The best and worst of "Mental toughness" in Sport

[Blue Boy]

2 comments on your last post Squawk...

1) Motlop didnt miss a goal during the game... he missed a crucial goal AFTER the game that cost Port any minute chance they had of making the finals

2) Jars' shot for goal in that prelim is moot point, by that stage the crows had almost already squandered a 7 goal lead

Its the type of situation you can really play hypotheticals with.....

WHAT IF Plugger kicked out on the full in the sydney v essendon prelim after the siren in 96? Would he have been branded not mentally tough enough to cope with the pressure?

WHAT IF Rod Jameson hadnt kicked that goal after the siren in the pouring rain against Fitzroy back in 91?

What if I didnt drink beer ???

Where were you Friday night ???

[Footy Chick]

2 comments on your last post Squawk...

1) Motlop didnt miss a goal during the game... he missed a crucial goal AFTER the game that cost Port any minute chance they had of making the finals

2) Jars' shot for goal in that prelim is moot point, by that stage the crows had almost already squandered a 7 goal lead

Its the type of situation you can really play hypotheticals with.....

WHAT IF Plugger kicked out on the full in the sydney v essendon prelim after the siren in 96? Would he have been branded not mentally tough enough to cope with the pressure?

WHAT IF Rod Jameson hadnt kicked that goal after the siren in the pouring rain against Fitzroy back in 91?

What if I didnt drink beer ???

Where were you Friday night ???

a) you'd be a slim, svelt figure playing A grade (and I'd be out of a job!)

b) sick as a dog, couldnt even make it onto the field on saturday, I trust everyone missed me dearly...

[MW]

Best: Lance Armstrong by a mile. Seven time winner of the toughest sporting event in the world after coming back from Testisicicicicici ball cancer.

Worst: Mark Philipoussus. All the talent in the world but folds repeatedly. Injuries haven't been kind but you can see his self-belief dissolve in front your very eyes at times. It's over Mark.

regards,

REB

Lance is tough, bloody tough to come back what he has and to "win" seven Le Tours. He toughest of the bevy of cyclists on the tour of have good biochemists.

Whether he is the toughest because his pharmacological help is better than the others is the tragedy of doping as it adds an extra unknown as to who is the best/toughest/strongest athlete.

Until the UCI and IOC allow out-of competition blood testing for EPO to test for the un-loaded r-RNA that the AIS developed in 1999 this debate will continue.

The irony is it is the French (the ones complaining the most about Armstrong) and Italians who blocked the blood test for EPO for the Sydney Olympics.....

Who is the best sprinter out of Johnson, Lewis and Christie I don't know, but I know who the dumbest is as he got caught.....

So un til this whole drug debate is cleared up one and for all I can not give Lance the full credit he deserves as right now in the field of professional cycling their are big doubts as to who is clean and who is really the best/toughest....

[Squawk]

2 comments on your last post Squawk...

1) Motlop didnt miss a goal during the game... he missed a crucial goal AFTER the game that cost Port any minute chance they had of making the finals

2) Jars' shot for goal in that prelim is moot point, by that stage the crows had almost already squandered a 7 goal lead

Its the type of situation you can really play hypotheticals with.....

WHAT IF Plugger kicked out on the full in the sydney v essendon prelim after the siren in 96? Would he have been branded not mentally tough enough to cope with the pressure?

WHAT IF Rod Jameson hadnt kicked that goal after the siren in the pouring rain against Fitzroy back in 91?

I saw Plugger's kick live on TV - magic outcome. At least he only had to score but it was a BIG kick in more ways than one. I was one of those who was still there in the rain at that Fitzroy game when Jammo took that kick. I remember the next day the AFL HQ had been graffitied by Fitzroy supporters calling the AFL "cheats".

Bottom line - in prof sport Motlop should probably have eaten that goal alive. He didn't, he's fallible (as we all are) and it will all be forgotten next week except by the 15 full backs at all the other AFL clubs!

[am Bays]

Tour de France winner tests positive
London
July 28, 2006 - 1:05AM

Tour de France winner Floyd Landis has tested positive for the male sex hormone testosterone, the US rider's Phonak team said today.

"The Phonak Cycling Team was notified yesterday by (world cycling body) the UCI of an unusual level of testosterone/epitestosterone ratio in the test made on Floyd Landis after stage 17 of the Tour de France," Phonak said in a team statement.

Landis produced a remarkable effort a week ago to win the 17th stage of cycling's showpiece event following a disastrous 16th stage in which he dropped from first to 11th place.

