A Holistic Approach to Development

The percentage difference between achieving first and second place in elite sport is tiny, less than 1%. For example, in the 2016 Olympics in Rio, the difference between gold and silver medals in swimming events was 0.72%; between third place (bronze and the final podium spot) and fourth place was 0.34%. In athletics, for all running events (from the 100m to Marathon) the difference between gold and silver was 0.66%; between bronze and fourth place was 0.4%. For athletes that had dedicated the previous four years of their lives to their discipline, being on the wrong end of this must be devastating.

So, what might make the difference? What might give athletes a fraction of a percent improvement that could mean gold rather than silver, or a podium finish versus fourth? At the elite end of sport, technical, tactical and physical components of performance tend to level out, meaning that athletes’ mindset is often the deciding factor in victory or defeat (as discussed by performance psychologist Tom Bates in the clip below).

Unfortunately, in many sports the psychological side of performance is often neglected, with football being one of the worst culprits¹. Sport psychology does, however, suffer from a number of issues. One of the main ones being stigmatised as issue-related – you only see a psychologist if you have problems. Research also needs to improve – access to elite athletes is extremely limited meaning much of the research is conducted lower down the performance ladder² limiting its applicability to the top end of sport. There also tends to be friction between practitioners (those working in elite sport) and researchers (those telling them how they should be doing it)³.  It has been suggested that a more ‘pracademic’ approach – combining the experience of those working in industry with those in research – could be beneficial in moving sport psychology forward. This would require more collaboration from both sides and re-focusing research on what really matters rather than producing it for its own sake⁴.

Figure 1: Scholar-Practitioner Continuum⁵

With barriers to consultation and research at the elite end, it may be sensible to focus more on the developmental stages in sport to encourage youth athletes to engage more readily with sport psychology and avoid some of the ‘old-school’ attitudes of seeking support as being for the weak. In my personal experience it is the opposite, athletes who engage with the process want to ensure that they squeeze every last drop out of their talent and explore every possible avenue to do so. It is a pity when people do not reach their potential through not wanting to engage with criticism or any negative aspects of their own performance.

Another issue with sport psychology is the vagueness of some of the terms used. Take ‘mental toughness’, for example. If you were to ask 10 different people what their definition was, they would probably give 10 different answers (with some concepts overlapping no doubt). A lot of work in this area has centred on exploring the differences between the top ‘super-elite’ athletes and those just below them ^{6 7 8}. These studies often produce shopping lists of the qualities that great athletes possess, again with some differences and some similarities. Items on these lists might include self-belief, attentional control, optimism, thriving when challenged⁹;or maybe commitment, motivation to succeed, coping under pressure, or working on weaknesses¹⁰. A recent study¹¹ proposed that there are actually (to this point) 48 proposed psychosocial factors that influence development – with the social part also acknowledging the effects of important others in the process (coaches and parents in particular).

 An alternative to matching existing behaviours of developing players to ideal behaviours of those already at the elite level may be to instead look at what young athletes have in terms of their existing strengths and weaknesses. A ‘super strengths’ approach¹² works on the premise that a player’s strengths should get them in the team, but their weaknesses should not get them out. An analogy of a boat is used here: your strengths fill the sails and allow the boat to move faster. If you have a weakness that is above the water line it will not sink the boat, so as an athlete you are probably better off continuing to work on your strengths. For example, Cristiano Ronaldo is not known for his defensive abilities but his attacking prowess more than compensates for this. If, however, you have a weakness that is below the water line it will sink the boat and needs addressing. For example, a goalkeeper who is particularly one-footed may struggle to play out from the back effectively.

Figure 2: ‘Super Strengths’ approach¹²

Measuring behaviour and attitudes in psychology is really difficult! If you want to measure how fast a player is, you can use timing gates and a tape measure and obtain a pretty accurate numerical score. When trying to measure thoughts and feelings, it becomes much harder for a number of reasons. These include an enormous amount of cognitive biases (thinking mistakes) in the human brain that often prevent us from being honest about our own performance or assessing others accurately (see example below that shows 188 of these – you may need to zoom in or see the link in the reference section).

Figure 3: Cognitive Bias Codex¹³

The methods used all have their own inherent weaknesses and strengths. Sport psychology may be guilty of using too narrow an approach and not looking at behaviours from a number of angles at times³. Although this is a time-consuming affair, gathering as much information (quantitative and qualitative i.e., numbers and words) with as many different methods (performance profile, questionnaire, observations, interviews, stats, video) from as many different sources (players, parents, coaches, teammates, performance analysts) is vital¹⁴. This will provide a picture that is as comprehensive of athletes’ current ‘super strengths’ and whether their weaknesses are likely to ‘sink the boat’¹².

It is also important to look at the player holistically i.e., not just what you see in terms of current performance (based on limited technical and physical attributes) but also the context in which they perform and what they are potentially capable of in the future. There are a huge number of different variables that affect developing athletes from a biopsychosocial perspective¹⁵. The ‘bio’ part generally relates to a player’s genetic make-up and abilities, ‘psycho’ to attitudes and beliefs and ‘social’ to demographic factors (such as socio-economic status). It may be that they are an early or late developer in terms of physical, social and psychological factors. Family situations have a massive effect on performance – are they from a stable family with a steady income or is the opposite true? How might that affect them positively or negatively? What about number, order and age differences of siblings? Are they experiencing a growth spurt in adolescence and how does that affect their co-ordination and confidence? Are they born early or late in the selection year (relative age effect)? Are they getting enough rest, proper nutrition and hydration? How is their mental health? These questions could fill the several pages due to their complexity. Unfortunately, in youth development in sport, these complexities are not accounted for when making decisions on selection and release – decisions that may ultimately affect the players for the rest of their lives⁴.

Figure 4: Example of biopsychosocial factors¹⁵

In summary, when profiling players and developing action plans it is important not to take too narrow a focus. Physical and technical aspects are important but paint a misleading picture. These undoubtedly should not be neglected, but current performance is a poor indicator of long-term potential. It may be psychosocial factors (e.g., resilience and determination) that help players overcome barriers in the long-term and these may be better indicators of future success. Just exploring one aspect does not allow for a full assessment of a player’s current or future performance. Profiling the whole player (technical/tactical, physical and psychosocial factors) gives them a better chance of identifying and developing the key areas for the best chance of achieving their full potential.

¹ Pain M and Harwood C (2004) Knowledge and perceptions of sport psychology within English soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22 (9), p813 — 826

² Cruickshank & Collins (2012) Culture Change in Elite Sport Performance Teams: Examining and Advancing Effectiveness in the New Era. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24 (3), p338 – 355

³ Abbott & Collins (2004) Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice in talent identification and development: considering the role of psychology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, p395 – 408

⁴ Collins D, MacNamara A and Cruickshank A (2018): Research and Practice in Talent Identification and Development—Some Thoughts on the State of Play, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 0: p1 – 12

⁵ Wasserman IC and Kram K (2009) Enacting the Scholar— Practitioner RoleAn Exploration of Narratives. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45 (1), p12 – 38

⁶ Orlick T and Partington J (1988) Mental Links to Excellence. Sport Psychologist, 2 (2) p105 – 130

⁷Collins, D and MacNamara Á (2017) Making champs and super­champs ­ Current views, contradictions, and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 p823

⁸ Collins D, Macnamara A and Mccarthy N(2015) Super champions, champions and almosts: Important differences and commonalities on the rocky road. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 2009

⁹ Gordon S and Gucciardi F (2011) A Strengths-Based Approach to Coaching Mental Toughness. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action2 (3), p143 – 155

¹⁰ MacNamara A, Button A and Collins D (2010a) The Role of Psychological Characteristics in Facilitating the Pathway to Elite Performance Part 1: Identifying Mental Skills and Behaviors. The Sport Psychologist, 24, p52 – 73

¹¹ Gledhill A, Harwood, C and Forsdyke D (2017) Psychosocial factors associated with talent development in football: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 1, p93 – 112

¹² Ludlam KE, Butt J, Bawden M, Lindsay P and Maynard IW (2015) A Strengths-Based Consultancy Approach in Elite Sport: Exploring Super-Strengths. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 28 (2)

¹³ Manoogian J  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cognitive_bias_codex_en.svg [date accessed 2/2/22)

¹⁴ Barney EG (2015) Preliminary stages in the validation of a talent identification model in

Cricket. PhD thesis Bangor University.

