Altitude versus attitude: The highs and lows of football, by Professor Mark Griffiths

Is playing at altitude affecting the England team?

In an earlier blog, Bryan Saunders, one of my NTU colleagues, examined the issue of how the altitude in South Africa might affect the performance of the English team. Following England’s lacklustre and dismal performance against Algeria, plenty of excuses and reasons were given for the poor performance, although (to my knowledge), altitude wasn’t one of them. But what does the research evidence actually say? Can attitude triumph over altitude?

It has long been known that altitude affects sporting performance although it was only very recently (2007) that the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA), banned international matches from being played at more than 2500 metres above sea level. Furthermore, because of the effects of acute exposure to altitude on performance, FIFA’s own Sport Medicine Commission recommends that football matches above 3000 metres should only be played after an acclimatisation period of 10 days.

In 2007, the British Medical Journal published a really interesting paper [Altitude and athletic performance: statistical analysis using football results] by Patrick McSharry of the University of Oxford. McSharry’s study attempted to quantify the effect of altitude on the national South American football teams by statistically analysing the large FIFA database of 1460 international football matches spanning over 100 years (from 1900 to 2004) of 10 countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela). McSharry claimed that no previous study had ever examined (or quantified) the direct link between altitude and international football performance. The study examined four specific variables: (i) the probability of a win, (ii) the number of goals scored, (iii) the number of goals conceded, and (iv) the altitude difference between the home venue of a specific team and that of the opposition. What is unique about this statistical study is that unlike most other altitude studies, it wasn’t susceptible to the effects of any particular individual or team.

Looking at all these variables, the study very clearly showed that altitude had a very (statistically) significant negative impact on the physiological performance of soccer teams. McSharry highlighted that ‘low altitude teams’ (LATs) underperformed when playing against high altitude teams (HATs) in South America. More specifically, the analysis revealed that HATs scored more goals and conceded fewer goals as altitude increased. HATs also had a greater probability of winning. McSharry concluded that altitude provides a significant advantage for HATs when playing international football games at both low and high altitudes. He also concluded that LATs are sufficiently unable to acclimatise to high altitude leading to a reduction in physiological performance. Based on his findings, McSharry believes that when it comes to team selection, careful thought and preparation are needed as physiological performance clearly doesn’t protect against the effect of altitude.

However, as McSharry acknowledges, the weakness of his study is the difficulty in controlling for other factors that influence football outcome, such as the quality of the training, the manager, team spirit and team attitude. None of this bodes particularly well for England. All we can hope is that skill, ability and attitude will win through.

Professor Mark Griffiths, psychologist, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Mark, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8785 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

How will home advantage influence World Cup winning wannabes? By Professor Mark Griffiths

South Africa could benefit from the home advantage

The ‘home advantage’ is a well known phenomenon in sporting circles with home teams consistently winning over 50% of sporting contests. So how will this help South Africa and disadvantage England and the other nations at the World Cup? As you will no doubt know, only seven teams have ever won the World Cup and six of them have done so on home soil (Argentina, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Uruguay) with the other winner Brazil being runners-up when they hosted it.

The home advantage certainly seems to reap rewards for lesser teams who have hosted the World Cup. All of the other World Cup host nations have performed best when they hosted it. Just look at the evidence – Sweden (runners-up), Chile (third place), Korea (fourth), Mexico (quarter-finalist) and Japan (second round). To date, no host nation has ever been knocked out in the first round. South Africa will be hoping for the same.

Last month, the consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers reported that poorer countries tend to perform better in the World Cup when compared to richer nations (although Brazil’s five World Cup wins could be argued to skew the results somewhat). So what are the critical factors involved in the ‘home advantage’? A lot of research has been carried out in this area over the last decade.

Back in 1999, a major academic review by academics at Liverpool John Moores University and the University of Birmingham published in the journal Sports Medicine examined the home sporting advantage and reported that the most likely factors thought to be responsible for the home advantage were crowd influence, knowledge of the local playing conditions, and distance travelled by the opposing teams.

