . Perfect example is France. They went toe to toe with All blacks and could have won . Yet they previously lost to Tonga with just about the same team . What changed between Tonga and NZ ? Mindset belief , mentality.

So Tonga really should have won the RWC, but they just lost their belief at a bad time or was it ridiculous scheduling? The Yanks are big on the whole motivation thing and self belief so they should really be at the pinnacle of world rugby shouldn't they?

by Bullsbok Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:50 am

Taylorman wrote:I think its wider than just the mindset. the AB's just dont turn up and have the better 'belief in winning' every match.

Much of it is the structure we have in place- its by no coincidence that NZ teams at the international level regularly find their ways to the top- womens, 7's, age group and the AB's.

Without this structure we wouldnt win anywhere near as much as we do. The same can be said for the fact that we have this luck niche in global world sport that allows us to get to the top.

If the USA, England, Russia, Australia and about 30 other countries ONLY played rugby as a sport, we would hardly ever win a match against a top 20 country.

Unless its a fact that Kiwi's actually have a tougher mentality than peoples of most other countries year after year, decaded after decade (an unlikely scenario) or, we have a structure that allows for winning rugby and its that winning by previous generations that allows and supports a strong belief system in our players, teams etc as a whole.

When an All blacks team falls behind in the scoreline(rare i know) do you think its structures and better players or that impervious belief that make them eventually win the game? Its that belief , everyone knows and we can all feel that the All blacks will inevitably turn up the gear because they believe they can win and they should win . I always heard Victor Matfield say it in post game interviews for the Bulls when they won after falling behind in the first half. He constantly stated how their belief in their team and gameplay would eventually trump the other team .Even with crappier players its all mentality and believing you are going to win in the end .

by Bullsbok Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:52 am

The Great Aukster wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:
biltongbek wrote:In my industry we talk a lot about motivation and self belief.

It is commonly belived that external motivation and reassurance only lasts for a specific period in time, once the going gets tough or the challenge seems insurmountable it is ultimately inherent belief in one self and internal motivation that makes you succeed or fail.

I too think its all in the head . Its not so much about better players because lets face it everyone has 15 players on the pitch at one time and to suggest the other team has 15 better rugby players than you is just ludicrous . The only country with a case of 15 players that cant physically compete with everyone else is Japan because they are just smaller than everyone . Otherwise everyone else should theoretically have an equal chance of beating the other team. Its just mentality and belief . Perfect example is France. They went toe to toe with All blacks and could have won . Yet they previously lost to Tonga with just about the same team . What changed between Tonga and NZ ? Mindset belief , mentality.

So Tonga really should have won the RWC, but they just lost their belief at a bad time or was it ridiculous scheduling? The Yanks are big on the whole motivation thing and self belief so they should really be at the pinnacle of world rugby shouldn't they?

Stop trying to twist my words , i said France (a team notorious for changing moods) showed sometimes they simply dont want to play but when they do they have the belief and winning mentality thats hard to crush ,hence taking the all blacks to the wire .The point of using that example was that they put the same people on the pitch for both games

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:54 am

NZ are just simply the best team- i would actually say that SA's and Oz's mentalility is better than theres. And that NZ is or was a much better team than it proved- just look at the world records

by slartibartfast Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:57 am

I think NZ "froze" a bit in the final as any team would, don't think it had anything to do with France.

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:59 am

slartibartfast wrote:I think NZ "froze" a bit in the final as any team would, don't think it had anything to do with France.

Ermm- personally i Think NZ with there physcolical issues about perhaps not winning enough WC's and the pressure of having to play there bogey team(france) in the final i think fried them up abit. But there came through it.

by Bullsbok Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:01 am

mystiroakey wrote:
slartibartfast wrote:I think NZ "froze" a bit in the final as any team would, don't think it had anything to do with France.

Ermm- personally i Think NZ with there physcolical issues about perhaps not winning enough WC's and the pressure of having to play there bogey team(france) in the final i think fried them up abit. But there came through it.

