Topic: Systems - Mindgames

[Geppvindh's]

P=p-i or Performance = potential - interference.  He argues that many good sportstars deal with the  "p" or potential part through training, technique, fitness etc.  The real differentiator for a great performer is managing/controlling the "i" or interference.  This interference is like the voice in your head when you are thinking about what you are doing and brings doubt, upset to criticsm, annoyance with teammates etc. 

Reading that just makes me realize what a terrific mindset someone like Suarez must be having to be playing at such a high level with so much interference around him, self-made or otherwise. It makes so much sense to me this, thanks a lot. This is where mentality and character totally come into play. It makes you realize a lot of sport is in the mind, and the real greats have won half the battle before they even enter the pitch.

[Adamski LFC]

Fair play Livo.85, didn't know that, no wonder he's so off the pace.  Thanks for the heads up.  He was just meant to be an example of any type of player who dips in form, just a handy one. 

horne; Great again, no doubt he will recover I didn't know even what Livo.85 posted. 

I remember something about a single skill, think not keepy-ups, more passing with your right foot to the same place on the wall, from the same delivery being 30-odd times.  Thinking about that and the studys that say to learn a musical instrument or sport well requires 10,000 hours of practice.  I would say this was a plethora of habits, mostly good, some bad.  This is not the end of learning but as you say, practice makes perfect. 

I think as we sleep we must use the HgH (Human Growth Hormone creates new brain cells, among other things) to grow more brain cells and connect them to 'embed' the idea.  I wonder if the 10,000 hours of practice goes beyond embedding this or several ideas, into a 'concept' about  the ideas.  This conept can then be interpreted for different scenarios using our brain's innate pattern matching skill. 

At the end of your first paragraph I would probably draw an analogy of our subconscious to be equivalent to the 'computer' mentioned earlier from Peters work.  No direct access but giving instinctive behaviour; like that guy who wrestled that shark in Aus recently.  He said he just did what he had to do.  Drawing your first paragraph with mine I think the we are both talking about the 'zone'.  I think in that case you let your automaticity/subcouncious/form/computer take over and he will be a great player in future.

Your second paragraph is correct in saying we need more back to back wins and I think Peters can help lift the weight of not winning the league, or getting in the Champion's League, every match comes down to 11 men against another 11 men.  We are indeed seeing more non-chimp belief in our progress this season.  I think any pass and move based football surrounded by a system and culture IS the Liverpool way.  I recently have watched a fair few Africa Cup Of Nations games this year and have been amazed how happy a lot of the crowd are, win, lose or draw.  I think that while the players are all still learning the system and absorbing Peters lessons they are indeed vulnerable to negativity, the longer they are in the system and culture, the better and the less affected they will be.  This means though we have to be supportive, a player knows if he has not played well and Rogers may tell him, and stand behind our team and let this culture of fans supporting the players, who do their best for their families, the club and the fans, stand forth.

You are indeed right though about the firefighting, some solid years of the same manager, and the same owners will give some stability.  The Liverpool way was a culture thing, from training to games, supporters on the street, in the stand and in the pubs it was all encompassing.  I think Rogers is talking in this direction using words like 'disciple' in his rhetoric.  He, I think, is trying to build a culture, the modern Liverpool way.  The old closed shop is very different now with the 24 hour news and Twitter and Facebook playing a massive part in today's world.  The manager just can't avoid the cameras, I actually think having the owners overseas, helps us in this regard, physical distance.  We need to stablise, just not like Roy Hodgson, though.

The Liverpool Way can be re-born in the moden world a sort of covenant betweek the fans, the club, the manager and the players.  The crowd then is instrumental for players coming to the club for all time, and for experienced Liverpool players engaged in the system and The Liverpool Way.  It will further cement the bond between the fans and the players.  The Ferguson point is an interesting one but if we do keep our heads down, we can come out on top.

As you say, horne, supporting the team now come, win, lose or draw will allow the progress to quicken, the extra 5% or whatever it is will be more readily attained.  The knee jerk reaction to any miss-placed pass should just be silenced internally, c'mon lad, let's get it back, any missed shot is not deliberately missed.  These players are mostly trying to play well, so let's support them and make their play better.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Fair play Livo.85, didn't know that, no wonder he's so off the pace.  Thanks for the heads up.  He was just meant to be an example of any type of player who dips in form, just a handy one. 

horne; Great again, no doubt he will recover I didn't know even what Livo.85 posted. 

I remember something about a single skill, think not keepy-ups, more passing with your right foot to the same place on the wall, from the same delivery being 30-odd times.  Thinking about that and the studys that say to learn a musical instrument or sport well requires 10,000 hours of practice.  I would say this was a plethora of habits, mostly good, some bad.  This is not the end of learning but as you say, practice makes perfect. 

I think as we sleep we must use the HgH (Human Growth Hormone creates new brain cells, among other things) to grow more brain cells and connect them to 'embed' the idea.  I wonder if the 10,000 hours of practice goes beyond embedding this or several ideas, into a 'concept' about  the ideas.  This conept can then be interpreted for different scenarios using our brain's innate pattern matching skill. 

At the end of your first paragraph I would probably draw an analogy of our subconscious to be equivalent to the 'computer' mentioned earlier from Peters work.  No direct access but giving instinctive behaviour; like that guy who wrestled that shark in Aus recently.  He said he just did what he had to do.  Drawing your first paragraph with mine I think the we are both talking about the 'zone'.  I think in that case you let your automaticity/subcouncious/form/computer take over and he will be a great player in future.

Your second paragraph is correct in saying we need more back to back wins and I think Peters can help lift the weight of not winning the league, or getting in the Champion's League, every match comes down to 11 men against another 11 men.  We are indeed seeing more non-chimp belief in our progress this season.  I think any pass and move based football surrounded by a system and culture IS the Liverpool way.  I recently have watched a fair few Africa Cup Of Nations games this year and have been amazed how happy a lot of the crowd are, win, lose or draw.  I think that while the players are all still learning the system and absorbing Peters lessons they are indeed vulnerable to negativity, the longer they are in the system and culture, the better and the less affected they will be.  This means though we have to be supportive, a player knows if he has not played well and Rogers may tell him, and stand behind our team and let this culture of fans supporting the players, who do their best for their families, the club and the fans, stand forth.

You are indeed right though about the firefighting, some solid years of the same manager, and the same owners will give some stability.  The Liverpool way was a culture thing, from training to games, supporters on the street, in the stand and in the pubs it was all encompassing.  I think Rogers is talking in this direction using words like 'disciple' in his rhetoric.  He, I think, is trying to build a culture, the modern Liverpool way.  The old closed shop is very different now with the 24 hour news and Twitter and Facebook playing a massive part in today's world.  The manager just can't avoid the cameras, I actually think having the owners overseas, helps us in this regard, physical distance.  We need to stablise, just not like Roy Hodgson, though.

The Liverpool Way can be re-born in the moden world a sort of covenant betweek the fans, the club, the manager and the players.  The crowd then is instrumental for players coming to the club for all time, and for experienced Liverpool players engaged in the system and The Liverpool Way.  It will further cement the bond between the fans and the players.  The Ferguson point is an interesting one but if we do keep our heads down, we can come out on top.

As you say, horne, supporting the team now come, win, lose or draw will allow the progress to quicken, the extra 5% or whatever it is will be more readily attained.  The knee jerk reaction to any miss-placed pass should just be silenced internally, c'mon lad, let's get it back, any missed shot is not deliberately missed.  These players are mostly trying to play well, so let's support them and make their play better.

The process is "myelination", and is more aptly described like a copper wire being wrapped with insulation - and the more "insulation" then the more secure the "connection" is. Which is why it is vital to practice deliberately (the key concept of the 10k hour rule discovered by K. Anders Ericsson), because what you learn - good or bad - will be retained. It is also more aptly described as 10k hours of STUDY and practice, rather than practice alone. You have to study your field, get a lot of different viewpoints, different experiences, etc. This is a key component as to why someone with a career in the game like Alan Shearer or any of the ex-United players (bar Solskjaer) fail as managers and coaches, while non-professional players like Mourinho, Houllier and Villas Boas thrive - they have studied and practiced management and coaching, rather than playing, so their expertise level is higher.

