On the matter of "guts" and "determination"

[Phn3Xta5]

I see everyone talking about we lack passion, guts, determination or whatever you'd like. But I question whether that's actually the case. To me, in any tactical game, guts and determination can only take you over the line when you actually have a plan. For example Sherwood complains about "fight" but starts siggy and bentaleb in midfield. we get thrashed 4-0 and then state that our players are spineless but in the face of tactically superior opposition we should expect to get rolled over when our only game plan seems to be "go out there and show some passion" I honestly wouldn't criticize our players for not being passionate when we're simply being outplayed week after week by tactically better sides. Mighty Ducks mentality will produce some thrillers sure (think saints at home) but how often can we count on that?

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

I see everyone talking about we lack passion, guts, determination or whatever you'd like. But I question whether that's actually the case. To me, in any tactical game, guts and determination can only take you over the line when you actually have a plan. For example Sherwood complains about "fight" but starts siggy and bentaleb in midfield. we get thrashed 4-0 and then state that our players are spineless but in the face of tactically superior opposition we should expect to get rolled over when our only game plan seems to be "go out there and show some passion" I honestly wouldn't criticize our players for not being passionate when we're simply being outplayed week after week by tactically better sides. Mighty Ducks mentality will produce some thrillers sure (think saints at home) but how often can we count on that?

We lack bottle but in the sense that a few of our players are scared of getting on the ball, having it under pressure and that's either down to quality, confidence or both. Confidence is a massive factor in football and especially at the tempo you play at, with and without the ball and obviously we've been lacking that all season and you can see that in our play. Lack of confidence can also look like laziness but it's just tentativeness and that 5% drop off makes a massive difference. People can talk about structure, cohesiveness, tactical game plans, philosophies pressing or any other buzz words, but the new manager must instill some confidence in the players again, make them feel ten foot tall, make them believe they are better than they are. Obviously there is a limit so new full backs is a must

 

[nicdic]

We lack bottle but in the sense that a few of our players are scared of getting on the ball, having it under pressure and that's either down to quality, confidence or both. Confidence is a massive factor in football and especially at the tempo you play at, with and without the ball and obviously we've been lacking that all season and you can see that in our play. Lack of confidence can also look like laziness but it's just tentativeness and that 5% drop off makes a massive difference. People can talk about structure, cohesiveness, tactical game plans, philosophies pressing or any other buzz words, but the new manager must instill some confidence in the players again, make them feel ten foot tall, make them believe they are better than they are. Obviously there is a limit so new full backs is a must.

But how much confidence comes from knowing what the game plan is? I've never seen a team look more clueless as to what they're supposed to be doing on a football pitch. While we all mock Harry for his famous just f***ing run around a bit routine, it's clear to all that there were some actual tactics being employed. Sherwood is either telling them far too much that he's confusing them, or not telling them anything, and literally just telling them to be "up and at 'em!"

 

[PhezTHFC]

But how much confidence comes from knowing what the game plan is? I've never seen a team look more clueless as to what they're supposed to be doing on a football pitch. While we all mock Harry for his famous just f***ing run around a bit routine, it's clear to all that there were some actual tactics being employed. Sherwood is either telling them far too much that he's confusing them, or not telling them anything, and literally just telling them to be "up and at 'em!"

That one. Just so false and it drives me insane. "My team will fight to the death and one thing my team will lack is passion" well stone me if thats passion i would hate to see them without passion for all our sakes!

 

[bat-chain]

I remember Gary Nevile saying a while back that questioning any players determination and guts when they play at a top level is ridiculous because they have already dragged themselves to the top of their chosen profession whereas tons of other kids have failed.

Our players look poorly prepared and are being asked to implement unsuitable tactics in relation to their skills.

 

[danielneeds]

Great piece someone posted in another thread, by Ed Smith, former cricketer. Sums up the "try harder" bollocks beautifully...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/732387.html

Wanted: mentors, not coaches
Elite sportsmen today don't lack motivation, nor do they need to be whipped into shape. What they need from their coaches is tact, judgement and clear speaking

Ed Smith

March 30, 2014

Imagine you are about to make a putt to win the Masters. The gallery is packed, millions are watching on TV, there is an eerie silence as the Georgia sun sets. You stand over a nasty ten-footer, the moment of truth. And then, at the peak of concentration, you see your coach jumping up and down, beating his chest, shouting at you, "Just don't miss! Put it in the hole! Show some guts! Don't back down now! Make bloody sure you don't bottle this one! What kind of man are you?"

