Football 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
"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 pip
eline 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
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
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
Scolari Sacking a Sign of the Times?
On one hand 'Big Phil' Scolari's sacking from Chelsea this week was a great surprise. Indeed, when the axe fell, it fell quickly and without much warning. Many commentators were surprised, even though Chelsea's recent results had been poor - or at least not good enough to satisfy owner Roman Abramovich's thirst for trophies.
Looking at it differently, however, Scolari's swift exit is merely a sign of the times that we are in, both in sport and in business. Both are about results. Both seem to be increasingly about short term results. Indeed, football and business are one and the same. Big football clubs, whether PLC or privately owned, just like any businesses, are at the whim of shareholders and other key stakeholders.It has long been recognised that balancing short and long term results is one of the toughest tasks of a business leader. There's no point in having a great strategy if you don't get good enough results to see it through. If there's no strategy, short term results are going to be hard to sustain. Likewise in football. You've got to earn the right to see through the strategy. You need the youth system, but you need to still be in the Premier League when the new talent starts coming through.
I was at a conference before Christmas, where the speaker was talking about business leadership increasingly being about getting through the next quarter. Abramovich might be seen as being twitchy or impatient, but that's roughly where Scolari was. Abramovich was unhappy, basically, with this quarter's results, and wasn't confident that the next quarter - basically to the end of the season - would be good enough. So, he's bringing someone in - most likely Gus Hiddink - that he believes can provide those short term results. If Hiddink earns the right to stay for the long-term, however, it remains to be seen whether he will choose to.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Get updates on Twitter@sportpsychrob
Were Arsenal Fans Right to Boo Eboue?
The booing that Emmanuel Eboue received from the his own (Arsenal) fans as he was taken off this weekend has sparked a great deal of media debate. I think there are a number of reasons why Arsenal fans felt that it was OK to boo him on Saturday, although few appear to be justifying it in retrospect.Reason 1: Fans think that they can 'see' a player's lack of motivation, but they can't
This is absolutely fallacious. As human beings we are all relatively well trained at observing people and making judgements, for they are often required without further evidence, but we often get it wrong. Michael Apter's observations of truant children in the 1970's, that led to the formation of Reversal Theory led him to realise that
you cannot reliably infer motivation from observing behaviour. Take the behaviour of truancy. When talking to truants, Apter realised that there were polar motivations at play. While some children were driven by a need for safety, because school was frightening, others were driven by a need for fun and excitement (school was boring).In Eboue's case, Arensal fans have cited his lack of effort, that he appeared not to care, as justification for booing him off. Apparently he was rotten on Saturday, but I'll not be the judge of that. What we have is a player that made his name at right back, struggled with injury, lost his place on the team, was moved to the right wing to less effect, and then was asked to play on the left wing on Saturday. Fans talked about his lack of movement, and apparent disinterest in the game. As much as anything, this could equally point to a player, bereft of confidence, that doesn't know what to do; and an anxious player frightened to make mistakes. You wouldn't blame him for that, would you, but they main point is that an anxious player, lacking confidence, i an unfamiiar role probably doesn't look all that different from a player that doesn't care.
Reason 2: Fans are customers and believe that they reserve the right to show their displeasure
This, I think, the football industry has cultivated. Crazy ticket prices, players on astronomical salaries. It isn't that there aren't arguments to justify player salaries, but football has turned into big business, and fans can no longer be expect to stick with the team through thick and thin. Football has lost its connection to the community. Going to the football is no longer an expression of affiliation to that community. Fans are customers now. Given the prices that they pay, whether to watch on TV or to get to the game, they expect to be treated like customers. That means that they expect the product to be up to scratch, including the performance of the players. They
expect, perhaps rightly but not rationally, players to live up to their salaries week in, week out.The sport of football and football clubs have courted a wider fan base. They promote their brand globally. Their consumers are not fans - not in the way that they used to be - and cannot be expected to be as loyal as they used to be. If the brand doesn't live up to expectation they will express their dissatisfaction - as Eboue discovered on Saturday (and Birmingham City directors discovered in May - pictured right).
Reason 3: Crowds of people don't behave like they do as individuals
Of course this is nothing new. Social Psychologists have long studied crowd behaviour and it is apparent that the psychology of the crowd is different from that of the individuals within it. What's important here is that given the possible combinations of Reason 1 and Reason 2, the Arsenal fans that did boo Eboue from the pitch last weekend might not have done so individually.
I don't think that many would, in retrospect, justify the behaviour of the Arsenal fans towards their own player, but we can understand it. If I am right in my assessment, the players can only expect more, not less, of the same.