Unsurprisingly, by far the most important single factor in home advantage was crowd influence. Many studies up to that point had showed strong evidence that as crowd size got bigger, home advantage was greater. There were thought to be two main reasons for why this may occur. Firstly, the home crowd may help raise the game of their team relative to the away team. Secondly, the home crowd may influence referees and linesmen to subconsciously give decisions in favour of the home team. The subsequent scientific literature tends to support the idea that crowds can affect refereeing decisions especially as a couple of important decisions going against the away team can help home sides win. For instance, a 2007 study published in the Journal of Sports Sciences by psychologist Ryan Boyko, biologist Adam Boyko and lawyer Mark Boyko examined decisions of 50 referees in 5,244 English Premier League matches and concluded that referee bias did indeed contribute to home advantage in Premiership football matches.

A 2006 study also published in the Journal of Sports Sciences by Richard Pollard of the University of South Pacific (Fiji) examined the regional variations in home advantage in football. In Pollard’s study, reliable estimates of home advantage were calculated for the domestic leagues of 72 countries over six seasons (including all European and South American countries). Home advantage was found to be particularly prevalent among European countries with three factors accounting for the majority of a team’s success (geographical location, crowd influence, and travel). Home advantage has also been studied in direct relation to the World Cup. A 2002 paper published in the Journal of Sport Behavior by Terry Brown and his colleagues analysed home advantage of all 32 teams who appeared in the 1998 World Cup. Their findings revealed that all the teams bar one had a home advantage. The importance of the game didn’t affect the home result but teams performed worse the greater the distance a team travelled to a game, and the fewer days’ teams had between playing games.

All of this scientific evidence suggests that the biggest beneficiaries during the upcoming World Cup will be South Africa but based on other weaker teams who have hosted the World Cup the advantage is likely to be slight. Let’s just hope the England team has a lot of supporters there!

Professor Mark Griffiths, psychologist, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Professor Griffiths, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8782 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

The importance of sport in forming a national identity, by Dr Matt Ashton

In the mid 1990s the political theorist Robert Putnam popularised the term ‘social capital’, in his bestselling book Bowling Alone. Broadly speaking, social capital referred to the links between people. If you had lots of friends willing to help you out when you were in trouble you’d be rich in social capital even if you were poor in physical or intellectual capital.  A variety of different studies have argued that the more social capital a country has the happier it is, as there are strong bonds tying society together. National identity with its shared sense of belonging is a key way of generating and promoting social capital.

For most countries national identity evolves naturally over time, based largely on a shared language, history and cultural touchstones. When any of these things are missing there is much more likely to be conflict between different groups that can sometimes slide into civil war. In Britain, our sense of national identity influences how we speak, behave and relate to others on a daily basis. For instance, politicians often refer to the ‘spirit of Dunkirk’ as a way of conjuring up the idea of succeeding against the odds. This reference would be quite familiar to the average citizen thanks to a diet of old war films and half remembered history lessons. However, for most people in Latin America or Asia the phrase might as well be meaningless.

This is where sport comes in. Nothing fosters a sense of shared national identity better than the country taking part in a global sporting competition (short of declaring a popular war). It draws people together into supporting the national team and this is partly why the World Cup is so important for South Africa. Due to its traumatic history, fractured by the apartheid regime, there are still huge differences in South African society with pronounced divisions between rich and poor and the various social and ethnic groups.

Sport increasingly crosses cultural and political boundaries in a way that few other activities can. The recent Clint Eastwood film Invictus deals with this subject in that the newly released Nelson Mandela saw the rugby world cup team as a vehicle to help bring the country together with a shared purpose. The teams’ success, eventually winning the competition, provided a huge boost to his government and helped the society make the transition from the Apartheid dictatorship to democracy. Now cracks are emerging again, prompted in part by the economic crisis that has swept the world in recent years. The question remains however, while the World Cup might temporarily paper over these cracks, can it help develop the social capital needed for solutions to the long term problems facing South Africa?

