Condor Performance Blog - Mental toughness

Round 5: Parramatta v Manly

“Here we go again; Manly and Parra..”

Parramatta’s win this round means that every NRL team has now won a match, with only Melbourne yet to taste defeat this season. This provides me with an opportunity to dust off one of my favourite quotes regarding winning and losing in sport. It comes from an unlikely source; the female lead in the movie ‘White Men Can’t Jump’ and it goes like this:

“When you win, sometimes you actually lose; when you lose, sometimes you actually win; and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie.”

The message here is that there is more to winning and losing than meets the eye; especially from the mental perspective.

For example, the Tigers won in round 1, but their subsequent performances and results have actually been on the losing side of the ledger. This round they lost but their performance took a step in the right direction. The Titans are in the same boat. The opposite applies to Cronulla, who despite losing in round 1, actually ‘won’ in many ways, as reflected by their subsequent performances and results. Winning often covers up some of the cracks that get put under the microscope after a loss.

This is why I have selected to look at Parramatta’s performance this week. In fact, I have been waiting for Parramatta to win so I could write this analysis of them as they have been mentally poor for a number of seasons now and there is plenty to be learned by looking at why.

It’s easy to stick the boot into a side and throw coins when they are losing and it is amazing how positive the press become after a win. Many post-match articles are talking about this victory as a ‘season changing win’ despite Parramatta still being last on the ladder.

The reality is that they played well and they won one match of football; no more and no less.

The next challenge for the Eels is reproducing their performance; however not everything that happened this week can be reproduced.

For example, Nathan Hindmarsh can’t retire every week to help motivate them; Jarrod Hayne can’t come back from injury every week to ‘fist-pump’ them up and fans can’t throw coins or boo them off the field every match to add fuel to the motivational fire.

What will fill this gap for next round?

Despite Hayne receiving most of the headlines and the credit for the win, it was the improved performance across the team that produced the victory over Manly, even though the Eels still did their best to almost give the game away.

Nathan Hindmarsh put in his typical performance, yet this week the media are singing his praises, especially after ‘that hit’ on Brett Stewart with 20 minutes to go. Hindy makes those tackles every week, so why was his effort on Saturday night considered to be more special than any other week?

Why was Ben Roberts more threatening? Despite throwing a pass over the side line, Roberts laid on both the tries for Hayne to score.

Why was Fuifui Moimoi busting the line almost at will, albeit running through the smallest bloke in the opposition (Daly Cherry-Evans) on one of those occasions?

The word from Hayne himself was it all came down to attitude. Hence, the mental element is the spark that ignites performance; the missing piece in the puzzle of Parramatta’s inconsistent performance.

Producing consistent, quality performance is all about attitude and the Eels have been guilty of only producing it in patches.

Physically and technically Parramatta are a well trained and drilled football team and have been for years. You only have to look at the hi-tech instruments they are currently using in preparing their team physically and technically. Their sponsorship and partnership with the University of New England (Armidale) will only enhance their application of sport science.

The mental element of sport science is the area that has let Parramatta down over the past few seasons.

The ‘streak of ‘09’ was unable to be replicated in 2010, suggesting that no-one bothered to keep the recipe, if in fact a deliberate recipe for that success existed. I suspect it didn’t exist, based on the underwhelming 2010 performance.

A new coach brings in a new recipe for 2011 and the team hits a glass ceiling; unable to win close matches. Not just a couple but almost 10 close matches.

This is not a random occurrence that will be ‘character building’ (Kearney’s words; hinting at the ‘winning’ aspect of losing). In 2011 something systematic brought the Eels undone; they were psychologically lacking. Hence, the consistent close losses.

Specifically, in 2011, Eels’ media conferences were littered with comments that indicated mental errors were the catalyst for their close losses; on one occasion (I believe against the Roosters after leading 12-0) it was admitted that half the team wanted to defend the lead and the other half wanted to score more points. I think that game was lost 13-12.

Witnessing Nathan Hindmarsh throw his mouthguard into the ground after a close loss in 2011 is only character building IF the Eels know exactly what mental skills let them down AND how to correct them. This is the recipe the Eels need.

Without knowing what mental skills are required and how to develop and practice them, the Eels’ players will continue to be thrown in the deep end. If they continue to drown, it’s because they aren’t mentally skilled enough – meaning they lack the mental skills to be able to consistently perform.