Cmon guys , any team that limits NZ to 8 points must be doing something right

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:03 am

France played well i admit- infact i was cheering them on- From what i can remember they almost looked the better team as well.

by Bullsbok Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:05 am

so would you say the All blacks won because they were the better team on the day ( which is not true ) or that their fragile WC mindset held on long enough to win the game?

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:06 am

do you want me to say the referee

by slartibartfast Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:06 am

mystiroakey wrote:
slartibartfast wrote:I think NZ "froze" a bit in the final as any team would, don't think it had anything to do with France.

Ermm- personally i Think NZ with there physcolical issues about perhaps not winning enough WC's and the pressure of having to play there bogey team(france) in the final i think fried them up abit. But there came through it.

Hmmm... So, if they played Wales in the final then they would have played better?

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:08 am

Possibly star

by slartibartfast Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:10 am

Bullsbok wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
slartibartfast wrote:I think NZ "froze" a bit in the final as any team would, don't think it had anything to do with France.

Ermm- personally i Think NZ with there physcolical issues about perhaps not winning enough WC's and the pressure of having to play there bogey team(france) in the final i think fried them up abit. But there came through it.

Cmon guys , any team that limits NZ to 8 points must be doing something right

I see what you're saying, but I thought that it was one of the worst NZ performances I'd ever seen, and it wasnt down to extra pressure from a good France.

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:15 am

No not a good france- just france in a WC game, plus the pressure of being in a WC final at home and as massive favs- that in most peoples minds had allready won the thing.

Come on guys- we all were predicting 30 plus scoreline wins for NZ.

No one said france would win.

NZ felt the pressure big time and underperformed. France naturally upped there game as well- its france!! they are gonna - v the best in a final, but there are just not that good at the moment- so any upping there game isnt going to be upped enough.

by **Biltong** Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:28 am

Taylorman wrote:I think its wider than just the mindset. the AB's just dont turn up and have the better 'belief in winning' every match.

Much of it is the structure we have in place- its by no coincidence that NZ teams at the international level regularly find their ways to the top- womens, 7's, age group and the AB's.

Without this structure we wouldnt win anywhere near as much as we do. The same can be said for the fact that we have this nice little niche in global world sport that allows us to get to the top.

If the USA, England, Russia, Australia and about 30 other countries ONLY played rugby as a sport, we would hardly ever win a match against a top 20 country.

Unless its a fact that Kiwi's actually have a tougher mentality than peoples of most other countries year after year, decaded after decade (an unlikely scenario) or, we have a structure that allows for winning rugby and its that winning by previous generations that allows and supports a strong belief system in our players, teams etc as a whole.

Taylorman, all that you are talking about boils down to that belief.

I saw a video long time ago that said the following.

Know
Know that you know
Be known for what you know.

Now you can relate that to sport as well.

Know - skill
Know that you know - Trust in each other and your plan.
Be known for what you know - Reputation.

The All Blacks are where they are because of that, skill is taught from a young age, it is inbred in them how to do all the things required to be a footballr.

As they grow up and learn the values and fundamentals of team sport, there comes a respect and trust in one another.

When the all Blacks go onto the fiel, it is with the knowledge that they have learnt the skills, trust each other, and ontop of that, the fact that teams are not necessarily in awe of them, but aware of their reputation, hence belief.

by The Great Aukster Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:32 am

Bullsbok wrote:I too think its all in the head . Its not so much about better players because lets face it everyone has 15 players on the pitch at one time and to suggest the other team has 15 better rugby players than you is just ludicrous . The only country with a case of 15 players that cant physically compete with everyone else is Japan because they are just smaller than everyone . Otherwise everyone else should theoretically have an equal chance of beating the other team. Its just mentality and belief . Perfect example is France. They went toe to toe with All blacks and could have won . Yet they previously lost to Tonga with just about the same team . What changed between Tonga and NZ ? Mindset belief , mentality.

Tonga beat France and by your statement above that was down to Tongan belief as both teams had 15 players. NZ beat France and by the same token that is down to their superior belief. Therefore France were actually consistent in their mentality by having weaker belief on both occasions.

