analysis of data and results of the study 4.1....

78

Chapter-IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND RESULTS OF THE STUDY

4.1. OVERVIEW

The purpose of the study was to compare the physical, psychological and

performance variables among the southern region men hockey teams in different

playfields.

To achieve the purpose of this study totally 120 men hockey players who

had participated for the southern regions in the senior south zone and senior

national hockey championships were selected as subjects.

The physical variables speed, agility and power were measured for the

southern region men hockey teams in three different playfields separately.

Similarly the psychological variables self-confidence, anxiety and aggression were

measured for the southern region men hockey teams in three different playfields

separately. Besides this the performance variables dribbling, hitting and trapping

were also measured for the southern region men hockey teams in three different

playfields separately.

To compare the physical, psychological and performance variables among

the southern region men hockey teams, the statistical calculation of repeated

measures ANOVA was employed followed by the simple effects test for

significance and scheffe’s post hoc test for each variable in three different

playfields separately.

79

4.2. TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE

This is the critical portion of the research [thesis] in arriving at the

conclusion by examining the statistical hypothesis and was ended either by

accepting the hypothesis or rejecting the same in accordance with the results

obtained in relation to the level of significance fixed by the investigator.

4.3. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

The probability level below which the hypothesis rejected was termed as

level of significance. The ‘F ‘ratio obtained by the repeated measures ANOVA

and the confidence interval of scheffe’s post hoc test was compared at 0.05 level

of significance.

80

SPEED

The mean and standard deviation of speed of the southern region men

hockey teams in different playfields have been presented in table II (a)

TABLE II (a)

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPEED AMONG

SOUTHERN REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

IN DIFFERENT PLAY FIELDS

SOUTHERN

REGIONS

PLAYFIELDS

IRRESPECTIVE OF

PLAYFIELDS GRASS GRAVEL ARTIFICIAL

FIELD

KARNATAKA 6.47 ± .149

6.44 ± .172 6.29 ± .143 6.37 ± .171

TAMILNADU 6.56 ± .119 6.41 ± .152 6.33 ± .156 6.43 ± .170

PUDUCHERRY 6.61 ± .132 6.56 ± .110 6.47 ±.162 6.55 ± .147

ANDHRA

PRADESH 6.65 ± .142 6.59 ± .141 6.43 ±.106 6.56 ± .158

HYDERABAD 6.62 ± .113 6.60 ± .140 6.51 ±.113 6.58 ± .129

KERALA 6.65 ± .424 6.55 ± .138 6.53 ± .087 6.58 ± .134

IRRESPECTIVE

OF REGIONS 6.59 ± .145 6.52 ±.158 6.43 ± .157

Table II (a) shows the mean and standard deviation of speed performance

(50 meters run) of the southern region men hockey teams in different playfields, in

which Karnataka team’s mean performance in speed was better when compared to

the other southern regions in three different playfields.

The data pertaining of speed of the southern region men hockey teams in

different playfields have been analysed by repeated measures ANOVA and the

obtained results were presented in table II (b)

81

TABLE II (b)

REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA OF SPEED AMONG THE

SOUTHERN REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS IN

DIFFERENT PLAY FIELDS

SOURCE OF VARIANCE SUM OF SQUARES

(SS) df

MEAN SQUARES

(MS) F RATIO

Between SS

Southern regions

1.830

5

0.366

9.39*

Error between 4.397 114

0.039

With in SS

Playfields

1.684

2

0.842

105.25*

Error between 1.927 228 0.008

Interaction

Southern regions x Playfields

0.250

10

0.025

3.13*


*Significant at .05 level

F .05 (5,114) = 2.30; F .05 (2,228) =3.04; F .05 (10,228) =1.87

Table II (b) shows the repeated measures ANOVA of speed performance

of the southern region men hockey teams in different playfields.

The obtained ‘F’ ratios of the southern regions (rows), different playfields

(columns) and the southern regions and different playfields (interactions) have

been 9.39, 105.25 and 3.13 respectively. Since these values were higher than the

table values, they are significant at 0.05 level.

As the interaction was significant, no separate post hoc test were computed

for the significant F ratios obtained for rows and columns.

