artigocaracteristicadefutebol[1]

8/2/2019 artigocaracteristicadefutebol[1]

1/7

Psychological and Sport-Specific

Characteristics of Football PlayersAstrid Junge,* PhD, Jiri Dvorak,* MD, Dieter Rosch, MA, Toni Graf-Baumann, MD,

Jiri Chomiak, MD, and Lars Peterson,a MD

From the *Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland, the Department of Sport and Sport-Pedagogic, Pedagogic-University, Freiburg, Germany, the Office for Management in Medical

Research, Teningen, Germany, the Orthopedic Clinic Bulovka, Praha, the Czech Republic,and the aGothenburg Medical Center, Vastra Frolunda, Sweden

ABSTRACT

It is hypothesized that players of different levels of playmight differ not only in their football skills but also intheir way of playing football and with respect to psy-chological factors such as concentration, reaction time,or competitive anxiety. The psychological characteris-tics of a player might influence his way of playingfootball (in particular with respect to fair play) and alsohis risk of injury. A group of 588 football players werestudied by questionnaire; additionally, reaction timetests were performed. Psychological characteristics

were assessed by three established self-evaluationquestionnaires: the Athletic Coping Skills Inventory,the State Competitive Anxiety Test, and the State-Trait-Anger-Expression-Inventory. Football-specificcharacteristics that were investigated included playingexperience and positions played, style of play, numberof training hours and games, as well as aspects of fairplay. Reaction time was tested twice: without the influ-ence of physical exercise and immediately after a 12-minute run. A significant reduction in reaction time wasobserved after physical exercise. In high-level players,the reaction time immediately after the 12-minute runwas significantly shorter than it was in low-level play-ers. The questionnaire answers given regarding fair

play clearly indicated that fair play is not paid sufficientrespect. The relationship between psychological char-acteristics and attitudes toward fair play was analyzedand discussed.

Football requires, as do other sports, not only a high levelof physical performance but also mental preparation and

psychological skills. Although several studies have dealtwith the physiologic demands of football,2,26 little atten-tion has been paid to the influence of psychological aspectson the level of performance and on the incidence of injuriesin football.11

It could be hypothesized that players of different levelsof play might differ not only in their football skills but alsoin their playing characteristics and in psychological fac-tors such as concentration, reaction time, or attitudestoward fair play. The identification of factors that influ-ence football performance could provide important infor-mation to improve the preparation for the game. Further-

more, such aspects might also influence the occurrence ofinjuries.4 Several empirical studies have demonstratedthe influence of psychosocial stressors (in particular, lifeevents) as well as psychological characteristics on sportsinjuries in general,1,11,23 but only one study has ad-dressed this issue particularly in regard to football.24 Inthat study, poor reaction time was found to be a risk factorfor injury.

Because more than one-quarter of football injuries arecaused by foul play,5,6,810 fair play is closely related tothe incidence of injuries. In ice hockey, it has been shownthat the introduction of the checking-from-behind rule isrelated to a decrease in head/neck and back injuries27 and

that a fair play concept reduced injury rates.18

Pilz15

reported that the comprehension of fair play had changedin recent years, and he stated that success has becomemore important in football than fair play. From the resultsof his representative study of the attitudes of juvenilefootball players toward fair play, he concluded that viola-tion of rules and unfairness are logical consequences of theorientation toward success in modern sport.16 However,psychological factors, such as competitive anxiety or ex-pression of anger, may also determine the way football isplayed, especially with respect to fair play. Therefore, it isimportant to analyze the attitudes of players and theirreadiness to contravene the laws of the game. An under-

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jiri Dvorak, MD, SpineUnit, Schulthess Clinic, Lengghalde 2, CH-8008 Zurich, Switzerland.

No author or related institution has received any financial benefit fromresearch in this study.

