This article is the result off a shared attempt by myself and Superbul. Superbul came up with the idea and some original thoughts. However, I’ve added quite a bit and Superbul have not seen the final product so I’ll take the hits if you don’t agree with any opinions expressed.

The theory of peaking

One columnist relate the following remark made by Steve Hansen about the current popular question -posed by rugby supporters- as to whether the AB is peaking to soon:  

“A lot of people are saying we’re peaking too early and I think that’s a load of rubbish,” he said yesterday.

“I think you’re only peaking too early if you’ve reached your full potential and this team hasn’t reached its full potential.

“So we’ve just got to keep working hard at what we’re trying to do and perfect it even better.”

Now that is just about the dumbest remark about peaking I’ve seen in a long time.

What exactly is peaking and how does it relate to cohesiveness and performance in steam sports?

Peaking is based on the concept of periodization namely having a training plan. A specific plan designed to meet the athletes training and performance goals at a specific time. Periodization (or planned sports performance training) varies the focus of a training program at regularly planned periods of time (weeks or months) to produce optimal adaptation. It involves two primary objectives: 1) Dividing the training program into distinct periods (or phases) of training and 2) Training for different adaptations in each period (or phase) to control the volume of training to prevent injury.

A periodization program can stretch over 10 weeks, one year or 5 years depending on the goal. Lasse Viren is probably the best classic example of an athlete who’s used a long-term training program (4 years) for one event (the Olympic Games) using all other races as part of his long-term preperation.

Viren was an ordinary athlete who beat the world by following a 4 year periodization training plan. He is known for the fact that he won very little apart from four Olympic Gold medals (5000 and 10 000 meters) in two consecutive Olympic Games (1972 and 1976). Viren spent four years of background training preparing for a single peak at the Olympic Games. And when he peaked, no one was near him. Of this ability Viren commented: “Some do well in other races, some run fast times, but they cannot do well in the ultimate, the Olympics….The question is not why I run this way, but why so many cannot.”

The point here is you cannot win all the races/matches every year and perform at your optimum best in the Olympic Games and/or the world cup. Especially, because you can not maintain peak levels indefinetely (see figure below). From the moment you start with sharpening work at point B on the figure (high intensity strength and speed work which is what the All Blacks have been doing in preperation for this years tri-nations) until the moment when your performances starts to decline at point E (even if you try to maintain it) is about 12 weeks.

You can peak only twice per year and the second peak will always be lower (less dramatic) than the first. The higher your base the higher will be your peak; this is why training four years for one event produce such dramatic results when you do eventually peak. This is one factor in NZ’s favour namely they are probably the team in the world with the highest base in terms of general skills. However if they expect to maintain their current level of performance straight through their end-year tour and through next next years tri-nations up to the end of the world cup they are in for a surprise.

Notice points G2 and H on the figure. After you’ve peaked your base line levels drop to levels way below your original base. The longer you force to maintain a high level the more dramatic the eventual drop. Overtraining has the same effect and at the rate both South Africa and New Zealand are going I predict neither of them will be in the 2011 world cup finals. New Zealand players are going to take a dramatic drop after this tri-nations and their baseline are stil going to be below par when they try and force another peak in 2011. The South African players on the other hand are overplayed and the ill effects of that is already clearly evident as can be seen with their inabilty to lift themselves for this years tri-nations.

So in terms of Hansen’s answer he’s got it all mixed-up. It is not about reaching optimal potential it is about hitting best form wherever you are on the continuum of optimal ability.

The real question (disguised in this case) to Mr Hansen was: Do you have a training plan which would ensure that the AB hit top form in 2011 or is this performances part of a long-term plan towards 2011? The way he answered the question suggest not; it suggest that they are working on team and individual skills but what they are doing now is not part of a  well thought out process towards 2011. It is of course not unrelated but we all know that top form and scintillating team synergy comes and goes and unless you plan to hit it at the right time it normally comes at the wrong time and are gone when you really needs it.

My feeling is that they were so disgruntled and concerned about last year’s losses and the poor form of NZ S14 teams, this season, that they threw any semblance of a plan towards 2011 out the back door just in order to prove to themselves that they can beat the Springboks.  In the process they have hit a form and level of team synergy that can’t last because of the total and overbearing emotional and physical commitment it requires.

The fact is the All Blacks don’t really peak before a World Cup they have a constant, permanent peak. Last year was the only year in the last decade where they lost more than 2 games in a year. This year they made up for that by staying unbeaten so far.

In World Cup years 2003 and 2007 they lost only 2 games but crucially one of it was their elimination out of the tournament. 

Any of the big teams (SA, Aus, France and Engeland) who follows a periodization plan and who stick to it (like Jake White did) will have a fair chance of beating NZ during a world cup tournament because of this desire and commitment the New Zealanders have to win all their tests.   

Mistakes the All Blacks made in 2003 and 2007

There were some other mistakes made by the All Blacks in 2003 and 2007 which seems to be less prevalent this time round. 

Rotation policy

Dept in the 22 squad was Henry’s philosophy in 2007. More specifically to make sure that everyone in the squad got game time on test level in case of injury to first choice players; in order to accomplish that he incorporated a rotation policy. This was a major mistake and the end result of this rotation policy was that he messed-up combinations and synergy in the team.