New coaches don’t always bring those mental skills to the table; sometimes new players do and the rest of the playing group feed off that. The current view at the club is that the mental element is ok; the rest of the season will demonstrate whether this is true or not.

The content of Shayne’s Round-by-Round Analysis is the property of Condor Performance and can only be reused by getting permission from the author. He can be emailed at shayne@condorperformance.com

NRL Round 4: the 12 – nil round

3 matches this round featured the 12-nil scoreline either close to half time (Souths v Brisbane) or at half time (St.George v Manly; Canterbury v Newcastle) and 3 contrasting results occurred which are worthy of discussion from a mental perspective.

Souths v Brisbane

• Souths lead 6-0 after 9 minute and threaten to score back to back tries • Brisbane have a player sin binned (10 minute mark) somewhat controversially • Penalty goal to Souths pushes them out to 8-0 • Souths score again after 17 minutes, while Brisbane are down to 12 men; 12-0 • Souths don’t score again, which is odd given the burst of points in the 1st 20 mins and the many opportunities they have over the last 60 minutes. How and why does this happen? • Brisbane score in the corner in the 38th minute; 12-4 • The arm-wrestle continues for the first 12 mins of the 2nd half • Brisbane score and convert; 12-10 (54 minutes) • Brisbane take the lead 3 minutes later; 14-12 (57 minutes) • With 20 mins to go both sides are still in the contest • Brisbane score the match winner in the 73rd minute; 20-12 • Souths complete 70% of their sets: Brisbane 76%

St. George v Manly

• St George open the scoring after 4 mins with a very flat ball; 6-0 • Both sides arm wrestle up to the 35th minute when St George score again (from a controversial decision); 12-0 • Manly score in the 45th minute; 12-6 • Both sides arm-wrestle until the 76th minute when St George score the match winner; 16-6 • A field goal in the 79th minutes wraps up the 17-6 win for St George • All points in this game were scored in the first and last 5 mins of each half • Both sides had above 80% completion rates (St G – 87%; Manly 81%) • Manly lifted their intensity in defence a couple of time in the 2nd half in an attempt to gain some momentum, then score points to draw level; one set ended with St George receiving a relieving penalty due to a high shot (Lussick)

Canterbury v Newcastle

• Newcastle lead 6-0 after 8 minutes • This is extended to 12-0 after 19 minutes • Canterbury struggle to hold onto possession and apply any pressure • Half time score is 12-0 • Newcastle opt for a penalty goal in the 45th minute having not scored for 25 minutes. Canterbury now need to score 3 times to take the lead; 14-0 • A Newcastle try in the 72nd minute takes them out to 20-0 • Canterbury score a consolation try in the 78th minute; 20-6 • Canterbury complete 63% of their sets; Newcastle 81%

Summary

• Souths, St George and Newcastle all lead 12-0 at on stage this round; only Souths couldn’t convert this lead into win • Despite Newcastle converting their 12-0 advantage into a win, the poor performance of their opposition significantly contributed to this. I wouldn’t read too much into this game regarding mental toughness from Canterbury’s perspective; it is more likely to be an exception rather than a rule (just like St George’s match v Canterbury in round 2). How they turn up next week will be more relevant • St George held their nerve as front runners, despite scoring 1 less point than Manly in the second half; this was a quality game as Manly demonstrated their mental toughness by how they went about attempting to claw back a 12 point deficit • Brisbane also displayed their mental toughness. Similar to Manly, there was some controversy surrounding some decisions that resulted in the 12 point deficit they faced. Lesser teams would have sulked and turned their toes up; both Brisbane and Manly set about playing themselves back into the game and both were successful. Brisbane also ended up winning the match (bonus).

Lessons for coaches

• A 12-nil score line will tell you a great deal about the mental toughness of your team because 12 points is still within reach with 10 minutes to go; this means the longer the game goes, the more the tension and pressure builds. Mentally tough teams can hold their nerve for 80 minutes (or more if necessary); others can’t • When in front you are looking for your team to stay in the contest (maintain intensity in attack and defence; keep building pressure); mentally vulnerable teams will judge their opposition (as poor – ‘we have this covered’) and drop their intensity as they only want to do enough to win • When behind you are looking for the same thing! • St George, Brisbane and Manly showed their mental toughness. Newcastle and Canterbury are gradually building theirs. Souths have some more work to do as they have now lost twice (Roosters and Broncos) having been in front. • We are happy to answer any questions about how a coach goes about doing this work

NRL Round 3 – Gold Coast v Melbourne

Having been critical of a comment made by Titans coach John Cartwright in round 2, it seems only fair to address the Titans game this round, especially given that it against one of the mentally toughest teams in the competition.

