What happened to the Leafs?

There will be endless water cooler discussions (or maybe other beverages will be involved) as the true blue fans and the skeptics talk about Game 7 between Boston and the Leafs.  In case you're not in Toronto as you read this (and your world does not revolve around the fate of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team), let me give you a quick recap of their first round playoff series against the Boston Bruins. Toronto lost 2 games on home ice and was down 3-1 in the best of 7 series. They fought back (unexpectedly) to a 3-3 tie, forcing a 7th game in Boston.

Back on Boston ice, the Leafs were up 2-1 after two periods, and 4-1 about 9 minutes into the second period. (A period is 20 minutes).  They then allowed 3 unanswered goals, went to overtime, and lost early in the sudden-death overtime.  No more playoff dreams for Toronto, and some folks ready to call it a choke.

I don't think it's entirely fair to say they choked. What I saw (and I only saw a little of the previous games) was this: after a goal was scored for or against Boston, Boston came to the face off ready to charge. After a goal was scored against Toronto, they were scrambled, pushing hard but scrambled. That wasn't just true in the 7th game. It was true enough to seem like a pattern.

Imagine that you expect the other team to score but over and over again you escape. Your goalie makes amazing saves; the other team misses the net; you get some lucky bounces. One way or another, you escape enough that it seems like you are meant to escape. And then the puck lands in the back of your net. For a moment you are as confused as your fans. Although the odds were in favour of this happening, your direct experience was so vivid and compelling, you forgot about the odds.

The same optimism that allowed you to rebound from lost games and score unexpected goals now turns on you. You suffer a few moments of confusion. And in those moments a better, more experienced team makes you pay. They beat on you physically, and they are more focused than you mentally. And that's what happened to the Leafs.

If you're the underdog, part of your preparations has to include the pattern interrupt that happens when you are suddenly ahead instead of behind. And it has to include the next pattern interrupt, where fate turns on you and the other team is suddenly on the upswing. You need to be able to charge through the confusion with fierce focus and calm hearts.  That's a different kind of conditioning.

People will no doubt accuse the boys in blue of lacking heart and focus. But it's more likely that it was precisely the momentum of heart and focus that got them into trouble.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The hypnotic contract

Under what conditions would you allow someone else to tell you what to think?   If you have watched a stage hypnotist, you have seen what looks like one person exercising remarkable control over the thoughts and actions of another. It is fascinating, in part, because we have all seen it happen in real life. Suddenly someone we know seems to be relying on someone else to do the thinking.  Even if the influence is good, it is a little frightening. The secret is that there are no magic words.  In order to lead someone into hypnosis, that person has to be willing to go there. Often the people you see on stage are more than willing. For whatever reasons, they are enthusiastic about giving up self control and allowing someone else to take charge. They know that there are limits to what can happen on stage and they are only agreeing to give up control within those limits. What you see in hypnosis is an agreement between two people. Like all agreements between human beings, it stretches as far...
Read more

Good with people

What do you think of when you hear the phrase "good with people?" When a wine is good with steak, it means that both the steak and the wine taste better when enjoyed together. If you are 'good with people' that could mean that both you and they perform better when you work together. "Good with people" should not be confused with charm or grace. Many famous leaders have, in the absence of any obvious charm or eloquence, managed to get people to produce at high levels. Some introverts fail to be influential; some extraverts fail to be effective. The most useful criteria for "good with people" is the performance that results when an individual is working with others: does the sum exceed the total of the parts? Or would they all have been better working from separate cubicles? We are entering the season of networking: it's a perfect time to observe the difference between the people who are working the room and the people who are making the room w...
Read more

The fine line between observations, suggestions and commands

I have been watching Tony Robbins this week in the documentary called " I Am Not Your Guru ." You can read a nicely ambivalent review in the Financial Times here.   I think the ambivalence is built into the process, which might be surprising given the loud celebration that characterizes the Date with Destiny in the film. For those of us whose work has evolved from NLP, there are lessons to be learned from modelling the most famous and successful practitioner of NLP (Robbins has far surpassed all the founders by all measures of success). Because he does so much so well, Robbins lets us see how fine the line is between observing and suggesting. Let me explain. Robbins frames his "interventions" both with the exercises and performances we do not see in the film and with his invitations. The film opens with an intervention with a young man who says he is suicidal; it is only later that we see Robbins say he is looking for someone who is suicidal to work with. Since...
Read more