Pressure and Sporting Implosions : Lessons From Other Codes

We are witnessing, in England and Wales' cricket team one of the most profound team implosions of all time.  After being odds-on favourites to retain the ashes in a summer jolly in Australia things have gone horribly wrong.  Australia intimidated England with in-your-face abrasiveness, signalling their intent before the series that they wanted to "send English players home in tears". They backed that up with hard-nosed sledging on the pitch and aggressive tactics. England seem to have completely cracked under the pressure. Players have gone home with stress disorders, resigned mid-series and their form and composure has evaporated. Questions are being asked about the futures of the coach and players lauded as super-stars and invaluable just a few short weeks ago. In short, it's a team in crisis and in complete melt down.  I expected the off field discipline issues to begin to show - and it appears they are already, with Graeme Swann making a parting shot after his bizarre mid-series retirement where he slates his team mates for being "up their own *****" and "arrogant".  
 
We've seen this kind of implosion before: England's rugby team in 2011 NZ fell to pieces entirely. There was heavy drinking, dwarf throwing, marital affairs, allegations of sexual harrassment, sponsors publically slamming the team's attitude, harbour-diving and an undignified exit at the first knock-out match after struggling past Scotland and Argentina in the pool.
 
Sir Clive Woodward lost control of his huge touring party in NZ 2005. A huge rift opened between his disasterous "test side" and the happy and successful dirt trackers run by McGeechan, selectoral and discipline issues adding to the nasty media antics of Alistair "dodgy dossier" Campbell, aside or contributing to the Clive's team's on-field destruction?
 
All teams are prone to this kind of problem - before I'm accused of anti-english WUM let me include NZ in this list. Teams get overshaddowed by off-field incidents, morale goes to pieces and the team's on-field performance suffers. NZ were intimidated by aggressive and some would claim illegal french tactics in 1999 whilst the AB coaching staff had outlawed on field retaliation. The soft-blacks were roughed up and muscled out of the game by the fired up French.  Before that, NZ has its darkest chapter, tale of Keith Murdoch.  Let's also consider Team NZ America's cup challenge, who were out-foxed and psyched out by Russel Coutts and his cohorts yet again, this time whilst stranded on match point.
 
All of these, and many more examples that we can name are simple failures of man management.
 
It takes a special coach to be able to pull a team in crisis back together, galvanize them and produce a performance to turn around the camp's attitude.
 
In recent memory, Warren Gatland stands out in having delivered that special Lions performance  amidst a potentially caustic team atmosphere, and reeling after being turned over by the unfancied Wallabies in test 2.
 
Stuart Lancaster also seems to be blessed with some special abilities in this area, having turned around Martin Johnson's disasterous legacy.
 
Just how valuable are these special man-management skills of the elite coaches like Warren Gatland, Russell Coutts and AB coaches Sir Graham Henry and Steve Hansen? Can these traits be learned? or are they X-factor abilities that need to be saught when management structures are being put into place?

Gatlands achievements on the Lions tour are over rated. It was his failings in management that saw the Lions standing on the brink of one of the most disapointing Lions tours in history. They played well in one test when the Aussies were on their knees. The Lions were fairly poor in tests 1 and 2 when the Aussies were very much there for the taking.

I think the England cricket thing has been building for a while. Their performance in the summer was pretty poor really, its just they were still better than Oz at the time. The degree to which they have self destructed is indeed worrying

So I suppose coaches must be aware of these things, and not sweep near-misses under the carpet. Perhaps out-going coaches have less motivation to look to the future.

personalities must come into it, big time. I dont think anybody can doubt Cook's ability as a batsman, but maybe he isnt the strongest leader.

Who reported this thread? and why?

You do pick on the English a lot GE. Probably too much. I didnt report it though. Have only ever reported one or two posts in a couple of years.

GunsGerms wrote:Gatlands achievements on the Lions tour are over rated. It was his failings in management that saw the Lions standing on the brink of one of the most disapointing Lions tours in history. They played well in one test when the Aussies were on their knees. The Lions were fairly poor in tests 1 and 2 when the Aussies were very much there for the taking.