Now imagine you are the first violinist, about to make your debut at the Royal Opera House. Just before the first chord, with the curtain about to rise, the conductor turns to you and whispers, "If you make a mistake today, any mistake at all, I'll stab you in the eye with my baton. Now let's play Don Giovanni with freedom and expressiveness!"

And how would you treat a surgeon about to conduct a life-saving operation on your wife or child? Would you threaten, bully and intimidate the doctor? Or would you try to avoid adding further anxiety to an already fraught situation? In all these three situations it is widely accepted that no sane coach, mentor or observer would seek to add to the anxiety or effort of the protagonist. It is taken as a given that the golfer, surgeon or musician is already trying hard enough - perhaps too hard.

And yet in most sporting contexts, the default position of coaches - and pundits who judge coaches in the media - is to assume that the problem afflicting a team or an individual player is usually caused by a lack of effort. If only players cared more, tried harder, felt disappointment more deeply. That sentiment, so widespread in sport, gives rise to the knee-jerk response: give them all a good bollocking; expect there will be plenty of strong words in the dressing room after that shot; wouldn't want to be standing near the manager at half-time.

We will soon look back on that view of how to improve professional athletes as comically old-fashioned, a cul-de-sac in the evolution of elite sport. After all, epic levels of discipline and commitment are non-negotiable if you want to survive as a professional sportsman today. The era of flabby, lazy athletes coasting through their careers while focusing more intently on hard living and nightclubs is pretty much over. Today's professional athletes are generally exceptionally disciplined, committed and determined. Given the scrutiny they face and the scientific testing of their bodies, there is no alternative. As a consequence, the "edge" - as gamblers describe the tiny opportunities for strategic advantage - will not reside in bullying and shouting at players but in honing their skills and freeing up their talents.


It is time to re-classify elite sport and stop seeing sportsmen as a rabble of unmotivated wastrels in search of a sergeant-major to whip them into shape. Athletes in highly skilled sports, in fact, have more in common with surgeons and violinists. They need mentors, wise advisors, trusted confidants. Consider the art of batsmanship. What kind of discipline is it? It requires touch, feel, finesse, trust, freedom, poise and balance. On a spectrum (with skill at one end and brute force at the other) batsmanship has more in common with playing a musical instrument than it does with punching someone in the face.

There is surprisingly little consensus about how to help elite performers to get better. Musicians, once they have reached the top, tend not to have full-time professional coaches. They rely instead on trusted mentors, people who might spot a tiny difference or lack of form. They refer to these mentors as their "outside ears", as top musicians admit that what they hear in their own heads can be different from the "real" music that reaches the audience. The mentor, though not in a position of authority over the artist, is able to see and hear with objective clarity. The relationship is based on trust not power.

Something similar - though it is called "coaching" - happens in many individual sports. In golf and tennis, the coach works for the athlete, not vice versa. This is not only a reflection of economic forces. When Roger Federer hired Stefan Edberg, he did not want the Swede to shout at him, "Try harder, Rog!" That would be useless, indeed counter-productive. Federer sought a new dimension to his net play, and Edberg, as the greatest volleyer of his generation, was asked to supply his unique perspective. The foundation of the relationship was knowledge and mutual respect.

In team sports, there is obviously a complication. The coach is usually the selector, collective tactician, and effectively in charge of hiring and firing. That changes the coach-player relationship. But not entirely. Over the long term, the best way for a coach to win the support of his players is to convince them that he can help them to play better. Appealing to their rational self-interest is the most reliable way of getting athletes on side.

The problem, of course, is that helping players score more runs and take more wickets is a rare and difficult skill. It requires astute observation, tact, judgement, and a talent for clear exposition and metaphor. Good coaches are able to articulate the same point in many different ways - until, finally, one phrase or description clicks for the athlete. A great coach, then, has more in common with a teacher than a conventional boss or employee. Ultimately, his contribution is expressed through the sum total of the improvements he makes to his players.

I never met a sportsman who preferred failure to success, nor one who didn't suffer pain at disappointment. Rare is the modern sportsman who is indifferent about the chance to get better. In today's ultra-professional and highly disciplined era, the starting point for all coaches should be the presumption: these people want to get better, how can I help them?

 

[eddiebailey]

Great piece someone posted in another thread, by Ed Smith, former cricketer. Sums up the "try harder" bollocks beautifully...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/732387.html

Wanted: mentors, not coaches
Elite sportsmen today don't lack motivation, nor do they need to be whipped into shape. What they need from their coaches is tact, judgement and clear speaking

Ed Smith

March 30, 2014

Imagine you are about to make a putt to win the Masters. The gallery is packed, millions are watching on TV, there is an eerie silence as the Georgia sun sets. You stand over a nasty ten-footer, the moment of truth. And then, at the peak of concentration, you see your coach jumping up and down, beating his chest, shouting at you, "Just don't miss! Put it in the hole! Show some guts! Don't back down now! Make bloody sure you don't bottle this one! What kind of man are you?"

