Pressure and Sporting Implosions : Lessons From Other Codes

First topic message reminder :

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?

No, not the latest incarnation. But there are a few people for whom I would love to stick a sonic screwdriver up their ar**. But that is a story for another day..........

Algud. We have doctor all over sky here at the moment. I remember being truly scared of the daleks as a kid. (The doctor and I are both 50 this year).
Had we seen today's horrors then I don't think wed have survived!

The Doctor has been everywhere, almost as if he regenerated all over the world at once.  My lads are happy to see Matt Smith go.  

I also remember seeing Doctor Who when I was a kid.  Agree, the current show can be a lot more scary for little ones, though sometimes the plot lines are weirdly confusing and more bizarre than ever.  Which say a lot when discussing alien invasions.

Great discussion starter GE. You're asking, are top coaches born or are they made ? well all the coaches youve mentioned above - and Sir Clive in 2003 - served their apprenticeship before success came. Even Graham Henry took time to develop into what he is today. I think Lancaster will do the same. technical coaches develop into astute tacticians over time and through experience. However, I think great motivators - are born. i guess the Lions dream coaching team of telfer and geech illustrates this perfectly. Sir Clive and Jonno is another example. And thats also why great motivators often are poor technical coaches - as Jonno proved.

We've all experienced and suffered at the hands of crap coaches - as players or spectators, right ? and noticed a sudden improvement when a new coach comes in and organises the team ?

The chief is doing it at cardiff Blues right now having been appointed assistant coach.

Could be a new thread there - worst coaches ever...............

Basically bad game/man management and tactics. This England team in the Ashes have been blitzed by an aggressive rejuvinated Australian team and have no idea how to cope with the bat and in the field.
2011 RWC team was hampered by dire management more interested in getting their golf handcaps down than coaching. A lot of the off field issues where overblown tbh.

Bluedragon wrote:Sir Clive and Jonno is another example. And thats also why great motivators often are poor technical coaches - as Jonno proved.

Call me a pedant but Johnson has never coached or been employed as a coach.
He also inherited his coaching staff.

"Also, although I may be a little biased here, and displaying some unusual braggadocio, his [Stuart Lancater] choice of summer reading, a book called The Plan about the influence upon English cricket of Duncan Fletcher and Andy Flower by some bloke called James, seemed particularly astute. "
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10521136/Englands-rugby-union-head-coach-Stuart-Lancaster-learns-from-All-Blacks-sweeping-success.html
 
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Steve James [note to self] : Don't shoot off mouth before humiliating series defeat.

Why was he displaying rare lettuces?

Bluedragon wrote:........... great motivators often are poor technical coaches.........

Apologies for taking a small segment of your comment, but I think it is relevant.  I agree about the motivators v. technical.     Appealing to the emotional or the rational.  It is a very rare thing to find anyone, any leader, who embodies both in roughly equal measure.  I believe part of what makes great leaders are those who see objectively their gap and bring in the right people.  In general, more leaders are more motivational types who bring in the tacticians to execute the vision.  In sport, we see the same.

I think the wales setup ( previously at wasps ) of Edwards as the motivator, gatland as the tactician, and howley as the skills coach works effectively. when gats was away with lions and Howley was head coach - wales were poor. As soon as he returns - they improve. Jenks adds the kicking tactical part. allegedly. And no idea what Robin Mcbryde brings to the table.

Doc grey, i think maybe in rugby its great tacticians who bring in great motivators ? Woodward and Johnson, gatland and Edwards, Geech and Telfer etc ? Henry and hansen ? henry and Johnson with wales - scott Johnson was dreadful as head coach but outstanding as assistant to henry. Might explain Andy Robinson.

Peter Seabiscuit wheeler - yes, I know. I am not attempting to criticise an all time world great player like Jonno. He got stitched up by the RFU after he was appointed to lead the English international team and not given the tools - ie the tactical coaches - to do the job - thats my point.

I tend to disagree that motivators are born and not taught. When I look at the high number of pacific Island athletes who start of with a raw talent, a media shyness then blossom into key individuals as athletes then later become true leaders of the people. Peter Fatialofa, Michael Jones, Valerie Adams, Vaiga Tuigamala, Tana Umaga...all relatively naive in their younger days but all becoming truly outgoing inspirational individuals for their pacific Island and NZers alike.

