not a surprise given the reaction to the high performance culture across all elite sports in NZ at the moment, all the focus on success only has literally caused the 180 degree change in approach - clearly you need to balance it out, have fun while focussing on performance is kinda how it should be.
I'm not totally sure that I agree though, should the fun part be the result?
I'm purely saying this from my background in sports which is admittedly very different with kickboxing, strongman and powerlifting. The training was far more often than not no fun at all, a complete slog, but the fun really came in being competitive on the day and potentially winning. The process is often no fun at all, but you have to do it if you want to succeed.
I don't know, maybe I've got it all wrong. My portal into higher level women's football is through my partner and loads of her friends. Perhaps it should be fun. But to my mind if you can't find some joy in the process, in getting better slowly, then perhaps top level sport simply isn't for you?
If making high performance environments less stressful and more fun is the way we're going but we're not getting results from it then maybe it doesn't work at all?
Part of the big issue with professional/elite sports recently is that the focus was solely on performance and not the athletes wellbeing. So logically the attempt is to correct that and perhaps they've gone to far the other way. For me, if you're not enjoyng your job then your not going to perform at your best. So there has to be some enjoyment/fun parts of your day - it has to be the same for professional sports people. If the game is no longer fun then you're never going to perform at your best. I'm not saying it should all be fun and nothing about winning, this isnt kiwi cricket after all. Sports at the elite level has to be anout winning or performing at your best - but that cannot be at the cost of actually enjoying yourself.
Absolutely totally agree with you there, you have to be able to enjoy the process. But I would also suggest that ones ability to enjoy that process really stems more from the individual rather than external factors. The best example I can think of this is ultra marathon runners I've met, they're simply built differt as people, mentally they can handle so much more pressure than most people can. That's a high performance mentality and they love it. Most top athlete are like that in nearly any sport.
No I'd argue that the problem we have in womens football is that elevate girls at a youth age band purely on talent without really looking at what their mindset to the game is. What's their thoughts on winning? Do they enjoy training? How do they handle travel? These all need to be factors in whether or not they continue to be selected. If they don't have that mentality, no matter how talented they are, I'd think they will struggle when they reach senior level and find out that winning is the single most important thing.
My argument is that there's nothing wrong with the high performance environment but rather with how we select people to go into these environments. Some should've been let down a long time ago so that we don't end up creating a worse environment for their mental health.
about 3 years ago· edited about 3 years ago· History
I'd suggest that that is where we differ. Clearly with all the reviews into high perfomance lately and the results coming out that in most there has been a culture of bullying, assaults and just horrible management of players and teams over the years would be a strong indicator that the focus on winning at all costs has gone just too far. I have no issue with organisations having success (whatever that looks like) as a benchmark, but player/athlete welfare has to be a priority - and that means a bigger focus on the personal side - whether that means some fun in the environment or more attention on enjoying the team/game. Winning at the cost of everything else is what damages players - no matter how resiliant they are. We cannot be a country that wins and then has a run of athletes been tossed aside when the stop winning/suceeding. That is a quick way to stop anyone wanting to get into a sport at any level - and that is a massive part of any sports organisations remit, getting participation at all levels up becuase without the grass roots participation you'll never create the future stars and you're not getting young kids into sports if its not seen as being fun.
I'd suggest that that is where we differ. Clearly with all the reviews into high perfomance lately and the results coming out that in most there has been a culture of bullying, assaults and just horrible management of players and teams over the years would be a strong indicator that the focus on winning at all costs has gone just too far. I have no issue with organisations having success (whatever that looks like) as a benchmark, but player/athlete welfare has to be a priority - and that means a bigger focus on the personal side - whether that means some fun in the environment or more attention on enjoying the team/game. Winning at the cost of everything else is what damages players - no matter how resiliant they are. We cannot be a country that wins and then has a run of athletes been tossed aside when the stop winning/suceeding. That is a quick way to stop anyone wanting to get into a sport at any level - and that is a massive part of any sports organisations remit, getting participation at all levels up becuase without the grass roots participation you'll never create the future stars and you're not getting young kids into sports if its not seen as being fun.
First I'd argue that a culture of bullying and assult is another issue entirely and should be stamped out and people responsible held to account.
Second I'd argue that it's nice to say that we shouldn't cast aside people when they stop producing results but what are we left with then? That is by definition not high performance. I'm not saying athlets shouldn't be given some time to see if they come right but if they are consistently not performing then they must be dropped.
All sports have a limited budget, should that money be spent on people who can't produce result simply so that feelings aren't hurt? Where is the line drawn. That's why I'm saying that higher level vetting of players when they're younger is possibly our best bet at ensuring athletes with the right mentality end up in the high performance environment and those without are let down gently before they end up in that situation.
Perhaps, but with any vetting process you risk removing "late bloomers" or potential super stars too early and lose them because of some arbitrary criteria. Who sets the criteria, who judges if a player is up to it or not. You'd hate to be the one who says "nah you're not up to it" and a year or two later find out they have moved allegiance to another country and help their new team beat us.
Perhaps, but with any vetting process you risk removing "late bloomers" or potential super stars too early and lose them because of some arbitrary criteria. Who sets the criteria, who judges if a player is up to it or not. You'd hate to be the one who says "nah you're not up to it" and a year or two later find out they have moved allegiance to another country and help their new team beat us.