Now imagine you are the first violinist, about to make your debut at the Royal Opera House. Just before the first chord, with the curtain about to rise, the conductor turns to you and whispers, "If you make a mistake today, any mistake at all, I'll stab you in the eye with my baton. Now let's play Don Giovanni with freedom and expressiveness!"

And how would you treat a surgeon about to conduct a life-saving operation on your wife or child? Would you threaten, bully and intimidate the doctor? Or would you try to avoid adding further anxiety to an already fraught situation? In all these three situations it is widely accepted that no sane coach, mentor or observer would seek to add to the anxiety or effort of the protagonist. It is taken as a given that the golfer, surgeon or musician is already trying hard enough - perhaps too hard.

And yet in most sporting contexts, the default position of coaches - and pundits who judge coaches in the media - is to assume that the problem afflicting a team or an individual player is usually caused by a lack of effort. If only players cared more, tried harder, felt disappointment more deeply. That sentiment, so widespread in sport, gives rise to the knee-jerk response: give them all a good bollocking; expect there will be plenty of strong words in the dressing room after that shot; wouldn't want to be standing near the manager at half-time.

We will soon look back on that view of how to improve professional athletes as comically old-fashioned, a cul-de-sac in the evolution of elite sport. After all, epic levels of discipline and commitment are non-negotiable if you want to survive as a professional sportsman today. The era of flabby, lazy athletes coasting through their careers while focusing more intently on hard living and nightclubs is pretty much over. Today's professional athletes are generally exceptionally disciplined, committed and determined. Given the scrutiny they face and the scientific testing of their bodies, there is no alternative. As a consequence, the "edge" - as gamblers describe the tiny opportunities for strategic advantage - will not reside in bullying and shouting at players but in honing their skills and freeing up their talents.


It is time to re-classify elite sport and stop seeing sportsmen as a rabble of unmotivated wastrels in search of a sergeant-major to whip them into shape. Athletes in highly skilled sports, in fact, have more in common with surgeons and violinists. They need mentors, wise advisors, trusted confidants. Consider the art of batsmanship. What kind of discipline is it? It requires touch, feel, finesse, trust, freedom, poise and balance. On a spectrum (with skill at one end and brute force at the other) batsmanship has more in common with playing a musical instrument than it does with punching someone in the face.

There is surprisingly little consensus about how to help elite performers to get better. Musicians, once they have reached the top, tend not to have full-time professional coaches. They rely instead on trusted mentors, people who might spot a tiny difference or lack of form. They refer to these mentors as their "outside ears", as top musicians admit that what they hear in their own heads can be different from the "real" music that reaches the audience. The mentor, though not in a position of authority over the artist, is able to see and hear with objective clarity. The relationship is based on trust not power.

Something similar - though it is called "coaching" - happens in many individual sports. In golf and tennis, the coach works for the athlete, not vice versa. This is not only a reflection of economic forces. When Roger Federer hired Stefan Edberg, he did not want the Swede to shout at him, "Try harder, Rog!" That would be useless, indeed counter-productive. Federer sought a new dimension to his net play, and Edberg, as the greatest volleyer of his generation, was asked to supply his unique perspective. The foundation of the relationship was knowledge and mutual respect.

In team sports, there is obviously a complication. The coach is usually the selector, collective tactician, and effectively in charge of hiring and firing. That changes the coach-player relationship. But not entirely. Over the long term, the best way for a coach to win the support of his players is to convince them that he can help them to play better. Appealing to their rational self-interest is the most reliable way of getting athletes on side.

The problem, of course, is that helping players score more runs and take more wickets is a rare and difficult skill. It requires astute observation, tact, judgement, and a talent for clear exposition and metaphor. Good coaches are able to articulate the same point in many different ways - until, finally, one phrase or description clicks for the athlete. A great coach, then, has more in common with a teacher than a conventional boss or employee. Ultimately, his contribution is expressed through the sum total of the improvements he makes to his players.

I never met a sportsman who preferred failure to success, nor one who didn't suffer pain at disappointment. Rare is the modern sportsman who is indifferent about the chance to get better. In today's ultra-professional and highly disciplined era, the starting point for all coaches should be the presumption: these people want to get better, how can I help them?

A violinist does not have someone trying to nick the violin off him all the time and the surgeon does not run the constant risk of a broken wrist.

