• Home
• Networks
• Articles
• Clubs
• Events
• Centers
• MarketPlace
• Forums
• Blogs
• Jobs
• News

Sport Psychology

Laughter and Sports Performance

In the run-up to the League Cup final between Manchester United and Aston Villa this week, I was intrigued to read that the last time Villa won the cup (in 1994, also against Man United) Ron Atkinson (the manager) employed comedian Stand Boardman before the game to help the players relax.

Of course we can never really prove what made the difference that day, but it appears to have been a smart move.

As (then Villa captain) Kevin Richardson stated: "Nervous energy can be a bad thing because it can drain you," he told BBC Sport. "But we had Stan cracking his jokes beforehand so the lads were just chilling rather than thinking too much about the match."

This could simply be a case of 'disassociation' - taking the players minds of the big game - but Reversal Theory suggests that there's more to that.

First of all, assuming Stand Boardman was actually funny, his jokes would have helped the players get into the 'playful' motivational state, in which one seeks enjoyment and experiences things 'in the moment'. This would allow the players to experience the high arousal of the big occasion as exciting, rather than nerve-wracking. This may have been more helpful than just 'relaxing', as they would have needed to get off to a good start and play a high-energy game against the stronger team.

One key aspect of Reversal Theory is that motivational states come in opposing pairs. This means that if you are in the playful state at a particular point in time you cannot be in the oppositional state, which is the serious state. This is important because it means that if you are having fun in the playful state you cannot experience anxiety which, as we know, can impair sports performance.

All of this would have been helped by Villa's underdog status. Being the favourite brings expectations. Being free of expectations could have helped in more than one way. First of all, being motivated to meet expectations is characteristic of the 'conforming' state, which is another condition for experiencing anxiety.

If the team had been favourites that day, they might have responded differently to the comedy routine. They may have been more inclined to prepare for the match in a conventional way, following the 'rules' if you like, about preparing for competition and may not have allowed themselves to enjoy the comedy.

Another way of looking at that might be that the unconventional nature of comedy as competition preparation might have helped the players to get into a 'rebellious' or mischievous state of mind, motivated to upset the odds. This would also help to avoid anxiety - because as well as the serious state, anxiety is experienced in the conforming state (the oppositional state to rebelliousness).

We can only speculate as to what the players went through that day, but it does seem that Ron Atkinson, using his experience and judgement, chose the right 'psychological intervention' for the occasion. That's a reminder that as sport psychologists we can augment good judgement to identify a solution, but we shouldn't be bound by thinking that we have to be the ones that deliver it.

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

The secret to Tiger Woods' return to Golf?

As you'd expect with the PGA tour's #1 draw and one of the greatest sportsmen of all time, speculation continues as to the timing of Tiger Woods' return to competitive golf. I'm not going to add to the speculation, but offer an observation about what might determine whether that return is successful or not.

Tiger Woods has been a man in apparent control since he arrived on the scene. His image has been closely managed, and he's managed to retain an air of complete authority on the golf course (most of the time - contrast what's happening now with this blog on tiger's psychology). So, I'd hypothesise that being in control is important to him.

I'd argue that, if the allegations are true regarding his private life, that he's managed to create a false sense of control. Somehow, perhaps with a lot of help from his management team, perhaps through charm, perhaps through financial incentive, the women that he is alleged to have "transgressed" with have kept quiet. Until now.

That cat's out of the bag and life is never going to be the same for Tiger. Tiger never was in complete control, though. He just believed that he was. Now I expect he knows that he's not. I'd also hypothesise that this is highly stressful for Tiger.

In my opinion, the only thing that Tiger Woods can now do is fully accept that he's not in control of his image, over allegations that might appear, and how people might talk about him. If he does this he can stay in control over what he does with a golf ball, and if he can realise that (for his career, if not his marriage) that's all that matters, then he can get to winning ways.

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

"Most footballers are knobs"

So who do you think said that? Those of you that listen to Radio 4 (in the UK) might know already. The rest of you might be surprised to hear that it was Joey Barton, Newcastle United's "bad boy".

Barton was interviewed this morning because Tony Adams, former Arsenal and England Captain and founder of the Sporting Chance clinic, was the guest editor. Barton attended the Sporting Chance clinic to learn anger management.

He came across, as he has before, as quite forthright yet humble (and I think I said that before he got into trouble last time). It has now been two years since he has had a drink, having realised after attending his anger management course and still finding trouble, that alcohol was actually the common denominator.

He was asked why footballers seem to get into so much trouble, which was when he pronounced that basically "most footballers are knobs", which he explained as buying the flashest cars and changing them "like their socks", wearing ridiculous diamond watches, and so on. But he also raised the important issue, that footballers are not raised in the real world. Professional football in the UK is different to the big American sports, for example, that takes its pros from the college system which means that, at least to some extent, they have to give some attention to their education and mix with other students. As Barton explained it, in the UK, kids are taken into football clubs and treated as special from 8 or 9 years of age, and become extremely well paid, high performing athletes who are "crap at life". They never grow up.

I'm not close enough to professional football to know if the academy system is changing this, or whether professional football clubs are doing more to teach their young players social and personal skills, or to take responsibility for their behaviour, but if not they must.

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Levein Raises Issue of Boredom in International Football Management

Unless you follow Scottish football, or are Leicester City fan, you're unlikely to know much about Craig Levein. But the Dundee United manager is a leading contender for the vacant position of Scotland's football manager. I was interested to note that his main concern the role was that he might get bored with the lack of day-to-day management required by the role.

For a young manager, who is bright and ambitious, to be concerned about the prospect of boredom in international football managers might seem crazy to most of us. I mean, who wouldn't jump at the chance - even to manage Scotland! But Levein is reported to want to take more responsibility than just the senior team, perhaps taking on a role to build the whole peformance system, more like a performance director in an olympic sport. Actually, I don't blame him.

To have your hands tied to only playing a handful of matches in a season, only having your squad together for small amounts of time, and having little no influence on the quality of players coming through the pipeline might not only be a bit boring but also very frustrating.

Indeed, while we can probably all relate to the stress of not feeling in control, boredom is also a stressor in itself. For those that seek enjoyment, through such things as variety and challenge, in their work boredom is a real possibility if their needs are not met.

Any negative emotion, as boredom is, can be stressful both through the tension that is felt between the actual and desired state, and through effort expended to resolve that tension - particularly when it is unsuccessful.

I think that Levein, in revealing this side of his personality, is demonstrating a high degree of self-awareness  that simply adds weight to his suitability for the job. But if the Scottish Football Association decide that he's their man they might have to make the job a bigger one.



--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Jessica Ennis Defines Competitiveness

I was just reading a good article on Heptathlon World Champion, Jessica Ennis (BBC) and it had a really good quote from her. It sums up what it really means to be competitive.

"I get really competitive with myself. When I'm doing hurdles sessions Chel (coach Toni Minichiello) has a lovely colourful spreadsheet of all the times I've run from different sessions, all the splits between the different hurdles, so I just love seeing how it compares. If I'm a bit down, that gees me up for running quicker.

See, a competitive mindset is first and foremost about the personal challenge. You first have to get the absolute best out of yourself. If you then don't win, it is only because the other person or team were better at that time. Beating them next time eans returning to the personal challenge to get fitter, faster, stronger, more tactically astute or technically excellent.

The article also revealed the rumour that Usain Bolt had taken a shine to her at the Worlds, but that's another story.

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Violence in Women's Soccer (Video)

My attention was drawn to this video, which was described as a "catfight", on a sport psychology mailing list this morning. It isn't a catfight, but a series of violent acts by a player during a single - televised - soccer match between Brigham Young University and New Mexico.



Remarkable, isn't it?

The comments I've seen this morning ranged from what might be wrong with her, to how her coach could keep her on the field, how the referee (or assistants) didn't pick this up, and even commentary on the media attention it has had. Apparently it has had some attention as a 'humour' piece, raising the fair assertion that it wouldn't have been considered funny if it wasn't a woman.

From a psychological perspective, this is interesting because we tend to characterise violence in sport as an uncontrolled act of anger. However John Kerr and others have done quite a bit of research in to violence in sport  using Reversal Theory as a framework, to make the distinction between violence that results from anger versus something else.

In this case, the player certainly wasn't uncontrolled. What she was doing wasn't the result of a red mist. She has kind of an angry look about her, but she's not in a rage. So, from a Reversal Theory perspective she's clearly in the rebellious state (because she is unconcerned with staying within the rules!) and possibly serious (but she might actually be having fun - in the playful state), but I would suggest that it is a very strong self-mastery orientation that allows her to act with such violence. In this state, she is concerned with dominating the opposition, exercising control and power over them, and in unconcerned with the impact that she is having upon other people.

So - angry - maybe, but maybe not. It's a blindness - a blindness to the harm she might do to others caused by her absolute need to dominate - that I'd suggest is behind this violent behaviour.



--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

How can we explain Serena's angry US Open outburst?

Millions of people will, by now, have watched Serena Williams' verbal attack on a line judge last weekend in the US Open tennis. Much debate has been had on what she said or didn't say. What's more interesting to me as a sport psychologist is how it happened. I mean, how can such an experienced professional throw such a tantrum at such a crucial point in the match - match point?

Serena knows that at such a moment she needs to bring her focus back to her game, and probably 999/1000 she would do it. So, how can we explain this bizarre incident?



Well, Reversal Theory gives us two angles to work with. The motivational and emotional states relating to a) her internal world and b) her experience of the external world.