Check out my article for more on Reversal Theory, or connect with Michael Apter direct.
Recommended reading on RT:
Apter, M.J. (Ed.) (2001). Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Kerr, J.H. (1997). Motivation and Emotion in Sport: Reversal Theory. Hove (U.K.): The
Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis).
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
What next as Roy Keane leaves Sunderland?
This week Roy Keane left Sunderland, after just over 2 years in charge of the Black Cats. What's behind this? Is it a good decision for Keane? What lies in store for the former Manchester United man?
Of course I can't answer all of these questions, but as a sport psychologist, football fan and talent manager I can't help but have my views. There's also no shortage of opinion in the media to draw upon.
Roy Keane - Player to Manager
The first thing to note is that Keane's entry into football management was at least as unexpected as his departure from Sunderland. As a player, he had little patience for other players, and indeed coaches or officials, that didn't have his passion and drive for performance. But he was also a very contradictory character, capable of being very self-destructive (notably his feud and possibly career-ending tackle on Alf-Inge Haaland).
At the time of his appointment, I thought that he would be spectacularly successful as a manager or a complete train wreck. I have to admit I was leaning to the latter, but his strength of character and refusal to accept the status quo meant that he was, in retrospect, the perfect catalyst for a revival at the Stadium of light.
Problems mount
Having created change at the club, Roy Keane then took Sunderland to the Premier League. Although the squad was limited in ability, its spirit and determination helped Sunderland to survive its first season without relegation. At this point we had seen very little, if any, of Keane's more volatile nature, as he remained the model of calm and focus on the touchline.
In the close season, however, it became apparent that even with Keane in charge, Sunderland was not the most attractive destination for the best players. In the end, Keane spent over £70 million on 33 players, as he had to compromise on quality and found himself with a bloated squad. He had some genuine quality in specific positions, but Keane's Sunderland was not a team of superstars.
In order to take the club on a level, not just to fight relegation but to climb the league, Sunderland would need to sell before buying any more players. That could prove to be difficult (for the next manager).
There has been talk of Keane losing the confidence of the players of late. His team has lost six from the last seven games. It certainly seems that Roy Keane questioned his ability to take the club any further.Looking ahead
It is probably safe to assume that Roy Keane is as ambitious as a manager as he was as a player. When it looked like he had taken Sunderland as far as he was likely to, this may have created a problem for Keane.
People have talked about Roy Keane as a successor to Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United. Whether that's his goal or not, the Sunderland job was not going to be a platform from which Keane could demonstrate that he has the qualities to be manager of an elite club on a European level. His chances of European football were slim, so he wasn't going to demonstrate that he could guide a team to the European Cup or Premier League title. He wasn't going to be able to demonstrate that he could manage the most talented players.
So Roy Keane, Sunderland manager, was always going to be a risk for a top European team to recruit.
If he was to become a top team's manager, he wasn't going to do that from the Stadium of Light. But the Sunderland job could be a stepping stone to a stepping stone to a top job. Maybe he could be the next Everton, Aston Villa, Tottenham or, dare I say it, Newcastle manager (not assuming that any of these jobs will be available any time soon). Should he take a team like this to regular European football, with some sort of trophy along the way, then perhaps the top job would be realistic. At least it would take him one step closer.
The alternative for Keane might have been relegation, and he might not have been able to contemplate having relegation - or failure - on his CV.
As a talent manager, I think that while the timing and nature of his resignation from Sunderland could have been better, he was going to have to leave some time soon. Sunderland was Keane's "development role" in talent management language. If it wasn't going to give him more opportunity to develop in the ways that he wants to, he was right to go.I can't predict Keane's next move, let alone his next again, but I will say that the manner of his resignation this week, in an unmanaged and abrupt manner (how has he helped his successor?) probably hasn't helped his cause. It suggests that he's still not quite thinking about the bigger picture - something he'll have to do at a top club - and it also serves as a reminder of his volatile past.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Director of Football: The end of Football Management as we know it?
This week has seen two managers from the English Premier League, Alan Curbishley and Kevin Keegan, leave their clubs (West Ham and Newcastle United, respectively) quit their posts. In both cases the issue appears to be their loss of control over transfers, and perhaps other aspects of the club management.
This has caused a great deal of debate about management, and the role of the Director of Football in particular. Both Curbishley and Keegan had been working in a structure that included a Director of Football. Both are very experienced managers. Importantly both were in position when Directors were appointed 'above' them.
