Momentum shifts, mental edge and high-performance mindset

Introduction

On Saturday, 15 November 2025, the rugby world was given two perfect case studies for understanding how the mental game shapes performance.

At Twickenham, England found themselves twelve points down, yet they refused to panic and turned the match into a convincing win.

At the same time, in Turin, South Africa lost a player to a red card very early in the contest, yet still controlled the match and finished strongly against Italy. Controversy aside, this was a remarkable display of mental toughness, effective game management, and outstanding performance under pressure.

All in all, these two games were more than contests of strength and skill.

They revealed how teams think under pressure and how they respond when the script changes.

Momentum shifted.

Emotions rose.

Leadership had to show up.

Belief had to be restored.

Systems had to hold...

Or not.

Ultimately, each of these moments offers insight into what separates teams that survive pressure from those that thrive because of it.

With that in mind, this article explores several core mental skills themes that emerged across both fixtures, as I observed them.

We will look at resilience and momentum management.

We will examine the role of clarity and calm leadership during disruptions.

We will explore how adversity can either break a team or sharpen its collective purpose.

We will also compare how two teams responded to these high-stakes situations and what that tells us about identity and mindset, while the others did not.

Throughout the article, we will also link these insights to my PPP framework that I often use with athletes and coaches to measure and plan performance.

Wherever applicable, we will also highlight key match moments that illustrate these mental patterns in real-time.

So, whether you coach on the field or lead in a boardroom, or simply want to build a stronger mental edge, these matches provide a valuable window into how high performers think, act, and adapt.

Let us dive in.

Match Context and Key Moments

Now, to make sense of the psychological themes that emerged from these two fixtures, we first need a clear understanding of what unfolded on the field.

Both matches created natural spikes in pressure, which allowed us to see how each team managed momentum, emotion, structure, clarity and belief in real-time.

Let's consider,

England versus New Zealand at Twickenham

The match began with New Zealand exerting immediate control.

Some pundits actually thought the All Blacks would take it away from England after this initial spell.

They scored early, they played with tempo, and they forced England onto the back foot.

That resulted in a twelve-point deficit at home against the All Blacks, which can create a strong emotional reaction in any team because a home crowd with high expectations can often cause more pressure than playing away.

Panic, rushed decision-making, and fractured structure, for instance, are typical responses at this level and in these types of situations.

However, England showed the opposite.

Once the initial wave settled, they tightened their defensive line, slowed the tempo and leaned on their plan.

Their leaders communicated clearly, and their decision-making reflected patience rather than anxiety.

Instead of chasing points emotionally, they took what was available.

This created small psychological wins which stacked on top of one another.

Those small wins then began to erode New Zealand’s early dominance.

I often referred to this as "managing the moments" where players need to be aware of what the picture in front of them is, and finding a way to create small wins and stacking them.

During this game, the turning point came through composed choices, especially in the middle third of the field, where England’s game management became the defining influence.

New Zealand’s early control slowly shifted into frustration, which then turned into forced play. That's when you often see individuals forcing plays or teams falling victim to individual playing rather than sticking to their structures.

In this case, the ABs' structure loosened, their emotional control dropped, and England’s confidence grew. That's what coaches mean when they say the "momentum shifted."

In the end, the match concluded with England dictating the pace, while New Zealand struggled to regain their early rhythm.

They ended up chasing the game more than dictating the pace and gameplay.

Next,

South Africa versus Italy in Turin

In Italy, the Springboks faced an entirely different psychological challenge.

Losing a player to a red card so early in the match (for the second week in a row) puts enormous pressure on any system.

Structure becomes harder to maintain.

Workload increases.

Communication becomes more critical.

And emotional control (regulation) becomes the difference between survival and collapse.

Instead of contracting inward or withdrawing into their shell, South Africa simplified its approach and leaned into what anchors their identity.

They aimed to dominate the collisions, they controlled the breakdown, and they kept the scoreboard moving forward.

Italy created bursts of energy, which was great to see, particularly when shifting the ball wide, but the Springboks absorbed those moments without losing their collective clarity.

What stood out most for a second week was the calmness within a chaotic situation.

Playing with fourteen men for almost the entire game (thirteen at one stage) demanded discipline, clarity and belief because the whole system has been disrupted.

Yet, the Springboks drew on the mental strength and self-belief that have become part of their team culture.

