Commentary: Team Cognition in Sport: How Current Insights Into How Teamwork Is Achieved in Naturalistic Settings Can Lead to Simulation Studies

Abstract

Introduction The paper by Bourbousson et al. ([3]) prompts discussion surrounding the complexity of team cognitions in sport. The authors rightly recognize the importance of naturalistic settings in developing cognitive components relating to teamwork, and the title suggests that enhancing understanding of the setting can facilitate simulation studies. We applaud their efforts to drive this important area, especially since they go beyond the perception-alone focus which has recently come to dominate the area. Importantly, however, although we do not refute the connection between naturalistic settings and growing interest in simulation studies, we have concerns regarding the theoretical approaches they used to inform understanding of team cognitions, and the subsequent methods suggested. Accordingly, we outline two key concerns and provide evidence that, although to some extent we support the authors' argument that investigating and developing team cognitions (teamwork) is complex and requires the integration of multiple theories, the theoretical approaches, and subsequent methods suggested may be limited. Our first concern relates to the authors' delimited application of NDM as a theoretical paradigm to examine team cognition. To truly understand team cognitive processes, it is essential that teamwork is examined within the naturalistic setting. Exploration of team cognitive processes outside of the performance setting (in isolation of the playing context) risks the over inflation of cognitive aspects (Williams, [17]). The point is that talking about it is not necessarily the same as doing it! Indeed, the use of Shared Mental Models (SMMs-Richards et al., [14]) often acts a priori to direct actions along certain lines, even if players don't bother to articulate their rejection of these options. Furthermore, basing arguments solely or overly on data around on-field verbal interactions, whilst not pursuing the mental models developed off-field which also drive on-field decision making, would seem an inappropriate delimitation.