Olivia Nolan, Leigh Russell, Trevor Savage, Sam Shaw, Joel Thompson

Exploration into the area of team cohesion revealed that little research had been conducted within the sport of Cricket amongst the school aged population.

The evidence is clear that the GEQ may be utilised to provide a lucid explanation of the concept of cohesion so that generalisations and assumptions, based on subjective reports, may give way to a more clinical and objective understanding. (Davids & Nutter, 1988). The GEQ research by Brawley, Carron and Widmeyer (1988) was concerned with such potential group cohesion aspects as group resistance; group size; adherence to physical activity; and group performance. There also has been growing interest in the relationship between leadership behaviours and team cohesion (Gardner et al. 1996, p.369). 1995, p.283). The GEQ is a validated tool for the assessment of team cohesion, which encompasses both the task and social aspects of cohesion. The GEQ was the tool utilised in this study of the school-aged cricketers.

Matheson et al (1995) suggested that motives for participation at a C- grade level may be more associated with socialisation and friendship than those at an A-grade level. It is hypothesised that this may not be apparent in the case of the school aged cricketers in our study, as the C-grade team and the A-grade team are both required to play cricket due to the outlines set out by their educational institution. However, it could also be hypothesised that the C-grade team will enjoy a more social aspect of the game then the A-grade side, due to the overall lower skill level of the players. Sargent (1996) suggests that team cohesion is increased when the members of the team share the same experiences.

Two instruments were used in the present study: the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) (Widmeyer et al, 1985) and the Leadership Scale for sports (LSS). The GEQ was chosen due to its sports specific measure of cohesion and reflects good content validity, internally consistent and has preliminary factorial validity (Brawley et al., 1987).

The GEQ measures four components of cohesion

1. members attraction to the group -task (ATG-T)
2. members attraction to the group – social (ATG-S)
3. members integration into the group – task (GI-T
4. members integration into the group – social (GI-S

Teams rated the extent to which they agree with each statement on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to nine (strongly agree) (Everett et al., 1992, p.315).

The LSS contains 39 items and 5 dimension which were amended to be relevant to cricket.

1. Training and instruction (TI)
2. Democratic Behaviour (DB)
3. Autocratic Behaviour (AB)
4. Social Support (SS)
5. Positive Feedback (PF)

Teams rated the extent to which they agree with each statement on a scale from one (always) to five (never).

Two male coaches and twenty male school age cricketer’s from an independent Sydney boys school who played in the under 15 division A (n=12) and C sides (n=8). The subjects were informed that the researchers wanted to obtain information regarding the following;

1. the role the coach plays in the cohesion within the ‘A’ and ‘C’ teams
2. the influence personal motivation has on team cohesion
3. the effect of compulsory school sport on team cohesion
4. the effect of a semi-residential environment on team cohesion.

Subjects practice twice weekly with one game per week over a season of a six month period.

The testing session was arranged to be conducted during a half hour period at the commencement of a training session in which the questionnaires were completed by all subjects available. All questionnaires were collated and results tabulated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

ANOVA was utilised to statistically analyse each of the five GEQ sub scales to measure the internal consistency of both the GEQ and LSS. It must be noted that there was a discrepancy in sample size of the teams "A"_n=.12, "C"_n=8. Level of significance was set at p<0.05 for all subscales.

Table 1: Task sub scale difference between coaches and teams.

There is no significant difference between teams with regards to the task sub scale.

Table 2: Task sub scale - difference between 2 teams including coaches

The difference in the means between teams and coaches with respect to task component i.e. "A" team was more task orientated than "C" team however, the "A" coach did not agree with the level of task cohesion suggested by the team.

Table 3: Democratic sub scale – difference between coaches and team

The mean within the democratic behaviour component suggests that the coach of the "C" is a democratic in his coaching style whereas the team results imply he is not democratic.

Table 4: Democratic sub scale – difference between 2 teams including coaches

There was no significant difference between the 2 teams.

Table 5: Social sub scale – difference between teams and coaches

Significant difference between teams with respect to social component i.e "A" more social than "C" however it was hypothesised that the "C" team would be more social than the "A" team .

Table 6: Social sub scale - Difference between 2 teams including coaches

There was no significant difference between the coaches and the team in regards to the social sub scale.

Table 7: Positive reinforcement sub scale – difference between teams and coaches

There was no significant difference between teams and coaches in regards to positive reinforcement

Table 8: Positive reinforcement sub scale – difference between 2 teams including coaches

Positive reinforcement is seen as a strong contributing factor to cohesion by both coaches but the teams results suggested otherwise. Significant difference between coach and teams p=0.028.

Table 9: Autocratic sub scale – difference between teams and coaches

The coach of the "A" team perceived that he was an autocratic coach whilst his team thought otherwise.

Table 10: Autocratic sub scale – difference between 2 teams including coaches

Table 11: Social cohesion - difference between teams and coaches

Table 12: Task Cohesion - difference between teams and coaches

The researches hypothesised at the commencement of this study that there would be a significant difference with the "C" team having a higher social cohesion component than that "A" side players. The "A" team would exhibit a significantly higher task cohesion than that of the "C" team. The results obtained in Table 11 show that there was a slight difference between team "A" and team "C" with regards to the social cohesion component. Whilst, there was not a significant difference it supports the hypothesis which stated the "C" team would be more social.

In relation to the hypothesis of the "A" team being more task orientated than the "C" team our results (table 12) suggested the opposite was true, with the "C" team being slightly but not significantly more task orientated. A reason for this could be that the "A" team may already be skilled and the task aspect may not be an important factor of team cohesion. The "C" team may have more to learn in regards to task orientated skills which may explain why it was a more apparent factor in the players attitude to team cohesion.

The hypothesis dealing with understanding the difference in cohesion levels in high school aged cricket players on the basis of spending a majority of their time together (study, play, socialise) was inconclusive due to the inability to analyse this variable. It is shown however in previous studies by Widmeyer et al (1985) and Granito & Rainey (1988), that high school teams will be more task cohesive because the players had known each other longer, had probably played together longer and had more time to develop commitment to common goals. Length of time on a team may also have a positive effect on cohesion as indicated by Matheson et al. (1995).

In conclusion the overall purpose of this study, to examine the relationship between team cohesion and the level of cricket played, was inconclusive due to the numerous limitations experienced by the researchers. Significance was however found within the sub-scales of social and positive reinforcement. These findings weren’t apparent between the teams, they were more apparent in the team/coach relationship. Due to this it is recommended that studies directed towards the team/coach relationship should be the subject of further research. As well as this Gartner et al (1996) suggest that the suitability of the GEQ for assessing cohesion among high school athletes needs to be addressed.