Excellent article here by Phil Gould… Hits the nail right on the head imo:
<big>**Grit, not my barbs, should fire up Tigers**</big>
PHIL GOULD
March 28, 2010
>
What is it about criticism that motivates us to do our best? Why does the condemnation or denigration of a team's performance by some boofhead in the media almost immediately sting that team into action at its very next appearance?
>
Why does it take public censure or disparaging comments to have players feel they have a point to prove?
>
The Wests Tigers are my favourite team in the NRL. I love watching them play. I've been quoted many times saying I would love them to be on TV every Sunday afternoon on Channel Nine because I get so excited calling their games. It's real entertainment.
>
In pre-season previews, I tipped them to make the top four. Maybe some of that was wishful thinking, but mostly my opinion was based on their excellent form at the back end of 2009 and my belief in their potential as a football team.
>
Last Sunday afternoon I sat and watched the Wests Tigers meekly surrender to the Sydney Roosters in what can be described only as an extremely disappointing performance.
>
They led the match 12-0 after 20 minutes - 40 minutes later they trailed 38-12.
>
Actually, three nights earlier on the Thursday night Footy Show, I pre-empted the possibility of such a result, saying that despite the Tigers' undeniable ability in attack, they were showing bad signs in defence and needed to dig in a little harder when games were not going their way. To the trained eye, such cracks in the wallpaper were easily identified.
>
After their embarrassing defensive effort against the Roosters, in my regular Monday match analysis in The Sydney Morning Herald I wrote: "Wests Tigers need to toughen up. The talent of their individual players is unquestioned.
>
''Their skill and flair rivals that of any team in the NRL competition.
>
''With ball in hand they are creative and extremely dangerous from anywhere on the field. However - and it is a very big however - they do not possess the necessary grit or mental toughness I would expect from a professional football team.
>
''Football is more than tricky passes, sneaky kicks, trick shots and entertaining the crowd. For a start, you have to spend half of every game without the ball, so you need to learn to enjoy your time in defence and make it work for you.
>
''The Tigers have developed this annoying habit of only wanting to compete when the going is easy. When the run of play or luck goes against them, they leak points like a park team, and only become interested again when they get the ball back in good field position and can go back to attacking football."
>
The sub-editors at the Herald summarised the tone of my column by applying the headline: ''Sheens has a problem: Tigers short on ticker when the going gets tough.''
>
Harsh maybe, but certainly justified. Sometimes the truth is the last thing you want to hear; but it's the one thing you need to hear the most.
>
Following the Tigers' emphatic defeat of Parramatta on Friday night, several players referred to the criticism they had received after last week's match. They took exception to the suggestion they lacked ''ticker'' and how they really had a point to prove against the Eels.
>
Well, prove a point they did - but what point did they prove?
>
Did they prove the criticism was wrong - or did they prove the criticism to be right?
>
The foundation for their victory over the Eels lay in a relentless defensive effort that totally belied the disgraceful application they showed only four days earlier in the loss to the Roosters.
>
They attacked the Eels' ball runners on every play, every minute, for the full 80 minutes.
>
The Tigers showed they were capable of grit, that they do possess courage under fire, that they have the mental toughness to win games the hard way.
>
The question now is, why didn't they show these qualities in previous weeks? Why do they regularly let themselves down with poor discipline and poor resolve in defence?
>
Why did it take the questioning of their ''ticker'' to stimulate such an immediate and emphatic on-field response?
>
The bottom line is that these previously displayed weaknesses in their game had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of ability and everything to do with mental application and attitude control.
>
I believe this inconsistency in defensive efforts cost them a place in the finals in 2009\. They were easily one of the top eight teams in the NRL last year but watched the play-offs from some secluded pub still crying in their beers.
>
Every footballer, every team, should be out to prove a point every week.
>
Every time you take the field you make a statement about who you are and what you believe in.
>
Every game is vital and a poor effort today just might be the two competition points you squander that costs you a place in the big end-of-season matches.
>
Coaches pull their hair out trying to understand what motivates players and why attitudes can be so inconsistent.
>
It comes down to the individual.
>
You have chosen a career as a professional footballer. You make so many sacrifices in your personal life to play this game. You train six days a week, 46 weeks a year. You are asked to perform one day a week and it is on this performance alone that you and your teammates will be judged.
>
Why, then, do you invite the disappointment of these regular mediocre efforts, when the overriding factor in these performances is simply your mental application on the day?
>
At this level, the talent is unquestioned - but mental toughness is tested every day.
>
If you show you are capable once, it stands to reason you should be capable the majority of the time. You can't win every game, but you can go a long way to not beating yourself.
>
The best players and the best teams in this competition prove their consistency over a long period time. Their reputation is forged in demonstrated ability.
>
The emotional response to media criticism does not last. Going out to prove a point because a newspaper column touched a raw nerve is not what this game is about.
>
The best motivation comes from within. The best motivation comes from understanding what this game and your reputation as a footballer means to you. The best motivation comes from understanding why you play this game and what being a professional footballer can provide for the rest of your and your family's lives.
>
When you ask yourself these questions every day, you will attack your assignments with the discipline, passion and resolve of someone who always has a goal to achieve.
>
It was a great win by the Tigers over Parramatta.
