This supports the contention that, "A champion team will always beat a team of champions" (Hodge, 2004). Using theory and research to support your answer, discuss Hodge's contention that "a champion team will always beat a team of champions."

Authors Avatar

The 2005 European Champion’s League final in soccer witnessed Liverpool FC beat the overwhelming pre-match favourites, AC Milan. Anecdotally, this supports the contention that, “A champion team will always beat a team of champions” (Hodge, 2004). Using theory and research to support your answer, discuss Hodge’s contention that “a champion team will always beat a team of champions.”

The study of group dynamics is complex in its nature, taking into account aspects that form a ‘group’, encompassing wide topics of Sports Psychology such as Leadership, Motivation and Personality; vast topics in their own right. A group can be defined as, “those social aggregates that involve mutual awareness and potential interaction” (McGrath 1984 p.7), the study of group dynamics is therefore the investigation into the processes and interaction within these ‘social aggregates’. One such example where the above phenomena played out into a sporting equation was the 2005 Champions League Final between AC Milan and Liverpool, a match that saw the overwhelming pre-match favourites Milan race into a seemingly unassailable 3-0 lead before half-time, the second half saw an amazing comeback from Liverpool, scoring three times to take the game into extra-time before ultimately winning on penalties. The previous year pre-competition outsiders FC Porto won the competition with a team bereft of any real superstars, both these examples and many more support the contention that " a champion team will always beat a team of champions"; the phenomena that a so-called underdog can succeed against a team no-one would bet against is hardly a new phenomenon, since the beginning of competition upsets, or against the odds victories are not so much unforeseen as to now be expected, a view shared by Frazier and Snyder (Sociology of sport journal; 1991p 380-388) who argue that “cross-cutting values often create sentiments for the underdog,” and also, “At a microlevel, the underdog status is often used to increase the level of motivation and performance” (Frazier & Snyder 1991)

The essay below will seek to discuss the dynamic group processes involved in the match, focussing in particular on the statement by Hodge (cited in Morris and Summers 2004 p. 210) that “a champion team will always beat a team of champions”. The two teams, Liverpool and AC Milan took the roles of the champion team and the team of champions respectively. The essay will argue that Hodges statement needs some consideration in its application, whilst discussing theory and research that points to conclusions as to why Liverpool were effective in overcoming AC Milan.

It could be said that the initial line-up that Liverpool had started the match with was not necessarily their first choice or strongest, however it was deemed that Liverpool’s manager Rafa Benitez had chosen a team to nullify AC Milan’s strengths rather than play to Liverpool’s own. This decision seemed to backfire as Milan raced into a 3-0 half time lead, prompting reconsidering from Benitez during the interval, “At half-time we knew we had to change things. You concede one goal in the first minute and it is very difficult, then we lose Harry Kewell”. “It was very difficult, but the players believed and won. Steven Gerrard is a key man; he has the mentality we want.” (Rafa Benitez 2005 cited on ). When all is considered within the context of the Champions league final, there are many underlying issues that may explain the notion of a ‘champion team overcoming a team of champions’, one such vital issue is that of leadership, and concerns  four ‘characters’ within the plot of the match;

  1. Liverpool captain Steven Gerrard
  2. Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez
  3. AC Milan captain Paolo Maldini
  4. AC Milan manager Carlo Ancelotti

Leadership can be defined as “the behavioural process of influencing individuals and groups towards set goals” (Barrow 1977 p 232 cited in Weinberg and Gould 2003 p 200), and is vital when considering the dynamics of group relationships, “The role of leaders is vital in developing team cohesion” (Curtner-Smith, Wallace & Wang 1999; Westre & Weiss 1991; cited in Morris and Summers 2004 p 217)

One would get the impression that Benitez’ half time team talk, with his team 3-0 down against one of the strongest teams in Europe, famous for its miserly defence, resembled a group discussion;

“It was difficult because we had to change players, we had already made one substitution and we were losing. We didn't talk about winning, we talked about scoring and after that we would see what the reaction would be. You cannot say to your players, when they are losing 3-0, 'We must win' but you can say 'We must do something different'.” (Rafa Benitez cited on )

