Do fans have a tendency to take sports too seriously? Would you rather play sports or watch? Can watching sometimes be the more demanding role as this article suggests? Are you convinced by the ideas presented here for how fans can help to influence results?
Question proposed by the article seems rather interesting. It deals with psychology and how may be people affected by it. I find human’s psychic very fascinating therefore I include also psychology into my hobbies. I personally believe that it is the mind (more precisely mind's psychic, not the biological features) which controls every bit of us. I also think that only after perfectly supervising one’s mind may we achieve a perfect dominance over our own actions.
ReplyDeleteThe research done by the students on their teacher was convincing enough of the importance of audience behavior on the performance of the one, who is trying to have their attention. The article said that students, subtly adjusting the way they paid attention according to the position of the teacher, achieved that the teacher moved as far left as he could, without him being aware of it. Even though we cannot say that a football player’s only goal is to please the fans, we also cannot deny that he likes to hear them going wild over him. We have to have in mind that when one thousand people disagree with our decision, we have the tendency to at least reconsider it. Unfortunately, it does not work the way, the couches would like to. As the article said, fans are not cheering for decisions, rather for outcomes, which is often crucially misleading the players to do “flashy” moves instead of useful ones. It is the prove of selfishness and superficiality of the fans. Despite thinking they are cheering for the win, they are actually doing it for their own amusement. It is true that if we simplified it we would get something like: “Fans are encouraging the team to have good outcomes,” which would be ultimately seen as positive. However, the means of accomplishing the outcomes are not looked at even though they might be negative, causing more harm later.
A bold solution was proposed in the article. Organizing a crowd of one thousand “referees” is not an easy task but with a help of a “conductor,” an assistant couch, not impossible anymore. I do not know yet if I am convinced such thing would work. Though, was such conspiracy performable I strongly believe that the extent of the result would be so big it would visibly influence the players’ way of playing.
People are trying to do their bests in activities, which they really like. Since they’re keen on them, they’re trying to succeed in an every competition or a tournament. They can be really skilled, even the best in their hobby or profession, but they can lose the match. How is it possible? In my opinion, the loss or the win strongly depends on our mind. If I’m not balanced and mentally prepared for the competition, there’s a bigger possibility of losing the game. That’s why players who are even-tempered are supposed to give better performances than the unbalanced ones. However, there are several ways of making player’s minds more confident.
ReplyDeleteAs is mentioned in this article, the audience can strongly influence the result of a match through player’s minds. Their applause and yelling boost player’s bravery, effort and vigor and thus a player is fonder of winning the game. I agree with Allen’s statement that the audience is able to influence a player’s behaviour. It’s just up to a player how he will decide to play, whether he tries to do something risky and thus make an audience feel excited or rather play more responsibly. However, I do not completely agree with the statement that fans do not cheer for good decisions. I think that real fans are aware of the fact that risky acts may cause the loss of a game. They consider good acts as good outcomes and thus they will cheer a player for them. However, I am aware of fans who do not cheer the team regularly, and we can’t say they’re “a part of team.” These fans came to see a match only for fun. They can cheer only for good outcomes, but the player has to be aware of real fans who will support him for his good decision and responsible play. It depends only on players, how they decide to play and thus they need to be resistant to audience’s attitudes.
I think that an assistant coach should not control the JumboTron. It’s only a manipulation and I think it would have some bad influences. Let the game be a natural game and do not try to influence players through the audience. If we start to do things like this, I think the whole sport will lose its potential. Even now the professional sport is about money, and if it will be about manipulation too, it would be a death of sport.
@Matus
DeleteI have to agree with what you are saying. It often happens that unexpectedly even a person that is considered to be way better than anyone else at a sport will lose a game or event just because they are at a bad place mentally. If the competitor or team member is passing through a difficult period mentally, he is often advised to not compete just because he wouldn’t be able to do his best and if he loses he will just get even more emotional about it then in normal circumstances.
A recent article that I read was about the 2012 London Summer Olympics. It was about the training that the athletes are undertaking. Apparently most of the top of every sport have been getting ready specifically for these Olympics since the start of 2009 and, what surprised me even more is that most of their training consisted of perfecting the mind. Back to the point, this alone in my opinion shows that the mental state of the sportsman is very, very important. In team sports the audience is the main player when it comes to setting a mood for the match. This kind of reminds me of a match I saw years back. AC Milan, which is a huge, famous team, was playing in its own stadium against a team that was widely considered inferior and expected to stand no chance against their massively popular nemesis. One thing that led the match to ending 2:3 for the worse team was that most of Milan’s fan base was angry at its own team because of the recent changes in management of the team. As a result, the fans were chanting a provocative tune making fun of their own team which led to the players being distracted and make stupid mistakes.
Personally, I have to agree with Matus. In my mind, there is no doubt that the audience influences the result of a match, whether they are hardcore fans or just your average football fans.
I love both playing and watching almost all sports because you live the game in both cases. The few soccer and hockey matches that I have attended have given me a sort of out-of-body experience that is simply thrilling. The atmosphere at the stadium is indescribable and the power radiating from the crowds is beyond anything that I have ever felt.
ReplyDeleteAlthough what this article proposes could definitely work and increase the probability of the specific team or player winning, I do not agree with it at all. Except for some completely hardcore fans, I think that most of the people watching the game look for the beauty in it as well and not only if their team wins. The author David Foster Wallace once wrote, “Beauty is not the goal of competitive sports, but high-level sports are a prime venue for the expression of human beauty.” And it’s that beauty of the game, the elegance of the players, the unexpected moves, and shocked expressions when the player succeeds at something deemed impossible, that makes the game so overflowing with exhilaration and enthusiasm. Trying to get rid of the risks that the players take would be like taking out the part of the sport that makes it so awesome. If you want a “perfect” game start playing sports with programmed androids.