• It rained for the entire match • Gold Coast concede a penalty in their 1st defensive set, putting Melbourne on the attack • Melbourne score on their 1st attacking set via a cross field kick (3rd minute) • Gold Coast lift their intensity in defence; some inspiring hits coming from Bodene Thompson (his hits resembled the Manly defence, who whack, rather than slowly cradle the tackled player to the ground) • Gold Coast put Melbourne under pressure with better field position and a solid completion rate (20/23 according to Billy Slater’s post-match comments) • No more points are scored in the 1st half! • Melbourne score and convert to go ahead 10-0 after 53 mins (Cartwright’s head drops) • 3 minutes later Melbourne score again; 14-0 after 56 minutes • Gold Coast cross the line for the first time after 60 minutes of football and are well and truly still in the contest with 18 minutes to go; 14-6 • A Melbourne set play at the ruck results in Slater crossing the line in the 65th minute • In a remarkable display of speed and athleticism, Slater scores again, this time off a dummy half kick from Smith
• Melbourne’s final try comes in the 75th minute

Gold Coast display some mental toughness

• Despite the try conceded in the first 3 minutes, the Gold Coast out-performed Melbourne during the 1st half due to minimal errors and better field position • This is exactly what their coach was looking for; building pressure through completing sets • They can take some genuine confidence out of this part of their performance as it was against quality opposition and under poor conditions (despite losing the match) • They stuck to their guns after going down 14-0 and put on a try of their own • They put themselves into a position to grind out a win with 18 minutes to go

Gold Coast mental vulnerabilities

• The first 3 minutes ended up being the difference in the 1st half, so their pre-game routine needs to be reviewed (or put together if they don’t have one that addresses the mental element of performance) • They held their nerve for 60 out of 80 minutes, then the flood gates opened • Try’s scored through the middle of the ruck (Slater’s 1st try) can be a sign of both physical and mental fatigue; I’m sure Gold Coast would have discussed this set piece from Melbourne – they just didn’t cover it when it came at them

Gold Coast Summary

• A much improved performance (completion rate, building pressure); it’s not as bad as it would seem given the score • Plenty of encouraging signs for the rest of the season if properly managed • Cartwright needs to take a leaf out of the Bennett or Hasler book of coaching; spend this year getting competitive (forget winning the comp) and increase the 60 minute effort of this match to 80 minutes. • Gold Coast will be mentally tough when they can start solidly; chase a 14-6 deficit by increasing their intensity in defence and stay in the arm-wrestle for as long as it takes (80 mins or more if it goes to golden point).

Melbourne’s mental toughness

• Another explosive start; scored a try after 135 seconds of play • Desperation in defence - able to keep their line intact through holding players up (over the line) and getting numbers to the ball carrier • Sticking to their game plan despite making some errors • Being patient; building sustained pressure for opportunities to crack the opposition in attack; maintaining solid defence despite giving away consecutive penalties • Decision making – selecting the right plays at the right time (for example hitting Gold Coast up the middle with a set play when the Gold Coast may have been on a high after scoring themselves) • Skill execution under poor conditions (Kick plays, set plays, diffusing bombs and so on)

Melbourne’s mental vulnerabilities

• Due to scoring so quickly they may be susceptible to taking more risk, which may explain some of their errors • They often appear not to know who is packing down at the scrum; whilst this looks like an orchestrated event designed to control the tempo of the game they may pay a big price (penalties) at some stage during the season (whilst teams can’t rush them at the scrum given the current laws, rushing Melbourne in other areas appears to be effective)

Melbourne Summary

• As previously stated (round 1), mentally very sound due to time spent practicing and executing their highly successful structure

Lessons for coaches

• You can build confidence in your players despite losing 30-6; the key is knowing how (ignore the results, build and maintain an attitude that reflects how you want to play, then deliver that attitude each week in practice and at games) • Bennett and Hasler start at their new clubs by keeping things simple; you don’t have to show your players how much you know about the game – you need to demonstrate that you can build confidence in your players, which will be repaid by their confidence in you

Due to Titans coach John Cartwright dropping a mental bombshell in the opening 45 seconds of the Titans media conference following their loss to the Raiders, this weeks’ analysis will focus on that because every coach on the planet stands to significantly benefit if they read, absorb and implement into their coaching the lessons these comments provide.