If there's any truth in your words then they should apply to all Test matches (except those involving Japan). BTW do the IRB use a psychologist to evaluate which player has the most belief (as they're equal id every other aspect)?

by **Biltong** Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:38 am

Aukster beleif doesn't win you matches, but it is an element required to ward of an attack from another team, beleiving if you do your job the guy next to you is going to do his job.

Or when you are on attack and you run the line into traffic and in a practiced move your fullback is going to come off your shoulder and be there for the offload.

Beleif is not the result, it adds to how you react under pressure.

by offload Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:39 am

Kia, I enjoyed your post and agree with much of what you say. With the exception of England a decade ago, NH teams have generally IMO failed the mental challenge going up against the big SH teams.

I do think we have also fielded teams that at times have simply not been good enough, but in the pro era at the top level, more often than not the psychological factor is huge. I was pleased for Scotland this week as they showed the mental capacity to be in touch when their chance presented and then to take it. At the WC France, Wales and Ireland all showed the same resolve.

At the top levels of all sports you need both the skill and composure to exploit the skill. One without the other doesn't get you far.

by **Biltong** Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:41 am

At the top levels of all sports you need both the skill and composure to exploit the skill

Absolutely, all the talent in the world doesn't mean squat without the mentality to commit yourself and have a positive attitude.

by Bullsbok Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:46 am

The Great Aukster wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:I too think its all in the head . Its not so much about better players because lets face it everyone has 15 players on the pitch at one time and to suggest the other team has 15 better rugby players than you is just ludicrous . The only country with a case of 15 players that cant physically compete with everyone else is Japan because they are just smaller than everyone . Otherwise everyone else should theoretically have an equal chance of beating the other team. Its just mentality and belief . Perfect example is France. They went toe to toe with All blacks and could have won . Yet they previously lost to Tonga with just about the same team . What changed between Tonga and NZ ? Mindset belief , mentality.

Tonga beat France and by your statement above that was down to Tongan belief as both teams had 15 players. NZ beat France and by the same token that is down to their superior belief. Therefore France were actually consistent in their mentality by having weaker belief on both occasions.

If there's any truth in your words then they should apply to all Test matches (except those involving Japan). BTW do the IRB use a psychologist to evaluate which player has the most belief (as they're equal id every other aspect)?

Fine whats you great answer, Tonga is a better rugby team than France ? Doh

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:49 am

RE: tonga v france.

the history books say a loss.

the reality is it was a french win- they did enough- tonga didnt win by enough to go though..

something that has to be taken into consideration

by The Great Aukster Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:08 am

biltongbek wrote:Aukster beleif doesn't win you matches, but it is an element required to ward of an attack from another team, beleiving if you do your job the guy next to you is going to do his job.

Biltong I'm not disputing that it plays a part at all - what I'm disputing is that all teams (except Japan) are created equal and the ONLY difference between them is belief.

The big SH rugby nations will generally win against lesser rugby nations because they have the greatest number of the highest quality players - simples. Now when they they play each other obviously they're more evenly matched so I'd say belief plays a big part in who wins.

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:10 am

you think somoans are created like english/irish.welsh or scottish!!

nahhh- somoans were put on this earth to play rugby!!

by Bullsbok Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:10 am

Wales vs Springboks last 3 games Wales have been arguably the better team and played more "rugby". Did the Boks then win because they have better quality players or do you think they didnt believe they would lose despite sometimes being 15 points behind?

by The Great Aukster Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:26 am

Bullsbok wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:I too think its all in the head . Its not so much about better players because lets face it everyone has 15 players on the pitch at one time and to suggest the other team has 15 better rugby players than you is just ludicrous . The only country with a case of 15 players that cant physically compete with everyone else is Japan because they are just smaller than everyone . Otherwise everyone else should theoretically have an equal chance of beating the other team. Its just mentality and belief . Perfect example is France. They went toe to toe with All blacks and could have won . Yet they previously lost to Tonga with just about the same team . What changed between Tonga and NZ ? Mindset belief , mentality.