The speed in different playfields among the southern region men hockey

teams and their interactions have been graphically presented in the figure -4.1.1

82

Figure 4.1.1

Interaction of Average Speed Performances among Southern Region

Men Hockey Teams in Different Playfields


Artificial turfGravelGrass

AV

ER

AG

E S

PE

ED

(

seconds)

6.7

6.6

6.5

6.4

6.3

6.2

SOUTHERN REGIONS

Karnataka

Tamilnadu

Puducherry

Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad

Kerala

83

As the interaction was significant, the simple effects test of speed among the

southern region men hockey teams in different playfields have been computed and

presented in table II (c)

TABLE II (c)

SIMPLE EFFECTS TEST OF SPEED IN DIFFERENT

PLAYFIELDS AMONG SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

Source of variance

df

MS

‘F’ ratio

Grass

5

0.018942

2.37*

Gravel

5

0.025637

3.20*

Artificial Turf

5

0.03864

4.83*

Karnataka

2

0.091083

11.38*

Tamilnadu

2

0.136333

17.04*

Puducherry

2

0.05331

6.66*

Andhra Pradesh

2

0.127941

15.99*

Hyderabad

2

0.032958

4.12*

Kerala 2 0.042003

5.25*

Residual

228

0.008

* Significant at 0.05 level.

F .05 (5,228) =2.26; F .05 (2,228) =3.04.

84

Table II (c) shows the obtained F ratios of speed of the southern region men

hockey teams in the grass field 2.37, gravel field 3.20 and the artificial turf field

4.83 were significant because the obtained values were greater than the table value

2.26 at 0.05 level of confidence.

Similarly the F ratios obtained for the Karnataka 11.38, Tamilnadu 17.04,

Puducherry 6.66, Andhra Pradesh 15.99, Hyderabad 4.12 and the Kerala 5.25

teams were significant at 0.05 level of confidence because the obtained values

were greater than the table value 3.04 at 0.05 level of confidence.

The result of the study indicated that there was a significant difference in

speed between the playfields and also between the southern region men hockey

teams in different playfields.

As the simple effects test were significant the post hoc analysis of speed in

different playfields for each southern region men hockey teams has been presented

in table II (d)

85

TABLE II (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF SPEED IN DIFFERENT PAYFIELDS AMONG

EACH SOUTHERN REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

SOUTHERN

REGIONS

GRASS GRAVEL ARTIFICIAL

TURF

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

KARNATAKA

6.47 6.44 0.03

6.47 6.29 0.18*

6.44 6.29 0.15*

TAMILNADU

6.56 6.41 0.15*

6.56 6.33 0.23*

6.41 6.33 0.08*

PUDUCHERRY

6.61 6.56 0.05

6.61 6.47 0.14*

6.56 6.47 0.09*

ANDHRA

PRADESH

6.64 6.59 0.05

6.64 6.43 0.21*

6.59 6.43 0.16*

HYDERABAD

6.62 6.60 0.02

6.62 6.51 0.11*

6.60 6.51 0.09*

KERALA

6.65 6.55 0.01

6.65 6.53 0.12*

6.55 6.53 0.02

*Significant at0.05 level

Confidence Interval value required for significant at 0.05 level is 0.0697

86

Table II (d) shows the post hoc analysis of speed among the southern

region men hockey teams in different playfields. There were significant

differences noted among the paired means for playfields in speed for Karnataka

team between the grass and artificial field and gravel and artificial field and for

Tamilnadu team between the grass and gravel, grass and artificial field and gravel

and artificial field and for Puducherry team between the grass and artificial field

and gravel and artificial field and for Andhra Pradesh team between the grass and

artificial field and gravel and artificial field and for Hyderabad team between the

grass and artificial field and gravel and artificial field and for the Kerala team

between the grass and artificial field shows significant difference.

And there was no significant difference among the paired means for

playfields in speed for the Karnataka team between the grass and gravel field and

for Puducherry team between the grass and gravel field and for Andhra Pradesh

team between the grass and gravel field and for Hyderabad team between the grass

gravel field and for the Kerala team between the grass and gravel field and gravel

and artificial fields.

Figure 4.1.2 depicts the graphical representation of average performance of

speed among each southern region men hockey teams in different playfields.

87

Figure.4.1.2: Average Performance of Speed among the Southern Region Men

Hockey Teams in Different Playfields

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

KARNATAKA TAMILNADU PUDUCHERRY ANDHRA HYDERABAD KERALA

6.47

6.56

6.61

6.64

6.62

6.65

6.44

6.41

6.56

6.59 6.60

6.55

6.29

6.33

6.47

6.43

6.51

6.53

ME

AN

(S

eco

nd

s)

GRASS

GRAVEL

ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD

88

The figure 4.1.2 reveals that there was significant differences among the

paired means for playfields in speed for Karnataka team between the grass and

artificial field and gravel and artificial field and for Tamilnadu team between the

grass and gravel, grass and artificial field and gravel and artificial field and for

Puducherry team between the grass and artificial field and gravel and artificial

field and for Andhra Pradesh team between the grass and artificial field and gravel

and artificial field and for Hyderabad team between the grass and artificial field

and gravel and artificial field and for the Kerala team between the grass and

artificial field shows significant difference.

