Winning is everything? Sorry, no

Hundreds of thousands of men and women have played professional football. None, surely, could have so fully lived up to the name Socrates. He played as though football was a creative puzzle, to be teased out like a philosophical enquiry. He played with grace but also with lightness.

Not all of you may have encountered a mischievous theory called nominative determinism. The idea is that people are predetermined to pursue certain professions by their names: your name is your fate. Britain's leading jurist is called Igor Judge (his professional billing is "Judge Judge"); the world's fastest man is called Usain Bolt; and "Dudus" Coke awaits trial in the US for allegedly running the Jamaican drugs mafia.

Socrates certainly lived up to his nominative destiny. He was a qualified doctor, a political activist and an independent thinker. His attitude to life was appropriately philosophical. He knew that smoking and drinking were damaging his health, but retorted, "It's a problem, but we all have to die of something, don't we?"

The same joie de vivre informed Socrates' attitude to sport. He was unflinchingly committed to the joga bonito - the beautiful game. "Beauty comes first. Victory is secondary. What matters is joy." Even people who don't like football remember being uplifted by Socrates' grace and audacity. They remember his mistakes as well as his triumphs. They remember his movement and imagination as well as his goals. And they remember that he was unique - perhaps the highest accolade any sportsman can achieve. I almost forgot the most important thing of all: he is remembered, full stop.

A great deal is written about greatness in sport. There is a natural human urge to seek objectivity and proof about who is the greatest. Averages are measured, metrics invented, comparisons fed through the meat grinder of statistical analysis.

But statistics, I'm afraid, can never tell us the whole truth about greatness. Because sporting achievement is not quite the same thing as greatness. Look at cricket. Viv Richards was an exceptional performer in Test cricket, but he wasn't off the map in terms of pure stats. Greg Chappell and other contemporaries pushed him hard. But in terms of greatness, Viv stood alone. The numbers don't quite capture the complete Viv effect - not just on opponents but also on fans. Whenever I remember watching him on television, a smile comes over my face - even now, 25 years later.

Mark Waugh's Test match average was "only" 41 (that still sounds pretty good to me, but it's undeniable that lots of players average 41 these days). But the numbers don't reflect the pleasure he gave. A sublime Waugh flick through midwicket was only worth four runs - the same as an ugly thick edge from a lesser batsman - but it was worth much more to those who paid money to watch.

Some of the most astonishing things Waugh did on a cricket field weren't recorded at all. Greg Chappell tells a lovely story in his book The Making of Champions about watching Waugh field on the footholds at extra cover and midwicket in ODIs. The ball would be bouncing unpredictably on the footholds and Waugh would swoop effortlessly and pick it up without fumbling or diving, like a cat pouncing on a ball of string. Chappell writes that he wanted to stand up and cheer every time. Statistically it was an non-event. For the discerning fan, it was pure magic.

According to the averages, the racist cheat Ty Cobb was a better batter than Babe Ruth. But Cobb was nowhere near as great a sportsman. Not if we use the correct measurement: the extent to which he was loved and remembered.

If you still think that winning in sport is all about the final score, I recommend reading Rafa: My Story, the unflinchingly honest autobiography by Rafael Nadal. When he writes about Roger Federer, his great rival, something strange happens to Nadal. Rationally he knows that he has beaten Federer more often than Federer has beaten him, but he insists that Federer is the greater player. Partly, that is because Federer still possesses more grand slams. But the deeper reason is that Nadal deeply respects - perhaps even envies - the way Federer plays. "You get these blessed freaks of nature in other sports, too."

Here is the interesting thing. Nadal does not congratulate himself for being the more worthy champion. He congratulates Federer for the more sublime talent. And Nadal may be right. In an era of wonderful tennis players, Federer has been the most elegant, refined and instinctive.

Socrates' death has been described as a terrible day for sporting romantics. In fact, it is a much sadder day for sporting ultra-rationalists. Because the win-at-all-costs brigade has once again been shown to be completely wrong. Socrates never won the World Cup, and lost the biggest match of his career playing on his own terms. And how is he remembered? As a loser? No. He is remembered with respect, with adoration, with love. Over the long term, it is very simple: he won.

Remember Socrates' career and legacy the next time you hear "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." That was American football coach Vince Lombardi's dictum about sporting priorities. And in the 50 years since Lombardi's quip, the reductionism of winning at all costs has hardened into conventional wisdom.

Of course, it is a consoling thought - if you're a production-line automaton incapable of playing sport creatively, or if you're a coach determined to stamp out individuality and risk. Yes, if you produce grim, boring and joyless sport, it is reassuring to fall back on the delusion that it is all in a worthy cause.

Socrates knew better. He knew that sportsmen are entertainers. They must try to win, too (no one is entertained by skill without will). But entertainment is not bolted onto sport as an afterthought. It is at the core of the whole project.

