Last week on Radio 4, Christine Lagarde ‘the charismatic French Finance Minister’ was interviewed on her bid to be Managing Director of the IMF. The session started by questioning whether it was right that another European should be selected. Her reply avoided the issue “It should be a good candidate with an open, transparent, merit based process. What matters are the skills, experience, enthusiasm, expertise, leadership and willingness.”

Having neatly set up the criteria, she then, with compelling composure, delivered her pitch adopting the classic ‘rule of three’ structure that ensured her argument was both powerful and easy to follow. The interviewer: ”Why should you get the job?”

Chritine Lagarde:

” First of all because I want to be the Managing Director of the IMF and when you really desire something you are prepared to give your best and spend all your energy  on serving the institution.

Number two, I think I can do this job. When you look at the IMF, its culture, its diversity, its mission and when I know who I am and what I have done in the past, I know that I can do it. 

Thirdly, I would be extremely honoured and proud to serve the IMF. It is a critical institute at this time playing a major role in the international  crisis and needs to continuing doing so….I have a bit of a track record (having referrenced  her ‘modest’ success as Finance Minister) when it comes to focussing on the issues, reaching out to people and drawing a consensus.”

You need to listen to the interview to get the full impact of her delivery. (BBCiplayer, Radio 4, Friday). Performing like this she must be a shoe-in for the job, assuming the IMF does not do a FIFA.

This was the reported conclusion from the think tank, Centre for Social Justice, set up by Iain Duncan Smith. It contains legitimate concerns but misses the point by emphasising the word “sales” as if there could have been some other kind of bid winning pitch. Lord Coe and his brilliant team were selling London as host city, against hot favourites Paris, and to win they had no option but to promise on future performance-like any pitch.

Unlike Paris, they had a complete understanding of the decision making IOC. They pitched accordingly. Rationally they had no option other than fulfilling the draconian technical demands on finance, infrastructure, transport,security, all quantifiable deliverables that would be insisted upon, regardless of any world financial melt-down. As a power driven monopoly the IOC sets the rules, that however absurd, must be obeyed. Paris also knew this.

To win, Coe and his team knew they  had to make the emotional connection with this cabal of elderly power brokers who, from their lofty perches, like to feel they are ‘doing good’ for the world through sport. They needed to hear the promise that Coe made so movingly that ‘the youth of the world would be inspired to take up sport’. Without this the bid may have foundered.

No doubt it was a promise made in good faith even though no previous Olympics has been credited with significant increase in participation. Some UK programmes are in place but are largely re-workings of pre-existing activity.  Overall, while one million people have applied for tickets to watch the 100 meter sprint final, there is no evidence that more youngsters are dashing around than before.

 A reminder of that bid winning pitch that now seems so long ago:   London 2012. A triumph of emotion.

Pitches are all about winning. Here are a few quotes from coaches whose teams have won more than most.

“Players lose you games, not tactics.”   Brian Clough.

“The will to win is meaningless without the will to prepare.”  Joe Gibbs.

“I would rather play with ten men than wait for a player who is late for the bus.”  Jose Mourinho.

“If you do not believe you can do it then you have no chance at all.”  Arsene Wenger.

“Confidence comes from being prepared.”  John Wooden.

“Winning isn’t everything, but the will to win is everything.”  Vince Lombardi.

“It’s getting tickly now - squeaky-bum time, I call it.”  Sir Alex Ferguson.

And a favourite from a player not a coach:

“Whoever said “It’s not whether you win or lose that counts” probably lost.”  Martina Navratilova.

An interesting article in the Telegraph by Nicholas Soames, his grandson, discusses the toil Churchill put into his speeches- “Sweat and tears made his name. Contrary to the popular view he was not, as his father Lord Randoplph was,  a natural speaker.”

“People are always surprised that this most articulate of men was so dependant on preparation, even for minor speeches. For him, every speech, however brief  had to be carefully prepared -an agonising process for everyone involved.”

A lot depended, of course, on the persuasive power of some of his speeches, particularly in war time. While the outcome of any pitch is not a matter of life or death, it is  for the participants all consuming. Despite this, it is surprising in practice that pitch teams, who sweat over much else, devote so little of their toil to finding words that resonate.

It is not enough to settle for  the minimum, content that is sensible and rational, ‘ticking  all the boxes’ of the brief. You need words that push the emotional buttons as well. These do not need to have a Churchillian ring to them but you should aim for some phrases, some descriptions, that are memorable, that fire the imagination and capture an attitude that sets you apart.

This may take a little sweat, and possibly some tears, but it will be worth it. As one observer at the time said “Winston has spent the best years of his life composing his impromptu speeches.”

There is little left to say about the wedding. The reviewers set aside cynicism, and apart from sour comment on a few fashion gaffes, they heaped deserved praise on the Middletons, individually and as a family. It is almost impossible to imagine the pressure they were under to perform on the day. And, putting the experienced Royals in the shade, they rose to the occasion to the manor born

The least remarked upon was 23 year old brother James whose reading of the Lesson, a difficult passage from Romans, was remarkable.  Whether coached or well advised, his delivery was compelling as he resisted the temptation to be rushed and spoke with surprising confidence. As one journalist noted “he was (pause) at least (pause) audible (look up, breathe) throughout (pause).”

The ability to pause and to look up is essential if you want to be listened to. In reading the verses he only glanced down when he wasn’t speaking. This meant he held the attention of his audience (pause!) of 2 billion. If he could do it under this pressure, can there ever be any excuse for reading a script in a pitch?

The Bishop of London gave a superb address. He too made no apparent use of his notes and the power of his delivery was a combination of a great voice, pitch and pace, and  his eye contact with his congregation. The Dean, by contrast, chose to read the prayers, which presumably he knows well, keeping his head down as if avoiding the cameras. Not so easy to listen to.