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/

Some schools thoughts

Over the last few weeks, I’ve followed the schools rugby scene with interest, taking in festivals at KES and St Stithians, and then at Wynberg Boys this weekend. I have also followed results at other festivals. It is always great to see the boys going hammer and tongs at each other to collect the spoils, and is very refreshing to see that in schoolboy rugby, there is no such thing as a ‘dead rubber’, and every result matters! What got me thinking however, is how often is the result determined before the game has even kicked off? How much of a stranglehold do some schools have on others psychologically?

Being more up to speed with the Western Cape schools scene, there is no doubt in my mind that a slightly different rugby culture and psyche exists between the big rugby schools down here. At risk of offending the schools I’ll keep my opinions down to a minimum, but I have no doubt that, and I have witnessed it, some teams are scared off by the thought of playing another team before they’ve even run on the field, just through sheer weight of the school’s reputation. The Southern Suburbs schools often talk about the ‘N1 syndrome’, referring to playing the schools from the Northern Suburbs, and recent results, where the Southern suburbs schools have won 1 or 2 games across the school on a Saturday suggests that this ‘syndrome’ is alive and well.

I recently coached a side at UCT, where I had 9 Rondebosch Old Boys, 8 from Bishops, and a few others from other boys schools, and I could definitely see a marked difference in the approaches and psyche of the guys based on the way they brought up from a rugby perspective. Now this culture at a school is built up over the years, but often is one that is very entrenched. In fact to change a rugby culture at a school, for better or worse, takes a major shift in behaviours and communication over a protracted period of time. This is identical to the reputation that a school builds up- a school will maintain a certain reputation until, for a protracted period of time, their results begin to change and the ‘talk’ around the school begins to turn.

I have no doubt, and I believe we will see it unfold this season, that certain schools have pre-conceived ideas of how other teams play and how good they are, based often only on reputation and perception. With very few games being televised this is fuelled, as information on opponents is hard to come by. I found myself guilty of this myself, having watched St Stithians up in Jo’burg, and thinking they really were a formidable outfit based on what I had seen and their school name, but obviously I had not taken into account other factors, as they were both soundly beaten by Cape schools over the weekend. This pre-conception of a school’s ability can be very harmful for sides, as they miss out on potential wins due to being fearful of a team due to their reputation, or on the flip side are complacent due to a negative perception of their opponents.

What needs to be guarded against, is the fact that the perceptions created in the mind of a school/team based on reputation can harm motivation, game-plan adherence, enjoyment and intensity. What needs to be emphasized is the fact that reputation is often not based on facts, and that what is most important is to focus on your specific game and not the reputation of others.

I will talk more about the actual culture that schools have built up for themselves internally in my next article, but remember that often what exists internally at a school is different to what you may perceive from the outside.

Some pearlers for your leisure!!

some of the more interesting team talks I've seen. Not for sensitive ears though.

Exploring the Dark side

A superb article written by Rowan Belchers, a consultant to organisations on a number of topics around optimizing performance, and a fellow sports nut. I think there is some great insight here, so enjoy the read!

Gary Kirsten couldn’t play the short ball until he admitted to himself that he was scared of it. As soon as he acknowledged his own fear he was able to develop a technique that helped him get on top if it. Or under it, more appropriately…

That’s not the kind of admission you hear from professional sportsmen a lot, is it? Broadly generalizing a bit here, but the dialogue around pro sports is more likely to offer up self-praise, bravado, and threats. And quite possibly rightly so – the heat of the battle has rarely rewarded the humble or faint of heart, so this self-confidence is both understandable and necessary on some level.

But what else might there be to this? In the “system” of sports performance and the dynamics that take place in the human mind, is there anything else that might be worth exploring around other outlooks or attitudes? For starters, might there be something to learn from Gary in taking a look at fallibility and weakness?

A question of that nature would probably make the Blue Bulls coaches from the mid-80’s spin in their graves. Watching the old Currie Cup games from the early 90’s on ESPN Classic (the greatest sports channel in the history of mankind, I might add …) I was amazed to see these guys sitting on the sidelines, short collared shirt, club tie, one cigarette after another being sucked in – it struck me how things had changed so completely in a pretty short space of time and how things have come along from a professional standpoint so fast. But, getting back to my original question: would the coaches of today have found it any easier to acknowledge (let along work with) the concept of fear than the chain-smoking amateur coaches of 15 years ago? I think not.

Rather than judge, let’s explore. There is a term that is used in psychology called the ‘shadow’. In clinical terms it means what we ‘hide, repress or deny’. In real terms, shadow refers to the parts of ourselves that we’d rather not look at or face up to. It’s easier not to because looking at our shadow might mean acknowledging something about ourselves that we’d rather not. The good parts of ourselves sit more easily with our ego than the bad parts – so affirmation comes a lot easier than criticism.

But what might be the impact of not looking at our shadow? In diagrammatic terms, think of the shadow as a force that is out of view and thus beyond our control. We are then affected by it, rather than being able to control it. So, the theory is to bring shadow out in front of you where it can be controlled, rather than have it behind you where it controls you.

Getting away from the theory for a moment, let’s consider an example. It took 6 visits from Jos Vantsiphout to Ernie Els (and quite a bit of confrontation and upset too, apparently) before Ernie admitted that there were things he was doing that weren’t helping him. I don’t know this for sure, but the story is that Ernie’s shadow is around enjoying a few too many cold beers and glasses of red wine, and too little dedication to physical fitness. As soon as he started working with Jos (and I’m completing my own picture here, so forgive the armchair psychology) he admitted this, dedicated himself to a different approach and promptly won two majors. Retief Gooden apparently had a similar experience before winning his two majors.

There are other examples to consider who might have benfitted from working with their shadow: Jean Alesi, one of the most talented drivers of all time but with an inability to make sensible driving decisions in favour of out-and-out speed; Marat Safin, a preposterously talented tennis player but unable to control his moods swings; John Daly, in mental terms, a little boy who’s never been challenged about his lack of maturity and inability to hold himself accountable.

In local terms – and I’m possibly sticking my neck out too far here as I have close friends on the coaching staff who I don’t want to offend – but I’ve wondered if there aren’t some shadowy dynamics around UCT rugby and their inability to win at Stellenbosch? Just a thought and no judgment here, but it’s an area I’d love to explore.

Anyway, hope that makes sense. Summary thought: from a psychology point of view, if people (myself included) were more able to work with their weakness, fears and destructive tendencies, they might unlock latent potential in the form of better performance and better results.