Inmovilizado en proyectos

Semi Final v Canada – 69-52 - Loss Bronze Medal Match v USA – 61-46 - Loss

“The first two games it just went all tits up, from the head coach right down to the mechanic. Nobody knew where they were, nobody knew what they were doing.”

“We needed to beat Germany but we didn’t and the way we lost as well...like ‘we really need to start playing now’...but even against Canada we didn’t play well.”

“We played Turkey [who] we’d not beaten in a major competition for so long. We found a bit of form there. There were three or four players who shocked me....I said ‘you’ve got balls the size of buffalos, keep going!’”

“They were terrible, the Yanks were. We were even worse.... Devastated.”

Overall 4

place

Figure 22. The results of the men’s matches in London 2012, with player comments. London logo (2012) retrieved from Panasonic, copyright 2015.

the worst. A further extract from the researcher’s FN reveals the scene after this match.

Indeed the players themselves reflected candidly on what Coach Will and Coach Doug called a ‘morgue-like’ dressing room, the detrimental impact on their PSH/WB confirmed. Luke said “I cried. I was shell-shocked, awful. I wanted the world to swallow me up. I still think about it now. It still makes me feel like shit” (pc, February 18, 2013). His peers agreed:

Very sombre, very, you know. It were like you’d lost someone. I mean I were in tears at end of game and I don’t cry.... The worst I’ve ever felt were losing in that, that bronze medal game. I’ve never felt anything like that (James, pc, February 18, 2013).

The atmosphere was just something like a morgue as you would expect because we’d just lost the bronze medal but it was a case of looking at each other and saying ‘What happened? Was it your fault? Was it my fault? Was it his fault? ...Confusion,

absolute confusion (Mike, pc, February 18, 2013).

Interestingly for those players not selected, there were mixed feelings. One (see Footnote 17; p.119) explained “it was hard to watch them under-perform. It was so hard to watch. I’m heartbroken for the lads not to medal” (pc, February 28, 2013). And yet, interestingly there was also a realisation that there would be wider political, even positive consequences of an empty trophy cabinet. Thus he continued “we would be better coming fourth because it means there would be a shake up because we’d under-achieved. I’m going to admit it. I hoped they lost.” Likewise another said “I didn’t want to see my friends do

08/09/12: The final whistle and it’s over. Some players are close to tears whilst others seem numb, exhausted. The fans stand to applaud, and they return the compliment but they are on autopilot. The despondency & desolation is palpable. I can’t believe it has ended like this. I’m fighting back my own tears.

were hoping for a change in personnel, Sean wanted the coaches to stay in post if it would mean his promotion in the squad ahead of London’s non-performers. As such, whilst London’s results rocked the selected players, impinging on their PSH/WB, there was a possible silver-lining for those not selected.

Nerves and Nearly-theres! And so would the women fare better and meet their semi- final target? Certainly Coach Fred was cautiously optimistic a month before London. In his eyes, he had the best squad he’d ever coached, and a successful 2011 season had seen them beat many of the world’s elite. That said, with several players making their Paralympic debut, he had fears over whether they would hold their nerve. However his main worry, the team’s inconsistencies, mirrored that of the players and the earlier data. As he put it “we’re either good or we’re bad. I never know what team’s gonna go on court” (pc, July 24, 2012). Unfortunately these worries proved founded. Table 11 summarises the team’s results.

Table 11.

The results of the GB women in London 2012

Match type Match opposition Result

Pool Match 1 Holland 62-35 (Loss)

Pool Match 2 Australia 51-24 (Loss)

Pool Match 3 Brazil 42-37 (Win)

Pool Match 4 Canada 67-50 (Loss)

Quarter-final Germany 55-44 (Loss)

5th-8th place play-off China 72-55 (Loss)

7th-8th place play-off Mexico 59-37 (Win)

On asking the women to reflect on their performances many confirmed that players had been debilitated by nerves. Kate said “it was like we were shell-shocked for the first half of the tournament. All the cracks kind of show and they get bigger and bigger and bigger” (pc, June 13, 3013). This appeared to flood the team, for as Sammy said “we tend to all of us play well or all of us underperform. We kind of all sink together” (pc, February 8, 2013). Indeed Sagar and Jowett (2012) reason that “a team performance often operates like a chain,

well can hinder the performance of another member” (p. 74). This led to panic setting in.

