Dougie Freedman - Ten Months On

[Cocopopper]

First, I should declare my interests - I'm a psychiatrist, a doctor, and a lifelong Wanderer. I studied at Sheffield, where Dr. Peters is (or was, not sure now...) the undergraduate Dean, as well as being a Consultant Psychiatrist of some repute. He is one reason why I and a number of colleagues went into psychiatry (aside from being failed doctors, naturally...).

As far as the chimp model goes, it's argue against it being quackery. I think that if you can level any criticism against it, it is that it represents a form of manualised common sense, but then so do a number of commonly used, evidence-based psychological therapies. Having read the book and used aspects of it (personally and in practice) I can't think of many who wouldn't benefit from it in done form or other.

The bottom line is about making processes as automatic as possible, so they're less likely to get hijacked by emotion. The penalty is a great example of this - if you accept that professionals are more likely to score in training than they are in a cup final, you accept that the accompanying emotion plays a part. It's a clunky example, but I think the principle holds.

For what it's worth, the approach isn't universally supported within psychiatry, even on a local level. He's a charismatic guy, and some hold that it is this that brings success, as much as the model he proposes. I can't remember who said 'all models are wrong, some are useful', but for my money this is just that - a model that for some will be extremely useful.

Just a shame it's the scousers.

[LeverEnd]

What's Eileen Drewery up to these days?

[StaffsTrotter]

First, I should declare my interests - I'm a psychiatrist, a doctor, and a lifelong Wanderer. I studied at Sheffield, where Dr. Peters is (or was, not sure now...) the undergraduate Dean, as well as being a Consultant Psychiatrist of some repute. He is one reason why I and a number of colleagues went into psychiatry (aside from being failed doctors, naturally...).

As far as the chimp model goes, it's argue against it being quackery. I think that if you can level any criticism against it, it is that it represents a form of manualised common sense, but then so do a number of commonly used, evidence-based psychological therapies. Having read the book and used aspects of it (personally and in practice) I can't think of many who wouldn't benefit from it in done form or other.

The bottom line is about making processes as automatic as possible, so they're less likely to get hijacked by emotion. The penalty is a great example of this - if you accept that professionals are more likely to score in training than they are in a cup final, you accept that the accompanying emotion plays a part. It's a clunky example, but I think the principle holds.

For what it's worth, the approach isn't universally supported within psychiatry, even on a local level. He's a charismatic guy, and some hold that it is this that brings success, as much as the model he proposes. I can't remember who said 'all models are wrong, some are useful', but for my money this is just that - a model that for some will be extremely useful.

Just a shame it's the scousers.

excellent a professional in the field

wonder if mr spot has finished that pint yet

[bobo the clown]

Bloody hell, we have some qualified talent on this site. We could ruin a Company between us if we tried.


I'd naturally think a lot of sports psychology is bunkum, but most high achieving sportsman are highly strung beggars who will largely respond to this quite well and, as said, it's about tiny advantages. The difference in absolute skill is often not the deciding factor for a successful sportsman ... it's their attitude which makes them different.

Actually most ultra successful sportsmen are so bloody driven and single minded they become humourless trunks who can barely function at a normal level.

[Prufrock]

Of course it matters. Did it matter that Lance Armstrong gave us a bunch of crap about how he melded his mind in order to win (when in actual fact he took a shed load of drugs). Does it matter that this bloke works with Ronnie O'Sullivan and Jessica Ennis and Steve Redgrave and we are supposed to think it's his techniques that are helping them to win - they are winners because they are talented not because he's cleared their minds of some mythical inner chimp (not that poor Ronnie seems to have benefited much in the permanent clearance of inner chimpdom even now). If you believe in honesty, truth and science - then it matters.

My point is that THOSE people say he "helped". They are not pinning their success onto him.

But they think he helped. So even if it is only a placebo effect that makes people feel calmer or more in control or whatever, does it matter if they feel it is helping?

And psychology plays a big part in sport. Plenty of very talented people haven't coped with situations well and have gone on to lose.

Wouldn't surprise me if it did have a placebo effect. What about its effect on the non-nuts ones who think some bloke telling them to realise their inner chimp is taking the piss and so have an adverse reaction? No doubt someone somewhere got better at football by playing pingpong. Gillian McKeith has helped some people lose weight; doesn't mean it's advisable for everyone to start colour co-ordinating their food and eating loads of chlorophyll in case it works.

