Further to that BA, I got asked a lot when I got back from Aussie, how McCaw would have done at the Wallabies, given I'd known him since he was a kid and had had a lot to do with him at both the all blacks and Crusaders. My answer was not much better than the leaders we had. Why: because you are only as good as your lieutenants, they are your drivers, just as second tier management are key for successful executives. McCaw had some great lieutenants he wouldn't have had had he led the Wallabies at the time. Don't be fooled by the propaganda, they had their share of dickheads too, the difference was at times during that era (but not all of the time, think Guildford amongst others), the senior players dealt with it in a way we never had. Imagine how good Quade, Rabbit and KB would have been had the senior player group pushed them and kept them in line in their early years. They could have been frightening good because the talent and confidence was already there. But the discipline wasn't. And they were never what they could have been as a result.
Matty! Great to hear from you mate! Your ear must be burning, as I was asking about you the other week when I ran into Digit at a parkrun!
Hard to argue about the strength of McCaw’s supporting team. But I think his consistency in the captaincy role (2006–2015 I think) was also a big factor, compared to how many captains we had during that time.
But I don’t fully agree about outside distractions though. Surely NZ faced similar issues. Remember when Corey Jane and Israel Dagg went out midweek before their quarter-final?
Great story which critically outlines the process of resetting when the game isn't going your way. The mind game.
However it's missing a few important points.
Firstly, it's just a game and it follows that sometimes the loser actually plays very well but simply lost... a just missed penalty in the last seconds of the game will be reflected on the score board. Has your life been adversely affected because you lost a few games? I doubt it.
Secondly, sometimes the opposition played better and thoroughly deserved their win. That's life, accept it.
Hi James. I agree. You will not always come out on top. But it's easier to accept the result knowing you've played your best and still been beaten. Make its easier to stomach, which was not the case for the ABs who played well below what they are capable of in those games because they lacked the tools to deal with stress.
I wouldn't underestimate the weight of outside distractions we had compared to them at the time. Leaks to the media, managers active in the background, a more aggressive nrl dominated press, a greater $ driven culture based on individualism (remember the $ being splashed around at the force at the time?). These were all things we had to deal with, which promoted selfishness and stifled the growth of collective leadership which NZ didn't have to deal with at the time. Media there was very 'patriotic' (remember the 2011 RWC?) managers tended to stay in their lane so to speak, and there was less of a focus on $. This all contributed to the growth of arguably the best leadership group the game has ever seen, which showed through in the big moments in a game of fine margins (how many times did we lead at ht but lose). Ultimately their circumstances contributed to their success as much as anything else. They have to deal with a lot of what we had to to then now, & how are they going? We were #2 in the world for most of the period between 08 & 13, they are now #3.
I like the emphasis on focusing on the process rather than the desired or end result.
Often I think sporting teams and athletes crumble because in their mind, they've already scored the try or won the match. Particularly when teams take a big lead, they sometimes "switch off".
The psychological is just as important as the physiological, however in elite sport the culture is train train train, physically, but sometimes less is more.
Knowing that the result won't determine your worth may also help.
I can't remember where I read it, but it was a team discussing, if they lost the game, in what way would the accept losing? Sometimes the other team is just better. If the team tried their best and lost, then they can hold their head high knowing they did everything they could. In the Allblacks case, we knew they could do better therefore they got the label of being chokers.
I remember when the Wallabies beat the ABs (somewhere int he last few years) and a friend of mine said, I don't know if the Allblacks played bad or the Wallabies played good. I told her, maybe it was a bit of both? But the Allblacks need to step up their game, because the rest of the world is catching up and they aren't as dominant as they used to be. Close competition is good.
I still strongly believe there is more to be learned from a loss than a win.
It's important to note that you can use stress/anxiety to your advantage, but too much off it will negatively impact your performance and decision making. Which I believe is what happens when teams choke. Their nervous energy makes them flustered and make unforced mistakes.
Hey Clare! Spot on and I couldn’t agree more about the mistake of tying your value to the result rather than the process. An easy fall into that trap because that’s how we’re judged externally. But internally, if we know we’ve done everything we can to prepare, it’s much easier to be at peace with the outcome.
I’ve been trying to apply this in retirement with work, focusing on the process of doing the things that lead to more opportunities, rather than stressing about not having work. See you online this arvo!
Yes, the message is clear that "do more" is not always the answer when you are trying to "do better". I took from this a recommendation to look at things from a different perspective, and don't believe that the way you succeeded in the past is the only way you can succeed in the future.