The trigger for this event appears to have been a questionable foot fault when Serena was second-serving at 15-30 to stay in the match.

Let's look at Serena's internal state. Suddenly, and unexpectedly, she found herself at 15-40. Match point. At that point the match was suddently under serious threat. That implies that she would have been in the serious state.

Next, she felt wronged by the decision. Her sense of injustice would trigger a reversal to the rebellious state.

In such a high-stakes situation, the combination of the serious and rebellious states would combine with high levels of arousal to create anger as an emotional response.

Still, that in itself doesn't explain why she would behave in such an outlandish fashion. It is also worth looking at the 'transactional states' which explain her motivations and emotions with respect to her external world.

At that point she would have been in a state of mastery - a desire to be in control of events, of her opponent, and of the match. That in itself is not unusual in sport. The line call may have made her more focused on her needs, over anyone elses, so we would refer to self-mastery.

At the extreme end, people in the self and mastery states see people not as people but as objects. The line judge was, I'd expect, simply an object at that point. Something to take her anger out on. Not a 'real' person.

So Serena's behaviour was probably a product of the anger created by the serious and rebellious states, in combination with self-mastery.

It is only natural that in that situation that an athlete would be in the serious, self and mastery states, so it was probably a reversal into the rebellious state added the spark required to create the behaviour and, ultimately, hand the match to Clijsters.

So what?

I bet some of you are thinking that. Well, as a sport psychologist, coach or athlete it is invaluable to be able to pinpoint with accuracy the variables that contribute to a particular behaviour. Indeed, with skilled interviewing techniques it becomes possible to slow things down, to put a series of triggers and responses into order, and therefore to be able to help the athlete identify and respond to those that are important - rather than seeing something like Serena's outburst as a 'moment of madness'.

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Psychology of 'Cup Teams': Motivation or mental weakness?

Up in Scotland there's a nice little football team called Dunfermline Athletic (The Pars). Yes, I admit it they're "my" team. I'm pulling my hair out, like most of our fans, because in the league progress has been downwards for most of the last five-ish years and after half-threatening to push for promotion back to the Scottish Premier League (SPL) we are now again flirting with relegation.

Yet in the the cups we're giants; world beaters; nay SUPERHUMAN! Well, almost. A  snippet of our history in the last 5 years or so (mostly from the club's official site) is given below but take it as read that we have been like two different teams between the league and the cups.

The fans have a number of pet theories.

Probably the favourite is that the team performs better because they get paid bonuses in the cup but not the league. Due to an ongoing financial crisis (our total wage budget would not buy ONE decent player from the English Premier League) we do not pay win bonuses in league games.

However, the counter argument is that when the team crosses the white line on a Saturday, that's unlikely to matter. They are footballers. They want to win, right?

In professional sport, surely the absence of a financial bonus wouldn't impact on a team's desire to win? Would it? That's extrinsic motivation. Not 'proper' intrinsic motivation. Or as Herzberg would have put it, isn't the financial bonus structure just a 'hygiene' factor? But then, hygiene factors are things that need to be in place - they don't motivate especially but when they are missing....

Ah, wait a minute. So maybe rather than affecting a team's desire to win, the poor financial reward (let's face it, their base pay isn't much to start with) affects general satisfaction, and maybe even introduces stresses on players that you wouldn't necessarily expect in pro footballers, such as ability to keep paying the mortgage - especially when on short-term contracts.

Ok. So there may be something in that, though I don't think it's a 'Saturday afternoon thing'. I suspect that it has an impact on the players from day-to-day and gets in the way of creating a high performance culture.

What about alternative explanations?

Mine is that the differential in performance is a sign of mental fragility or weakness. Here's why. The league is where the pressure is from week to week. The cup is just a diversion for a team like Dunfermline. A good diversion - don't get me wrong - but a diversion. It isn't the main event. The league is what really matters. And mentally tough competitors peform when it really matters. Dunfermline, on the other hand, have not been consitently performing when it matters and have put in some superb performances (those cup finals haven't been all down to luck) when it doesn't really matter.

Dunfermline are a club that expect to be in the SPL, but don't really have the resources. Expectations, with the inability to exercise control mean that anxiety and stress are likely to be factors. Confidence is also likely to be lacking. Take away expectation, such as when a big SPL club comes to play us in the cup - and we're heroes again!

There you have it. Like everything, there's probably a mixture of factors involved, but the manifestation in this case is to create a "Cup Team". Do you recognise any of this in your team?


Dunfermline Athletic's 'Schizophrenic' Recent History

2004 Dunfermline achieve fourth place in the SPL and in the process reach their highest ever Premier League points total (53). The club also reaches their first Scottish Cup Final for 36 years, but were eventually beaten 3-1 by Celtic, and qualify for the UEFA cup. Immediately after the match, manager Jimmy Calderwood resigns to take up the manager's post at Aberdeen.

2005 Manager David Hay is sacked after failing to steer the club away from relegation. With just three games of the season to go, Jim Leishman is appointed as manager for the second time and works a miracle by keeping Dunfermline in the SPL. Despite appeals and an attempt to lay an improved artificial surface, Dunfermline are ordered by the SPL to replace the artificial surface with grass. The players accept a freeze on bonuses to help stave off financial problems.

2006 Dunfermline reach their seventh major national final but go down 3-0 to Celtic in the CIS Cup Final in March. After a disappointing start to the new season, manager Jim Leishman relinquishes the manager's post in October to return to his previous post of Director of Football. The Board makes a surprise appointment, with Irishman Stephen Kenny becoming the club's new manager.

2007 Poor league form put Dunfermline firmly at the foot of the table and despite a late rally were relegated. Despite that the club enjoyed a terrific Scottish Cup run to reach their third national final in three years. In the Final Dunfermline narrowly lost 1-0 to Celtic.

Dunfermline reached the Final of the Scottish League Challenge Cup only to lose 3-2 to St Johnstone. In December after continuing poor league form and the threat of further relegation, manager Stephen Kenny was dismissed to be replaced by Player-Manager Jim McIntyre.

My additions..

2008 Finished fifth in the Irn Bru First Division.

2009 Struggled again with league form, and currently sit in the bottom half of the first Division, but reached the Quarter Final of the CIS (League) Cup and are due to play Falkirk in the Scottish Cup semi final.

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Why Capello was wrong to tell Rooney to calm down

I've just read (on the BBC) that Capello has told Wayne Rooney that he needs to calm down, calling him a "crazy man". I disagree fundamentally with this, and believe that Rooney at his best is a little crazy, and definitely not calm, but full of energy and mischief.

Referring to Rooney's sending off last week (see my post Manchester United's March Madness) "What were you doing punching the corner flag? You're a crazy man, a crazy man,".

To me, Rooney at his best is not calm, as I said, but energetic and out to make nuisance of himself by trying new things. He is audacious and arguably a maverick.

At his worst, Rooney is an angry player who storms around confronting people and making a nuisance of himself in an entirely different, and unproductive, manner.

The difference is not intensity, activation, energy or arousal - to use a few terms. Using Reversal Theory as a guide, the difference lies in whether Rooney is playing 'in the moment' (playful state) or his mind is somewhere in the future or past (serious state).

One often hears a manager say about a player "If you took that side of he personality out of his game he wouldn't be the player he is". Reversal Theory allows us to unpick problems like this and look for triggers that cause a 'reversal' from one state (e.g. the playful and rebellious states) to another (serious and rebellious). This might be a "bad" decision, growing frustration, or it might be the influence of a leader (microclimate), but the triggers can usually be found and managed.

Notice from the states used as an example that both "good Rooney" and "bad Rooney" are in the rebellious state (which sounds bad, but isn't necessarily). So, if you want "good Rooney" the answer, I believe, is not to calm hom down or try to stop his rebellious streak, but to keep him playing 'in the moment.

This could involve staying focused on the process (what do I need to do now?), self-talk or other cues to encourage 'playful' thinking, or even use of a physical cue (a reminder of the mindset require).

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Manchester United's March Madness!

A week ago (as I write this) Manchester United looked imperious and unassailable at the top of the Premier League. It looked unlikely that anyone would stop them defending their title and, indeed, winning an unprecedented quintuple. Two straight defeats and the story is quite different. While they still hold a lead in the Premier League, a Liverpool win tomorrow would cut that back to one point (albeit with a game in hand).

The real story is not arithmetical, however, but psychological. Liverpool, on the back of convincing wins against Man United and Real Madrid, will take fresh confidence from their rivals' defeat at Fulham today, and revitalise their belief that they can still win the title. Chelsea, having lost to Tottenham today, failed to capitalise on their opportunity to close the gap.

In this week of madness, Manchester United have had three players sent off: Vidic, Scholes and Rooney. All three will be missing for Aston Villa's visit to Old Trafford on April 5.

While United have excellent strength in depth, to have three such influential players out won't help them.

But it is Rooney that I'm interested in. I've so often watched Rooney and thought that he was the barometer of the side that he is playing in. For England, who so often seem (at least pre-Capello) to huff and puff their way through games, belying the talent at their disposal, Rooney often cuts an angry figure. When Rooney is angry, England are a team without creativity and spark. With an in-form Manchester United, Rooney is a different man -  full of energy, and always lookign to try something different  - a maverick if you like.

Rather than being the driver of his team's 'personality', I think that Rooney reflects it. He's not a player that can hide his emotions all that well. I'd put it down to 'climate'. It's the influence of key people (leaders) on the collective mindset of the team.

