Talent Pool

When individuals are arranged into groups, such as organizations or leagues, there is a tendency to reify the distinction between them. Distinctions are not deemed to be revisable products of human categorization, but appear to be natural and purposeful. We view distinctions as inherent and meaningful, rather than a haphazard process by which we make sense of a chaotic world. Even when a group of humans is artificially separated along arbitrary lines, such as eye colour, it does not take long for these humans to impute substantial differences between the newly formed sub-groups. Recognition that outsiders posed a threat was a crucial aid to survival for our distant ancestors. We are thus predisposed to view human classification processes as objective and meaningful, even when they are essentially random: the outsider is a threat simply because they are an outsider. But if spurious distinctions between groups can be manufactured then this provides an improved means by which to identify the threat. The in-group/out-group distinction is less vital for human survival in the present day; but the psychological benefits conferred by the security of the in-group, (and suspicion of the out-group), are clearly retained.

Our group-oriented minds thus consider football leagues of incremental standing to have a very strong correlation with the variance of individual talent contained in these leagues. The tendency to reify differences between groups means that we fail to recognize the narrowness and mutability of human classifications of different talent groupings. But do we really believe that every player in the English Premier League is better than every player in the Championship (or even League One and League Two)? Gaps between teams may be fairly substantial, as is evidenced by clubs which struggle when they are promoted to the Premier League. But a club is an emergent entity comprising a reasonably large number of players. It is very difficult to delineate a player’s distinctive contribution to a club’s success: goals could well dry up for a celebrated top-flight striker if they found themselves performing within a less high-functioning side.

The gradations in talent between leagues are also based on the subjective opinion of managers rather than any objective criteria. Do the opinions of these individuals combine to provide an infallible system for allocating talent to different leagues? Admittedly, there is circumscribed movement between the leagues with player transfers, and teams being promoted and relegated. But in viewing the Premier League as the talent pool, Fabio Capello is dependent on contingent factors such as players with potential being spotted by fallible managers, or teams obtaining promotion.

The additional problem in England is that, as a result of homespun wisdom, the manager takes on both team management and recruitment duties. The manager’s responsibility for signing players is so entrenched in England that it can, if rescinded, lead to constructive dismissal claims. On the continent, it is more common to have management and recruitment separated between a coach and technical director. Recruitment can then receive the full attention of a specialist who is unencumbered with the day-to-day management of the team. This approach might help clubs to find the best players and thus facilitate more effective talent-channels between leagues. Leagues must be a sketchy means for classifying and ranking complex abilities. But if old-fashioned methods of team management in England could be eschewed, perhaps the Premier League would provide a better approximation of the best available talent for the England coach to choose from.

Take each game as it comes…

Way back in February, WCC explored how individual effort is mediated by social forces. Research by Garcia & Tor has shown that people will try harder at a task when they perceive that they have less competition: in studies of test situations, students performed better when they either had, or believed they had, fewer rivals. People appear to work harder when they consider that they have greater chance of success. This is known as the N-Effect.

Revisiting this idea sheds some light on England’s performances over the group stage of this World Cup. The final group game yielded a much stronger performance from England than was witnessed in their first two matches. This Slovenia fixture was, essentially, a must-win game for England and this led to more focused effort. As England needed to win, this meant that awareness of future competitors was suppressed: effort could thus be channelled into the fixture, without the subconscious distraction of, as yet, unknown future rivals. England’s poorest game was against the lowest ranked team in the group Algeria, and this fixture almost presented England with a no-win situation. They would be expected to beat Algeria comfortably, so the potential acclaim/vilification trade-off was negatively skewed. And following the Algeria match, England would then be faced with further competition - Slovenia. As they were presented with these circumstances against Algeria, it should perhaps be no surprise that England put in a very stilted display.

A nation competing in the World Cup is presented with the task of winning the tournament, but this task is broken down into separate stages, i.e. seven games for a team making the final. Players are therefore psychologically presented with two interrelated tasks: winning the tournament, and winning discrete games. Certain conditions will enable a player to focus on a particular game, free from considerations of the additional efforts that will be required to win the tournament. This is why England managed to put in a spirited showing against Slovenia, when exclusive focus on the match in hand was required. Previous tournaments also contain many examples of England failing to perform to the expected standard in group stage games, but then improving in more crucial fixtures. England’s best performance in a group game over the last decade was against Argentina in 2002. Faced with a principal rival, the players were able to focus on succeeding in the immediate contest, unencumbered with thoughts of future obstacles to overall success.

It’s not simply about wanting it the most, as wanting it too much can constrict performance levels. The ideal situation is to create a context within which performances are shaped by directed effort that is free from excessive pressure. When England are presented with a crucial fixture against a key rival, then the social pressures induced by the broader competition are diminished. Extraneous pressures are actually greater when facing lesser rivals in less crucial games. In these circumstances, pervading anxieties about winning the World Cup impinge upon the more immediate concerns of winning a particular game – and a fixture against Algeria therefore ends up being perceived as an impediment to overall success, rather than a discrete must-win fixture.

