World Cup QuaterFinals Taking Shape

We are still a week out, and this is the time the mathematicians like to start presenting us with scenario's. As always however there's not much in the way of intrigue or unexpected results, and those hunting for quarterfinal spots have their fates very much in their own hands.

Winner B(Australia) v Runner-Up A(Tonga/England)
Winner C(New Zealand) v Runner Up D(Ireland/Argentina/France)
Winner A(South Africa) v Runner Up B(Wales/Fiji)
Winner D(Ireland/Argentina/France) v Runner Up C(Scotland/Italy)

Group A - South Africa has this pool wrapped up, despite being given a fright by the Tongans. England and Tonga square off this week to decide who will go on to the quarterfinals. My heart begs for Tonga, but the head says England will bungle their way through to be cannonfodder for the Australians.

Group B - Australia strolls in at the top of group B. Wales and Fiji face off for the chance to go through, though winning is almost a booby prize with a quarterfinal against the South Africans.

Group C - As expected new Zealand was never really tested, their closest game being the weekends 40-0 beating of the Scottish. Scotland and Italy decide their own fates, and on the lack of initiative showed by both sides so far I'm expecting a 0-0 draw. Incidentally - Scotland go through on a draw due to their 2 bonus points.

Group D - The pool of death has delivered the scenario we suspected - that the number 2 and 3 placings would be decided by the final match between Ireland and Argentina. The number one spot will almost definitely hang on that game as well. But first France play Georgia in a game called "Can we win with a bonus point". A bonus point would take them to 15 points, which is enough to make the semi finals regardless of what happens in Paris. Considering that the Georgians will be backing up from their 'final' against Namibia 4 days earlier, this should be a given. It then comes down to whether the Irish can beat the Argentinians and by how much. If they win and get a bonus point, France will finish top on 15 and Ireland and Argentina will be tied on 14. If they win without a bonus point France will finish top of the pool with 15, Argentina second on 14 and Ireland third(and eliminated) on 13. What will really get the maths geeks salivating is the prospect that France wins without a bonus point and Ireland win with one. That will leave all three teams tied on 14 points.

There are a number of ways that the winner is decided should teams be drawn on points. The first method of deciding is the head to head. In the case of all three teams being tied that would be discarded as each team has a win and a loss to the other two teams. In the case of France qualifying top and Argentina and Ireland being joint on 14 - Ireland would progress by virtue of their 1 on 1 win. The second method is points scored for and against in all pool matches. If it gets to this decider Ireland can pack their bags. They would need to defeat Argentina by 87 points to crack this one. There are four more criteria for tie-breaking after that one, but it's all academic anyway.

Ireland don't have a hope.

Quite frankly it amazes they find their way out of the dressing rooms let alone to the try line. They lack structure, passion and consistency. They show no initiative on attack nor desperation on defense. For all the home nations talk of the All Blacks peaking too early(probably true) - they need look no further than the Irish for a team who are twelve months past their peak. Their preparation has been ludicrous and their performance thus far has suffered as a result. Argentina will beat Ireland, not by much, but comfortably. They will qualify top of the pool and go the 'easy' route, probably bowing out in the semi final against South Africa, but a reasonable long shot bet to make the final(and if they make it they could win it).

That will leave the final that was anticipated since the draw was announced being rescheduled to happen two weeks earlier - France vs New Zealand - quarter final. And what a match that will be.

Tom Scott is a die hard supporter of the All Blacks and he looks forward to seeing New Zealand be the first team to retain a world cup in 2011.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Tom_Scott

Winning Coaches Know the Secret of Goal Setting

When asking the majority of people before a contest, whether it be a rugby match or a spelling bee, what they want, they will inevitably say, “I want to WIN.”

Who doesn’t?

I have yet to meet anyone who competes that says they don’t care if they win as long as they have fun. That was fine when we were six but it isn’t going to cut it now. So, how do we do it, how do we win?