Both men were used to running the football side of the club.
They reported into the board. They had a backroom team, including an assistant manager, that reported to them. Then, they found that their powers were diminished by the appointment of another man, a Director of Football, who took some of their resonsibilities from them.So what is a Director of Football? Dave Bassett, a long-time football manager, described the role as
" ..... a buffer. The director of football is answerable to the board but there to assist the manager. He's experienced in football and there to help the board members who don't have that experience." (Source: Wikipedia)
This description, for me, captures one of the key problems that occurs when a Director of Football is introduced into a British club, particularly when there is an incumbent manager. Fundamentally, the Director of Football should not be there to "assist" the manager, but to manage the football division or function of the club (including "the manager"). Because of changes in the game, professional football clubs are now complex organisations, with huge commercial and match-day operations. One might argue, therefore, that there is a need to create an executive team, like any large corporate, that works together to create and deliver the whole organisation's strategy, who manager their function "down the line". In this respect, the Director of Football should be the equal of, say, the Finance Director, or the Operations Director and creates the Football Strategy. This should include such things as setting the strategic direction for coaching, talent identification, recruitment (transfers) and youth development (the academy).
Different clubs will define the role of the Director of Football and the head coach, or manager, differently, and I would argue that it doesn't matter what titles you use. But one thing should be clear, the manager reports to the DoF. You simply cannot have any confusion, as there seems to have been at both West Ham and Newcastle.
What this says is that the role of manager is also different. They no longerr report straight to the chairman. They don't set the overall strategy, necessarily. They don't oversee the academy, the scouts, and they may not negotiate contracts.
But they might. They might have the final say on who is recruited. They should have some say. After all, they have to manage the team's performance. Just like when I was recruited I was interviewed by my prosective manager, and by her line manager - but my line manager ultimately has to manage me and probably, therfore, made the ultimate decision.
What absolutely must be clear, however, is where the accountabilities and responsibilities lie. Someone has to make the decisions. In my experience, the person that will "get it in the neck" if the decision is wrong, must be allowed to make it.
The relationship must also work to the advantage of the club, too. This is why it ultimately needs to be a manager-report relationship. That does not mean that it should not be collaborative, open and even friendly. It simply means that ultimately, someone is in charge. I would imagine that both Curbishley and Keegan would have a problem with this, and understandably so with their experience, especially given the retrospective nature of the changes made at their clubs.
So, is there a place in the modern game for the likes of Curbishley or Keegan? The manager that does it all?
I'm going to stick my neck out and say no. Not at the highest levels of professional football. Not as we've come to know it in the UK. I don't think that a senior football manager, whatever you call them, can do everything from strategy setting to coaching the team and leading them out on matchday.
In every career path you have to make a choice. Are you a manager or a doer? To take the step to the strategic level, every manager has to put behind them - at some point - the hands-on skills that got them where they are. In management, it is often the things that mark you out as sucessful at the start of your career that can get in the way of success as you progress. In a large, complex footballing operation I believe that's a choice that has to be made. You can be a coach (maybe the equivalent to a middle manager, as you also have reports - the coaches and players, maybe support staff), or you can truly become a senior manager.
Indeed, that's what Alex Ferguson is. When Carlos Quieroz was assistant manager, Sir Alex left first team training to him. Yes, he took charge on match day, but he'll have made decisions using the input from his "operational" assistant manager. Call them Director of Football and Head Coach, if you like. Sir Alex manages transfers, and built the struture that has become one of the most productive football factories in modern times. But he doesn't do everything.
At lower levels, even in the professional game, I don't think the complexity is there to necessitate having a Director of Football. In many ways the lower tiers of professional games are the SMEs to the corporates that top the Premier League.
So, the football manager isn't dead but big, complex clubs need to recognise that one manager can't do it all. Every club needs someone to manage the football operation, but some clubs need someone to set the overall club strategy, and perhaps additional 'managers' - for example to head the academy. Different clubs will use different models. Director of Football and Head Coach, Manager and Assistant Manager, Director of Football and Manager. It isn't the model that ultimately matters, so much as the implementation. And that's what Newcastle and West Ham got wrong.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
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 PsychologistCo-founder of iStadia
An emotional day in Manchester, but did United fail to get their game heads on?
I listened to the Manchester derby on the radio today, and was as surprised by the result as most would have been. Less surprisingly, there's been much talk of the emotional nature of the occasion, which marked the 50th anniversary of the Munich air crash and whether that affected the team today.
