The book titled The Mental Game Plan, describes the three main types of worries experienced by anxious athletes in precompetition: worries about the task (“This is a very difficult course” or “These guys look huge”), about their own ability or readiness (“I do not have my best stuff today” or “I feel slow” or “My knee hurts”), and about consequences (“If I miss this shot, we won’t have a chance at conference” or “If I fall, my coach will be furious”).

The thoughts are often combined with images; for example, the thought “These guys look huge” may be accompanied by a mental picture of oneself as weak and small. The thoughts are multilayered, and addressing the underlying thought is important. For example, the thought “If I screw up the shot, we won’t have a chance at touring” may have the following unspoken fear attached: “.. and my teammates will blame me, and it will all be my fault.”

Later on we address how to intervene with these thoughts, but for now let’s examine the relationship between anxiety and performance. Since different theories have come up with different explanations for their relationship, we will review the main ones.

The Upside Down U
One of the first theories addressing the relationship between arousal and performance was the inverted-U hypothesis. The theory states that peak performance occurs at an intermediate level of arousal and that both very low and very high levels of arousal will result in impaired performance.

Sport psychology embraced the theory, and the terms “arousal,” “anxiety,” and “stress” became interchangeable in many of the theory’s descriptions. The explanations offered by the theory had a common sense appeal: A competitor (or a team) who is not aroused sufficiently is unlikely to exert great effort or persevere.

The typical example is that of the athlete or team who faces a less-skilled opposition. If the competition is labeled as easy and the resulting arousal is too low, this athlete or team risks losing the contest because the performance is expected to be subpar under these conditions.

At the other end of the continuum we have the competitor who faces a must-win situation that results in a very high level of arousal. Decision making is impaired, and the rhythm and mechanics of his movement are disturbed, partially because of excess muscle tension.

Arousal activates both flexor and extensor muscles so that it literally results in the athlete “putting the brakes on himself” while he is trying to go as fast as possible. Most people agree that the inverted-U theory is familiar to everyone in sport.

However, a theory should allow us to predict outcomes, and this one allows for explanations only after the fact: If someone does not perform well, we will assume that their level of arousal was not adequate. How do we know the level of arousal was not adequate?

Because the athlete did not perform well. This becomes a circular argument that explains itself. Another problem is that the theory does not explain how arousal affects performance. Arousal, understood as physiological activation, can be interpreted by one athlete as anxiety and by another as aggression.

The theory does not take into account the fact that different cognitive interpretations of arousal affect the performance. Finally, the symmetrical curve of the U used to describe the relationship would seem to predict a gradual deterioration of performance with increased arousal, but in most performers’ experience, that extra level of arousal tends to result in dramatic and rapid decreases in performance.

If you’re looking for FIFA Player Agent, a Football Academy or Football Tours, contact the Football Management Group.