0363-5465/100/2828-S22$02.00/0THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, Vol. 28, No. 5

2000 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

S-22


2/7

standing of the psychological factors underlying foul playmay lead to interventions to improve fair play. The aims ofthis study were to examine psychological and football-specific characteristics at different levels of play, as wellas to analyze the relationship between psychological char-acteristics and attitudes toward fair play.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All information, except reaction time, was ascertained byquestionnaire. Football-specific characteristics includedthe number of training hours and games, playing experi-ence and positions, style of play, and attitudes toward fairplay. In some aspects of the questionnaire, objective infor-mation was acquired, and in others, subjective attitude.All questions were formulated so that they could be an-swered by selecting one of the given alternatives or byentering a number. Psychological characteristics were as-sessed by three established self-evaluation question-naires. The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory (ACSI20) pro-

vided answer scales for coping with adversity, ability to becoached, performance under pressure, mental preparationfor competition, concentration, freedom from worry, andself-confidence. A second questionnaire elicited informa-tion on competitive anxiety (State Competitive AnxietyTest [SCAT]13). Finally, the trait scale and anger expres-sion scales of the State-Trait-Anger-Expression-Inventory(STAXI19,22) were used to assess the characteristics ofaggression and anger.

The reaction time of the player was examined using asimple electronic device, whereby the player pressed abutton in response to an optical signal (see Acknowledg-ments). To estimate the effect of fatigue on this measure,reaction time was tested twice: before the sports testswere performed (without the influence of physical exer-cise) and immediately after a 12-minute run. At bothtimes, the test was repeated five times and an averagevalue was calculated.

Definition of Age and Skill-Level Groups

Players were grouped according to age and skill level oftheir team. Adult players were categorized into four skilllevel groups: top-level adults (first and second league),third league, amateur teams (Division), and local teams.Youth players were divided into two age groups (14- to16-year-old players and 16- to 18-year-old players) and

two skill-level groups (high and low).

Statistical Analysis

All data were processed on a Macintosh computer (AppleComputers, Cupertino, California) using Microsoft Office(Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Washington). The statisticalprocedures were performed using StatView (version 4.5;SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) and SPSS (ver-sion 6.1; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois). Methods appliedwere frequencies, cross-tabulations, descriptives, andmeans. Where data were missing for a given variable,frequencies are reported as percentages with respect to all

available data (always more than 95% of the whole studygroup). Differences between groups were examined by t-tests, analysis of variance, or the chi-square test. Unlessotherwise stated, only results that were significant at the5% level or less are presented.

Sample

A total of 588 players from Germany, France, and theCzech Republic was studied (see Table 1 in Medical His-tory and Physical Findings in Football Players of DifferentAge and Skill Levels). The average age of the players was18.4 years (SD, 4.0; range, 14 to 41). As can be expectedfrom the average age, most of the players were still atschool or in vocational training; 75 (13%) were profes-sional football players.

RESULTS

Football-Specific Characteristics

On average, the players had started playing football at theage of 6.3 years (SD, 1.8; range, 3 to 15) and had played for10.6 years (SD, 4.9) in an organized club. In the youthgroups, high-level players were younger when they beganplaying football compared with low-level players (Table 1).

Approximately one-half of the players (306 of 580,52.8%) preferred the right leg for shooting, 62 (10.7%)preferred the left leg, and 212 (36.6%) players shot withboth legs. The proportion of players shooting with bothlegs was higher in high-level teams than in low-levelteams (Table 1).

Most of the players were midfield players (N 203;34.9%) and defenders (N 164; 28.2%); attackers (N110; 18.9%) were less numerous. The number of goalkeep-ers (N 54; 9.3%) reflected the usual proportion in ateam. Fifty-two (8.9%) players stated that they played inmore than one position, but 314 players (59%) classifiedthemselves as an all-rounder. When trying to get past anopponent, 272 players (53.4%) relied more on techniqueand 237 (46.6%) more on strength. No significant differ-ences between age or skill-level groups were observed forthe previously mentioned variables.

When asked about their role in games, 145 (27.2%)players described themselves as a leader. In higherleagues, the proportion of leaders was higher than inlower leagues; for youth players, this difference reached

statistical significance (Table 1). About one-half of theplayers (N 280; 52.1%) were willing to play a hardphysical game. In the total group, 225 players (42.9%)depicted their actions as planned and well prepared, buttop-level adult players characterized their actions signifi-cantly more frequently as quick and spontaneous thandid adult players in lower leagues (Table 1).

Amount of Training and Games

In the last season, the players participated in an averageof 25 matches (SD, 12.5). They trained an average of 9.9hours per week (SD, 6.7) during the preparation period

Vol. 28, No. 5, 2000 Psychological and Sport-Specific Characteristics of Football Players S-23


3/7

and an average of 6.0 hours per week (SD, 3.6) during thecompetition period.

