Tweet
Firstly, since this is probably going to be quite a long addition to Bloodspirit's post, I won't make it longer by quoting the post. Though I will make things a bit longer, by starting with a graph of the inverted u hypothesis of arousal and sports performance: a theory that many of you would have heard of and many wouldn't.
inverted u.jpg
But of course, there's not much point including a graph, without explaining what it means. So, the essence of the inverted u hypothesis, is that performance suffers if the player is under-aroused or over-aroused, but at the right level of arousal, there is a state of optimum performance. That is, if a player is bored, not committed to the team, or distracted by other issues, then they don't have enough arousal for a high level of performance. However, it's not the case, that more the arousal, the better the performance. There comes a time, when too much arousal has a negative effect on performance. This can be from such things as, excessive stress affecting muscle coordination, or a panicky mental state causing the player to question their competence and to start thinking about learned subroutines that are best just left to the subconscious.
Anyway, why I mention this, is that I think the two mentioned strategies of Richmond are a way of minimising the negative arousal levels. Though to my mind, one of them is much more likely to be effective, than the other.
Firstly, to the one that I think is the more effective: the encouragement of an increased level of communication between all those involved in the team. To me, this goes to the fundamentals of being human. That is, pretty well all of human evolution took place in small groups; with a virtuous circle driving that evolution. The virtuous circle being, a level of communication and cooperation within human groups, increases the intelligence and survival skills of those within the group; that increased increased intelligence then increases the ability to communicate and cooperate, which in turn increases intelligence,and so on. So, without going to far into a pet subject, there a number of things that are essential for this process. Probably the most essential, is the recognition that other members of the group are on your side, and that by helping them, you are also helping yourself. Also important, are the ability to recognise what the challenges and problems are, to honestly discuss these challenges amongst the group and to arrive at workable solutions.
I tend to think that this was very important to Roosy, when he took over as Swans coach. In his book, he often talked about what he thought was counterproductive in the methods of coaches that he had played under, and how he thought that he could make an improvement. What he seemed to dislike most, was how it was pretty well a tradition for the coach to be dictator, with very little input from the players on game plans, training methods, or what was working for the player and what wasn't. So when he took over, he went about encouraging discussion, by increasing team meetings and instituting a democratically elected leadership group; as opposed to the standard coach and captain. This was important, because it recognised that players have different personalities. For instance, in an situation where there was only one captain, if a player had a personality clash with the captain, then they were less likely to communicate effectively and more likely to develop hostility. Whereas, with a variety of personalities in the leadership group, a player should find at least one person, who they are easily able to discuss issues with.
Anyway, since I started with the inverted u, I better discuss how it fits in. The root causes for poor performance, due to under-arousal, can be things like, not feeling a strong team bond, thinking that the game plan is crap, or not feeling that your contribution will make a difference. Good communication can counteract all of those. Open discussion usually creates stronger personal bonds. Discussing tactics amongst a team, where a range of options are considered, where most players voice an opinion on the pros and cons of the issues, and where there is agreement on the eventual plan, means that more more players feel attached to the game plan and therefore, are more motivated to implement that plan. While talking about the roles that each player can perform, in order to carry out the game plan, helps to reassure individuals that their contribution will make a difference to group performance. In regards to over-arousal, some causes for the excessive stress, are: attempting to do too much by yourself; anger at your team mates, if you feel that they are shirking; and panic, if you become convinced that things are just not going to work like they should. Once again, discussion and team bonding helps to counteract these things. You are less likely to angrily attempt to perform other player's roles, if you trust them to fulfil their duties. While panic is less likely to be a problem, if you have built a culture of problem solving and of supporting each other.
