ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	1	

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

 

A novel on-field training intervention improves novice goalkeeper penalty

kick performance

10	Matt Dicks1, Chris Pocock 2, Richard Thelwell1, & John van der Kamp3, 4	
11		
12	1: Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, UK	
13	2: Expert Performance and Skill Acquisition Research Group, School of Sport, Health and	
14	Applied Science, St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK	
15	3: MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije	
16	Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands	
17	4: Institute of Human Performance, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR	
18		

19	Corresponding author: 

20	Dr Matt Dicks, Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, UK 

21	E-mail:  matt.dicks@port.ac.uk 

22

23	Accepted for publication in The Sport Psychologist on 22nd September, 2016

24

25

26

	ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	2	
27	Abstract		
28	This study developed an on-field anticipation training intervention with the aim of		

29	improving novice goalkeeper penalty kick performance. Eighteen participants were allocated to 

30	either one-player (OP); or three-player (TP) training. The OP group faced “traditional” practice, 

31	with one player running-up to execute each kick. The TP group faced three players in a form of 

32	variable practice; two players stopped their run-up approximately 1.2m from the ball with the 

33	third-player executing the kick. Following training, results revealed that TP made significantly 

34	more saves when facing non-deception kicks in comparison with OP. An implication for 

35	applied practice is that there are potential gains to be made through training anticipation skills 

36	via new on-field practices rather than the current research focus on video-based training. 

37

	ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	3	
38	Introduction		
39	Research in the visual anticipation literature has revealed that differences in the		

40	performance accuracies of expert and less-skilled performers can be reconciled by variations in 

41	the locations of information pick-up and timing of actions (Triolet, Benguigui, Le Runigo, & 

42	Williams, 2013). For instance, when anticipating the direction of an opponent’s deceptive 

43	movements, elite rugby players outperformed novices by attending to honest (centre of mass) 

44	information and waiting later before initiating their movement response (Brault, Bideau, Kulpa 

45	& Craig, 2012). In contrast, the earlier response time of novices did not negatively affect 

46	performance for non-deceptive movements, where both experts and novices achieved ceiling 

47	levels of anticipation accuracy (97%) (see also, Jackson, Warren & Abernethy, 2006). These 

48	findings are corroborated by football penalty kick research, where results indicate that penalty 

49	takers’ use of deception ensures that early kinematic information (e.g., approach angle) is 

50	incongruent with kick direction (Lopes, Jacobs, Travieso & Araújo, 2014). However, if 

51	goalkeepers attend to kinematic information (e.g., non-kicking foot placement) that unfolds 

52	when the penalty taker is approximately 1.2m from the ball, this increases the likelihood of 

53	success when facing deceptive kicks (Dicks, Button, & Davids, 2010). 

54	Differences in anticipation between expert and less-skilled performers, have led

55	perceptual learning researchers to explore the benefits of different training methods (see 

56	Farrow, 2013, for a review). Recently, perspectives in ecological psychology have proposed 

57	that variability in practice conditions may be particularly effective in improving anticipation 

58	accuracy (see Dicks, van der Kamp, Withagen & Koedijker, 2015; Smeeton, Huys & Jacobs, 

59	2013). For example, Smeeton and colleagues (2013) revealed that the prediction of tennis serve 

60	direction can be improved through the implementation of reduced usefulness training, which 

61	has the aim of directing novice (learners) search to more reliable information through changes 

62	in practice conditions. It is thought that variable practice conditions reduce the availability of 

63	variable or less useful information (e.g., early run-up information from a penalty taker), while 

ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	4	

64	information with minimal variability (e.g., the orientation of the penalty taker’s non-kicking 

65	foot) (Dicks, Button et al., 2010; Lopes et al., 2014) remains present. Thus, variable practice 

66	which leads to a reduction in the availability of less useful (variant) information is thought to 

67	force learners to search for alternative, more reliable information (Smeeton et al., 2013). 

68	The aim of this study was to examine whether a novel on-field training intervention

69	improves the anticipation performance of novice football goalkeepers for deceptive and non- 

70	deceptive penalty kicks. Participants were allocated to either a one-player training group (OP) 

71	or a three-player training group (TP). The OP group faced “traditional” practice, with one 

72	penalty taker running up to execute the kicks. The TP group faced three players running-up to 

73	the ball, with only one of the three players continuing the run-up to execute the kick. The other 

74	two players stopped their run-up approximately 1.2m from the ball (cf. Dicks, Button et al., 

75	2010). The rationale for choosing this distance, and subsequently the aim of TP, was to orient 

76	goalkeeper attention towards the more reliable information that unfolds towards the end of the 

77	run-up. Following Smeeton et al. (2013), we rationalised that TP would act as a form of reduced 

78	usefulness training, by minimising the availability of early penalty taker information. If TP 

79	achieves this aim, we hypothesised that the TP group would learn to attend to reliable 

80	information in the kicking action of penalty takers (e.g., non-kicking foot placement) and 

81	perform significantly better than OP, leading to better post-test anticipation performance in 

82	deception and non-deception trials. 

