- Print Topic - Archive

Made me smile all the rubbish about sports psychology. The main reason losing play-off teams don't go on and get promoted the following year are:

1. Squad changes, not just of the team concerned but every other team. In the summer and in the transfer windows.
2. Changes to the teams in league. A quarter of each division is recycled every year.
3. Manager and other staff changes throughout the league.
4. Fitness/aging, a year is a long time in a player's life.
5. Luck! Probably the biggest reason. Each football match is a roll of the dice, all 3 outcomes are always possible in any game. Even if you were to go back in time and replay each season, the outcome would be quite different.

I'd say sports psychology was such a small factor compared to these it's barely even mentioning.

Quoted from GrimRob

Made me smile all the rubbish about sports psychology. The main reason losing play-off teams don't go on and get promoted the following year are:

1. Squad changes, not just of the team concerned but every other team. In the summer and in the transfer windows.
2. Changes to the teams in league. A quarter of each division is recycled every year.
3. Manager and other staff changes throughout the league.
4. Fitness/aging, a year is a long time in a player's life.
5. Luck! Probably the biggest reason. Each football match is a roll of the dice, all 3 outcomes are always possible in any game. Even if you were to go back in time and replay each season, the outcome would be quite different.

I'd say sports psychology was such a small factor compared to these it's barely even mentioning.

Yes I agree, too much attention can be paid to professional psychology but it does matter when there is another factor - the long run factor. We saw it at BP with the losing run and then the winning run. We saw it under the Woods losing run. Two or three good or bad games in the three points for a win league can set a club up for the future 20 games. Accrington went on to storm the league after their losing run broke at BP. I do agree it isn't so much a psychologist as normal human psychology. We win because we win and often we win because we become used to winning.

So your number 5 doesn't operate quite as simply as that. If a side wins some consecutive games in your replayed season that it lost in the original season, by luck or ability it doesn't matter, then that will have a knock-on effect.

Players have ambitions, especially those in the top end Championship sides, of playing in the Premier, the eye catching players of play off losers will get a move up more times than not so get "promoted" anyhow...the clubs they leave find themselves missing star players the following season as well as the blow of coming so close.

Look at the non league though were the last 3(?) losing finalists have gone back to the final the next season and gone up.
Funny old game.

Interesting stuff but the only really bizarre thing is that Leyton Orient got relegated the year after they lost their play off final. That's right, they parted company with Russell Slade and did worse the next year.

Quoted from GrimRob

Made me smile all the rubbish about sports psychology. The main reason losing play-off teams don't go on and get promoted the following year are:

1. Squad changes, not just of the team concerned but every other team. In the summer and in the transfer windows.
2. Changes to the teams in league. A quarter of each division is recycled every year.
3. Manager and other staff changes throughout the league.
4. Fitness/aging, a year is a long time in a player's life.
5. Luck! Probably the biggest reason. Each football match is a roll of the dice, all 3 outcomes are always possible in any game. Even if you were to go back in time and replay each season, the outcome would be quite different.

I'd say sports psychology was such a small factor compared to these it's barely even mentioning.

To be honest, I think sports psychology is an important part of the modern game. When I played in Sunday league etc if I took the time to think about the role my manager wanted me to play, to visualise what I was going to do in certain situations then it helped and I generally had a better game. Maybe that's something slightly different to psychology. I remember playing at Blundell Park just in a chairman's challenge game, I thought to myself as driving down Grimsby Road, I'm gonna net one today in the Pontoon and I ended up scoring.

Quoted from GrimRob

Made me smile all the rubbish about sports psychology. The main reason losing play-off teams don't go on and get promoted the following year are:

1. Squad changes, not just of the team concerned but every other team. In the summer and in the transfer windows.
2. Changes to the teams in league. A quarter of each division is recycled every year.
3. Manager and other staff changes throughout the league.
4. Fitness/aging, a year is a long time in a player's life.
5. Luck! Probably the biggest reason. Each football match is a roll of the dice, all 3 outcomes are always possible in any game. Even if you were to go back in time and replay each season, the outcome would be quite different.

I'd say sports psychology was such a small factor compared to these it's barely even mentioning.

