We hear it all the time in sports, "We didn't play a full-60 minutes."
The Saskatchewan Roughriders were accused of this sports cliché terminology Sunday following the loss to the Stampeders. Why is it players and coaches can always fall back on that statement after a loss?
Obviously in a loss in professional sports the talent of the teams have a lot to do with the result, but in the end the biggest factors of winning and losing are execution and mistakes made. Underdogs don't simply win because no one expects them to win and they had no pressure. They win because they are better prepared and execute better when it counts.
In football, more than any other sport, the preparation is key to a team's success. They usually have a week between games for preparation to counter what the other team will do. That part of the game starts as soon as their previous game ends and lasts up until the final whistle. So why do the Roughriders appear to have such a difficult time changing things up and countering the other teams.
Look at Toronto two weeks ago. Their offence was mediocre, so instead of trying to beat a dead horse they used some special team gambles to exploit the Riders. Preparation showed the Riders' special teams were weak and it worked to Toronto's advantage.
Fast forward to Sunday's game. Yes they had a great first quarter, but after that they couldn't move the ball. Durant looked like Ricky Ray did at the beginning of the season when all he did was run for his life because the offensive line was handing out free passes to all Calgary defenders.
Calgary ran the ball because they dominated the trenches, but yet the Riders looked like they refused to send extra players anticipating the obvious rushing plays the Stampeders were running in the second half.
The Riders have three weeks left to right the ship and hopefully create another chance against the Stampeders, but ultimately it comes down to guys wanting to compete and execution. Who would've thought heart, something no coach can teach, would be the biggest thing between winning or losing a game?
Think of hockey - the team with the most powerplay opportunities doesn't always win. If they practice their powerplay, execute and score on those opportunities that is the difference, not whether they had more opportunities than the other team. When one team's shot hits the post and the shot stays out of the net and the other hits the post and it bounces in doesn't comes down to being outplayed in the third period. It's hard to argue one team didn't play a full 60 minutes when a game is that close.
Take the North Stars for example. They are 3-7-1-1. If they got a lucky break or a timely save in two of their games against Melfort they could have won two more games and taken two wins away from the Mustangs. The North Stars and mustangs would be battling for third and fourth instead of one team in second and one in sixth in the division. It is literally that close.
How about baseball? In the end the team that puts more runners on base and are able to drive them in will win. Think of the Toronto Blue Jays - they finished the season with an 85-77 record and 11 games out of the division title. That is a big spread, but what if the Blue Jays won half the games they lost by one run this season? I did the math, and if instead of losing, they won half their 31 one-run losses they would have 15 more wins. That would put them at 100-62 and would've been the best record in baseball this season.
In those games it comes down to maybe one more timely base hit or one more double play ball and they win those games and make the playoffs.
Before hockey games last season and baseball games for the past few years, before the game started, I would say to my teammates, "Let's score more than them." Yeah - not real inspirational I know, and it was usually just used to lighten the mood and relax everyone. If you think about it, that is all it comes down to. It doesn't matter if you play a brutal baseball game, make 13 errors and half the team strikes out twice, if you score more than the other team the win is ultimately all that matters - unless you're playing for some bonus cash or your contract is up at the end of the season.
I am tired of using and hearing the same old excuse, "We didn't play a full 60 minutes."
A note to the Riders. If you don't want to blame the coaches for not adjusting during the game or the players for not competing the entire game the simple fix is execute better. I know these discussions only come up after a loss, but that is when they are exploited to the max. It's time for the Riders to play the cards they were dealt. It is too late in the season for drastic changes.
Nothing proves this point more than the Miracle on Ice, although I will admit I know more about the U.S.A. hockey miracle from the Disney movie than research of the real event. It proves how preparation and execution are ultimately the difference in sport.
If U.S.A. can beat the Russians in international hockey why can't the Blue Jays beat the Yankees in the National League East Division or the Roughriders beat the Stampeders in the CFL or the North Stars be on top in the SJHL?
Teams are closer than they appear on paper and in the stats column, which is why sport fans can debate a single game for days.
Just try not to lead the debate with the same old reasoning about the 60-minute effort.
