using routines than did the less skilled players. However, recent research suggests that the
routines of expert athletes may actually be far more variable than had been anticipated.
Thus Jackson and Baker (2001) analysed the pre-strike routine of the prolific former
Welsh international and Lions rugby kicker, Neil Jenkins, who scored 1,049 points in 87
games for his country. As expected, he reported using a variety of concentration
techniques (such as thought-stopping and mental imagery) as part of his pre-kick routine.
But surprisingly, these researchers discovered that Jenkins varied the timing of his pre-
kick behaviour as a function of the difficulty of the kick he faced. This finding shows that
routines are not as rigid or stereotyped as was originally believed. More recently, in
another case study, Shaw (2002) reported that a professional golfer had experienced some
attentional benefits arising from the use of a pre-shot routine. Specifically, the golfer
reported that “the new routine had made him more focused for each shot and therefore
less distracted by irrelevancies” (p. 117). In the absence of objective data, however,
caution is warranted about the validity of this conclusion.
Apart from their apparent variability in different situations, pre-performance routines
give rise to two other practical issues that need to be addressed here. First, they may lead
to superstitious rituals on the part of the performer. For example, consider the mixture of
routines and rituals used by the Yugoslavian tennis player Jelena Dokic. Apparently, she
never steps on white lines, she always blows on her right hand while waiting for her
opponent to serve and she bounces the ball five times before her own first serve and twice
before her second serve (Edworthy, 2002). Furthermore, she insists that “the ball boys
and girls always have to pass me the ball with an underarm throw which is luckier than
an overarm throw” (cited in ibid., p. S4). Clearly, this example highlights the fuzzy
boundaries between preperformance routines and superstitious rituals in the minds of
some athletes.
At this stage, it may occur to you that routines are merely superstitions in disguise. To
explore this issue further, read Box 4.4.
Box 4.4 Thinking critically about. routines and superstitions in sportPre-performance routines are consistent sequences of thoughts and behaviour displayed
by athletes as they prepare to execute key skills. Given the apparently compulsive quality
of this behaviour, however, it may be argued that routines are not really concentration
techniques but merely superstitions. Is this allegation valid?
Superstition may be defined-as the belief that, despite scientific evidence to the
contrary, certain actions are causally related to certain outcomes. Furthermore, we know
that athletes are notoriously superstitious—largely because of the capricious nature of
sport (Vyse, 1997). Thus the South African golfer Ernie Els never plays with a ball
marked with the number two because he associates it with bad luck, Similarly, the former
tennis player Martina Hingis refused to step on the lines on the tennis court for fear of
misfortune (Laurence, 1998, p. 23), In general, sport psychologists distinguish between
routines and superstitious behaviour on two criteria: control and purpose. First, consider
the issue of control. Hie essence of superstitious behaviour is the belief that one’s fate is
governed by factors that lie-outside one’s control But the virtue of a routine is that it
allows the player to exert complete control over his or her preparation,
Staying focused in sport: concentration in sport performers 117