Tonga beat France and by your statement above that was down to Tongan belief as both teams had 15 players. NZ beat France and by the same token that is down to their superior belief. Therefore France were actually consistent in their mentality by having weaker belief on both occasions.

If there's any truth in your words then they should apply to all Test matches (except those involving Japan). BTW do the IRB use a psychologist to evaluate which player has the most belief (as they're equal id every other aspect)?

Fine whats you great answer, Tonga is a better rugby team than France ?

I'm confused Bullsbok, what's the " Doh

" meant to indicate?

Have you changed your mind from above and now don't think Tonga are the equal of France?
The great answer lies with the scoreline. Tonga beat France so that indicates that they were indeed the better team on the day.

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:31 am

auckster its kinda clear to me that the answer is clearly in the scoreline- but not in the way you think!!- france did enough to get out the group- tonga didnt- they both new what was needed, france did that, tonga didnt, france fullfilled there goal, tonga didnt. basically france won Psychological barriers 732107

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:08 pm

If I may use another sport as an example, look at Djokovic and his performances last year. What changed for him? His ability? I'd say no. The top three inches changed.

In sport, the best team doesn't always win. Talent is all very well as is having a natural skill set. NZ has that for sure growing up with the sport and other related sports like sevens and touch rugby.

But I think the mental aspect is underestimated. Ability to perform under pressure, having faith in your ability to come back has nothing really to do with talent. As for a RWC final, there have been very few blow outs in a RWC final. Both teams last year played a limited game mainly I feel because the pressure was so intense for both sides.

by blackcanelion Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:26 pm

I'm sure there is some psychology involved, and I'm equally sure team management is spending money trying to minimise it. From an AB's point of view. I think we have an advantage at times because our players believe that if the stick to the game plan they can win, even when they are behind.

In terms of the WC final. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a psychological element. It's the most bizaare atmosphere of any game I've been to. It had all the atmosphere of a funeral for most of it, you could thinly slice the tension and put it on a cracker. I'm guessing there must have been tension on the field as well.

Hard to say how much it influenced the game. There are so many other things that could also be said to accountable. The french played well, the AB's misread their tactics, the inclusion of beaver at 1st 5, the ref, etc.

by **Biltong** Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:45 pm

When two triibes go to war, and they are equally matched, similar talent, parity in all areas.

What is going to make the one team win over the other?

by anotherworldofpain Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:51 pm

When two triibes go to war, and they are equally matched, similar talent, parity in all areas.

What is going to make the one team win over the other?

Referee?

by nganboy Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:55 pm

Luck
Accident
Injury
Ref call
One special play
Crowd

by The Great Aukster Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:59 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:If I may use another sport as an example, look at Djokovic and his performances last year. What changed for him? His ability? I'd say no. The top three inches changed.

Why could his ability not have changed? Perhaps he worked harder on his serve or improved his backhand or his game managment or his understanding of his opponent etc. as he had been doing all his life. People can get better doing anything with practice and experience, they need a single minded strength of purpose to keep practicing though. George Best could never understand why Beckham and Giggs were so one footed, as both he and Bobby Charlton practiced with their weak foot until it actually became the stronger one. Don Bradman reputedly would come home from school and practice hitting a golf ball against a wall with a cricket stump. He wouldn't stop until he'd done it 100 times in a row. There are similar stories for a lot of sporting legends.

The motivation to be the best starts early and by the time players reach Test level they have had to overcome many hurdles, if they didn't have the mental fortitude they wouldn't be there in the first place. So how far someone gets is mostly a matter of their innate talent and how they've applied it.

Having said all that it is obvious that occasionally a player can "lose" a game because they tense up or panic - so called "choking", but the winner is the better of the two in the majority.

by **rodders** Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:05 pm

I thought he just changed to a gluten free diet?..... Cool

by doctor_grey Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:43 pm

Freely paraphrased from coaches I had in the past - shame I can't remember who said it first so I could properly attribute:

Three kinds of confidence needed to win:
Self, Teammates, Organisation

Self - the confidence in one's own ability, the mindset that one is the best for that one moment, that one play, over and over for 80 minutes.