In terms of developing the template of play, too, there is also the argument for block versus random practice (or constraints based learning). For example, if you were to practice 100 shots on goal, with a delivery on the ground from the right hand side, for an hour, you would become very good at scoring from shots on the ground from the right hand side - in practice. When it gets brought into the game though, it frequently breaks down, because it wasn't practiced under game pressure. If you do the same concept in a 4v4 small sided game, though, with the condition that goals can only be scored from a cross on the ground, with a one-touch finish, then it will look like crap for about an hour, or maybe even more. But once the players learn the skill and how to read the visual triggers, it will stay with them for much longer and more successfully. This explains a number of things - firstly, why we were lacking any real rhythm at the start of the season, whereas now we look more solid and a genuine threat to teams with the ball at our feet. And secondly, it explains our successes in the 60's, 70's and 80's - we had what the Liverpool staff called "functions" in the 5-a-sides, in order to emphasise a specfic aspect of the game; these functions occurred randomly, so it became important for the players to zoom in on the vital visual triggers of the function, so that they could "read" the game in any situation - in other words, the first five yards were "in their heads". You couldn't get that understanding with a passing drill that repeats over and over and over. And playing is more fun than drilling, so players buy into it quicker. Not that drilling doesn't have a use - it is important to fix certain technical mistakes that require repetition. But the skill development (as opposed to technique development) is better coached under constraints-based learning than pure repetition. To extend the "Inner Game" algorithm - Performance=Potential  - Interference; but the paradox is that in practice, Interference actually aids better learning. So you use training with interference in order to reduce the effect of interference in performance.

[Adamski LFC]

Lovely as usual PoP,

Thanks for the extra knowledge on the myelination, too.

You are exactly correct as Royhendo points out in Bounce, the author got his technique broken down and built back up again in a new fashion that was advanced training.  Practice is ineed not all, you have to understand the context I guess.  You put this very well.

I am not a coach, nor have the wealth of understanding you do PoP on this contstraints basis, but the example you give, where the single touch right hand corner shot doesn't work in real play because of game pressure.  I thought the Peters idea was to remove that pressure, as for cycling, it's just another race, or for snooker, it is just another frame.  I would say the chimp reacts to the match pressure, but the better you have him under control, the less the gap is between practice and real play.  When you have a plan that says I can shoot from that position in your head, it can placate the chimp and also close that gap.

While you are building this training up though, the contraints basis may as well be followed as it almost guarantees no stage fright.  Your second paragraph is a brilliant explanation of this training method and why it works, if I am lucky enough to have children and their school football side is in need of some help, I think I could be of assitance now 

What are your thoughts on a new Liverpool Way, the whole ethos of a culture?

[Adamski LFC]

PoP, thinking about brain connections and the like, I wonder how much benefit can be gained from training with your weaker foot.  My limited knowledge would say it would encourage the halves of the brain to act more in concert, am I correct, do you know?

[PhaseOfPlay]

PoP, thinking about brain connections and the like, I wonder how much benefit can be gained from training with your weaker foot.  My limited knowledge would say it would encourage the halves of the brain to act more in concert, am I correct, do you know?

Firstly, there is some debate on whether we actually use the different hemispheres of our brain independently, as we have traditionally thought. It is more likely the case that we use both sides, but in different ratios, according to movement, concept, thought, etc.

As for working on the weaker foot - there is a study (or studies) that show that working on almost exclusively on the non-dominant side has equal gains on the dominant side even if you don't practice the dominant foot. There is a coaching company in Scotland based all around this idea. It has validity, for sure.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Lovely as usual PoP,

Thanks for the extra knowledge on the myelination, too.

You are exactly correct as Royhendo points out in Bounce, the author got his technique broken down and built back up again in a new fashion that was advanced training.  Practice is ineed not all, you have to understand the context I guess.  You put this very well.

I am not a coach, nor have the wealth of understanding you do PoP on this contstraints basis, but the example you give, where the single touch right hand corner shot doesn't work in real play because of game pressure.  I thought the Peters idea was to remove that pressure, as for cycling, it's just another race, or for snooker, it is just another frame.  I would say the chimp reacts to the match pressure, but the better you have him under control, the less the gap is between practice and real play.  When you have a plan that says I can shoot from that position in your head, it can placate the chimp and also close that gap.

For this, we have to be aware that skills are broken down into open skills and closed skills. Closed skills are skills with no direct interference from an outside agent - Snooker, Darts, Running, Cycling (to an extent). Open skills are those where there is direct interference - opponents, basically. It also exists on a continuum, so most sports are somewhere on the scale, biased towards one or the other. The key thing, though, is that if you work in a predominantly open skill environment (football, Rugby, Basketball), you should practice in an open skill environment to best replicate the conditions you will perform in. So although there is usefulness in practicing techniques in a closed skill setting, this should take up no more than 20% of training time. The majority of time should be spent in open skill practice - for example, dribbling through cones is a closed skill, and can correct technical flaws, but if you did 48 minutes of that and 12 minutes of a small sided game, you wouldn't be developing much; however, if you spent 12 minutes dribbling through cones and 48 minutes dribbling in competitive 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3 games, you will retain more and for longer, so you will actually become a more useful player. You have used contextual inference to say "okay, the player comes in at this angle, I should use X move - or if they come from that angle, I can use Y move to escape and turn".

There is validity to the Chimp analogy in terms of practice pressure and match pressure, but when we talk of match-pressure conditions in practice, we are really talking more of speed of play, competition for the ball, and direction, as opposed to outside factors like referees, crowds, and weather conditions. I think once we make that distinction, it makes it easier to talk about how mentality affects a player or team. You want them to be dispassionate to the extent that external factors don't hinder their game - but you also want them to be sensitive to the approval of the crowd, because it is positive feedback and positive feedback delivers greater responses than negative feedback (although negative feedback is necessary - see the Losada Line)

While you are building this training up though, the contraints basis may as well be followed as it almost guarantees no stage fright.  Your second paragraph is a brilliant explanation of this training method and why it works, if I am lucky enough to have children and their school football side is in need of some help, I think I could be of assitance now 

What are your thoughts on a new Liverpool Way, the whole ethos of a culture?

[Prof]

I’ve been following this thread for the last week, but haven’t had the time to contribute until now.  Thanks for the great OP and other contributions.

Just to comment on this first:

For this, we have to be aware that skills are broken down into open skills and closed skills. Closed skills are skills with no direct interference from an outside agent - Snooker, Darts, Running, Cycling (to an extent). Open skills are those where there is direct interference - opponents, basically. It also exists on a continuum, so most sports are somewhere on the scale, biased towards one or the other. The key thing, though, is that if you work in a predominantly open skill environment (football, Rugby, Basketball), you should practice in an open skill environment to best replicate the conditions you will perform in

I think it’s important to stress that the skill itself is ‘Open’ or ‘Closed’, not the sport.   Taking a corner is a pretty closed skill, whereas dribbling past an opponent is open.   This becomes relevant when practice is considered.  You could practice a corner kick like a golfer practicing tee shots, but open skills need to be practiced in game-like conditions.

This is a high-tech way to create open skill practice conditions:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WhAyX81zP2M" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/WhAyX81zP2M</a>

It’s a bit of a gimmick, but demonstrates the principles behind creating varied practice which includes the technical elements and perceptual processes.

The key to performance practice is creating practice environments that recreate the intensity and pressure of match situations.  The best way I can explain this simply is to use penalty shootout practice as an example.  If a team practices pens by taking them over and over in low pressure environments, when it matters, they will be let down due to a lack of familiarity with coping with pressure.   Conversely, if they practice by recreating the pressure exactly, they will cope better.  The conundrum in this case is how to create the pressure in a simulated environment.  There are examples of some teams heading into the playoffs having penalty shootouts after the final league game and asking the crowd to stay back.

