Fighting Amish wrote:
Momentum is very much talked about in sports, especially football. I really have come to believe it is a complete myth. It is true that success seems to come in chunks, but I belie this is more due to adjustments (both from coaches and individuals) being made throughout the game. One team gets a step ahead and can ride that change until the other team catches up. What does everyone in the tank think?
I've coached for many years both baseball and Football. High School, College and Travel level youth sports. Momentum is a very large factor.
Because we are human, at every step and age group and competitive level.
Little johnnies, the Joes, to the pro's. HUman.
Momentum is pressure in a sporting event.
Pressure and stress creates many variable outcomes, adds a dynamic to the scenario.
Some humans, athletes in this situation react differently based upon the given pressures put upon them.
More pressure, more production..more pressure, less production, demoralized attitude, test of training, coaching character.
All these things come into play...Momentum is a catalyst for many chain of events which are dependent upon individual makeup of the players/parties involved.
Momentum is no myth. It may seem that way to some, becasue the behind the scenes coaching, training, LEADERSHIP has aided the individuals involved to focus better during trying times. The beauty of sport.
If this is true wouldn't it average out over time? Some player perform better with stress some worse?
I'm also not so sure momentum = pressure. I have both coached and played several sports as well. In my experience pressure is ever present and tends to be more related to the important of the event then what goes in within the event. During the moment most athletes are too focused to worry about this kind of minutia.
Yep. If a team is down by 4 points with 1 second left, from the 35 yard line...sure they could kick a FG and make it look like it was a close game because they only lost by 1. But if they took a deep shot and the WR dropped the pass in the end zone and they lost by 4, the game was actually closer, which is why stats dont tell the whole story.
Look at the SF/GB game.
SF controlled the game from the start. Early in the fourth quarter SF start to run even more while GB cut out running all together.
In the end SF only won buy 8, but everyone agrees that the game wasn't as close as the scored showed.
Some would suggest that GB had the momentum at the end of the game and could have come back if give more time. But this is a perfect example of something I contribute to a change in strategy. If the game were longer the teams wouldn't have likely made this change when they did and I'd expect the outcome to be very similar.