And there was insignificant difference among the paired means for

playfields in speed for the Karnataka team between the grass and gravel field and

for Puducherry team between the grass and gravel field and for Andhra Pradesh

team between the grass and gravel field and for Hyderabad team between the grass

gravel field and for the Kerala team between the grass and gravel field and gravel


The post hoc analysis of speed among the southern region men hockey

teams in the grass, gravel and the artificial turf fields have been presented in

table II (e), table II (f) and table II (g) respectively.

89

TABLE II (e)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF SPEED AMONG SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS IN GRASS FIELD

Sl.

no

Karnataka Tamilnadu Puducherry Andhra

Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 6.47 6.56 --- --- --- --- 0.09*

2. 6.47 --- 6.61 --- --- --- 0.14*

3. 6.47 --- --- 6.64 --- --- 0.17*

4. 6.47 --- --- --- 6.62 --- 0.15*

5. 6.47 --- --- --- --- 6.65 0.18*

6. ---- 6.56 6.61 --- --- --- 0.05

7. --- 6.56 --- 6.64 --- --- 0.08*

8. --- 6.56 --- --- 6.62 --- 0.06*

9. --- 6.56 --- --- --- 6.65 0.09*

10. --- --- 6.61 6.64 --- --- 0.03

11. --- --- 6.61 --- 6.62 --- 0.01

12. --- --- 6.61 --- --- 6.65 0.04

13. --- --- --- 6.64 6.62 --- 0.02

14. --- --- --- 6.64 --- 6.65 0.01

15. --- --- --- --- 6.62 6.65 0.03

Confidence interval value required for significant at 0.05 level is 0.0601

90

The table II (e) shows the mean differences in speed between the southern

region men hockey teams in the grass field was 0.09 between karnataka and

Tamilnadu, 0.14 between Karnataka and Puducherry, 0.17 between Karnataka and

Andhra Pradesh, 0.15 between Karnataka and Hyderabad and 0.18 between

Karnataka and Kerala, 0.05 between Tamil Nadu and puducherry, 0.08 between

Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, 0.06 between Tamil Nadu and Hyderabad, 0.09

between Tamil Nadu and Kerala, 0.03 between Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh,

0.01 between Puducherry and Hyderabadd, 0.04 between Puducherry and Kerala,

0.02 between Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad, 0.01 between Andhra Pradesh and

Kerala and 0.03 between Hyderabad and Kerala.

The results of the study indicated that the speed performance of the

Karnataka team (6.47 seconds) in the grass field was better when compared to

Tamilnadu (6.56 seconds), Puducherry (6.61 seconds), Andhra Pradesh (6.64

seconds), Hyderabad (6.62 seconds) and Kerala (6.65 seconds) teams. These mean

differences were found to be significant.

The next best performance of speed was exhibited by the Tamilnadu team

(6.56 seconds). Their speed performance in the grass field was found better when

compared to Andhra Pradesh (6.64 seconds), Hyderabad (6.62 seconds) and

Kerala (6.65 seconds) teams. These mean differences were found to be significant.

All the other mean differences of speed of the Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad and Kerala teams showed no significant differences in the grass field.

The average performances of speed among the southern region men hockey

teams in the grass field was graphically presented in figure 4.1.3.

91

Figure 4.1.3: Average Performance of Speed among the Southern Region

Men Hockey Teams in Grass Field

6.35

6.4

6.45

6.5

6.55

6.6

6.65

GRASS

6.47

6.56

6.61

6.64

6.62

6.65

ME

AN

(seco

nd

s)

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

92

TABLE II (f)


MEN HOCKEY TEAMS IN GRAVEL FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 6.44 6.41 --- --- --- --- 0.03