So what I'm wondering today is this: With Rooney being sent off for stupidly throwing the ball away and, of course, with Manchester United losing two games on the bounce, are cracks appearing in the mental strength of the Manchester United squad, and of Alex Ferguson?

Just before Liverpool stumbled and allowed Man United to overtake them, their manager Raphael Benitez let off a rant about Man United and Alex Ferguson which was seen as a sign of the pressure getting to him. I was therefore interested to note that Fergie was reported this morning as talking about the money that Liverpool would be spending this summer.

I wouldn't call it a rant, but it suggest that Ferguson's mind may have been on Liverpool - which is exactly what Liverpool would want.

Things just might get even more interesting tomorrow - but only if Liverpool can deliver. Which, to be honest, we can't fully rely on....

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Anxiety Interpretation (Anxiety Direction) vs Reversal Theory in Sport Psychology

I received my copy of The Sport and Exercise Scientist* in the post today, and gave the cover the usual cursory glance (it is actually good, but I just don't have much time to read it). My scan picked up an interesting question: "Is studying anxiety interpretations useful for sport and exercise psychologists?". So I thumbed through and found a rather interesting debate between two sport psychologists, staged by email and reprinted for the benefit of others. The debate gave me heart and caused me frustration, because while it opened up an important avenue for research and practice, they both missed the fact that a theory has been in place for over 25 years that adequately addresses all of the issues raised. That theory is Reversal Theory (Apter).

So you have my conclusion. Let's rewind so that those of you that don't have access to The Sport and Exercise Scientist can get a flavour of the debate.

The protagonist was Dr. Steve Mellalieu, and the respondent Professor Andy Lane.

Mellalieu asserted that the study of anxiety interpretation represented a significant improvement in the ability of sport psychology to turn theory into effective practice. Anxiety interpretation or 'direction' refers to whether an athlete perceives anxiety to be 'facilitative' or 'debilitative' to performance.

He focused on the implicit tendency for non-directional approaches to anxiety to lead to interventions that work at a symptomatic level (which I believe to be true), stating "anxiety symptoms viewed as "faciliative" or "debilitative" has not only changed the way researchers approach how elite athletes successfully manage competition stress, but has also fundamentally altered the way in which practitioners work with performers experience compeititve anxiety" and that "traditional interventions aimed at symptom reduction have been found to be inappropriate for sports requiring high activation states and subsequent mental and physical readiness for competition".

OK. Let's put aside stress for a moment. I don't know why it has slipped into the discussion, as it is a separate construct which may or may not be caused by anxiety.

I almost completely agree with this. Just because someone experiences anxiety does not mean that arousal reduction is the appropriate path to take.

Indeed, Reversal Theory describes 16 primary emotions. 8 of those are influenced by physiological arousal (has arousal fallen out of favour as a label, because Mallalieu used several other terms to refer to it?).

So what? Well, Anxiety is experienced in the Serious (Telic, to use the academic terminology) & Conformist motivational states with high arousal (below).



What this means is that the options open for intervention are:
a) Lower physiological arousal, thus bringing the athlete 'down the curve' towards relaxation
b) Facilitate a 'reversal' from the serious (telic) to the playful (paratelic) state, perhaps through a cognitive intervention such as reframing, thus changing the emotional experience to excitement. Another reversal might be from the conformist to the rebellious (negativistic) states, which will be experienced as anger. This might seem counter-intuitive but it may be what John McEnroe used to do - get angry to break out of another emotional state
c) Change 'focus' to another pair of states - I don't show these states, but the focusing on the controllables (using process goals) for example can bring the mastery state into focus, and while there may still be a level of anxiety, it goes into the 'background' (I'll talk about protective frames later - but this might also increase confidence and facilitate the experience of arousal as excitement).

OK. So the point here is that this theoretical approach has been accessible to sport psychologists for at least 2 decades and more.

Both Mellalieu and Lane agreed that facilitative anxiety is a contradiction in terms. Anxiety is a negative emotional experience. Simple as that. Mellalieu argued that it could be interpreted in positive ways. I don't doubt that - he mentions as a 'signal' that one is ready to perform, for example.

But I agree with Lane's assertion that "an athlete reporting high scores of facilitative cognitive anxiety cannot be displaying anxiety alone, but a different emotion, and one not assessed by the directional scale". Bingo! Indeed Mellalieu unwittingly agrees:

"athletes who interpret symptoms associated with anxiety as facilitative, also tend to be simultaneously confident and excited".

Hmm. Anxious and excited? There's a lot of research that suggests this is not possible (I'm not an academic and don't have references at my fingertips but there are some starting points at the foot of this post). Not at the same exact point in time, that is. However, in 'reversals' happen instantaneously, and in some cases frequently, so that an athlete who is oscillating between two motivational states might report feeling anxious and excited. But not technically at the same time.

Confidence is important here too. Yet again, Reversal Theory has an explanation for this. There is a concept in Reversal Theory (yes, it is a multifaceted theory and it does take some work, which I'd provocatively hypothesize is why it isn't more widely used in sport psychology) called 'protective frames'. The 'confidence frame' is one of these, and when it is present, an athlete may be aware of the threat that makes them anxious, but in fact experience a pleasant emotion - excitement. This is akin to the skydiver who is terrified as he jumps from the aeroplane, but when the parachute opens loses all sense of fear and instead experiences exhilaration.

Ok. Back to the arguments.

I think that Andy Lane is bang on in principle. He calls for sport psychologists to drop CSAI-2 as a tool, and argues for the need to consider the impact of beliefs and regulatory processes on anxiety as one of a range of emotions.

Again, Reversal Theory fits the bill. The theory revolves not around anxiety or any other emotion, but around motivational states (also referred to as metamotivational states or motivational styles) which are like lenses through which we see the world, placing meaning and motivation at the heart of emotional experience.

Perhaps most of all I agreed with Andy Lane when he wrote "athletes don't understand the notion of anxiety direction". You know what? Neither do I. But athletes, coaches and managers get the basic structure of Reversal Theory and can relate it to their experience, making it and its diagnostic instrument, the Apter Motivational Style Profile, a powerful coaching tool.

So I hope that I've made a case for Reversal Theory. I was introduced to it by Jonathan Males, and started talking to Michael Apter whom I found to be a kind and fascinating man. As an indirect result, I ended up working for Apter International (though I've moved on now). I don't buy Reversal Theory because I worked for Apter though. I worked for Apter because I had used the theory in my work as a sport psychologist and found it to be an the antidote to the problems that stimulated this debate - the lack of transferrability of a lot of sport psychology theory and research to practice. Think of it as my Victor Kayam (the bloke from the Remington ads that liked them so much, he bought the company) moment - only I didn't buy the company.

But the main reason for posting this is my frustration that after years and years, sport psychology still treats Reversal Theory as a footnote in the anxiety literature. It's more than that, but rather than engaging with it, sport psychology tries to reinvent the wheel, and come up with clunky and self-contradicting constructs.

What's more, Reversal Theory has been used successfully in clinical psychology, smoking cessation, psychotherapy, exercise psychology, organisation performance, management development, consumer marketing and political lobbying among many other things (for a full bibliography check out the Reversal Theory Society)

I've shared a case study that you might find useful, and an introduction to Reversal Theory. But please, let's get some debate going on this. I will email this to both Steve Mallelieu and Andy Lane, and perhaps they will join in.

But we've also got a number of 'experts' on Reversal Theory on iStadia who are at least (mostly more) knowledgeable than I am: Michael Apter himself, Jonathan Males, Phil Moore, Gareth Lewis, Marie Shelton, Michelle Pain. Jo Thatcher and Jennifer Tucker (apologies if I've missed anyone!).

* The Sport and Exercise Scientist is the official publication of The British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences

Useful reading:

Kerr, J.H. (2001). Counselling Athletes: Applying Reversal Theory. London: Routledge.

Apter, M.J. (2001). Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory. Washington: APA.

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

The Greatest Team Talk Ever?

I was reminded of this team talk this morning.

It has some great themes....


Taking responsibility
Taking care of the little things
Fighting for every inch
Being prepared to risk everything for that inch
Team work & trust


Ok. So it isn't even from a real sports coach, or a real sports team. It's cheesy. It's Al Pacino, in Every Given Sunday - enjoy.


Alternatively, here's another team talk from a movie - Mike Bassett: England Manager. An altogether different approach to man management!


--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Get updates on Twitter and friendfeed

Hold the Press: Elite Sport is Tough!

Andy Murray's loss this week in the Australian Open served as a timely reminder of just how tough elite sport is.

I mean, that's obvious, right? Surely by definition, to be the best in the World is a fantastically difficult thing to achieve.

But that's on one level.

Getting into the detail, to win a Grand Slam, you have to put together 7 wins, against increasingly tough competition, over a two week period. You then have to deal with the media, recover, practise and get yourself up for your next match in 1-2 days time.

You simply can't afford to drop your level of performance or you will be beaten. Of course, it doesn't mean always being at 100%, but your lowest level of performance has got to be better than your opponent's level in each match. That might, to put an arbitrary number on it, be 95% of your potential.

That's the one thing that Andy Murray seems to be missing. He just can't quite seem to sustain a level of performance in the biggest tournaments - yet - to get through those 7 matches. For we know that he can, on his day, beat anyone on the tour. Compare that to Nadal or Federer, and you have the biggest difference between them.