Phonak said Landis would not ride until the matter had been clarified and said that if the B sample analysis confirmed the result of the A sample, the rider would be dismissed.

Phonak added: "The team management and the rider were both totally surprised by this physiological result.

"The rider will ask in the upcoming days for the counter analysis to prove either that this result has come from a natural process or that this is the result of a mistake."

Landis had earlier pulled out of a race in Denmark on Thursday. He also did not ride in a scheduled race in the Netherlands on Wednesday.


FYI for an athlete to test positive their testosterone : epitestosterone has to exceed 6:1. As I type my normal testosterone:epitestosterone is 1:1. The +ve test ratio is set so high to ensure no false positive test results as exercise can list your ratio to 2-3:1 as testosterone is secreted to assist the body to repair itself post exercise...

That is why may previous post made reference to only the dumb getting caught. The other question has to be asked how many athletes are competing "legally' but with testerone :epitesoterone of 4-5 : 1. This indicates they are most probably on the juice at a level to get an effect from them to improve performance but not to get caught......Not uncommon when doping is systematic for countries and sporting organisations to test their athletes prior to competing. If they fail an internal test they develop an "injury" that stops them from competing....

[heater31]

well that explains how he imploded in the mountains and only the next day make up that time in a solo breakway

I thought I smelt a rat when i was watching it on TV

[smac]

If his B test is positive also, then cycling is tarnished forever and no one will be able to compete at the highest level without some sort of doubt over the validity of their performance.

Who calls their kid Floyd anyway? Obviously learnt how to cycle fast by getting away from bullies at school.

[Magpiespower]

A cyclist on the juice?

No way!

What next?

A dirty track and field athlete?

[MW]

Careful what you say, don't imply cyclists are drug cheats or some here will jump on you

[Booney]

Careful what you say, don't imply cyclists are drug cheats or some here will jump on you

LMFAO,not just some one mate.I just think an argument holds more weight when you have evidence to support your argument.

[JK]

Another who I think would have to have been mentally tough is Mick Doohan, although as has been mentioned, Steve Waugh is always the first that springs to mind ... That said, Warney has been exceptionally tough and successful (on the field) also, seems to be the type to crave the big moments ...

[heater31]

agree with Mick Doohan there CP anybody that can ride a bike with broken bones and still be competitive must have something special

[Magpiespower]

Steve Waugh is always the first that springs to mind ...

That would be the same Steve Waugh who refused to go in at first drop when his country was crying out for a number three?

Probably because he was exposed by the West Indies.

Wayne Gardiner. Accidentally killed a mate during a race, then came back to win a World Title when a lot of people might have given the game away...

[Rik E Boy]

Steve Waugh exposed by the Windies? What a crock of shit. In Steve Waugh's first two test matches against the West Indies he racked up a couple of 90's and averaged 41.37 for the series. True, during the next two series against the West Indies he didn't fare as well. In the West Indies he went as low as seven in the order and he was so badly out of form he was dropped from the team. In 92/93 Waugh scored a hundred but only averaged 25.33 (still more than Mark Taylor) with an aggy of 228.

By the time the Australians went back to the Carribean in 1995 Steve Waugh was at his peak and he averaged 107.25 against what was still the best attack in world cricket. His double century and big partnership with his brother was the key batting performance of the series and was a major factor in reclaiming the Frank Worrell trophy for the first time in 19 years. In the last two series against the West Indies of the 20th century Waugh averaged 31.33 and 58.42 (didn't count anything after that because the Windies now blow). Overall Steve Waugh averaged 44.91 against the West Indies.

All the knockers of this great cricketer will say two things. Firstly they'll say that his average was inflated because he batted at number six. This means if he gets out for bugger all they can hop into him, if he bats well and gets the red ink, hey we can hop into the selfish bastard once again. Steve Waugh only recorded 5 not outs in the period 1988-99 against the West Indies. Secondly, people will bring out the old 'he didn't want to bat at number three line'. If you've got a rare batsman that can average over 40 against the West Indies, and you have a number three as good as David Boon, what possible reason would you want to move Waugh up to number 3? It is good team management if every batsman in the team can be placed in the order where they feel most comfortable if this is possible.

Inside Edge magazine rates Waugh's double century that brought home the Frank Worrell the 7th best innings in cricket history. Earlier in that series he stared down Curtly Ambrose on a deck so shiny you could shave in its reflection. Waugh was courage personified and if he did get selfish towards the end of his career then he bloody earnt it.