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

But how much confidence comes from knowing what the game plan is? I've never seen a team look more clueless as to what they're supposed to be doing on a football pitch. While we all mock Harry for his famous just f***ing run around a bit routine, it's clear to all that there were some actual tactics being employed. Sherwood is either telling them far too much that he's confusing them, or not telling them anything, and literally just telling them to be "up and at 'em!"

Well obviously you need the players to know what there doing individually and as a group. But I cant believe that any manager would send his team out without any instructions at all, however simple.

 

[Phn3Xta5]

it just hurts my heart to see how many of our fans really just regurgitate talking points instead of thinking it through for themselves. its obvious that they're trying and the things I will blame the players for are the individual mistakes and their attitudes on the pitch (think Suarez) but being outplayed really does come down to two things:

1. the managers tactics
2. how well the players can implement the manager's tactics.

and while i think we're falling short in both categories its the former that's been lacking as the latter only comes with time.

 

[mpickard2087]

We do seem to have quite a weak bunch now, go behind in games and with no Gareth Bale this year to drag us back into it heads seem to go down and we give up and against good teams who don't take their foot off our throat we get spanked. Southampton match last week was a rare exception.

 

[idontgetit]

I think the players have shown plenty of guts and determination across the season. We could finish 5th with a negative goal difference. You can't say that isn't battling it out.

No the problem is that now we're flogging a dead horse. The players are gone in the head. There's no trust in the defence, one early goal and the whole game plan goes to pieces. Players stop making, no one wants to play risky passes and the forwards get isolated. It's like a negative feedback loop making things worse and worse. AVB started it by killing any belief in our offensive game and drilling highline suicide in to the back four. TS alleviated some of frustration and desperation by getting us passing the ball forwards and playing attacking football but then tried to be a fucking smartarse and turned the set-up on its head week in week out. That coupled with defensive injuries, poor form and the offensive game dissapearing again....we're back in the shit.

Add in an occassionaly toxic home support with the players just not enjoying playing and you have our mental problems on a plate

 

[yojambo]

A violinist does not have someone trying to nick the violin off him all the time and the surgeon does not run the constant risk of a broken wrist.

No they don't, but a violinist is always one wrong note away from ruining their reputation and a surgeon is literally responsible for the life of their patient. Different scenarios to football but it's all about pressure and performance.

 

[TheSecretNonFootballer]

I wonder if the Flying V would work...

 

[easley91]

The players must have had some desire at some point, we did have the best away record in the league at one stage. You're not going to win that many points on the road too easy. We had to fight til the end in various games (Cardiff and Fulham away, Saints home and away etc). The players have shown it in glimpses, just not on a consistent enough basis.

 

[Metalhead]

We lack bottle but in the sense that a few of our players are scared of getting on the ball, having it under pressure and that's either down to quality, confidence or both. Confidence is a massive factor in football and especially at the tempo you play at, with and without the ball and obviously we've been lacking that all season and you can see that in our play. Lack of confidence can also look like laziness but it's just tentativeness and that 5% drop off makes a massive difference. People can talk about structure, cohesiveness, tactical game plans, philosophies pressing or any other buzz words, but the new manager must instill some confidence in the players again, make them feel ten foot tall, make them believe they are better than they are. Obviously there is a limit so new full backs is a must

You only need to look as far as Liverpool this season to reinforce your point.

 

[dontcallme]

Great piece someone posted in another thread, by Ed Smith, former cricketer. Sums up the "try harder" bollocks beautifully...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/732387.html

Wanted: mentors, not coaches
Elite sportsmen today don't lack motivation, nor do they need to be whipped into shape. What they need from their coaches is tact, judgement and clear speaking

Ed Smith

March 30, 2014

Imagine you are about to make a putt to win the Masters. The gallery is packed, millions are watching on TV, there is an eerie silence as the Georgia sun sets. You stand over a nasty ten-footer, the moment of truth. And then, at the peak of concentration, you see your coach jumping up and down, beating his chest, shouting at you, "Just don't miss! Put it in the hole! Show some guts! Don't back down now! Make bloody sure you don't bottle this one! What kind of man are you?"

Now imagine you are the first violinist, about to make your debut at the Royal Opera House. Just before the first chord, with the curtain about to rise, the conductor turns to you and whispers, "If you make a mistake today, any mistake at all, I'll stab you in the eye with my baton. Now let's play Don Giovanni with freedom and expressiveness!"

And how would you treat a surgeon about to conduct a life-saving operation on your wife or child? Would you threaten, bully and intimidate the doctor? Or would you try to avoid adding further anxiety to an already fraught situation? In all these three situations it is widely accepted that no sane coach, mentor or observer would seek to add to the anxiety or effort of the protagonist. It is taken as a given that the golfer, surgeon or musician is already trying hard enough - perhaps too hard.