Professional athletes are only the temporary custodians of their sports. Their highest calling is to pass it on to the next generation enhanced rather than diminished. By that measure Socrates won - and he won big.

Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/544030.html

Mastermind success! You can, if you think you can

Have you heard of Roger Bannister? He was the first athlete to run the mile in less than four minutes.

In doing so, he not only broke the four-minute barrier, but also taught us all a valuable lesson.

Back in the 1950's, the world record - 4 minutes 1.4 seconds - was held by Sweden's Ginder Haegg. The record stood for several years since it was set in 1945. Athletes, experts and the world were convinced that it was impossible to run a mile in less than four minutes. Some even argued that the human body was biologically incapable of running the mile in less than four minutes!

And then, on 6th May, 1954, Roger Bannister did the impossible. He broke the four minute barrier, finishing the race in 3 minutes, 59.4 seconds.

His rival - Charles Landy - had thrice run the mile in less than 4 minutes 2 seconds without breaching the 4 minute mark. The four minute barrier was "like a wall", Landy had said. But guess what? Just 56 days after Bannister's feat, Landy ran the mile in 3 minutes 57.9 seconds. And by 1957, 16 athletes around the world ran the mile in under 4 minutes. The 4 minute mental barrier was truly shattered!

What really happened? Did coaches get smarter and teach the athletes new techniques? Did running shoes get more sophisticated? Did bodies suddenly get stronger? No. The 4 minute barrier it turned out was not a physiological one - just a mental one! As Roger Bannister explained later, it seemed illogical that you could run a mile in 4 minutes and a bit, but not break 4 minutes. His mind refused to accept that barrier. That made all the difference.

Once that mental barrier was broken by Bannister, everyone believed it could be done! And once the belief changed, the rest was easy.

It's important to understand that our achievements in life are limited not by what we can do, but by what we think we can do. More than ability, it's our attitude that makes the difference. As Henry Ford said, "If you think you can, you can. And if you think you can't, you are right".

We probably find our mind constantly grappling with two competing thoughts: 'I can't!' and 'I can!' How do you ensure the 'I can' wins? How can we break our mental barrier of 'I can't'?

There was a man in Alaska who had a black dog and a white dog. His dog fights attracted large crowds. Every week people would bet on which dog would win. Sometimes the black dog won, and sometimes the white one. One lady noticed that no matter which dog won, the owner always bet on the right dog, and won each week. When the man retired the two dogs, the lady asked him the secret.

"Simple," said the man. "I always bet on the dog I had been feeding all week."

So whether 'I can't' wins in your mind or 'I can', depends on which thought you are feeding!

Winners feed the 'I can' dog in their mind. The thought we feed, grows! Focus on our strengths, and they will grow. Or keep thinking of our weaknesses and our fears. And unfortunately they'll grow too.

We won't always find a Bannister to break our mental barrier. We need to do it ourselves. Once we start feeding the 'I can' thought, we will achieve more than we ever thought was possible! We will all be winners.

What's common between Buffett, Gates & Tendulkar?

Warren Buffet... Bill Gates... Sachin Tendulkar... The sheer mention of these larger-than-life demigods fills us with awe and reverence. They seem like glorious stars; so many light years away that we are content just gazing at them.

Most of us have grown up believing that all great people have some inborn talent. As if they were just meant to be that way. Have you ever thought if it would be possible to be like them? If you haven't, you may want to reconsider after reading this. Okay, let's consider what it takes to become a super-achiever.

Achievement= Innate talent+ Opportunity+ Preparation.

There is not much to debate about this equation. These three ingredients pretty much make up the recipe for success. The interesting part is this... Research on super-achievers has led psychologists to this conclusion: Preparation plays a much bigger role in determining an individual's success than innate talent. Wow! This means that even if you're not a born genius, you haven't lost the battle. All you need is a willingness to prepare well.

Now the next question is quite obvious. How much preparation to become a world-class expert? Through extensive research in the 1990s, psychologist Anders Ericsson arrived at a precise number: 10,000 hours. Various studies strongly pointed that 10,000 hours of practice was required to achieve world-class expertise in anything. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery.

Warren Buffet, for instance, is famed for his discipline and the hours he spends studying financial statements of potential investment targets. But his informal schooling in business and investment started much early when he was just 5. As a kid, Buffett displayed a keen interest in making and saving money. He would go door to door selling chewing gum, Coca-Cola, or weekly magazines. While still in high school, he carried out several successful money-making ideas. By age 11 he made his first investment buying a stock. And by age 13, he had filed his first income tax return.

Source: Take our own little master-blaster Sachin Tendulkar. He is known for spending long hours at the nets, always perfecting his cricketing reflexes. Take Microsoft's founder Bill Gates. He met the 10,000-hour rule when he gained access to a high school computer at the age of 13, and spent 10,000 hours programming on it. Practice isn't the thing you do once you're good. It's the thing you do that makes you good.

Source: www.equitymaster.com

What winners do which lossers don't?