The number of games did not vary significantly betweenadult players of different skill levels; however, high-levelyouth players played more games than low-level players(Table 2). High-skill players of all three age groups hadsignificantly more hours of training in the preparationperiod as well as in the competition period than did low-level players. Although high-skill players spent more

hours for recovery (for example, sauna, swimming, lightjogging) in the preparation period, these players felt over-loaded by the amount of training and games more oftenthan did low-skill players of the same age group (Table 2).Overall, more than one-third of the players (N 207;35.5%) felt at least occasionally overloaded by the games

and training sessions. Only 119 players (20.4%) felt com-pletely recovered before the next game. Almost 40% of theplayers (N 228; 39.1%) at least occasionally had achingmuscles before the subsequent training session and 20%(N 117) before a game.

Reaction Time

Reaction time measured without the influence of physical

exercise (at the beginning of the examination) was slowerin low-level groups, but the differences reached statisticalsignificance only for youth players (Table 3). Immediatelyafter the 12-minute run, this difference was more pro-nounced. The reaction time was significantly shorter inhigh-level than in low-level players of all three age groups.

TABLE 1Football-Specific Characteristics of Players of Different Age and Skill Levels

Characteristics

Adult players Youth (1618 years) Youth (1416 years)

Top-level(N 40)

Third league(N 41)

Amateur(N 25)

Local teams(N 38)

High-level(N 137)

Low-level(N 96)

High-level(N 118)

Low-level(N 93)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean ( SD) Mean (SD) M ean ( SD) Mean (SD)

Beginning to play football(age in years) 6.6 (1.4) 6.3 (1.6) 6.3 (1.5) 6.7 (1.8) 5.9 (1.4) 6.8 (2.2)

c

5.8 (1.4) 6.7 (2.2)

b

Playing football in a club(duration in years)

17.0 (5.1) 16.1 (4.7) 17.1 (5.1) 16.2 (5.4) 9.6 (3.0) 8.9 (3.3) 8.2 (2.8) 7.8 (2.7)

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Preferred footRight 15 (38.5) 18 (47.4) 13 (54.2) 18 (47.4) 69 (50.4) 58 (60.4) 53 (45.7) 62 (67.4)Left 3 (7.7) 3 (7.9) 4 (16.7) 2 (5.3) 13 (9.5) 12 (12.5) 11 (9.5) 14 (15.2)Both 21 (53.8) 17 (44.7) 7 (29.2) 18 (47.4) 55 (40.1) 26 (27.1) 52 (44.8) 16 (17.4)c

Leader in games 11 (30.6) 9 (25.7) 6 (27.3) 6 (18.2) 44 (34.9) 19 (21.3) 35 (32.7) 15 (17.4)a

Physical type of player 16 (44.4) 21 (58.3) 8 (38.1) 17 (51.5) 59 (46.5) 56 (61.5)a 54 (50.0) 49 (57.6)Actions

Spontaneous 27 (77.1) 21 (58.3) 12 (57.1) 13 (41.9) 69 (56.6) 53 (62.4) 59 (54.6) 45 (52.3)Well prepared 8 (22.9) 15 (41.7) 9 (42.9) 18 (58.1)b 53 (43.4) 32 (37.6) 49 (45.4) 41 (47.7)

a

Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P

0.05.b Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P 0.01.c Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P 0.001.

TABLE 2Amount of Training and Games in Football Players of Different Age and Skill Levels

Training and games


Top-level(N 40)

Third league(N 41)

Amateur(N 25)

Local teams(N 38)

High-level(N 137)

Low-level(N 96)

High-level(N 118)

Low-level(N 93)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Number of games played inthe last season

22.1 (9.6) 25.0 (8.3) 22.2 (13.1) 19.3 (12.8) 26.8 (12.7) 22.9 (8.9)b 28.6 (13.3) 24.4 (14.8)a

Hours of training(preparation period)

18.5 (6.5) 14.8 (4.4)b 9.0 (4.1)c 8.6 (3.8)c 12.6 (6.2) 6.4 (5.9)c 10.1 (6.8) 5.1 (2.5)c

Hours of training(competition period)

9.6 (4.3) 8.5 (2.5) 6.5 (2.0)b 5.1 (1.7)c 6.6 (2.0) 4.3 (2.0)c 6.3 (5.8) 4.1 (1.9)c

Hours of recovery(preparation period)

3.9 (7.2) 3.9 (6.7) 2.1 (3.4)b 2.4 (7.2)a 2.2 (2.4) 1.7 (4.5) 1.7 (6.9) 1.1 (2.8)a

Overloaded by amount oftraining and games(1 never to 5 always)

2.6 (0.6) 2.8 (1.0) 2.4 (0.8) 2.2 (0.9)a 2.3 (0.9) 1.9 (0.7)c 2.3 (1.0) 1.8 (0.7)c

a Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P 0.05.b Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P 0.01.c Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P 0.001.