Dr Matt Ashton, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Dr Ashton, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8782 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

Hosting the World Cup: Challenges for South Africa, by Dr David Hindley

This summer’s FIFA World Cup – the first to be held in Africa – will come under incredible scrutiny. In the build-up to the event, question marks have been raised by an increasingly critical European media, identifying concerns over the preparedness of stadiums, ticket arrangements and slow sales, security fears, transport and accommodation. Indeed back in 2006 rumours circulated that the tournament were to be moved to another country following fears, including reportedly amongst some FIFA executives, over the lack of progress in South Africa’s preparations. This drew a ferocious outburst from FIFA President Sepp Blatter who accused ‘the Old World’ of prejudice and a lack of respect for the hosts.

Of course Blatter – whose World Cup in South Africa has long been understood to be his personal ‘pet’ project – has a huge emotional investment in the tournament, meaning that he too, and his tenure as FIFA President will come under the spotlight.

To some extent the level of examination represents nothing new. As the level of competition by nations to host sporting mega events such as the World Cup or the Olympic Games has intensified, so too have the calls on the organisers to justify the public expenditure and prove that they have fulfilled their often inflated promises of what their event will deliver. It is now the norm to talk about a sporting legacy, a nation that will become enthralled by the sporting drama, as well as the by-products of regeneration and national prestige. The language of legacy enveloping South Africa is no different in that regard. In return for the £800 million public investment, the hosts will be hoping that the country will enjoy a substantial economic boost, swelled by the expected masses of visitors to the tournament, as well as basking in the prestige that such mega events purport, broadcasting to a global audience a positive image of South Africa.

Sceptics have already questioned whether such aspirations are realistic. It is unarguable that former hosts Germany produced a sizeable profit (believed to be around 135 million Euro) as well as significant tourist revenues, but then relatively little had to be spent on infrastructure in preparation for the tournament. South Africa is however facing a very different scenario, having to invest hugely in building new stadia, a massive road expansion programme, and rail links specifically built for the World Cup. In addition, the hosts have had to spend significantly on allaying safety fears, investing more than £100 million on extra security, as well as a promise of a blanket deployment of police and security officers.

So as the curtain rises on Africa’s biggest sporting moment, critics will be waiting for their ‘told you so’ moment, whilst supporters will be hopeful that the World Cup will be a catalyst for positive change.

Dr David Hindley, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Dr Hindley, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8751 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

Altitude training: It might just earn you the last minute winner, by Bryan Saunders

A lot is being made of the impact of altitude at this year’s World Cup in South Africa. The thinner air means the new Adidas ball will move differently but, more importantly, there are implications for health and performance. FIFA’s chief medical officer, Jiri Dvorak, recently downplayed the effects that altitude would have, yet he recommended that teams should make a 3 – 4 day allowance for acclimatisation. Bit of a contradiction, no?

Johannesburg, at approximately 1750 m above sea level is the highest venue of the World Cup, and will play host to 15 matches including the final. Five other venues sit above 1000 m. Sure; these aren’t the usual altitudes with which we associate problems; FIFA originally banned football from being played at anything above 2500 m affecting Bolivia (La Paz, 3700 m), Ecuador (Quito, 2800 m) and Colombia (Bogotá, 2600 m). Following complaints, the ban was changed to venues higher than 3000 m. What the current situation is I don’t think even FIFA president Sepp Blatter knows. However, what this farce did provide was evidence that FIFA did at least appreciate the difficulties that teams going to altitude can encounter without sufficient acclimatisation.