There is something special about all winners, something which put them separate from all others. The most common and hence most important thing which winners do and others don’t is Focus.

Focus is the first and the most important parameter which separates a winner from others. Winner focus on what is their goal and how they have to achieve it. They are so much focused on their goals that at times others call it as obsession, and believe me when all are laughing on them, winners feel proud and happy knowing that his focus has grown so much that it looks obsession and hence their goal is now much more achievable.

Focus of winners makes them do things which others think are unachievable. At the time when everyone thinks on where to start from, a winner thinks of his goals to be achieved. It is this focus which marks other relative qualities of a winner sounds more important. But the fact is, if you are not focused on what you want to do, it is of hardly any importance that how so ever great you are, the chances that you will achieve your goal are very less. History has proven time and again, that the people most focused on their job are the one who come as winners at the end.

Let’s look at this thought with the help of an example. We all know the greatness of Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar (SRT or Little Master), and with him, we all know a not so great, his close friend Vinod Kambli. Both the Mumbai young batsmen busted into the international cricket arena at the same time and took the cricketing world with storm of runs. By far Vinod Kambli was much more talented than SRT. The double hundreds, hitting ‘The Great Shane Warne’, everything came in the way of Vinod Kambli. With success came money, style, fashion and distractions. Kambli, thus got victim of too much success in too small time. He was never in a position to get all these things in such a short time period. And hence, as we all know, his weakness against short pitched balling was soon discovered, and brought his downfall. On the other hand we had SRT playing like a magician; each stroke was played with thousands of thoughts behind it. Hard labor, hours of practice, and focus to stay at top of all his oppositions marked the key to SRT’s success. Everything which Kambli got with his success was at SRT’s doorstep too. But the two players were different.

Kambli being more talented was never required to fight out of any problem. He was so talented that any problem which came to him was solved by just the karisma of his talent. And hence when Kambli faced the short ball problem, he tried to solve it with his talent, but this time the fate had different plans for him. He didn’t have the solution for it and didn’t either have the focus of how big this problem is. Big enough to mark the downfall of the most talented and karismatic player India has produced since long. And then there was SRT, a much less talented player but so focused he was in his game that any bowler who targeted him was left tasting dust and admiring his greatness. New shots were constructed, milestones were achieved, history was eased and rewritten, only to be written with only one name in it Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, The Little Master.

There are many more stories with such kind of examples from Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Bhagat Singh, APJ Abdul Kalam, Michel Schumacher, Steve Waugh, Amitabh Bachchan, Kapil Dev, Pet Sampras, and the list of such winners is a long one. All of them having one common trait in them and that’s Focus. Imagine Mahatma Gandhi without focus of getting India free from British rule, I believe we cannot even imagine the condition we all Indian would have been. We won the world cup in 1983 under the captaincy of Kapil Dev and India is still waiting for their second one and a half all-rounder as capable of Kapil Dev. Nelson Mandela’s work in Africa for black people, has won him a Noble Prize, so is with Late Mother Teresa. All winners in their own fields, approaching their goals with one common trait Focus.

There is something which winners do and others don’t and that’s Focus.

Winners 'The Ant Philosophy'

All of us tend to look up to big people for lessons on how to get better. We are keen to learn the secrets of their success. But we forget that sometimes the biggest lessons in life come from the smallest folks around us.

Winners are learners, they learn at every moment of their life and from all things around, be it big people or small 'Ants'. Winners believe in The Ant Philosophy developed by Jim Rohn.

Ants never quit

That's a good philosophy. If they're headed somewhere and you try to stop them; they'll look for another way. They'll climb over, they'll climb under, they'll climb around. They keep looking for another way. What a great philosophy, to never quit looking for a way to get where you're supposed to go.

Ants think winter all summer

That's an important perspective. You can't be so naive as to think summer will last forever. So ants are gathering in their winter food in the middle of summer.

An ancient story says, "Don't build your house on the sand in the summer." Why do we need that advice? Because it’s important to be realistic. In the summer you've got to think ‘storms’. You've got to think rocks as you enjoy the sand and sun. Think ahead.

Ants think summer all winter

That’s equally important. During the winter, ants remind themselves… "This won't last long; we'll soon be out of here." And come the first warm day, the ants are out. If it turns cold again, they'll dive back down, but then they come out again the first warm day. Ants can't wait to get out.

And here's the last part of the ant philosophy.

Ants do all that they can

How much will an ant gather during the summer to prepare for the winter?
All that he possibly can. What an incredible philosophy, the "all-that-you-possibly-can" philosophy.

Never give up, look ahead, stay positive and do all you can.

And there's just one more lesson to learn from ants. As we know that an ant can carry objects up to 20 times their own weight? Maybe we are like that too. We can carry burdens on our shoulders and manage workloads that are far, far heavier than we'd imagine.

Winner think on the same line, they think themselves as little ants and remembers that they too can carry a lot more on their shoulders.