That ingrained identity became a stabilising force, allowing them to play proactively rather than defensively. I can elaborate further on the impact of self-belief or identity belief and its effect on performance later, but it is significant.

Now, let's ask the important questions of,

Why these two matches matter for mental skills analysis

Ultimately, although these matches differed in context, they shared a common thread.

Each created pressure spikes that exposed how teams think when the game becomes uncomfortable.

England used their discomfort to build momentum, but New Zealand struggled to regulate their emotions after losing control of the game.

South Africa, however, turned adversity into sharpness while Italy battled to maintain belief in key moments even after they might have had a whiff of potential history in the making.

These dynamics create the foundation for the mental skills themes we explore next.

They reveal how high performers manage chaos, preserve clarity, and respond when the plan falls apart.

They also show how mental habits, team identity and leadership behaviour determine whether momentum becomes an enemy or an ally.

Some Major Mental Skills Themes Observed

Across both matches, several mental skills themes stood out for me.

These were not abstract concepts but practical patterns that influenced the ebb and flow of each contest.

They shaped confidence, decision-making, problem-solving, and emotional control in key moments.

These key themes aren't the only ones, of course, but they did surface clearly in the match situations in question over the weekend.

First,

Resilience and the Management of Momentum

In sports, momentum is psychological currency. The more you can create, the better.

When a team controls it, they feel lighter, more decisive and more connected.

But when they lose it, everything becomes harder.

Now, in the England versus New Zealand match, we saw how quickly momentum can shift and how a team responds when it does.

England refused to let an early deficit define their mental state.

They reset, they slowed the tempo, and they created small controllable wins.

This allowed them to rebuild their confidence and reclaim their belief.

New Zealand, by contrast, struggled to halt the psychological slide once England began to grow.

When I worked with rugby players in NZ years ago, I encouraged them to use a Traffic Light System.

It helps players recognise the psychological state of the game, adjust their behaviour and make better decisions under pressure. I

t also stops teams from forcing plays when emotions are high or when the game picture feels chaotic.

The Traffic Light System: A Practical Tool for Managing Momentum in Real Time

The system works like this:

Green means go.
This is when momentum feels aligned.

The team is connected, communication is clear, and decisions flow easily.

In green situations, players are permitted to play with speed, ambition, and confidence.

The goal is to keep stacking small wins that keep the team in an upbeat rhythm.

Orange means slow down and stabilise.
This is a transitional state.

Something in the game has shifted.

Maybe a few errors occurred, or the opposition found some rhythm, or the team lost clarity.

In orange moments, the instruction is simple: slow the pace, tighten the structure and create two or three small controllable wins.

These small wins shift the team back toward green without panic or forcing play.

Red means stop, reset and simplify.
Red moments are high-pressure situations where emotion is high and clarity is low.

This could be after a big error, a defensive lapse, a card, or a run of opposition momentum.

The goal in red is not to jump straight to green.

That usually leads to forced passes, rushed kicks or overcompensation.

The goal is to move from red to orange.

One task at a time. One clear action. One small win.

Once that happens, the emotional load drops and the team starts climbing back toward stability.

The strength of the Traffic Light System is that it also gives players a shared language for real-time awareness.

It removes judgment and replaces it with action.

Instead of saying “We’re panicking” or “We’re losing it”, players can simply communicate “Red”, and everyone knows what that means: slow down, simplify and rebuild.

Awareness creates action. Action creates momentum. Momentum influences results.

And again, across both matches this past weekend, we saw clear examples of teams shifting between green, orange and red.

As mentioned, England moved from red to orange and then into green during their comeback.

South Africa experienced a red moment after the early card, yet moved steadily into orange and then green through clarity and connection.

Conversely, New Zealand slipped from green to orange and then to red, struggling to climb back.

They had to nail key moments, such as making a successful penalty kick or keeping the scoreboard ticking over when the game was tight, which they didn't do.

That made it challenging to build momentum mentally and physically.

Italy also had glimpses of green, but could not stay there long enough to create emotional stability and a historic result.

Next,

Leadership, Composure and Role Clarity

Pressure exposes leadership faster than anything else.

That is particularly true in sports.

England showed this through calm decision-making in the middle third of the field.

Their leaders communicated clearly, took points when needed and shifted tempo at the right moments.