It almost felt like ‘oh my gosh, this is like the biggest moment of our lives, we’ve got to perform.’ Maybe it was the pressure ‘oh we’ve missed a shot, we’ve got to get this one, oh my god we haven’t done that, oh my god, oh my god.’ It felt like the games kind of spiralled downwards. (Emma, pc, February 7, 2013)

Hill and Shaw (2013) found that ‘choking’ was brought on by important moments where team athletes felt under pressure and were adversely affected by their own and other’s expectations. Emma’s comment reflected this, and in some ways this was not unexpected. Lucy and Coach Fred spoke of shooting having been an issue pre-London, players fine in training but choking on the big stage. Whilst Fred had hoped that initial baskets would help the team find a rhythm, instead the snatching at chances was reflected in the poor game stats (Table 12), players converting only 35% of 2 pointers and 38% of free throws. A home Games had proved a baptism of fire for some. As Lucy concluded “a lot of the young girls had no idea how to handle their emotions, no idea what to do with their nerves, no idea how to balance their life and there was a lot of crying going on in rooms” (pc, July 17, 2013).

Table 12.

Women’s cumulative points statistics- London 2012

Note. Data courtesy of GBWBA, (pc, January 11, 2013). Statistics across 7 games. M/A = made/attempts.

That said, the players spoke of the quarter-final game against Germany in different terms. A ‘do or die’ attitude had developed and players described a changed atmosphere, renewed belief. Thus, having given a great account of themselves and suffered a narrow

“just heartbreaking....We were emotionally exhausted, we were physically exhausted” (pc, February 7, 2013). Lucy agreed.

That was very, very hard to take, because not only were we out of the semi-final, we had that taste of, we could have beaten them. Literally the minute everybody got in the tunnel, the tears started. The absolute dream of a medal was gone. That was, I think you probably couldn’t have got any lower than that. We might as well have packed our bags and gone home. That was the lowest point. I can’t remember much after that. Totally, totally deflated (pc, July 17, 2013).

Therefore, and in mirroring the men’s experiences, the PSH/WB of the women suffered most greatly following the defeat which took away their chance of a medal. Players admitted the struggle to play subsequent matches which would decide their overall position, so demoralised were they. Their 7th place finish might have been their best at a Paralympics, but it was little consolation. Just as Kate and Lucy had rated the London experience hugely positive for PSH/WB, the opposite was true when assessing the impact of the results. London might have been a dream, but failing to reach the medal rostrum was a nightmare.

What went wrong? Before the overall impact that London 2012 had on player PSH/WB can be considered, it is important to examine the factors which led to the results.

Turmoil: Turmoil is not too strong a word to describe the men’s camp in London. The already strained relations between players and coach deteriorated further. As James confirmed “there was definitely a split. Coach on one side and everyone else on other. It were just pressure we didn’t need.... It wasn’t good at times.” (pc, February 18, 2013). Indeed Coach Will revealed that the situation became untenable, a coup nearly staged. He said:

After the Canada game, they’d lost it again, they’d lost it with [the coach]. They just wanted him to go. It was eleven to one.... That one person said ‘no, we’re gonna stick this out.’ It shows what a great team they are that they stuck together as a group and said ‘if one of you says no, then we’ll stick with it’.... If they’d have come that morning and said ‘we can’t play for you anymore’ he would have moved aside, but they didn’t, they bottled it (pc, May 10, 3013).

coach in question credit.