[Prufrock]

If it was purely down to sports psychologist to win Liverpool the League, then surely they would just field a team of 11 sports psychologists, wouldn't they?

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it'll take you from 18th to 1st, but if you're an equally matched side, and it squeezes (and this in an entirely arbitrary figure!) 3% from your team, then it will give better results, no? Admittedly, this doesn't mean that because of the (entirely arbitrary) 3% you'll necessarily win every game, but maybe it will do unseen things, like giving the players better mental strength to recover from defeat more quickly, and not allow it to play on their minds in future games?

You might not be, but people are.

You asked me if it garnered results.
I pointed out we can wait and see.
Now you're saying that that won't happen, it's just incremental stuff that will occur if anything.
So, I'm asking you to show me this 3% incremental attainment. where's the proof this stuff works, and if there is no proof (which there isn't) why the hell are people so keen to go along with crap like this?

I think you're putting words in my mouth here. Asking you if it garners results isn't an endorsement, its a question.

As it happens, you've inadvertently answered it by giving a list of successful people this guy has worked with, but are gainsaying his input into that. As I say, you're asking me for proof, I'm asking you for proof. The only proof that exists is that he was employed by some very successful people. Thats not concrete evidence for either quackery or miraculous working of pschology. But the best either of us can come up with is we don't know. So I'm uncertain as to why you are so certain, considering successful sports stars in this country have both used and endorsed the man?

Dude! You can't take arms against fruit cider and then defend a man who talks about releasing your 'inner chimp'. Seriously! Like, seriously. I know absolutely nothing about the guy other than he's apparently said he can release someone's inner f*cking chimp. INNER CHIMP?! That's enough for me. String him up.

[jimbo]

If it was purely down to sports psychologist to win Liverpool the League, then surely they would just field a team of 11 sports psychologists, wouldn't they?

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it'll take you from 18th to 1st, but if you're an equally matched side, and it squeezes (and this in an entirely arbitrary figure!) 3% from your team, then it will give better results, no? Admittedly, this doesn't mean that because of the (entirely arbitrary) 3% you'll necessarily win every game, but maybe it will do unseen things, like giving the players better mental strength to recover from defeat more quickly, and not allow it to play on their minds in future games?

You might not be, but people are.

You asked me if it garnered results.
I pointed out we can wait and see.
Now you're saying that that won't happen, it's just incremental stuff that will occur if anything.
So, I'm asking you to show me this 3% incremental attainment. where's the proof this stuff works, and if there is no proof (which there isn't) why the hell are people so keen to go along with crap like this?

I think you're putting words in my mouth here. Asking you if it garners results isn't an endorsement, its a question.

As it happens, you've inadvertently answered it by giving a list of successful people this guy has worked with, but are gainsaying his input into that. As I say, you're asking me for proof, I'm asking you for proof. The only proof that exists is that he was employed by some very successful people. Thats not concrete evidence for either quackery or miraculous working of pschology. But the best either of us can come up with is we don't know. So I'm uncertain as to why you are so certain, considering successful sports stars in this country have both used and endorsed the man?

Dude! You can't take arms against fruit cider and then defend a man who talks about releasing your 'inner chimp'. Seriously! Like, seriously. I know absolutely nothing about the guy other than he's apparently said he can release someone's inner f*cking chimp. INNER CHIMP?! That's enough for me. String him up.

We'll be looking at BWFC marginal gains next. Maybe giving David Wheater a shirt size smaller will make him a bit more aero and help him cover that extra half yard in the 94th minute. Maybe slightly looser sock tape on Darren Pratley will help him run for longer and avoid cramp in the latter stages of games.............

[Lost Leopard Spot]

First, I should declare my interests - I'm a psychiatrist, a doctor, and a lifelong Wanderer. I studied at Sheffield, where Dr. Peters is (or was, not sure now...) the undergraduate Dean, as well as being a Consultant Psychiatrist of some repute. He is one reason why I and a number of colleagues went into psychiatry (aside from being failed doctors, naturally...).

As far as the chimp model goes, it's argue against it being quackery. I think that if you can level any criticism against it, it is that it represents a form of manualised common sense, but then so do a number of commonly used, evidence-based psychological therapies. Having read the book and used aspects of it (personally and in practice) I can't think of many who wouldn't benefit from it in done form or other.