These behaviours showed the link between leadership and collective clarity.

When the leaders made composed choices, the team followed.

However, New Zealand and Italy faced challenges in this area.

When the match moved away from their initial plan, they struggled to regain composure.

This is where leadership and role clarity become vital.

When individuals are unsure of their role, under pressure, decision-making becomes reactive rather than purposeful.

Your talented players often begin to take on more responsibilities on their own, with varying degrees of success. Sometimes a move succeeds, and other times it fails spectacularly.

South Africa demonstrated the opposite.

When the red card forced them into an altered structure, their leadership group stepped forward immediately.

That included the senior players not on the field.

Everyone pitched in to make new plans, according to their coach, Rassie.

Communication improved, work rate increased, and every player understood the extra demands placed on them.

Also, as a squad, they were willing to make personnel changes very quickly and early.

This clarity allowed them not to let the game get away from them and to maintain system stability despite being one man short.

Adversity as Catalyst or Adversary

Every team faces adversity, but not every team uses it well.

In this instance, England used their early setback as a spark to tighten their focus.

The Springboks used their setback as a way to sharpen their identity and raise their collective intensity.

In both cases, adversity created a psychological lift.

However, New Zealand and Italy reacted differently.

For New Zealand, the adversity of losing momentum seemed to create frustration, which eventually gave way to desperation.

For Italy, the challenge of playing against a powerful system while trying to regain footing became mentally draining.

It's tough to throw everything at your opponents only to look up after what feels like an eternity and still be behind or just ahead on the scoreboard. That gets you in the end.

And as a result, adversity in these contexts became a barrier rather than a source of clarity.

Now, turning adversity into a catalyst begins with how players interpret the moment in real time.

When something goes wrong on the field, the instinctive reaction is often emotional: frustration, urgency or the sense that the game is slipping away.

That emotional surge is what turns adversity into an adversary.

High-performing teams, however, learn to pause for one or two seconds and frame the moment differently.

Instead of seeing adversity as a threat, they treat it as information.

A mistake, a card, a momentum swing or a defensive lapse becomes a signal to tighten connection, simplify the next action and re-establish clarity.

This reframing shifts the team out of survival mode and into purposeful mode.

When players communicate clearly, anchor back to their roles and execute one controllable task, adversity becomes a focusing agent.

It sharpens attention, elevates effort and rallies collective identity.

In this way, adversity stops being something that derails performance and becomes the psychological spark that pulls a team back into stability and eventually back into momentum.

And to help you more, here's a

A Four-Step Protocol for Turning Adversity Into a Catalyst

Step 1: Name the moment

Players must acknowledge what just happened without emotional judgment.

A mistake, a turnover, a card, a defensive lapse or a momentum shift must be recognised clearly.

Naming the moment stops the brain from spiralling and anchors the team in awareness rather than reaction.

Step 2: Narrow the focus

Adversity becomes destructive when players try to fix everything at once.

The goal is to reduce the game to one clear next action.

This could be a defensive set, a simple exit, a carry with support or a clean breakdown.

Narrow focus removes panic and restores clarity.

Step 3: Connect with each other

Communication pulls the team out of isolation and back into identity.

A quick call, a cue, or a simple “reset” signal reminds players that they are not solving the moment alone.

Connection increases emotional stability and rebuilds trust.

Step 4: Execute one controllable win

The fastest way out of adversity is a small success.

A dominant tackle, a clean exit, a well taken restart or a calm kick to space restores belief.

One small win creates orange.

A second or third creates green.

Momentum rebuilds through clarity, not desperation.

Next,

Micro Moments and Psychological Precision

I've already touched on this idea, but to repeat, high-performance environments are not shaped only by big events.

They are shaped by micro moments that reveal how well a team stays mentally connected.

These moments include set pieces, breakdown decisions, line speed choices, communication under fatigue and error recovery.

That's why learning to manage moments is so important. One must learn to chunk down when pressure becomes too much.

Going slower to go faster in these moments is wise.

England displayed precision in these micro areas, especially during their comeback phase.

South Africa demonstrated the same precision in managing the breakdown and defensive spacing with fourteen men.

When teams get these small moments right, they build psychological rhythm.

When they get them wrong, pressure builds quickly.

And again, the Traffic Light System is very helpful in managing moments better.

It's about awareness and the appropriate actions in key moments.