After Canada finished about 9 o’clock we sat up talking in the canteen about if he’s gonna go or not, for 6 hours, the coaching staff and the staff, 6 hours, because he came to me and said ‘look, you know I think I’ve lost the team,’ so we started just chatting generally, told everybody and I thought come the morning that he would just say ‘yeah, you take over’.... I think everybody at that table thought that. Next morning, he’d changed his mind. He’s very good at switching the focus off of himself and onto the players and that’s what a good coach does (pc, May 10, 2013).

The coach in question (see Footnote 20; p.172) also shared the signs that he had picked up on, that things had turned sour:

I had a meeting with the staff to pose the question ‘have I lost these guys?’... I’d lost the faith and trust that a coach needs. You just read the signs. Just little things like you’d go into the dining room and leave your bag on the seat....no-one would sit next to me.... Just the mood in the camp was not good. Then we beat Turkey and obviously winning cures a lot of things, but it was still not right (pc, November 9, 2012).

That this was happening behind the scenes was naturally far from ideal. Players and coaches were privately in turmoil as they battled to put on positive public performances. However the situation impinged upon the PSH, WB and performance of all, and the results reflected this. Put simply, the coach was unable to lead because the team would not follow. For James and Mike that they reached the bronze medal match was therefore impressive. And yet with no silverware, anger and bitterness were perhaps inevitable. As Coach Will explained “it all ended in that changing room....all those 4 years of frustration” (pc, May 10, 2013). Some blame was laidat one coach’s feet. Though he himself had expected that he would be made the scapegoat, he did however speak of being upset by the degree of resentment and vilification from some, and pointed the finger at a few players for their behaviour in London. Here Jowett and Cockerill (2003) warn that “research that aims to tease out the negative aspects of interpersonal relationships in sport should be particularly sensitive because the disclosure of such information is often embarrassing...and undesirable for the athletes and/or coaches” (p. 328). Indeed, though the research did not set out to unearth such data, it was still important to heed the advice. One extract from the RJ shares the ethical issues that the researcher tried to work through:

Interestingly it must also be noted, just as Tamminen et al. (2013) found, that the players were more able to find meaning from their adversity once time had elapsed. London was initially raw for all, but subsequently a number of the men offered a more balanced view. That is they spoke of being indebted to the coach for transforming the GB programme, and reflected on his qualities, including his support with funding or when injured. The coach also told of receiving positive correspondence and of ongoing contact and relations with some players. As Mike concluded he’d left a platform to build on. He explained “I think from the last coach...we now know what direction we need to go ....There’s been plenty of positives, more positives than negatives,” (pc, February 18, 2013).

In addition, whilst criticisms were levelled at the coach(es), so too did the players concede that they were accountable for London. As Max said “it’s easy to blame the coaches, but we were on court. We didn’t do it” (pc, January 30, 2013). James agreed:

At end of day you know, the coaching staff put five people on the court. They don’t score, they don’t defend, that’s down to us. We didn’t do our job in London as well. I’m not blaming it on anybody. It just didn’t for whatever reason, it just didn’t happen (pc, February 18, 2012).

As mentioned the coach also made some criticisms of the players, labelling one “destructive”, “toxic” and “a fucking prick” for his behaviour (pc, November 9, 2012), reflecting his angst, and implying that players were not innocent bystanders. He claimed that there were divisions and too many player meetings, whilst apportioning blame to an assistant and the BPA21 _for their poor organisation which added to issues behind the scenes. Here Coach Doug also spoke of being unprepared as staff due to their own and others’ faults.

21 _{BPA = British Paralympic Association}

22/10/14: I met with one coach today who had been on the receiving end of player criticism. He expected this- he’d described the player review post-London as ‘damning’ after all – but I still felt I owed it to him to be honest about the fact that the research would include some negative comments. As a researcher you have to present the data and not be a coward. However I have found this difficult. I like him and I like the players. This doesn’t mean that I can, nor would manipulate the

data in the interests of either. I don’t think they would even want this...it is what it is. However I wanted to show him (and the players) the respect that they deserve, and was glad of the chance to be candid with him on this occasion.

reason for players failing to reach their potential. Mike claimed that players had been intimidated, saying “everybody went into [the Canada game] apprehensive, everybody went in a little bit scared...and if they deny it to you then I think they’re only lying to themselves” (pc, February 18, 2013). Sagar and Jowett (2012) confirm that a ‘fear of failure’ can impinge on athlete performance and WB, and suggest that coaches can alleviate this or make it worse. Certainly for one non-selected player (see Footnote 17; p.119), the fear which infiltrated the squad had been inherited.