I find it most amusing that in this day and age, when we have powder puff middle order players such as Clarke, Symonds and Hodge that there could be still such a thing as a Waugh critic. If you are going to hang a bloke for having one poor series and one average series against the West Indies then you will be a prime candidate for being the poster boy for the Tall Poppy Syndrome association. Steve Waugh was a legend and there will be no Waugh bashing on REB's watch!!

End of Rant.

regards,

REB

[GWW]

Steve Waugh exposed by the Windies? What a crock of shit. In Steve Waugh's first two test matches against the West Indies he racked up a couple of 90's and averaged 41.37 for the series. True, during the next two series against the West Indies he didn't fare as well. In the West Indies he went as low as seven in the order and he was so badly out of form he was dropped from the team. In 92/93 Waugh scored a hundred but only averaged 25.33 (still more than Mark Taylor) with an aggy of 228.

By the time the Australians went back to the Carribean in 1995 Steve Waugh was at his peak and he averaged 107.25 against what was still the best attack in world cricket. His double century and big partnership with his brother was the key batting performance of the series and was a major factor in reclaiming the Frank Worrell trophy for the first time in 19 years. In the last two series against the West Indies of the 20th century Waugh averaged 31.33 and 58.42 (didn't count anything after that because the Windies now blow). Overall Steve Waugh averaged 44.91 against the West Indies.

All the knockers of this great cricketer will say two things. Firstly they'll say that his average was inflated because he batted at number six. This means if he gets out for bugger all they can hop into him, if he bats well and gets the red ink, hey we can hop into the selfish bastard once again. Steve Waugh only recorded 5 not outs in the period 1988-99 against the West Indies. Secondly, people will bring out the old 'he didn't want to bat at number three line'. If you've got a rare batsman that can average over 40 against the West Indies, and you have a number three as good as David Boon, what possible reason would you want to move Waugh up to number 3? It is good team management if every batsman in the team can be placed in the order where they feel most comfortable if this is possible.

Inside Edge magazine rates Waugh's double century that brought home the Frank Worrell the 7th best innings in cricket history. Earlier in that series he stared down Curtly Ambrose on a deck so shiny you could shave in its reflection. Waugh was courage personified and if he did get selfish towards the end of his career then he bloody earnt it.

I find it most amusing that in this day and age, when we have powder puff middle order players such as Clarke, Symonds and Hodge that there could be still such a thing as a Waugh critic. If you are going to hang a bloke for having one poor series and one average series against the West Indies then you will be a prime candidate for being the poster boy for the Tall Poppy Syndrome association. Steve Waugh was a legend and there will be no Waugh bashing on REB's watch!!

End of Rant.

regards,

REB

Stop sticking up for NSW cricket REB, even Andrew Johns can get a game



Regards

GWW

[am Bays]

REB you are spot on about everything except for one minor detail, S Wuagh did bat at 3 for Australia....

Steve Waugh put his hand up to bat against the Windies in 92-93, when they dropped D Jones.

They had wanted to keep Boon at 3, after the retirement/dropping of Marsh at the end of the 91-92 series. They tried Moody and M waugh as Taylors opening partner in Sri LAnka. The selectors knew they had to put Boon in to open with TAylor, hence S Waugh came back in test side in Brisbane along with Martyn & Hughes and they dropped Jones, Moody and some nuffy spinner called Warne (gee I wonder what happened to him) from the 3rd test aginast the Lankan tour.....

So Waugh batted the entire series at 3 apart from the 4th test when Langer did the job.

Anyone who thinks S Waugh is not tough, knows nothing about sport and cricket......

[mal]

Steve Waugh has the second highest first innings average
in Australian history, if he bats 5 so be it.
Only a chap called Bradman had a better record in first innings.
The last innings .........

[Magpiespower]

West Indies were well and truly a crumbling empire by the 1995 tour - they had already become a three headed monster of Lara, Ambrose and Walsh.

As for the first drop argument, I wasn't referring to the early 90s - when age was catching up to the Windies and S. Waugh was tried and failed - but rather the late 90s.

When he was at the top of his powers and Punter was off trying to pick up Carlotta at the 'Bourbon.'

As for the stats argument - everyone knows that they've been inflated these past ten years with the dire state of world cricket.

Tall poppy syndrome? Isn't that the card everyone pulls when one dare criticise a sacred cow. Next I'll be called 'un-Australian.'

C'mon REB, even for a Bluebagger, I know you can do better than that.

[Dutchy]

[JK]

It used to amaze me no end that the odd person would criticse Stevo, but I guess thats life, everyone's opinion will differ ... For mine in nearly 30 years of watching cricket, there's only one man I'd want batting for (or leading) the country in a crisis ...