Here is the bombshell:

“When you look at your draw and you pick out the one’s you should win, it was one we definitely felt we should win, especially coming back from North Queensland with a win.”

Now the earth may not have moved for you when you read that comment; it massively moved for me when I heard it because these words go a long way to explain why the Titans went from top 4 in 2010 to wooden spoon in 2011.

There are so many things wrong with this statement from the mental perspective I could fill the next 24 rounds of reviews covering them. Instead I’ll give you a summary.

• No one can predict future results • Teams cannot even control the result of the game they are playing (I bet Souths thought they had control of the game v Roosters in round 1 with 3 minutes to go) • Forecasting is arrogant; it involves making negative judgements about opposition (If I was from Canberra I’d be offended to hear that the Titans felt it was a game they thought they ‘should’ win just by looking at the draw – it shows no respect for the opposition) • Forecasting shows an ignorance of the negative impact it has on the mental element of performance – which is the main reason why a team performs poorly (coaches will try and tell you it’s the referee or injuries that are to blame) • Who and what decides what matches ‘should’ be won? • By forecasting wins you are also forecasting losses, so John which teams do you plan to lose to? • ‘Should win’ or ‘must win’ games place unnecessary pressure on athletes and often are the significant factor behind subsequent poor performance • Teams that lack consistency often have these views (which is why they play well against teams they expect to lose against, but poorly against teams they expect to beat) • A win in the previous round (v North Queensland) has nothing to do with the following week’s result (if you disagree with this by saying that a win produces confidence to take into next week you are wrong)

Cartwright then goes on to explain the loss due to lack of repeat sets, low energy levels and a lack of urgency. All signs of a team who think they ‘should’ win this game; they are waiting for the opposition to play their role and lie down. Mentally, this is a big mistake; huge in fact.

“Even though we won last week we struggled to build any pressure with repeat sets and we did that again tonight. The difference tonight was that the Raiders held onto the ball.”

This is an admission that the Titans are not in control of their own performance; whether they win or lose depends on the performance of the opposition. The Cowboys gave the match away by dropping the ball and the Raiders took the game from them by completing their sets (just as they did the previous week v Melbourne). So, to beat the Titans, stay solid and complete your sets because they are currently unable to build pressure and put themselves into a position to win the match. This is what the Titans coach effectively just said!

Now the Titans 18-0 win in round 1 is cast in a very different light because it made the Titans look better than they really are. So how do the Titans get any genuine confidence out of this result when the Cowboys gave the match away rather than the Titans building pressure and winning it? The truth is they don’t.

What they get is a false confidence, believing what they did against the Cowboys is good enough to beat other teams. Maybe an NRL team with genuine title aspirations would have put 50 points on the board based on how poorly the Cowboys played. So the 18-0 result is a meaningless guide to confidence levels and form.

The Raiders took some genuine confidence (completing sets, fighting to get back into the match and so on) out of their loss against Melbourne (quality opposition who performed well), while the Titans were clutching at false confidence from their win (but below par performance) against the Cowboys (quality opposition who put in a significantly poor performance). Winning doesn’t always mean a confidence boost and losing doesn’t always produce a confidence drop!

The above points explain a large amount of the Titans drop from the top 4 in 2010 to the wooden spoon in 2012 (how may games ‘should’ they have won when they looked at the draw in 2011, especially coming of a top 4 finish in 2010?). The usual post-season review stating injuries, players leaving, bad calls during games and so on explained the 2011 performance for the Titans; there was no mention of how they reviewed their performance from the mental perspective or if it was even reviewed at all.

