data for all five players is displayed in figures 2.32 to 2.41 (below). Measures of 8
positive and negative affect were taken immediately before and immediately after 9
each player watched the video intervention.
10
11
Figure 2.32. Positive affect (PA) scores pre/post video intervention (P1) 12
13
Figure 2.33. Negative affect (NA) scores pre/post video intervention (P1) 14
159
1
Figure 2.34. Positive affect (PA) scores pre/post video intervention (P2) 2
3
Figure 2.35. Negative affect (NA) scores pre/post video intervention (P2) 4
5
Figure 2.36. Positive affect (PA) scores pre/post video intervention (P3) 6
160
1
Figure 2.37. Negative affect (NA) scores pre/post video intervention (P3) 2
3
Figure 2.38. Positive affect (PA) scores pre/post video intervention (P4) 4
5
Figure 2.39. Negative affect (NA) scores pre/post video intervention (P4) 6
161
1
Figure 2.40. Positive affect (PA) scores pre/post video intervention (P5) 2
3
Figure 2.41. Negative affect (NA) scores pre/post video intervention (P5) 4
5
Visual inspection of the positive and negative affect data suggest that for 6
three players (one, three, and four), changes in affect can be observed pre- to post-7
intervention. For players one and three, positive affect scores were higher after they 8
watched their video intervention. This was maintained for at least four weeks for 9
both players. There were decreases in negative affect for four players during the 10
intervention period, although these were only observed at the point the video was 11
introduced for players one, three and four. For player four, a decrease in negative 12
affect can be observed for all six weeks he received the intervention. This effect can 13
162
only be observed for two weeks for players one and three. The changes in PA or NA 1
for player two did show marginal changes on occasion following the introduction of 2
the intervention. For all players, to a greater or lesser extent, this change in affect pre 3
to post viewing diminished the longer the intervention decreased, suggesting that the 4
intervention lost its emotional impact as time went on. For player two, positive 5
affect scores were slightly higher during the intervention phase than the baseline 6
phase, and slightly lower on average for negative affect, however, there were few 7
differences observed following viewing, indicating that for player two, the video had 8
little impact on emotions/mood. No affect data were collected for player five, as he 9
didn’t receive the intervention.
10 11
Social validation data. The social validation data revealed that the players 12
placed a high value on the results of the study for their development as a footballer 13
(averaging 4.4 out of 5), and that it was very important for them as footballers to 14
perform well on the sub-components they selected for this study (average 4.6 out of 15
5). When asked how well they felt the intervention procedures fitted around your 16
daily football schedule, the players’ average response was also positive (average 4.2 17
out of 5). Although every effort was made throughout the study period to avoid 18
intrusion into the players’ day to day lives, this was positive considering the length 19
and time involved in the study. Post-intervention interviews revealed that three 20
athletes had continued to view their video on a regular basis (i.e. once a week or 21
more) between the end of the intervention period and the follow-up time periods.
22
Only one player (P2) didn’t continue watching their video(s) between intervention 23
and retention periods.
24
163
The players’ responses in the post-study interviews provide further insight 1
into their thoughts and feelings during the intervention study. These responses are 2
presented sequentially for procedural replication. Player one felt that the video 3
intervention had a clear impact on their performance during the games, on the sub-4
component ‘turning’ specifically. This appears to be backed up by the performance 5
data. He felt this improvement related to a greater personal commitment to 6
improving his performance rather simply technical improvement, stating that “I just 7
felt more confident about what I was doing [during the intervention] and more 8
focused during games” (P1). His responses indicate that the timing of the video was 9
an important part of this confidence-building process:
10
The pre-match video gave me the motivation to improve, and helped me 11
focus on my own game. I get nervous before games and if I don’t feel 12
nervous I start to worry too much about all the little things I need to work on 13
… but watching the video pre-match I was seeing what I can already do, not 14
what you shouldn’t do, and this made me feel more confident (P1).
