Who wants it the least?

“What it’s really down to now…”, asserts the co-commentator with earnest conviction as the game approaches full-time, “…is who wants it the most!” This perspective is based on the belief that the team with the highest level of motivation will put in the greatest effort and therefore win the game. This notion is particularly prevalent in England, where running around red-faced chasing lost causes is considered the pinnacle of sporting endeavour. However, is the ultimate difference between two teams of highly skilled athletes really down to who wants it the most?

Within most types of activity there is usually a positive correlation between motivation and achievement: the harder one tries, the better one does. However, it is also possible that excessive levels of pressure lead to a degree of over-arousal which actually constricts performance.

Experimental neurophysiologist, Benjamin Libet highlights that there is a temporal delay between the brain initiating action and the individual becoming subjectively aware of this intent. The delay between unconscious initiation and response is about 0.5 seconds. Within many sports the response time available is less than this period of time: this demonstrates that unconscious processes deliver much of the physical activity required. Successful athletes are those who can operate effectively at an unconscious level which is free from interference from the conscious mind. For example, in baseball the ball will reach the hitter within 450msecs, that is, before conscious assessment of the situation is possible.

In football, most responses when the player is on the ball are likely to require rapid motor reactions to signals which are underpinned by unconscious processes. When executing a shot or pass when being challenged, or when trying to beat or dispossess an opponent, the amount of time available to respond to the specifics of the situation is likely to be less than 0.5 seconds.

At international level, players are subject to more intense negative public feedback when things go wrong. Under this excessive pressure, it is possible that it is harder for the player to relinquish control to unconscious processes. Anxiety prompts subjective scrutiny of personal movements and this will hamper effective actions: if we concentrate attention on our motor responses then continuity of action is likely to break down. (This phenomenon becomes apparent to any male who starts losing to his girlfriend during a game of ten-pin bowling.) When England put in a stilted display in the past, it was assumed that their motivation was lacking. But the furrowed brow of Steven Gerrard (as he over-hit another simple pass into touch) suggested that tasks which would be executed without thought on a regular Saturday, could become a puzzling conundrum when the reward/punishment trade-off had been negatively skewed. And now that the England goalkeeping position is an ongoing locus of mishap and public scrutiny, excessive conscious effort impedes the unconscious mind from processing routine situations.

So perhaps the issue isn’t who wants it the most. The team that can perform effectively during a game will be highly motivated and respond positively to the incentives to win. However, fearing vilification and public hostility leads to wanting it too much, and means that players can’t express their skills readily via the optimum unconscious level. So when two teams are battling out a tough quarter-final tie in South Africa, it would be great to hear the co-commentator earnestly assert: “What it’s really down to now…is who wants it the least!”