A couple of seasons back, the difference was physical. The 2009 model Murray is altogether fitter and stronger, and he can compete physically. He also has a great deal of mental toughness, but this, I think, is  an area for development that is mental. it is about sustaining the energy levels when you might feel a little flat. About putting a big win or some mistakes behind you, so that you are completely focused on the next performance.

I'm sure Andy will learn to do that.

Imagine, then, what it was like for Michael Phelps, as he went for his 8 golds at last summer's Olympics. A lot of sceptics pointed to the fact that his 8 golds were just different ways of doing the same thing - swimming. I heard people say that if there were more medals for running backwards, for example, then Usain Bolt would also have won more medals. But those arguments fail to understand the intensity of demands that are placed upon an athlete between events. Phelps, who has announced that he will not go for 8 golds in London, said:

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Should Joe Calzaghe Retire?

Joe Calzaghe achieved one of his dreams by comprehensively beating Roy Jones Jr last night at Madison Square Gardens, his 46th straight win as a professional boxer. In the past he suggested that he woudl retire if he did. So should he?

Well, he is 36, and perhaps his opponent hould be considered as one reason why not. At 39, Jones Jr is not the boxer that he has been through a glittering career. Calzaghe has the opportunity to retire at the top of the sport, an unbeaten and undisputed champion.

Lennox Lewis certainly agrees. Claiming that Calzaghe has "nothing left to prove" he saidd he should go now. His former promoter, Frank Warren, thinks that even though he has no need for the money, Calzaghe will opt to fight on.

Many of the arguments for retirement are 'ego' arguments. Go while your record is unblemished, while you have nothing to prove. What if Joe Calzaghe simply feels that he can challenge himself further to go on? What if he loves to box, and will do so as long as he is allowed? So what if he might lose along the way?

Of course, the decision is not simple. It certainly isn't purely a rational one. Lennox Lewis also said that Calzaghe needs to have other things in his life other than boxing. Life after professional sport is hard if you are unprepared. Actually, it can be hard even if you are.

The mature athlete does have other interest, be it family, business or simply a hobby. Their sport is not all-consuming, not identity-threatening. But a lot of athletes are not in that place when they retire. Athletes can suffer emotional problems as they 'grieve' for their loss - of status, of success, of pride, of many things. Research has shown that drug an alcohol problems are common for former athletes.

So perhaps the question for Joe Calzaghe is "are you ready to retire?". Has he planned for it, has be prepared for the physical and emotional 'come down' from such an exciting and rewarding career? Does he know how to proceed with the next stage of his life? Does he have the emotional and social support to get through any difficult times?

If he can answer "yes" to those types of question, then his answer should be "yes". But then, if he is not ready, what then? Like having a baby, maybe you can't be competely prepared. In boxing, that must be better than shuffling around the ring, waiting to take a battering, or worse, because that's the reality of boxing.

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Experience and Sports Performance: A Personal Insight

Why is it that an overweight, undertrained 35 year old can do the times he did as a 17 year old swimmer? And no, the answer isn't "the suit"...

---
I've just come back from the British Masters Swimming Championships, where on Saturday I swam within 1/100th of a second of the time I did for 100 metres Breaststroke 18 years ago (I'm 35).

At the time I wasn't world class or anything, far from it, but I was in Scottish National Squads and training around 10 (or more) times every week.

Incidentally, my split time was the fastest I have been from a standing start (i.e. not a relay) over 50m.

So what's going on?

Well, I'm certainly a bit stronger than I was. My technique may be better, but then my range of movement and flexibility isn't quite what it was. After all, I've been sitting at a desk more than anything else for the last 10 years or so.

I'm pretty sure that my anaerobic fitness is not what it was and aerobically, well, there's no comparison. Indeed, for most of the intervening years I haven't even been a regular exerciser.

Yet, in a little over a minute's swimming, there's no significant difference between what I did then and now.

The biggest item in the credit column must be psychological.

Then, I took it all very seriously and overanalysed poor performances. I used to be conscious about what other people thought of me and where I stood in rankings.

Of course, now I have the benefit of hindsight so I race for fun. Sure, it's competitive, but if it wasn't fun I wouldn't bother.

The other psychological aspect is that I really try and learn from my races. I don't waste energy going back over things to the point where I'm beating myself up, but I do treat every race as a learning experience. I look for something to improve and move on.

My mantra going into the meet this week was "trust the process" because as I rested (from my massive 3 sessions a week) I could feel my stroke coming together. I hit the first wall on my 100m and thought "nailed it" and from there just went on automatic until I felt myself tying up a bit, then it was "keep it long". At the end I was dying a bit and didn't time my finish well, but hey, that's for next time :)

(And in case you are wondering, no I didn't wear a LZR bodysuit!)

--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Stade Francais 'Warhol' Kit: What is the psychology of team colours and outfits?

I had an interesting call yesterday from a journalist yesterday. In the run-up to the Heineken cup, French rugby team Stade Francais released yet another in a line of 'garish' kits.

The Adidas shirt depicts the face of Blanche de Castille, the wife of Louis VIII, in a multi-coloured design described by the club as "in the fashion of Andy Warhol."

Stade's shirt for 2008-09 follows three previous designs that mixed pink, brown and blue. Last year, the club went for pink lilies to continue the distinctive designs that were started for the team's away kit.

The shirts are down to owner Max Guazzini's promotion of a club that up until six or seven years ago, played to a small, fashionable crowd, and his attempt to challenge the 'macho' image of rugby.

Could there be any positive or negative psychological effects of wearing kits like this? Perhaps it helps to unite the team, as part of a coherent brand or identity? Or if players do not feel comfortable could that harm performance?

What do you think? Please share any insights or opinions.


--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Open Golf Championships: Padraig performs while Norman fades...

Wow! What an Open Championships we've just had at Royal Birkdale. From a sport psychologist's point of view it was all the more fascinating.

The most open Open for a long time, with up to 20 players in contention at the start of the last day saw Greg Norman leading into the final round at the age of 53, an amateur (Chris Wood, 20) in contention for the championships, and Padraig Harrington taking the title with a magnificent display of golf in the last six holes.

So, what about the pschology?

Well, first of all, the way that Harrington played the last six - at 4 under par when the general trend was backwards. He played as if there was no pressure at all, stepping up and performing when it was needed the most. Mental toughness, you might call it.

The other big story was Greg Norman, a man with whom Harrington had something in common. At 53 Norman, like Harrington, had no real expectatons. He hasn't payed much golf in the last 18 months, undergoing several operations, and has just had his honeymoon (after marrying ex-tennis player Chris Evert). Harrington's expectation to finish the championship was only 50:50.

The role of expectations is important in sport. Expectations are the bedfellow of anxiety. Anxiety and good golf don't mix. Freedom from expectations, on the other hand, can help players to play in the moment, which is where "flow" or "the zone" occurs. Of course, as an amateur, I doubt that Chris Wood has any real expectations either.

Of course Norman didn't quite live up to the possibilities that lay ahead of him on Sunday morning. On Saturday evening he said, "Physically and mentally I feel very good. I'm going to keep the same routine and the same mindset. You have got to stay in the present. You really don't pay attention to anyone else", but I'm not sure that he succeeded. One must suspect that he allowed his mind to look ahead to the end of the day, perhaps when it looked like things were running away from Harrington?

However, with Norman there's another obvious point of discussion, and that's to extent to which contentment and happiness in one's own life can aid peformance in competition. He is well-documented as being happy with his marriage to Evert (and why not, the old dog?). But his approach to golf has clearly changed too, "I came here with a good attitude and a fresh approach to life and it has shone through in my game. I don't grind it out on the golf course any more. I just play when I want to and practice when I want to.". It's not that he didn't care, but he clearly doesn't get hung up on his golf any more. At 53, I'd hope not, but it is quite common for elite athletes to find balance between life and sport, as they mature. Indeed, it may be what prolongs their careers.

All in all, a fascinating championship. And not a Tiger in sight. But then, would he have coped well with the conditions?


--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Psychological momentum, turning points and the case of Murray vs Gasquet

Watching the incredible round match between Andy Murray and Richard Gasquet at Wimbledon this week I was reminded of a concept in sport psychology that I hadn't really come across for some time: Psychological Momentum (note: since writing this Mustafa Sarkar has also posted on psychological momentum in team sports).

Psychological momentum is an intuitively appealing concept that is frequently observed by commentators and fans (but despite this hasn't really been underpinned by a great deal of academic research and isn't all that well understood). Just as physical momentum refers to a force that acts upon an object and creates motion, psychological momentum refers to a psychological force, or power, that appears to act in favour of one competitor or team at the expense of another. This bi-directional force is, quite obviously, a perceived force which may have cognitive, physiological, emotional , motivational and behavioural components.

This Monday evening I could have been convinced, however, that there was indeed a tangible force acting first on behalf of Richard Gasquet as he moved towards his seemingly inevitable victory, and then more noticeably for Andy Murray, from the point that he broke Gasquet's serve - in what could have been the last game of the match but was instead a turning point and the start of an incredible comeback.

What was amazing was that as I sat at home, I started to feel the inevitability of Murray's win when he was still behind in the match. The crowd clearly sensed something special, as could Murray, as he responed to each point and the noise of the crowd like a gladiator, roaring and pumping his fists. This was not a calulated display. This was a man living right in the moment. Unlike Gasquet who, as the match slipped further from his grasp, started to pick fights with the crowd and the officials.

