They didn't use entirely different words, they used words that define choking. Are you more comfortable if we just say the players were affected by nerves instead?
I'd be concerned if players playing in any knock out game weren't nervous.
Yes. Because nerves and "choking" are at entirely difference points in the spectrum of performance.
I'd say players get nervous before most matches. That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing a sub-optimal sporting performance delivered when under pressure. That describes Ireland against New Zealand.
Affected by nerves is the phrase. As above, I'd say most players on all teams have nerves, we're discussing how it affects performance. Do you disagree that Ireland had a sub-optimal sporting performance delivered when under pressure against New Zealand?
And there are degrees of "affected by nerves". I don't think Ireland's performance was anywhere near the "choking" end of that spectrum.
Not all performances, affected by nerves equals choking.
Just like pundits who said we were nervous didn't mean we choked.
What is people's accepted definition of choking, on a scale of Missing an easy kick to Jean Van De Velde?
You're uncomfortable with the term choking, that's fair enough. But you can look up any definition of the term and it means the same as affected by nerves. The Wikipedia definition for example:
'choking is the failure of a person, or persons, to act or behave as anticipated or expected'
This is what some pundits have described, some ex players have described, the stats and analysis of the game backs this up. They state that Ireland delivered a sub-optimal sporting performance when under pressure against New Zealand.
You're free to disagree with the pundits and the stats if you want and you can even disagree with the definition of choking if you want. It's a widely accepted definition though so you'll have a hard time changing it.
I'm not uncomfortable with it. I just think you're wrong.
Fwiw, one of the pundits you're claiming meant choking literally said "one thing this wasn't was a choke".
But sure, you know what they meant....
You're not arguing with anything I said, you're arguing with the definition of choking. You think it should be defined differently.
What pundit said that?
Id say if they weren't nervous before the game, they certainly were after the first 20 mins when we found ourselves down 13 points having seen our scrum and lineout both misfiring
Like I said before, all definitions also include caveats like the following:
The term itself is often an over-used, or even derisive term in the sports world, where "choke" status is assigned to a team or player that was simply unlucky.
Shane Horgan. You falsely attributed "choking" to him. Like I said you haven't been able to find a single pundit who actually said "choking".
So you don't dispute the definition of choking then? Because Shane Horgan and others used the definition to describe our performance against New Zealand.
Like I said, choking seems like a harsh word. As a friend to the players, of course Horgan wouldn't want to use that word. It would make him uncomfortable like it makes you and others uncomfortable.
It doesn't mean that the players didn't underperform under pressure. Many supporters and pundits thought we underperformed under pressure. This means choking but as I said, I have no problem using phrases like 'affected by nerves' or 'underperformed under pressure' if it's more palatable.
Underperformed ≠ choking.
Underperformed under pressure. Again, you can dispute the definition of choking if you want. I'll give a few examples of the definition below:
In sport, choking under pressure is a negative athletic experience that may have psychologically damaging effects
In sports, choking is the failure of a person, or persons, to act or behave as anticipated or expected
Choking under pressure ensues when athletes fail to meet their performance goals, usually during high-pressure situations
Choking can be defined as a sub-optimal sporting performance delivered when under pressure.
Now, here's what Rob Kearney had to say after the New Zealand match:
“I said before the game that if Ireland were even at 90% of what they’re capable of, they would win. They were so brave and tried so hard. They filled the country with so much pride, but at the end of the day, they weren’t at 90%. Here we are, at another quarterfinal, and we didn’t produce the rugby this team is capable of. That’s the bit that will hurt so much.”
Then Shane Horgan said:
"It’s heartbreaking because of the result. It’s also heartbreaking because they didn’t deliver the performance they wanted. Their sub-maximum performance was nearly enough, but they were quite a bit off today in a lot of areas. Some of them will have to live this for four years. Some of them will have to live with it for the rest of their lives. There is no easy way to put it."
So there you have it. Kearney and Horgan basically using the definition of choking. As I've stated. I agree with their verdict, you don't. That's fair enough. I think we should move on for the benefit of other posters.
Shane Horgan: "I've heard the term 'choked' being bandied around. We didn't see that. What a choke would be is if Ireland didn't come back into the game after the opening that we saw from New Zealand and went onto the lose the game by 30 points".
But sure. You can still believe he meant they choked...
Do you disagree with all the definitions I've listed for you? If so, take that up with those who made the definition. You may have been unfamiliar with how choking is defined, Shane Horgan may be the same. But his statement and that of Rob Kearney aligns with the definition of choking. Uncomfortable truth, yes but the truth it is.
Musicrules: "Shane Horgan: This was a choke"
Shane Horgan: "This wasn't a choke".
That's a bit mad. For me, you can only choke if you have a commanding lead and let it slip, Northampton style. Ireland were never in a position to choke in that game.
Shane Horgan, Rob Kearney, many supporters, ex players and pundits use the definition of choking to describe Ireland's performance against New Zealand. The stats back it up.
Aloooof stomps his feet claiming the definition of choking is wrong.
In your opinion they 'choked'.
Teams only choke when they are expected to win something.
You had an expectation we would win.
That was never a legitimate expectation, it was always a 50/50 game.
New Zealand were required to play a game where they had ZERO handling errors, which is pretty much unheard of in the professional game. They won by 4 points.
it appears the only way to define a winning performance is "perfect" and a losing performance as "chokers"
there is literally nothing in between these two definitions, one or the other, you pick lads.....
i miss the Zebo debates at this point
Sexton has been prone to missing penalty kicks in the past. It's awful that it happened in this match.
I don't think anyone has said that!
If you think New Zealand had to play an unbelievable game to beat Ireland and Ireland were just unlucky then fair enough.
It should also be fair enough for others to have the opinion that the occasion got to many of our players and it affected their performance negatively.
There's no point in anyone getting stroppy, strawmanning or any other carry on just because there's a difference of opinion.
All kickers are prone to missing kicks. You'd be surprised at the overall kicking stats for some kickers. But the bigger the occasion, the more coverage it gets. There's also a huge amount of online coverage and analysis on Irish rugby.
I recall seeing a statistic that Pollard's general kicking stats are actually not great (open to correction on that one!). Ruan Pienaar had a weird reputation as being a great goal kicker when he was anything but. Farrell can be extremely streaky. Wilkinson had some really poor days with the boot.
Morne Steyn was the one guy that genuinely did deliver both in terms of reputation and stats with Carter not far off either.
No handling errors and they took their chances. We lost by a whisker. N.Z did the business and won. It's not like we'd beat them by 20. It wasn't a good day at the office. We underperformed and fair play to the kiwis. 4 more years of agony.
I'm one who thinks that we can win the feckin world cup and could have this time. The disappointment is awful. But we're going to improve, imo. 4 years to develop players and get systems in place. We will be champions in 4 years!!! Believe!
Yes, it's awful. Especially his last match. The stats about lack of running and playing differently than the previous 2 years is the one that really needs investigating. The reasons for that may lead to the reasons he missed the kick.
I'm not saying we lost because of Sexton. Just thinking of the penalties he's missed that looked standard fare for him.
All kickers miss penalties.
I recall seeing a statistic that Pollard's general kicking stats are actually not great (open to correction on that one!).
I saw something similar recently too. Iirc, they were skewed from his early career, but there was a clear trend of improvement as he got more experience.