I disagree and think sports psychology is big thing. Always has been, it's just been tapped into a lot more now and it's become a profession.

I'd put it in your list of 5 in place of luck. Which I don't believe plays any part whatsoever. Nothing about a football match is luck. (Aside from the ball smacking a beachball and going in the net or extreme moments like that)

Tend to agree with Tommy. Suppose it might be luck which way a ref decides in a crucial incident as well. But I'd guess that all evens out over many games.

Agreed. People say the ball hitting a post is unlucky. Or losing a penalty shootout. But it's not!

Quoted from Tommy

I disagree and think sports psychology is big thing. Always has been, it's just been tapped into a lot more now and it's become a profession.

I'd put it in your list of 5 in place of luck. Which I don't believe plays any part whatsoever. Nothing about a football match is luck. (Aside from the ball smacking a beachball and going in the net or extreme moments like that)

So the defender who slips through no fault of his own and a forward runs in to score is not unlucky? The wind dropping at half time when you’ve let in 3 playing against it first half is not unlucky? The goalkeeper getting accidentally concussed is not unlucky?

There are a myriad possibilities. Psychology is good if it works but if both sides have sports psychologist of equal ability is the result always a draw? If a side loses does it mean their sports psychologist is useless?

If we are going to talk about psychology I would rather we said “belief” and “self-belief”. That’s what Vicar had in the Chairman’s challenge. It used to be the captain or the manager or assistant who did this in the dressing room. Did you see in the play about Munich 1958 how Jimmy Murphy got the side fired up?who needs a sports psychologist when you have someone like that?

It’s not just about belief though is it RRFC. That is just your definition which doesn’t cover the half of it. You could have all the belief in the world but if you don’t hav presence of mind to make the most of your talents, you would just be a bull in a china shop.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

It’s not just about belief though is it RRFC. That is just your definition which doesn’t cover the half of it. You could have all the belief in the world but if you don’t hav presence of mind to make the most of your talents, you would just be a bull in a china shop.

Do you mean visualising where you corner kick is going to land? How to beat a keeper from the spot? Some are the kind of things that come from repetition in training so they become second nature, others maybe like Rose's pens do depend on strength of character but I don't think you need a sports science psychology qualification to do this. Nobody is more sport science savvy than the Italians but their record in that sort of situation is nearly as bad as ours.

I don't disagree that psychology or mental abilities has a place Kingston, far from it. Football is as much in the mind as the feet. But I do doubt this current obsession with sports psychology holds much water than old Major Buckley's monkey gland injections. An astute tactical manager, a talented team and a motivational captain is still the best bet.

I find things like psychology really interesting.

But the thing that I have trouble with is this: if every club invested in a sports psychologist - and let's say for argument's sake they're all roughly of the same ability - then it's not an advantage any more.

If everyone's got it, then one team still has to finish top of the league and one team needs to finish bottom of the league.

It's like cash. Nearly every team in the Premier League is wealthy beyond their wildest dreams (not saying it's sustainable) but if everyone has cash, and everyone has an excellent sports psychologist, then where's the advantage?

I guess you have to go looking in other areas to find one, hence why the most innovative chairmen, managers and players are always the more successful ones.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

Do you mean visualising where you corner kick is going to land? How to beat a keeper from the spot? Some are the kind of things that come from repetition in training so they become second nature, others maybe like Rose's pens do depend on strength of character but I don't think you need a sports science psychology qualification to do this. Nobody is more sport science savvy than the Italians but their record in that sort of situation is nearly as bad as ours.

I don't disagree that psychology or mental abilities has a place Kingston, far from it. Football is as much in the mind as the feet. But I do doubt this current obsession with sports psychology holds much water than old Major Buckley's monkey gland injections. An astute tactical manager, a talented team and a motivational captain is still the best bet.

Those things, but not just visualisation. It's still psychology though isn't it? Whether the club uses a psychologist or it's a manager or coach (I agree, a good one should have stuff like that in his armoury, as in any walk of life).

I agree practice certainly helps too. e.g. taking penalties. There's no substitute for doing the basics right. I certainly don't hold with the old English lags' excuse that you can't replicate the real life penalty situation.

Quoted from RichMariner

I find things like psychology really interesting.