2. 6.44 --- 6.56 --- --- --- 0.12*

3. 6.44 --- --- 6.59 --- --- 0.15*

4. 6.44 --- --- --- 6.60 --- 0.16*

5. 6.44 --- --- --- --- 6.55 0.11*

6. ---- 6.41 6.56 --- --- --- 0.15*

7. --- 6.41 --- 6.59 --- --- 0.18*

8. --- 6.41 --- --- 6.60 --- 0.19*

9. --- 6.41 --- --- --- 6.55 0.14*

10. --- --- 6.56 6.59 --- --- 0.03

11. --- --- 6.56 --- 6.60 --- 0.04

12. --- --- 6.56 --- --- 6.55 0.01

13. --- --- --- 6.59 6.60 --- 0.01

14. --- --- --- 6.59 --- 6.55 0.04

15. --- --- --- --- 6.60 6.55 0.05


93

The table II (f) shows the mean differences in speed between the

southern region men hockey teams in the gravel field was 0.03 between karnataka

and Tamilnadu, 0.12 between Karnataka and Puducherry, 0.15 between Karnataka

and Andhra Pradesh, 0.16 between Karnataka and Hyderabad and 0.11 between








Tamilnadu team (6.41 seconds) in the gravel field was better when compared to

Puducherry (6.56 seconds), Andhra Pradesh (6.59 seconds), Hyderabad (6.60

seconds) and Kerala (6.51 seconds) teams. These mean differences were found to

be significant. And there was no significant difference in speed between the

Tamilnadu and Karnataka teams in the gravel field.

The next best performance in speed was exhibited by the Karnataka team

(6.44 seconds). Their speed performance in the gravel field was found better than

the Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

All the other mean differences of speed of the Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad and Kerala teams showed no significant differences in the gravel field.


teams in the gravel field was graphically presented in figure 4.1.4.

94


Men Hockey Teams in the Gravel Field

6.3

6.35

6.4

6.45

6.5

6.55

6.6

6.44

6.41

6.56

6.59 6.60

6.55

ME

AN

(seco

nd

s)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

95

TABLE II (g)


MENHOCKEY TEAMS IN THE ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 6.29 6.33 --- --- --- --- 0.04

2. 6.29 --- 6.47 --- --- --- 0.18*

3. 6.29 --- --- 6.43 --- --- 0.14*

4. 6.29 --- --- --- 6.51 --- 0.22*

5. 6.29 --- --- --- --- 6.53 0.24*

6. ---- 6.33 6.47 --- --- --- 0.14*

7. --- 6.33 --- 6.43 --- --- 0.10*

8. --- 6.33 --- --- 6.51 --- 0.18*

9. --- 6.33 --- --- --- 6.53 0.20*

10. --- --- 6.47 6.43 --- --- 0.04

11. --- --- 6.47 --- 6.51 --- 0.04

12. --- --- 6.47 --- --- 6.53 0.06*

13. --- --- --- 6.43 6.51 --- 0.09*

14. --- --- --- 6.43 --- 6.53 0.10*

15. --- --- --- --- 6.51 6.53 0.02


96

The table II (g) shows the mean differences in speed between the southern

region men hockey teams in the artificial turf field was 0.04 between karnataka








Kerala and 0.02 between Hyderabad and Kerala teams.


Karnataka team (6.29 seconds) in the artificial turf field was better when

compared to Puducherry (6.47 seconds), Andhra Pradesh (6.43 seconds),

Hyderabad (6.51 seconds) and Kerala (6.53 seconds) teams. These mean

differences were found to significant. There was no significant difference exists in

speed between the Karnataka and Tamilnadu teams in the artificial turf field.

The next best performance in speed was exhibited by the Tamilnadu team

(6.33 seconds). Their speed performance in the artificial turf field was found better

when compared to Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Then the speed performance of the Andhra Pradesh team (6.43 seconds) was

found better when compared to Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Similarly the speed

performance of the Puducherry team was found better than the Kerala team.


teams in the artificial turf field was graphically presented in figure 4.1.5.

97


Men Hockey Teams in the Artificial Turf Field

6.15

6.2

6.25

6.3

6.35

6.4

6.45

6.5

6.55

6.29

6.33

6.47

6.43

6.51 6.53

ME

AN

( s

ec

on

ds)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

98

4.4. DISCUSSION ON THE RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL

VARIABLE SPEED AMONG THE SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS:

Modern hockey is a game of speed and power. Speed of movement is a

praised quality in hockey. Speed ability primarily signifies the ability to execute

physical and performance variables with high proficiency. Speed differs from

individual to individual and also between the different playfields depends the

training and experience in that particular field.

In this study among the southern region men hockey teams Karnataka team

showed better speed in the grass and artificial turf fields than the Tamilnadu,

Puducherry, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala teams. But in the gravel field

Tamilnadu team showed better speed than the Karnataka, Kerala, Puducherry,

Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad teams. However no significant difference was

observed in speed between the Karnataka and Tamilnadu teams in the gravel and

artificial turf fields. But when these teams speed performances were compared

with the other teams like Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala

teams, Karnataka and Tamilnadu have shown statistically better speed.