There is also a need to make practice conditions more challenging than the actual match.  For example, taking penalties in practice from 18 yards not 12 and have small targets in the goal to hit, not just the whole goal to aim at.  Jonny Wilkinson practiced with Dave Alred in this way, by practicing place kicks from where the five metre line meets the side line, creating a very tight angle to the posts.  Alred took the same principles into working with Luke Donald who he took from about 30th in the world to number 1.  One of the drills he did was to get Donald to hit to greens that were only 5 yards in diameter.  Here’s a video of Alred talking a bit about mindset:

http://www.golfingworld.tv/videos/973232859001/1043227685001/dave-alred-luke-donald-s-coach

A friend of mine had a weeklong trial at Crewe as a teenager (he was already a pro trying to break into a first team setup) and was telling me about a session with Dario Gradi.  He was a striker and was kept back after training with the other forwards for shooting practice.  Basically, the first drill was one we’ve all probably seen.  The striker passes the ball into the coach on the edge of the D, who lays it off either side and the striker has to shoot from outside the box.  At this point, my mate isn’t impressed.  He’s just firing in shot after shot just inside the posts.  After about 5 minutes, Gradi then tells him to hit the net without it bouncing.  This completely changes the drill.  He then struggled to have the same accuracy.

What Gradi had done was to get my mate to strike the ball better or he wouldn’t be successful.  He didn’t tell him to focus on the quality of the strike, but that was the natural consequence of the drill.  It meant that the level of challenge for the task was now much higher and the learning much more effective.

I’ll leave this post here, but I could write so much more about decision making processes, perceptual skills, advance cues, motor control etc.  I don’t want to bore people.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I’ve been following this thread for the last week, but haven’t had the time to contribute until now.  Thanks for the great OP and other contributions.

Just to comment on this first:

I think it’s important to stress that the skill itself is ‘Open’ or ‘Closed’, not the sport.   Taking a corner is a pretty closed skill, whereas dribbling past an opponent is open.   This becomes relevant when practice is considered.  You could practice a corner kick like a golfer practicing tee shots, but open skills need to be practiced in game-like conditions.

This is a high-tech way to create open skill practice conditions:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WhAyX81zP2M" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/WhAyX81zP2M</a>

It’s a bit of a gimmick, but demonstrates the principles behind creating varied practice which includes the technical elements and perceptual processes.

The key to performance practice is creating practice environments that recreate the intensity and pressure of match situations.  The best way I can explain this simply is to use penalty shootout practice as an example.  If a team practices pens by taking them over and over in low pressure environments, when it matters, they will be let down due to a lack of familiarity with coping with pressure.   Conversely, if they practice by recreating the pressure exactly, they will cope better.  The conundrum in this case is how to create the pressure in a simulated environment.  There are examples of some teams heading into the playoffs having penalty shootouts after the final league game and asking the crowd to stay back.

There is also a need to make practice conditions more challenging than the actual match.  For example, taking penalties in practice from 18 yards not 12 and have small targets in the goal to hit, not just the whole goal to aim at.  Jonny Wilkinson practiced with Dave Alred in this way, by practicing place kicks from where the five metre line meets the side line, creating a very tight angle to the posts.  Alred took the same principles into working with Luke Donald who he took from about 30th in the world to number 1.  One of the drills he did was to get Donald to hit to greens that were only 5 yards in diameter.  Here’s a video of Alred talking a bit about mindset:

http://www.golfingworld.tv/videos/973232859001/1043227685001/dave-alred-luke-donald-s-coach

A friend of mine had a weeklong trial at Crewe as a teenager (he was already a pro trying to break into a first team setup) and was telling me about a session with Dario Gradi.  He was a striker and was kept back after training with the other forwards for shooting practice.  Basically, the first drill was one we’ve all probably seen.  The striker passes the ball into the coach on the edge of the D, who lays it off either side and the striker has to shoot from outside the box.  At this point, my mate isn’t impressed.  He’s just firing in shot after shot just inside the posts.  After about 5 minutes, Gradi then tells him to hit the net without it bouncing.  This completely changes the drill.  He then struggled to have the same accuracy.

What Gradi had done was to get my mate to strike the ball better or he wouldn’t be successful.  He didn’t tell him to focus on the quality of the strike, but that was the natural consequence of the drill.  It meant that the level of challenge for the task was now much higher and the learning much more effective.

I’ll leave this post here, but I could write so much more about decision making processes, perceptual skills, advance cues, motor control etc.  I don’t want to bore people.

Not boring at all

I like the Gradi example. He's one of the better British coaches and it's no surprise he helped to produce so many young players are Crewe.

It's a big and largely unexplored area - the work of Wayne Harrison, Dortmund, and Michel Bruyninckx is phenomenal.

[Dash Snow]

I reckon on RAWK we could get together and make a coaching bible between us.  Maybe I would do the foreword as I have no idea player drills and the like.  The closest I got to it was on footy manager!

This is a actually a brilliant idea. Could be something like this systems series.

[tboz]

Really like where this thread is going in terms of training

I don't want to take anything away from it or detract from it but i was thinking about too issues and what the view on the purpose of training- what it was good for and the role it played.

My first one was with individuals and addressing weaknesses: Although there is a lot in philosophy and and team systems what part of the training session is dedicated to improving individual ability. Two examples would be Assaidi and Sterling, both have shown natural ability at playing as a wide man with there key attribute being dribbling and taking on the full back, two areas that they can improve is there off ball movement and crossing. As they are already comfortable with there dribbling is the manager doing drill training where he getting them provide range of crosses? I assume that with his preferred system they are learning about off the ball movement. Otherwise is it down to them to practice this in their own time? I hope not because i can't see them further developing.

My second interest is training as units: In Agger and Skrtel i think we have too good defenders who could walk into most teams yet they seem to make the same mistake or don't seem to work in great  tandem, do you think Brendan Rodgers has identified them as his starting two (or even a back 4) and is having them train in scenarios as a pair or review where they are going wrong, this can even be applied to 3 man midfield? I would hope that for the 3 roles he has identified the 2 players for each role and they are constantly training learning where they should be and what they need to do.

In short we have some young players with promise and the real question for me is how the club and themselves establish that talent.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Really like where this thread is going in terms of training

I don't want to take anything away from it or detract from it but i was thinking about too issues and what the view on the purpose of training- what it was good for and the role it played.

My first one was with individuals and addressing weaknesses: Although there is a lot in philosophy and and team systems what part of the training session is dedicated to improving individual ability. Two examples would be Assaidi and Sterling, both have shown natural ability at playing as a wide man with there key attribute being dribbling and taking on the full back, two areas that they can improve is there off ball movement and crossing. As they are already comfortable with there dribbling is the manager doing drill training where he getting them provide range of crosses? I assume that with his preferred system they are learning about off the ball movement. Otherwise is it down to them to practice this in their own time? I hope not because i can't see them further developing.

My second interest is training as units: In Agger and Skrtel i think we have too good defenders who could walk into most teams yet they seem to make the same mistake or don't seem to work in great  tandem, do you think Brendan Rodgers has identified them as his starting two (or even a back 4) and is having them train in scenarios as a pair or review where they are going wrong, this can even be applied to 3 man midfield? I would hope that for the 3 roles he has identified the 2 players for each role and they are constantly training learning where they should be and what they need to do.

In short we have some young players with promise and the real question for me is how the club and themselves establish that talent.

This wouldn't be Rodgers methodology, I don't think. There might be individual sessions where this happens, but by and large, everything will be worked on in small sided games. The games might have overloads, or conditions, or the variables might be manipulated to accentuate a coaching point (field size, goal size, number of goals, numbers of players, neutral players, etc). But I think functional training of units is probably not worked on as a major part of the sessions. Rodgers is working from principles that apply throughout the entire team, so that anyone can step into the role and do the job without having to be specifically trained to do so.