I think most of those [players] played better club basketball last year and this year than they did in London. I don’t think anywhere near the 12 performed to their best in London, but I don’t think that was because they weren’t able to. I imagine there was unrest, people weren’t happy with the treatment and things like that, and at club level we have a real good laugh. I think you play better in that situation than you do in fear and I think a lot of players that went to London played with fear (pc, May 16, 2013).

Put simply it appeared that the camp was turbulent and tense when it needed to be relaxed and happy. Perhaps some would argue that this is the norm in elite sport, but it proved counter-productive for the men whose PSH, WB and performance suffered under such conditions. Having moved to another elite sport after London and drawn negative

comparisons with the GB WhB set-up, the aforementioned player confirmed that enjoyment and success could marry up:

It’s relaxed. Atmosphere’s more relaxed and it genuinely is a bit of a laugh, like we’re still competing at that level and we’ve got World Cup next month, but I do think we play better relaxed...that fun element’s back in it....Without the pull of London would those players have done it? I don’t think so (pc, May 16, 2013). [See Footnote 11; p.69]

Indeed, not only did this reflect the comments of some of his teammates, but it spoke again of a ‘Healthy Paralympian’ being a winning formula. So strongly did this player feel about this that he followed up by email “I saw a quote that I thought was quite appropriate after our chat; ‘champions are propelled by desire, not compelled by fear’” (pc, May 16, 2013). Thus perhaps the issues in London were testament to the consequences of not heeding this

message. Certainly few of the men would have described themselves as ‘Healthy Paralympians.’

going for gold or at the very least a podium place. And yet they faced an uphill struggle as relations reached breaking point. A medal became an unlikely outcome as fear gave way to failure and the pressure that the participants felt told in their performances. Unfortunately their final position of fourth reflected this drama and disharmony and, it may be suggested, spoke of an unhealthy camp.

Lacking in leadership. Like the men, the women blamed the coaches and themselves for their poor London form. For Emma, Sammy, Bec and Jen one bug-bear was the failure of the coach to deviate from Plan A. Just as Sammy spoke of him favouring two shooters and others feeling like domestiques22, Emma explained that the regurgitation of the same set plays rendered them unthreatening. Bec claimed that he was unwilling to take risks. Jen agreed:

The coach wanted to rely on a certain number of players to do a certain thing and he kept forcing it even though it wasn’t working. He was too scared to put someone else on court or try something different. We were just so predictable.... A lot of players were only allowed to do certain things, and obviously then because you see it as ‘I’m not allowed to do other things because I’m not capable of doing other things’, you doubt (pc, February 7, 2013).

As inferred, this situation picked at player confidence, not least because according to Emma the mentality was inherited by some players who became reluctant to give up the ball. Play was forced rather than fluid, players doubting rather than believing. Hill and Shaw (2013) found that diminishing confidence and a perceived lack of social support preceded choking and this was not only the case, but far from ideal for player PSH, WB or performance.

However for another player the issue was a lack of direction from coaches. She explained that “there wasn’t any leadership”, concluding that “it was really very poor and really quite upsetting to see” (see Footnote 17; p.119). In elaborating further she spoke of the culture being inherently wrong.

Your nation is watching you and they’re watching your team like fuck it up basically. That was frustrating. The coaches and the system didn’t really give us the best

chance. They didn’t create a winning mentality within the team. People didn’t look like they were trying at times and millions of people watching it on TV could see that.