S-24 Junge et al. American Journal of Sports Medicine


4/7

Comparing the reaction time before and immediately afterthe 12-minute run, we observed a significant reduction inall three age groups, but not in all skill-level groups. Themost significant differences were found in the high-level

groups. No substantial association was ascertained be-tween reaction time and the number of previous injuries.

Psychological Characteristics

The results of the psychological questionnaires are pre-sented in Table 4 for the whole study group, as players ofdifferent ages and skill levels were, with only few excep-tions, not statistically different. Young players of high-skill level had significantly fewer worries about their per-formance, and 14- to 16-year-old high-level playersreported significantly more peaking under pressure and abetter concentration than low-level players.

The study group differed significantly from other popu-lations described in the literature, reaching higher valuesin anger trait and the outward expression of anger, butlower values in anger control than the norm populationdescribed by the authors of the State-Trait-Anger-Expres-

sion Inventory.19 The competitive anxiety of the studygroups was higher than that of the players evaluated bythe authors of the State Competitive Anxiety Test.13 Onthe Athletic Coping Skills Inventory, the study group

scored significantly lower on all scales, except for freedomfrom worry, where they reached higher values than theathletes described by the authors of this questionnaire.20

Relationship Between Psychological Characteristics and

Previous Injuries

The average number of previous injuries was 6.6 (SD, 8.8) forthe total groups (see Junge et al.12). For analysis of thepsychological data, the group was split by the average num-ber of injuries. Because players with seven or more injurieswere older than those with fewer than seven injuries, theeffects of age were controlled in the analyses. Compared with

players with more than the average number of injuries,players with fewer injuries had less worries about theirperformance (P 0.05), less competitive anxiety (P 0.01),less peaking under pressure (P 0.01), a lower anger trait(P 0.05), and less outward anger expression (P 0.01).

TABLE 3Reaction Time of Football Players of Different Age and Skill Levels

Measurement


Top-level(N 40)

Third league(N 41)

Amateur(N 25)

Local teams(N 38)

High-level(N 137)

Low-level(N 96)

High-level(N 118)

Low-level(N 93)


Reaction time (time unit)Before the tests began 148 (53) 152 (56) 143 (45) 175 (67) 136 (58) 161 (54)b 157 (65) 178 (68)a

After 12-minute run 106 (37) 133 (53)a 136 (59)a 140 (60)b 114 (49) 148 (57)c 128 (48) 164 (74)c

Difference between reaction timebefore and after the test

48.9 20.1 7.7 36.8 23.6 12.4 23.8 15.1

Significance of difference P 0.001 P 0.05 P 0.05 P 0.01 P 0.001 P 0.05 P 0.001 P 0.05

a Significance of difference from high-level players to low-level players of the same age group: P 0.05.b Significance of difference from high-level players to low-level players of the same age group: P 0.01.c Significance of difference from high-level players to low-level players of the same age group: P 0.001.

TABLE 4Comparison of Psychological Characteristics in the Current Study Group and Populations From the Original Studies

QuestionnaireCurrent group Comparison group Difference between groups

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Significance

Athletic Coping Skills Inventory (ACSI)a

Coping with adversity 5.52 (2.09) 6.37 (2.17) P 0.001Concentration 6.81 (2.04) 7.20 (2.08) P 0.05

Ability to be coached 7.93 (2.27) 8.85 (2.32) P 0.001Confidence 7.16 (2.05) 8.12 (2.22) P 0.001Mental preparation 4.41 (2.45) 5.84 (2.67) P 0.001Free from worry 6.61 (2.30) 6.32 (2.86) P 0.05Peaking under pressure 5.66 (2.55) 6.76 (2.70) P 0.001

Sport Competitive Anxiety Inventory (SCAT)b

Competitive anxiety 18.06 (4.32) 17.04 (4.30) P 0.001State-Trait-Anger-Expression Inventory (STAXI)c