Does this then mean that teams shouldn’t prepare for the worst simply because it’s not an altitude that FIFA recognise as being highly problematic? The ability of the body to uptake oxygen is one of the key factors behind exercise performance. At sea level, oxygen levels are approximately 21% and this relative percentage remains constant. As altitude increases the air gets thinner, which means that there are fewer particles occupying the same amount of space. This results in a lower level of oxygen availability than at sea level; at 1750m, the equivalent oxygen availability is approximately 17.2%.

Regardless of your perception of this as perhaps a moderate increase in altitude, the lower oxygen availability will put an additional strain on your body’s systems. Once exercise starts, this also places an extra strain on the body’s physiological systems. It might not be quite as simple as 1 + 1 = 2, but you get the idea. These two factors are both increasing the pressure on your body to maintain homeostasis, and at a certain point something has got to give. The body is more likely to prioritise your health over performance.

So, should teams be taking precautions regarding the increased altitude of certain venues at the World Cup in South Africa? The season is over and the altitudes in South Africa are not excessive; finding time to acclimatise to the conditions that will be experienced during the 2010 World Cup should be straight forward. England are certainly taking it seriously with their recent training camp in Irdning, Austria, though it is located at a paltry 645 m above sea level. Will this see them through a penalty shoot out? Probably not, but it may just be the difference between scoring a last minute winner and the tie going to penalties.

Bryan Saunders, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Bryan, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8785 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

The World Cup as a political event, by Dr Matt Ashton

A colleague of mine recently stated that he’d be glad when the general election was out of the way so that he could concentrate on the upcoming World Cup in South Africa. This struck me as an interesting comment as sporting events have more often than not been about politics as much as they’ve been about sport.

In ancient Rome, the games at the Coliseum were seen as a way of ensuring the loyalty of the citizens as well as a monument to the greatness of the Empire. More recently, the stunning opening ceremony at the Beijing Olympics was communist China’s attempt to present themselves as a new global superpower for the 21^st century. National governments have always used sports as a means to publicise and advance their own (often political) agendas, and the World Cup is no different.

On the other side of the fence, the media often presents and analyses politics almost as if it were a sport. The Frost/Nixon TV interviews of the 1970s were portrayed in the media as if it was a gladiatorial contest between the two men. Equally, in the televised electoral debates, many of the commentators kept referring to the party leaders as if they were watching a sporting event, ‘Brown is on the ropes’, ‘will Cameron land a decisive blow’ etc.

The World Cup in South Africa is no exception to this and Jacob Zuma’s government has a lot riding on making sure that the event will be a success. South Africa can truthfully be regarded as one of the political success stories in Africa, but more often than not the Western media tends to focus on stories about political corruption, racial unrest and the continuing poor standard of living in many areas. As the most watched sporting event outside of the Olympics, and the first World Cup held in Africa, this will be a once in a lifetime chance for the government to influence global perceptions of their country.

A successful World Cup will mean positive publicity for the nation, along with the possibility of future foreign investment. Already, huge amounts of money have been spent upgrading sporting facilities and building new infrastructure. However, many have commented on whether this is the best use of public funds in a country where millions still live in relative poverty. Additionally, there have been disturbing reports in the press about forced evictions from slums to help ‘beautify’ various cities for foreign tourists.

Zuma will also be hoping for a good performance from the South African squad. Politicians are normally the first to associate themselves with a team when they do well and the first to distance themselves when they lose. England’s defeat to West Germany in the quarter finals of the 1970 World Cup has been blamed by many for Harold Wilson’s election loss a few days after. Ultimately, the success or failure of the World Cup and how it is viewed in the media will have a lasting impact on politics in South Africa far into the future.

Dr Matt Ashton, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Dr Ashton, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8782 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

Motivation and performance in sport: Managing outcomes and working from strengths, by Dr Toni Minniti

In elite competitive sport, athletes are committed to the daily training and preparation that is required for peak performance. Individuals with this degree of focus and dedication to their sport will settle for nothing less than achievement and success. Importantly, how athletes define and describe success and failure is integral to their approach to preparation and, equally, their likelihood to maintain their commitment.

