Another example of an unofficial leader is Wayne Rooney. He is not the captain of the England football team but he provides a key role amongst the team. He is an indispensable figure for not only the England team, but for his club team – Manchester United. Due to injury and lack of fitness, Rooney hasn’t played that well for England. He is often on the substitute bench and is put on the pitch when his coach (Steve McClaren) feels that the team could use a person orientated leader. A fellow club team mate explained in an interview how Rooney always brought a positive attitude on and off the pitch said,
“Wayne is a fantastic character on the pitch, that is obvious, anyone can see that," said Solskjaer. "But it is the same off the pitch too. In training or in the dressing room, he is always positive. He is always talking football and he has always got the right attitude towards training. That will carry on throughout his career." (Source from http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/16102006/4/ferguson-worry-rooney.html)
Another example of an unofficial leader is India’s cricket player Sachin Tendulkar. Sachin Tendulkar is not India’s captain, however he performs so well in the game by scoring a large amount of runs, and he provides motivation and hope for the team, which is a captains role. Unlike Rahul Dravid, who despite does not always score many runs is an iconic figure in the Indian team. He motivates and gives players belief by not always performing greatly, but by talking to them and giving them belief.
There are two types of leaders; task orientated and person orientated. Task orientated leaders have good activity and are skillful. They are people who are natural leader because of the experience and good understanding they hold and knowledge of what is expected to do well in the sport. Professional level leaders are fluent, consistent and are athletically able. This is known as being autonomous. An example of this is a football manager. He decides what the best options/tactics for the team are against another team because of experience, either from coaching, or being a player themselves.
A person orientated leader gets along with the team. He/she can recognize the skills of the individuals and how they can be used to help the team to excel. He/she can pull people and tasks together to help become completed, for example, to score a goal and turn the game round from losing 2-0 to winning 3-2. In order to be a personal orientated leader it is vital that he/she can fulfil these characteristics. Firstly, to be capable in controlling people and events, this would include co-coordinating tactics and motivational strategies.Secondly, in order to become a good leader, a clear relationship between the individuals and the leader needs to be established and this idea of respect needs to be obtained in order for the leader to co-ordinate team efforts. Thirdly, a person orientated leader has to be quick in identifying problems and solutions, providing the team with the agenda and clarifying objectives. Communication between the leader and team is essential, although these leaders should not dominate in discussions allowing the team to participate as often and confidently as they can. An optimistic leader is proved to have a positive impact on the team. Another example of a person orientated leader is a football manager.
Football managers have to be extremely good at recognizing potential within the team. They also have to be quick at identifying problems e.g. maybe the defence is all over the place and the strikers are sitting back to much. Managers in football that are very good person orientated leaders are people such as Martin O’Neal, Alex Ferguson and Rafael Benitez.
The approach adopted by a leader varies with both the individual and the situation. Leadership has three specific styles. These are known as autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire.
Autocratic is when a person was to take control of the situation. The leader would decide what will be done and would make clear what the group’s expectations are. This style is often used to suit dangerous situations where decisions need to be made quickly. It also seems to suit individuals who are confident (and are often task – orientated) as little notice is taken of individuals when decisions are make. The leader tells others to do without consulting them. The advantage of being autocratic is that decisions are made quicker. However being autocratic leads to being un-motivational. E.g. when Sven Göran Eriksson selected Theo Walcott to be in the England squad for the World Cup, it was his choice to put him on the team because of Wayne Rooney’s injury. This however did not benefit England in anyway as Walcott did not play.
Democratic is when the task is person orientated. This means that the leader or captain would take advice from his/her team mates. They would listen and act on the opinions of the group. Democratic often goes as far as taking a vote with a major opinion. The advantage of this is that everyone’s viewpoint is herd and it is highly motivating, as the team can feel like a closer unit that bonds together, rather than just being a group of players. However the disadvantage is that decisions will take longer to debate over. E.g. when England were playing for the Ashes as the fielding side, they had a huddle and each in turn gave constructive criticism to each other about the placement of fielders. As a result, England won the match and followed on to win the series.
Laissez-faire is when the group is encouraged to do whatever they want to do. The term laissez-faire is French for “let it be.” There is little direction from a laissez-faire leader. Successful use of this style depends on the members of the group. If they are highly motivated and experienced, an advantage of this can lead to greater motivation as the group feel that they are trusted to make their own decisions. However, it will be not as organised. E.g. When teams such as Chelsea FC in the 2004/05 season continuously won games, the manager trusted them with the way they were going to play, however, if another team was tactically superior, they could out do the players, for example Chelsea vs. Liverpool (Champions League Semi-Final 05).
Tiger Woods is arguably the best golfer in the world. The thought of the best golfer in the world having a coach is bizarre however we cannot see past our own mistakes. Woods is not getting better at golf if he cannot realise his mistakes, however he is getting worse. By having a personal coach, he can fine tune his technique, and get a second opinion. Butch Harmon was his former coach, and he told MSNBC News that, “Tiger Woods is not playing well, he is not working on the right things in his golf swing although obviously Tiger thinks he is.” (Source from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5239122/) In the year 2000, when he was 24 years old, he won four major golf tournaments; the U.S. Open, U.S. Amateur, the British Open, and the British Amateur.
In racket sports such as tennis, the leadership technique is different compared to team sports. Roger Federer is a very successful tennis player because of his leadership qualities. Sports such as tennis have a greater demand of mental preparation than others. Tennis is a game of many situations. It makes a player more aware of such techniques they need to master, such as the backhand. In order to master it they have to face a receiving ball on their backhand and learn to adjust to it. Federer has won the Grand Slam men's singles nine times, and won Wimbledon three times. Dedication can payoff and lead to great things.
In conclusion, leadership in every single sporting activity is essential and important. As a team motivation is required, belief, someone to excel you further, and who better than a great team leader who has the ability to do all those things. Even as an individual, to go out and win a game you need mental motivation, someone to push you further. Overall, without leadership, a team or an individual would find it extremely hard to go out and win something.