Sean Fitzpatrick and Richie McCaw- also very raw as youngsters but became motivators by leading by example- do as I do, go where I go types.

You can't be born with that sort of leadership- its gained through personal experience of the highs and lows of life and sport and coming out the other side a winner.

I agree to some dgree Taylorman - it is certainly developed by experience - but then I guess the question is then taylorman - why do only a few develop it ? Surely Rodney Sololiao had the same sporting journey as McCaw - yet didn't have the same leadership qualities ?

I guess we will leave that to the qualified sports psychologists to resolve !!!!!! Wonder if there are any posters on 606 in that job ?

Bluedragon wrote:I agree to some dgree Taylorman - it is certainly developed by experience - but then I guess the question is then taylorman - why do only a few develop it ? Surely Rodney Sololiao had the same sporting journey as McCaw - yet didn't have the same leadership qualities ?

I guess we will leave that to the qualified sports psychologists to resolve !!!!!! Wonder if there are any posters on 606 in that job ?

So'oialo didnt attain the same heights of any of those players clearly didnt see leadership as a role he wanted to pursue.

As I've said its something that is developed through experience but the individual still has to take up the challenge. People saw Fitzys role as an uncompromising player through his 100% commitment and never say die playing style. They then 'looked' to him as a leader as he was doing it better than anyone else- they wanted to get out of him whatever 'he had' and give it to others, and he responded.

He and McCaw 'became' leaders by default due to others seeing them as one and they took up the challenge of it. Both were raw when made captain and McCaw particularly failed to lead effectively in 07 by allowing the ref situation get the better of the side and not leading his side through it, not looking at drop goal options- he admitted- we thought we'd either get a penalty or score a try.... He's since learned the art of handling refs, controlling the onfield situation better for his side, and through his play alone becomes the inspiration for the side.

Fitzy likewise was as quiet as a mouse in his early days with Auckland and his club and the start of his AB career.

Bluedragon wrote:I agree to some dgree Taylorman - it is certainly developed by experience - but then I guess the question is then taylorman - why do only a few develop it ? Surely Rodney Sololiao had the same sporting journey as McCaw - yet didn't have the same leadership qualities ?

I guess we will leave that to the qualified sports psychologists to resolve !!!!!! Wonder if there are any posters on 606 in that job ?

Any sports psychologist who reads our threads and comments would have committed hara-kiri a long time ago......

Seems the question on the table is the old 'nature versus nurture' discussion.  Some personality traits are genetic, some are learned through experience.  The question of how much is hard wired when our cells come together in the womb and how much is learned - maybe acquired is a better word here - has been studied for years.  And yet we still don't know.   It's about the human experience and not really a sports question. People demonstrate different traits and have different aptitudes.  So some people are more prone to be motivational and some not.  I think the question is more about people who take their innate or raw skill and do something to develop it.  Some people need to be in the right environment to bring it out.  Other people it is always there and easy to see.  

methinks.

For me its more about common sense.
for one its a given that the players I've mentioned have become inspirational at the top of their sport. secondly they could not possibly be in that position if they were not the elite athletes they were because they would not have the opportunity or experience to end up in that position.
thirdly, none of those players were initially anything like the inspiration they ended up towards the end of their careers so being born a motivator has no practical value if they do not excel in their field and its silly to assume McCaw or fitzy would have been exceptional motivators had they not played or excelled at rugby.

doctor_grey wrote:

I guess we will leave that to the qualified sports psychologists to resolve !!!!!! Wonder if there are any posters on 606 in that job ?

Any sports psychologist who reads our threads and comments would have committed hara-kiri a long time ago......

[/quote]

  

Bluedragon wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

I guess we will leave that to the qualified sports psychologists to resolve !!!!!! Wonder if there are any posters on 606 in that job ?

Any sports psychologist who reads our threads and comments would have committed hara-kiri a long time ago......

  [/quote]

Then they wouldn't be very good sports psychologists if they did that...