This is why second place in Group C may be the best outcome for England. Ghana in the round of 16 would have appeared too beatable: England players would be subconsciously aware of future trials in the later knock-out rounds, and their performances could accordingly become constricted by this extraneous pressure. But with Germany as their rivals in the next round, England will be able to direct their mental effort solely on this game – and be psychologically free from considerations of the tournament’s additional competitors.

Tomorrow’s World Cup

The Futurology department at World Cup College is coordinating a multidisciplinary exercise to cultivate a vision of how the World Cup will be organized towards the end of this century.

It is only in relatively recent years that human beings have realised that they are situated on a small branch of the evolutionary tree and that they share a common ancestor with all other animals.  There is significant genetic overlap between types of animal with humans sharing a large amount of DNA with other Earth-dwelling creatures, particularly primates. Humans do not therefore inhabit a niche of existence that transcends animal existence; it is illegitimate to conceive of humans as inhabiting a milieu which is separable from the natural world.

As this idea becomes more entrenched throughout the 21st century, and the biological overlap between types of species gains further acceptance, it will no longer be possible to exclude other animals from events which had previously been exclusively human. Therefore WCC predicts that future World Cups will have to allow for the participation of animals. This will raise a number of practical and ethical issues. For example, it may be discriminatory to rule out the participation of water-based species such as dolphins. Pitches will therefore have to be covered in sufficient water to enable water-based animals to swim, but which still allows land-based creatures to run. Accommodating animals on the same pitch that traditionally hold some antipathy towards each other may also prove difficult, e.g cats and dogs.

Further to the acceptance of other animals on the field of play, developments in technology may also mean that the breadth of participation needs to be widened. Advances in artificial intelligence and robotics will eventually lead us to redefine the parameters of what constitutes global citizenship. Intelligent machines may therefore need to be accorded additional rights as they acquire mental abilities which are commensurable with those of mammalian species. Participants in future World Cups may therefore include sophisticated machinery such as kitchen white goods which can talk. Ethical issues will again require scrutiny: the possibility of the machines rising up in rebellion against their former masters and destroying/enslaving humanity must be reviewed. However, the inclusion of toasters and squirrels on the field in future World Cups is likely to be a positive development as the game continues to broaden its sphere of influence though the 2000s.

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!”

Gerrard/Lampard Episode IV: A New Hope

It is quite alarming that the Gerrard/Lampard central-midfield debate has been fully reignited in 2010. There shouldn’t really be any mystery as to why they don’t function as a centrally-located pairing in a 4-4-2. Under this arrangement it’s usually necessary for one player to take up holding duties (so that the formation is more acutely configured as 4-1-3-2.) Neither Lampard nor Gerrard are natural defensive midfielders, and when they did feature together in the centre for England, a clear demarcation of duties was seldom apparent. The impact of both players was accordingly diminished as they struggled to navigate the ambiguity of a midfield lacking sufficient scaffolding. Neither could play their natural attacking game free from excessive defensive concerns, and it seems the principal focus was upon the ongoing negotiation of their respective duties. But even when a defensive midfielder was placed behind Lampard and Gerrard in a 4-5-1 formation (for example at World Cup 2006) they still failed to perform to the expected standard.
 
The performances of Lampard and Gerrrard have improved markedly within the clearer parameters of action prescribed by Fabio Capello. Lampard has been taking up a more reserved role in central-midfield next to Gareth Barry, whilst Gerrard has been playing on the left but with the freedom to move infield to influence play. Lampard performed with pragmatic assurance over the qualifiers, whilst a more defined niche appeared to unlock some of Gerrard’s attacking brio. However, with Barry now absent for the start of the tournament, familiar questions on the compatibility of England’s most highly regarded midfielders are being raised again.

Before World Cup 2006, Sven Goran Eriksson did search for a holding midfielder, experimenting at different times with Ledley King, Michael Carrick, Owen Hargreaves and Jamie Carragher. However, the favoured central-midfield pairing was Gerrard/Lampard and they started the tournament alongside one another in Germany. Eriksson was apparently in thrall to the star system and this invariably meant a central quartet of Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney and Owen. It was only the injury to Michael Owen which led Eriksson to opt for a five-man midfield with a designated holding player in place.