Additionally, the fitness and conditioning aspect is built into the small sided games, so sticking to the intensity and the work to rest ratio is vital. Any deviation from that and the conditioning aspect is lost, and the sessions would have to be split into "Fitness" and "tactics", and that, for Rodgers, would be too inefficient. Maximum contact time with the ball and football-movements is the key factor in how the staff construct the sessions.

It might be the case, though, that certain partnerships are paired up when the teams are split for the small sided games. Small sided games could be as small as 1v1 and as large as 8v8. The time of the season might also influence what types of games are being used.

[horne]

just out of interest,where do you all stand with hypnosis in sport?...is it something that Steve Peters uses as a tool do you think?

[PhaseOfPlay]

just out of interest,where do you all stand with hypnosis in sport?...is it something that Steve Peters uses as a tool do you think?

It's valuable for focus, but really you want players to not need it as a crutch before a game. It's main benefit will be for anxiety management, so that players are just below peak-arousal, and not over-anxious or under-anxious.

[tboz]

This wouldn't be Rodgers methodology, I don't think. There might be individual sessions where this happens, but by and large, everything will be worked on in small sided games. The games might have overloads, or conditions, or the variables might be manipulated to accentuate a coaching point (field size, goal size, number of goals, numbers of players, neutral players, etc). But I think functional training of units is probably not worked on as a major part of the sessions. Rodgers is working from principles that apply throughout the entire team, so that anyone can step into the role and do the job without having to be specifically trained to do so.

Additionally, the fitness and conditioning aspect is built into the small sided games, so sticking to the intensity and the work to rest ratio is vital. Any deviation from that and the conditioning aspect is lost, and the sessions would have to be split into "Fitness" and "tactics", and that, for Rodgers, would be too inefficient. Maximum contact time with the ball and football-movements is the key factor in how the staff construct the sessions.

It might be the case, though, that certain partnerships are paired up when the teams are split for the small sided games. Small sided games could be as small as 1v1 and as large as 8v8. The time of the season might also influence what types of games are being used.

Well if this is the case how our players expected to develop individual attributes and position requirements? I would have thought that having match analysis you would then learn from your mistake in training whilst working on what you need to be doing. At the moment it just seems to focused on systems.
Take another player for example Andre Wisdom, fitting in the team well and carrying out his task but if he is going to claim a place in the team he needs to be able to shut out or quiet down a class winger at the moment he cant get this opportunity as johnson and enrique are ahead of him but how is he and others going to to develop these traits?

[PhaseOfPlay]

Well if this is the case how our players expected to develop individual attributes and position requirements? I would have thought that having match analysis you would then learn from your mistake in training whilst working on what you need to be doing. At the moment it just seems to focused on systems.
Take another player for example Andre Wisdom, fitting in the team well and carrying out his task but if he is going to claim a place in the team he needs to be able to shut out or quiet down a class winger at the moment he cant get this opportunity as johnson and enrique are ahead of him but how is he and others going to to develop these traits?

You learn in the small sided game. If you want to work on your fullbacks marking wingers, you manipulate the field to make crosses a natural pattern of play - so a wide and short field (maybe 40 yards long, and the width of the field). Play 6v6 plus GK's - two defenders, two forwards, two wingbacks. Now the coach can make their coaching points when the situations occur. However, if a wingback is already doing the right things, then it means they are not redundant in a functional drill - they might get to work on crossing, while another wingback is the focus of the exercise.

Just because things are done in small sided games, doesn't mean that individual things aren't getting done - it just means that everyone is learning something relevant to them, and the positions that need work get the attention, while the rest remain active in the exercise and can concentrate on something they need to concentrate on (in this example - the wingbacks are the focus of the exercise, but the forwards get to work on finishing from crosses, the central defenders get to work on defending crosses, but they also get to work on shooting from distance, while the forwards get to work on pressing from the front - global integrated training).

[tboz]

OK fair points. So do you believe that the same players and the team are making the same mistakes and if so what do you think needs to be done in terms of system and training or is it a case bringing the right personnel?

[horne]

It's valuable for focus, but really you want players to not need it as a crutch before a game. It's main benefit will be for anxiety management, so that players are just below peak-arousal, and not over-anxious or under-anxious.

is that 'the zone' ?...that they talk about?
i found it interesting listening to rebecca adlington the swimmer before during and post olympics.
she was nailed on for a gold and ended up with a bronze i think...but its that question again...that intrigued me....physically she was on the money...psychologically ...yeh...she had evrything in place to suggest that she was capable of nicking gold...what went wrong...was it psychological?...
there was a lot of head scratching going on over her by the experts and i dont think anyone nailed it...they just assumed that shes too old now and newbies are shunting themselves in at a younger age and she has just retired because of it...in her own words...im too old..its time to get out
well....listening to her talking after the event...she said i dont know what went wrong ...ive trained hard ,ive been coming in with great times...but it just dint happen on the day.....actually no real answer...just an assumption
what she did say though that was the night before was the opening ceremony...alarm bells rang for me...most athletes dont go to that if they have an event the next day...do you think that the emotion of that and the knock on effect such as probably not getting to sleep...reliving the experience over and over ,tossing and turning..actually took away the edge,that little bit of energy needed to be at her peak on the day?....
does high and low emotion effect youre energy levels...even the day before...im thinking the day before big games here?....
And im going to go a step further here...if im right in my thinking....does the burst of emotion after scoring a goal drain at all...?...
i mean a possible mind set could be contain the burst of emotion...nothing won yet...leave that to the fans...get back defend the onslaught ...and celebrate when the final whistle goes?....

[PhaseOfPlay]

OK fair points. So do you believe that the same players and the team are making the same mistakes and if so what do you think needs to be done in terms of system and training or is it a case bringing the right personnel?

When players are pushed out of their comfort zone, they make mistakes. On the other hand, you don't get better without going outside of your comfort zone and making mistakes. So as long as they are getting quality feedback on what they did wrong, and how it can be fixed, they will be fine. Unfortunately, it takes a bit of time and experience, and - oddly enough - rest, before the mental adaptations take effect. That's why I'm hopeful that we will see Skrtel and Agger, for example, defending a little differently than they have this year. The time off in the off-season to reflect on their game will benefit them enormously. If it doesn't, then coaching won't be the answer - any player who can't adapt will have to be replaced.

[PhaseOfPlay]

is that 'the zone' ?...that they talk about?
i found it interesting listening to rebecca adlington the swimmer before during and post olympics.
she was nailed on for a gold and ended up with a bronze i think...but its that question again...that intrigued me....physically she was on the money...psychologically ...yeh...she had evrything in place to suggest that she was capable of nicking gold...what went wrong...was it psychological?...
there was a lot of head scratching going on over her by the experts and i dont think anyone nailed it...they just assumed that shes too old now and newbies are shunting themselves in at a younger age and she has just retired because of it...in her own words...im too old..its time to get out
well....listening to her talking after the event...she said i dont know what went wrong ...ive trained hard ,ive been coming in with great times...but it just dint happen on the day.....actually no real answer...just an assumption
what she did say though that was the night before was the opening ceremony...alarm bells rang for me...most athletes dont go to that if they have an event the next day...do you think that the emotion of that and the knock on effect such as probably not getting to sleep...reliving the experience over and over ,tossing and turning..actually took away the edge,that little bit of energy needed to be at her peak on the day?....
does high and low emotion effect youre energy levels...even the day before...im thinking the day before big games here?....
And im going to go a step further here...if im right in my thinking....does the burst of emotion after scoring a goal drain at all...?...
i mean a possible mind set could be contain the burst of emotion...nothing won yet...leave that to the fans...get back defend the onslaught ...and celebrate when the final whistle goes?....

I don't know enough about her situation, but from a comparitive football perspective, even the smallest thing can make an athlete over-anxious (I know of a player who spent an entire off-season freaking out about the Beep Test when they went back to their club. They trained hard but it was always on the back of their mind. They failed it, and lost their contract. It was only a few years later when they stopped worrying about it that they consistently passed it, and consequently enjoyed their best seasons in years). It certainly sounds like her mental "zone" was knocked off a little.