The bottom line is about making processes as automatic as possible, so they're less likely to get hijacked by emotion. The penalty is a great example of this - if you accept that professionals are more likely to score in training than they are in a cup final, you accept that the accompanying emotion plays a part. It's a clunky example, but I think the principle holds.

For what it's worth, the approach isn't universally supported within psychiatry, even on a local level. He's a charismatic guy, and some hold that it is this that brings success, as much as the model he proposes. I can't remember who said 'all models are wrong, some are useful', but for my money this is just that - a model that for some will be extremely useful.

Just a shame it's the scousers.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Charisma is all well and good when founding new religions, but is very lacking in scalability when promoting something as a serious scientific model.

[BWFC_Insane]

Right I was thinking about this last night. The guy has basically tried to make a model that allows simple folk (in this case sportsmen and women) to have a working model to understand how their brain works. The inner chimp is their negativity, their worry, anxiety and panic from what I can tell. And the idea is that making processes automatic stops all those things (or the inner chimp) from kicking in as much or at all.

Now if you take someone who cites him as being beneficial in Jessica Ennis, you can see how automating her processes before events can perhaps stop her from being anxious or from overthinking it. But she does the same thing every time (I presume the prep for the hurdles, long jump etc is essentially the same every event). So I can see how that could be of huge benefit in understanding (even if it isn't scientifically correct) the negative aspects of her mind and finding ways to control them. The same with the cyclists.

In football I can see how it might work in pre-match routines getting players to automate their routines and stop them from again to paraphrase letting their "inner chimp" take over.

However, the difference between a football match and other events described is the length and variety involved. Jess Ennis runs up and jumps and the length or height or whatever is recorded. Job done until next time. In football things happen that presumably change players emotional state of mind during a game. Goals, ref decisions, injuries, good play, bad play, crowd noise etc. So its presumably hard to control your "inner chimp" through 90 minutes of football as its always different. Its kind of a microcosm for life. People who are lets say "on the edge" can be absolutely fine until something happens out of the blue.

But what is more analagous to athletics and cycling where there is a routine, something that essentially is unchanged is say a penalty shoot out. There essentially the routine and build up is identical each time and the emotions that will occur, presumably very similar to those experienced before a jump or a race or a sprint. Now certain countries, including England (but not only us, Spain, Italy, Netherlands) have all had troubles over the last 20 years with penalty shoot outs. Whereas others like Germany and Argentina have a very good record. Penalties may have an element of technical skill to them but given that we're talking about major footballing nations here some of whom have won major tournaments (but still fail more often at penalties) I think we can say it's probably far less than during the course of the game. So what is they key thing that determines success in penalty shoot outs? It seems to me that if you take out the technique of the shooter, then you are left with two things, the ability of the goalkeeper you are facing OR the mentality of the taker. And for me I don't believe that Germany have a secret batch of penalty saving goalkeepers down the years who each come in and are significantly better than other nations keepers. So there must be a mental side going on in these situations. It is quite mechanical taking a penalty. A footballer who plays at international level, in theory should be able to put the ball with sufficient pace into one of the four corners of the goal so that they are effectively unstoppable. Indeed plenty of examples of regular penalty takers who hardly ever missed who do miss in shoot outs. So what stops them? And why do some countries excel where others fail over a period of time with different players. Can only be down to the pressure of the situation and things that go on inside the takers head as they step up to take them.

I think what I'm saying is that there must surely be a "mental side" or whatever you want to call it to football. It's probably harder to manage than other sports where this chimp model has been applied. And probably the results are going to be less obvious as this is not an individual sport like golf where you are entirely in control of your own game. But perhaps it will send players into games at least, starting with a better frame of mind. Which as said previously might only count for 1% but isn't that 1% worth it?

If such an approach could only improve the success ratio of penalty taking then even that is probably cost effective in itself.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Well, yes, but why bother with a pseudo-scientific pyschological model (and a charismatic guy to explain it, and the asociated costs that are asociated with that) when you can just practice taking penalties?

[BWFC_Insane]

Well, yes, but why bother with a pseudo-scientific pyschological model (and a charismatic guy to explain it, and the asociated costs that are asociated with that) when you can just practice taking penalties?

Cos England have practiced penalties. And still failed. And not practiced penalties and failed.

My guess is that the key is not only practicing until it becomes second nature but also finding ways to cope with the pressure of the situation at the time (rather like the few minutes before your long jump for example).