The Tamilnadu team showed better speed in the gravel field when

compared with Karnataka, Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala

teams. However there is no statistically significant difference in speed was

observed between Tamilnadu and Karnataka teams. When the performances in

speed of these two teams were compared with other southern region men hockey

teams, they showed statistically better speed.

Among the playfields the speed was performed better in the artificial turf

field than the gravel and grass fields. And also, the speed was performed by all the

southern region men hockey teams were found better in the artificial turf field than

gravel and grass fields.

99

AGILITY

The mean and standard deviation of agility among the southern region men

hockey teams in different playfields have been presented in table III (a)

TABLE III (a)

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF AGILITY AMONG



SOUTHERN

REGIONS

PLAYFIELDS

IRRESPECTIVE OF


FIELD


8.86 ± .125 8.70 ± .083 8.88 ± .177

TAMILNADU 9.12 ± .052 8.83 ± .138 8.75 ± .080 8.90 ± .187

PUDUCHERRY 9.15 ± .055 8.88 ± .069 8.79 ± .051 8.94 ± .165

ANDHRA

PRADESH 9.20 ± .030 8.91 ± .074 8.78 ± .050 8.96 ± .185

HYDERABAD 9.18 ± .065 8.96 ± .069 8.85 ± .071 9.00 ± .152

KERALA 9.23 ± .080 8.87 ±.070 8.87 ± .087 8.99 ± .186

IRRESPECTIVE

OF REGIONS 9.16 ± .073 8.89 ± .103 8.79 ±.090

Table III (a) shows the mean and standard deviation of agility (Shuttle run

test) of the southern region men hockey teams in different playfields , in which

Karnataka team’s mean performance in agility was better when compared to the

other southern regions in three different playfields.

The data pertaining of agility of the southern region men hockey teams in


obtained results were presented in table III (b).

100

TABLE III (b)

REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA OF AGILITYAMONG




(SS) df

MEAN SQUARES

(MS) F RATIO

Between SS

Southern regions

0.693

5

0.139

13.90*


0.010

With in SS

Playfields

8.786

2

4.393

1098.25*


Interaction


0.209

10

0.021

5.25*


*Significant at 05 level

F .05 (5,114) = 2.30; F .05 (2,228) =3.04; F .05 (10,228) =1.87

Table III (b) shows the repeated measures ANOVA of agility performance

of the southern region men hockey teams in different playfields.

The obtained ‘F’ ratio for southern regions (rows), different playfields



required table values, they are significant at 0.05 level.

As the interaction was significant, no separate post hoc test was computed

for the significant F ratios obtained for rows and columns.

The agility in different playfields among the southern region men hockey

teams and their interactions have been graphically presented in the figure -4.2.1.

101

Figure 4.2.1

Interaction of Average Performances of Agility among the Southern

Region Men Hockey Teams in different Playfields


Artificial TurfGravelGrass

AV

ER

AG

E A

GIL

ITY

(

se

co

nd

s)

9.3

9.2

9.1

9.0

8.9

8.8

8.7

8.6

SOUTHERN REGIONS

Karnataka

Tamilnadu

Puducherry

Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad

Kerala

102

As the interaction was significant, the simple effects test of agility among

the southern region men hockey teams in different playfields have been computed

and presented in table III (c).

TABLE III (c)

SIMPLE EFFECTS TEST OF AGILITY IN DIFFERENT


MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

Source of variance

df

MS

‘F’ ratio

Grass

5

0.012058

3.01*

Gravel

5

0.01012

2.53*

Artificial Turf

5

0.015119

3.77*

Karnataka

2

0.353103

88.27*

Tamilnadu 2

0.382583

95.64*

Puducherry 2

0.351751

87.94*

Andhra Pradesh

2

0.462067

115.52*

Hyderabad

2

0.276163

69.04*

Kerala 2 0.423153 105.79*

Residual

228

0.004

* Significant at 0.05 levels

F .05 (5,228) =2.26; F .05 (2,228) =3.04.

103

Table III (c) shows the obtained F ratios of agility among the southern

region men hockey teams in grass field 3.01 gravel field 2.53 and artificial turf

field 3.77 were significant because the obtained values were greater than the table

value 2.26 at 0.05 level of confidence.

Similarly the F ratios obtained for Karnataka 88.27, Tamilnadu 95.64,

Puducherry 87.94, Andhra Pradesh 115.52, Hyderabad 69.04 and Kerala 105.79



The result of the study indicates that there is a significant difference in

agility between the playfields fields and also between the southern region men

hockey teams in different playfields.