Furthermore, I think that over-analyzing these things takes the trill out of the game. Cheering for your team or player should be purely spontaneous, and I can’t imagine what the world would come to if after some amazing shot, goal, basket or hit that was completely reliant upon luck, the audience would be shushed and forced to keep quiet because it was a “bad decision”. What kind of nonsense is that? Like the article says, fans love bad decisions that end in a good result, but the players love it too (if not for the reason that if they succeed they feel simply amazing and “at the top of the world”, then only because the fans love them for it). In my opinion, it would completely ruin the adrenaline rush for both the fans and the players if there was a “conductor” in the stands commanding the crowd.
People always make fun of the Brazilian commentators that commentate the soccer matches because they are so enthusiastic, but I personally admire a culture that is capable of completely engrossing themselves in the game. The spontaneous part of sports is what makes them so thrilling and amazing.
I never thought about whether you live the game more when being a part of it or just when watching it. Though, I think you live the game in both cases but in a different way. Being a part of the game isn’t only about winning or loosing the chances to score but also about the responsibilities brought with the game, or after the game. While watching the game doesn’t bring these responsibilities, it is more likely to bring the different emotions. The difference is in the fact that when being a part of the game, you can change and participate to reach conclusions, while watching the games you can only hope that your teams will win because “fans cheer for good outcomes.”
ReplyDeleteSome fans really have tendencies to take sports too seriously, they can travel longs distances to see their dream matches. They can prepare for matches for a long time. Usually groups of friends go to matches and they live it together. The happiness that covers you after seeing the winning scores of your favorite teams is indescribable.
The question whether I would rather play or watch sports is a bit harder to answer because sometimes I really have feelings to play sports and to be a part of it, like when I used to play tennis but on the other hand sometimes I have just feelings to watch and live the game only by watching it. Usually I watch the games with my dad in the television and we are almost always able to live it fully. I sometimes watch football or hockey matches with my friends as well, obviously spreading more emotions then when watch only with my dad. I remember the times, when the hockey championship was here in Bratislava, which brought us huge happiness after the matches we won and the strong sadness after the matches we lost.
I fully agree with the article that “the fans might care even more than the players” because usually the fans are the ones who devote many things in order to watch a match. As I said before “sport fans go to great lengths to support their teams” and they also “scream their hearts out.” In my opinion it is obvious that when the players know that they have many fans they have stronger wills and motivations to win the games. Simply they wouldn’t want to disappoint their supporters.
This is an interesting topic for me, because I have been thinking about this some time ago. So as for the very first question, whether fans have a tendency to take sports too seriously, I have to say that they definitely do, but only in some cases. It would seem that sports are divided into two categories according to the way people watch them. One group would be Football or Hokey during which the fans and spectators “live the game” just like Jana said and the second group would be for example Gymnastics, Archery or Skiing.
ReplyDeleteNow both these groups have clearly got very different sports within them, but what makes them different? There is something about (mainly) Football and Hokey that makes the people get that “out of body” experience as spectator. I do not think I have ever heard of Archery fans acting like the sport enthusiasts watching games of Hokey at home. You do not even have to watch an important Hokey match and the screaming that echoes throughout Bratislava during the match tells you exactly what is going on. As for Archery, I do not even remember the last time I have watched anyone participate in it.
I believe that what it is in Football and Hokey is that the game is cooperative (two teams against each other), dynamic (even brutal in some cases) and usually involves two countries playing against each other (in the important world-wide matches). I believe within each person there is a small thing we are all born with that attracts us to conflict situations. It is the same type of instinct that makes small children take the fullest plate of food even though they would not be able to eat it all. It is natural. Cooperative, Dynamic, brutal and cross-country. Does it sound familiar? Does it not sound similar to war? War is strategic and cooperative, dynamic and brutal and most certainly cross-country. People have the tendency (even a need) to fight each other and in games such as Football and Hokey they may have found their way of “fighting” (and satisfying their need) without violence (usually).
I have never been a fan of sports like Football or Hokey. You could argue that this might be because I am a lazy person that dislikes any activities that require movement. But then how is it possible I like swimming, archery, volleyball, skiing or cycling? Basically all the sports that have evaded becoming the center of attention of the Screaming Crowd? No, I am not a lazy person. I am a peaceful person that dislikes any forms of violence. Perhaps that is the reason I dislike Football or Hokey.
Now I am not saying that all the people that go to Football matches because of this hidden reason of needing violence. Some individuals might go there for the sole experience of watching twenty two players running around and kicking a ball for one and a half hours. Oh wait... That is ridiculous. In Hokey it gets even better. Basically the same thing as football, but with the added benefit of a few thousand Vuvuzelas. I cannot imagine a Gymnastic competition accompanied by a Vuvuzela orchestra. (Talk about psychological influence...)
I also want to point to another of my ideas. I do not believe the players play the games due to their violent nature. I believe they play it because they like to. Therefore if the spectators find the games as means of satisfying their violence needs and needs to scream something until their voice is gone, they may, but if they want to manipulate the players at a psychological level, I would not allow that. Do not forget. The game is for the players, they were there first. It was them that wanted to play a game and then the spectators came to watch them. They do not play for the spectators only, they also play for themselves and the spectators should not take that away from them. They should at least keep their free will.