Further to that BA, I got asked a lot when I got back from Aussie, how McCaw would have done at the Wallabies, given I'd known him since he was a kid and had had a lot to do with him at both the all blacks and Crusaders. My answer was not much better than the leaders we had. Why: because you are only as good as your lieutenants, they are your drivers, just as second tier management are key for successful executives. McCaw had some great lieutenants he wouldn't have had had he led the Wallabies at the time. Don't be fooled by the propaganda, they had their share of dickheads too, the difference was at times during that era (but not all of the time, think Guildford amongst others), the senior players dealt with it in a way we never had. Imagine how good Quade, Rabbit and KB would have been had the senior player group pushed them and kept them in line in their early years. They could have been frightening good because the talent and confidence was already there. But the discipline wasn't. And they were never what they could have been as a result.
Matty! Great to hear from you mate! Your ear must be burning, as I was asking about you the other week when I ran into Digit at a parkrun!
Hard to argue about the strength of McCaw’s supporting team. But I think his consistency in the captaincy role (2006–2015 I think) was also a big factor, compared to how many captains we had during that time.
But I don’t fully agree about outside distractions though. Surely NZ faced similar issues. Remember when Corey Jane and Israel Dagg went out midweek before their quarter-final?
Great story which critically outlines the process of resetting when the game isn't going your way. The mind game.
However it's missing a few important points.
Firstly, it's just a game and it follows that sometimes the loser actually plays very well but simply lost... a just missed penalty in the last seconds of the game will be reflected on the score board. Has your life been adversely affected because you lost a few games? I doubt it.
Secondly, sometimes the opposition played better and thoroughly deserved their win. That's life, accept it.
James Mathers
Hi James. I agree. You will not always come out on top. But it's easier to accept the result knowing you've played your best and still been beaten. Make its easier to stomach, which was not the case for the ABs who played well below what they are capable of in those games because they lacked the tools to deal with stress.
I wouldn't underestimate the weight of outside distractions we had compared to them at the time. Leaks to the media, managers active in the background, a more aggressive nrl dominated press, a greater $ driven culture based on individualism (remember the $ being splashed around at the force at the time?). These were all things we had to deal with, which promoted selfishness and stifled the growth of collective leadership which NZ didn't have to deal with at the time. Media there was very 'patriotic' (remember the 2011 RWC?) managers tended to stay in their lane so to speak, and there was less of a focus on $. This all contributed to the growth of arguably the best leadership group the game has ever seen, which showed through in the big moments in a game of fine margins (how many times did we lead at ht but lose). Ultimately their circumstances contributed to their success as much as anything else. They have to deal with a lot of what we had to to then now, & how are they going? We were #2 in the world for most of the period between 08 & 13, they are now #3.
I like the emphasis on focusing on the process rather than the desired or end result.
Often I think sporting teams and athletes crumble because in their mind, they've already scored the try or won the match. Particularly when teams take a big lead, they sometimes "switch off".
The psychological is just as important as the physiological, however in elite sport the culture is train train train, physically, but sometimes less is more.
Knowing that the result won't determine your worth may also help.
I can't remember where I read it, but it was a team discussing, if they lost the game, in what way would the accept losing? Sometimes the other team is just better. If the team tried their best and lost, then they can hold their head high knowing they did everything they could. In the Allblacks case, we knew they could do better therefore they got the label of being chokers.
I remember when the Wallabies beat the ABs (somewhere int he last few years) and a friend of mine said, I don't know if the Allblacks played bad or the Wallabies played good. I told her, maybe it was a bit of both? But the Allblacks need to step up their game, because the rest of the world is catching up and they aren't as dominant as they used to be. Close competition is good.
I still strongly believe there is more to be learned from a loss than a win.
It's important to note that you can use stress/anxiety to your advantage, but too much off it will negatively impact your performance and decision making. Which I believe is what happens when teams choke. Their nervous energy makes them flustered and make unforced mistakes.
Hey Clare! Spot on and I couldn’t agree more about the mistake of tying your value to the result rather than the process. An easy fall into that trap because that’s how we’re judged externally. But internally, if we know we’ve done everything we can to prepare, it’s much easier to be at peace with the outcome.
I’ve been trying to apply this in retirement with work, focusing on the process of doing the things that lead to more opportunities, rather than stressing about not having work. See you online this arvo!
Yes, the message is clear that "do more" is not always the answer when you are trying to "do better". I took from this a recommendation to look at things from a different perspective, and don't believe that the way you succeeded in the past is the only way you can succeed in the future.
Couldn't have said it better myself Sarah. Thank you. I always enjoy reading your replies. You have taught me a lot. Hope you're well.
Very well thanks Ben. I’m enjoying your updates and hope the forthcoming presentations go swimmingly!