¹⁵ Bailey R, Collins D, Ford P, MacNamara A, Toms M, Pearce G (2010) Participant Development in Sport:  An Academic Review. p1 – 138 http://www.sportni.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ParticipantDevelopmentinSport.pdf [date accessed 2/2/22]

Goal-setting in Sport

Mindcraft Performance

Goal-setting (GS) is an intervention (or technique) that comes up repeatedly in sport psychology when consulting with clients. From my personal experience, it is one of the first techniques that I will employ as it provides a framework for any other interventions around a consultation cycle. It can be a useful tool in a general performance enhancement programme or for specific areas that are being developed (Hardy, Jones & Gould, 1996) such as:

• Self-confidence enhancement/anxiety reduction (opposite ends of continuum)
• Arousal regulation
• Motivation
• Concentration

Locke’s research into GS in business in the 1960s laid the foundations for later work in sport. Locke et al (1981) defined a goal as:

“what an individual is trying to accomplish… the object or aim of an action”

Orlick (1988) says that goals improve our focus and make performance more consistent. Pinder (1984) goes further: GS is possibly the most valid theory there is in…

View original post 1,427 more words

Start Talking to Yourself

Definitions

Self-talk (ST) is a person’s ‘internal dialogue’ or to state the obvious, how they talk to themselves. Bunker et al (1993 cf. Hardy, Jones and Gould, 1996):

“What athletes think or say is critical to performance. Unfortunately, the conscious mind is not always an ally… We spend vast amounts of time talking to ourselves… thoughts directly affect feelings & ultimately actions… Inappropriate or misguided thinking usually leads to negative feelings & poor performance just as positive thinking leads to enabling feelings & good performance”

In applied sessions, I use the acronym TEA time i.e. Thoughts (cognitions) affect your Emotions (feelings) which then has a knock-on effect on your Actions (behaviour/performance):

Self-talk (verbal persuasion from one’s self) is a type of ‘cognitive re-structuring’ (CR-S): a psychotherapeutic process of learning to identify and dispute irrational or maladaptive thoughts – i.e. changing debilitative thought patterns (Hatzigeorgiadis et al, 2008) into more helpful ones. This should then have a knock-on effect on the way you feel (emotion) and the way you perform (actions).

Facilitative effects of ST have been found in many sports/activities. Hatzigeorgiadis et al (2004, 2008) found that instructional and motivational ST were effective in tasks varying in:

• Strength (e.g. weight lifting)
• Accuracy (e.g. target sports)
• Endurance (e.g. distance running)
• Fine motor movements (e.g. shooting)
• Novel tasks (e.g. learning new techniques)

What can it be used for?

•  Gould et al (1989), Hardy et al (2001): athletes use ST as a persuasive technique to enhance self-confidence/reduce anxiety (these are on opposing ends of a continuum)
• Hardy et al (1996) ST can enhance motivation and prevents ‘learned helplessness’ (feelings of ‘here we go again’ when on a losing streak, for example)
• Weinberg and Gould (2015) ST can be helpful in: enhancing concentration; breaking bad habits; initiating action; sustaining effort; acquiring skill; rehabilitating injury
• Cousin and Gillis (2005): ST can be used to improve exercise adherence
• Bunker et al (1993): an athlete’s attention can be narrowed away from anxiety-inducing self-images, replacing negative thoughts with positive ones (i.e. TEA time)

ST was also found to be more effective with individuals who demonstrated a ‘Need to Achieve’ (NAch) approach to performance than those who had a ‘Need to Avoid Failure’ outlook (NAf) (from McLelland & Atkinson’s Need Achievement Theory, 1961, 1974 cf. Weinberg). In plain English, this means that it works better with an athlete who sets out to win than one who merely sets out to avoid defeat (e.g. playing for a draw in football). This would suggest that a NAch athlete’s ST is focused more about positive outcomes rather than the NAf athlete trying to avoid embarrassment. The implication here is that perhaps NAf athletes could also be more successful if they adjusted their ST to something more helpful (although this alone would not guarantee success, it could help if combined with other effective support).

Similarly, Mahoney and Avener (1977) looked at qualifiers versus non-qualifiers for US Olympic teams. The qualifiers (i.e. the Olympic athletes) used more positive ST especially pre-competition. Lane et al’s (2016) excellent BBC endorsed study (with an enormous sample size of over 40,000) looked into how online interventions can affect performance. The results showed that ST (as well as imagery and goal-setting) increased motivation, increased arousal and effort, and a sense of pleasant emotions experienced by participants.

Zourbanos et al (2011) note that coaching behaviours can also influence ST: more ‘supportive’ coaching (democratic/rewarding) tends to lead athletes to have more positive ST. Instructional ST (i.e. technical/tactical information) is more beneficial than motivational ST (e.g. “I can do this”) for beginners, presumably because they need more guidance and feedback (presumably both externally from coaches AND internally from ST).

Some studies have also showed that negative ST is not necessarily detrimental to performance (e.g. East Asian populations). Personal interpretation of ST is more important than content. The implication for this would be that positive ST is not always the ‘best fit’ for every athlete and that differentiation is vital. This clip from an interview with ex-Manchester United footballer Paul Scholes* sums this up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeFPZURh6tE

Scholes’ personal preference is that someone ‘have a go’ at him, so that he can prove them wrong. You would imagine that his ST is accordingly less positive and maybe even quite aggressive in terms of trying to disprove his doubters. Therefore, globally prescribing positive ST to all athletes may not be the best approach. Some form of differentiation is necessary after discovering their personal preferences (more on application below).

Ironic Errors – how NOT to prescribe ST

Janelle (1999) and Wegner (1997) discovered ‘ironic errors’ (cf. Horn,2008). In a lab setting, when participants were told NOT to think about something it inadvertently triggered that thought. This effect was also found in ‘real’ settings e.g. “don’t be nervous!” having the exact opposite effect. This may be perhaps as you are highlighting the one word that you are trying not to focus on, especially as this was the last word that the athlete would have heard. Studies in closed skill activities (golf and football (penalties)) show that directing attention away from certain cues often leads to attention TOWARDS them especially under pressure (a performance version of a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’). Therefore, the focus should be on WHAT to do and not WHAT NOT to do! So using the example above, instead of saying “don’t be nervous”, a better approach may be “be confident; believe in yourself”.

ST can also be used in conjunction with process goals (see separate blog). As discussed previously, during competition, an athlete’s focus should be on the “journey not the destination”. I mentioned that I demonstrated this idea through the extract from Touching the Void (Simpson, 1998) i.e. focus on what you are doing at any given time and the ‘result takes care of itself’. To fit in with the SMART goal-setting structure these would probably be instructional ST phrases e.g. “target” for a footballer who has a performance goal of x percentage of shots on goal. This focuses them on consistently hitting the target when shooting. Once they can do this consistently, then more attention may be freed up to observe other relevant cues, such as the position of the goal keeper, defenders and team mates.

The caveat here is that too much conscious processing can be detrimental. Athletes should find an appropriate technique to achieve automaticity through trial and error. This means that when actually executing a skill the mind should be almost ‘unthinking’. Too much conscious processing can lead to reactivation of the ‘learner’ part of the brain, which is associated with the early phase of skill acquisition. In fact this stage is called the cognitive stage, meaning that the novice learner must consciously think about processes. This in turn can turn even an expert athlete back to beginner and they can experience potentially catastrophic anxiety. This in turn might lead them to ‘choke’ (fail under pressure). In the words of a popular sports equipment manufacturer, an athlete needs to learn how to ‘Just do it’ with their own recipe of psychological tools.

Sometimes in recent years, sport psychology has perhaps done itself a bit of a disservice in terms of often being perceived as a bit “happy clappy”. What I mean by this, is that not everything in life and sport is positive. To refer back to the Paul Scholes clip* above, not all athletes appreciate that approach either. One of the key skills of a practitioner is to discover what your client(s) preferences are in order to successfully differentiate when applying the correct intervention. Not everyone is the same, and not everyone prefers such a positive approach. This fits in with the ideas of non-linear pedagogy i.e. learning is not in a ‘straight line’ and all learners are not created equal.

A relatively recent piece of research by Oettingen (2014) may represent a slight paradigm shift towards more real life experience, rather than trying to pretend that everything is always ‘rosy in the garden’:

“Positive thinking can make us feel better in the short term, but over the long term it saps motivation, preventing us from achieving our wishes & goals, leaving us feeling frustrated, stymied & stuck”

According to this study, to move ahead in life we need to engage with the world and feel energised, go beyond positive thinking and connect with obstacles in our way. Positive thinking impedes performance as it relaxes us and drains energy that we need to take action. Overly positive fantasies fool our minds into thinking that we have already achieved our goals. This in turn can lead to poor performance and ultimately depression/anxiety.