Once you realise you can only manage a moment, not the outcome, you give yourself a chance to deal with pressure far more effectively.

However, the opposite is equally valid.

If you get stuck on mistakes, on-field issues, official bias, the crowd, and so on, and try to control all of that, you will be overwhelmed and ineffective in managing moments that matter.

Remember, it's about seeing adversity as information and using it to your advantage to claw your way back into the contest.

Now, in the next section, we will delve a bit further and explore the similarities and differences in the teams' responses over the weekend, and what that reveals about their identity and mindset.

Similarities and Differences in Psychological Responses

Although all the teams entered their matches with different contexts and different challenges, they each revealed clear psychological patterns.

Some of those patterns reflected shared traits often associated with Southern Hemisphere rugby, while others highlighted meaningful differences in how the All Blacks and the Springboks respond to pressure at the minute.

This section unpacks both categories in a clear and grounded way.

First,

Shared Psychological Traits Across Southern Hemisphere Teams

Southern Hemisphere teams are often characterised by confidence, adaptability and a willingness to play with ambition.

These qualities were also visible in both matches for periods at a time.

New Zealand began with a strong psychological presence and had moments of good rugby where they could take it away from England well and truly.

Their early accuracy and tempo showed belief in their system, and we almost saw remnants of old.

South Africa also displayed similar confidence even after going a man down.

They trusted their identity, their physicality and their system. In short, they backed themselves.

Another shared trait was the ability to create pressure rather than wait for it.

Both sides showed an intention to take control of key areas of the field.

New Zealand tried to play fast and stretch England early.

South Africa imposed itself through collisions and breakdown dominance.

This willingness to generate momentum rather than react to it is often a hallmark of Southern Hemisphere rugby, and it was clear in both contests at various stages of the game.

Both teams also faced expectation pressure.

The All Blacks and the Springboks are accustomed to being held to higher standards...

Opponents tend to raise their performance when facing them, and fans expect consistency.

This creates a mental environment where resilience and emotional control are essential.

And in both matches, we saw these demands surface in different ways.

But,

Differences in How They Responded Under Pressure

Despite the shared traits, the contrast in how each team handled disruption when it happened was also significant over the weekend.

First, the Springboks responded to adversity by doubling down on clarity.

Their red card forced immediate adjustments, yet their behaviour suggested calmness rather than panic.

Leaders stepped up, communication lifted, and the team became more efficient rather than more frantic.

The All Blacks, however, showed the opposite pattern.

When England began to shift momentum, New Zealand struggled to regain composure.

Their early control faded into frustration.

Decision-making became rushed, and their structure loosened. They played a lot of rugby in the'deadman's zone' (between the ten-meter lines) with no real go forward, territorial advantage, mounting pressure, or points.

This emotional shift made it difficult to stabilise the match once England began to grow.

Another difference involved what we can call identity under stress (not knowing or staying connected to your DNA).

The Springboks used adversity to strengthen their collective identity.

Their approach became clearer, their intensity increased, and they leaned deeper into their strengths.

For New Zealand, in this instance, adversity seemed to create a disconnect.

Instead of reinforcing their identity, they moved away from it and attempted to force opportunities that were not truly available.

That led to turnovers, and England ultimately put them away in the end.

A final difference surfaced in belief recovery.

South Africa maintained its belief even when the situation became more demanding.

One thing you'll hear the captain say all the time in press conferences is that they've practised for these moments many times. They simply trust their system and deal with the picture in front of them.

This sustained belief created a sense of calmness and purpose.

New Zealand, though, seem to battle to reignite belief once the psychological tide has turned. It's almost as if they're unsure who they need to be in these high-pressure moments.

It's definitely a far cry from the Richie McCaw era, where they absorbed pressure for long periods of a game and then took the game away in the end. They simply knew how to put games away, even in the final seconds of a game.

Psychologically speaking, that is also no surprise, as in high-performance environments, belief is often the first component to weaken when a team loses momentum, and this was evident in the way the match on the weekend unfolded.

What These Patterns Reveal About Mindset and Culture

In my mind, the contrast between these two teams at the moment highlights an important truth:

High performance is not only about having the most strengths; it's also about leveraging them effectively. It is about how teams respond when those strengths are disrupted.

South Africa’s mental habits allowed them to stay aligned under pressure.