As the simple effects test were significant the post hoc analysis of agility in


in the table II (d)

104

TABLE III (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF AGILITY IN DIFFERENT PAYFIELDS

AMONG EACH SOUTHERN REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

SOUTHERN

REGIONS


TURF

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

KARNATAKA

9.08 8.86 0.22*

9.08 8.70 0.38*

8.86 8.70 0.16*

TAMILNADU

9.12 8.83 0.29*

9.12 8.75 0.37*

8.83 8.75 0.08*

PUDUCHERRY

9.15 8.88 0.27*

9.15 8.79 0.36*

8.88 8.79 0.09*

ANDHRA

PRADESH

9.20 8.91 0.29*

9.20 8.78 0.42*

8.91 8.78 0.13*

HYDERABAD

9.18 8.96 0.22*

9.18 8.85 0.33*

8.96 8.85 0.11*

KERALA

9.23 8.87 0.36*

9.23 8.87 0.36*

8.87 8.87 0.00



105

Table III (d) shows the post hoc analysis of agility among the southern


differences noted among the paired means for playfields in agility for Karnataka

team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Tamilnadu team

between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Puducherry team between

the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Andhra Pradesh team between the

grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Hyderabad team between the grass,

gravel and artificial fields and for the Kerala team between the grass and gravel

and grass and artificial fields.

And there was no significant difference among the paired means for

playfields in agility for Kerala team between the gravel and artificial fields.


agility among each southern region men hockey teams in different playfields.

106

Figure 4.2.2: Average Performance of Agility among the Southern Region Men


8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

8.8

8.9

9

9.1

9.2

9.3


9.08 9.12

9.15

9.20 9.18

9.23

8.86 8.83

8.88

8.91

8.96

8.87

8.70

8.75

8.79 8.78

8.85 8.87

ME

AN

(S

eco

nd

s)

GRASS

GRAVEL

ARTIFICIAL TURF

107

The figure 4.2.2 reveals that there was significant differences in agility

among the paired means of playfields for Karnataka team between the grass,

gravel and artificial fields and for Tamilnadu team between the grass, gravel and

artificial fields and for Puducherry team between the grass, gravel and artificial

fields and for Andhra Pradesh team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields

and for Hyderabad team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for the

Kerala team between the grass and gravel and grass and artificial fields.

And there was no significant difference in agility for Kerala team between

the gravel and artificial fields.

The post hoc analysis of agility among the southern region men hockey

teams in the grass, gravel and the artificial turf fields have been presented in

table III (e), table III (f) and table III (g) respectively.

108

TABLE III (e)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF AGILITY AMONG SOUTHERN REGION


Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 9.08 9.12 --- --- --- --- 0.04*

2. 9.08 --- 9.15 --- --- --- 0.07*

3. 9.08 --- --- 9.20 --- --- 0.12*

4. 9.08 --- --- --- 9.18 --- 0.10*

5. 9.08 --- --- --- --- 9.23 0.15*

6. ---- 9.12 9.15 --- --- --- 0.03

7. --- 9.12 --- 9.20 --- --- 0.08*

8. --- 9.12 --- --- 9.18 --- 0.06*

9. --- 9.12 --- --- --- 9.23 0.11*

10. --- --- 9.15 9.20 --- --- 0.05*

11. --- --- 9.15 --- 9.18 --- 0.03

12. --- --- 9.15 --- --- 9.23 0.08*

13. --- --- --- 9.20 9.18 --- 0.02

14. --- --- --- 9.20 --- 9.23 0.03

15. --- --- --- --- 9.18 9.23 0.05*


109

The table III (e) shows the mean differences in agility between the

southern region men hockey teams in the grass field was 0.04 between karnataka









The results of the study indicated that the agility performance of the




differences were found to be significant. There was no significant difference exists

in agility between the Tamilnadu and Puducherry, Puducherry and Hyderabad,

Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad and Andhra Pradesh and Kerala teams in the grass

field.

The next best performance in agility was exhibited by the Tamilnadu team

(9.12 seconds). Their speed performance in the grass field was found better when

compared to Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then the agility

performance of Puducherry (9.15 seconds) team was found better when compared

to Andhra Pradesh and Kerala teams. Similarly the speed performance of the

Hyderabad team was found better than Kerala team.