Collins’ and MacNamara’s work (2012) claims that a degree of ‘structured trauma’ needs to be included as part of Talent Development (TD) pathways and is in fact essential to eventual high-level performance i.e. ‘Talent needs trauma’. Such challenges at appropriate (differentiated) levels should be an essential feature of any TD system. These can be used to develop mental resilience/coping skills that are essential later on for the ruthless, cut-throat world of elite sport. Part of that armoury of skills could be the use of appropriate ST. In the researcher’s words there is a:

“need for individualization to cater for all aspects of the bio-psycho-social             situation of each performer”

Part of this ‘trauma’ intervention could be as simple as playing up (or down) an age group, or playing against amateur teams on bobbly pitches (for example). MacNamara, Button and Collins (2010a, 2010b) go into more detail in their papers on Psychological Characteristics in Developing Excellence (PCDEs), a subject for a different blog. This work has been an extension and development of previous research by Carol Dweck on ‘Mindset’ and Angela ‘Duckworth on ‘Grit’. These researchers have also been a part of the shift away from self-esteem being essential to learning and more towards being resilient under pressure. A recent(ish) article by Dr Richard Bailey (2014) sums up the issues with an over-reliance on self-esteem and praise in learning. If learners (in academic/sporting settings) cannot even turn up on time or tie their shoelaces without being told ‘well done’, how will they cope in the ‘real world’ when their bosses (in whatever domain) might not have the same patient, positive approach. Learning new information/skills (again whether in an academic or scholarly settings) is often uncomfortable and requires many failed attempts in order to achieve competence. So why are we giving that narcotic hit of praise constantly during learning? Although having said that, Bailey does not completely disparage the use of praise:

“Praise is like sugar. Used too liberally or in an inappropriate way, it spoils. But used carefully and sparingly, it can be a wonderful thing!”

So what does this have to do with self-talk? The last couple of paragraphs may seem like a meandering deviation from the topic, but for me it can again be related to the content of self-talk. Does it always have to be positive? Can your inner voice not be a bit more of a kick up the backside? From a personal point of view, my own inner voice is quite critical and demanding. That is my personal preference for motivation. Returning to Oettingen’s work, she suggested that if you combine dreams and reality, you can bring positive thinking up against visualisation of challenges in your way. With her colleagues, she developed a four step mental exercise people can apply in their everyday lives:

WOOP – Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan

http://woopmylife.org/woop-1

This moves away from the traditional view of your inner monologue having to be nice and ‘fluffy’ all the time (see www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXuR2WUH4Fc). The good thing about this approach is the identification of obstacles and the use of goal-setting, imagery and ST to overcome them with an ‘If-then’ plan. As with all research (and products) more empirical testing can only refine this tool further.

Below I have included some examples of Self-Talk. (I have included one from Lance Armstrong. Although he has had a meteoric fall from grace, it is still a great quote and he still represents someone who has survived against massive odds in beating cancer):

Tony Adams (footballer):

“I woke at 730am with those usual negative voices… Will I be tired? Have I slept enough? I talked it through until all the doubts passed”

Lance Armstrong (cyclist):

“Make every negative a positive… Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, an hour, a day or a year, but eventually it will subside & something else will take its place… If I quit, it lasts forever. That surrender, giving up, stays with you. When I feel like quitting, I ask myself, which would I rather live with?”

In terms of applying ST, the approach I use is to glean any possible dysfunctional thoughts from client questionnaires as well as getting them to put as many possible down on paper. Then I would ask them to get into the habit of re-structuring their thoughts all the time, in any given everyday situation. These skills should then become automatic, not just in everyday functioning, but in training and competition too. I also ask clients to uses cues/triggers to help re-focus if they find that useful e.g. using ST whilst looking at a logo/badge on their kit. As mentioned above, it is vital to tailor the re-structured thoughts to the client’s needs, whether that be a positive outlook or a more stern/aggressive inner voice.

Below are some graphics that may be used to reinforce the points made above.

References:

Bailey R (2014) The Problem with Praise https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smart-moves/201411/the-problem-praise [accessed 8/6/17]

Collins D and MacNamara A (2012) The Rocky Road to the Top, Why Talent Needs Trauma. Sports Med; 42 (11)

Duckworth AL, Peterson C, Matthews MD & Kelly DR (2007) Grit: perseverance & passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 92 (6); 1087 – 101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 [accessed 8/6/17]

Dweck CS (2006) Mindset. New York: Random House

Hardy L, Jones G & Gould D (1996) Understanding psychological preparation for sport. Wiley

Hatzigeorgiadis A, Zourbanos N, Goltsios C and Theodorakis Y (2008) Exploring the functions of self-talk: The effects of motivational self-talk on self-efficacy and performance in young tennis players. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 458-471

Horn (2008) Advances in Sport Psychology. (3rd Ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics

Janelle CM (1999) Ironic mental processes in sport: Implications for sport psychologists. The Sport Psychologist. 13, 201 – 220

Lane AM, Totterdell P, MacDonald I, Devonport TJ, Friesen AP, Beedie CJ, Stanely D and Nevill A (2016) Brief Online Training Enhances Competitive Performance: Findings of the BBC Lab UK Psychological Skills Intervention Study. Frontiers in Psychology http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00413/full [accessed 8/6/17]

MacNamara A, Button A and Collins D (2010a, b) The Role of Psychological Characteristics in Facilitating the Pathway to Elite Performance Parts 1 & 2. The Sport Psychologist. 24, p52 -96

Mahoney MJ and Avener M (1976) Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory study. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1, Issue 2, pp 135–141

Oettingen G (2014) Don’t think too positive. Aeon essays: https://aeon.co/essays/thinking-positive-is-a-surprisingly-risky-manoeuvre [accessed 7/6/17]

Scholes P (2012) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeFPZURh6tE [accessed 23/6/17]

Simpson J (1998) Touching the Void . Vintage

Tialdo T (2012) www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXuR2WUH4Fc [accessed 23/6/17]

Wegner DM (1997) When the antidote is the poison: Ironic mental control processes. Psychological Science, 8, 148 – 150

Weinberg, R.S., & Gould, D. (2015). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology. (6th Ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics

http://woopmylife.org/woop-1 [accessed 23/6/17]

Zourbanos N, Hatzigeorgiadis A, Goudas M, Papaioannou A, Chroni S and Theodorakis Y (2011) The social side of self-talk: Relationships between perceptions of support received from the coach and athletes’ self-talk. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12, Issue 4, 407-414

Goal-setting in Sport

Goal-setting (GS) is an intervention (or technique) that comes up repeatedly in sport psychology when consulting with clients. From my personal experience, it is one of the first techniques that I will employ as it provides a framework for any other interventions around a consultation cycle. It can be a useful tool in a general performance enhancement programme or for specific areas that are being developed (Hardy, Jones & Gould, 1996) such as:

• Self-confidence enhancement/anxiety reduction (opposite ends of continuum)
• Arousal regulation
• Motivation
• Concentration

Locke’s research into GS in business in the 1960s laid the foundations for later work in sport. Locke et al (1981) defined a goal as:

“what an individual is trying to accomplish… the object or aim of an action”

Orlick (1988) says that goals improve our focus and make performance more consistent. Pinder (1984) goes further: GS is possibly the most valid theory there is in interventions (cf. Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). Many researchers (including Burton & Weiss (2008); Locke & Latham (1990); Locke et al (1981); Mento et al (1987) all cf. Horn, 2008) have shown that GS is very effective:

• More than 90% of 500+ studies show that GS has a ‘consistent and powerful effect on behaviour’ with a huge variety of people
• Kyllo & Landers’ (1995) meta-analysis across 36 studies agree

Burton’s (1992 cf. Horn, 2008) thoughts on how it motivates individuals is for them to take direct action by:

• Focusing attention
• Increasing effort/intensity
• Prompting new problem-solving skills
• Encouraging persistence in face of failure (Grit/Growth mindset? See Duckworth/Dweck)

Various researchers have discovered that GS is effective in a wide range of sports including: lacrosse (Weinberg et al, 1994); basketball (Swain & Jones, 1995); American football (Ward & Carnes, 2002); ice hockey (Anderson et al, 1988); and football (Brobst & Ward, 2002 – all cf. Weinberg et al, 2015)). It has also been shown to be effective in reducing social loafing in groups where group AND individuals set goals (Williams et al, 1981). In other words, if you can attempt to set goals and measure individuals output (including in groups), then it gives them less opportunity to not ‘pull their weight’.