New Zealand’s habits did not hold in the same way once momentum shifted.

Now, this contrast between the two teams is also exactly why I developed and used the Peak Performance Profile in my years working with athletes.

Most people do not realise that high performance is not something you “hope” shows up on the day.

It is something you build deliberately across specific pillars that shape how an athlete or team thinks, behaves and performs under pressure.

The PPP is the framework I used to help players plan, measure and improve their peak performance selves.

It breaks performance into five essential pillars: physical, psychological, technical, strategic and relational or social.

By setting clear goals and behaviours within each pillar, athletes develop a balanced performance identity that holds up even when the game becomes chaotic.

When one pillar weakens, performance becomes unstable.

When all five are trained and aligned, performance stays consistent and resilient.

Now, using the PPP here allows us to understand not just what South Africa and New Zealand did under pressure but why their responses were so different and which pillars strengthened or failed in those key moments, and where needs to be focused to improve.

How the PPP Explains the Contrast Between South Africa and New Zealand

As I mentioned, using the Peak Performance Profile enables us to move beyond general observations and examine which performance pillars remained strong for each team and which ones faltered under pressure.

The PPP framework provides a further structured way to understand why South Africa remained composed and connected after a major disruption, while New Zealand struggled to regain clarity once the match turned against them.

First, when we examine South Africa through the PPP lens, its strength becomes clear.

Their physical pillar remained dominant even with fourteen players.

Their psychological pillar sharpened when adversity appeared rather than weakening.

Their relational pillar strengthened through increased communication and collective ownership.

These stable pillars created a platform that protected their technical and strategic pillars and allowed them to keep executing with purpose.

New Zealand, conversely, showed a very different pattern.

Their physical and technical pillars were strong from the outset, which allowed them to start with confidence.

But when momentum shifted, their psychological pillar weakened.

Emotional frustration replaced composure.

Their relational pillar also seemed to loosen as communication dropped and structure became fragmented.

Once those two pillars wobbled their strategic decisions became reactive rather than intentional, with the ball being kicked aimlessly back at the opposition whereby putting themselves under even more pressure.

What the PPP framework consistently reveals is that performance under pressure is not solely defined by talent.

It is defined by how many pillars remain stable when the environment becomes chaotic.

South Africa held four of their five pillars with strength, which stabilised the entire system.

New Zealand lost two central pillars, and the remaining pillars were not strong enough to compensate.

The outcome makes sense once the pillars are understood.

Now, this pillar-based perspective not only explains the contrast between players and teams, but it also guides us toward practical solutions.

It shows exactly which areas must be strengthened for a player or a team to become more resilient and consistent in future high-pressure moments.

So, with that in mind, let's also look at a few practical suggestions for each team based on their most recent performances.

In Conclusion

The two matches between England and New Zealand, and South Africa and Italy, gave us more than results and statistics.

They revealed what happens when preparation meets adversity and when belief is put to the test in real time.

Through the lens of the Peak Performance Profile, we saw how mental habits, communication, structure and leadership combine to hold a team together when the plan starts to fracture.

England’s comeback and South Africa’s resilience were not coincidences.

They were demonstrations of systems built on five interconnected pillars.

Each pillar supported the others to create stability under stress.

Where those pillars were weaker, as seen in New Zealand and Italy, small cracks became large problems.

The takeaway for any coach or leader is clear.

Performance under pressure is never an accident.

It is the outcome of deliberate practice, emotional control and consistent reflection.

Teams that prepare their physical, psychological, technical, strategic and relational pillars are better equipped to navigate chaos and adapt without losing their identity.

For sport psychologists and performance consultants, the PPP offers a clear language for diagnosis and development.

It helps identify not only what failed in a performance but why it failed and how to rebuild that capacity.

Whether you are coaching athletes, leading a business team or managing yourself through pressure, the same truth applies: peak performance is built before the moment of pressure arrives.

The matches from this weekend remind us that the teams who trust their preparation, communicate clearly and stay connected through adversity are the ones who rise when the game turns.

If you would like to explore this topic in more depth, you can complete the online Peak Performance Profile Assessment available on this website.

It will help you identify which of your five pillars are strongest, which need development and how your current mindset and habits shape performance under pressure.

You will also find supporting guides and reflection tools to help you build your own peak performance system step by step.