Think you're in the minority with that opinion. Thankfully most knowledgable people involved in sport are aware that it was a notable achievement, hence all the deserved accolades coming his way.

Tests one and two were poor. Just makes you wonder how good it could've been, if Sir Warren had the luxury of Roberts and Davies for them too.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Who reported this thread? and why?

I did. I reported it because most of your threads, and indeed posts, seem to me to be little more than attempts to wind up other posters. While I think you seem pretty knowledgeable on rugby, I think your contributions actually make the forum a worse place. As I said when I reported the topic, it may be that you're making a perfectly valid sporting comment - it just seems to me to be another attempt to provoke other posters. If you genuinely were interested in debate, then accept my apologies. Perhaps it was just a boy who cried wolf situation.

Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further.

I see England have called up Borthwick - when will they learn?

Risca Rev wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Gatlands achievements on the Lions tour are over rated. It was his failings in management that saw the Lions standing on the brink of one of the most disapointing Lions tours in history. They played well in one test when the Aussies were on their knees. The Lions were fairly poor in tests 1 and 2 when the Aussies were very much there for the taking.

Think you're in the minority with that opinion. Thankfully most knowledgable people involved in sport are aware that it was a notable achievement, hence all the deserved accolades coming his way.

Tests one and two were poor. Just makes you wonder how good it could've been, if Sir Warren had the luxury of Roberts and Davies for them too.

It sounds like you are in denial a little bit. The fact that you call him Sir even though he doesnt have a knighthood indicates to me that you are in awe of him. He is a good coach most of the time but not above criticism. Even if it is a minority view I stand by it.

Phil Vickery has retired...

GunsGerms wrote:You do pick on the English a lot GE. Probably too much. I didnt report it though. Have only ever reported one or two posts in a couple of years.

Covered in the post sorry, perhaps you didn't read all of it. I'm not picking on anyone. Merely using staringly obvious examples. Please keep on topic.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:You do pick on the English a lot GE. Probably too much. I didnt report it though. Have only ever reported one or two posts in a couple of years.

Covered in the post sorry, perhaps you didn't read all of it. I'm not picking on anyone. Merely using staringly obvious examples. Please keep on topic.

I did read it GE. You know well you are picking specifically English examples. Personally I think there is plenty of room on this forum for your articles and they serve a purpose but I understand why for England fans they can get old after a while.

If you think that, then you obviously didn't read all of it. Specifically the bit from "before I'm accused of anti-english WUM..."

GloriousEmpire wrote:If you think that, then you obviously didn't read all of it. Specifically the bit from "before I'm accused of anti-english WUM..."

Yeah, that's the bit that usually clinches it

GloriousEmpire wrote:If you think that, then you obviously didn't read all of it. Specifically the bit from "before I'm accused of anti-english WUM..."

Haha. Now I know you are taking the urine. Thats like saying no offense but you are fat and expecting someone not to get angry because you qualified it by saying no offense.

Happy Christmas GE.

You still haven't actually read it then.

Sorry didnt realise this was meant to be your olive branch, your message of good will to England fans this Christmas. Did I ruin it for you?

Yep. Derailed it completely.

GunsGerms wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Gatlands achievements on the Lions tour are over rated. It was his failings in management that saw the Lions standing on the brink of one of the most disapointing Lions tours in history. They played well in one test when the Aussies were on their knees. The Lions were fairly poor in tests 1 and 2 when the Aussies were very much there for the taking.

Think you're in the minority with that opinion. Thankfully most knowledgable people involved in sport are aware that it was a notable achievement, hence all the deserved accolades coming his way.

Tests one and two were poor. Just makes you wonder how good it could've been, if Sir Warren had the luxury of Roberts and Davies for them too.

It sounds like you are in denial a little bit. The fact that you call him Sir even though he doesnt have a knighthood indicates to me that you are in awe of him. He is a good coach most of the time but not above criticism. Even if it is a minority view I stand by it.

He's very deserving of a knighthood. Let's not rob him of his deserved title on a mere technicality like he hasn't been knighted yet.

I criticise him. I just feel that a lot of what he gets is completely unjust.

