Let's play psychologist

[BoyBrumby]

I posed the question thinking of blokes like Boycott & Kallis who seem to completely play in their own bubble regardless of the match situation. To my way of thinking it's a kind of mental strength, but a quite selfish one.

I don't think tossing away one's wicket is a virtue in and of itself, but I was quite impressed with the way that Morgan (a bloke who still hasn't nailed down his spot) selflessly had a dart when we were looking to declare in the 2nd innings of the 2nd test.

 

[Spark]

Vcs and whoever else things mental toughness is overrated in sports, it is incredible how far from the truth that is.

Sure some bs armchair psychology may be inaccurate and completely overstated at times, but dead set read some books on sports psychology. It is absolutely fascinating.

So surprised to see it come from a guy like vcs who watches so much tennis as well. Tennis and golf are two of the sports where what is happening above the shoulders is just as important as talent.

Completely agree with Benchy that at times in test cricket mental toughness is completely underrated as well. And I'm not just talking Border/Steve Waugh tough (although that is clearly a great example), there are plenty of situations of a player handling pressure well, or handling a game situation well, or being able to ignore external factors etc. by keeping the game simple. Blocking out what is outside.

The problem is that in cricket the line between success and failure, between a run-of-the-mill play and miss and a thin edge is, well, so thin. It can distort things if you're not careful which people far too often aren't. What if, for example, Yuvraj nicked one of those six or so deliveries MJ got past the edge in the QF?

 

[vcs]

Vcs and whoever else things mental toughness is overrated in sports, it is incredible how far from the truth that is.

Sure some bs armchair psychology may be inaccurate and completely overstated at times, but dead set read some books on sports psychology. It is absolutely fascinating.

So surprised to see it come from a guy like vcs who watches so much tennis as well. Tennis and golf are two of the sports where what is happening above the shoulders is just as important as talent.

Completely agree with Benchy that at times in test cricket mental toughness is completely underrated as well. And I'm not just talking Border/Steve Waugh tough (although that is clearly a great example), there are plenty of situations of a player handling pressure well, or handling a game situation well, or being able to ignore external factors etc. by keeping the game simple. Blocking out what is outside.

Agree with a lot of what you are saying, but something can be important yet overrated. I guess I just find it annoying when it's used as an idle cop-out by commentators, fans etc.

 

[Spark]

Agree with a lot of what you are saying, but something can be important yet overrated. I guess I just find it annoying when it's used as an idle cop-out by commentators, fans etc.

(y)

 

[Jono]

Its pretty obvious however when certain players are thoroughly more talented than others (whatever talent that may be, stroke making, hand-eye coordination, naturally more athletic etc.) yet do not achieve as much as players who clearly have less ability. I'm not just speaking of a Mark Waugh achieving less than a Dravid. Its not a stroke maker vs. grafter, because grafting is also a talent... and there are instances of grafters going to water when runs are required to. Just as there are cases of pure stroke makers performing well when the pressure is on.

Its not a style argument. It doesn't matter how you look, but over a significant enough period you can tell when certain situations are too much for players. These sitautions aren't always "5 wickets down for 90, can that player score a century and rescue his team?", its also other things like media pressure on that player, the team needs to win to qualify for the finals, or the opposition hates this player and are completely having a go at him.

I think it is pretty clear that if you compare Gautam Gambhir with Wasim Jaffer, that a huge reason as to why Gambhir has been a far more successful opener for India is mental toughness.

Gambhir's away innings can be mentioned, but his double century against Australia (the famous elbow to Watson's gut match) was in the face of some serious heat. People can hate the **** for not reacting well by getting physical, and he should have ignored it, but he also used it as fuel to score more and more runs. That's not easy to do.

 

[Uppercut]

I think your point re: Watson failing to convert 50's to 100's is a good point. I think that's almost exclusively down to a lack of concentration, definitely a symptom of mental fragility.

Serious question, who would people consider mentally stronger: a bloke who's prepared to give his wicket away slogging a few quick runs or the one who's set on not giving it away at any cost in any situation?

Rather exposes the problem with using a linear spectrum between "mental toughness" and "mental weakness" to describe the entire field of sporting psychology.