Practical Suggestions for Each Team Based on Their Recent Performances

Now, as I mentioned, the purpose of analysing these matches through frameworks like the Peak Performance Profile above is not only to understand what happened, but also to generate clear suggestions that can improve future performance.

Each team showed strengths and exposed areas that need attention.

With that in mind, the following recommendations are grounded in the five PPP pillars and speak directly to what each team can build moving forward.

Suggestions for England

England demonstrated psychological resilience and strong strategic clarity.

A few pundits have commented that England knows its DNA and knows how it wants to play.

That was clear in their most recent comeback against New Zealand, which was built on calm leadership, good decision-making in key moments (think George Ford), and confidence in their plan.

And to build on this performance, they should continue strengthening their psychological pillar by reinforcing emotional reset routines.

They can also develop deeper scenario-based tactical preparation to ensure the team can adapt just as effectively when momentum swings the other way.

Maintaining this balanced identity will prevent reliance on comebacks and help them assert control earlier in future matches.

Suggestions for New Zealand

Now, I want to give special attention to the All Blacks' most recent performance, as something has been off, and many are scratching their heads.

I have a few thoughts looking at it from a mental skills perspective...

Why New Zealand Start Well but Struggle When It Matters Most

Firstly, when you examine New Zealand’s recent performances, a pattern emerges.

They start games with clarity, speed and confidence, but the moment the momentum shifts, their game picture changes completely. This is very unlike what we've become accustomed to with them in the past.

But, from a sport psychology perspective, there are a few likely reasons for this.

First, it seems that when pressure rises, the All Blacks slip out of their calm, composed state and move into something much tighter and more reactive.

In NZ rugby language, this shift is often described as moving from “blue head” to “red head.”

And once in that state, all players lose accuracy, decision-making becomes rushed, and a team starts forcing opportunities instead of creating them. Individualism also seems to take over gameplay in this state.

Second, the weight of expectation plays a role. It has to.

Wearing the black jersey carries a level of internal and external pressure that most teams never experience.

When the game turns and things become uncomfortable, it can trigger a sense of “we must fix this now,” which usually leads to emotional decision-making rather than process-driven behaviour.

Third, there are signs of relational cracks under fatigue.

When NZ are clicking, everything looks connected and instinctive.

However, when the opposition hits back, their communication drops, and the team appears more individualistic than collective.

That is usually a sign that the relational pillar is under strain.

Now, this is a potentially significant issue, so let's examine it further from a mental skills perspective...

A Deeper Look at New Zealand’s Relational Pillar Under Pressure

When New Zealand lose momentum, one of the first signs is a drop in connection.

You can almost feel it in the way they reorganise, the silence between players, the slight delay in defensive spacing or support lines.

Now, this is not a technical issue. It is relational.

And relational cracks almost always point to something deeper happening around leadership — both off the field and on it.

Off the field, teams rely heavily on the coaching–player dynamic to build clarity, trust and shared responsibility.

When this dynamic is strong, players understand not just their roles, but their purpose within the system.

They know how to communicate, how to challenge each other, and how to stay aligned when pressure rises.

If the relational pillar is shaky, however, it can mean that clarity is not flowing cleanly from coaches to leaders and from leaders to the rest of the group.

It can also mean that players do not feel fully empowered to voice concerns, call out standards, or reset the team emotionally when things wobble.

On the field, the problem becomes more visible.

A team under pressure usually needs two forms of leadership: stabilisers and accelerators.

Stabilisers calm the group, reset structure and slow the emotional temperature.

Accelerators lift intensity, set the tone physically and create the next moment of momentum.

So, when the right leaders are not vocal or present in the right moments, the team begins to drift.

Players become more individualistic because no one is anchoring the group.

Decisions tend to become reactive because no one is calling the next task.

Silence grows because no one feels responsible for the emotional direction of the team.

In NZ’s case, it often looks like leadership becomes too quiet when the momentum turns.

The experienced voices who typically guide the team seem to fade, or the wrong players step into leadership modes that do not match their strengths.

This mismatch creates uncertainty.

And uncertainty creates hesitation.

Hesitation leads to fragmentation.

And fragmentation is the enemy of cohesive pressure response.

Ultimately, when the relational pillar cracks, even slightly, it affects every other pillar: psychological, strategic, technical and physical.

