What does a country need to do to win a World Championship?

Travelling and playing in different environments has me asking:

What does a country need to do to win an Elite World Championship?

I have been reading your posts with interest, in particular many of the posts by players seeking how to make themselves better players either through technical skills such as improving your breath hold, hand skills, fitness etc or through mental attributes, such as will to succeed, determination, mental toughness, but how does this lead to a world champion team.

We have all heard the saying “A Champion Team will always beat a team of champions”, why is that so? There has to be more than turning up to a world championship with a bunch of highly skilled, super fit players who want to win. The fact that firstly Australia and now NZ have now won multiple world championships, consistently beating their rivals, indicates that somehow they have generated a competitive advantage over other teams.

What do these countries have in common?

For a company to earn superior returns they have to have a competitive advantage, that is to consistently do something better than their competitors over a period of time. Whether it is being able to deliver goods at a lower price or offer more services for the same price is irrelevant.

The way they identify and articulate this is through strategy.

Strategy is all about the direction and scope of the team over the long term. In business companies aim to consistently get superior returns for their investment, in sport it is all about winning world championships, but the methods are not dissimilar.

Consider the simple example, two teams, each with exactly the same strategy, we have already identified that among top teams the difference between fitness, skill and desire should be minimal so logically the team that executes the strategy better will win. Why then do we get countless countries turning up to worlds trying to play bash hockey when one look at some of the other teams also playing that style shows that the team will not be able to execute that strategy as well as some of the other teams. Before you even start you are playing for 2nd, 3rd or 4th rather than the championship, and that is presuming that your strategy is superior to all the other strategies out there.

There are two ways to shape a strategy, either take a bunch of individuals and look at how you can best utilise them, shaping a strategy around the players you have or identifying a strategy and building a pool of players with the capabilities required to execute that strategy.

You may ask what the difference is, to me it is substantial. The first tries to make do with the best strategy for the given resources, that may or may not allow you to challenge for a world championship, the second allows you to identify a strategy that you know is capable of winning a world championship and building a team around it.

If New Zealand abandoned its strategy after Canada they may never have won in New Zealand at the following worlds. Maintaining their strategy allowed players to build skills and experience to better execute their strategy at the next and subsequent worlds. Strategies need to be developed and implemented over time; firstly to refine the strategy within a competitive environment, secondly to ensure that players have the right capabilities to execute them effectively and thirdly build a big enough player base to promote competition for places within the playing squad.

Consider the top 4 countries at the last worlds. New Zealand, Netherlands, France and Australia, is it any coincidence that these 4 nations were also the top 4 countries in NZ and similarly in Calgary with the exception of the Netherlands? With the addition of South Africa these countries have nearly always filled the top 4 positions at every world championships since 1996. While each country has had exceptional players, each country consistently has identified a strategy that they think can challenge for a world championship and then has ensured that they have had the capabilities to execute their particular strategy consistently.

To illustrate an earlier point many of these countries have now been playing the same or similar strategies for a significant period of time, reinforcing their dominance of a particular strategy. The failure by new countries to identify this fact and invest in new strategies has meant little change at the top of the sport. New Zealand’s willingness to invest in a new strategy has resulted in two world championships and potentially more.

In the most effective teams every player has a role to play, the strategy provides a common understanding among all players in the pool about how they play as a team and what they will do in any given situation and more importantly informs the skills and capabilities required of each player to execute it with minimal mistakes. It is very rare in UWH to see a strategy executed to perfection and consistently. Australia in Hobart and NZ in Sheffield are the closest I have seen to teams that have consistently executed their strategy to its potential.

For a team to challenge for a world championship coaches need to invest the time identifying a strategy that is capable of winning a world championship and build players capable of executing it. There is no point copying another country entirely because they already have the jump on you. Original strategies and more importantly an ability to execute them without mistakes is the key to winning and this takes time.

Fantastic post Hamish, when I have more time, I have some things to add.
Cheere
Belle

__________________
Underwater Hockey Rules!

we have a little saying in nz that coaches pull out every now and again... any formation will work if it's played right. obviously, if everyone does their job, the team will be successful.

... while this is true, it needs a disclaimer on it. i think it should be, any formation will work if it's played right AND if whats required of each player is realistic and within their capabilities.

i guess this relates to hamish mentioning building players to fit into a team strategy. but the simple fact is, if your strategy at some stage requires one of your players to swim 15m in 1.5 seconds underwater, for instance... well, you're going to have problems.

some strategies, without realising it, require far too much from some players and too little from others at given times. some strategies are fundamentally flawed in various instances. none are perfect but some less perfect than others.

also, "strategies" keep changing, as we encounter different situations they must allow for, and as other teams change THEIR strategies they will force even more different situations, etc etc.

so while a given strategy can be attempted and need time to develop, it also will by definition be constantly changing itself.

What an open ended question - a bit like finding the meaning to life :-)

If anyone actually knows the entire answer to this they will be a very rich person.

Whilst you can have a team with great fitness, skills, strategy (within their capabilities), right mental attitude (individually), they must also work together flawlessly. This has been the failing of many teams in many sports over the years.

I have done a bit of work with a guy called Dr Istvan Gorgenyi at the Melbourne Business School. He is an former Hungarian Olympic medallist in Water Polo and gold medal coach of Australian Olympic team. Does a lot of work with team sports around the world (football/soccer) etc.

http://www.huntingterritory.com/biography.html

He discusses his theory called 'The Hunting Territory' and is about how team members interact the make a team.