To pose another question- is a player who performs well when sledged but poorly when ignored "mentally tougher" than one who does the opposite? I think most would say so. But why is there more merit in being prone to losses of concentration than there is in being prone to provocation?

 

[benchmark00]

Rather exposes the problem with using a linear spectrum between "mental toughness" and "mental weakness" to describe the entire field of sporting psychology.

To pose another question- is a player who performs well when sledged but poorly when ignored "mentally tougher" than one who does the opposite? I think most would say so. But why is there more merit in being prone to losses of concentration than there is in being prone to provocation?

I would say both players in that situation are equally mentally frail.

In my eyes, a true sign of mental strength is being able to block out things in the macro environment, if you will, and not let those things dictate your actions/level of success.

 

[Jono]

I think Benchy's definition is almost 100% correct. But there is an element of being able to also pull out that extra play (depending on your sport) when the game is truly on the line.

So whilst blocking out external factors is important, I dont' think you can ignore players when they do something at a crucial stage. Its not a fluke when Nadal and Federer serve an ace or unreturnable serve at break point down at crucial stages. Yes, why didn't they serve an ace on the first point? That's just sport. That's just people being human. The fact that Federer only served big at break point down (I point you to the 5th set of Wimbledon 2007 final vs. Nadal) but didn't do it earlier isn't mental weakness (to refer to Uppercut's point). It'd be silly to call it that.

It wasn't a fluke that Bevan happened to be the player there at the end for Australia a lot of the time. There are times when he was out when the game wasn't as tight. That's not mental weakness in reverse though. That's life.

 

[Uppercut]

I would say both players in that situation are equally mentally frail.

In my eyes, a true sign of mental strength is being able to block out things in the macro environment, if you will, and not let those things dictate your actions/level of success.

It's an excellent definition. But if we accept it, then the story of Allan Border reacting to sledging by hitting two sixes down the ground becomes an example of mental weakness rather than the opposite.

 

[benchmark00]

It's an excellent definition. But if we accept it, then the story of Allan Border reacting to sledging by hitting two sixes down the ground becomes an example of mental weakness rather than the opposite.

You and Jono are correct in that situation. But I was more refering to the situation you posed where a player would get out if not sledged, and the other would get out if they were sledged.

 

[Jono]

Yeah exactly. Border isn't going out because he's not sledged in your situation UC. Your previous point suggested he did.

 

[benchmark00]

I guess if I was to add to my definition I'd say the external factors wouldn't make you fail... Meh. It's tricky to define perfectly.

 

[Jono]

Yeah I think that's better, because the ability for players to have gears and "other levels" is part of mental toughness.

 

[Spark]

Have to add response to external adversity to that too. For mine one of the most - if not the most - important demonstrations of a player's determination, drive and hence mental strength is how they respond to being dropped.

 

[Jono]

That's good provided they aren't only good when they are dropped or under threat of being dropped.

 

[Spark]

That's good provided they aren't only good when they are dropped or under threat of being dropped.

Yeah true but I was more meaning after the fact. Case in point is Katman, told his Test career is over because of his age, beat down the door by setting all kinds of Shield records.

 

[vcs]

Have to add response to external adversity to that too. For mine one of the most - if not the most - important demonstrations of a player's determination, drive and hence mental strength is how they respond to being dropped.

That's good provided they aren't only good when they are dropped or under threat of being dropped.

Oi, let's keep Kamran Akmal out of this. Poor guy has it bad enough without being used as a benchmark for opposition batsmens' mental toughness.

 

[Jono]

Yeah true but I was more meaning after the fact. Case in point is Katman, told his career is over because of his age, beat down the door by setting all kinds of Shield records.

Probably the best bloke ever.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah true but I was more meaning after the fact. Case in point is Katman, told his Test career is over because of his age, beat down the door by setting all kinds of Shield records.

I don't think Katman was originally dropped because of his age was he? He was more of a victim of the '05 Ashes defeat and him personally having poor stats during that tour (despite one or two bad umpiring decisions).

 

[Spark]

Nah he wasn't dropped because of his age (the whole middle order basically got axed because of that tour), but IIRC it was strongly implied that his age meant he was out of the selection frame in future. Sounds familiar, eh?