But the thing that I have trouble with is this: if every club invested in a sports psychologist - and let's say for argument's sake they're all roughly of the same ability - then it's not an advantage any more.

If everyone's got it, then one team still has to finish top of the league and one team needs to finish bottom of the league.

It's like cash. Nearly every team in the Premier League is wealthy beyond their wildest dreams (not saying it's sustainable) but if everyone has cash, and everyone has an excellent sports psychologist, then where's the advantage?

I guess you have to go looking in other areas to find one, hence why the most innovative chairmen, managers and players are always the more successful ones.

You could say the same thing about training or learning to kick the ball to one another.

Quoted from RichMariner

I find things like psychology really interesting.

But the thing that I have trouble with is this: if every club invested in a sports psychologist - and let's say for argument's sake they're all roughly of the same ability - then it's not an advantage any more.

If everyone's got it, then one team still has to finish top of the league and one team needs to finish bottom of the league.

It's like cash. Nearly every team in the Premier League is wealthy beyond their wildest dreams (not saying it's sustainable) but if everyone has cash, and everyone has an excellent sports psychologist, then where's the advantage?

I guess you have to go looking in other areas to find one, hence why the most innovative chairmen, managers and players are always the more successful ones.

You are assuming they will all be excellent sports psychologists. Every club also has a manager. Some end up with Russell Slade.

Quoted from 75

To be honest, I think sports psychology is an important part of the modern game. When I played in Sunday league etc if I took the time to think about the role my manager wanted me to play, to visualise what I was going to do in certain situations then it helped and I generally had a better game. Maybe that's something slightly different to psychology. I remember playing at Blundell Park just in a chairman's challenge game, I thought to myself as driving down Grimsby Road, I'm gonna net one today in the Pontoon and I ended up scoring.

but scoring an own goal wasnt quite what you envisaged ;D

Quoted from 75

To be honest, I think sports psychology is an important part of the modern game. When I played in Sunday league etc if I took the time to think about the role my manager wanted me to play, to visualise what I was going to do in certain situations then it helped and I generally had a better game. Maybe that's something slightly different to psychology. I remember playing at Blundell Park just in a chairman's challenge game, I thought to myself as driving down Grimsby Road, I'm gonna net one today in the Pontoon and I ended up scoring.

I saw that goal and thought to myself, you lucky bar std

Quoted from RichMariner

I find things like psychology really interesting.

But the thing that I have trouble with is this: if every club invested in a sports psychologist - and let's say for argument's sake they're all roughly of the same ability - then it's not an advantage any more.

If everyone's got it, then one team still has to finish top of the league and one team needs to finish bottom of the league.

It's like cash. Nearly every team in the Premier League is wealthy beyond their wildest dreams (not saying it's sustainable) but if everyone has cash, and everyone has an excellent sports psychologist, then where's the advantage?

I guess you have to go looking in other areas to find one, hence why the most innovative chairmen, managers and players are always the more successful ones.

Maybe why you should go for Michael Jolley over a Russel Slade or maybe why GTFC as a club has failed to kick on as we appear to do the same old things year after year, there is certainly little evidence of any creativity, fresh thinking and that is why we have stagnated. Not saying you risk everything but you need to get fresh ideas in at all levels, maybe MJ can be the catalyst for a bright new dawn?

Quoted from KingstonMariner

You could say the same thing about training or learning to kick the ball to one another.

Which I believe Jolly introduced after Slade left.

Quoted from Civvy at last

Which I believe Jolly introduced after Slade left.

It might be news to Mr Slade, but the Scots discovered that around1880. It took a bunch of toffs a couple of years to do something about it (Corinthians FC).

Quoted from 75

To be honest, I think sports psychology is an important part of the modern game. When I played in Sunday league etc if I took the time to think about the role my manager wanted me to play, to visualise what I was going to do in certain situations then it helped and I generally had a better game. Maybe that's something slightly different to psychology. I remember playing at Blundell Park just in a chairman's challenge game, I thought to myself as driving down Grimsby Road, I'm gonna net one today in the Pontoon and I ended up scoring.

When I played Sunday mornings it was who wasn't hung over from Saturday night out that played😎