That is why New Zealand can look world-class for twenty minutes and then strangely disconnected for the next twenty.

It is not ability, or lack thereof. It is an issue of alignment.

And alignment under pressure always comes back to leadership clarity, leadership presence, and leadership behaviour in real-time.

Finally, another issue could be that they may not have spent enough time training for disruption. They sometimes refer to this in sports psychology as pressure training.

NZ are historically dominant front-runners, so when they lose momentum, they do not always have the practised routines to stabilise quickly.

It is not a matter of a lack of skill or physical capacity. We know the ABs have talent. It is potentially more a lack of rehearsed behaviour under chaos.

How New Zealand Can Improve Moving Forward

There are a few simple but powerful adjustments the All Blacks can make to tighten these mental gaps.

They can start by building more consistent “blue head” routines.

Players need quick, reliable ways to recognise when they are drifting into emotional play and then reset back to clarity (something like the Traffic Light Systemn cues). Breath cues, quick huddles and role reminders all help.

They would also benefit from training disruption more deliberately.

Sessions should include situations where the scoreboard flips, where the team is under pressure or where a referee's decision goes against them.

This builds adaptability while strengthening both the psychological and strategic pillars simultaneously.

NZ also need to put more focus on communication under fatigue.

Late-session drills, where players must connect, call, and organise under stress, can rebuild the relational pillar that currently drops when pressure rises.

And finally, they can use something like a PPP framework consistently.

By reviewing each match through the five pillars and identifying which ones wobbled and why, they can build clearer targets for training and improve their ability to stay aligned in crucial moments.

Suggestions for South Africa

The Springboks displayed exceptional strength in their relational, psychological, and physical pillars.

Their response to adversity was composed and connected despite having to deal with a major blow to their game plan a second week in a row.

The next step for them is to refine their technical precision even further while under fatigue.

Because their identity is built on physical dominance and clarity, they can further elevate performance by adding layers of technical sharpness late in matches.

Continued work on strategic creativity will also ensure they remain unpredictable and capable of shifting game plans when required.

Suggestions for Italy

Italy always faced a difficult challenge in the Springboks but showed promising moments of ambition.

Their relational pillar weakened when fatigue set in.

Strengthening communication systems during high-pressure moments will stabilise their structure.

Italy should also focus on technical execution under emotional stress.

Errors at critical moments cost them momentum and belief, especially after South Africa was down a player and then two.

Now, on that note, one of the biggest psychological traps in rugby appears when a team faces an opponent who has gone down to fourteen men.

On paper, the advantage is obvious, but mentally, it can become the complete opposite.

The moment a card is shown, the stronger or full-squad team often experiences a subtle but dangerous shift in mindset.

They ease off (unconsciously) while the other team might do the exact opposite because they now have a handicap.

They assume momentum will come to them rather than be created.

They expect space to appear and tries to flow more easily.

When that doesn’t happen, frustration follows, or their game gets too loose.

This shift is rooted in what some psychologists refer to as the expectation bias.

Players expect the game to become easier simply because the opposition has fewer players.

When reality doesn’t match that expectation, when the fourteen-man team actually raises its intensity and sharpens its structure, players experience cognitive dissonance.

That mismatch between expectation and reality increases emotional arousal, which in turn creates rushed decisions, impatience and forced plays.

There is also a motivational danger.

Full squads often stop doing the basics with the same hunger they had before the card.

They play wider too early.

They push passes that aren’t on.

They neglect the physical and tactical work that would typically earn momentum.

Meanwhile, the fourteen-man team pulls tighter, works harder, and plays with a clear purpose: defend with pride, win the next moment, and prove a point.

The result can be a complete psychological inversion: the team with fewer players becomes mentally sharper while the team with more players becomes mentally looser.

The greatest danger, therefore, is not tactical; it is psychological. The danger is believing the game will now play itself.

The teams that handle these moments well do the opposite.

They stay patient.

They double down on structure.

They win collisions.

They squeeze pressure rather than chase it.

They understand that a card changes nothing unless their behaviours change.

That shift in mindset prevents complacency, maintains intensity and ensures that the numerical advantage becomes a genuine advantage rather than a psychological trap.

So, for Italy, when faced with a similar situation next time, building emotional reset routines on the field and reinforcing micro skills, such as breakdown roles, spacing, and handling under fatigue, will help them stay competitive for longer periods.