To cover the cracks that appeared in 2011, the Titans paraded their new signings to the media during pre-season in an attempt to fuel their premiership hopes for 2012. Clubs often think that new players will change the clubs fortunes, but every team gets new players! If the club is not on the right track from a mental perspective, new players will cover technical/positional deficiencies but have less of an impact on the overall team performance than expected. The Titans spent big, so now the pressure is on to deliver; mentally they don’t look to be able to handle the pressure so far.

From the mental perspective the prognosis for the Titans in 2012 is poor. New signings do not make up for the mental deficiencies reflected by the above comments and the impact they have on the on-field performances (as displayed by the Titans over the 2011 season and into the start of 2012). If the mental deficiencies (see above bullet points) are left alone, this season will follow a similar trajectory as 2011 – underachievement through inconsistent performances.

I wonder who else the Titan’s feel they ‘should’ beat in 2012?

Lessons for coaches:

• Focus on your own teams performance one week at a time • Ignore your opposition – get your own team ready as best as you can (you address you oppositions attack by focusing on your defence and vice versa) • Set realistic expectations for your players based on their skill level and effort levels rather than expecting them to win the comp • Each team has the same chance to win on any given day (50%) • Employ specialists in their respective fields; the mental element needs to be covered by a professional

There is some logic in the argument that the less fortunate are likely to be naturally mentally stronger than the fortunate. If you believe – as we do – that to build mental muscle you have to put your mind under some kind of stress in the same way as you need to put actual muscles under stress to make them grow then it provides a dilemma to those whose everyday lives are not stressful. Naturally seeing a good sport psychologist is one way to get around this but there is another way which went combined with learning mental skills can allow you to ‘bake your cake and eat it’. Go and spend a few weeks or months in a place which is as far outside of your comfort zone as possible and each time you come up against something difficult see it as a chance to increase your mental strength. Cheers, GJM

Last night one of our sports psychologists appeared on Channel 10’s 6pm with George Negus show giving comments about the latest rugby league controversy. The story can be watched online at:

http://ten.com.au/6pm-with-george-negus.htm?movideo_p=44087&movideo_m=95246

At Condor Performance we strongly believe that the best ways to reduce ugly on and off field incidents is by giving properly qualified people (sport and performance psychologists rather than crisis management experts) access to developing athletes in order to plant the seeds that will grow into mental toughness – as we know it. Generally we focus more on the on field emotional control side of the equation but normally – when this is done properly – it flows naturally into showing much greater emotional control away from competition. Cheers, GJM

This has to be our first Thought of the Week because it’s also our slogan. Pressure, unlike a table or an apple, cannot be seen nor touched. What this means is basically the amount of pressure you feel and what you see pressure as is more or less “up to you”. So many performers get into trouble when they think of pressure as an obstacle to success when in actual fact it shows you have an opportunity in front of you. If you don’t want pressure, stop trying to achieve anything and it will soon go away.

Two questions we get from time to time are “how mentally demanding is my sport” and “which sports need the most amount of mental toughness”? First, as scientists we try and answer these types of question using evidence rather than guesswork. However, the literature has yet to try and answer this question. So in turn we do the next best thing…make a hypothesis as experts.

There are two ways of looking at this and I’d be interested to hear you opinion on which sounds the most sensible. Theory One is that all sports and performance areas have variables and these variables change the amount of mental toughness required. For example, how long a match lasts for is a variable with the 100 meter sprint at one end and test cricket at the other. Then if you know which side is mentally harder you can start doing some maths. So in the previous example the sports that take longer are mentally harder as they require greater concentration and there’s more time to think. If this is correct then on the variable of duration test cricket would be mentally more draining that a 100 meter athletics race. Other variables would be number of teammates, risk of injury, potential earnings, task complexity, environmental factors, how winners are picked (judged by people or measured by machines), speed of tasks etc.

Before you sit down and try and work out how your pursuit rates on all of the above compared to other sports you might like to consider Theory Two. What if all these variables cancel one another out so that in the end all sports and performance endeavours are equal in terms of mental requirements to reach the top? For example, maybe there is much more pressure on the 100 meter sprint that the test cricketer because he / she will not have time to correct any errors made. An error made by a test cricketer on day one can virtually be forgotten by the time the match is over.

As sport psychologists it suits us to operate as if this second theory is correct as it allows us to treat all of our clients equally and not compare a formula one driver with an ultimate Frisbee player. Both just want to get better, don’t they?

Cheers, GJM