Tag Archives: Michael Parker

2018. No leadership. No insight. No hope.

England were never going to win this pitch. They never had a prayer and anyone who followed things from the start knew this. As did the media who, nevertheless, enjoyed raising the temperature with a ‘we was robbed by the bunging-corrupt-lieing-cheating-FIFA story. At least it kept the snow off the front pages. Here are two real reasons why we lost.  Lack of leadership. Lack of insight.

_45086349_triesman_av512

Think what you will about the preening Sebb Blatter but recognise that he and his cronies, like the IOC,  are all powerful.  They are not impressed by titles and are used to world leaders grovelling. Obama early in his presidency lost prestige pitching for Chicago to host 2012. The same goes for the ill-advised Cameron. The patent lack of clear leadership from England’s bid, at its conspicuous worst with Lord Triesman and his pillow talk, was a fatal own goal. 

putin

Compare this with the Russian bid. Whoever was nominally leading their delegation, the real leadership was one man, Putin. From the outset FIFA  knew with total certainty who they were dealing with and who would and could deliver. (No client in any pitch appoints where leadership is lacking!)  Seb Coe was clearly the leader of London’s Olympic bid.

article-1291213564444-0c4b723a000005dc-497652_636x300

 The Dave, David and William charm team complains that it is unfair, “our technical bid was the best”. They forget that Paris, who were the  technically superior bid for 2012, lost because they lacked insight into what really mattered to the IOC, a  need to be seen as good guys inspiring the world’s youth.  London played to this.(See last post).

sepp_blatter_wideweb__470x33001

The FA’s lack of strategic insight was neatly expressed by Jeff Powell in the  Daily Mail: “Not until it was so late that the doomsday clock was chiming did it dawn on any of them that what FIFA really wanted was to bestow its greatest gift not upon the rich, smug and famous but on a region in need of those five star facilities….and in so doing open up a vast new frontier for the global game.”

The steppes of Russia were always going to have more allure than football crowded England.

Great pitch. False promise.

It was a great pitch. Against the odds the bid team brilliantly lead by Seb Coe beat off the strong Paris bid. To win they did many things right. Tony Blair and David Beckam added to the celebrity quotient, something that flatters the inflated egos of the IOC  members. They put together a powerful pitch, rehearsed to the nth degree performed superbly.

530603021

However to win they knew they needed, as Coe put it, to make “an emotional connection”. What would counter the rational superiority of the Paris bid? The answer was an overtly emotional appeal that infused the bid and was best dramatised in a moving  film of young kids around the world with the voice over, “To make an athlete takes millions of children around the world inspired to choose sport.”

ioc_438

The IOC bought it because it made them feel good, even though they knew that no previous Games had increased participation. Our politicians had the legacy soundbite they needed as they systematically started syphoning money away from grass root sport to ensure we could meet the ridiculous staging demands imposed by the IOC.

_41543770_john_gregson

I have no doubt the Bid team believed this time it would be different. Unfortunately they, and we, the parents, coaches, teachers, volunteers, had underestimated the political cynicism when it comes to  sport that really matters, sport for children. Des Kelly in the Daily Mail : “It’s about the fact that everyday participation in sport gives children self-esteem, raises confidence levels and reduces anti-social behavior”. 

Children, apart from the few natural competitors, are not inspired by the Olympic Games.  Their inspiration comes from the everyday effort and example of the volunteers, PE teachers and the like. All of this is now threatened by Mr Goves. Promises, promises.

“PAINT A MOOD”.

On BBC2 yesterday evening, in ‘JFK-The Making of Modern Politics’, Andrew Marr discussed the 1960 presidential campaign. Most of us know  about the famous television debate when the unshaven, sweating Nixon lost the viewer vote. However there was much more to a campaign that started out with Kennedy as the rank outsider, known to less than half the population.

jfk2

To win he pioneered ideas now common to most political campaigns. He put style ahead of substance, he portrayed his enviable life style, he spent huge amounts of money and he was ruthless when needed. All this worked for him. But perhaps the most telling of Marr’s observations was this. He said that JFK  knew how to “paint a mood”.

He did not get bogged down in detail and policy statements. When he met voters he talked to them as individuals, he listened to them and above all created a sense of promise that anything seemed possible. “His vigour, his  vibrancy and his cheerful optimism made them feel hopeful, energised, enthused and… interested”.

 Next time, paint a mood!

Seeking the iconic image?

Being vane goes with the territory for most politicians but David Cameron’s appointment of his pet snapper as a Government employee, along with the rest of his vanity team, smacks of desparation. Or has power already started corrupting? Whatever, he needs more than well lit, retouched photographs to join the image elite. 

1452117123_7dc87e0126

Aung San Suu Kyi the ‘girl with the orchid in her hair’.

pietermaritzburg-nelson-mandela

Nelson Mandela of the indomiable smile and colourful shirts.

che-guevara

Che Guevera, a beret and an iconic poster.

davidcameron11

 David Cameron and a tame photographer.

A team needs to be seen as a team.

One of the great things about a pitch is  the  heightened sense of excitement. A challenge  outside day-to-day routine, the stimulus of competition, working  to meet  an impossible deadline and the anticipation of performing on the big day. All inspire teamwork.

charles-schulz-peanuts-teamwork12

However achieving teamwork is not the problem. Being seen to be a team can be and that matters.

 The rational evaluation of track record, proposed solution, fee strucure and so on, is not what dictates most decisions.  It is the emotional judgement of three questions, all of which are an instinctive response to the pitch team. How hungry are they? Do I like them? Do they like each other?

It is this last question that is often overlooked. Just because a team has burnt the midnight oil together does not mean they will be seen as a team in the pitch. A succession of well learnt, well scripted  set pieces, each relevant to individual roles can be seen as just that. A collection of individuals rather than a team.

The solution is simple. Rehearse as a team working on spontaneuos interaction, introduce  story telling that informally sends out team signals. Have an observer in rehearsals  charged only with seeing you as a team.