110

Figure 4.2.3: Average Performances of Agility among the Southern Region


9

9.05

9.1

9.15

9.2

9.25

9.08

9.12

9.15

9.20

9.18

9.23

M

EA

N (

seco

nd

s)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

111

TABLE III (f)



Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 8.86 8.83 --- --- --- --- 0.03

2. 8.86 --- 8.88 --- --- --- 0.02

3. 8.86 --- --- 8.91 --- --- 0.05*

4. 8.86 --- --- --- 8.96 --- 0.10*

5. 8.86 --- --- --- --- 8.87 0.01

6. ---- 8.83 8.88 --- --- --- 0.05*

7. --- 8.83 --- 8.91 --- --- 0.08*

8. --- 8.83 --- --- 8.96 --- 0.13*

9. --- 8.83 --- --- --- 8.87 0.04*

10. --- --- 8.88 8.91 --- --- 0.03

11. --- --- 8.88 --- 8.96 --- 0.08*

12. --- --- 8.88 --- --- 8.87 0.01

13. --- --- --- 8.91 8.96 --- 0.05*

14. --- --- --- 8.91 --- 8.87 0.04

15. --- --- --- --- 8.96 8.87 0.09*


112

The table III (f) shows the mean differences in agility between the

southern region men hockey teams in gravel field was 0.03 between karnataka and









The results of the study indicated the agility performance of the Karnataka

team (6.29 seconds) in the artificial turf field was better when compared to

Puducherry (6.47 seconds), Andhra Pradesh (6.43 seconds), Hyderabad (6.51

seconds) and Kerala (6.53 seconds) teams. These mean differences were found to

significant. There was no significant difference exists in speed between the

Karnataka and Tamilnadu teams in the artificial turf field.




Then the speed performance of Andhra Pradesh (6.43 seconds) team was found

better when compared to Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Similarly the speed

performance of the Puducherry team was found better than Kerala team.

113

Figure 4.2.4: Average Performance of Agility among the Southern Region

Men Hockey Teams in Gravel Field

8.76

8.78

8.8

8.82

8.84

8.86

8.88

8.9

8.92

8.94

8.96

8.86

8.83

8.88

8.91

8.96

8.87

ME

AN

(seco

nd

s)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

114

TABLE III (g)


MEN HOCKEY TEAMS IN ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 8.70 8.75 --- --- --- --- 0.05*

2. 8.70 --- 8.79 --- --- --- 0.09*

3. 8.70 --- --- 8.78 --- --- 0.08*

4. 8.70 --- --- --- 8.85 --- 0.15*

5. 8.70 --- --- --- --- 8.87 0.17*

6. ---- 8.75 8.79 --- --- --- 0.04

7. --- 8.75 --- 8.78 --- --- 0.03

8. --- 8.75 --- --- 8.85 --- 0.10*

9. --- 8.75 --- --- --- 8.87 0.12*

10. --- --- 8.79 8.78 --- --- 0.01

11. --- --- 8.79 --- 8.85 --- 0.06*

12. --- --- 8.79 --- --- 8.87 0.08*

13. --- --- --- 8.78 8.85 --- 0.07*

14. --- --- --- 8.78 --- 8.87 0.09*

15. --- --- --- --- 8.85 8.87 0.02


115

The table III (g) shows the mean differences in agility between the

southern region men hockey teams in the artificial turf field was 0.05 between

karnataka and Tamilnadu, 0.09 between Karnataka and Puducherry, 0.08 between

Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, 0.15 between Karnataka and Hyderabad and 0.17

between Karnataka and Kerala, 0.04 between Tamil Nadu and puducherry, 0.03

between Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, 0.10 between Tamil Nadu and

Hyderabad, 0.12 between Tamil Nadu and Kerala, 0.01 between Puducherry and

Andhra Pradesh, 0.06 between Puducherry and Hyderabadd, 0.08 between

Puducherry and Kerala, 0.07 between Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad, 0.09

between Andhra Pradesh and Kerala and 0.02 between Hyderabad and Kerala.

The results of the study indicated the agility performance of the Karnataka

team (8.70 seconds) in the artificial turf field was better when compared to



differences were found to significant. There was no significant difference exists in

agility between the Tamilnadu and Puduchery,Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh ,

Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad and Kerala teams in the artificial

turf field.



when compared to Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then the agility performance of

Andhra Pradesh team (8.78 seconds) was found better when compared to

Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Similarly the agility performance of the Puducherry

team was found better when compared to Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

116

Figure 4.2.5: Average Performance of Agility among the Southern Region

Men Hockey Teams in Artificial Turf Field

8.6

8.65

8.7

8.75

8.8

8.85

8.9

8.70

8.75

8.79 8.78

8.85

8.87

ME

AN

(seco

nd

s)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

117

4.5. DISCUSSION ON THE RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL VARIABLE

AGILITY BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN REGION MEN HOCKEY

TEAMS:

Agility is the physical ability which enables an individual to rapidly change

the body position and direction. Changing position and direction of the body

quickly at a higher speed is very much useful in speedy games like hockey,

basketball and soccer.