I was watching "One Night in Istanbul" recently, and Phil Thompson, I think, said that as soon as Dudek made that double-save from Shevchenko near the end, before the penalties, Thompson felt that Shevchenko would miss a penalty if he took one. That kind of nailed-on, dead-cert goal that could have won the game but didn't happen can really get to a player if they don't know how to manage external events in their own mind.

This psychological aspect of football is the next big area of improvement, and possibly the "final frontier" for the game (I think).

[Vulmea]

This psychological aspect of football is the next big area of improvement, and possibly the "final frontier" for the game (I think).

I've never really understood why transfers dont focus on this more - the hit and miss nature of the transfer market must be the most wasteful use of resources in the game

[PhaseOfPlay]

I've never really understood why transfers dont focus on this more - the hit and miss nature of the transfer market must be the most wasteful use of resources in the game

I think it might be because it isn't so obvious on the field, and you can't do psychometric tests on players you don't have a contract with. I read somewhere that there is a club/organisation looking into this, but I can't for the life of me remember where. Shanks used to buy players with "natural enthusiasm", which, when you think about it, were basically Type A people - aggressive, hyperactive and hyper-competitive. When you look at Paisley's buys, they were the same. But now that the fitness demands are higher, almost every player is a Type A personality, because you have to be to get by in the cut-throat world of professional football. So now it becomes more subtle and specific, and that's a little harder to read from a visual perspective.

I think the next thing clubs will look for are players who manage anxiety better. The players who can "put their foot on the ball" and play calm under pressure?

[BreakfastPercy]

I’ve been following this thread for the last week, but haven’t had the time to contribute until now.  Thanks for the great OP and other contributions.

Just to comment on this first:

I think it’s important to stress that the skill itself is ‘Open’ or ‘Closed’, not the sport.   Taking a corner is a pretty closed skill, whereas dribbling past an opponent is open.   This becomes relevant when practice is considered.  You could practice a corner kick like a golfer practicing tee shots, but open skills need to be practiced in game-like conditions.

This is a high-tech way to create open skill practice conditions:

VIDEO REMOVED

It’s a bit of a gimmick, but demonstrates the principles behind creating varied practice which includes the technical elements and perceptual processes.

The key to performance practice is creating practice environments that recreate the intensity and pressure of match situations.  The best way I can explain this simply is to use penalty shootout practice as an example.  If a team practices pens by taking them over and over in low pressure environments, when it matters, they will be let down due to a lack of familiarity with coping with pressure.   Conversely, if they practice by recreating the pressure exactly, they will cope better.  The conundrum in this case is how to create the pressure in a simulated environment.  There are examples of some teams heading into the playoffs having penalty shootouts after the final league game and asking the crowd to stay back.

There is also a need to make practice conditions more challenging than the actual match.  For example, taking penalties in practice from 18 yards not 12 and have small targets in the goal to hit, not just the whole goal to aim at.  Jonny Wilkinson practiced with Dave Alred in this way, by practicing place kicks from where the five metre line meets the side line, creating a very tight angle to the posts.  Alred took the same principles into working with Luke Donald who he took from about 30th in the world to number 1.  One of the drills he did was to get Donald to hit to greens that were only 5 yards in diameter.  Here’s a video of Alred talking a bit about mindset:

http://www.golfingworld.tv/videos/973232859001/1043227685001/dave-alred-luke-donald-s-coach

A friend of mine had a weeklong trial at Crewe as a teenager (he was already a pro trying to break into a first team setup) and was telling me about a session with Dario Gradi.  He was a striker and was kept back after training with the other forwards for shooting practice.  Basically, the first drill was one we’ve all probably seen.  The striker passes the ball into the coach on the edge of the D, who lays it off either side and the striker has to shoot from outside the box.  At this point, my mate isn’t impressed.  He’s just firing in shot after shot just inside the posts.  After about 5 minutes, Gradi then tells him to hit the net without it bouncing.  This completely changes the drill.  He then struggled to have the same accuracy.

What Gradi had done was to get my mate to strike the ball better or he wouldn’t be successful.  He didn’t tell him to focus on the quality of the strike, but that was the natural consequence of the drill.  It meant that the level of challenge for the task was now much higher and the learning much more effective.

I’ll leave this post here, but I could write so much more about decision making processes, perceptual skills, advance cues, motor control etc.  I don’t want to bore people.

Thanks Prof very interesting. I guess a lot of that follows with the idea that Downing was superb in training (Capello in particular mentioned this) and yet struggled to recreate it under the pressure of a Liverpool matchday. Rodgers and Peters seem to cover most of the bases between them, with Peters helping to reduce the effects of outside distractions in-game (bringing the feel of the matchday closer to training), and Rodgers using drills to prepare players to be better equipped to cope in-game (bring feel of training closer to matchday). Both combined should make the training/matchday overlap bigger right?

[BreakfastPercy]

Also if I can be controversial, an interview with Damien Commoli on Liverpool's transfer strategy at the time:

"The first thing we used to look for is the talent, but not anymore," Comolli said. "What we want is a talented player but with the right attitude and intelligence. Is he a team player? Is he intelligent enough that he puts himself at the disposal of the team? We need to look a lot more at the psychological aspect of the player, the attitude of the player, the mentality of the player on the pitch than we used to."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ben_lyttleton/10/11/liverpool.comolli/index.html#ixzz2KQIGzeDq

Has that actually in some way been borne out by the response from the likes of Henderson? Even Andy carroll seemed to fight tooth and nail to stay and play.

Is every club doomed to post-rationalize Commoli's signings as not quite as miserable as they were at the time?

[Adamski LFC]

Bloody hell, wow, away for less than 24 hours and the quality of posts has accelerated, amazing!

Regarding hypnosis first, I have not heard any of his patients or him talking about this, I think a lot of what he does is prior to match day, helping the players with their football and non-football life and breaking down pressures that can be fore-seen by using tactics to reduce their anxieties.

Secondly, not in order, but training the other foot means your decision making has to improve too, do I hit this with this foot or that, which spaces are open to me with either foot.  This will broaden your tactical knowledge, so can reap rewards your same-foot training cannot.

Prof that gadget still, I think, does not replicate open skills, it goes some way, but I think it cannot quite match it in the way 4v4 or 6v6 training does.  Especially, when the manager before the training says 'x' amount of places are available for the upcoming game, prove your mettle here and you have a strong chance to make it.  Your talk about Gradi and that training is an excellent example of taking a drill and making it more challenging,  so more like advanced training.

Regarding the zone I don't think it has anything to do with anxiety, apart from not having it, it also needs the acceptance to allow it to happen, as your 'computer' or instincts take over your mind.  Excellent example in Rebecca Adlington, regards less almost of the night's sleep, more that unless you are keeping complete cycles of sleep it has some wear on your mind, if not your body.

Regarding out of comfort zone, as you say PoP, unless you are training in it, you can develop new skills, but you are correct i seeing time spent in your mind before it beds it.  As you say , though, plans and confidence are key to disregarding anxiety which is caused by your chimp.  As is regarding what you are doing as being much of the same as you have always done, no drama.

Looking at transfers, you can sense some of the mentality and physical prowess of a player, and I think the whole weight of the shirt Rogers first talked about can now be dealt with so we should see transfers in the future as not having a dip in form so much when after the first couple of weeks.  Regarding the non-evident attributes like their attitude to training, their ultimate ability once it is revealed, and say, their mindset with the current set of players, all these will take time to reveal.

Lastly PoP again, the anxiety management is part of Peters skills so we can help overcome that.

[Prof]

Prof that gadget still, I think, does not replicate open skills, it goes some way, but I think it cannot quite match it in the way 4v4 or 6v6 training does.  Especially, when the manager before the training says 'x' amount of places are available for the upcoming game, prove your mettle here and you have a strong chance to make it.  Your talk about Gradi and that training is an excellent example of taking a drill and making it more challenging,  so more like advanced training.