There are three main types of goal (Hardy et al, 1996):

• Outcome: focus on result (e.g. winning); partly dependent on opponent
• Performance: achieving standards independent of opponents compared to own previous performance (self-comparison)
• Process: focus on ‘actions/processes’ – best goals for concentration/ control/motivation/confidence/stress and anxiety reduction (e.g. “move/check shoulder/receive/complete pass”). I find that self-talk phrases are useful for these.

All three should be used (Burton et al, 2001) as they are all important in directing behavioural change thus:

• Outcome can help short-term motivation in training (e.g. winning the next competition); but can increase anxiety pre-competition by focusing on the ‘end’ and not the constituent parts
• Performance and process goals are good as they can be easily adjusted and success is dependent on the self and not the opponent i.e. better for before and during competition

According to Andersen (2000) GS should also be incorporated into coaching sessions to measure and adjust progress. Therefore, this shows a clear implication that it should not just be something that occurs in isolation in a classroom, but is actively reinforced during training and competition: to “actively integrate scientific principles… to practice environments. Recognise when/where to individualise these principles” (Weinberg, 2015). Here, the importance of tailoring goals to individuals/teams is also paramount: no two individuals or teams will have the same aspirations. Weinberg et al (1997, 1993, 2000) also discovered that most athletes use GS in some form or other with improving performance and enjoyment being the most important reasons. Goal difficulty is important: too easy and the athlete may mentally ‘put their feet up’ when they have achieved them; too hard and it may sap motivation. As Beggs (1990); and Burton (1989a, 1992) put it, goals can be stressful and dysfunctional if improperly used (both cf. Horn, 2008).

It should be something that the athlete is actively involved in rather than them being dictated to. Deci and Ryan’s Self-determination theory (1985, 2000) claims that motivation is at its peak when an individual has autonomy and ‘relatedness’, and feels competent about their ability. Autonomy refers to how much input/control is exerted in a situation. Relatedness is how much we feel a sense of belonging with those we co-act with. Competence is our sense of belief in our own abilities. The more of these that an individual possesses, the greater their motivation. In the case of GS, goals should be set in collaboration with a client (autonomy); in a way that makes them belong (relatedness); and be difficult but achievable (competence).

Fig. 1: Deci and Ryan’s Self-determination Theory

MacNamara, Button & Collins’ (2010) paper on Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence (PCDEs), backs this up: goals should be independently set/modified with a mix of realistic process/outcome goals.

Brewer (2000) also points out that the goals MUST draw upon all FOUR CORNERS of performance to achieve maximum potential from athletes. This means that the opportunity is taken to work on areas that are not purely ‘psychological’, but also from the other ‘corners’ of performance i.e. technical, tactical and physical. For example, if your client has highlighted a lack of confidence, then it may be down to an issue from another ‘corner’. They may be struggling with a certain technique/tactic that has caused a decline in their self-belief. Identifying this (e.g. through performance profile, interview, observation) may be a way of then subsequently improving said technique/tactic, which in turn should boost their confidence levels.

When presenting information to a client, it is important not only that it is correctly matched to their needs (through effective needs analysis), but that it is delivered to them in a way that is engaging and accessible. Speed (2005):

“tell some good stories… they don’t want to listen to a sport psychology lecture”

The ‘story’ that I use is an extract from Joe Simpson’s Touching the Void (1988). I initially show my clients the trailer from the film to set the scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t65VrYZ2U9s

I then ask them to read an extract that perfectly demonstrates how he uses a mix of outcome, performance and process goals to survive a very harrowing ordeal. These should also be SMART goals in order to monitor progress over set time boundaries:

In their work on skill acquisition, Schmidt & Wrisberg (1989) have told us that vision is the dominant sense in learning. Harrison and Blakemore (1989) claim that about 83% of learning occurs through the visual system; about 11% through verbal and about 6% through other senses. So how can visual guidance be delivered to maximise its effects? According to Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1977) using demonstrations/models might be effective as we attempt to copy our heroes e.g.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m34XSvqFbFM

(although not directly about GS, Dennis Bergkamp is my personal hero and he talks about having a Growth Mindset)

Visual materials e.g.: video/posters/charts/ PowerPoint/Word etc.) can be useful to reinforce the messages set out during workshops. For instance, the image below reinforces the message of “the journey not the destination” when focusing on process more than outcome goals.

Here are some others I have found useful:

Use of tablets/smart phones are becoming increasingly useful/popular, where video clips can also be used to reinforce ideas/themes during training/competition.

Hopefully, the above information has provided a justification and some guidelines for GS use. However, they should be applied with an element of caution. Convincing athletes and coaches to ‘buy in’ adhere to goals may be the first obstacle, especially if they have doubts about sport psychology. Setting too many goals may be a potential issue, it is important to not overwhelm athletes, especially beginners. A failure to adjust goals if too easy/hard may have negative connotations for motivation. Not differentiating i.e. not accounting for personal preference in task/ego orientated goals. Providing feedback/evaluation is important – athletes want to know if they are being successful or not. Overall, GS can be a very powerful technique, but use it wisely!

References:

Andersen MB (2000) Doing Sport Psychology. Human Kinetics

Anderson M (2005) Sports Psychology in Practice. Human Kinetics

Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bandura A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Carron A and Hausenblas H (2005) Group Dynamics in Sport. Fitness Information Technology

Deci E L and Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum

Deci EL and Ryan RM (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Duckworth A (2016) Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance. Vermillion

Dweck C (2012) Mindset: How You Can Fulfil Your Potential. Robinson

Hardy L, Jones G & Gould D (1996) Understanding psychological preparation for sport. Wiley

Horn T (2008) Advances in Sport Psychology. Human Kinetics. Chapter 15

Kyllo LB and Landers DM (1995) Goal setting in sport and exercise: A research synthesis to resolve the controversy. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, Vol 17 (2), 117-137

Locke EA and Latham GP (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

MacNamara, Button & Collins (2010) The Role of Psychological Characteristics in Facilitating the Pathway to Elite Performance Parts 1 & 2. The Sport Psychologist. 24, p52 -96

Simpson J (1998) Touching the Void . Vintage

Weinberg, R.S., & Gould, D. (2015). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology. (6th Ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Transitions in Youth Sport

Schlossberg (1981) defines transition as:

“an event or non-event [which] results in a change in assumptions about oneself & the world, and requires a corresponding change in one’s behaviour relationships”

In a sporting context this may include stepping up a skill level, being asked to play in a new position, being de-selected, or left out, falling out with teammates/coaches, injury, a growth spurt (puberty) and retirement. Each can have both negative and positive effects on athletes.

Studies on career development/transitions of athletes started in the 1960s with initial studies focusing predominantly on retirement processes. These studies have shown a substantial increase in quantity and quality since end of 1980s and more recently have changed to a whole career approach. It is the development phase of these transitions that will be the main focus of this blog.

Durand-Bush and Salmela (2001) note a shift away from a ‘natural talent’ approach (i.e. talent identification) to a more ‘acquired’ approach (talent development – TD). The TD process now occurs within a career development context and contributes to an athlete’s internal resources (psychological characteristics – more later) to cope with career transitions.

Wylleman, Theeboom and Lavallee (2004) have documented that career development processes of athletes has evolved in recent decades into an holistic, lifespan, multi-level approach to sports and post-sports careers. In other words, transitions cover athletic, individual, psychosocial & academic levels. Alfermann and Stambulova (2007) state that “athletic career” is a term for a multi-year sport activity and levels of competitive sports (which can be local, regional, national or international/amateur or professional). Descriptive models of athletic careers (e.g. Bloom, 1985; Côté, 1999; Solmela, 1994; Stambulova, 1994; Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004) define a succession of stages e.g. initiation/sampling, development/specialization, perfection/mastery/investment, final/maintenance and discontinuation stage of competitive involvement. Bailey et al (2010) point out that most of these development models (e.g. LTAD, DMSP, LISPA), involve discreet stages. Some evaluate the challenges faced in each stage, but NOT in transitions between stages. The important point here is that these ignore the non-linear individualised needs of athletes on the development pathway. Sinclair and Orlick (1993) claim that transitions can be perceived as either a crisis, rite of passage or a positive step on the development ladder (both positive and negative connotations).

Research has shown that successfully transferring between stages is facilitated by developing a range of psychobehavioural skills (i.e. Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence – PCDEs) to deal with transitional changes (such as increases in deliberate practice) and other traumatic events in sport and life in general. Bailey et al have criticised the over-reliance on retrospective (e.g. Bloom, 1985) and autobiographical accounts (e.g. Cote, 1999). They suggest more longitudinal studies are needed to generalise to different sports. Collins, MacNamara and McCarthy (2016) believe that there needs to be more triangulation in research between theories, coach perceptions and stories of both success and failure.

