Condor Performance Blog - Sport psychology

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

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

I’m always fascinated when the term “Old School Coach” is used – a surprisingly common happening in the Australian sports industry at least. Sometimes it’s used as a positive (“we need an old school coach, these players are soft and need someone to toughen them up”) and sometime as a negative (“she’s an old school coach; she’ll never go with such a radical suggestion”). I’m not sure of where the School bit comes from – I suppose it’s to avoid sounding ageist – but I like to think that it refers to different waves (schools) in the development of sports science. In other words a coach who mostly uses methods suggested by 1960s sport science (did it exist then?) in 2011 might be described as Old School. If this is a correct assumption then I have two disputes with it. First, proper science (sport or otherwise) if adhered to correctly will still suggest the best parts of coaching from 50 years ago but eliminate that which has proved ineffective since then. Second, it over plays the importance of experience. Regardless of if you are a technical, mental or physical coach it’s the combination of the best possible (quantity and quality) experience with the best possible (quantity and quality) qualifications that will ultimately prevail. Outside of our profession of sport psychology our aim is to simply continue to improve at our ability to build mental toughness. Within the profession it’s to establish a critical mass so that everyone can see that Q X E is better than a whole bunch of E. Old School Coaches are overrated.

One of our readers sent us the below link and invited us to comment….which we will do. But before we add our thoughts to what “Beefy” thinks about our profession we thought we’d invite our reader to comment first. Watch this space, GJM

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/ian-botham-sports-psychology–its-the-biggest-con-of-all-time-767077.html

As sport / performance psychologists one of our biggest challenges is people confusing performance psychology with welfare (clinical / remedial) work such as counselling and psychotherapy.

Below are some statistics which not only explain the massive difference between them but is also a clue into why we are confident that in the future every “performer” will use a (good) sport / performance psych!

• About 10 % of Australians will be affected by anxiety disorders at some point in their life and would benefit from psychological treatment.
• 100% of performers will be affected by over or under confidence and would benefit from mental conditioning.
• About 20% of people will be affected by depression and 6% will experience a major depressive illness and would benefit from psychological treatment.
• 100% of performers will be affected by lack of concentration and would benefit from mental conditioning.
• 3% of Australians are affected by psychotic illness such as schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder at some point in their life and would benefit from psychological treatment.
• 100% of performers will be affected by over or under motivation and would benefit from mental conditioning.
• Approximately 2% of Australians will experience some type of eating disorder at some stage in their life and would benefit from psychological treatment.
• 100% of performers will be affected by over or under arousal (nervous energy) would benefit from mental conditioning.

Enjoyment is one of the trickiest psychological factors in sport. One of the more common enquires we get is from parents asking ‘can you help my son / daughter to enjoy their sport like they used to’? Generally the two main reasons why someone will stop having as much fun is because they are growing bored of the same old type of practice / training (relatively simple solutions to this one) and they’re no longer as competitive. Being competitive in children’s sports is relatively easy and the biggest factors are genetic ones such as size. However as soon as a girl hits about 14 years of age and a boy about 16 everything changes. Suddenly those who have put in the work start beating those with “natural talent” (see whole upcoming blog on this). So, the only way we know how to help someone enjoy their sport more is by actually doing what we do anyway…help our clients to be able to perform to their maximum potential. Any other tricks to help someone enjoy themselves more are simply band aids. GJM

Sport psychologists work on mental areas that are essential to performance. We believe that if the sporting fraternity had an accurate view of what we do (they generally don’t) that sport psychologists would be as common – if not more common – than strength and conditioning coaches and physios. There mental areas include:

Moderating confidence, anxiety levels, amount of motivation

Learning when to concertante (switch on) and when not to concentrate (switch off)

Improving fast decision making (while practising and competing) and slow decision making (how to use time, balance training with life and work out what to do after retiring)

Planning practice sessions that allow the athletes to control how mentally difficult they are

Learning to think more productively

Learning how to practice in more than one way (for example via imagery)

Combining all of this to allow for better performances under pressure

Clinical psychologists work on mental illnesses that only exist in a minority of the population. These issues are many (In 1994, DSM-IV was published, listing 297 disorders in 886 pages) the most common of which can be summarized below:

Common Axis I disorders include depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and schizophrenia.

Common Axis II disorders include personality disorders: paranoid personality disorder, schizoid personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder, dependent personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, and mental retardation.

Common Axis III disorders include brain injuries and other medical/physical disorders which may aggravate existing diseases or present symptoms similar to other disorders.

One of the long term goals of Condor Performance is for the very clear and significant difference between sport psychologists and clinical psychologists to be common knowledge. With this in mind you might like to forward on this blog entry. Cheers, GJM

Earlier this year the system used to register and regulate psychologists was given a massive shake up in Australia – mostly for the better it would appear. One of these changes was clarifying the names of the 9 types of psychologist. Our group was updated to “sport and exercise psychologists”. The Condor Performance team feel that this new label will be misleading as it implies we help people to exercise more. This may be the case for many sport psychs – but not us. Most of our clients exercise plenty but come to us for help on the mental side of their performance (practice and competition).

Having said that we’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.

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.

Last week we ran another of our free Q&A sessions (email info@condorperformance.com to attend the next one).This time for some local tennis coaches and one of the questions was ‘how young is too young to start work on the mental side?’

The answer we gave on the day was ‘our youngest private client is 8 years old’ which is true but could imply that is the minimum age of performer we will work this. Earl Woods began working on Tiger’s mental game at about the age of three – where he would famously try and distract his son during his new backswing (Harder Practice) and play games like ‘see the putt’ (classic visualisation).

The great thing about sport psychology is the ideas need to be simple to be of any use and therefore the only factor that determines the minimum age to start work on the mental side of sport / performance is the creativity of the sport psychologist teaching the mental skills. I often think of mental toughness like speaking a second language. Imagine you spoke English and Japanese from a young age and you knew thinking in Japanese would make you perform better under pressure. Now, who do you think is more capable of actually learning a second language – a 3 year old or a 23 year old? The obvious answer is the 3 year old. Tiger Woods’ father knew this.

This is no minimum age to start improving the way you think and do things – which in a nutshell is all we, as sport psychologists, are trying to do. Cheers, GJM