Learning and executing strategies

The purpose of the following section is to outline how both imagery and self-talk have been used independently to facilitate the learning and execution of strategies and tactics, as a precursor to considering how they might be used in conjunction. Athletes widely report the use of imagery (Bernier & Fournier, 2010; Munroe et al., 2000; Nordin & Cumming, 2005a; Salmon et al., 1994) and self-talk (Hardy et al., 2001a; Hardy et al., 2005a) to facilitate the learning and execution of strategies and tactics. Research has suggested that CG imagery is the most appropriate type for serving this function (Hall et al., 1998; Paivio, 1985). Despite this, until recently, there had been no experimental research determining the effect that this imagery type had on the learning and execution of strategies and tactics (Martin et al., 1999; Munroe et al., 2000). A study conducted in 2005 by Munroe-Chandler, Hall, Fishburn, and Shannon, examining the performance effects of CG imagery on football performance, provided little support for the use of this imagery type in facilitating this function.

This staggered multiple baseline design across behaviours study examined the effect that CG imagery training had on a group of junior female footballers‟ team performance of three strategic skills (defending a direct free kick, taking a direct free kick and defending a corner). Imagery scripts were delivered to the footballers during three training sessions and focussed on enhancing players‟ performance of the three strategic skills. The imagery scripts used were based on the bioinformational theory (Lang, 1977) which recommends that when creating images, athletes should imagine both the stimulus that they may be presented and their emotional responses. See section 2.3.2.2 for a more thorough discussion of the bioinformational theory. Football performance was video recorded over seven matches with and without the use of the intervention, and observers assessed the footballers‟ performance of the strategic skills. Despite the original objective of the study, there was only enough data to comment on the effect of imagery on one of the strategic skills (defending a corner). Results revealed no differences in the players‟ performance of the strategic skills between the baseline and the implementation of the imagery training programme. However, the use of a shortened version of the SIQ revealed that the imagery training resulted in an increase in the players‟ use of CG imagery as well as MG-A imagery.

31

Although the lack of performance effects suggest that CG imagery does not impact positively upon strategic play, a number of methodological issues were highlighted that could explain the result. It was acknowledged that imagery training was only delivered over a short period of time. Moreover, there were difficulties associated with the collection of full strategic play performance data. Most importantly, however, it was suggested that using imagery scripts based on principles from the bioinformational theory could have resulted in the study examining the effectiveness of MG-A imagery rather than CG imagery. MG-A imagery scripts typically involve the imagination of optimum levels of arousal. The CG imagery scripts used in the study profiled incorporated large aspects of this activity. Consequently, it may be premature to discredit the use of CG imagery in facilitating the execution of strategies.

Findings from a recent study (Bernier & Fournier, 2010), which examined the functions of golfers‟ imagery use, may also help in providing some insight as to why no performance effects were found with the use of CG imagery. When golfers were asked to describe their use of imagery to facilitate the strategic execution of skills they often reported imagining a range of different shot options, imagining their trajectories, before selecting the most effective shot type (Bernier & Fournier, 2010). The process of „weighing up‟ different options when planning a strategy appears to be central to the process. As such, the use of imagery scripts with set outcomes, such as the ones used in the study profiled, may not have allowed for sufficient planning to be undertaken. This may go some way to explaining the lack of performance effects found. A further explanation for the result may lie in the fact that athletes might use a variety of different images to serve strategic functions. This notion is supported by Nordin and Cumming (2005a) who found that dancers used a range of imagery types to help them solve problems, (e.g., body related images, execution images and irrelevant images). To conclude, although athletes widely report the use of imagery to facilitate the learning and execution of strategies and tactics, further experimental research that overcomes the issues associated with the study presented by Munroe et al. (2005), is required to ascertain the performance effects associated with using imagery in this way.

Whilst only one study has experimentally assessed the effectiveness of CG imagery in facilitating the learning and execution of strategies, no studies have tested the influence of self-talk in serving this function. This is despite descriptive studies revealing that athletes use self-talk to facilitate the learning and execution of strategies and tactics (Hardy et al., 2001a; Hardy et al., 2005a). It is clear that athletes use both imagery and self-talk to serve

32

this function. However, further experimental research is required to determine their effectiveness in doing so, both independently and in combination.