And yet in most sporting contexts, the default position of coaches - and pundits who judge coaches in the media - is to assume that the problem afflicting a team or an individual player is usually caused by a lack of effort. If only players cared more, tried harder, felt disappointment more deeply. That sentiment, so widespread in sport, gives rise to the knee-jerk response: give them all a good bollocking; expect there will be plenty of strong words in the dressing room after that shot; wouldn't want to be standing near the manager at half-time.

We will soon look back on that view of how to improve professional athletes as comically old-fashioned, a cul-de-sac in the evolution of elite sport. After all, epic levels of discipline and commitment are non-negotiable if you want to survive as a professional sportsman today. The era of flabby, lazy athletes coasting through their careers while focusing more intently on hard living and nightclubs is pretty much over. Today's professional athletes are generally exceptionally disciplined, committed and determined. Given the scrutiny they face and the scientific testing of their bodies, there is no alternative. As a consequence, the "edge" - as gamblers describe the tiny opportunities for strategic advantage - will not reside in bullying and shouting at players but in honing their skills and freeing up their talents.


It is time to re-classify elite sport and stop seeing sportsmen as a rabble of unmotivated wastrels in search of a sergeant-major to whip them into shape. Athletes in highly skilled sports, in fact, have more in common with surgeons and violinists. They need mentors, wise advisors, trusted confidants. Consider the art of batsmanship. What kind of discipline is it? It requires touch, feel, finesse, trust, freedom, poise and balance. On a spectrum (with skill at one end and brute force at the other) batsmanship has more in common with playing a musical instrument than it does with punching someone in the face.

There is surprisingly little consensus about how to help elite performers to get better. Musicians, once they have reached the top, tend not to have full-time professional coaches. They rely instead on trusted mentors, people who might spot a tiny difference or lack of form. They refer to these mentors as their "outside ears", as top musicians admit that what they hear in their own heads can be different from the "real" music that reaches the audience. The mentor, though not in a position of authority over the artist, is able to see and hear with objective clarity. The relationship is based on trust not power.

Something similar - though it is called "coaching" - happens in many individual sports. In golf and tennis, the coach works for the athlete, not vice versa. This is not only a reflection of economic forces. When Roger Federer hired Stefan Edberg, he did not want the Swede to shout at him, "Try harder, Rog!" That would be useless, indeed counter-productive. Federer sought a new dimension to his net play, and Edberg, as the greatest volleyer of his generation, was asked to supply his unique perspective. The foundation of the relationship was knowledge and mutual respect.

In team sports, there is obviously a complication. The coach is usually the selector, collective tactician, and effectively in charge of hiring and firing. That changes the coach-player relationship. But not entirely. Over the long term, the best way for a coach to win the support of his players is to convince them that he can help them to play better. Appealing to their rational self-interest is the most reliable way of getting athletes on side.

The problem, of course, is that helping players score more runs and take more wickets is a rare and difficult skill. It requires astute observation, tact, judgement, and a talent for clear exposition and metaphor. Good coaches are able to articulate the same point in many different ways - until, finally, one phrase or description clicks for the athlete. A great coach, then, has more in common with a teacher than a conventional boss or employee. Ultimately, his contribution is expressed through the sum total of the improvements he makes to his players.

I never met a sportsman who preferred failure to success, nor one who didn't suffer pain at disappointment. Rare is the modern sportsman who is indifferent about the chance to get better. In today's ultra-professional and highly disciplined era, the starting point for all coaches should be the presumption: these people want to get better, how can I help them?

Doesn't really work as an analogy I'm afraid.

A golfer puts based on extreme concentration and calmness, there's no opponent. A violinist the same and a surgeon.

A contact sport means coming against another human being and having to outdo him. How many 50-50s do we win. Do you think Roy Keane used to win so many 50-50s because he was calm rather than aggressive and extremely determined to win?

The only situation this analogy works in football is penalties and I've never seen a manager yelling encouragement at a player while he steps up to take a spot kick.

 

[Stoof]

I wonder if the Flying V would work...

I've been giving Tim the flying V for a while now and it's not done anything. My flatmates have asked me to stop swearing at them.

 

[DEFchenkOE]

Guts, passion, and character will only take you so far. Look at England for example, never lack any of those qualities.

 

[dondo]

You only had to look at both teams warming up and in the tunnel to know who was going to win yesterday

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

You only need to look as far as Liverpool this season to reinforce your point.

Yep a team full of confidence with the fans right behind them. Good combination. Hate them though and hope they don't win the league.