It isn't easy to tell without being able to talk to the players whether the players got caught up in the emotion of it all. Ryan Giggs post-match comment didn't shed any light on it either. He stated that it wasn't an excuse. Just because he didn't want to make excuses doesn't mean that it wasn't a factor.
I think there are a number of interesting angles worth exploring.
First, the specific emotional nature of the day (and indeed the week). The ceremony was intended (naturally) to create sympathy for those that died, their families and loved ones. Competitive sport, by definition, isn't associated with sympathy, but mastery. Mastery of skills and of opponents. You can't be in mastery and sympathy states at the same time (Reversal Theory tells us), so perhaps some Manchester United players did get caught up in the emotion of it all, and didn't get back into a competitive mindset.
Second, the players did not prepare as they normally would for a home game. It is quite possible that this, in itself (and not the specific emotional nature of the event) affected their performance.
This, however, was also true for Manchester City.
It might even have had nothing to with the anniversary of the Munich air crash.
Carlos Quieroz, United's Assistant Manager blamed this week's international fixtures. Of course, Manchester City have international players too, though not as many as United.
Then there's Wayne Rooney, or the lack of him. He was suspended today and is obviously important to Manchester United. United have lost four games with season. Rooney missed them all. Despite the formidable talent available, Rooney's presence may lift the performance of those around them - the 'X Factor'.
So it may or may not have been something to do with the commemoration. Whatever it was, Manchester City still had to make the most of their opportunity, and clearly did.
Rob Robson
Sport and Business Psychologist, WarwickshirePositive 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, WarwickshireKeegan: A(nother) Case of Hearts over Heads in the Toon?
When Sam Allardyce left Newcastle United last week after less than a year, it became clear that cold, hard analysis wasn't behind the decision. All of the respected commentators agreed that Big Sam needed time, and that given time he would develop a strong team.
But that wasn't the issue, was it? As Alan Green summed up perfectly while commenting on the Man United vs Newcastle match last weekend, Allardyce's failure was not on the field, even though results were unspectacular. He was never the right man for Newcastle. In a city where passions run high, he was never able to make the emotional connection with the Toon Army that Kevin Keegan did. Maybe it was the style of football. Maybe it was his personal style. Maybe both.
Kevin Keegan hasn't been in football for a few years. There's nothing rational that suggests he's really the man for the job (whatever the job actually is) - although he might do well - but he's a hero on Tyneside and has already captured the hearts of the fans. That might be all that the manager needs up there. Certainly any manager needs the good will of the fans at some time or another.
For Big Sam, there is the comfort of a huge payoff, but his pride will be dented. If nothing else, he will hopefully have learned a big lesson in stakeholder management.
What price for Shearer as assistant? (He was pretty cagey on Match of the Day tonight).
Is Keegan the right choice? Discuss the appointment here.
Rob Robson
Sport and Business Psychologist, WarwickshireLiverpool highlight the need to play in the present!
Liverpool FC have been on great form of late, scoring for fun and keeping it tight at the back, but on Saturday they lost 3-1 at Reading and were really quite poor. Rafa Benitez, the manager, rather than trying to fight back for a draw or win, took key players Gerrard, Carragher and Torres off before the end of the game - signalling his willingness to drop 3 points to have a fully fit team on the field for tuesday's must-win Champions League game against Marseille.That decision, as much as anything, showed just where Liverpool's minds were on Saturday - Marseille, Tuesday night. The fact is, that the best performances simply do not occur when a team's collective minds are on a more important game in the future, nor even when focused on the final outcome of the current game. The best performances occur when players' minds are focused on the present.
That isn't to say that you have to forget you have a big game coming, but as soon as you hit your match preparation, and when you walk out onto the pitch, the only game that matters is the one you are playing right here, right now.
It isn't also just that Liverpool had an off-day, or were outplayed by a better Reading. They lacked the spark of creativity and energy required to win the game (even though they had some bad luck too), and despite the talent on array opted for long balls up to Peter Crouch. Creativity and energy are found in the here and now, not something that you get a lot of when your mind is on the outcome of a game a few days later.
In my view, that's the missing component in the Liverpool side under Benitez - the ability to compete on many fronts at once. They've been brilliant in the league, and in Europe, but rarely at the same time. They are good enough, on their day, to win the Premier League or the Champions League, but they need to be able to handle the demands of the fixture list to win either (or at least the former) - let alone both.
Rob Robson
Sport and Business Psychologist, WarwickshireWhat Kind of A Football Manager Does England Need?
A lot of people in the media, in pubs and internet forums across the country have been asking this week: "who should be the next England manager?".