I agree it doesn't replicate a match situation.  What it does though is it isolates a specific group of skills so the player can develop the perceptual skills (often called 'vision') specifically.  It's quite common for skill practice to only focus on the motor skill, so making an open skill closed in the practice situation.  This bridges that gap.  As I said though, it's a gimmick.  I'd love to have a go in it, but I wouldn't buy one to replace the drllls you mention.

Thanks Prof very interesting. I guess a lot of that follows with the idea that Downing was superb in training (Capello in particular mentioned this) and yet struggled to recreate it under the pressure of a Liverpool matchday. Rodgers and Peters seem to cover most of the bases between them, with Peters helping to reduce the effects of outside distractions in-game (bringing the feel of the matchday closer to training), and Rodgers using drills to prepare players to be better equipped to cope in-game (bring feel of training closer to matchday). Both combined should make the training/matchday overlap bigger right?

Simply, you'd hope so, but that isn't the only reason for particular types of approach to practice.

I'll try to find time to write about perceptual skills in a bit more detail.  I'm currently juggling my twins*.

* For those of you who don't know, I have 7 month old twin sons, I'm not referring to any other twins in my life 

[SYLENTm]

I agree it doesn't replicate a match situation.  What it does though is it isolates a specific group of skills so the player can develop the perceptual skills (often called 'vision') specifically.  It's quite common for skill practice to only focus on the motor skill, so making an open skill closed in the practice situation.  This bridges that gap.  As I said though, it's a gimmick.  I'd love to have a go in it, but I wouldn't buy one to replace the drllls you mention.

Simply, you'd hope so, but that isn't the only reason for particular types of approach to practice.

I'll try to find time to write about perceptual skills in a bit more detail.  I'm currently juggling my twins*.

* For those of you who don't know, I have 7 month old twin sons, I'm not referring to any other twins in my life 

Too late, the Olsen twins is all I can think about now

[PhaseOfPlay]

Bloody hell, wow, away for less than 24 hours and the quality of posts has accelerated, amazing!

Regarding hypnosis first, I have not heard any of his patients or him talking about this, I think a lot of what he does is prior to match day, helping the players with their football and non-football life and breaking down pressures that can be fore-seen by using tactics to reduce their anxieties.

Secondly, not in order, but training the other foot means your decision making has to improve too, do I hit this with this foot or that, which spaces are open to me with either foot.  This will broaden your tactical knowledge, so can reap rewards your same-foot training cannot.

Most players train both feet anyway, especially if they trained outside of England. When they choose to use their dominant foot, when their weaker foot would be best, it is usually not because they can't - but because they won't. They don't have a growth mindset - they have a fixed mindset focused on outcomes rather than processes.

Prof that gadget still, I think, does not replicate open skills, it goes some way, but I think it cannot quite match it in the way 4v4 or 6v6 training does.  Especially, when the manager before the training says 'x' amount of places are available for the upcoming game, prove your mettle here and you have a strong chance to make it.  Your talk about Gradi and that training is an excellent example of taking a drill and making it more challenging,  so more like advanced training.

Regarding the zone I don't think it has anything to do with anxiety, apart from not having it, it also needs the acceptance to allow it to happen, as your 'computer' or instincts take over your mind.  Excellent example in Rebecca Adlington, regards less almost of the night's sleep, more that unless you are keeping complete cycles of sleep it has some wear on your mind, if not your body.

Anxiety is a big part of the zone. As I said, you can't be under-anxious or over-anxious (actually, "aroused" is probably a better word than "Anxious") - you have to be right in that zone where you have an "edge" to your game - physically on alert, but mentally relaxed. To be technical, you need to be somewhere on the threshold of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. "Coiled" might be a good description of it.

Regarding out of comfort zone, as you say PoP, unless you are training in it, you can develop new skills, but you are correct i seeing time spent in your mind before it beds it.  As you say , though, plans and confidence are key to disregarding anxiety which is caused by your chimp.  As is regarding what you are doing as being much of the same as you have always done, no drama.

I haven't read Dr. Peters, but I have read Beswick, Abrahams, Ericsson, Dweck, etc. so I can't speak about the "Chimp" - but in my experience and studies, it always comes back to the Four C's - Confidence, Control, Concentration and Commitment. Control is the big thing, I think, when talking about the "Chimp" - but also Commitment. There are varying levels of it, and types, and often the wrong type of commitment is emphasised on teams, and it has a detrimental effect on the eventual outcomes.

Looking at transfers, you can sense some of the mentality and physical prowess of a player, and I think the whole weight of the shirt Rogers first talked about can now be dealt with so we should see transfers in the future as not having a dip in form so much when after the first couple of weeks.  Regarding the non-evident attributes like their attitude to training, their ultimate ability once it is revealed, and say, their mindset with the current set of players, all these will take time to reveal.

Agreed. I think it's part of the reason why transfers are so hard to get right. Coaching is a big part of football, but it's not the biggest part - it still comes down to how well and how efficiently you recruit players and assemble a complimentary team. That's why some managers succeed without being good coaches, but some good coaches fail at management even though they have the training ground knowledge one would desire.

Lastly PoP again, the anxiety management is part of Peters skills so we can help overcome that.

I would say so. I'm quite excited about how we'll shape up with a full pre-season with him, now that most of the players have adapted to the tactical requirements.

[dnkw]

I'd be interested to know if any research has been done regarding how meditation helps with controlling the 'chimp' when under pressure.

[Adamski LFC]

Most players train both feet anyway, especially if they trained outside of England. When they choose to use their dominant foot, when their weaker foot would be best, it is usually not because they can't - but because they won't. They don't have a growth mindset - they have a fixed mindset focused on outcomes rather than processes.

This what I am talking about, futsal and similar small scale tight games allows skills with both feet to flourish, you have to be adaptable to cope with different situations, reacting with the best play, not the one you want to play, ideally.  This breeds, I would guess, confidence in both feet but would require your brain to help out with choosing the right option, so mental and tactical growth too.

Anxiety is a big part of the zone. As I said, you can't be under-anxious or over-anxious (actually, "aroused" is probably a better word than "Anxious") - you have to be right in that zone where you have an "edge" to your game - physically on alert, but mentally relaxed. To be technical, you need to be somewhere on the threshold of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. "Coiled" might be a good description of it.

I think you and I are talking about different zone concepts.  I am talking about sportsmen after playing superbly well, talk about being, "in the zone", where time slows and they just seem to make the right decisions.  If we deal with the zone you are talking about I would say my zone would be the other way around - mentally on alert, an physically relaxed, allowing your mind to get you in the zone where the body responds almost subconsciously.  If in your case you are talking about mentally relaxed as not being too anxious or too confident perhaps it would be better to say, and this is only a suggestion, but I would say you need to be ready and balanced.  If you had enough of each side of the antagonistic behaviours - enough aggression and enough humility, enough control and enough relaxation etc, then you are best placed to deploy the best judgement for a moment in time.  My limited understanding or the sympathetic (quick response) and parasymmpathetic (measured response) systems could also be called 'ready' or 'charged'. This is only my idea and I am happy to be proved wrong by science.

I haven't read Dr. Peters, but I have read Beswick, Abrahams, Ericsson, Dweck, etc. so I can't speak about the "Chimp" - but in my experience and studies, it always comes back to the Four C's - Confidence, Control, Concentration and Commitment. Control is the big thing, I think, when talking about the "Chimp" - but also Commitment. There are varying levels of it, and types, and often the wrong type of commitment is emphasised on teams, and it has a detrimental effect on the eventual outcomes.

Not read any of those, and am not a scientist in this field.  Dr. Peters talks also but understanding your chimp, it was the core survival function that helped man become more cerebral in the first place.  I think these four C's are all human emotions as distinct from the chimp ones.  The most confident player can miss a penalty, as the chimp makes you doubt your skills.  It is for anger, bravado, fear, anxiety, manic happiness and so on that the chimp is responsible for.  How would your studies class the sports phenomenon - choking?  You lose control during choking, but that is not the cause, you lose confidence but why?  You still are concentrating and have commitment.