Hmmm, I was going to discuss why I suspect that Richmond introducing mindfulness practices may be less effective, but I have run out of time, so maybe later. Though I'll just finishing by saying that Richmond seems to have gone further than Roosy did, in their encouragement of team bonding. So if anyone has read the book on their season, I would be interested in hearing what they actually did. Otherwise, I may have to read a book about the Richmond football club.
inverted u.jpg
But of course, there's not much point including a graph, without explaining what it means. So, the essence of the inverted u hypothesis, is that performance suffers if the player is under-aroused or over-aroused, but at the right level of arousal, there is a state of optimum performance. That is, if a player is bored, not committed to the team, or distracted by other issues, then they don't have enough arousal for a high level of performance. However, it's not the case, that more the arousal, the better the performance. There comes a time, when too much arousal has a negative effect on performance. This can be from such things as, excessive stress affecting muscle coordination, or a panicky mental state causing the player to question their competence and to start thinking about learned subroutines that are best just left to the subconscious.
Anyway, why I mention this, is that I think the two mentioned strategies of Richmond are a way of minimising the negative arousal levels. Though to my mind, one of them is much more likely to be effective, than the other.
Firstly, to the one that I think is the more effective: the encouragement of an increased level of communication between all those involved in the team. To me, this goes to the fundamentals of being human. That is, pretty well all of human evolution took place in small groups; with a virtuous circle driving that evolution. The virtuous circle being, a level of communication and cooperation within human groups, increases the intelligence and survival skills of those within the group; that increased increased intelligence then increases the ability to communicate and cooperate, which in turn increases intelligence,and so on. So, without going to far into a pet subject, there a number of things that are essential for this process. Probably the most essential, is the recognition that other members of the group are on your side, and that by helping them, you are also helping yourself. Also important, are the ability to recognise what the challenges and problems are, to honestly discuss these challenges amongst the group and to arrive at workable solutions.
I tend to think that this was very important to Roosy, when he took over as Swans coach. In his book, he often talked about what he thought was counterproductive in the methods of coaches that he had played under, and how he thought that he could make an improvement. What he seemed to dislike most, was how it was pretty well a tradition for the coach to be dictator, with very little input from the players on game plans, training methods, or what was working for the player and what wasn't. So when he took over, he went about encouraging discussion, by increasing team meetings and instituting a democratically elected leadership group; as opposed to the standard coach and captain. This was important, because it recognised that players have different personalities. For instance, in an situation where there was only one captain, if a player had a personality clash with the captain, then they were less likely to communicate effectively and more likely to develop hostility. Whereas, with a variety of personalities in the leadership group, a player should find at least one person, who they are easily able to discuss issues with.
Anyway, since I started with the inverted u, I better discuss how it fits in. The root causes for poor performance, due to under-arousal, can be things like, not feeling a strong team bond, thinking that the game plan is crap, or not feeling that your contribution will make a difference. Good communication can counteract all of those. Open discussion usually creates stronger personal bonds. Discussing tactics amongst a team, where a range of options are considered, where most players voice an opinion on the pros and cons of the issues, and where there is agreement on the eventual plan, means that more more players feel attached to the game plan and therefore, are more motivated to implement that plan. While talking about the roles that each player can perform, in order to carry out the game plan, helps to reassure individuals that their contribution will make a difference to group performance. In regards to over-arousal, some causes for the excessive stress, are: attempting to do too much by yourself; anger at your team mates, if you feel that they are shirking; and panic, if you become convinced that things are just not going to work like they should. Once again, discussion and team bonding helps to counteract these things. You are less likely to angrily attempt to perform other player's roles, if you trust them to fulfil their duties. While panic is less likely to be a problem, if you have built a culture of problem solving and of supporting each other.
Hmmm, I was going to discuss why I suspect that Richmond introducing mindfulness practices may be less effective, but I have run out of time, so maybe later. Though I'll just finishing by saying that Richmond seems to have gone further than Roosy did, in their encouragement of team bonding. So if anyone has read the book on their season, I would be interested in hearing what they actually did. Otherwise, I may have to read a book about the Richmond football club.
Having said that, I'm sure it's a subconscious pressure the players feel anyway, as each season and repeated chances to obtain glory pass by without ultimate success. We were plainly robbed in 2016 though.....
Comment