I have been in and seen many teams in many sports that self destruct at the crucial moments and fail. I have also been in and seen many teams in many sports that appear to work like a well-oiled machine and perform great things due to their social/team structure.

I also agree with Atapene that if you can do the simple things right 100% of the time you will rarely be beaten.

In our sports our teams spend relatively minimal time together as a team (particularly here in Australia) that it is difficult to develop more complex strategies that time considerable time to master as a team.

Hamish makes a good point about teams that span multiple world championships having a greater chance of success as they are developing better social interaction and more complex strategies along with mastering the simple autonomous skills. One of the greatest examples of this (although almost ancient now :-) ) was the Canadien Men's team in 1986. They began in 1982 and developed through 1984 and won the 1986 World Championships. This team was one of the most coherent teams (6 players from two families including twins also helped!) and also a team that had mastered together high level fitness, high level skills, and extremely complex strategies. I don't believe there has been another team from any country since then that has been as 'complete' as this one.

All teams go through a series of stages (there is no set time they spend in each phase). The stages of team life can generally be defined as:
Formation
Inside Fights
Settled
Dynamic Balance
Disintegration

Formation
Unsettled structures
Enthusiasm, Courtesy to each other
Focus on cooperation
Good performace

Inside Fights
cliques & sub-groups forming
tense atmosphere
game playing (with each other)
poor performance
informal leaderships forming

Settled
Team structure settled
Focus on tasks & performance
Perform well but fail at critical moments
Rivalry exists but is controlled

Dynamic Balance
Close relationships (NO BENSON, STAY AWAY, KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF :-D )
Controlled by informal leaders
Autonomy
Care about each other
Best results

Disintegration
Tired, burnt out
Complacency
There is a 'rozy haze" that things are all right
Self-blinding arrogance!

Hmmm... sorry for the essay ops:

Having played in teams that should've won but didn't, and teams that won that shouldn't have, I certainly can relate to the theory Kelly presented. In fact Tan, Tommy and I discussed this theory last year and how if possible do you create that magic. We didn't have an answer then, but strangely enough, our team in 2006 went through those stages and reached the "Dynamic Balance" level and we all truely believe that this helped us win that final in Sheffield. It wasn't individual brilliance nor was it superior fitness or superior tactics; it was simply players extending themselves for their team mates. When you have two even teams, that's probably what it comes down to.

It can't be easy to engineer - there are plenty of international teams with millions to spend who have failed. You have to try though - but what can you do (taking into consideration the limitations we have in Aus)? There is also a fear that if you try too hard, then this may back-fire.

__________________
Off Half-Backs Rule

You are right in the fact that it isn't easy to engineer, especially considering the type of individuals that we are dealing with here...

But, the most important step is recognising that these stage do exist and how to identify them and then using specific techniques to manage a team through these stages.

I outlined some of the indicators of the stages previously. Here is some of the tecniques to manage the team through those stages:

FORMATION
This is a stage for directing
Set clear goals & objectives
Set rules of behaviour/codes
Team building
Testing talent

INSIDE FIGHTS
Need to judge performance and not personality
Simple tasks
Be firm/tough
Measure & judge objectively

SETTLED
This is where the 'Hunting Territory becomes most active. Need to make sure of clear roles as outlined in earlier stages
Use benchmarking against other teams, players, and use best practice techniques

DYNAMIC BALANCE
Ensure rules are observed
Extend physically and mentally
Encourage rewards
Introduce Mentoring, Goals, Roles of Leader, Team members
Tinker, change and improve
Enjoy the ride!

DISINTEGRATION
There is either planned or unplanned
Planned is just a managed transition
Unplanned is highly directive.

Hey Hamish, can you introduce yourself to the forum, so we all know who you are!

__________________
Underwater Hockey Rules!

I agree that the formation and the stategy don't matter. If you have the right players and everyone is on the same page and execute properly, it will work. A wall game can win just as easy as an open game. A 1-2-2-1 can win as easily as a 3-3. An offensive attacking style which leads to a 6-5 game can win as easily as a get up 1-0 and stall strategy... or they could lose.

I've always contended that if I could take a NCAA Division 1 Swim Team and train them for two years, I could make a contender for Gold at World's. Keep in mind this would be an everyday project where they live together on the training grounds with classroom discussions, weight training, pool sessions, proper diets, etc. My main reason for believing this could work is that those guys know how to train so that part of the equation is done. The skills can be learned quickly so that isn't a big issue. But what makes it work is that they are together. As Kelly points out Canada was together for 4 years, all training in Montreal. I think, and memory may be fading on me, that Aus had about 9 men in one city during their 92 run.

When given a choice of two equal options, knowing which one your teammate will choose just might be the major factor between success and failure.

.... well... yeah, living and training together for 2 years? no-one could stand against that kind of preparation.

unless your entire squad was composed completely of non-athletic people who couldn't catch a ball if it was lobbed to them by a 6 year old, you would certainly win any comp you wanted.

I did say swimmers, who at that level tend to be less coordinated in almost all other sports. But I think it would translate well.

The point is the time together is more key than the rest of it.

Prime example is our Olympic Basketball teams over the last few. At any one time they could have the best 5 players on the court and still lose.And that's because they are together for only a couple of weeks. And again, take a college team that has been playing together and they might roll right through to the Gold.