Consider what typically happens with respect to events such as the World Cup team selection.  Following an athlete’s successful inclusion – managers, coaches and athletes tend to focus on positive aspects and highlight why it was well-earned. In contrast, following an athlete’s non-selection it is likely that the athlete will struggle (alone) to identify reasons for the unsuccessful outcome, attempting to understand what went wrong. Saying that, it is not unheard of for successful athletes to highlight the many things they could have done better and to express disappointment in themselves. As well, some competitors may be unsuccessful but focus on positive aspects.

Given that competitive sport provides an environment that only allows one ‘winner’, it is crucial to manage athletes’ interpretations of outcomes and help them work from their strengths. One way to do this is by looking first at how athletes define success and failure, and second at the reasons to which they attribute their perceived successful or unsuccessful outcomes. For example, if an athlete believes their success to be defined by a range of factors that are subjective (e.g., ‘I prepared to the best of my ability’) and objective (e.g., ‘I achieved an 85% successful passing rate’), then they have more to draw upon when reflecting on their performance and for determining ‘success’. For individuals who maintain their focus solely on win or loss (objective) outcomes, they are far more likely to struggle to maintain their motivation and commitment to sport, especially in the event of a ‘losing streak’.

When considering the factors that athletes attribute their success and failure, there is good evidence that suggests athletes should attribute their success to causes that are unique to themselves (e.g., can quickly assess where players are on the pitch), are likely to positively affect an array of situations (e.g., can remain level-headed under pressure), and are perceived as likely to recur (e.g., need to find the open shot on goal). On the flip side, it is necessary to maintain a constructive focus following an unsuccessful outcome – in particular, if athletes believe that the reasons for their poor performance will affect a wide range of situations, then the objective is to identify aspects of that performance that are within the athlete’s control (e.g., can change the preparation approach).

For any level of athlete, there are few guarantees related to sport outcomes. However, there is at least one thing that athletes can be assured of prior to, during and following the event, and that is their approach – i.e., to preparation, engagement on any given day and their personal review of their performance. This personal approach is vital to maintaining enjoyment and thus helping athletes to be motivated to achieve peak performance in their sport.

Dr Toni Minniti, principle lecturer in sport and exercise psychology, Nottingham Trent University

To speak to Toni, call the University Press Office directly on 0115 848 8785 or email worldcup@ntu.ac.uk

[To view Nottingham Trent University’s team of World Cup experts go to www.ntu.ac.uk/worldcup]

Stuck on the World Cup – have you got your sticker book?

 

Alberto Medina, our lonely Mexican

Here at NTU World Cup HQ we’ve reverted back to childhood and we’re gleefully filling an office South Africa 2010 sticker book. 

Although the price of the stickers has changed (50p!) the excitement of opening a fresh new packet and seeing who’s inside hasn’t. We’re doing pretty well with Brazil and Spain, we’ve got a few England players too, but we’re severely lacking any Serbians and only have one lonely Mexican.  

There have also been a couple of office ‘debates’ over the best way to stick them in so they’re straight, it needs to be done with military precision and creases and bubbles are definitely unacceptable!  

We know we’re not the only ‘grown ups’ to be shiftily buying packets of stickers from our local newsagent and we have swapsies we’d like to trade. So if you’re interested in who we’ve got, let us know at worldcup@ntu.ac.uk   

Cristian Rodriguez (Uruguay) has become a familiar face in the office and we have two going spare.  

We have an extra Fernando Torres (Spain) – let’s be honest, some of us need an extra Torres in our team.  

Also up for swapping are;  

Steven Pienaar (South Africa)
Lucas Neill (Australia)
Nilmar (Brazil)
Karim Ziani (Algeria)  

And last but not least….we have the all important England team sticker.  

There’ll be more to come after we’ve bankrupted ourselves trying to get David Beckham, so watch this space!  

NTU World Cup team