Teammates - The confidence to know if I make a mistake, my team is there to cover for me. This frees me to be aggressive and take chances because I know if I fail, the team is there.

Organisation - The confidence to know we have been adequately prepared: The strategies, the tactics, the training, the physical preparation and so on, to compete.

If a player buys in completely to these, then he will do his best and utmost. A player must play completely free of doubt. Then it comes down to talent, experience, and the rest. But confidence first.

by beshocked Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:47 pm

Tri nation sides have psychological barriers when playing Scotland in wet weather. Especially the Aussies thumbsup

by mystiroakey Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:14 pm

aussies and the english

by disneychilly Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:20 pm

Hehe though NZ did win the wettest test of them all vs Scotland at Eden Park!

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:41 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:If I may use another sport as an example, look at Djokovic and his performances last year. What changed for him? His ability? I'd say no. The top three inches changed.

Why could his ability not have changed? Perhaps he worked harder on his serve or improved his backhand or his game managment or his understanding of his opponent etc. as he had been doing all his life. People can get better doing anything with practice and experience, they need a single minded strength of purpose to keep practicing though. George Best could never understand why Beckham and Giggs were so one footed, as both he and Bobby Charlton practiced with their weak foot until it actually became the stronger one. Don Bradman reputedly would come home from school and practice hitting a golf ball against a wall with a cricket stump. He wouldn't stop until he'd done it 100 times in a row. There are similar stories for a lot of sporting legends.

The motivation to be the best starts early and by the time players reach Test level they have had to overcome many hurdles, if they didn't have the mental fortitude they wouldn't be there in the first place. So how far someone gets is mostly a matter of their innate talent and how they've applied it.

I take your point. I should have said what was the major change for him. Of course athletes can hone their skills and improve. But he was a player that would often throw in the towel and fake injury when he was behind. He seemed to gain a tougher edge last year and the fact that he went unbeaten for so long added to the difficulty of beating him as the other players knew that he wouldn't crack. Tiger Woods after the sex scandal slumped in form so badly that even I could have taken him on the golf course. (Of course I couldn't have as my handicap is golf but it seemed day and night his performances.)

I'm not saying talent and preparation have nothing to do with it. Of course they do. And it is possible to learn new things and improve the little things that can give you an edge. But let's take this Saturday's game in Eden Park. (Does anyone know the forecast? Hopefully no snow like what has covered the east coast of the South Island). If Ireland are down by say 7 in the last 15 minutes, or let's even say up by 15 minutes, what happens if the ABs start to up the tempo. How much does the mental activity affect performance in your opinion?
Having said all that it is obvious that occasionally a player can "lose" a game because they tense up or panic - so called "choking", but the winner is the better of the two in the majority.

by SecretFly Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:55 pm

Psychology isn't all its cracked up to be, as the Elephant in the silver tracksuit said to me a year ago after cheekily asking for a cigarette just off Grafton Street.

But to get back to the point. Redden put it best I think. Every game is the next opportunity to change records and change history. Lose one and the next two are still opportunities.

The psychology of losing to NZ is such a persistent one that I'd doubt the negative connotations have much real match-day significance at all. That is to say, when you play and perhaps expect to lose (or at least think it highly probable), you don't fear it anymore... more likely it opens the pores, relaxes the muscles in the right areas and such games are always much more about opportunity than fear. Opportunity is a nice emotion.

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:34 pm

Like I said opportunity is good for the first few minutes. Of course the pressure is off the Irish and they have nothing to lose. But that motivates you at the beginning of the match. It's a double-edged sword though as once you´re in the game there is the pressure to be the first team to beat the ABs and then the game gets away from you and the pressure goes back on you with that. If France had got one of those penalty kicks over in the last 10 minutes, I would've hated to see the last 5 minutes. It probably wouldn't have been pretty and Weepu would no longer be living in NZ.

by Sponsored content