The answer that you are looking for may be found in goal setting. Too many teams overlook this factor, which may be considered the most important training tool available to any team. It doesn’t cost anything but time and may be the difference between an 8-8 record and a 14-2 record. The reason most teams overlook goal setting is because they assume that everyone on the team wants the same thing; to win, and the responsibility to win is placed squarely on the shoulders of the coach and so is goal setting. What most coaches need to understand is that every individual on the team has different goals for themselves as a part of the team. I stress individual because everyone on the team is different and they have different attributes and attitudes, which is very evident in a sport like rugby, and can be seen in every training session and game. It is the coach’s responsibility to bring these individuals together as a team and the easiest way to do that is by setting team goals.

Let’s be clear: winning is not a goal, it is the outcome or result of achieving the goal(s) we set as a team.

In order to get the maximum results from the goals that we have set we must follow a few basic principles; the S.M.A.R.T. principles which stand for: S – specific, M – measurable, A – attainable, R – realistic, T – time.

S – specific. In order to achieve a goal it has to be specific. For example; or goal is to win 50% more of our games then we did last year. Let’s use the example above with last year’s record of 8-8, in order to achieve our goal of 50% more victories; we now have a goal to achieve a 12-4 record. Please keep in mind that this must be a goal that is agreed upon by every team member. Also know that further goal setting is required to reach this record; how are we going to get to that record has to be answered, what do we have to do as a team to get there, what attitude is needed, what training requirements are needed, and so on.

M – measurable. Can our goal be measured? If we are using the goal of winning 50% more games, then the answer is yes it can be measured by the number of wins and losses we achieve. If we said that we want to play better as a team, even though we can feel if we played better, it isn’t something that we can measure. I’m sure we have all been a part of games when we didn’t play well, but still came away with the win and vice versa, we played great, but lost. Playing better isn’t measurable, but winning 50% more of our games is.

A – attainable. Can we win 50% more of our games this year compared to last? Can this be achieved? If your team has a record of 16-0 then it is impossible and can’t be attained, but our 8-8 record turning into 12-4 record can be achieved. We have to remember that everyone on the team has to believe that it is attainable, not just the coach or a select few. Without the collective agreement of the team the goal may not be achieved.

R – realistic. The biggest problem most coaches are faced with is the reality of the goals they are striving to achieve. For examples; our record last year was 2-14, to come out and say that our goal is to have a record this year of 12-4 isn’t very realistic. The team must believe that the goal can be achieved or they will not buy into it. We have to make sure that we set a goal that everyone thinks we can reach. If we set a goal that is too high, the majority of our players will recognize this and not put the effort needed because it’s too unrealistic. The mentality will possibly be, “why kill myself for something that isn’t going to happen?” On the other hand if we set our goal too low we will get the same effect, “I don’t need to put in much effort to achieve that goal.” As a coach, we hope we never see this mindset in our rugby players, because it is a direct reflection on us and our ability to help the team set realistic goals. When we set a goal that everyone on the team thinks we can achieve, they will all put in the effort necessary to achieve that goal.

T – time. A big problem that arises when goal setting is that we don’t set a specific date to achieve the goals we have set out. Using the example of winning 50% more games and having a 12-4 record seems like the time is already set out for us; by the end of the season. However, to ensure that we achieve our goals we must break them down into smaller goals. For example; after our first four (4) games we need our record to be at the minimum 3-1 in order to have a realistic shot at attaining 12-4. After eight (8) games we need to be 6-2 and so on.

We only used one example to show team goal setting, but we can’t stop here. In order for us to achieve this goal we must devise the proper strategy and action plan. It isn’t enough to say we want to win 50% more of our games, anyone can say that. As a coach, it is our responsibility to set goals with all of our players in order for them to achieve their individual goals and to attain the desired team goals.

These principles apply both on and off the rugby field. We must set a goal and mini goals for everything we wish to accomplish; nothing will be accomplished just because we set a goal, we have to continuously work towards reaching that goal.

Kyle Henderson
Head Rugby Coach & Conditioning Specialist

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kyle_Henderson