More dropped points – the chase is on

[calscot 0]

Problem is that Warburton seems not to be interested in the big game mentality. Could be a mistake.

[craig 5,199]

Problem is that Warburton seems not to be interested in the big game mentality. Could be a mistake.

 

A manager shouldn't need to motivate his players into a big game mentality. The players should be motivated every single game to give the very best of themselves - and that is what I think that Warburton is driving at when he says each game is simply the next game. If the players give their all every single game then every game is both a "big game" and "just another game".

 

I don't think it is a mistake when you consider that his approach is the above, he expects complete and total effort every game, so no need to single games out.

[Bruno55 0]

A manager shouldn't need to motivate his players into a big game mentality. The players should be motivated every single game to give the very best of themselves - and that is what I think that Warburton is driving at when he says each game is simply the next game. If the players give their all every single game then every game is both a "big game" and "just another game".

 

I don't think it is a mistake when you consider that his approach is the above, he expects complete and total effort every game, so no need to single games out.

 

And so do the fans Craig...

[craig 5,199]

And so do the fans Craig...

 

As it should be.

 

And, to be fair, looking at this group of players I think that they are giving of their all in games. That doesn't always culminate in getting the results or performances we desire, but I don't think they can be criticized for lack of effort.

[calscot 0]

While seeing the attraction to the logic, I'm not a believer in the premise you can give 100% all of the time - I can't think of many examples in life where that works. I think it's an idealism that is beyond us in practice.

 

I think cycling is a good example for avoiding trying to that. You have to pace yourself not only over the whole stage but over a long race. You have the ability to give bigger efforts some of the time when you need to or think it will benefit you, and have to just do enough at other times, to save something for the big summit or sprint, or to recover after a big effort. If you give too much when it's of no benefit then you'll suffer just when you need that extra push.

 

Maybe it's different with a game a week but I don't think so, I just think that that means it's hard to peak at the right times, as the body has a cycle that is more about weeks than days.

 

I also think not all games are the same, it takes a different mentality and strategy of effort to unlock a packed defence while protecting the break against a less skilful side, than having an end to end game where you are playing a team closer to your ability.

 

We've won a lot of stuff in the past by being incredibly fired up for the big games while cruising through some of the easier ones.

[craig 5,199]

While seeing the attraction to the logic, I'm not a believer in the premise you can give 100% all of the time - I can't think of many examples in life where that works. I think it's an idealism that is beyond us in practice.

 

I think cycling is a good example for avoiding trying to that. You have to pace yourself not only over the whole stage but over a long race. You have the ability to give bigger efforts some of the time when you need to or think it will benefit you, and have to just do enough at other times, to save something for the big summit or sprint, or to recover after a big effort. If you give too much when it's of no benefit then you'll suffer just when you need that extra push.

 

Maybe it's different with a game a week but I don't think so, I just think that that means it's hard to peak at the right times, as the body has a cycle that is more about weeks than days.

 

I also think not all games are the same, it takes a different mentality and strategy of effort to unlock a packed defence while protecting the break against a less skilful side, than having an end to end game where you are playing a team closer to your ability.

 

We've won a lot of stuff in the past by being incredibly fired up for the big games while cruising through some of the easier ones.

 

I'm not convinced by the cycling analogy cal. I see the comparison in terms of winning the long term (tour) vs a single leg or race. But the physical exertion being expended by cyclists is more constant than for footballers as footballers have 4 days off between games, and training can be tailored to suit exhaustion levels.

 

Besides, my point isn't about giving 100% all the time, but 100% of what you have left. Eg, if in the first game of the season you are at optimal fitness then you will have 100% to exert for the team's benefit. If you expend, say, 5% of that and have a game in 4 days time then you will have 95% left to give from that original 100%. What the manager wants is for that player to give 100% of the 95% he has left. Not get back to the 100% and give that. Again, training should, and can, be tailored to get you as close to optimal fitness as possible.

 

Not explaining particularly clearly but I'm sure you get the message.

 

In the past we have also failed a lot when fired up for big games and cruising through easier ones - that could be described as taking your eye off the ball. Concentrate on only the big games to the detriment of the easier ones and you are setting yourself up to fail too.

Edited November 25, 2015 by craig

[RabiDuck 89]

I'm not convinced by the cycling analogy cal. I see the comparison in terms of winning the long term (tour) vs a single leg or race. But the physical exertion being expended by cyclists is more constant than for footballers as footballers have 4 days off between games, and training can be tailored to suit exhaustion levels.

 

Besides, my point isn't about giving 100% all the time, but 100% of what you have left. Eg, if in the first game of the season you are at optimal fitness then you will have 100% to exert for the team's benefit. If you expend, say, 5% of that and have a game in 4 days time then you will have 95% left to give from that original 100%. What the manager wants is for that player to give 100% of the 95% he has left. Not get back to the 100% and give that. Again, training should, and can, be tailored to get you as close to optimal fitness as possible.

 

Not explaining particularly clearly but I'm sure you get the message.

 

In the past we have also failed a lot when fired up for big games and cruising through easier ones - that could be described as taking your eye off the ball. Concentrate on only the big games to the detriment of the easier ones and you are setting yourself up to fail too.

 

Actually, I think calscot has it. I agree, giving 100% of what you have left should always be the target. But if you can give 90% one week against Dumbarton, but then you're only left with 80% in the tank the next week against Hibs, it might be better to put in a below par 70% against Dumbarton and have 100% to give against Hibs. Every game is important, but some do require more than others.