That's true, that wouldn't be an ideal situation. But if we're not going to do somthing like that then what other criteria do we have other than success on the pitch? I think this is where it becomes an impossible task really. The goal of sport is always winning ultimately and people that aren't going to be able to achieve that must be necessarily removed from that environment. There's really no nice way to do that at all, rejection sucks for everone, but unfortunately it is simply a part of life.
Big game today against Argentina, 7pm on Sky Sport 7 and Prime.
Actually looking forward to this one. This teams poor results have gone under the radar for a long time, and then this time the blowtorch has really been applied. That's the scrutiny you get playing at home in a World Cup year where you are host.
Tonight is their chance to really hit back at the doubters - would absolutely love to see a commanding performance and comfortable win. Whether it'll happen, I've got my fudgeing doubts 😂 but it's the hope that kills you aye?
If Riley isn’t fit to play – and it sounds like she won’t be risked – it would increase the chances of Wellington Phoenix left back Michaela Foster making her Ferns debut in her hometown.
If Riley isn’t fit to play – and it sounds like she won’t be risked – it would increase the chances of Wellington Phoenix left back Michaela Foster making her Ferns debut in her hometown.
My money is on Anton starting. Barry and Foster could get a run later
And what about keeper? I really dont want to watch Nayler picking the ball out of the net anymore
And I dont want to watch Rennie running around like a headless chicken doing a beep test.
suspect it's just big money being placed at the $3.30 amount, usually how it works with the TAB - as more bets are place the odds shorten. Not sure why the TAB had Argentina at $3.30 in the first place though?
suspect it's just big money being placed at the $3.30 amount, usually how it works with the TAB - as more bets are place the odds shorten. Not sure why the TAB had Argentina at $3.30 in the first place though?
My experience is that the bookies don't seem to price womens football nearly as accurately as mens. If you know your stuff, you could make some serious dosh from it.
Might be hard to get a strong beeline on any performance, as will Argentina roll out a strong side, or experiment a bit?
Remembering both teams only played 3 days ago. Ferns should be the more motivated of the 2 teams that's for sure. If they are not following that Portugal embrassment, then something is definitely wrong.
Might be hard to get a strong beeline on any performance, as will Argentina roll out a strong side, or experiment a bit?
Remembering both teams only played 3 days ago. Ferns should be the more motivated of the 2 teams that's for sure. If they are not following that Portugal embrassment, then something is definitely wrong.
It will be a tough game, we know the Argentine footballing mentality
about 3 years ago· edited about 3 years ago· History
FFS - Nayler what are you doing? A simple tap/tackle and she stands there like the shots been a rocket! She has to go along with Klimkova! (although one of these has a contract until 2026).
Goal ain't entirely on Nayler (though she should save it). Bowen was too slow on the ball just needed to whack it out of danger - not like she would have had any other option by waiting.
What is this damn coach thinking, all these players need to go! Not just Naylers fault, forwards need to be changed, we have nobody decent! Cull the lot and recruit fresh new talent, we have better! Just embarrassing for Football in NZ
What is this damn coach thinking, all these players need to go! Not just Naylers fault, forwards need to be changed, we have nobody decent! Cull the lot and recruit fresh new talent, we have better! Just embarrassing for Football in NZ
What is this damn coach thinking, all these players need to go! Not just Naylers fault, forwards need to be changed, we have nobody decent! Cull the lot and recruit fresh new talent, we have better! Just embarrassing for Football in NZ
replace the entire squad? with who?
Non footballers. At least you could forgive them for being shark lol.
What is this damn coach thinking, all these players need to go! Not just Naylers fault, forwards need to be changed, we have nobody decent! Cull the lot and recruit fresh new talent, we have better! Just embarrassing for Football in NZ
replace the entire squad? with who?
Non footballers. At least you could forgive them for being shark lol.
thought you had a decent idea about who you'd like to see in the squad over the current players - clearly not,
That was a good move. Great battling by Hassett to get through, nice touch from Wilkinson creates the chance. Shame about the save. Wilkinson looks a lot more mobile so far today.
On the flipside, those Argentine mids doing very well running at our defence. Larroquette and Yamilla Rodriguez doing bits on the wings, our fullbacks look vulnerable.
What is this damn coach thinking, all these players need to go! Not just Naylers fault, forwards need to be changed, we have nobody decent! Cull the lot and recruit fresh new talent, we have better! Just embarrassing for Football in NZ
replace the entire squad? with who?
Non footballers. At least you could forgive them for being shark lol.
thought you had a decent idea about who you'd like to see in the squad over the current players - clearly not,
It's called a joke mate. I know you don't have a sense of humor at all but some of us don't take everything seriously. Lighten up.
My first half assessment - Overall - a bit unlucky to go in behind, it's been an even game. Playing okay going forward though this slipped as the half went on, not happy with how we are defending and Argentinian attackers getting too much space. Keeper - Nayler isn't good enough. Pulls out the occasional great save but makes mistakes like todays too often. Not enough power on that "shot" to justify it going in. Defence - Both fullbacks getting exposed, Anton and Neville not coping well, especially Neville struggling with Yamilla Rodriguez. Bowen at fault for the goal, and trying to play out much too much. Moore has been guilty of that too but also quite solid in other patches. Mids - Hassett best performer, winning one-on-ones and making good passes. Cleverly has been okay, Chance decent and getting into forward areas. Forwards - Jale better than I expected and getting involved decently, not offering a lot of quality. Wilkinson really getting about and offering some good touches to set up her teammates. Rennie anonymous again unfortunately.