Stambulova (2010) gave an alternative definition of transitions as:

“turning phases in career development that manifest themselves by sets of demands athletes have to meet to continue successfully in sport and/or other spheres of life”

 Alfermann & Stambulova (2007) describe transitions as being:

• Normative (predictable) e.g. junior to senior sports or from school to college/university OR
• Non-normative (less predictable) e.g. injury, moving to a different club, divorce

 

Stambulova et al (2009) claim that successfully coping with transitions improves an athlete’s odds of a long and successful life in sport. Alternatively, failure to cope leads to crisis, often followed by negative long-term consequences e.g. premature dropout from sport, neuroses, alcohol/drug abuse and others. One way to prevent crisis-transitions is helping athletes with career planning to raise awareness of forthcoming transition demands and enable them to develop the resources for effective coping. Alfermann & Stambulova (2007) offered a five Step Career Planning Strategy (5-SCP)

• Step 1: Make a Framework; Step 2: Structure Your Past; Step 3: Structure Your Present; Step 4: Structure Your Future; Step 5: Bridge Your Past, Present & Future

More recently, MacNamara, Button and Collins (e.g. 2010a, b) have produced a number of papers around Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence (PCDEs). They claim that different mental skills are required at different stages. Athletes encounter MACRO development stages but also less predictable MICRO stages e.g. injury or a change of performance environment. They believe that all athletes follow the generic stages of Cote’s (e.g. 1999) Developmental Model of Sports Participation (that suggests athletes become involved in sampling sports before specialising at a later age), BUT crucially then take different pathways to the elite stage, which are:

• Dynamic (always changing)
• Non-linear (not always improving – may experience a plateau in performance)
• Individualised (increasingly challenging)
• No two athletes followed the same pathway at older ages

 

The important thing to note is how athletes interpret incidents/experiences as positive or negative (depending on individual psychological characteristics). Ericson (1996) claims that different performance environments require different levels of deliberate practice at different development stages and therefore each may favour different PCDEs. Therefore, these characteristics may change over time according to different environments e.g. Context (domain); Characteristics (age, level of age maturation). The implication here is that if an individual does not have or develop the necessary PCDEs following a transition, then they may be cast aside. Further work by Collins, MacNamara and McCarthy (2016) has suggested that how athletes deal with real-life stressors (the ‘Rocky Road’) can have a massive influence on how they deal with stress and possible transitions in sport. If they are capable of coping with minor or major ‘trauma’ caused by everyday events such as:

• Developmental stressors (e.g. developmental disorders)
• External stressors (e.g. family dysfunction such as parental divorce)
• Embodied states (e.g. injury/illness)
• Psychological states ( e.g. depression/body dissatisfaction)
• Externalised behaviours (e.g. substance abuse/self-harm)

 

then in theory they should be more adept at navigating issues within a sporting context – and become higher achievers. These authors also imply that maybe in some developmental settings in sport there is too much emphasis on trying to:

“minimize the number and certainly the impact of developmental challenges on young athletes. For example, providing young athletes with financial, coaching, and sport science support in a supportive environment is a common feature of TD pathways. This approach is undertaken in an effort to minimize challenge and allow young athletes to focus on their sporting commitments. Indeed, many TD pathways purposefully try to smooth the pathway for their most talented performers… many young athletes may often not encounter many challenges until late in their career. Increasingly, however, experiencing a degree of challenge during development is recognized as an essential characteristic of those athletes who make it to the very highest level in their sport. As such, there have been calls for the inclusion of structured trauma, designed and implemented as part of the pathway, as an essential feature of any TD (talent development) system.”

Indeed at younger ages there seems to be more reliance on ‘natural talent’ and physical attributes (Bloom, 1985), with many academies selecting players purely on size. This may be a consequence of the Relative Age Effect and does not necessarily guarantee that these bigger athletes will be successful. In fact, there is evidence to suggest (MacNamara et al, 2010a) that as athletes progress into the more serious and competitive phases of the TD pathway, that PCDEs become more important than physical AND technical characteristics. Players that are physically smaller or weaker – but crucially remain in the system – may well overcome these supposed weaknesses by developing greater problem-solving skills and perhaps even a stronger intrinsic motivation to prove people wrong. In contrast the larger, more physical specimens may dominate whilst they have a size advantage, but may rely too heavily on this, meaning that crucial technical, tactical and psychological factors are not developed and they fall by the wayside at a later date when the others catch up.

Effects of transitions might include: selection at a higher level (anxiety/perception of pressure); de-selection (increased effort & determination); a change of coach (different leading styles); a performance slump (staleness). Effective application of PCDEs may help performers adjust to key transitional challenges and interpret as them as a positive catalyst for change.

In their work in 2015, MacNamara and Collins highlight the importance of embedding psychological skills into the development environment as early as feasible to ensure the deployment of appropriate coping skills. Part of this focuses around negative attributes being just as important to study and moderate as positive ones. Too much/inappropriate emphasis on positive characteristics may limit an athlete’s progress. Which ones can be classed as negative? Persistence in practice more than just practice itself may be good i.e. Grit (Duckworth, 2007) “sustained & focused application of talent over time”, but if you are persisting with the wrong type of practice, then other strategies may be better employed rather than sticking with the incorrect version. So, quality is more important than just quantity – it is not how many hours you practice, but how well you practice. Self-regulation is also vital in this to ensure that you can identify what you are doing well and what needs improving (Growth Mindset: Dweck, 2006 i.e. not seeing ability as a fixed commodity, but one that can be improved through effort and making mistakes). Certain positive attributes could become negative in excess e.g. persistence turning into perfectionism: “an achievement-related personality characteristic that reflects compulsive pursuit of excessively high standards and a tendency to engage in harsh, over-critical self-evaluation”. This ‘obsessive passion’ has also been linked to burnout and potentially withdrawal from sport. It may be that experts may not have better hardware BUT may be more motivated to take advantage of development opportunities and be more committed to success (have higher achievement motivation – a need to achieve and approach challenges).

MacNamara and Collins developed the use of the (Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence Questionnaire (PCDEQ) to identify positive and negative characteristics and found six  factors that were deemed important:

1. Support for Long-Term success (e.g. from significant others such as coaches, parents, siblings, peers)
2. Imagery use in practice/competition (effective pre/in event behaviour (cognitive & motivation functions))
3. Coping with performance/developmental pressures (arousal regulation)
4. Organise/engage in quality practice (influenced by psychological disposition e.g. Determination, persistence, autonomy)
5. Evaluating performances and working on weaknesses
6. Support from (significant) others to compete to potential (with development of PCDEs)

 

So how does this look in an applied sense? It seems clear that an age-appropriate, differentiated and individualised programme is required for athletes where resources allow (across all four corners of performance: technical, tactical, physical, psychological). If much of the evidence suggests that overcoming early trauma may lead to high achievement (if successfully navigated), then why might there be a tendency to make development environments such a smooth path? Is there not a danger that we are not ‘supporting’ our young athletes in favour of mothering them? If you take football (soccer), for example, South American players are very much sought after these days as they display the sort of mental toughness and resilience that used to be commonplace in the UK. There is much mourning over the death of ‘street footballers’ who grew up playing at every opportunity with their mates on any available surface, implicitly developing the types of skills that are now artificially trying to be instilled in development set-ups. So the challenge for these environments is to develop a periodised use of challenge that progresses with the athlete’s individual rate of development. Collins et al (2016b) suggest as much one-to-one work as possible:

“to help the individual to explore, discover and build confidence in the particular blend which best works in the particular environment… [with a] need for regular and ongoing refinement or even revision as people grow and situations change.”

McCarthy and Collins (2015) believe that overcoming high levels of (physical and cognitive) challenge in a youth development setting may enhance or instil coping skills and be beneficial in the long-term. It makes the transition into the – sometimes brutal – world of elite sport more likely by providing opportunities to “develop, deploy and refine PCDEs.”

There is also a need for monitoring athlete’s mental health and wellbeing in the development phase (Hill et al, 2016) as issues of this nature may begin to show in adolescence (about half of all lifetime cases begin by age 14 and three quarters by the age of 24). Transitions may have an effect on this if not managed properly according to athlete’s individual personalities and needs.  Athletes have been shown to have no greater resistance to mental illness than any other populations. This may mean from the sporting organisation’s point of view that they may lose some potential talent. From a more humane point of view – and more importantly – it may impact on the welfare of the athlete. If those who work closely with these athletes can monitor any potential problems then they can be treated at source as much as possible, with athletes being referred to those that may offer them professional help. A lack of disclosure by athletes and awareness of these issues by significant others has been apparent. Coaches are in a position to be able to have an effect if properly educated towards the warning signs such as behavioural change (e.g. depression, anxiety, perfectionist behaviours, eating disorders). Other than referral to mental health professionals, the talent development system has a limited amount of actions they can take, but this would at least be a step in the right direction.