I'm not an expert on the potential candidates for the job, but I am interested in leadership and performance and have my own thoughts - not so much on who should get the job but what should they be like?
But first let's get one issue out of the way, and that is the state of the game in England. As a Scot, as far as I'm concerned it's a red herring. I'm sorry, but take a few of the stars out of the England team and you'll still have 10 players who would walk into the Scotland team - with goalkeeper being the likely exception. So while I agree that English football as a whole, from grass roots to Soho Square, needs some close scrutiny, the fact is that the head coach of the National team is employed to get the most out of the current crop of players.
My view is that the climate that surrounds the England team is pretty horrrendous. There is an incredible weight of expecation and a media that seem to be intent on building people up to knock them down. It is ahrd to say as an outsider what the influence of the FA hierarchy is on the team, but bear one thing in mind: Some very good managers have come and gone, and failed to get the most out of a group of talented players. Something isn't right. Look at Eriksson. He arrived with an excellent record. Did well - but not so well when it really mattered - and was hounded out of the job. Now he's doing a great job again with Manchester City.
Anyway, I digress. But the pressure is great. Despite what people say they players do care. So the first characteristic for me is a manager with unshakeable self-confidence. The kind of confidence required to take all of the pressure of the job, and not just cope with it but love it. The confidence to act as a buffer - to take everything that comes with the job and shield the players from it.
I say shield the players from it, because the job is not to develop the players. It is to get them together for long enough to prepare for each international game and not to make them better plauers. It is the job of the clubs to make their players fitter, more techically and tactically competent, and mentally tougher.
In that respect, Jose Mourinho may be the man for the job, but for the next reason maybe not.
The next characteristic I would look for is humility. The England manager cannot come with a big ego. There just won't be enough room for him in the dressing room! But more seriously, all he can afford to care about is his team. He is going to get stick. He is going to be examined in the press. He can't afford to care about how he looks, whether he is loved. If he cares about his players, they'll play for him. I get the feeling poor Jose wants to be loved.
More importantly, I think, is the need for a bit of a maverick. Not too much though. Venables couldn't keep the job first time around because he was involved in legal battles. Hoddle because he used a faith healer. England, in my opionion, needs someone that is prepared to be different - prepared to question, challenge, be different (and let his players do the same). I don't mean that they should be eccentric, merely prepared to be their own man.
The new manager also needs to create a climate in which the players can enjoy playing football. That's partly going to come from the first three characteristics. Having the confidence to give them space and protection from the pressure, from caring about his players, and from giving his players a bit of freedom. But he also needs to inject a bit of fun in things. The language that McLaren used in talking to the media was all about "winning football games". What about the joy of the game? England needs someone that can handle the pressure enough to let his players experience the joy of playing the game.
Who is that man? Well. Lots of people have talked about the success of Klinsmann and Van Basten - but England doesn't have an equivalent. Not even Shearer. Niether do they have in their ranks someone that can bring vast club and International experience and success to the role - like Capello can.
Ultimately, I don't think there is an ideal choice out there that is English. But I also think that a top-class coach like Capello might find it difficult to manage a group of players that lack (apparently) the tactical nous that he will have been used to working with.
So, if I were to venture an opinion, I'd say that a good short-term appointment would be Harry Redknapp. Mainly because he's a maverick, and made his name as a wheeler-dealer, but has matured into a very successful manager. I don't think he takes any nonsense (from above in particular), yet he clearly has good relationships with his players and is highly respected in the English game.
But we know that he won't get the job, don't we? In fact, why not take an easier route. Let's find a way to reverse the ageing process and give the job to Bobby Robson.
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, WarwickshireScotland 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, WarwickshireWhen should a football coach be sacked - is it about results or confidence?
Marting Jol, Tottenham Hotspur's head coach (manager) has an uncertain future at the club. This comes after a 4-0 weekend but two previous defeats. Apparently (according to the BBC) top club officials have "lost faith" in his ability to deliver top 4 finishes on a consistent basis (despite the fact that 5th is their highest spot for many years).When is it appropriate for the club to consider replacing their coach? I've always been critical of chairmen sho panic and sack their coach after a bad run, and believe that the decision should be based on whether or not they believe that the coach has the ability to turn things around - taking a longer term view.
Whether they are right or not in their assessment, that seems to be what Spurs are doing. They aren't going to be swayed by a 4-0 win, rather they are unsure if they have the right man to get them where they want to go. If they are right, then I guess he would have to go, but if not, it would be a costly mistake.....
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.