83		
84	Method	
85	Participants	
86	Eighteen novice goalkeepers (Mage = 20.89 + 0.96 years) participated in the study. All	

87	participants were male and had at least three years’ football playing experience at a competitive 

88	recreational level but no specific experience as a goalkeeper. Five penalty takers (Mage = 21.17 

89	+ 0.98 years) were recruited to execute penalty kicks. All penalty takers had between five and 

ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	5	

90	ten years’ experience at a competitive recreational level and experience of taking penalties in 

91	competition. The players had no previous experience of taking penalties against any of the 

92	goalkeepers. Ethical approval was obtained from the local University ethics committee and all 

93	participants provided written informed consent. 

94	Apparatus and Procedure 

95	The pre-test and post-test, consisted of 30 penalty kicks executed by three different

96	players. All participants faced kicks from the same three players in the pre-test and post-test. 

97	The penalty takers approached the ball from a distance of 4m and followed a script that 

98	determined the angle of run-up to the ball, which side of the goal to aim for (bottom left, bottom 

99	right) and whether to use deception or no deception (see Dicks, Button et al., 2010). During 

100	deception trials, players executed kicks as though they intended to aim to one side of the goal, 

101	before shooting at the opposite side. In non-deception trials, the penalty taker shot directly at 

102	the desired goal location without any deceptive intent (Lopes et al., 2014). The script ensured 

103	that the three penalty takers executed 10 penalties each (five deception, five non-deception) that 

104	were directed evenly to the bottom corners of the goal. In addition to the 30 penalties, a further 

105	six kicks were executed to various predetermined goal locations to remove participants’ 

106	awareness of the task procedure (cf. Dicks, Button et al., 2010). Each player took two of these 

107	kicks and goalkeeping performance was not analysed for these trials. All penalty kicks were 

108	executed at a full size goal (7.32 x 2.44 m), using a size five football from the regulation 

109	distance (11m) on an outdoor Astroturf pitch. 

110	Training. Following the pre-test, performances were ranked based on the number of

111	saves for deception and non-deception trials, before allocating participants to one of two 

112	training groups in order to ensure an equal range of visual anticipation performance at baseline 

113	for the two groups (cf. Hopwood, Mann, Farrow, & Nielsen, 2011). The two training groups 

114	were as follows: one-player training (OP) and three-player training (TP). Participants in both 

115	groups faced a total of 80 kicks distributed equally across four training sessions during the 

ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	6	

116	intervention (Smeeton, Williams, Hodges & Ward, 2005). The OP training consisted of 

117	“traditional” kicks in which one player ran-up from a distance of 4m and executed the penalty. 

118	The TP training consisted of three players running up to the ball from 4m, side-by-side, at three 

119	different orientations to the ball (left, central, right), with only one of the three players 

120	executing the penalty. The ordering of when each of the three players executed the kick was 

121	randomised. The other two penalty takers stopped their run-up 1.2m from the ball (Dicks, 

122	Button et al., 2010). It was pre-arranged which player was going to take each penalty although 

123	goalkeepers were not aware of this arrangement. Different markers were placed along the 

124	approach to the ball, and unknown to the goalkeepers, one pair of markers denoted 1.2m from 

125	the ball. Penalty takers in TP and OP training did not follow a script but checks were made in 

126	order to ensure an even distribution of kicks to either side of the goal. 

127	Dependent Measures and Analysis 

128	Goalkeeper performance for deception and non-deception trials was assessed by

129	recording the number of dives to the correct side of the goal and the number of saves in each 

130	condition. Tests of normality indicated the data to be normally distributed. For dives, one 

131	sample t-tests were performed on post-test performance to determine if training led to 

132	performance that was greater than chance. Number of saves were analysed using a two (group: 

133	OP, TP) x two (testing phase: pre-test, post-test) analysis of variance (ANOVA). Pre-test 

134	performance was analysed using an independent samples t-test to ensure there were no 

135	differences between the OP and TP group prior to training. Effect sizes are reported using η2 for 

136	ANOVA and Cohen’s d for post-test comparisons. 

137		
138	Results	
139	For the TP group, the number of dives to the correct side of the goal was statistically	

140	greater than chance (7.5) for both deception (M = 10.33, SD = 2.06) and non-deception (M = 

141	10.78, SD = 2.86), ts(8) = 4.12 and 3.44, respectively, ps < .01. In contrast, for the OP training 

ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	7	

142	group, there was no difference between the number of dives to the correct side of the goal and 

143	chance for both deception (M = 9.11, SD = 2.67) and non-deception (M = 8.33, SD = 1.66), 

144	ts(8) = 1.81 and 1.51, respectively, ps > .05 

145	Independent samples t-test revealed no differences in the pre-test between the OP and

146	TP groups for number of saves in non-deception, t(16) = .263, p = .796, d = 0, and deception 

147	trials t(16) = -.447, p = .661, d = 0.12. The subsequent ANOVA showed for non-deception trials 

148	that there was a significant main effect for group, F(1,16) = 6.682, p < .05, η2 = 0.29, testing 

149	phase, F(1,16) = 11.22, p < .01, η2 = 0.41, and a significant interaction effect, F(1,16) = 14.01, 

150	p < .01, η2 = 0.47 (Figure 1). Follow-up tests revealed the TP training group made significantly 

151	more saves than the OP training group in the post test for non-deception trials, t(16) = -4.03, p < 

152	.001, d = -1.89. The TP training group made significantly more saves in the post-test compared 

153	to the pre-test, t(8) = -5.37, p < .005, d = -2.01, but no significant difference was found between 

154	the two testing phases for the OP training group, t(8) = 0.26, p = 0.79, d = 0.11. 

155	Insert Figure 1 Here	
156	For deception trials, there was no significant main effect for group F(1, 16) = 0.045, p =	

157	0.83, η2 = 0.003, testing phase, F(1, 16) = 0.15, p = 0.70, η2 = 0.009, and there was no 

158	significant interaction effect, F(1, 16) = 0.15, p = 0.70, η2 = 0.009 (Figure 2). 

159	Insert Figure 2 Here	
160		
161	Discussion	
162	The present study examined whether a highly feasible, new on-field training	

163	intervention improved novice goalkeeper penalty kick performance. The aim of TP, as a form of 

164	reduced usefulness training (Smeeton et al., 2013), was to direct goalkeeper attention towards 

165	the use of kinematic information that unfolds in the final phase of a penalty taker’s kicking 

166	action (Dicks, Button et al., 2010). For dives to the correct side of the goal, results revealed that 

167	the TP group performed significantly better than chance in the post-test for both deception and 

ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	8	

168	non-deception trials. In contrast, there was no difference from chance for the OP group for both 

169	kick conditions. Moreover, results revealed that the TP group made significantly more saves 

170	than OP during non-deception trials following training (Figure 1). There were no differences in 

171	the number of saves between the two groups for deception trials (Figure 2). 

172	For non-deception, the TP group performed above chance levels following training and

173	showed a significant improvement for number of kicks saved in comparison with the OP group. 

174	Thus, comparable to previous video-training research, the intervention used in the present study 

175	indicates the potential benefit of using variable practice conditions for enhancing anticipation 

176	performance (Dicks et al., 2015; Smeeton et al., 2013). Further to previous video-training 

177	studies (e.g., Hopwood et al., 2011), our approach has shown that performance improvements 

178	can be elicited from research-informed modifications to existing on-field training interventions. 

179	The implication of this finding for applied practitioners is that new on-field training practices 

180	are a viable intervention to enhance athlete anticipation and decision-making skills (Ford, 

181	Yates, & Williams, 2010).  In this respect, there are potential gains to be made by exploring 

182	new approaches aimed at training anticipation skill via variations of on-field practice rather than 

183	the current research focus of video-based training (Dicks et al., 2015). 

184	For deception, the TP group performed above chance levels following training although

185	the TP group did not make more saves in comparison with the OP group. Previous research has 

186	suggested that the timing of actions in anticipation tasks influences performance accuracy 

187	(Triolet et al., 2013). Specifically, in the case of anticipating deceptive actions, moving early 

188	can lead to an increased likelihood of being deceived (Brault et al., 2012). Furthermore, penalty 

189	kick findings indicate that the timing of movement initiation is correlated to goalkeeper agility, 

190	with slower goalkeeper’s moving earlier and having an increased susceptibility to deception 

191	(Dicks, Davids & Button, 2010). It is therefore plausible that the differences observed for the 

192	effects of training in response accuracies for deception and non-deception kicks could be 

193	reconciled by the timing of goalkeeper movements. However, as movement times were not 

ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	9	

194	recorded, we are unable to verify this claim. Given the complexity of anticipation tasks, which 

195	comprise deception, it is possible that novices may benefit less from the mode of reduced 

196	usefulness training examined in this study in comparison with more skilled goalkeepers. Indeed, 

197	the short period of 80 practice trials (cf. Smeeton et al., 2005) used in the current study may be 

198	insufficient for eliciting meaningful improvements in real-time anticipation skill, particularly 

199	given that no differences were observed in the OP group from pre- to post-test. Future work, 

200	including gaze control and movement measures, participants of different skill levels, and 

201	interventions of different durations is needed to understand the changes in control mechanisms 

202	that occur after a period of perceptual training (Dicks et al., 2015). 

