What contributes to a loss?

Lot of rugby to be played in June and inevitably there will be disappointed fans because their team didn't perform or for most didn't win. After the frustration dies down and you're able to see what lies behind comments like the ref robbed us, we gave it to them, the coach is clueless etc, how do you assess what went really wrong? Where do you start?

Let's imagine we're talking about games where there is no gulf in class. When a minnow gets beaten by a major nation, it's possible to say we were beaten by a better team. But when you look at a team like the Lions and Australia, for example, you see that both sides are even. One has certain strengths and weaknesses but overall there's not much between the sides. When you look at the 6N sides, they're increasingly difficult to tell apart in terms of strengths. There are gaps but they're a bit like the gaps in the Tube. Sometimes they seem quite big, other times they see not worth mentioning and other times they should be announced but are not.

So two relatively even sides playing against one another. One wins and the other loses. You've had a few days to calm down and to get over the initial disappointment. You're not so much looking for external scapegoats like the ref but for the main contributors that were under your team's control. Where do you start?

Let's start with the easy ones. The coach is often used as a scapegoat but sometimes he really deserves the blame. Selections count for a lot and we all know sometimes the coaching staff make errors of judgement in that regard. Other important coaching errors is how the bench is used (or not used) and tactics. The players are to blame for execution as well but sometimes it's just a poor summation of what is required to beat an opponent. Or a refusal to entertain an alternative plan. A lack of adaptation.

The players. Players can make mistakes. I remember the Sydney test last year where Beale had the worst game I had ever seen him play. It happens. How do you explain it is more difficult? Mental weakness? Lack of confidence? Overthinking? Overtraining? When you see your team make unforced errors like pushing a pass and knocking on or dropping the high ball or running into touch or passing into touch, how much is that down to the player? Do the opposition create those mistakes and do the players make poor split second judgements. Is it their rugby brains or their rugby skills letting them down? Sometimes it's difficult to say why.

Preparation. Now we start getting into the difficult ones. What is the ideal build up to a big game? The Highlanders played the Blues last weekend only having trained on the Thursday. They had the week off to go fishing or to unwind. They effectively closed out the game at half time. Sometimes though, oppositions take their opponents too lightly. They do all the right things in training, say all the right things in the media conferences and then seem to go missing on match day. Why are some teams able to come out with a hiss and a roar for 20 minutes and then fade at the wrong end of the match? Why are some teams capable of mentally getting up for one game and then hopeless the next? Is it possible to overtrain just as it is to underprepare? Can we overcoach our players instead of sticking to doing the basics well? Can these motivational talks prove detrimental? Can the pressure to win be crippling in terms of performance and how do you guard against that if so?

That leads to the mental side of the game which is often neglected. Rugby is a physical game and you have to front up if you're going to be competitive. That requires a physical application, notably at the breakdown. If you don't have a physical presence at the breakdown area, you put yourself at a huge disadvantage. But how many times do we see sides that put themselves in winning positions only to take the wrong options or execute poorly at crucial areas. Basic skills don't come into apportioning blame. You should already have them so they're not up for debate (though obviously this is surprisingly often not the case). The problem is a lack of rugby awareness up top. Not letting the ball do the work for you, too much lateral running and not straightening the attack when it calls for it, not drawing the man before passing etc.

In general terms, when you face a side you have difficulty beating, how much of a mental obstacle is that and how much can that contribute to performance? Similarly if you have a hoodoo over a side and they beat you how much of that can be contributed to overconfidence? Indeed how much of the opposition's performance (which is usually the first thing forgotten when contemplating defeat) can contribute to your own performance. If you meet them on one of their better days how much did you contribute to that better day and could you have put a rain on their parade so to speak.

When or if your side loses, it's easy to look for easy answers. Easy answers other than the opposition played better than us or we didn't take the ref out of the game. I think we all do it to some extent. But when we burrow a little deeper, we find that there are a lot of things at which you can point the finger of blame. Frustration and anger are natural emotions when faced with losing. But sometimes winning isn't everything and we don't look at what we could have done better. Just like we don't tend to focus on what we did right when we lose and only linger on the negative aspects, real or imagined. Good luck with your team in June but if the unthinkable should happen, don't be so hasty to write down the first thing that comes to your mind. Dig a little deeper. Like Mulder says, the truth is out there. Just damned difficult to find.

For me it begins with the players selected on the day.

Did they show intent and intensity on attack and did they have the right attitude in defence not to concede.

For me no matter which team you put out, but if they don't want to be there and don't want to put in 100% I am immediately aggrieved, no matter whether they win or lose.

Then I go to discipline and execution.

What about going into the match BB? How much do you put down to mental preparation and physical preparation before a match?

Well during PDV's era I doubt whether there was much input from the coaching staff at all.

Game preparation for me is vital in the execution of the game.