Pieter de Villiers has been making the exact same mistake since his appointment as coach and he got worse in this department after last years’ tri-nation victory. He paid the same price as Henry namely losing team synergy.

Arrogant team selections

Arrogant team selection stem from the belief that you have dept to your disposal and that your team is a step above the best opposition. Leaving experienced players out of the team, ignoring the importance of inform combinations and selecting “bolters” or one season wonder boys in the hope that they will provide something special.

Leonard in the place of Peru Weepu is an example of an experienced player sacrificed for a one season bolter. Weepu was instrumental in the All Blacks victory over South Africa in a very close match in Dunedin during the 2007 tri-nations. The Springboks were using the Jake White induced rush defence and Weepu with his lower body strength were able to take the ball forward around the fringes and in so doing kept NZ in the match. Henry got arrogant and left him out of his World Cup squat opting for Brendan Leonard. In the match against France- with Carter injured and Aaron Maugar not playing- the AB found themselves in a position where they had no senior players or tacticians in key positions. So they lacked leadership in the play creating positions and ended up with crash-ball-rugby.

My concern is that we are seeing the same pattern with PdV this season namely playing accomplished players like Jean de Villiers out of position and trying to built dept with constant chopping and changing. Hopefully the Springbok coaches will get it right next year; Henry clearly learned from his mistakes and are introducing his line breakers (bolters) like Isreal Dagg, this year, sparingly and at the right time. 

Injury to senior players

I can’t remember the details of the 2003 match which NZ lost against Australia but I do remember that Tana Umanga got injured and couldn’t play. That resulted into some changes to the team and ultimately it was Mortlock who ran thought the NZ midfield defence to score a match winning try. 

The team who played for New Zealand in that disastrous match against France in 2007 were:

1. Tony Woodcock
2. Anton Oliver
3. Carl Hayman
4. Keith Robinson
5. Ali Williams
6. Jerry Collins
7. Richie McCaw (captain)
8. Rodney So’oialo
9. Byron Kelleher
10. Dan Carter
11. Sitiveni Sivivatu
12. Luke McAlister
13. Mils Muliaina
14. Josevata Rokocoko
15. Leon MacDonald

Reserves:
16. Keven Mealamu
17. Neemia Tialata
18. Chris Jack
19. Chris Masoe
20. Brendon Leonard
21. Nick Evans
22. Isaia Toeava

Notice the selection of the over the hill and injured Keith Robinson (injured for the biggest part of the world cup campaign; he was actually selceted while injured) on lock with Chris Jack on the bench. Also the selection of Anton Oliver in the place of Mealamu which was by far the inform hooker in NZ; another arrogant selection. Notice the selection of both Kelleher and Carter who was injured in the run-up to this test; both these players as well as Keith Robinson were not able to complete this particular match. Notice also Luke McAllister on inside centre another player who left the field during the match with injury and Mills Muliaina –a fullback- on outside centre.  Not only were the 22 squat full of surprises and arrogant choices but the team selected for what was regarded by some kiwi as the most important match in 20 years for NZ  was also full of arrogant selections.

Conditioning program and withdrawal from the S14 in 2007

The many injuries and lack of form during the second part of the 2007 World cup tournament indicates that the conditioning program the AB followed in 2007 backfired on them. They had their timing wrong with their program paying off during the tri-nations when they had a wonderful win against the Springboks in Durban.  They clearly peaked that day and their main focus thereafter was to try and not lose form; resulting in becoming careful and tentative on the field.

You attract what you think most about

After the win against the Springboks in Durban during the 2007 tri-nations the AB’s attention shifted away from playing percentage rugby towards not choking (not making mistakes) and not getting injured and that is exactly what they attracted into their World Cup campaign.

Obsessive with flair

Probably the ultimate flaw New Zealand rugby has is their ridiculous obsessive need to play open “attractive” rugby. I don’t think it is plausible during a world cup and the problem is that if you constantly do play an open, fast game then it is hard to shift to another pattern when your open game plan backfires on you. This is exactly what happened to them in 2007 and 2003 namely not having a plan B or more specifically not able to shift to another way of playing. What they needed to do in 2007 was to kick for corners and maul off the line outs but they were so scared of losing and a strategy of not-kicking–your-possession-away was so ingrained into their consciousness that kicking for corners was not even contemplated but considered dangerous and off limits. In fact they had at that stage -with Kelleher, Carter and McAllister injured and off the field- no tactical kicker on the field that could read the match and direct play in a manner appropriate to the match situation. Something that Weepu could have provided had he been in the squat and on the bench for that match. Aaron Mauger was another tactician and experienced player who could have changed that match with his ability to read the game but alas he was another player left out of the side by a stupendously arrogant Graeme Henry. 

So to return to the question are they peaking too soon? My answer would be absolutely but whether our coaches has the ability to benefit from it is another issue. Looking at the Wallabies I see steady improvement. I see evidence of a well structured team development plan. They for me are the team that could take the chokers on the day especially since they are more familiar than any other team -apart form the All Blacks themselves- to the New Zealand playing surfaces and rainy conditions.