203	In conclusion, the present study had the aim of training novice goalkeepers to exploit the

204	kinematic information that unfolds in the penalty taker’s kicking action (i.e., approximately the 

205	final 1.2m of the penalty taker’s run-up). Following training, goalkeepers in the TP group 

206	performed above chance levels for both deception and non-deception trials but this was not the 

207	case for OP. When facing non-deception kicks, goalkeepers in the TP group made significantly 

208	more saves in comparison with OP. In contrast, novice goalkeepers in the TP group did not 

209	make more saves than OP in deception trials. Future research is needed to build on these efforts 

210	through the implementation of rigorous measures (e.g., gaze and movement control) to fully 

211	capture changes in control processes following training. An implication for applied practitioners 

212	is that there are potential gains to be made through new approaches to training anticipation 

213	skills via on-field practice rather than the current focus on video-based training (Dicks et al., 

214	2015). 

215

216	Acknowledgements 

217	The authors would like to acknowledge the hard-work and contributions of John Burkitt, Jack 

218	Houghton, Liam Scofield, Jasdeep Sandhu, and Tim Locke during the participant recruitment 

219	and testing phases of this experiment. 

	ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	10	
220			
221	References		
222	Brault, S., Bideau, B., Kulpa, R., & Craig, C. M. (2012). Detecting deception in movement: the	
223	case of the side-step in rugby. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e37494.		
224	doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037494		
225	Dicks, M., Button, C., & Davids, K. (2010). Availability of advance visual information		
226	constrains association-football goalkeeping performance during penalty kicks.		
227	Perception, 39(8), 1111-1124. doi:10.1068/p6442		
228	Dicks, M., Davids, K., & Button, C. (2010).  Individual differences in the visual control of		
229	intercepting a penalty kick in association football. Human Movement Science, 29(3),	
230	401-411. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2010.02.008		
231	Dicks, M., van der Kamp, J., Withagen, R., & Koedijker, J. (2015). “Can we hasten expertise by	
232	video simulations?” Considerations from an ecological psychology perspective.		
233	International Journal of Sport Psychology, 46, 109-129. doi:10.7352/IJSP2015.46.	
234	Farrow, D. (2013). Practice-enhancing technology: a review of perceptual training applications	
235	in sport. Sports Technology, 6(4), 170-176. doi:10.1080/19346182.2013.875031		
236	Ford, P., Yates, I., & Williams, A. M. (2010). An analysis of practice activities and instructional	
237	behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: exploring the link between	
238	science and application. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(5), 483-495.		
239	doi:10.1080/02640410903582750		
240	Hopwood, M. J., Mann, D. L., Farrow, D., & Nielsen, T. (2011). Does visual-perceptual		
241	training augment fielding performance of skilled cricketers? International Journal of	
242	Sports Science & Coaching, 6(4), 523 – 535. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.6.4.523		
243	Jackson, R. C., Warren, S., & Abernethy, B. (2006). Anticipation skill and susceptibility to		
244	deceptive movement. Acta Psychologica, 123(3), 355-371.		
245	doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.02.002		

	ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	11	
246	Lopes, J. E., Jacobs, D. M., Travieso, D., & Araújo, D. (2014). Predicting the lateral direction	
247	of deceptive and non-deceptive penalty kicks in football from the kinematics of the	
248	kicker. Human Movement Science, 36, 199-216. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2014.04.004	
249	Smeeton, N.J., Huys, R., & Jacobs, D. M. (2013) When less is more: reduced usefulness		
250	training for the learning of anticipation skill in tennis. PLoS ONE 8(11): e79811.		
251	doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079811		
252	Smeeton, N. J., Williams, A. M., Hodges, N. J., & Ward, P. (2005). The relative effectiveness	
253	of various instructional approaches in developing anticipation skill. Journal of		
254	Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(2), 98-110. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.11.2.98	
255	Triolet, C., Benguigui, N., Le Runigo, C., & Williams, A. M. (2013). Quantifying the nature of	
256	anticipation in professional tennis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(8), 820-830.		
257	doi:10.1080/02640414.2012.759658		
258			

ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	12	

259

260		
261	Figure 1: Mean number of saves in response to non-deception kicks for one-player (OP) and	
262	three-player (TP) training groups.	
263		

ON-FIELD PERCEPTUAL TRAINING	13	

264		
265	Figure 2: Mean number of saves in response to deception kicks for one-player (OP) and three-	
266	player (TP) training groups.	
267