In a review of the psychological momentum literature, Crust and Nesti (2006) describe 3 models: The Antecedents-Consequences Model of Psychological Momentum (Vallerand et al., 1988); The Multidimensional Model of Momentum (Taylor & and Demick, 1994); and Projected Performance Model (Cornelius, Silva, Conroy, & Petersen, 1997)

Without going into a review of my own, all would appear to have their merits, but if I were Richard Gasquet or his coach (or indeed Andy Murray, for often we forget to learn in the euphoria that follows a great win), I would be looking to unpick the events of Tuesday night, and really understand what happened, what was the real psychological turning point in the match, and why? I don't know if I could really do that with confidence using any of these models.

Reversal Theory, however, puts the emphasis on the meaning of the events to the players involved. A player's motivational states can be followed, rather like a series of switches on a dashboard, or movements in a dance, that change their emotional experience. These swings or 'Reversals' are perfectly placed to understand the whole picture - with the player at the centre.

A 'Reversal' can occur for three reasons.

1. A change in situation (or perceived situation). A bad call, a missed point, a lucky break, the crowd, the referee - all can change the situation.
2. Frustration - if a player is not getting satisfaction from their current state. A common example of this will be frustration turning into anger.
3. Satiation - this is an interesting one from a sporting point of view, because sometimes we just change states because we need to from time to time. Some people seem to be more 'stable' than others. This would suggest that it pays to be aware of the states that you are more likely to perform in, and to find ways of ensuring that you stay there.

So any of these 'events' can trigger a reversal. Over the course of a few games in tennis, for example, a player could go through a number of Reversals, that if unpicked carefully enough, and slowly enough, can very precisely map out the route that a player took from inevitable victory to impending defeat, or vice versa. Once you have this picture, of course, you have the means to intervene.

References:
Crust, L., and Nesti, M. (2006). A Review of Psychological Momentum in Sports:
Why qualitative research is needed. Athletic Insight, 8(1)
Taylor, J. & Demick, A. (1994). A multidimensional model of momentum in sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 51-70.
Vallerand, R. J., Colavecchio, P. G., & Pelletier, L. G. (1988). Psychological momentum and performance inferences: a preliminary test of the antecedents-consequences psychological momentum model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 92-108.



--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com

Playing throught the pain

Following on from Tiger Woods' performance at the US Open, SI.com (Sports Illustrated) have posted a collection of photos highlighting moments in sport where athletes have played through pain. Here is the link.

It is, not surprisingly, very Americo-centric (when I say very, I mean completely), but potentially interesting and quite a good reference, no matter where you are.

It does, however, remind me of one of Victor Thompson't articles, Can you be too mentally tough?

Rob Robson

What must it be like to be Michael Jordan's son....

....and a competitive basketball player?

Marcus Jordan is 17, a high school junior looks like he might be following in his father's legendary footsteps. At least that's what people are likely to believe.

You would also think that the expectation would create incredible pressure for him, but Marcus seems to handle it well:

"I just go and play my game," he said. "I'm sure people look at me and say 'Oh, that's Michael Jordan's son,' but I don't even think about that. I just play."

I also noticed Nelson Piquet Jr is now in Formula 1, and Kasper Schmeichel is making his own way as a goalkeeper (soccer).

Any other examples? Any particular stories about the pressure of following in the footsteps of a sporting legend?

Here's the full story on Marcus.




Join the world's sport and exercise community today!

New Coaching Framework Announced by Sports Coach UK

This week Sports Coach UK announced their new UK Coaching Framework, which is designed "to create a cohesive, ethical, inclusive and valued coaching system where skilled coaches support children, adults, players and athletes at all stages of their development in sport, and that is world-leading by 2016".

The emphasis appears to be not only on elite sport, but on helping create coaches that can build participation at grass-roots level too. The framework will also create a clearer career structure for sports coaches, "within a professionally regulated vocation".

I'd be particularly interested to find out if anyone knows more about this. I was only able to find the executive summary of the framework. The rest of the story is here.





Join the world's sport and exercise community today!

Mikhail Youzhny's Self-Inflicted Head Injury: Anger in Tennis!

I'd imagine that it takes a lot of anger to hit yourself so hard that you draw blood (see the video below)!

Note too, the change when the other player comes over. Youzhny perhaps sees the silliness in the situation, and the players share a bit of a laugh. That looks like a 'Reversal' from the serious to the playful state that, anger being a product of the serious and rebellious states...

What's also interesting is that Youzhny went on to win the match. Perhaps 'acting out' his anger helped him to reverse out of the states that contributed to it, to become more playful and focused on the here and now. Although this is speculative, a possible set of steps could have been..

He saw that he was close to losing the match (true)... ....invoking the serious state (and probably at that point conforming) ... and the likely emotion experienced would be anxiety

His frustration built as he lost his advantage and went back to deuce This might either of caused a reversal to anger, or he realised that he needed to do something drastic, and he deliberately brought out his anger. This is something that McEnroe was said to do - his anger has been described as a strategy and not an uncontrolled state.

He then sat down and the other player ame over and laughed. He realised the silliness of it all and reversed into the playful state, which would mean that his anger would subside but he would also no longer feel anxious.

Anyway, that's pretty speculative, but hopefully shows how reversals can work, and how they contribute to extreme changes in emotional state in a short period of time.

Click for a brief overview of Reversal Theory and its motivational states.

Rob Robson

Sport and Business Psychologist, Warwickshire

The psychology of the Premier League run-in: Some thoughts

This weekend Manchester United put themselves into pole position to retain their Premier League title after beating Liverpool 3-0. They are now five points ahead of Chelsea and six ahead of Arsenal, after Chelsea came back to defeat the Gunners.

What can we expect of the run-in? What is the psychology involved? Well, as anyone credible will tell you, we're not in the business of mind reading, and the only way to know is to ask those involved, but here are my thoughts as an external observer.

Manchester United have players who have been there before, even among some of their younger players. Of course their manager, Alex Ferguson is also vastly experienced in handling these kind of situations, so it is hard to see them choking completely, particularly if they keep their minds firmly focused on the things that they need to do well to win their remaining games, and don't look too far ahead. The fact that they still have to play their two closest rivals is what keeps this race most interesting.

Mind you, I would be surprised if they didn't give their opponents even the smallest of opportunities to close the gap in the coming weeks. If they do, Chelsea should have confidence from great run of form and a squad that is back to full strength. It is often easier to chase than to be chased, and Chelsea might just relish being in this position. This weekend's game, should put questions over the ability of Avram Grant to one side, even if temporarily. Chelsea don't slip up much, and in this kind of tight situation, they will be well positioned to take advantage of any opportunities presented. Sometimes Chelsea seem to lack creativity and flair, but their solidity and strength wil count for a lot.

Arsenal looked well on course for the title just a couple of months ago, and (even if this is unfair on Man United) probably had the support of the football purists. However, a run of draws and defeat at Chelsea mean that they are now outside bets. Having arguably choked over recent weeks, Arsenal are back in a situation where the pressure is off. They are now the underdogs and might prefer it that way. It might just help them to remove the shackles and play as they did in the first half of the season - irresistably. Arsenal certainly shouldn't be written of yet.

Of course, there's so many variables still at play. All three teams are still involved in the Champions League. All still have to play against teams that are fighting for their own suvival, and that can create unpredictable results. And key players could stil pick up injuries.

Would I bet against Manchester United? Probably not, but I still think the season's end could be a real cracker.

Rob Robson

Chartered Sport & Exercise Psychologist
Co-founder of iStadia

Tiger Woods, Sport Psychology and Mental Toughness

This is a cracking article on sport psychology, specifically on golf psychology and Tiger Woods who is, of course, famed for his mental toughness.

I came across this article thanks to Al Kornspan, who regularly posts "Sport Psychology in the News" on the sportpsy listserv, and the original source is from the New York Daily Times (author Hank Gola).

What's really interesting to me is the that the basic tenet of the article is mental toughness but, as the sport psychologists will know, mental toughness still has many different definitions, although research is giving it more coherence.

Splattered with references and quotes from sport psychologists and golfers, it also talks about his sport psychologist (yes he uses one), has some reference to research intot he traits of pro golfers (personally, I like John Kenworthy's playing styles better :). It talks about his focus, playing in the moment, balance and versatility (which I think is key to mental toughness), emotional control, confidence and even Buddhist principles and Zen.

What this demonstrates to me is just how much interpretation there is in sport psychology. We can't just mechanically process "evidence" and all come out with the same conclusions (as anyone who has studied the philosophy of science will know - and if you haven't at all, shame on you!).

Anyway, this should be a good resource for anyone running a course or module on sport psychology, trainining professionals, or simply to start a debate with yourself!

I'll end with a great Tiger quote from the article:

"It's something you have to find from within. You have to keep pushing yourself from within. It's not about what other people think and what other people say. It's about what you want to accomplish and do you want to go out there and be prepared to beat everyone you play or face."

Please share your thoughts and opinions with comments.

The full article is here:

Tiger Woods entering zone where few athletes have ever travelled.

Rob Robson

Follow me on twitter @sportpsychrob

Michael Vaughan: The cricket captain who only needs two short phrases

After another post-collapse radio interview, I'm convinced that Michael Vaughan, the England cricket captain, only ever has to say two things (at least after a first test, or most one-day matches):

1) "It's unacceptable"
2) "we have to bounce back"

After that, it's only variations on a theme.

What is wrong with the England cricket team that they just don't learn?