I think that his role in the dressing room and off the field was John Smit's major contribution to the Boks. We had our own meltdown under Straeuli (Camp Staaldraad and all) and Smit's calming diplomatic presence helped to stabilise the boks (he does, however, seem to have lost a bit of that diplomacy since entering the Sharks' boardroom!).

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I see England have called up Borthwick - when will they learn?

Well done sir I was dying to use that one myself

Risca Rev wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Gatlands achievements on the Lions tour are over rated. It was his failings in management that saw the Lions standing on the brink of one of the most disapointing Lions tours in history. They played well in one test when the Aussies were on their knees. The Lions were fairly poor in tests 1 and 2 when the Aussies were very much there for the taking.

Think you're in the minority with that opinion. Thankfully most knowledgable people involved in sport are aware that it was a notable achievement, hence all the deserved accolades coming his way.

Tests one and two were poor. Just makes you wonder how good it could've been, if Sir Warren had the luxury of Roberts and Davies for them too.

Just means hes not Welsh

Was the Lions 2013 a success. Given the results since the Lions were at their best in 71 and 74:

1977- lost
1980-lost
1983- lost
1989- won
1993- Lost
1997- won
2001- lost
2005- lost
2009-lost

2 series wins 7 losses from 9 tours means a loss in 2013 would have been a disaster so by definition the series was a success as it went against the very likelihood of another loss based on past results.

How you choose to celebrate that success is up to the teams fans. But having won the series, Gatland returned as the successful coach. End of story.

Taylorman wrote:Was the Lions 2013 a success. Given the results since the Lions were at their best in 71 and 74:

1977- lost
1980-lost
1983- lost
1989- won
1993- Lost
1997- won
2001- lost
2005- lost
2009-lost

2 series wins 7 losses from 9 tours means a loss in 2013 would have been a disaster so by definition the series was a success as it went against the very likelihood of another loss based on past results.

How you choose to celebrate that success is up to the teams fans. But having won the series, Gatland returned as the successful coach. End of story.

Amazing

The ABs go unbeaten for a year and the world is expected to stop spinning while NZ fans gloat over world supremacy.

We win a Lions tour and it's 'Gatland returned as the successful coach. End of story"

  

Funny really. Gatland took the 6 Nations Champions - added a token few and scraped a victory.
England with the worst backline in living memory won more comfortably.
Weird  

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Who reported this thread? and why?

I did. I reported it because most of your threads, and indeed posts, seem to me to be little more than attempts to wind up other posters. While I think you seem pretty knowledgeable on rugby, I think your contributions actually make the forum a worse place. As I said when I reported the topic, it may be that you're making a perfectly valid sporting comment - it just seems to me to be another attempt to provoke other posters. If you genuinely were interested in debate, then accept my apologies. Perhaps it was just a boy who cried wolf situation.

Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further.

If I might offer a little of my own thoughts?
GE certainly knows his Rugby.  He also likes to tweak people from time to time and can be somewhat over the top.  I take it with a sense of humour and are not offended.  In fact, I usually enjoy it.  Compare him with the macho internet warrior types who so pisssed off people in the Euro rugby discussions that some decided to leave 606v2.  These were generally good posters who were here for nothing more than some Rugby talk and a bit of fun, then got slammed for daring to disagree with the warrior types, and decided it wasn't worth it.  I don't think there is even a comparison.  And for the record, I don't put anyone on this thread so far in that category.

Scratch wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Was the Lions 2013 a success. Given the results since the Lions were at their best in 71 and 74:

1977- lost
1980-lost
1983- lost
1989- won
1993- Lost
1997- won
2001- lost
2005- lost
2009-lost

2 series wins 7 losses from 9 tours means a loss in 2013 would have been a disaster so by definition the series was a success as it went against the very likelihood of another loss based on past results.

How you choose to celebrate that success is up to the teams fans. But having won the series, Gatland returned as the successful coach. End of story.

Amazing

The ABs go unbeaten for a year and the world is expected to stop spinning while NZ fans gloat over world supremacy.

We win a Lions tour and it's 'Gatland returned as the successful coach. End of story"

  

I do marvel at your ability Scratch to turn any comment, even a compliment, into a dig against NZ. Keep digging and you may end up there some day.   