Anger trait 21.11 (4.87) 18.1 (5.34) P 0.001Anger expression inward 16.04 (3.70) 16.0 (4.04) P 0.05Anger expression outward 13.97 (3.71) 13.0 (4.02) P 0.001Anger control 21.47 (4.13) 22.4 (5.29) P 0.001

a Comparison group is 594 male athletes.20b Comparison group is 303 football players.13c Comparison group is 990 normal subjects.19



5/7

Fair Play

The answers given with respect to fair play statementsclearly indicate that players have insufficient respect forthe rules of the game, its regulations, and its spirit (Table5).Indeed, nearly all players (N 526; 91.8%) were readyto commit a professional foul if required, depending onthe score and the importance of the match. The majority ofplayers stated that provocation (N 401; 70.5%) andhidden fouls (N 360; 62.4%) were, from their point ofview, part of playing football. Half of the players (N 293;51.3%) declared that they retaliated in the same waywhen an opponent provoked them with word or gesture,and even more players tended to pay back a hidden foulwith similar methods (N 323; 57.6%). No substantialdifferences between different age and skill-level groupswere observed in relation to these findings.

Relationship Between Psychological Characteristics and

Fair Play Statements

For each of the eight fair play statements, players whoagreed and who disagreed with the statement were com-

pared with respect to their psychological characteristics (Ta-ble 5). Players who declared that they do not talk to anopponent during a game had more ability to cope with ad-versity and had better concentration. Their anger trait waslower, and they controlled their anger more often and out-wardly expressed it less frequently than did players whodisagreed with this statement. Players who agreed that theydo not listen to what an opponent says during a game weremore often mentally prepared for competition, had a betterability to cope with adversity, and were easier to coach. Theiranger trait was lower, and they controlled their anger moreoften and outwardly expressed it less frequently than didplayers who disagreed with this statement.

Players who stated that they reply with similar methodswhen provoked by an opponent more often had a lack of

concentration, had problems in coping with adversity, and

were harder to coach. Their anger trait was higher, andthey controlled their anger less frequently and outwardly

expressed it more often than did players who disagreed

with this statement. Players who stated that they payback a hidden foul immediately with similar methods were

less able to cope with adversity, had less peaking under

pressure, had worse concentration, and were harder tocoach. Their anger trait was higher, and they controlled their

anger less frequently and outwardly expressed it more often

than did players who disagreed with this statement.Players who stated that they pay back a hidden foul at

the right moment with similar methods had less ability to

cope with adversity and were harder to coach. Their angertrait was higher, and they controlled their anger less

frequently and outwardly and inwardly expressed it more

often than did players who disagreed with this statement.Players who agreed that, for them, provocation is a part of

football, more often declared peaking under pressure.Their anger trait was higher, they controlled their anger

less frequently and expressed it more often outwardly

than did players who disagreed with this statement.Players who agreed that, for them, hidden fouls are a

part of football, controlled their anger less frequently and

expressed it more often outwardly than did players whodisagreed with this statement. Players who agreed that,

depending on the score and the importance of a match, a

player sometimes has to commit a professional foul, wereolder (P 0.05), more often had previous injuries (P

0.05), and more often were prepared mentally for the

game. They had better concentration, better control ofanger, and more self-confidence, but also had more wor-

TABLE 5Relationship Between Psychological Characteristics and Fair Play Statements

Psychological Characteristic

I do not talk to an opponentduring a game.

I do not listen to what anopponent says during a game.

I respond to provocationwith the same methods.

I pay back a hidden foulimmediately.

Yes (N 224) No (N 353) Yes (N 268) No (N 353) Yes (N 293) No (N 278) Yes (N 65) No (N 418)


Coping with adversity(ACSI) 5.8 (2.1)

b

5.3 (2.0) 5.8 (2.1)

c

5.2 (2.1) 5.1 (2.0)

c

5.9 (2.1) 4.9 (1.9)

b

5.7 (2.1)Concentration (ACSI) 7.1 (2.1)b 6.6 (2.0) 6.5 (2.0)c 7.1 (2.0) 6.2 (2.3)a 6.9 (2.0)