Rob Robson

Sport and Business Psychologist, Warwickshire

Who supports the head coach?

I write this after meeting my second head sports coach or team manager this week, and hearing about the pressure that they are under, the responsibility that they take on to deliver results and to support a team of paid or volunteer coaches, and having to deal with committees, governing bodies and parents.

Head coaches of sports teams of all shapes and sizes will recognise many of these. They'll also recognised the unsociable nature of the job - often working when peers are not, and not when their peers are (or just working all of the time). It can be quite isolating, as it can being in charge of any organisation.

Not surprisingly, being a sports coach can be something of a love/hate affair. Most are in it because they are passionate about the sport, but that passion can be hard to maintain when work is stressful.

In sport, the athletes get the most attention, and rightly so. But coaches often lack opportunities to refresh or develop their knowledge and skills, and the head coach arguably gets the least. They are expected to be the ones that know what to do. But we all need to learn and improve.

Many senior managers in the business world have an executive coach, because they don't have the support of colleagues or a line manager that lower level employees do. This tells us that no matter how good we are, most of us need help sometimes.

A sport psychologist with the right kind of experience, or perhaps a peer - a head coach from another sport, or other senior practitioner can provide that kind of support. Someone that can listen, support and, importantly challenge your ideas, perceptions, beliefs and actions. Someone that will call it like it is, hold a mirror up to you, however you want to express it.

All high performance clubs or programmes should incorporate some form of support for their head coach or performance manager/director. Nationally funded programmes can offer this, but what about the rest?

Don't try and do everything on your own. Whether you seek an external professional, or simply develop mutually supportive relationships outside of your own sport is up to you. Just do it...

Rob Robson

Sport Psychologist, Warwickshire | Sports Organisational Development | Sports Leadership

Positive Thinking or Dealing in Delusions?

I was reminded the other day of an athlete (a grown man, but young) I once met. He'd contacted me looking for some mental skills training, and claimed to be a part-time professional footballer.

It turned out that he was indeed training with a part-time professional club, at his own request, and wasn't playing for the team. Indeed, he'd never played a competitive game of football.

Despite this, he believed that he had the perfect game and was contacting Premier Leage clubs for trials. Unfortunately, the perfect game was only in his head. We used performance profiling to bring out the attributes of this 'vision' that he had of how he would play the game, and it turned out that the most important attribute was pace. By his own assessment, he wasn't quick - I think he gave himself 3/10 for pace. Of course by this stage I had long recognised that something wasn't right and was thinking how to let this guy down gently, and also how I should advise him. He was clearly delusional, but how much of a problem was it? Should I suggest that he should talk to his doctor, or find a clinical psychologist?

In the end after we talked about the possibility that his lack of pace and inexperience of competitive football might prove to be barriers to him being the complete professional footballer, I suggested that he should have his current coach assess him very honestly on the attributes we'd put into the performance profile. I then suggested that unless his coach thought otherwise, he would be best served by finding a level of football where he could play regularly and enjoy it, even if that was just playing 5-a-sides with friends.

Anyway, I worried about whether I'd done the right thing or not but a week or so later got an email from him. In it he thanked my for my honesty, and saying that no-one had ever forced him to confront how realistic he was being. Any time in the past that he'd shared his 'vision' with others they had encouraged him. Other professionals (fitness trainers) had taken his money (I didn't take anything for our single meeting), taking advantage of this guy's unrealistic hopes and dreams.

I don't think I'll ever forget him. But on a more serious note, is there a tendency in society, perhaps fuelled by some kind of 'Oprah' mentality that if you believe it enough it will happen, for us only to look at the positives, and has some realism gone out of the window? I see thousands of people queuing up for auditions for X Factor and the like, and many of them seem to be deluding themselves that they have any kind of a talent. Is this a growing problem or is it that programmes like this seem to bring them out of the woodwork?

Rob Robson

Sport and Business Psychologist, Warwickshire

Strictly Speaking, is it Sport? Who Cares? Come Dancing Proves Great Competition

 

As this year’s Strictly Come Dancing (Dancing with the Stars for our American chums) season progressed, so it became quite a family ritual, a weekly treat that we let the kids stay up for. If nothing else I enjoyed watching my five-year-old daughter (and if truth be told my two-year-old son) create their own interpretation in front of the screen. You see I’m neither a huge dance fan nor a celebrity watcher, but the sport psychologist in me was drawn in by the skill, commitment, drama and the genuine excellence shown as the competition developed in the final rounds. I have to admit that on these criteria 'Strictly' matched just about any sporting event that I’d seen in some time.

Alesha Dixon, this year’s champion (who had been in a pop group that I’d just about heard of), wasn’t just a good dancer (and I’m not referring to her looks here either). She simply produced performance after performance. Every time she went out she was spot on. As the pressure increased, so she kept on producing. She clearly cared about winning the competition, but went out and danced in the moment, just like a true sporting champion. She also carried herself with humility, grace and a sense of humour.

Matt Di Angelo (from Eastenders), on the other hand, appeared to choke completely in the quarter finals, forgetting his steps and sitting down before the end of his routine. Most unsporting, I must say. That’s like walking off the pitch because the game is beyond you. Yes, his nerves got the better of him, but anyone in sport would tell you that you just don’t do that. You keep trying to the end.

The other thing that bothered me about Matt was that he didn’t seem to like taking negative feedback from the judges. While Alesha appeared to take the minimal criticism on board, it looked to me like he (or his ego) took umbrage each time the judges response was less than glowing.

Yet somehow, the Great British public saved him, and having been given a second chance he took it well. He was the equal of Blue Peter’s Gethin Jones, who had put in some consistently strong performances, and the judges put him through to the final. They seemed to like him, for in past weeks they had saved the person who had been the better performer overall, and not just on the night.

So there they were. Saturday’s final was a tad drawn out, but a ding-dong contest nonetheless. Each dance was incredibly close, but Dixon just had that edge – and had the benefit of being clearly the best performer over the entire series having broken the record for the number of tens scored – and was the deserved winner.

Alesha Dixon will now go on and earn a reputed ₤5 million after winning 'Strictly'. Unlike most reality show contestants, she deserves everything that comes to her.

The final word, however, goes to good old Brucey who was just brilliant as the host, and to the judges: Arlene Phillips and her Absurdly Awful Alliteration; and Bruno Tolioni, whom I suggest should never, ever take up poker!

Rob Robson

Sport and Business Psychologist, Warwickshire

English Cricket & Capitulation: Worrying Bedfellows

I am amazed to see that England's cricketers have capitulated once again, this time in Sri Lanka.

We've talked about this on iStadia before and I honestly have no insider knowledge about the people involved or what they are doing, but it concerns me deeply that the ECB - to my understanding - have widely used sport psychologists but we keep seeing the same problems reocurring.

What's the ROI (Return on Investment) on sport psychology in English cricket to date? Probably hard to isolate it as a variable, but I'm guessing not great....

What can we deduce from this about practice in sport psychology? We can't say that sport psychology is not helping, but it is a concern that the English senior team appears to be so mentally fragile.

My guess might be that the problems may be systemic and caused at an organisational level, while a sport psychologist may only be considered to be part of the team that works with the players and may have little influence. I don't know, I can only speculate that something isn't right, at some level in the ECB.

There certainly seems to be something wrong, rather similar to the football, that successive coaching regimes are struggling to overcome. It is easy to say that we don't have a winning culture in this country, but some sports, such as cycling and rowing, seem to be doing better than others.....

Rob Robson

Sport and Business Psychologist, Warwickshire

What should we expect from England against Croatia?

In the run-in to big games I quite like to try and work out (because I’m sad like that), from the messages that are coming from the coach and key players, is what the motivational climate in the camp is, and therefore how the team might play.

The vibes that I’m getting from England and McLaren in particular are about determination and professionalism – about “getting the job done” and meeting expectations. This suggests that the focus is very much on the result and its consequences, but also on staying in control.

So what? Well, even though the manager has called for an up-tempo approach to the game, we might not expect too much creativity or flair to be on show. It’s going to be about discipline and sticking with the plan, and it could be a pretty nervy affair. So, I would expect it to be tight – maybe only one goal in it.

I guess you could say that’s what most people would predict but still, that’s what I’m picking up from a psychological point of view.

Of course, on the day, the climate could be different, and I think the thing that could do most to change it could be an early goal. No matter who gets it, things could go in all sorts of directions from there!

Rob Robson

Sport and Business Psychologist, Warwickshire

Scotland and Glorious Failure: Is It Our Comfort Zone?

After watching Scotland just miss out again last night, I was reflecting on our National character and how it shows itself in our National game of football (soccer).

It would be churlish of me to dampen spirits by suggesting that the current National side have not restored a great deal of pride after an outstanding campaign. Of course they have. Among other things I'm extremely proud of what we've achieved in the last couple of years. To those that don't follow football (soccer), or care much about Scotland let's just look at what that is:

1) We've just played 12 games in a group that included both finalists from the last World Cup - France and Italy - as well as the Ukraine, who were quarter finalists, and only lost out in our final game.
2) We beat France at home and away in the process.
3) We've improved our World ranking from something like 70th to 13th and put ourselves into a position where we should be seeded for the next qualifying campaign.

So, it's been great. Or has it?

We seem to have this great affinity with glorious failure in Scotland. As long as we go out fighting that's OK - we can hold our heads up high. But let's look at the reality. We went to Georgia in our second last game and played dreadfully - when a win would have put is in a great position in our last game. We choked. Then, we needed to beat Italy - World Champions - in our final game. We gifted them a goal after only a minute, and then we started to play.

