PSYCHOLOGICAL OBSTACLES TO CROQUET SUCCESS
In an early treatise on the psychology of croquet, Powell (1901) observed that ‘it is undoubtedly a defect of croquet that its difficulties are too subjective, that it provokes too much introspection’ (p. 56). A leading player has estimated that ‘mental approach’ makes a 70% contribution to the winning of croquet matches, with technical skill, tactics, and theory between them only contributing the remaining 30% (Riches, 2004). This is often all too apparent to the croquet player who finds that, no matter how dedicatedly they have attempted to hone their techniques, the execution of these in a match frustratingly fails to go to plan. Indeed, some, including one of us, on such occasions have wondered whether it may be time to hang up their mallets. Analyses of the psychological factors affecting croquet performance, like those of the psychology of other sports, have generally focused on areas that are at a fairly high level of awareness, such as anxiety, lack of confidence, and distractibility (Riches, 2004). Coaching interventions have had a similar focus, and have included the use of relaxation and meditation techniques, visualisation, avoiding rumination about bad shots, and other variations of ‘mind control’ (Temlett, 2013), including, even if one does not feel particularly confident, playing as if one does. As well as trying to control their own psychological state, the player might also seek to influence that of their opponent. Indeed, Temlett (2013) advises that one ‘should try to know your opponent as well as you know yourself’. There are, however, psychological factors that are less amenable to practical interventions because they are at a lower level of awareness. After writing his article on the mental approach to croquet, Riches (2004) was persuaded to include an addendum on the ‘fear of winning’. He views this in terms of a state of excitement, with adverse physiological and cognitive correlates, but there may be other reasons why, in croquet as in other areas of life, some people may, seemingly unaccountably, repeatedly fail, even when on the point of succeeding. A clue is perhaps provided by accounts of the early development of croquet in which ‘(t)he ugly reality of aggressive self interest displayed in the will to win marred’ the vision of a genteel sport ‘ideal for mixed company and for the entire family’ (Lewis, 1991, p. 367) and highlighted ‘the critical tension in the culture between sociability and success’ (p. 365). Could it be that at least one aspect of the ‘fear of winning’ is a reluctance to show the aggressive self-interest that winning might be seen to require or ‘the guile of a cobra and the inhumanity of a boa constrictor’ that have been considered possible David A. Winter, Bibi Berrington, Hayley Roscoe, and Clare Mason University of Hertfordshire
characteristics of ‘(t)he higher and dirtier croquet-player’ (Woollcott, n.d.)? This was one of the questions explored in two studies conducted from the perspective of personal construct psychology (Kelly, 1955), an approach which is concerned with the ways in which individuals view, and try to predict, their worlds. In our case, we were interested in how croquet players view themselves, their doubles partners, and their opponents, and whether this may be related to the success In a pilot study, conducted online, members of a croquet club were asked to provide descriptions of different types of croquet player (e.g., a player I would expect to be beaten by) and aspects of themselves (e.g., myself when playing croquet well). The descriptors (or constructs in the jargon of personal construct psychology) used by the seven members who participated fell into categories of Experience (e.g., novice vs. an established player), Skill (e.g., good strategy and forward planning vs. poor forward planning), Interpersonal Qualities (e.g., sociable and friendly vs. unsociable and uncommunicative), Personality (e.g., highly competitive vs. not competitive), and Factual Description of their play. The Studies (e.g., interesting life story vs. uninteresting life story). The next stage employed a procedure known as repertory grid technique (Kelly, 1955), in which 16 constructs, representing the main categories, were selected and the nine players who agreed to participate rated the various different types of croquet player and aspects of the self on each of these on a 7-point scale. The result of this exercise is a matrix, or grid, of numbers, which can be subjected to various forms of statistical analysis, including the production of a graphical representation of each individual’s grid and of the average grid of the group. The research was then extended by recruiting participants via the Croquet Gazette and the Croquet Association newsletter. In addition to completing the grid, they provided demographic information and some details of their croquet play (e.g., present handicap and handicap a year previously). The findings of this broader study, in which 44 players participated, were very similar to those of the pilot study.
Continued on page 10
www.croquetengland.org.uk | 9
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online