Ability to be coached (ACSI) 8.3 (2.2)c 7.6 (2.3) 7.5 (2.4)c 8.3 (2.1) 7.2 (2.5)b 8.1 (2.2)Confidence (ACSI)Mental preparation (ACSI) 4.7 (2.6)a 4.2 (2.7)Free from worry (ACSI) 6.3 (2.3)b 6.8 (2.2)Peaking under pressure

(ACSI)4.9 (2.6)b 5.8 (2.5)

Competitive anxiety (SCAT) 18.5 (4.4)a 17.6 (4.3)Anger trait (STAXI) 20.4 (5.1)b 21.6 (4.7) 20.1 (4.6)c 22.1 (4.9) 22.9 (4.9)c 19.3 (4.2) 23.4 (5.0)c 20.5 (4.7)Anger expression inward

(STAXI)Anger expression outward

(STAXI)13.2 (3.6)c 14.5 (3.7) 13.4 (3.7)c 14.5 (3.7) 15.2 (3.8)c 12.7 (3.1) 15.5 (4.1)c 13.6 (3.6)

Anger control (STAXI) 22.1 (4.3)b 21.1 (4.0) 22.2 (3.9)c 20.9 (4.2) 20.3 (3.9)c 22.7 (4.0) 19.7 (4.0)c 21.7 (4.2)

a

Significant difference between yes and no groups (P 0.05).b Significant difference between yes and no groups (P 0.01).c Significant difference between yes and no groups (P 0.001).



6/7

ries about their performance than did players who dis-agreed with this statement.

In summary, the eight statements covered four differentaspects of fair play. This was also confirmed by a factoranalysis. The psychological characteristics of players whodid not talk or listen to an opponent during a game werealmost the opposite of those who agreed with the otherstatements. Players who refrained from verbal interactionwith the opponent more often prepared mentally for thegame, had better concentration, and were easier to coach.They coped better with adversity and anger than playerswho talked or listened to an opponent during the game.On the other hand, players who agreed with the question-

naire statement of paying back provocation and hiddenfouls had a higher anger trait and less control of theiranger. Moreover, they had a lack of concentration, poorability to cope with adversity, and were difficult to coach.Players who stated that for them provocation and hiddenfouls were a part of football controlled their anger lessfrequently and outwardly expressed it more often, butthey did not differ in any other aspects from players whodisagreed with these statements. Finally, nearly all play-ers agreed that sometimes a player has to commit aprofessional foul. There was no difference in anger traitor expression of anger; in fact, players who answered thestatement in the affirmative had better control of angerthan players who refrained from professional fouls.

DISCUSSION

Regarding football-specific characteristics, it is remarkablethat the number of games did not vary significantly betweenadults of different skill levels although the amount of train-ing and recovery was lower in the lower leagues. In the youthteams, players in lower leagues had both less training andfewer games compared with high-level players. However,more than one-third of all players at least occasionally feltoverloaded by the number of games and training sessions.The high percentage of players with aching muscles before

the subsequent training session or game also indicated theinadequate physiologic recovery of the players.

The reaction time, as measured by a simple electronicdevice, differed significantly between the eight age andskill-level groups. The reaction time was slower in low-level players than in high-level players. This observation,which was already noticeable at the first examination(without the influence of physical exercise), was even morepronounced at the second examination (immediately afterthe 12-minute run). In comparing the pre- and postexer-cise measurements, no general effect of fatigue was ob-served; indeed, on the contrary, a reduction in reactiontime after physical exercise suggested an increased

arousal in the players. Either a lesser degree of arousal ora confounding effect of fatigue in the low-level players mayhave been responsible for the finding that the differencesin reaction time between players of high- and low-levelfootball were more pronounced at the second meas-urement. An association between reaction time and in-jury, as showed in two prospective studies,4,24 could not beconfirmed using retrospective data.

The psychological characteristics of the study group dif-fered significantly from populations described in the liter-ature,13,19,20 but mostly the numeric differences weresmall (0.5 SD) and reached statistical significance onlybecause of the large sample sizes. Several studies have

demonstrated the influence of psychological factors onsports injury.11 In the present study, a relationship be-tween competitive anxiety and injuries was demonstrated,confirming the findings of other prospective investigationsof other types of sport.3,7,14 Blackwell and McCullagh3

compared the extreme quartiles of the State CompetitiveAnxiety Test and revealed significant differences betweeninjured and uninjured American football players, as wellas between those who were severely injured and those whowere not. Discriminant analysis indicated that competi-tive anxiety was a predictor of the severity of injury7 aswell as the time-loss associated with injury.14 In all stud-ies, high competitive anxiety (measured using the State

TABLE 5Continued

I pay back a hidden foul at theright moment.