The above quote suggests that Benitez merely asked his team what they wanted to do in the second half (there is a large emphasis on ‘We’), if this is the case then arguably group cohesion was facilitated, as is indicated by Westre and Weiss (1991) who found that “higher levels of training and instruction behaviour, social support behaviour, positive feedback, and a democratic style were associated with higher levels of task cohesion” (Westre and Weiss cited in Carron & Huasenblas 1998 p 255), also, “leaders who involve team members in team decisions (goal setting or selection of tactics) help to develop cohesion by increasing each players feelings of ‘ownership and investment’ in the team (Westre and Weiss 1991 cited in Morris and Summers 2004 p 217). The half-time substitution that allowed Hamann on and Gerrard freed of defensive responsibility proved the catalyst. The leadership skills of Gerrard came to the fore, scoring the first goal himself and then driving his team on to tie the scores within the first 15 minutes of the second half. The clarity that was afforded to Gerrard to assume his normal role came arguably from ‘clear, consistent, unambiguous communication’ from his manager Benitez, communication that has been suggested plays an influential role in cohesiveness (Carron & Dennis; Yukelson 2001; cited in Morris & Summers 2004 p 217), the increase in cohesiveness initiating an improvement in performance. It can however be argued that AC Milan had time to react to this improvement in performance, being 3-0 in the lead, however the goals that brought Liverpool level happened in quick succession. The group cohesiveness that AC Milan had in the first half of play had gone into disarray. Their ‘focus’ arguably had gone, with the team overwhelming pre-match favourites and leading by three goals at half-time even the most ardent Liverpool fan would have conceded defeat. It has been suggested by some sources that AC Milan’s team could be heard from the Liverpool dressing room at half-time singing and celebrating prematurely, “when we were back in the dressing room the Milan players were outside already celebrating that they were champions, celebrating the victory. That really got to us and gave us the hunger to come back at them” (Liverpool defender Djimi Traore cited on ), this arguably spurred Liverpool on and focussed their own task-orientated leadership within their captain whilst AC Milan were perhaps losing theirs. This perspective of AC Milan losing focus through the premature act of celebrating whilst the job hadn’t been finished is a somewhat damning report on both their manager Ancelotti and veteran captain Paolo Maldini, a player who had spent his whole career with AC Milan, captaining them to numerous trophies whilst also captaining his country in his collection of over 100 caps. Zander (1975) considered many factors for such situations in his model ‘desire for group success’ (dgs). This considered that team motivation derives from satisfaction and pride from the team if it is successful in accomplishing its goal(s), asking team members to redefine self esteem to include team membership as paramount. Unlike similar motivation theories and models Zander's is situation specific, thus allowing us an insight as to why their may have been a loss in motivation from the AC Milan team to accomplish its goal, considering that they believed they had already achieved that, whereas the Liverpool team were motivated even more to overcome the deficit and achieve their own goal(s). It can be argued that the goal(s) may have been to theoretically ‘win the second half’, but it cannot be overlooked the affect that the premature celebrations had upon both teams at half-time. When Zander's Dgs model is dissected it can be broken down into several stages, all of which can be applied to the specific situation of the half-time environment at the Champions League final, firstly a ‘pride-in-team’ approach (Zander 1975), input from each member to set a unified team goal and performance objective (in Liverpool’s case the objective would be to salvage some pride and ‘win the second half’ as a starting focus). The second stage should ensure that each team members’ contribution is valued and recognised, keeping substitutes and reserves involved ([Zander 1975] this was arguably done when Benitez decided to bring on Hamman and allow Gerrard’s contribution to become more recognised). Thirdly, emphasise the need for strong leadership ([Westre and Weiss 1991] again releasing Gerrard from defensive responsibilities allowed the captain to assert his leadership skills fully). Fourth, develop team cohesion (both social and task cohesion), whilst encouraging unity in commitment to the cause through time and energy expenditure ([Zander 1975] this ‘unity’ could be fighting the collective cause, almost a perspective of ‘you have nothing to lose’ that would emanate from losing 3-0), and ultimately identity of team members is paramount through effective communication (Zander's 1975 model of dgs cited in Morris and Summers 2004, p 215). The issue of identity of team members through effective communication on behalf of the leader (coach/captain) touches upon the issue of social loafing, it may be reasonable to suggest that the dressing rooms at half-time were two completely different environments. One can imagine the elation in the AC Milan dressing room being not exactly indicative of effective communication, whilst although the Liverpool dressing room may have been more subdued, this environment could allow for effective communication, the opportunity to clarify roles and identity (again alluding to the role of Gerrard through the introduction of Hamann).

Join now!

This concept of situational leadership and favourability can be discussed in conjunction with Fiedler’s contingency model (1967) where specifically Fiedler argued that “a task orientated leader is more effective in very favourable or unfavourable situations” (Weinberg and Gould 2003 p 207), it may be considered, along with the aforementioned evidence of disruption within the Milan dressing room that Milan were not in a position, or environment where Maldini or Ancelotti could lead in a task orientated manner, due to a supposed lack of focus. The Liverpool dressing conversely was more focused and provided a better environment for the task orientated ...

This is a preview of the whole essay