Scratch wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Was the Lions 2013 a success. Given the results since the Lions were at their best in 71 and 74:

1977- lost
1980-lost
1983- lost
1989- won
1993- Lost
1997- won
2001- lost
2005- lost
2009-lost

2 series wins 7 losses from 9 tours means a loss in 2013 would have been a disaster so by definition the series was a success as it went against the very likelihood of another loss based on past results.

How you choose to celebrate that success is up to the teams fans. But having won the series, Gatland returned as the successful coach. End of story.

Amazing

The ABs go unbeaten for a year and the world is expected to stop spinning while NZ fans gloat over world supremacy.

We win a Lions tour and it's 'Gatland returned as the successful coach. End of story"

  

My point was in response to guns comments. Overrated, on the brink of one of the worse lions tours in history (which by the way would have to be pretty bad given the 4 nillers they've had)- all aimed at Gatland...never the players.
My point was that one the tour was a success and two...some fans may view that as they see fit.

The Lions was neither as bad nor as good as many people perceive it. As is the norm, people go overboard and see it as either one extreme or the other. Initially after the tour I defended Gatland a lot in the face of the unreasonable vitriol aimed at him but now I find it quite sickening how the majority of Wales fans seem to declare their undying love and loyalty at every opportunity and attempt to deflect any criticism of him whatsoever.

Well he is one of the great lions coaches. It's been proven that even the best, sir Clive, sir Graham even mcgeechan didn't have what it took to win a series in the modern era. So he is a genuine legend of lions rugby. I don't see how that is even debatable.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well he is one of the great lions coaches. It's been proven that even the best, sir Clive, sir Graham even mcgeechan didn't have what it took to win a series in the modern era. So he is a genuine legend of lions rugby. I don't see how that is even debatable.

It is debatable because the opposition was so poor as has been proven by their results since.

Exiledinborders wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well he is one of the great lions coaches. It's been proven that even the best, sir Clive, sir Graham even mcgeechan didn't have what it took to win a series in the modern era. So he is a genuine legend of lions rugby. I don't see how that is even debatable.

It is debatable because the opposition was so poor as has been proven by their results since.

That last bit makes no sense. They lost to SA, NZ and England who were above them in the rankings at the time of their respective matches and won all their other matches including Wales who formed the bulk of the Lions. If they had lost to Ireland, Wales, Italy and Argentina but England lost to only Wales and NZ this year, SA only to NZ and NZ to nobody. How do results prove Australia were as poor as you would have us believe? Australia were by no means near their best but neither were they anywhere near rock bottom.

And I thought the only way a team can look poor is to make them look poor...which is what the lions did. They also had by far the biggest win in a test versus the wallabies this year.

Come on now. People can feel happy thinking a win in Australia is easy over a three match series, when it suits. Stop trying to contest their views. A lions series win is that commonplace, it must've been a piece of piddle.

I'm sure if some players were included to suit the naysayers, they'd be over the moon with the series win.

I think perhaps the third test was a the Australian low point. Deans had already had his marching orders and was still too proud to change his selections. Morale was low and injuries were high.

Must be one of the stupidest calls of the year hanging Deans out to dry before the third test. I mean who needed it then?

There's an interesting article on the other place around "what ifs". Asking the question "what if Beale didn't slip" and Australia were 2-0 up going into the third test. The biggest "what if" of the year no doubt. Large ramifications all around.

Don't you think every game is full of 'what ifs'? It's easy to pick on the very visible ones, like Beale in the match you cite. But one could look at every knock-on, every bad pass, missed tackle, poor kick and so on, and say it changed the course of the game. And one would be right, almost every time.

Yep, you're right. But in this case. A slip may have led to a loss, a coach being axed, a series being lost, BoD being dropped, Gatland winning a string of awards, Cooper returning at 10, and so on. Usually the consequences are limited to the outcome of the game.

What if Mr and Mrs McCaw had a baby girl? The what if game fills me with a sense of dread or rage. It's not healthy either way to engage in the hypothetical world. It's overpopulated and inevitably on a downward spiral to self-destruction.