For me, provocation is part offootball.

For me, hidden fouls are part offootball.

Sometimes a player has tocommit a professional foul.

Yes (N 323) No (N 238) Yes (N 401) No (N 168) Yes (N 360) No (N 217) Yes (N 526) No (N 47)


5.2 (2.0)

c

5.9 (2.1)6.9 (2.0)b 6.0 (1.8)

7.7 (2.3)b 8.3 (2.2)7.2 (2.0)a 6.4 (1.9)6.5 (2.3)a 7.3 (2.4)

5.8 (2.6)a 5.2 (2.4)22.1 (4.6)c 19.7 (4.9) 21.5 (4.7)a 20.4 (5.0)16.4 (3.8)b 15.5 (3.6)

14.6 (3.7)c 13.1 (3.6) 14.3 (3.7)b 13.3 (3.6) 14.3 (3.8)a 13.5 (3.5)

21.0 (4.0)c 22.3 (4.3) 21.2 (4.1)b 22.2 (4.1) 21.2 (4.2)a 21.9 (4.0) 21.6 (4.2)b 19.8 (3.3)



7/7

Competitive Anxiety Test) was associated with a higherrisk of (severe) injury.

The result of the present study, that a low score in thescale free from worries (Athletic Coping Skills Inven-tory) was associated with a higher risk of injury, points inthe same direction. A relationship between single scales ofthe Athletic Coping Skills Inventory and injuries has not

previously been shown. The authors of the question-naire,21 as well as Rider and Hicks,17 found no associa-tions between coping skills and injuries. Contrary to theseresults, Petrie,14 using multiple regression analysis, iden-tified the sum of all Athletic Coping Skills Inventoryscales as a predictor of the number of days of absence fromtraining or competition.

Using logistic regression, Thompson and Morris25 dem-onstrated that high anger directed outwardly increasedthe injury risk in American football players. In the presentstudy, not only the outward expression of anger but also ahigh anger trait was associated with the number of pre-vious injuries.

Although in the present study the information regardinginjuries was ascertained retrospectively, the results corre-sponded to findings of previous investigations and confirmedthe influence of psychological factors on sports injuries. Re-gardless of the type of sport, high competitive anxiety, lowcoping skills, a high anger trait, and outward expression ofanger seem to increase the risk of a sports injury.11

A relationship between fair play and the occurrence ofinjury appears to be evident to observers of the game. Infootball, approximately half of all injuries are caused bycontact with another player and more than one-quarter arecaused by foul play.5,6,810 Therefore, it is of great impor-tance to analyze the attitudes of the players and their readi-ness to contravene the laws of the game. Pilz15 reported that

more than half of the youth football players (average age, 13years) that he investigated considered fair play to include afair foul. With increasing age and football experience in aclub, players accept more intentional rule violations.16

Younger players learn to violate the rules according to theimportance of the situation and the degree of punishment.16

In the present study, nearly all players agreed that,depending on the score and the importance of a match, aplayer should commit a professional foul if required by thesituation. Analyzing the psychological characteristics ofthese players, we could find no differences in anger trait orthe expression of anger. Moreover, this group of playerscontrolled their anger well, were more often mentally pre-

pared, had better concentration, and were more confidentthan players who disagreed with the statement. This psy-chological profile indicates that a professional foul is not aspontaneous reaction, but an established and well-pre-pared action in the game.

In contrast, players who stated that they would payback provocation and hidden fouls with similar methodsnot only had more anger trait and less anger control butalso demonstrated a lack of concentration, poor ability tocope with adversity, and were difficult to coach. Theseplayers seemed to mask personal weaknesses by aggres-sion and use, or misuse, of the game to vent their ownemotions. An understanding of the psychological factors

underlying unfair play may allow for the development ofinterventions to improve fair play. However, fair play shouldbe promoted not only with regard to the players, but also inrelation to the attitudes and behavior of the trainers, refer-ees, and spectators. Fair play involves more than just com-plying with the existing rules; its essence comprises respectfor the opponent and the spirit of the game.

