What do the Stats say?

Last night I watched an interesting game of rugby last night between Villagers and UCT. UCT went down by a single point, having missed two shots at goal to win it in the last 5 minutes, on top of another 4 kicks were missed prior to that. Now I am not going to criticize either of UCT’s two kickers, as they are both mates of mine and pressure is not an easy thing, but what’s more, they are both fine young rugby players. But it got me thinking about who in fact is best placed to take a last minute kick to win the game- the regular kicker, or the back up?

Just to paint the picture, the 1st choice kicker missed a few kicks at goal and then the back-up (who does kick some longer shots occasionally) took over, with marginal success. Then when the crunch kick came he was still entrusted with the duties and unfortunately missed both attempts, which would have won them the game. But should he have taken them? Would it not have been better for the 1st choice kicker, who practices more, has been in that situation before and is a known to kicker to have attempted those, despite him being off-colour on the night?

I read a great story about a top basketball player who was the star in his team, but in the final of their championship, he was massively off-form and missed free throws continuously. Eventually it got to the end of the game, and the team needed to score to win it. The coach called a time-out , and began to explain a play that would get someone else to attempt a shot on goal to win them the game. Before he could finish, the star player intervened and stated that he himself wanted to be set up to take the shot. He got his way, and eventually scored the crucial score. In the aftermath he was asked why he was so confident to take the throw. His retort was merely that in practice he was successful 50% of the time, and seeing as though that night he was way below that, the odds told him that he would be successful with that particular throw! An interesting theory indeed, but one that worked for him.
The message here is a simple one- the player obviously had a superb sense of self-confidence, but more than that he was able to create a positive perception of himself in that situation. He believed what he wanted to believe, and in doing so was able to feel confident when it counted. He had also visualized the successful kicks over and over which too gave him that confidence. Now this leads me back to the point about the UCT kickers- surely the stats pointed to the 1st choice kicker being the best bet, and having been in similar scenarios before, would it not have been better for him to create in his mind a positive perception of self and therefore an increased confidence and taken the kick. Despite him having missed a few, I may have gone back to him, depending on his mind-frame of course, and supported him- as the statistically best kicker to take it.

Some may say, you need to go with form on the night, and this may be valid, however sometimes I believe the stats cannot be ignored, and more so how able is the player in creating those positive thoughts and messages internally when the big moment comes? Often what happens is the internal demons take over, and the thoughts are more counter-productive than helpful.

The final thought- back the best in a big moment! No doubt though an argument that may be met with opposition?

Give yourself permission, or welcome to the awesome world of ordinary

In working recently with a schoolboy rugby side, I came across some interesting findings which actually got me thinking about human nature per se. How often do we give ourselves true permission to be brilliant? In a recent book, Tribes, by Seth Godin he talks about the world needing leaders and people who challenge the status quo, not just people who follow and do as always has been done. In another of his books, The Purple Cow (a favourite of Paul Treu), he talks about success coming from being remarkable, not ordinary, but remarkable - something or someone who causes people to talk by being different and exceptional.

So when we play/watch sport, do we ever think of doing the remarkable, do we think of challenging the norm, do we think of achieving things that are against what your ‘potential’, or perceived potential, should allow you to do. As the superb poem goes ,“ What is your deepest fear, our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate; our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond all measure”. So often the inability to picture greatness or achieving above the norm hampers the ability to do so. What also hampers greatness is the comfort of being good, or good enough to not attract attention. Sometimes being an exceptional team/individual can bring with it unwanted pressure- ask Tiger Woods or any team at the top of the ICC cricket rankings (G Smith!). The Stormers for example had far more pressure on them recently against the Sharks, than say the Stormers of last year would have had at this stage. They have created that pressure by giving themselves permission to be excellent this year, but with that it has forced them out of any comfort zone.

So my question goes to all individuals and teams, as to whether they are willing to go beyond being good, and attempting to be great. Are teams ready to bracket themselves outside of the underdog category and become favourites? Are sportsmen and women happy to become someone who is expected to do well rather than someone who surprises with their success? These seem like easy questions, but actually I would love to know deep down, whether true permission has been given to take that step from good to excellent.

Some scintilating tries from Bishops

Great to see the Schoolboys playing with such flair on their tour. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTuDFnrWe7U

Incredible Excellence- Check out the link!!

http://www.sportsillustrated.co.za/uncategorized/20100503/the-best-breakdancer-in-the-world/