[Prof]

I'd be interested to know if any research has been done regarding how meditation helps with controlling the 'chimp' when under pressure.

There's loads of research in that area.

This book (Eugen Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery) is widely cited as the initial introduction if buddhist meditation techniques in sport:

http://www.ideologic.org/files/Eugen_Herrigel_-_Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery.pdf

This Journal article makes a nice commentary if you want an in depth read:

Jenkins, S 2008, Zen Buddhism, Sport Psychology and Golf, International Journal Of Sports Science & Coaching, 3, 0, pp. 215-236.

[horne]

interesting read here on the topic of choking

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/13185266

The psychology of choking

By Matthew Syed
Journalist, broadcaster and former Commonwealth table tennis champion
The Champions League semi-finals are still a few days away, but the prospect of the dreaded penalty shoot-out is already looming.
Chelsea captain John Terry has admitted that it took months to come to terms with the spot-kick he missed in the Champions League final in 2008, when he slipped before making contact with the ball.
Former England defender Gareth Southgate will probably always be associated with his miss at the European Championship semi-final in 1996, when he shot with a woeful lack of conviction.
Both men have testified how treacherously difficult it is to score from 12 yards when you are shouldering the hopes of millions.
It is not the difficulty of the task - most top players invariably score during practice sessions - but the enormity of the moment. The problem is not ability but nerve. This, of course, is the essence of performance psychology.

Chelsea captain Terry slipped as he missed his penalty in 2008
The tendency to lose one's nerve - or "choke" - was seen in graphic fashion in the Masters at Augusta earlier this month. Rory McIlroy was within touching distance of the Green Jacket when he underwent a devastating implosion.
It was not just his woods and irons that deserted him, but his putting and chipping, too. For a while it was as if he had become a novice again.
Few of us have played international sport, but in a curious way we can all relate to the curse of choking. When we are interviewed for a job we don't care about, we are relaxed, confident and the answers flow.
But when we are interviewed for a job that means everything, that is when our mouth dries and our brain, all too often, stalls. We fluff our lines in precisely the same way McIlroy fluffed his drive on the 10th tee.
But why? Why are so many of us inclined to mess up at precisely the moment when messing up is most calamitous? Why are we so prone to fail when we most want to succeed?
For years the paradox of choking seemed incomprehensible to psychologists and sportsmen alike. It is only in recent years that neuroscientists have glimpsed the answers, and they are both intriguing and revelatory.
Consider what happens when you are learning a task, say driving a car. When you start out, you have to focus intently to move the gearstick while shifting the steering wheel and pushing the clutch. Indeed, at the beginning these tasks are so difficult to execute that the instructor starts you off in a car park.

South Africa's cricketers have been frequently labelled 'chokers' after collapsing in World Cups
But now consider what happens after hundreds of hours of practice. Now, you can perform these skills effortlessly, without any conscious control, so that you are able to arrive at your destination without even being aware of how you got there.
In effect, experts and novices use two completely different brain systems. Long practice enables experienced performers to encode a skill in implicit memory, and they perform almost without thinking about it.
This is called expert-induced amnesia. Novices, on the other hand, wield the explicit system, consciously monitoring what they are doing as they build the neural framework supporting the task.
But now suppose an expert were to suddenly find himself using the "wrong" system. It wouldn't matter how good he was because he would now be at the mercy of the explicit system.
The highly sophisticated skills encoded in the subconscious part of his brain would count for nothing. He would find himself striving for victory using neural pathways he last used as a novice.
This is the neurophysiology of choking. It is triggered when we get so anxious that we seize conscious control over a task that should be executed automatically.
That is why McIlroy's technique was so stilted - explicit monitoring was vying with implicit execution. The problem was not insufficient focus, but too much focus. Conscious monitoring had disrupted the smooth workings of the subconscious. He was, in a literal sense, a novice again.
This is why choking is so dramatic: it triggers a psychological metamorphosis. And this is why those slated to taken penalties in the semi-finals will be working as hard on their mental as their physical games.
There are many methods that can avert choking, but the ultimate objective can be summed up in one sentence. As the Nike ad puts it: "Just do it".
Matthew Syed is the author of Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice

[PhaseOfPlay]

Most players train both feet anyway, especially if they trained outside of England. When they choose to use their dominant foot, when their weaker foot would be best, it is usually not because they can't - but because they won't. They don't have a growth mindset - they have a fixed mindset focused on outcomes rather than processes.

This what I am talking about, futsal and similar small scale tight games allows skills with both feet to flourish, you have to be adaptable to cope with different situations, reacting with the best play, not the one you want to play, ideally.  This breeds, I would guess, confidence in both feet but would require your brain to help out with choosing the right option, so mental and tactical growth too.

Anxiety is a big part of the zone. As I said, you can't be under-anxious or over-anxious (actually, "aroused" is probably a better word than "Anxious") - you have to be right in that zone where you have an "edge" to your game - physically on alert, but mentally relaxed. To be technical, you need to be somewhere on the threshold of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. "Coiled" might be a good description of it.

I think you and I are talking about different zone concepts.  I am talking about sportsmen after playing superbly well, talk about being, "in the zone", where time slows and they just seem to make the right decisions.  If we deal with the zone you are talking about I would say my zone would be the other way around - mentally on alert, an physically relaxed, allowing your mind to get you in the zone where the body responds almost subconsciously.  If in your case you are talking about mentally relaxed as not being too anxious or too confident perhaps it would be better to say, and this is only a suggestion, but I would say you need to be ready and balanced.  If you had enough of each side of the antagonistic behaviours - enough aggression and enough humility, enough control and enough relaxation etc, then you are best placed to deploy the best judgement for a moment in time.  My limited understanding or the sympathetic (quick response) and parasymmpathetic (measured response) systems could also be called 'ready' or 'charged'. This is only my idea and I am happy to be proved wrong by science.

I know what Zone you're referring to, but I do believe anxiety/arousal states are a part of it. In terms of neuromuscular states, you want a lot of "action potential" (to be technical) in order to be ready to move your limbs and trunk at the drop of a hat. If you are TOO aroused/anxious, then your movements will be stiff and your techniques won't be clean. If you are are not aroused/anxious enough, then you will misjudge the flight of the ball/not get enough pace in the pass/receive the ball with a bad touch, etc. It is important that in order to be able to "flow", that you are also able to move. There is a mental interpretation of flow, but it still stems from peak or sub-peak arousal states, I believe.

http://www.grapplearts.com/Blog/2005/11/the-optimal-state-of-arousal-an-introduction/
http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss2/Competitive_State_Anxiety.htm - this paper shows that there is a LOT of study to be done on the subject, but that peak performance and anxiety/arousal are almost inextricably linked - we're just not entirely sure how?
http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/entering-zone-guide-coaches - a good description of the "Flow" state, but with implications for anxiety/arousal states (in relation to preparation, routines, practicing events likely to occur, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29

I haven't read Dr. Peters, but I have read Beswick, Abrahams, Ericsson, Dweck, etc. so I can't speak about the "Chimp" - but in my experience and studies, it always comes back to the Four C's - Confidence, Control, Concentration and Commitment. Control is the big thing, I think, when talking about the "Chimp" - but also Commitment. There are varying levels of it, and types, and often the wrong type of commitment is emphasised on teams, and it has a detrimental effect on the eventual outcomes.

Not read any of those, and am not a scientist in this field.  Dr. Peters talks also but understanding your chimp, it was the core survival function that helped man become more cerebral in the first place.  I think these four C's are all human emotions as distinct from the chimp ones.  The most confident player can miss a penalty, as the chimp makes you doubt your skills.  It is for anger, bravado, fear, anxiety, manic happiness and so on that the chimp is responsible for.  How would your studies class the sports phenomenon - choking?  You lose control during choking, but that is not the cause, you lose confidence but why?  You still are concentrating and have commitment.