However, one area that can be influenced is the “maladaptive influence of parental behaviour, in particular the role of the ‘pushy’ or ‘problem’ parent.” Anxiety and fear of failure (leading to choking) can often be passed on unwittingly from parent to child (Wuerth et al, 2004 cf. Hill et al). Educating the parents into providing a more supportive background may be suitable.

Hill and colleagues suggest a three-stage approach to addressing potential mental health issues:

1. Provide coaching staff with education into which signs to spot based on an individual’s personality and personal circumstances (e.g. may be around how they transition from one phase to the next and influencing their perception of this)
2. Regular monitoring of coping skills (PCDEs) and mental wellbeing, presumably in one-to-one settings, to maintain appropriate levels of challenge and target any further areas for development
3. Appropriate support and signposting where necessary to identify and address potential mental health issues, and provide timely treatment

 

With the rest of this article in mind, if any ‘trauma’ in an athlete’s life is successfully overcome it may indeed lead them to being not only better athletes, but transferring those same skills to other parts of their life as well as dealing with retirement from sport and a life after. Clearly, there is a balance to be achieved between providing challenges for but not ‘overtraumatising’ athletes, based on individual differences. Significant others (particularly peers, coaches and parents) can have an important role in either improving or diminishing a young athlete’s mental wellbeing.

References

 

• Bailey R, Collins D, Ford P, MacNamara A, Toms M, Pearce G (2010) Participant Development in Sport: An Academic Review. Sports Coach UK https://sportscoachuk.org/sites/default/files/Participant-Development-Lit-Review.pdf   [date accessed 8/4/16]
• Bloom B (1985) Developing talent in young people, New York: Ballantine
• Collins D & MacNamara (2012) The Rocky Road to the Top: Why Talent needs Trauma. Sports Med 42 (11): p907 – 914
• Collins D, MacNamara A & McCarthy (2016) Super Champions, Champions and Almosts: Important Differences and Commonalities on the Rocky Road. Frontier Psychology, Volume 6, Article 2009 http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009/full [date accessed 8/4/16]
• Durand-Bush N & Salmela JH (2001) Development of talent in sport. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas & C. M. Janelle (Eds.) Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed. pp. 269-289) New York: Wiley
• Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House
• Duckworth AL, Peterson C, Matthews MD & Kelly DR (2007) Grit: perseverance & passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 92 (6); 1087 – 1101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
• Hill A, MacNamara A, Collins D & Rodgers S (2016) Examining the Role of Mental Health & Clinical Issues within Talent Development. Frontiers in Psychology Volume 6, Article 2042 http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02042/full [date accessed 8/4/16]
• MacNamara A, Button A & Collins D (2010a). The Role of Psychological Characteristics in Facilitating the Pathway to Elite Performance. Part 1: Identifying Mental Skills and Behaviours. The Sport Psychologist 24, p 52 -73
• MacNamara A, Button A & Collins D (2010b). The Role of Psychological Characteristics in Facilitating the Pathway to Elite Performance. Part 2: examining Environmental and Stage-related Differences in Skills and Behaviours. The Sport Psychologist 24, p74 -96
• MacNamara A & Collins D (2011) Development and Initial Validation of the Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Sciences 29 (12): p1273 – 1286
• MacNamara A & Collins D (2015) Profiling, Exploiting and Countering Psychological Characteristics in Talent Identification and Development. The Sport Psychologist 29, p 73 – 81
• Schlossberg N. K. (1981) A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. The Counselling Psychologist 9 (2) 2-18
• Stambulova N (2010) Counselling Athletes in Career Transitions: The Five-Step Career Planning Strategy. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action (1): 95–105
• Stambulova N, Alfermann D, Stauer T & Cote J (2009) ISSP POSITION STAND: CAREER DEVELOPMENT & TRANSITIONS OF ATHLETES. International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology (7) p 395-412
• Wylleman P, Alfermann D & Lavallee D (2004) Career transitions in sport: European perspectives, Psychology of Sport and Exercise 5 (1) p7 – 20
• Wylleman P, Theeboom M & Lavallee D (2004) Successful athletic careers. In C. Spielberger (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of applied psychology. Vol. 3 (pp. 511-517). New York: Elsevier

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sleep and Performance

How Gareth Bale and Real Madrid sleep their way to the top

Taken directly from the http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32276547 (accessed 21/4/15)

By Alec Fenn Football writer

At 1pm every afternoon, the hustle and bustle of Real Madrid’s Valdebebas training ground grinds to a halt and the facility resembles a ghost town.

A silence descends over the complex for the following two hours as players and staff close their eyes and drift into a siesta before waking and resuming their day – but they’re not sleeping on the job.

The scene is a window into football’s relentless pursuit of marginal gains as clubs across Europe turn to technology, purpose-built facilities and sleep experts to recharge their multi-million pound assets and gain a competitive advantage.

You snooze, you win

Tennis great Roger Federer and basketball star LeBron James are both advocates of sleeping for upwards of 10 hours per night  and research shows the performance benefits of proper rest for athletes.

A study by Stanford University sleep expert Cheri Mah  showed basketball players who increased their sleep duration to those levels improved shot accuracy by 9% in tests and recorded improved sprint and reaction times.

Take recovery for granted and the risks are great. One restless night is enough to weaken the immune system and increase the risk of illness. Sleep poorly for 64 hours or more and strength and power is reduced.

At clubs such as Real Madrid every aspect of a player’s life – including sleep patterns – is monitored

Fatigue, often brought on by a number of games in a short period of time, increases levels of the hormone cortisol. This can then see the body begin to eat into its own protein stores and reduce a player’s muscle mass, heightening the risk of strains and tears.

The brain’s ability to send messages to and from different parts of the body to control movement also decreases, which impairs the sense of where limbs are positioned and the perception of strength of effort – making injuries such as ankle sprains more likely.

Helping ‘owl’ Bale overcome morning phobia

Those factors prompted Real’s sports scientist and conditioning coach, Englishman Jack Nayler,  to invite elite sport sleep coach Nick Littlehales to the club in December 2013 to deliver a workshop to manager Carlo Ancelotti and his squad.

Littlehales began his work in the field prescribing specific mattress types to Gary Pallister and Ryan Giggs at Manchester United in the mid-1990s in a bid to cure their respective back and hamstring problems.

He has since gone on to work with the England football team, Team GB, 2012 Tour de France winner Sir Bradley Wiggins and a host of Premier League clubs, including Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Southampton.

Real Madrid have 81 bedrooms at their training complex for players and staff to take a siesta

At Madrid, he inspected each of the 81, five-star, fingerprint-accessed bedrooms at the club’s training complex to evaluate the ‘sleep environment’ – a term he’s coined to represent the temperature, lighting, air quality, duvet-type and mattresses inside the rooms.

After delivering his seminar to Cristiano Ronaldo and his team-mates, Littlehales was approached by Wales forward Gareth Bale, who requested a one-on-one consultation.

With Nayler and the club’s doctor also present, the former Tottenham forward went through an examination to establish his body characteristics (height, weight and any injury problems), daily routines (usual wake and sleep times), activities (types/intensity of training each day), sleep habits, chronotype (the natural time he sleeps and wakes), and formulate a sleep profile – an in-depth report covering the areas in the graphic below.

The areas above will form part of a player’s sleep profile

“Gareth had only just joined the club and he had a lot of new stuff to deal with,” Littlehales told BBC Sport. “He identifies with being an owl – he hates the mornings. He’s also got a young child, which can have an effect on sleep.”

Get caught napping

Bale’s biological clock – or circadian rhythm  to give it its proper title – means he naturally falls asleep and wakes up at later times, leaving his energy levels at their lowest early in the morning, before peaking in the afternoon.

It’s a problem Littlehales has encountered with countless athletes and in a bid to combat disruption to the body’s preset patterns – which can also occur following European fixtures which finish late in the evening – he recommends naps.

One player he worked with at Manchester City told him of his routine in the aftermath of Champions League games, which would see him stay up until 4am as he struggled to get to sleep with the adrenaline from the game still in his system.

Wales and Real Madrid forward Gareth Bale ‘hates early mornings’

“He’d stay downstairs on the Xbox until the early hours. He’d fall asleep on the sofa and wake up mid-morning because he didn’t have training the following day – he was completely out of sync,” Littlehales said.