REFERENCES

1. Andersen MB, Williams JM: A model of stress and athletic injury: Predic-tion and prevention. J Sport Exerc Psychol 10: 294306, 1988

2. Bangsbo J: The physiology of soccerwith special reference to intenseintermittent exercise. Acta Physiol Scand 619 (Suppl): 1155, 1994

3. Blackwell B, McCullagh P: The relationship of athletic injury to life stress,competitive anxiety and coping resources. Athl Train 25: 2327, 1990

4. Dvorak J, Junge A, Chomiak J, et al: Risk factor analysis for injuries infootball players: Possibilities for a prevention program. Am J Sports Med28(Suppl): S69S74, 2000

5. Ekstrand J, Gillquist J: The avoidability of soccer injuries. Int J Sports Med2: 124128, 1983

6. Engstrom B, Forssblad M, Johansson C, et al: Does a major knee injurydefinitely sideline an elite soccer player? Am J Sports Med 18: 101105,

19907. Hanson SJ, McCullagh P, Tonymon P: The relationship of personality

characteristics, life stress, and coping resources to athletic injury. J SportExerc Psychol 14: 262272, 1992

8. Hawkins RD, Fuller CW: An examination of the frequency and severity ofinjuries and incidents at three levels of professional football. Br J SportsMed 32: 326332, 1998

9. Hawkins RD, Fuller CW: Risk assessment in professional football: Anexamination of accidents and incidents in the 1994 World Cup finals.Br J Sports Med 30: 165170, 1996

10. Inklaar H: Soccer injuries. II: Aetiology and prevention. Sports Med 18:8191, 1993

11. Junge A: The influence of psychological factors on sports injuries: Reviewof the literature. Am J Sports Med 28(Suppl): S10S15, 2000

12. Junge A, Dvorak J, Chomiak J, et al: Medical history and physical findingsin football players of different ages and skill levels. Am J Sports Med28(Suppl): S16S21, 2000

13. Martens R, Vealey RS, Burton D: Competitive Anxiety in Sport. Cham-

paign, IL, Human Kinetics Publishers, 199014. Petrie TA: Coping skills, competitive trait anxiety, and playing status:

Moderating effects on the life stress-injury relationship. J Sport ExercPsychol 15: 261274, 1993

15. Pilz GA: Fair-Play-Cup Niedersachsen. FIFA-Magazine 46: 1112, 199716. Pilz GA: Performance sport: Education in fair play? (Some empirical and

theoretical remarks). Int Rev Soc Sport 30(34): 391418, 199517. Rider SP, Hicks RA: Stress, coping, and injuries in male and female high

school basketball players. Percept Mot Skills 81: 499503, 199518. Roberts WO, Brust JD, Leonard B, et al: Fair-play rules and injury reduc-

tion in ice hockey. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 150:140145, 199619. Schwenkmezger P, Hodapp V, Spielberger D: Das State-Trait-Argeraus-

drucks-Inventar. Bern, Verlag Hans Huber, 199220. Smith RE, Schutz RW, Smoll FL, et al: Development and validation of a

multidimensional measure of sport-specific psychological skills: The Ath-letic Coping Skills Inventory-28. J Sport Exerc Psychol 17:379398, 1995

21. Smith RE, Smoll FL, Ptacek JT: Conjunctive moderator variables in vul-nerability and resiliency research: Life stress, social support and copingskills, and adolescent sport injuries. J Pers Soc Psychol 58: 360370,1990

22. Spielberger CD: State-Trait-Anger-Expression Inventory (STAXI).Odessa, FL, Psychological Assessment Resources, 1988

23. Taimela S, Kujala UM, Osterman K: Intrinsic risk factors and athleticinjuries. Sports Med 9: 205215, 1990

24. Taimela S, Osterman L, Kujala U, et al: Motor ability and personality withreference to soccer injuries. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 30: 194201,1990

25. Thompson NJ, Morris RD: Predicting injury risk in adolescent footballplayers: The importance of psychological variables. J Pediatr Psychol 19:415429, 1994

26. Tumilty D: Physiological characteristics of elite soccer players. SportsMed 16: 8096, 1993

27. Watson RC, Singer CD, Sproule JR: Checking from behind in ice hockey:A study of injury and penalty data in the Ontario University AthleticAssociation Hockey League. Clin J Sport Med 6: 108111, 1996


Documents

artigocaracteristicadefutebol[1]