A confident player missing a penalty may sometimes have very little to do with psychology, and may often be a technical matter, or random bad luck - Terry's penalty miss in the Champion's League final, for example, was a function of him slipping, rather than having any self-doubt. So we have to be sure we separate technical mistakes from psychological states.

As for choking - in my experience, it is almost always a function of unfamiliarity, over- or under-anxiety and being too high or too low in the arousal state. There are also, as mentioned in one of the links above, error-parking issues, over-confidence (under-arousal) and tactical issues to take into account. Teams who win usually go on to win again if they know how to process the victory. Success breeds Success, so to speak. IF you've never been to a final and won it, at any level, then the first one will be nerve-wracking, highly emotional, and probably a failure. The faster you get back into the same situation, the easier it will become, and the more likely the win. That's why the 2005 CL team needed to have won the Treble in 2001. It's also why Houllier, Thompson, Babbel, Hamann and McAllister were important - they had won trophies at the top level, so they could recognise the signs of under- or over- arousal in the team, and act accordingly. This is where Rodgers has a small advantage that people will miss - he has won a final (albeit the play-off), so he has already been through the process of guiding a team through that period and through those states. I think if we get to a final with Rodgers, there's a good chance we will win it well, as he will already have been through the process as a manager, and can refer back to his own experience with Swansea and recycle all of the methods that worked for that team (in much the same way that the Boot Room kept the big book to detail every little thing from training and games - it was a veritable database of player and team states, that could be referred to whenever things were going wrong, to see if there was a pattern, and what a workable solution was).

[Prof]

There's a lot of talk about 'the zone'.  To understand what this means, you have to undestand the concepts of flow and the influence of the athlete's locus of control.

Flow is when emotional states, self-esteem, control, self-efficacy and focus are all at their peak.  Put simply, this is when the athlete (or artist, musician, writer etc.) is completely absorbed into the task at hand, and anxiety, sorrow and conscious effort are not present.

Athletes with an internal locus of control (they believe they control over the things that affect them) are much more likely to experience flow.

What implications do you all think this has on the way footballers should be prepared in training?

[Prof]

A confident player missing a penalty may sometimes have very little to do with psychology, and may often be a technical matter, or random bad luck - Terry's penalty miss in the Champion's League final, for example, was a function of him slipping, rather than having any self-doubt. So we have to be sure we separate technical mistakes from psychological states.

I'll have to disagree with you on the Terry penalty comment.  His technical error was due to a psychological error.  It's the equivalent of a golfer hitting a shank when under pressure.  Pressure causes motor control to be affected, so although you see the technical error, this exists because of a poor mental approach.

I agree entirely with the importance of experience of the occasions though.  As it happens, the experience of most of our players is greater than Rodgers' though.  But experience has to be developed with time.

[PhaseOfPlay]

There's a lot of talk about 'the zone'.  To understand what this means, you have to undestand the concepts of flow and the influence of the athlete's locus of control.

Flow is when emotional states, self-esteem, control, self-efficacy and focus are all at their peak.  Put simply, this is when the athlete (or artist, musician, writer etc.) is completely absorbed into the task at hand, and anxiety, sorrow and conscious effort are not present.

Athletes with an internal locus of control (they believe they control over the things that affect them) are much more likely to experience flow.

What implications do you all think this has on the way footballers should be prepared in training?

For me, they have to train how they are going to play, with nothing wasted, and the training of the concepts done in every drill, every session, every day there is training. The only things they can control are themselves and their activation of the tactical plan, and the more automatic they can make these concepts, the more able they are to get into this "flow" state. So this means the elimination of training exercises that don't relate to the game - 100 yard sprints, linear jogging, shooting in a line from a central position with a service from a coach, crossing unopposed, etc. Every exercise should contain the core concepts of the four main moments of the game - own team in possession, other team in possession, transition from attack to defence, transition from defence to attack. There may be an emphasis on one moment of the game, but the other three are always present, and applied in the fashion that has been agreed upon and committed to, in terms of the style and principles of play.

[Prof]

For me, they have to train how they are going to play, with nothing wasted, and the training of the concepts done in every drill, every session, every day there is training. The only things they can control are themselves and their activation of the tactical plan, and the more automatic they can make these concepts, the more able they are to get into this "flow" state. So this means the elimination of training exercises that don't relate to the game - 100 yard sprints, linear jogging, shooting in a line from a central position with a service from a coach, crossing unopposed, etc. Every exercise should contain the core concepts of the four main moments of the game - own team in possession, other team in possession, transition from attack to defence, transition from defence to attack. There may be an emphasis on one moment of the game, but the other three are always present, and applied in the fashion that has been agreed upon and committed to, in terms of the style and principles of play.

I agree with this.  How can the internal locus of control be moulded in each individual and into the group though?

[PhaseOfPlay]

I'll have to disagree with you on the Terry penalty comment.  His technical error was due to a psychological error.  It's the equivalent of a golfer hitting a shank when under pressure.  Pressure causes motor control to be affected, so although you see the technical error, this exists because of a poor mental approach.

I agree entirely with the importance of experience of the occasions though.  As it happens, the experience of most of our players is greater than Rodgers' though.  But experience has to be developed with time.

I'm not sure we can say this definitively, but I do agree. I would want to know the exact condition of the penalty box, given that he was one of the last players to take a penalty. Also what boots he was wearing, his stride pattern etc. But that is splitting hairs. The point I was hoping to make is that we can't always attribute "Choking" to mental errors, as what appears to be "choking" might have a technical foundation, and warrant a deeper examination. For me, choking is Shevchenko's penalty in 2005 (possibly over anxious due to the earlier double miss), or Liverpool as a team in the 1988 Cup Final (possibly under-aroused due to the identity of the opponent - although in a BBC documentary about the game, much was made of Liverpool being put off by Wimbledon's shouts in the tunnel - I think the term they were shouting was "Yidaho!", that seemed to affect some players, so perhaps they were more over-anxious). There is definitely a grey area where we might have to question the reason behind an event, but my main point (that I made badly) was to caution against calling every "failure" as "Choking". Random chance and technical mistakes sometimes do play a part in major moments of a game.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I agree with this.  How can the internal locus of control be moulded in each individual and into the group though?

I think this is the dilemma for coaches. In a group setting, it is easier for a general culture to be created, but specifically it gets much more difficult, and a lot of plates have to be spun. I think, though, the first thing you need is "Buy-in" from the players - a squad mentality. Every player has to feel that they have a chance to contribute to their shared pathway, and that they are as valid as any other player, even if they don't get as much playing time. A perfect example for me is Solskjaer at United - accepted his role as a sub, did a great job off the bench, and was a vital part of the team. When a team has that kind of buy-in from everyone, it makes it easier to create a culture of control and commitment.

[Prof]

I'm not sure we can say this definitively, but I do agree. I would want to know the exact condition of the penalty box, given that he was one of the last players to take a penalty. Also what boots he was wearing, his stride pattern etc. But that is splitting hairs. The point I was hoping to make is that we can't always attribute "Choking" to mental errors, as what appears to be "choking" might have a technical foundation, and warrant a deeper examination. For me, choking is Shevchenko's penalty in 2005 (possibly over anxious due to the earlier double miss), or Liverpool as a team in the 1988 Cup Final (possibly under-aroused due to the identity of the opponent - although in a BBC documentary about the game, much was made of Liverpool being put off by Wimbledon's shouts in the tunnel - I think the term they were shouting was "Yidaho!", that seemed to affect some players, so perhaps they were more over-anxious). There is definitely a grey area where we might have to question the reason behind an event, but my main point (that I made badly) was to caution against calling every "failure" as "Choking". Random chance and technical mistakes sometimes do play a part in major moments of a game.

Exactly right.  Hence the discussion I made earlier about recreating the pressure of competition in training.  Only with pressure can technical/skill deficiences be exposed.