“Your body has two in-built nap times when energy levels dip – the first between 1pm and 3pm and the second between 5pm and 7pm.

“Now he just works around the kick-off. Before and after the game he has a routine. If he’s got a 7:45 kick off at home, his bed time is 2am. He gets up at 6:30 and has breakfast. If he’s still tired, he’ll have a 90-minute nap at those times and catch up with his sleep that way.”

‘Stay off your phone at bedtime’

At Southampton, no stone has been left unturned in the quest for a perfect night’s sleep. Every morning, each member of the squad uses a bespoke wellbeing app to fill in a questionnaire on their own personal tablet given to them by the club.

Players are asked to mark their quality of sleep, mood, muscle soreness and general level of fatigue out of 10. If the level of sleep is below an individual’s threshold they will begin using devices to monitor them at night.

The club’s head of sports science, Alek Gross, told BBC Sport: “We do have players who have been prescribed individual sleep kits to aid their sleep throughout the week. They’ll have a specific duvet and pillow thickness, perhaps blackout curtains that are specific to their needs.

Nick Littlehales’ top tips for a good night’s sleep
Humans sleep in five phases which repeat themselves every 90 minutes. Five cycles equates to seven-and-a-half hours which is enough for the average adult.
Begin a pre-sleep routine 90 minutes before bed – start turning off televisions, mobile phones and other electrical devices which give off bright light.
Have a shower prior to sleeping. Your body temperature will cool after coming out of the shower and ease you naturally into a state of sleep.
Turn your radiator down – a cool 16-18C is ideal.
Drink a glass of warm milk before bed. Dairy products are rich in tryptophan, which aids the production of sleep-inducing chemicals serotonin and melatonin.

“Temperature in hotel rooms is more of a problem. Ideally it needs to be 16-18 degrees. Players have their own room on trips now so we can really tailor to each individual.

“We advise the players against looking at mobile phones and television screens 90 minutes before bed – even the red light on your TV can affect your circadian rhythm and keep you awake.”

Players also have a list of prohibited foods and drinks they are warned against consuming in the evening. Caffeine and liquids high in sugar are off the menu, as are fat-laden meals, which take longer to digest and raise body temperature, which in turn slows the process of falling to sleep. All players are given a milk-based protein drink to aid recovery and induce sleepiness.

Eat, train, sleep, repeat

Attitudes towards sleep in football are changing. Manchester United installed sleep pods at the club’s Carrington training ground for players to nap in between double sessions during the summer, while Manchester City’s new £200m complex has 32 en-suite bedrooms each decorated with sleep-inducing wallpaper – a light green design with ever decreasing circles.

At Liverpool, players use various types of monitoring technology to detect movement during sleep, including wrist devices and heart-rate straps.

The club’s sports science consultant, Barry Drust, said: “We’ve adopted a lifestyle-orientated approach. It isn’t standard for all the players at Liverpool to have their sleep monitored but it does happen relatively frequently with individuals, depending on the situation.

“Football is a team sport, but it’s a team sport made up of individual athletes, so the philosophy at Liverpool is much more about trying to create individual strategies for individual players.”

In October Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers applauded Raheem Sterling’s maturity in complaining of tiredness to England boss Roy Hodgson and sitting out the 1-0 win over Estonia – it might just be a sign of things to come as players look to sleep their way to the top.

What the VAK are Learning Styles?

So what learning style are you? It should be very easy to find out. You can simply take a number of written or online tests to tell you whether you are:

• Visual, Auditory, Reader, Kinaesthetic (Fleming, 2001)
• Concrete, Sequential, Abstract, Random (Gregorc, 1981)
• Visual, Aural, Verbal, Physical, Logical, Social, Solitary (Whiteley, 2003)
• Activist, Reflector, Theorist, Pragmatist (Honey and Mumford, 1992)
• Holistic, Analytic, Verbaliser, Imager (Riding and Cheema, 1991)

…to mention but a few. Grant (2002) tells us that:

“as individuals we each have different rules for learning… Driven by our own interpretation of new experiences and knowledge from an early age. How much any individual learns is very much related to whether educational experience is geared towards their particular learning style rather than how intelligent they are or from what social background they may come from. In essence the question to be asked is not ‘how bright is the individual’ but ‘how is the individual bright?’”

In other words different individuals have different talents (abilities), interests, work styles and lifestyles. Everyone perceives and processes information differently thus viewing the world in different ways. Attempting to explain these differences may help to infer why we learn at different rates and to varying skill levels. It also implies that if we have the potential to excel at something, but are not provided with information in our preferred format that we are doomed to not succeed in that domain. This may then be due to circumstances beyond our control e.g. the person teaching/coaching us may have their own distinctive teaching/coaching style that may not be to our liking (more about this later). Williams (1996):

“learning is more effective if the teaching style used is consistent with the preferred learning style… A mismatch will have an adverse effect on learning”

There are however, a number of issues with learning styles and the way in which they are supposedly measured. They are generally measured by questionnaires which create their own issues. They are inadequate to understand some forms of information i.e. changes of emotions, behaviour, feelings etc. which may then mean that they have little validity or reliability. A responder may respond in a certain way on one day if they are in a good mood and in a different way on another day if they are sad or angry. Quantitative (numbers/statistics) research is an artificial creation by researchers, as it is asking only a limited amount of information without explanation i.e. the researcher has decided what to ask and how to ask it, which may exclude a raft of other salient information. There is also no way to tell how truthful a respondent is being/how much thought went into their answer. It could be that they simply could not be bothered in completing the questionnaire fully and gave any old answer. It could also be a case of demand characteristics where the responder gives the answers that they think they should to please the researcher instead of an honest response. If there is limited guidance in completing the items then people may interpret questions differently. If they are given guidance there may be a risk of observer bias, whereby the person giving that assistance may unconsciously point responders towards certain answers or the responder may perceive this to happen.

Issues with learning styles include pigeonholing learners to one style, which is problematic as they are then only targeted with one source of information. This does not account for our brains being ‘plastic’ meaning they can change and be moulded over the course of our lives. If there are supposedly so many different styles of learning, which is the best theory? What then would be the best method of teaching/coaching? What are the implications for coaching styles? Is random/varied practice better than fixed/blocked practice, for example? This may depend on the complexity of the skill being learned; the stage of learning (cognitive; associative; autonomous); individual needs/preferences; intellectual capacity, etc. The human brain is so complex that it is surely not as simple as placing our learners into one convenient compartment for receiving information.

In his book, ‘What’s the point of School?’, Guy Claxton (2008) points  out:

“the apparent science behind them [learning styles] turned out to be flawed. Many so-called ‘learning styles’ are far less permanent, pervasive or clear-cut than claimed… people change the way they approach things depending on what they are learning. I am a much more ‘visual’ learner when watching TV, more ‘auditory’ when listening to a teacher and more ‘kinaesthetic’ when playing football – aren’t you? Also, learning styles change and develop considerably over time… they are better thought of as temporary snap-shots of evolving habits and preferences than as life sentences”

I also like the messages in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYyVWBJn59g

Is it wrong to dismiss learning styles altogether though? Sharp (2004) claims that “learning styles help sensitise teachers and coaches to individual differences and the importance of TRYING to maximise the potential of all learners”. So according to Cassidy (2004) they may be useful, but:

“There needs to be a deliberate and documented choice of model which reflects the broad awareness of the field and which will allow results and outcomes to be dealt with in a clear conceptual framework. Following such guidance should contribute to the development of a unifying and empirical framework of learning style”

You could therefore conclude that learning styles are a great idea in theory, as they identify that differentiation is required between learners to fully develop each and every one. However, the usual ‘social science caveat’ exists that (much) more research is required.