15
Player one indicated that the pre-match tape quickly became a consistent part 16
of a pre-match mental preparation routine. By using visualising the content of his 17
personal video pre-match the content of the tapes became more “real” for him:
18
The night before the game when I would watch [the video] and think about 19
my game over and over in my mind … I could see the images I was working 20
on in the videos… my turns were most clear, especially one I did early on [in 21
the study] and this image had a huge impact on my confidence I think. I can’t 22
really explain it … I just felt like I couldn’t fail. (P1) 23
When asked if he felt that the intervention had any impact on his 24
performance, player two felt that it did not. He reported enjoying being involved in 25
the study, and felt more confident after watching the video before the game but that 26
this involvement in the study was not enough to make a difference in performance on 27
164
the pitch. Player two felt that this was partly linked to his negative thinking during 1
video replay: “I am only interested in seeing what I am doing wrong. I’m not really 2
interested in the positives. I think I need the coach to be telling me what I am doing 3
wrong” (P2). However, another issue may have been linked to motivation. Player 4
two also revealed that the performance sub-components he selected at the beginning 5
of the study were not self-motivated:
6
Having a better first touch was something [the coach] was trying to get me to 7
improve, but I’m not really sure what he's telling me I need to do, so I feel I 8
get caught in two minds. I’m not sure I knew what I really wanted to improve 9
on that skill (at the start of the study), and so I struggled a bit (P2).
10
Player three felt that he improved most noticeably on one of the sub-11
components – ‘heading’ compared to others, and believed that any performance 12
improvement he had felt was linked to pre-match emotions at the time of viewing.
13
He stated that, 14
It was much more emotional watching it before the game than when I 15
watched it in my room [at home] or like, in the middle of the week … I felt 16
really relaxed pre-game, not as wired to the ceiling as I usually am … and I 17
had loads of confidence…I felt just felt really positive … especially after the 18
first two weeks or so, the first tapes were totally new and different (P3).
19
Like player one, player three also found that by incorporating the video into 20
his pre-match preparation, he found it had a very positive psychological impact prior 21
to performance. He stated:
22
I feel surer of that skill in matches, especially as it’s a part of my routine now 23
(to watch my heading video) … I don’t think the technique of heading has 24
changed massively, maybe small points … I feel more assured about this skill 25
than I had before (P3).
26
165
Player three also linked this to the role of positive emotions brought on by the 1
inclusion of music, suggesting that: “The tunes and the clips together made it really 2
positive … got me going before the game” (P3). Player three also reported being 3
prone to thinking negatively during video-based practice. However, he felt that 4
watching the video led to his thoughts shifting positively during viewing and 5
affecting his confidence positively pre-match. Interestingly he suggested that this 6
positive change may have been due, in part, to the coach not delivering the feedback.
7
When the coach was delivering the feedback, he felt he had a tendency to focus “on 8
the bad points … he made me feel more conscious about my mistakes … I knew he 9
would be waiting for me to make a mistake, and I couldn’t relax … I was more 10
relaxed watching the video on my own” (P3). Like player one, player three also 11
associated the skill of visualisation to the video work. He stated:
12
The video provided me with the same image but it was a bit of a clearer 13
picture in my mind, and it was really successful as well, because those clips 14
stuck in my mind easier than they had before ... I spent quite a lot of time 15
replaying the positive clips in my mind before games, something I didn’t use 16
to do before (P3).
17
Player four felt that the intervention made a big difference to his 18
performance, particularly in his consistency on the pitch; however, this improvement 19
in performance was not supported in the subcomponents. Specifically, he felt that it 20
improved the level of his performance at the end of games, when previously he 21
would have got tired, lost concentration and made small mistakes. As he stated, 22
I was able to recall the positives from the clips I was watching and focus on 23
doing the simple things rather than allowing myself to get sloppy…I used to 24
play with my head down too much…but after watching it on video, I started 25
to lift my head up and played myself out of trouble more often (P4).
26
166