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Well, yes, but why bother with a pseudo-scientific pyschological model (and a charismatic guy to explain it, and the asociated costs that are asociated with that) when you can just practice taking penalties?

Because practicing penalties doesn't prepare you for the psychodrama of an actual shootout. Which is kinda the point.

I see many a hole in the theory but Rodgers and Allardyce aren't slouches, and if they reckon it's worth looking into then good luck to them. I don't think he's picking the team.

[Bruce Rioja]

Well, yes, but why bother with a pseudo-scientific pyschological model (and a charismatic guy to explain it, and the asociated costs that are asociated with that) when you can just practice taking penalties?

Cos England have practiced penalties. And still failed. And not practiced penalties and failed.

My guess is that the key is not only practicing until it becomes second nature but also finding ways to cope with the pressure of the situation at the time (rather like the few minutes before your long jump for example).

As per Cocopopper's "The bottom line is about making processes as automatic as possible, so they're less likely to get hijacked by emotion."

There appears to be a lot being written here yet the conversation isn't moving along one iota.

[LeverEnd]

Sports psychology has been going for years just without being known as such. Usually referred to by some cliche such as 'arm round the shoulder or kick up the arse'. It makes sense that science should look into human behaviour and responses to such things. It is a fact that humans have hardwired responses to certain situations (fight or flight etc) that are hard to control. If a sports scientist can provide strategies to use these responses to a sporting advantage then why not give it a go? It won't take away from anything else, like DSB says, he's not picking the team.
I watched Clarke Carlisle's documentary on depression last night and it's obvious that far from making them more confident, in some cases money and fame don't sit easily with footballers. I would have thought that a calming influence off the pitch would be invaluable to certain players. Some people just don't need that sort of thing. Imagine suggesting it to Roy Keane for example?

On a lighter note I was reminded of this tale about Ray parlour and Eileen Drewery...

Is it true that you narked Glenn Hoddle’s spiritual healer, 
Eileen Drewery?

I had a bad calf and Glenn sent me to see her. 
I sat in this seat, I couldn’t see her – I thought she was going 
to come out with no clothes on or something! Anyway, she placed her hands on my shoulders – I had long hair back then – and I just said: “short back and sides, please, Eileen."
In fairness, she laughed. She was quite funny. But she told her husband and it was suddenly in The Sun! I never got picked for England again.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

There appears to be a lot being written here yet the conversation isn't moving along one iota.

Suitably told off, I shall retire from propounding the anti view. Dougie's not employing him any way.

[BWFC_Insane]

Well, yes, but why bother with a pseudo-scientific pyschological model (and a charismatic guy to explain it, and the asociated costs that are asociated with that) when you can just practice taking penalties?

Cos England have practiced penalties. And still failed. And not practiced penalties and failed.

My guess is that the key is not only practicing until it becomes second nature but also finding ways to cope with the pressure of the situation at the time (rather like the few minutes before your long jump for example).

As per Cocopopper's "The bottom line is about making processes as automatic as possible, so they're less likely to get hijacked by emotion."

There appears to be a lot being written here yet the conversation isn't moving along one iota.

Indeed. But I was trying to compare football to the sports where his approach is said to have been successful.

[Bruce Rioja]

There appears to be a lot being written here yet the conversation isn't moving along one iota.

Suitably told off, I shall retire from propounding the anti view. Dougie's not employing him any way.

Woah there, young Spot. A teller offer I am not.

Just think we're going round in circles.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Thought I recognised that story, LE...

http://fourfourtwo.com/interviews/askas ... ticle.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lost Leopard Spot]

There appears to be a lot being written here yet the conversation isn't moving along one iota.

Suitably told off, I shall retire from propounding the anti view. Dougie's not employing him any way.

Woah there, young Spot. A teller offer I am not.

Just think we're going round in circles.

I agree. Circling like a vulture over a well picked skeleton.

So Dougie, ten months on. It's not enough, we need more time to come to a consensus view.
The first batch of this season's matches were always going to be a bit tough due to the nature of the opponents crammed into the opening month. But if we don't get a win soon, and we plummet bottomwards, I can easily see a more negative outlook developing too soon.

[Prufrock]

I don't care how effective you can prove heart medicine is, if a bloke tells me he wants to have a look at pumpy-wump and see if he can unleash it's inner ox I'd be telling him to piss off.

It's not dismissing all sports psychology to say a bloke who says he's going to release your 'inner chimp' might be taking the piss!