But just as equally those same knock-ons, etc. could have led to the same dominoes falling? The Beale slip was just a very visible miscue.

You make a good point - that is one heck of a chain of events!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:What if Mr and Mrs McCaw had a baby girl? The what if game fills me with a sense of dread or rage. It's not healthy either way to engage in the hypothetical world. It's overpopulated and inevitably on a downward spiral to self-destruction.

Correct. This is what gets me when people turn to hypothesis in an attempt to justify their arguments as it could be adopted almost anywhere and never leads to a satisfying conclusion. The way it's used is almost universally anti-productive. What if Warburton hadn't been carded or if one of Hook's numerous missed kicks had gone over, Wales would have been RWC finalists. What if NZ's defence in the 2nd half of the final hadn't been quite as stiff as it was, France (or Wales) would be the current world champs. What if the AB's had knocked on in the final phase against Ireland? What if Hitler had concentrated all his military activity on Russia than spread the Wehrmacht out across Europe and North Africa?

We live in and deal with reality as it panned out, not alternative potential forms of it.

Agree completely. Oddly that's exactly where i believe the AB strengths now lie. In the past weve had what if the pass in 07 had been called...what if we hadn't had food problems in 95. In the end it gets you nowhere. But it should become part if your learning. Avoiding the traps of the whatifs are a reality if you want to succeed in anything.
Hansen has spent a large part if his career reducing the what ifs. McCaw became adept at dealing with refs after 07 where he was originally naive.
The Donald incident sees us now with 3 worked class 10's and hey...while we are at it...avoid other injury what ifs by building depth.

Most of the time. But this case is definitely a what-if

doctor_grey wrote:Don't you think every game is full of 'what ifs'?  It's easy to pick on the very visible ones, like Beale in the match you cite.  But one could look at every knock-on, every bad pass, missed tackle, poor kick and so on, and say it changed the course of the game.  And one would be right, almost every time.  

As in life doc there are an infinity of what if parallel world's for everyone one and everything, sport a miniscule part if all that. We get one shot at anything.
Its like 'good and bad' when in reality there's no such thing but rather our our perception if it. Hot and cold, rich or poor, happy or sad. They don't actually exist. They are all just states of being. We just attach opinion or feelings to it to give it context. Its what makes us human. What if is just another example of that. For some it invokes more meaning than others when in truth it doesn't exist either.

That aside...Barnes is an obvious contradiction to that theory I'm sure we all know that. He actually is pure evil...

GloriousEmpire wrote:Most of the time. But this case is definitely a what-if

So was the Irish early charge on Cruden for the last kick of the game. If you're willing to apply that reasoning to the Beale slip you must logically also be prepared to concede that NZ probably wouldn't have won every game of 2013 were it not for that moment of madness leading to a second attempt. Unless of course you of all people would want to risk leaving yourself open to accusations of double standards  

Taylorman wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Don't you think every game is full of 'what ifs'?  It's easy to pick on the very visible ones, like Beale in the match you cite.  But one could look at every knock-on, every bad pass, missed tackle, poor kick and so on, and say it changed the course of the game.  And one would be right, almost every time.  

As in life doc there are an infinity of what if parallel world's for everyone one and everything, sport a miniscule part if all that. We get one shot at anything.
Its like 'good and bad' when in reality there's no such thing but rather our our perception if it. Hot and cold, rich or poor, happy or sad. They don't actually exist. They are all just states of being. We just attach opinion or feelings to it to give it context. Its what makes us human. What if is just another example of that. For some it invokes more meaning than others when in truth it doesn't exist either.

That aside...Barnes is an obvious contradiction to that theory I'm sure we all know that. He actually is pure evil...

Sounds like you have been watching a Doctor Who marathon.  You are way too deep for me.  

Hot and cold really do exist.  There was this girl I used to know.  It was not just my perception, and it was a painful reality...............

Aaah..cryptic...Wayne Barnes is actually Doctor Who the time traveller who went back to 07 to alter that call. That girl you mention was his mandatory Barbi accomplice...all makes sense now doc.....

Doc...?

Now you're not the latest doctor are you...defo a conspiracy theory bigger than Oswald here...