My argument is this: that Scotland need to be the underdogs and don't play well under pressure. I'd go even further than that, in fact, and argue that 'glorious failure' is our 'Comfort Zone'. Yesterday, we created a scenario that made it unlikely that we would win - and then gave it a right good go. We can go to France and win because no-one expects us to.

In the qualifiers for 2002 (I think it was), we had to play off against Holland. No expectation. We beat them 1-0 at home. Then we started to think that we might have a chance. What was the result in the return leg? 6-0. A hammering.

Before that is was England. They beat us 2-0 at home, so we went to Wembley with no realistic chance of progressing. We won 1-0. Not enough to get us through, but another 'glorious failure'.

It goes back further. Losing to Costa Rica in '90, only to almost hold out for a draw with Brazil. Drawing with Iran in '78 and losing to Peru, before beating eventual finalists Holland 3-1 (not enough to go through though).

Our history is littered with these tales. It seems to be written into our psyche that it's OK to lose, as long as. we go out fighting. It is a safe and comfortable place, away from the big boys and the real pressure. As long as it's OK, it holds us back.

So what do we do next? How do we break out of it?

Well, the good news is that this team must have grown in confidence enormously (though not enough to go out to Georgia and come back with three points). There's also clear dissatisfaction among the players to have missed out on another major tournament.

"We think we deserve to be at a major championships and we'll prove it in the forthcoming World Cup campaign" Scotland striker James McFadden
But the only way is to learn to deal with expectation and pressure. We've got to be able to say. "Yes, we're the favourites here, and we're comfortable with that." To do that we have to set ourselves up for a potential fall and not be stifled by the fear of failure (or of success?). We have to say to ourselves that we are going to join the elite - set ourselves challenging goals - and be able to put them to one side and play in the moment. We have to invite expectations and not let them be our shackles. The best way to do that is to keep putting ourselves in the right positions - the Italians are not mentally tough by accident ut through experience.

I think we have players who are capable of thinking like that. Players like McFadden who is, in our own language, "gallous" or in others', "audacious". He's prepared to have a go, try something different - he's got balls. That's what makes him special to us. He's also prepared to publicly state the intention to prove himself in the next campaign. He's not the only one that could step up, but he's typical of what we need.

It is also crucial that everyone associated with the National team do not get wrapped up in their emotional response to this campaign, whether it is pride or something less positive like anger or resentment that they feel. Indeed, they must ensure that the lessons that need to be learned are objectively assessed, learned, then actions put into place to ensure that they are not repeated - whether that be why Italy were allowed to score so easily yesterday, or how they went to Georgia and pretty much created nothing in the game.

We've all got our part to play too. Let's stop being content with 'glorious failure'. We can be proud of our team's performance, but let's not be too comfortable with our failure to qualify. Let's be dissatisfied just enough to eventually get rid of it from our sporting vocabulary once and for all.

Rob Robson

John Terry and his protective mask

Chelsea Football Club's captain, John Terry, is to play with a protective mask after fracturing his cheekbone last weekend. Apparently, this can take 6 weeks to heal, and he rund the risk of very serious, even permanent damage.

All of the media commentary, including quotes from his own manager (the words of a desparate man?) talk about his bravery, his commitment to the cause, etc. This is, of course, highly commendable, but it remindsme that sometimes athletes, because they are primed to be tough, to stay focused on the goal, and often to put the team above themselves, that they can make poor decisions - overtraining, playing through injury, perhaps forgetting about the needs of their family.

Like anyone else, elite athletes need balance. They need to know when to yield rather than tough it out; to take care of their own needs above the team; to take a break that wasn't part of the plan. To me, that's maturity, but unfortunately a manager under pressure, the lynchpin of the team in the run up to a critical game, won't always make the most sensible decision, with the longer term in mind. When they do take care of their own needs, players are often derided - the inference with Arjen Robben was that he wasn't really a team player, because he seemed to have a lot of niggling injuries - which suggest a short-term, narrow and, dare I say it, immature perspective?

Incidentally, I'm not saying that JT should definitely not play, which simply highlights the genuine difficulty of making decisions in such a high-pressure environment.

Rob Robson

Sport and Business Psychologist, Warwickshire

The pendulum swings... ...is positive psychology simply a new blindess?

For those that are interested in psychology, you will have noticed the rise and rise of "positive psychology" since its conception towards the end of the 90's.

Positive psychology is "the scientific study of the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive." (according to the University of Pennsylvania, Positive Psychology Centre). It focuses on positive experiences, positive emotions, and generally "optimal human functioning". "Employee Engagement" as a concept is a product of the positive psychology movement.

According to Dr. Martin Seligman, its founder "The most important thing, the most general thing I learned, was that psychology was half-baked, literally half-baked. We had baked the part about mental illness; we had baked the part about repair of damage...The other side's unbaked, the side of strength, the side of what we're good at."

I'm in no doubt that psychology was blind to the positive before, focusing on deficit, mental illness, emotions such as anxiety and anger rather than happiness, but to me, building a whole psychology, as a reaction to the past, that excludes all of the negative aspects of humanity, is just as blind as that which went before. OK, so they may be addressing an imbalance, but it seems that students and professionals are signing up to positive psychology as a "paradigm", and not as one half of a complete whole.

There have, however, been frameworks developed that allow us to coherently explore both the positive and negative aspects of human experience and functioning. One such framework is Reversal Theory, which was conceived by Michael Apter in the 1970s and now has over 30 years of research and application behind it. It gives us the mechanism to understand the positive and the negative side-by-side rather than having to figure them out separately.

In doing so we can explore what really motivated people, what makes them happy, what makes them unhappy, why they perform and why they don't, why they change and why they don't. We can put all of these explanations on the same page.

Surely any movement that excludes one half of human experience simply limits our ability to understand - and therefore to act.

Rob Robson

Sport and Business Psychologist, Warwickshire

When goals get in the way....

I've just come back from phase 1 of a management development programme we are running for a multinational client. Part of this programme was for the teams of managers to create a theatre performance. I'm sure that many of you will have come across variations on the theme.

What was most interesting was that my team were incredibly focused on their goal - the performance, determined and structured. By the end of the first day they were way ahead. They had planned the whole thing, and were even writing specific lines.

Meanwhile, at 11am the next day (the performance was planned for 6.30pm), one or two teams didn't even have a theme sorted out.

The performances were judged on a number of criteria, chosen by the "festival committee" with reps from each team. As well as the business message etc, on of the criteria was audience reaction (noise).

Which team won?

Certainly not mine. While fairly clever and well structured, their "play" simply had no theatre. There was no creativity, no fun. They even took making people laugh too seriously. They were, however, clearly focused on their "goal". Sure, maybe they could have defined their goal better, but even if they had set out with the goal of making people laugh, they wouldn't have succeeded. In the festival committee meeting they also guarded their idea, and were holding on so tight to their idea that although they were clearly supposed to work together to put on an evening's entertainment with a coherent message, they wee extremely reluctant to adapt. They had also lost sight of the fact that this was a learning experience, and they didn't take any real personal risks.

To be really creative you have to be prepared to put the goal to one side. Have some fun. Kick things around for a while, without being preoccupied by making progress. The team that won in the end put together a reasonable enough play in terms of content, but it wasn't strong. But, they played to the crowd, got everyone involved, and had a whale of a time.

At the end of it (I wasn't allowed to help them with their content), we had a short debrief and it didn't take long for the penny to drop. Hopefully in future when they need to be creative they'll be prepared to take their eye off the goal, at least for a few minutes.

In sport you have to be creative too - whether creating an opportunity to score in a team sport, or simply finding a new way to go faster (which although is a goal, staying focused on the goal isn't likely to be a source of inspiration).

Any thoughts on why the England football team so often struggles to inspire?

Rob Robson is a Sport Psychologist and Business Consultant based in Warwickshire, UK who specialises in helping individuals to and organisations to achieve high performance.

Where is the value-add in sport psychology?

I often find myself thinking about where the real value is, or should be, in sport psychology, and whether we have the balance right.

I've always been struck by how much emphasis there is in the literature on the tools of the trade - the interventions like imagery, goals setting, self-talk, counselling skills, etc.

As a profession, we do talk about "evidence-based practice" but I do wonder to what extent this ideal is really achieved.

Is our value in sport a function of our practical skills or our depth of analysis? In reality, it has to be both, and more than that it has to be our ability to turn insight into intervention. But I have a nagging suspicion that there are "sport psychologists" out there that are more intervention than insight.

I believe that because of the language that I see written out there - the implication is that sport psychology equals goal setting plus imagery plus relaxation plus self-talk - although I'm aware that you have to make material accessible to the customer and they can relate to practical stuff. But I've also come across practitioners that have no real sense of what underlying principles are guiding their work.

I also find that an awful lot of the sport psychology literature - the frameworks and theories out there in the mainstream - lacking in real insight. What does it explain? I get frustrated when I read journals at what seems to me to be a lack of ambition in the academic sector to really get to the bottom of the big issues, whether that be in sports performance or exercise promotion. There's just so much incremental reseach out there. There's also a lot of rubbish. I remember reading that we need more sport-specific models in sport psychology. "Funny, I thought. Almost everything I ever found useful in my practice came from elsewhere in psychology".