If you think back Matfield did his own studies of opponents and preparation for line outs. We always tend to over prepare in the physical stakes in my opinion.

I like to believe that skills training in preparation of a test is more necessary in SA's case. Our handling skills have cost us many games over the oast 5 years.

Does one really need mental preparation?

That is something every p,ayer should have down to a tee as an individual, for me external motivation and preparation is of temporary nature. These days professional athletes know what makes them perform best. Motivation and focus should come from within, hence my frustration when players look lethargic on the field.

Mental preparation should be down to each individual but some individuals and teams seem to be better at it than others. Compare how the two teams England and Wales prepared for that final game in the 6N and if they played the game the following day would the scoreline have been the same?

kia

Interesting thoughts.

Since you mentioned the Wales v England 6Ns match, I think the following factors were involved:

1 - Selection mistakes for England, in particular the absence of a genuine #8, meaning we had an imbalanced back row (Wood and Croft are both very good players, but are too similar to play together). We played too much of the 6Ns with only Tuilagi as a real ball-carrying threat, and it made us too easy to defend against.

2 - Wales as a unit were more 'up' for the game. Now, how much of that is coaching, how much is individual motivation and how much was home advantage is tough to say.

3 - Walsh's refereeing, particularly at the scrum (to some extent at the breakdown as well) was not what England's coaching team expected. A combination of preparation errors and not being able to adjust 'on the fly' for our inexperienced players.

4 - Team confidence. Wales had a terrible first 40 minutes in the 6Ns and were then on an upward trajectory mentally. England started coming off the high of the NZ win, played well against Scotland but subsequently were scraping through games - winning but not performing.

5 - Some players (Farrell for one) were overly hyped up in a way that was detrimental to their performance.

Of course sometimes you also just have to say it wasn't your day. A combination of marginal decisions going against you, individual errors and even the bounce of the ball conspire against even the best players and teams (I'm thinking of Campese's Lions series losing error - one of the best players ever but failed to pick up a ball he'd usually have taken in his sleep).

Seems a very fair summary dummy half. For NZ against England it's difficult to say how the performance was affected by the novo virus. Certainly physically preparation was affected. Players like Smith and Carter had uncharacteristic defensive shockers but we didn't mark Tuilagi tightly enough and we didn't adapt to England swarming the breakdown.

The Brisbane draw was more frustrating from a NZ point of view. The pressure of getting the consecutive test win streak got to us and we made a lot of forced errors. Australia made light of their injury count and applied pressure to us by ticking the scoreboard over. Something not done enough in other games and NZ didn't handle it well.

Talent, Technique and Temperament, not necessarily in that order

Kia

For the England game, I don't think the AB players were physically affected by the illness come game time (would have seen a lot of changes to the line up had they been), but I agree that it must have been disruptive both for the detailed (opponent-specific) preparation and mentally for the players to know what sort of shape they were in. I suspect a few guys held back a little because they were uncertain they'd last the pace of the game, and that being 5% down was the difference that allowed Robshaw and Wood to dominate the breakdown.

At the highest level in the biggest games I see mentality as the biggest stumbling block.

Look at some of the biggest matches over the last few years. Often the teams that lost, lost it before the kickoff.... they looked nervous whilst the other team looked really fired up and the intensity blew the opposition away.

Lions vs NZ 1st test 05.
NZ vs. FRA QF 07.
Lions vs. SA 1st test 09.
Ireland vs. England 6N 11.
AUS vs. NZ SF 11.
England vs. Wales 6N 13.

In terms of the very best teams I think the talent difference is very small and over emphasized. Look at 2 guys for instance Wilkinson and Michelak. Michelak can do everything Wilkinson can do... and then some.

But when pressure is applied some players buckle... the others focus. Finding out which players can perform when it matters is key and talent can often blurr this matter.... England gave 40 caps to Charlie Hodgson even though he was very very unreliable on the big stage... how many caps will Rhys Priestland get.... I imagine Gatland isn't finished with him yet... yet how many test matches will he underperform in the future?

Could well be.

There were definite lessons to be learned and looking forward to the rematch in November. Also the response this weekend. NZ are usually good at analyzing their defeats.

Not so sure about 2007 in terms of losing before the kickoff FA. We were leading at half time. That was our inability to adapt and manoeuvre us into a position for the drop goal. Our composure and leadership was lacking.

That said I agree with the mental side of things often proving to be the big difference.

Knowing how or how not to play the referee does unfortunately contribute too much these days

Did you remember the haka in 07.... you could see the fear on the NZ players, the French for some reason were telling your brethren to bring it on. You knew then that it was going to be a very tight match (against France folding).

I think we've never been afraid by a response to the haka. Maybe they saw that teale grey in the reflection of the dark Nike shirts.

Wayne Barnes

Joubert doc. Sometimes you get the rub of the green. Both sides had the opportunity to score when it counted and they fluffed those opportunities.