Where does that leave us in the here and now? Claxton describes some of the ways that we may learn in real life (which do actually reflect some of the ideas of learning styles, but not in such an insular way):

• “Watching and imitating others [role models i.e. Bandura’s Social Learning Theory]
• Trying it ourselves
• Asking questions, when and if we need to
• Making notes/diagrams that may make sense only to us
• Trying different scenarios, trial and error (repetition)
• Visualising how things might work and how we can rehearse various outcomes”

As implied above, the simplicity of learning styles is convenient for teachers/coaches, but surely there are other psychological factors involved in the process. It seems impossible to band the entire human population into just a handful of possible categories. Wurst and Lombardo (1994) identified the following factors as being important in the learning process:

• The Student e.g. Skill level, physical maturity, motivation, learning ‘style’; more mature/advanced learners may require more guided discovery
• The Teacher e.g. Ability to manage group, confidence, personality (enthusiasm/passion?)
• The Subject e.g. Degree of risk involved, complexity, class of skill (e.g. Open/closed), team or individual
• The Environment e.g. Resources, time, group size

The Student: The more skilled the student, the less input that should be required by the teacher. Once they have ‘learned to learn’, they now have the tools to solve problems and find information for themselves rather than be spoon fed. The implication for beginners (cognitive/associative stages) would be a more autocratic approach to help them build up a mental encyclopaedia of data (schema theory – Schmidt, 1975). For ‘elite learners’ (autonomous stage) a more democratic or laissez-faire approach may work better for the reasons mentioned above. Motivation is a massive factor in learning that none of the styles I am aware of mention. If you are motivated to achieve something you are far more likely to be successful at it than if you are forced to do it. From a personal point of view this would be anything related to maths! Enjoyment must also be linked to motivation to an extent. If you find an experience inherently enjoyable you are more likely to want to repeat (practice) it i.e. positive reinforcement.  This could be one of the most important and overlooked factors. The implication for coaches/teachers would be to make your lessons/sessions enjoyable (but again this may not be to everyone’s taste – some learners may want to be in a more serious environment – there may be links here to different personality types/disorders e.g. perfectionism, OCD, Asperger’s). I would like to point out a distinction between enjoyment and fun here. Fun has implications of running around a playground aimlessly, whereas enjoyment can be serious but still pleasurable – getting the balance right is the tricky part!

The Teacher: group management is undoubtedly a factor. A teacher’s personality may lend itself to them being more authoritarian or more laid-back and charismatic. They may have their own particular style of delivery that rarely or never changes. According to Chelladurai’s (1984, 1990) Multi-Dimensional Theory of Leadership, adaptability is key.  The closer that required, preferred and actual leader behaviour is to the group’s preference, then the more likely that successful outcomes and group satisfaction will be achieved. The obvious implication here is that the best coaches/teachers can change their style of delivery and effectively manage each individual in the group rather than being a ‘one trick pony’. A good example of this would be Sir Alex Ferguson. Although he was notorious for giving players the ‘hairdryer’ treatment in the dressing room where he got right into their faces to deliver what could politely be called a ‘firm rebuke’, he generally knew which players needed this and which were more in need of a quiet word and an ‘arm round the shoulder’. However, even the most experienced can get it wrong sometimes as this may have backfired during the incident with David Beckham depending on which version of the story you believe, but it goes to show that nobody is too old to learn a new lesson!

Figure 1: Chelladurai’s Multidimensional Model of Leadership

Passion and enthusiasm for the subject are also a must for successful coaches/teachers. There is nothing more uninspiring than someone who looks jaded or uninterested in what they are delivering. On the other hand, a coach/teacher with real passion can act as a real spur to learners. I am sure we can think of coaches/teachers that fall into both categories.

The Subject: this may again link to motivation and enjoyment. The best motivator is success and if you are successful at something you are more likely to enjoy it and repeat that actions. If this continues to be an achievable challenge then it seems likely that you would adhere to this activity. If it became too easy then motivation may decrease due to boredom. If it became persistently too hard (increasing complexity of the skills involved with little mastery), then success (performance curve) would become too infrequent meaning that the learner may drop out.  Good goal-setting skills may be vital here for teacher/coach and learner.

The Environment: Resources or lack of may be a factor depending on the activity taking place. Finances may come into this equation. Academies in sport in this country are now populated by middle class children whose parents have the money and resources to buy expensive equipment and ferry their offspring around the country to fulfil fixtures and attend training several ties a week.  Time may be another factor. An obvious example of this may be linked to another aspect of the environment – the weather. Footballers in Spain have on average accumulated thousands more hours of practiced by the time they get to 16 than their British counterparts, partly due to lack of facilities and inclement weather in the UK, which may be reflected in their technical/tactical superiority.  Group size may be a factor. Type of sport would be an indicator of this. Someone involved in an individual sport (e.g. combat sports, golf, tennis) would by the very nature of the sport, have more time with their coaches/instructors than someone in a team sport (e.g. football, rugby, hockey). This would give them enhanced access to information that may improve their performance, whereas individual support in team sports may be less likely (may be linked to resources as elite sporting organisations would have better access to specialised coaching staff and sport scientists).

In conclusion, learning styles are a great idea in theory. However, that theory needs to be tightened up considerably for them to be fully effective as teaching/coaching tools. There are so many factors that affect a learner whether they be biological, socio-economic or psychological (see Bailey et al, 2010 Biopsychosocial model for a very thorough insight). The implication though maybe to repeatedly present information to learners in as many different ways as possible as long as it is not boring and remains to be a challenge to them. Using models to demonstrate information is a great tool especially with the advent of YouTube and other social media channels. Encouraging learner to ask questions when they do not understand is also important and talking of modelling, it is also important to model yourself as a learner even when you are the teacher: do not make out that you know everything; be stumped by questions/ideas from time to time (but not so often as to appear incompetent), but demonstrate how you intend to discover the answer for yourself. Carol Dweck’s book ‘Mindset’ tells us not to praise ability, but instead praise effort so as to foster a growth rather than a fixed mindset to learning.  Guy Claxton talks about the dangers of ‘overpraise’ which fits in well with my own ideas on the current ‘one size fits all’ approach to self-esteem and giving praise for every small achievement, instead of giving it only when deserved (not necessarily for success, but for working hard to overcome barriers). Encourage learners to make notes and diagrams in their own unique form of shorthand. Visualisation is another good way to create better and faster neural pathways in the brain (e.g. Holmes and Collins PETTLEP Model, 2001). If a task is too easy make it harder, if too hard make it easier and break it down into manageable chunks.   In her book entitled ‘Choke’ (2010), Sian Beilock cites an experiment by Hinds (1999) that advocates the value of peer learning i.e. teaching each other and also a current fad in teaching ‘flip learning’ where learners deliver the entire lesson to the teacher/coach and not the other way round. I was told when studying to become a teacher that you do not truly know your subject until you have to teach it. I agree and having coached football for a number of years, it has also made me a significantly better player in terms of game understanding, although unfortunately I am too old now to be able to put this into effect too often! Overall the aim is simple – as a coach/teacher you should be wanting to make yourself redundant by giving your learners the tools that they require to be independent thinkers i.e. learning to learn.

Further reading:

Bailey R et al (2010) Biopsychosocial Model: A New Model for Development https://www.sportscoachuk.org/sites/default/files/Participant-Development-Lit-Review.pdf 

Beilock, S (2010) Choke: What the secrets of the brain reveal about getting it right when you have to, Atria Paperback

Cassidy S (2004) Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, measures; Educational Psychology, Vol 24, No 4, August http://www.acdowd-designs.com/sfsu_860_11/LS_OverView.pdf (date accessed 21/2/15)

Claxton G (2008) What’s the Point of School? One World Publications

Dweck, C (2011) Mindset: How you can fulfil your potential, Robinson

Sharp, B (2004) Acquiring Skill in Sport, Sports Dynamics

Schmidt, R.A & Lee, T.D (1999) Motor Control & Learning, Human Kinetics

Whiteley S (2003), Memletics Accelerated Learning Manual, p55-56

Pre-Season Training (Initially for Togganet)

Chris McLaughlin

Please click the file below and download the word document to access this article.

“Pre-season Training – A Load of Balls?“

Pre-Season Article 150714 CMcL

Many Thanks,

Chris

View original post

Heading

KEEP THE BALL

By John Cartwright

In my book, ‘FOOTBALL FOR THE BRAVE’, I have stated that Heading is — the football perfectionists ‘blind spot’. There is considerable interest and practises regarding other aspects of the game, but Heading seems, along with Tackling, the forgotten skills of the game. It was obvious in the latest Euro Club Championship final between Real Madrid and Athletico Madrid, that both teams were leaders in aerial domination in both attacking and defending situations.  Barcelona, with their high possession playing style have been deficient in developing variations and Heading has been a serious weakness for them in all areas of the field.

View original post 806 more words

Overloading Through the Field

KEEP THE BALL

By John Cartwright

Throughout football here we accept ‘fight’ situations in all areas of the field either because of the use of systems of play that cancel each other out or because of poor game understanding; games are played with scant awareness or appreciation of overloading in attacking/defending situations.

Our game stands on a pre-set playing structure in which movement beyond their normal area of involvement by players is not used enough. Yes, there is movement down flank areas by ‘wing-backs’ but little else of note beyond an occasional individual offering.

View original post 618 more words