Whereas Eriksson couldn’t see beyond his most celebrated players, the Gerrard/Lampard debate has only been revisited under Capello due to a dearth of suitable central-midfield alternatives. Capello appears to be a more team-oriented coach than Eriksson and usually fields two secure central-midfielders, and also a target man such as Emile Heskey to support Wayne Rooney. But for the US fixture Capello is without Barry, the favoured partner for Frank Lampard in central-midfield. Hargreaves is also unavailable and would have featured in Capello’s squad (and possibly first XI) if fit. Tom Huddlestone and Scott Parker weren’t deemed of sufficient calibre to make the squad, whilst Carrick is a good deep-lying ball-player, but may lack the gravitas to be the principal defensive midfielder. Moving Gerrard back into central-midfield next to Lampard may therefore be Capello’s only option.
 
With a secure central-midfield, and Rooney filling the gap between midfield and attack, 4-2-3-1 is more implicit within Capello’s 4-4-2 than 4-1-3-2. Therefore, deploying Gerrard in central-midfield should hopefully not reintroduce the stilted uncertainty that was apparent at Euro 2004 and World Cup 2006. Both midfielders should be briefed by Capello to take up fairly deep roles, with Gerrard (like Barry) requested to remain slightly deeper than his partner. Whilst Capello should have both Gerrard and Lampard sufficiently drilled to fit in with this model of play, the absence of a player such as Barry is likely to dilute the solidity of the side. If Gerrard and Lampard fulfil their roles well, then there’s a chance that Capello will persist with this combination. But USA will be looking to exploit any space which is offered by a central-midfield comprising two players who are most at home attacking the opposition’s 18-yard box!

The Psychology of Excitement

Marco Tardelli

It is the deep breath before the plunge. The calm before the storm. The gasp before the roar. The eve of the World Cup!
 
In the build-up to this event – an event World Cup College has been set up to accompany – my excitement levels have become almost fever pitch. This week I bought a Panini sticker album, and today I’ve been planning where I’ll be watching Serbia v Ghana, Ivory Coast v Portugal and Italy v Paraguay. In short, my love of the World Cup extends further than the football on the pitch – it’s the social interaction, the cultural experience, and tapping into memories and emotions first experienced during childhood.
 
Everyone can remember their first World Cup experience. For me it was Spain 1982. Coming from Italian stock, I remember my mother getting more and more excited as the tournament wore on. I remember excitement attached to games like England v France, Algeria’s unlikely victory over West Germany, Honduras, New Zealand, West Germany v France in the semi-final, Italy v Brazil… the list goes on. Spain 1982 has underwritten every World Cup I have experienced since. For every frenzied goal celebration of pure joy, I immediately think back to Falcao and Tardelli. For every Portuguese away kit, I think Peru. For every cultured midfielder, I think Socrates. And for every African team, I think Cameroon.
 
Nineteen-eighty-two was a safe place. I was nine-years-old, living with my family in bucolic Warwickshire, and replayed every game I saw in the back garden in what I remember to be golden sun light. It is these pure memories of excitement I plug into on the eve of every World Cup.
 
Although Michael J Apter’s study of excitement focuses on risk takers – such as racing drivers, mountain climbers, stuntmen etc – who crave excitement, his conclusions do extend to memory attachment and the way our mind works when excitement takes hold. Parapathic emotions, he explains, describe experiences where all emotions are enjoyed, even unpleasant ones like fear, anger, grief and disgust, in the presence of detachment.
 
In a World Cup context, one enjoys all the emotions that one experiences out of empathy with the players, coaches and fans. We watch from the television, which supplies the crucial levels of detachment that parapathic emotions need to function. Apter goes on say that this safety zone and detachment is “associated with a particular zone of experience (or arousal). Within a specific zone, any arousing emotion (even supposedly negative feelings) will be agreeable. It’s this arousal that makes us crave more.”
 
In recent university paper (“Visual perception, motor action, and the video game experience”, by Assistant Professor Ole Ertloev Hansen from Aalborg Univeristy), it takes Apter’s theories one step further by using Torben Grodal’s Moving Pictures book and theories of PECMA (Perception Emotion Cognition Motor Action) on people experiencing video games. Hansen writes: “[Grodal] demonstrates how the experience of film can be perceived as a flow from perception to actual motor action – although this action is suppressed. The level of tension is derived from emotional labelling and cognitive processing which is applied to the specific emotional stimulus. This model suggests that the organic system which enables humans to apprehend and negotiate their immediate environment, the embodied mind, is also used to comprehend audiovisual depictions.
 
“Grodal also contemplated the means by which we process and retain narratives. Light stimulates the retina and is converted into signals that are passed to the visual cortex, where the signal follows a series of mechanisms. These activate further parts of the brain in order to fortify significant forms and activate memory patterns so that corresponding items can be located. These sense-making mental processes relate closely to narrative schemes.”
 
If we use Grodal and Apter’s ideas and theories, and apply them to ‘real world narratives’, it’s obvious that my World Cup memory patterns were created in Spain 1982 and will now reverberate in South Africa 2010. The arousal process has already started. By 4pm tomorrow afternoon, they should be off the scale and the narrative I’m all too familiar with will start all over again.