If we can offer deep insights into performance, then we become valuable. If we focus on the toolkit, the we become a commodity. The imapct of this is that it will never become a really well-paid profession. Sure, a few people can do well on the golf or tennis tours, or maybe in professional football, but on average sport psychology is just not a lucrative business.

Why do I say this? Well, surely a good coach, with years of experience, that can learn to teach imagery, relaxation, goal setting or go on a counselling skills course will add more value than a sport psychologist who cannot demonstrate that they bring the insight required to fundamentally improve performance?

Rob Robson is a Sport Psychologist and Business Consultant based in Warwickshire, UK who specialises in helping individuals to and organisations to achieve high performance.

England's Cricketers - Mindset Change or Poor Opposition?

So England have beaten the Windies 3-0, and not even the weather could save the visitors.

It is clear that the visitors are no Australia, but at the same time I've been impressed by England.

It does seem that they have learned something from the Australians, in terms of being more clinical and ruthless. At least they are talking about it more. I wonder how much of a difference the change of coach has made?

You might debate the impact that a coach can have on a set of players at the top of the game, but it shouldn't be underestimated. Our own research at Apter International, into the impact of a leader's microclimate upon employee engagement (measured by the UWES , which consists of subscales: dedication, vigour and absorption - or as one might alternatively describe it energy and commitment) shows that the leader accounts for almost half of the variation in scores.

So maybe we won't really know until after the series against India, just where the team is, or maybe, given the lack of depth in World cricket, maybe we won't know until the next Ashes series.

"Fredalo" and Vaughan: Great Stuff

England Cricket captain Michael Vaughan's interview with Donald McRae in Tuesday's Guardian is just Reversal Theory "gold dust".

When I saw it I thought: "I just have to keep that". So, here it is.

"You have to be honest: the Fredalo incident did affect the team,'" he is quoted as saying.....

"That incident changed the whole atmosphere in the camp. We went into the New Zealand game with a really good attitude but we didn't play well and after 'Fredalo' we just started taking it all too seriously. That might sound silly but everyone was too tense and desperate. There was no escape - and even on the field you have to be pretty free, especially in one-day cricket."

This quote says very clearly that there was a climate in the camp that encouraged the Serious state. There's also something about the Conforming state too, his description of tension and suggests that at the time anxiety was rife - which is a response to the serious and conforming states. Certainly, the whole squad would have been more aware of 'rules' after the incident.

"I was more tense than I've ever been as a captain. Duncan Fletcher was more tense than he'd ever been as a coach. And sometimes the captain and coach have to look at the way they're acting because the team follows. I didn't captain as well as I should've done because of the pressure I put myself under. I'd admit that. But I couldn't switch off because away from the field there was so much going on - with Bob Woolmer and 'Fredalo'."

Of course the interesting dynamic that creates the emotional intensity of the situation is the media spotlight that surrounded the camp after the incident, and the whole tournament after the death of Bob Woolmer. This is almost certain to have raised the intensity, pressure and sense of importance of the situation, all of which would pile on the anxiety.... .....and hamper creativity.

Interesting too the acknowledgement that the team leadership was exceptionally tense. We know from experience that that will affect the players.

So what could they have done differently?

Well, I'm not suggesting that it would be the right thing to do as the England Cricket Team, but perhaps if they had just treated the whole incident as a bit of a laugh, they might have actually played better!

Why? Well, the whole camp would probably have been less "serious", and they might even have felt a little "naughty" in a fun way (playful and rebellious), rather than the way it was handled which seemed to enforce discipline. This might actually have translated to the field in the form of greater creativity and innovation.

I'm sure the ECB would struggle with this as an approach, but it just goes to show that bureaucracy and performance don't always mix well.

England Expects - Again!

I've just been reading some of the build up to England's next football (soccer to our North American chums) matches against Brazil and, in particular, their qualifier against Estonia.

In my humble opinion, it's nothing to do with the compatibility of Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard, or other questions of personnel and formation - and if England fans had to support Scotland like I do they'd realise that the fact that they can generally choose players from the "best league in the world" means they simply have no excuses on that front. England's problem for as long as I can remember is that they have lacked creativity and that looks set to continue against Estonia next week, if quotes from captain John Terry are to believed.

"Will there be a question mark over him if England lose? Possibly. But we are not thinking like that," Terry said.

"We need to go there and get a win. It is as simple as that. We are fully behind the manager and we are going to do our best to keep him in his job."

Ok, so the message is positive, but in motivational terms he is clearly in the serious (and conforming) motivational state, as he is primarily concerned with the outcome of the game (and meeting expectations that they will win). Now that doesn't mean it means he will be during the game, nor does it mean that his team mates will be, but given recent history, I would put money on an anxious, stilted performance and probably a narrow victory (and they'll call it "professional", while fans and the press will be more likely to use words like "dull", "unconvincing" or "uninspired"). Oh, and it also raises the likelihood of a moody, angry performance from Rooney.

Why is this?

Well, (according to Reversal Theory - what is this?) the motivational state that is associated with anxiety is the serious state, while the combination of serious and rebellious can lead to anger. The thing about Rooney is that he is at his best when doing the unexpected, that is playful and rebellious - a maverick if you like - but at his worst he is huffy, argumentative and even angry to the point that he'll do something really daft.

The other thing is that leadership style is a strong influence on the mindset (almost 50% of variance in research we've done in corporate settings) and performance of the team. McLaren is a results man - in everything that I've seen, and let's face it he wouldn't be human if he wasn't concerned about losing his job. This is clearly on Terry's mind too, as is the result.

Oh yes, and creativity tends to be a product of the playful state, which is fundamentally problematic if the team's mindset is predominantly serious. Add to that the likelihood that Estonia will probably set our defensively, then you are headed for a snorefest.

So, folks, you read it here - don't expect any fireworks next Wednesday (unless you count Rooney's head exploding).

And if McLaren, Terry or any of the England camp are reading this (don't laugh) my one piece of advice? "Lighten up, go out and enjoy the game, and focus on doing the simple things right".

Managerial merry-go-round

So last week Glen Roeder was sacked from Newcastle and replaced yesterday by "Big Sam" (good appointment for them). Ok, fair enough. But then Stuart Pearce was sacked by Man City and in no time it appeared that Paul Jewell had resigned from Wigan. "Aha", I thought, "I've got his number. He's off to Man City", but no, apparently he wants some time off (but then so did Big Sam, apparently).

Today it is Neil Warnock's turn. That's a great loss for Sheffield United, but maybe someone else's gain as, apparently, Neil isn't taking a rest.

As crazy as the managerial merry-go round can be, I can't remember anything like it, and it probably isn't finished. Given that Stuart Pearce is on the look-out for a new job (and if any industry is good at appointed managers with a dodgy track record, it is football), as is Warnock, more movement is likely soon (Warnock to Man City?).

And that's before all the speculation about Mourinho's future at Chelsea. Speaking of Mourinho, it seems that the Met police have messed up again. After being tipped off that there could be a rabid dog in the "Special" household, they went round and, taking things too literally as usual, tried to impound his Yorkshire Terrier.

What’s with West Ham?

I’m writing this a few hours after West Ham blew away Bolton to keep alive their hopes of staying in the Premiership. All debate about whether or not they should have had points deducted aside, their turnaround is stunning. Indeed, so to is that of Dunfermline Athletic in the SPL, who only a few weeks ago were nine points adrift and couldn’t get a goal, let alone a win.

The amazing thing is that both teams have turned it on at a point when if they hadn’t, they were down. No question. So, both have done it under pressure. OK, so more people are interested in the Premiership than the SPL, so let’s talk about West Ham.

What is clear with West Ham is that when they’ve needed points they’ve not just won the points, but at they’ve done it in real style. They’ve shown creativity when most, including the teams around them, would struggle and at best grind out a few results. The thing is, when the pressure is really on, and every game has real consequences, it isn’t easy to find that ‘spark’ that you need most. Indeed, what you tend to see when teams are in trouble is stilted, anxious performances that even sometimes look like the team isn’t trying. That’s so often the verdict of the fans in such a situation: “The players don’t seem to care”, they’ll agree as they dissect the team’s performance on the fan forums.

But West Ham are different. There’s no doubt that Alan Curbishley is a good coach. He built too much at Charlton for that to be a doubt. He has to be a major factor. I know that once the players cross the white line only they can make it happen, but the manager’s influence is felt all week. So he must be doing something right. I’d imagine that he’s helped restore some of the confidence that is lacking, and he is certainly a level-headed guy that doesn’t get carried away and doesn’t appear to become too anxious himself, but that doesn’t fully explain the nature of their turnaround.

Of course, there is also Carlos Tevez, and the presence of such genuine class in the team can only help. If anyone epitomizes the spirit of the West Ham team recently, it is Tevez. It is “never say die” stuff, but not just that. You don’t go out and score 3 in the first half two games on the trot by refusing to be beaten. No, in the pressure of the relegation battle, Tevez has worked his socks off but also shown the sort of flair that we hope for in our South American imports. To do that you have to stay right “in the moment” and not be influenced by the enormity of what it at stake in the game.

Not a lot of people can do that. But it seems that a few down Upton Park way can. And that’s why they might just sneak it, despite at tough trip to Old Trafford next weekend.

Read more first

Rob Robson's Blogs

• RSS Feed

• robrobson

[X] Close

[X] Close

• About Us |
• FAQs |
• Help |
• Contact |
• Terms and Conditions |
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2010 iStadia Ltd. All rights reserved.