>
I expect no less the next time they play. Let's hope they still believe they have a point to prove.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/wests-tigers/grit-not-my-barbs-should-fire-up-tigers-20100327-r3z7.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
<big>**Grit, not my barbs, should fire up Tigers**</big>
PHIL GOULD
March 28, 2010
>
What is it about criticism that motivates us to do our best? Why does the condemnation or denigration of a team's performance by some boofhead in the media almost immediately sting that team into action at its very next appearance?
>
Why does it take public censure or disparaging comments to have players feel they have a point to prove?
>
The Wests Tigers are my favourite team in the NRL. I love watching them play. I've been quoted many times saying I would love them to be on TV every Sunday afternoon on Channel Nine because I get so excited calling their games. It's real entertainment.
>
In pre-season previews, I tipped them to make the top four. Maybe some of that was wishful thinking, but mostly my opinion was based on their excellent form at the back end of 2009 and my belief in their potential as a football team.
>
Last Sunday afternoon I sat and watched the Wests Tigers meekly surrender to the Sydney Roosters in what can be described only as an extremely disappointing performance.
>
They led the match 12-0 after 20 minutes - 40 minutes later they trailed 38-12.
>
Actually, three nights earlier on the Thursday night Footy Show, I pre-empted the possibility of such a result, saying that despite the Tigers' undeniable ability in attack, they were showing bad signs in defence and needed to dig in a little harder when games were not going their way. To the trained eye, such cracks in the wallpaper were easily identified.
>
After their embarrassing defensive effort against the Roosters, in my regular Monday match analysis in The Sydney Morning Herald I wrote: "Wests Tigers need to toughen up. The talent of their individual players is unquestioned.
>
''Their skill and flair rivals that of any team in the NRL competition.
>
''With ball in hand they are creative and extremely dangerous from anywhere on the field. However - and it is a very big however - they do not possess the necessary grit or mental toughness I would expect from a professional football team.
>
''Football is more than tricky passes, sneaky kicks, trick shots and entertaining the crowd. For a start, you have to spend half of every game without the ball, so you need to learn to enjoy your time in defence and make it work for you.
>
''The Tigers have developed this annoying habit of only wanting to compete when the going is easy. When the run of play or luck goes against them, they leak points like a park team, and only become interested again when they get the ball back in good field position and can go back to attacking football."
>
The sub-editors at the Herald summarised the tone of my column by applying the headline: ''Sheens has a problem: Tigers short on ticker when the going gets tough.''
>
Harsh maybe, but certainly justified. Sometimes the truth is the last thing you want to hear; but it's the one thing you need to hear the most.
>
Following the Tigers' emphatic defeat of Parramatta on Friday night, several players referred to the criticism they had received after last week's match. They took exception to the suggestion they lacked ''ticker'' and how they really had a point to prove against the Eels.
>
Well, prove a point they did - but what point did they prove?
>
Did they prove the criticism was wrong - or did they prove the criticism to be right?
>
The foundation for their victory over the Eels lay in a relentless defensive effort that totally belied the disgraceful application they showed only four days earlier in the loss to the Roosters.
>
They attacked the Eels' ball runners on every play, every minute, for the full 80 minutes.
>
The Tigers showed they were capable of grit, that they do possess courage under fire, that they have the mental toughness to win games the hard way.
>
The question now is, why didn't they show these qualities in previous weeks? Why do they regularly let themselves down with poor discipline and poor resolve in defence?
>
Why did it take the questioning of their ''ticker'' to stimulate such an immediate and emphatic on-field response?
>
The bottom line is that these previously displayed weaknesses in their game had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of ability and everything to do with mental application and attitude control.
>
I believe this inconsistency in defensive efforts cost them a place in the finals in 2009\. They were easily one of the top eight teams in the NRL last year but watched the play-offs from some secluded pub still crying in their beers.
>
Every footballer, every team, should be out to prove a point every week.
>
Every time you take the field you make a statement about who you are and what you believe in.
>
Every game is vital and a poor effort today just might be the two competition points you squander that costs you a place in the big end-of-season matches.
>
Coaches pull their hair out trying to understand what motivates players and why attitudes can be so inconsistent.
>
It comes down to the individual.
>
You have chosen a career as a professional footballer. You make so many sacrifices in your personal life to play this game. You train six days a week, 46 weeks a year. You are asked to perform one day a week and it is on this performance alone that you and your teammates will be judged.
>
Why, then, do you invite the disappointment of these regular mediocre efforts, when the overriding factor in these performances is simply your mental application on the day?
>
At this level, the talent is unquestioned - but mental toughness is tested every day.
>
If you show you are capable once, it stands to reason you should be capable the majority of the time. You can't win every game, but you can go a long way to not beating yourself.
>
The best players and the best teams in this competition prove their consistency over a long period time. Their reputation is forged in demonstrated ability.
>
The emotional response to media criticism does not last. Going out to prove a point because a newspaper column touched a raw nerve is not what this game is about.
>
The best motivation comes from within. The best motivation comes from understanding what this game and your reputation as a footballer means to you. The best motivation comes from understanding why you play this game and what being a professional footballer can provide for the rest of your and your family's lives.
>
When you ask yourself these questions every day, you will attack your assignments with the discipline, passion and resolve of someone who always has a goal to achieve.
>
It was a great win by the Tigers over Parramatta.
>
I expect no less the next time they play. Let's hope they still believe they have a point to prove.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/wests-tigers/grit-not-my-barbs-should-fire-up-tigers-20100327-r3z7.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