Especially in hockey after removing the obstruction rules agility with or

without the ball became more important to have control over the ball either to

dodge or to defend. Agility differs from individual to individual and also from

one playfield to another playfield due to training and experience in that particular

playfield by the individual.

In this study among the Southern Region men hockey teams Karnataka

team showed better agility in the grass and artificial turf fields than the Tamilnadu,


Tamilnadu team showed better agility than the Karnataka, Kerala, Puducherry,


observed in agility between the Karnataka and Tamilnadu teams in the gravel and

field. But when these teams agility performances were compared with the other

teams like Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams, Karnataka

and Tamilnadu have shown statistically better agility.

Among the playfields the agility was performed better in the artificial turf

field than the gravel and grass fields. And also, the agility performed by all the


the gravel and grass fields.

118

POWER

The mean and standard deviation of power of the southern region men

hockey teams in different playfields have been presented in table IV (a).

TABLE IV (a)

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF POWER AMONG



SOUTHERN

REGIONS

PLAYFIELDS

IRRESPECTIVE OF


FIELD


2.57 ± .098 2.64 ± .078 2.59 ± .083

TAMILNADU 2.53 ± .052 2.59 ± .092 2.61 ± .101 2.58 ± .090

PUDUCHERRY 2.48 ± .043 2.50 ± .058 2.55 ± .164 2.51 ± .063

ANDHRA

PRADESH 2.41 ± .023 2.48 ± .045 2.57 ± .079 2.49 ± .085

HYDERABAD 2.43 ± .068 2.46 ± .052 2.53 ± .047 2.47 ± .069

KERALA 2.40 ± .036 2.51 ± .054 2.52 ± .076 2.48 ± .077

IRRESPECTIVE

OF REGIONS 2.47 ± .074 2.52 ± .083 2.57 ± .087

Table IV (a) shows the mean and standard deviation of power (Standing

broad jump) of the southern region men hockey teams at different playfields, in

which Karnataka team’s mean performance in power was better when compared to


The data pertaining of power of the southern region men hockey teams at


obtained results were presented in table IV (b).

119

TABLE IV (b)

REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA OF POWER AMONG




(SS) df

MEAN SQUARES

(MS) F RATIO

Between SS

Southern regions

0.820

5

0.164

16.40*


0.010

With in SS

Playfields

0.653

2

0.327

163.50*


Interaction


0.099

10

0.010

5.00*



F .05 (5,114) = 2.30; F .05 (2,228) =3.04; F .05 (10,228) =1.87

Table IV (b) shows the repeated measures ANOVA of power of the

southern region men hockey teams in different playfields.




required table values, they are significant at 0.05 levels.

Though the interaction was significant post hoc test was not computed for

the significant F ratios obtained for rows and columns.

The agility in different playfields among the southern region men hockey

teams and their interactions have been graphically presented in the figure -4.3.1.

120

Figure 4.3.1

Interaction of Average Performance of Power among Southern

Region Men Hockey Teams in Different Playfields



AV

ER

AG

E P

OW

ER

(im

ete

rs)

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

SOUTHERN REGIONS

Karnataka

Tamilnadu

Puducherry

Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad

Kerala

121

As the interaction was significant, the simple effects test of power among


and presented in table IV (c).

TABLE IV (c)

SIMPLE EFFECTS TEST FOR POWER IN DIFFERENT

PLAYFIELDS AMONG THE SOUTHERN

REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

Source of variance

df

MS

‘F’ ratio

Grass

5

0.016493

8.25*

Gravel

5

0.010638

5.32*

Artificial Turf

5

0.009633

4.82*

Karnataka 2

0.021437

10.72*

Tamilnadu 2

0.019453

9.73*

Puducherry 2

0.014636

7.32*

Andhra Pradesh 2

0.065748

32.87*

Hyderabad 2

0.026643

13.32*

Kerala 2 0.040218 20.12*

Residual

228

0.002


F .05 (5,228) =2.26; F .05 (2,228) =3.04.

122

Table IV (c) shows the obtained F ratios of power of the southern region

men hockey teams in grass field 8.25, gravel field 5.32 and artificial turf field 4.82

were significant because the obtained values were greater than the table value 2.26

at 0.05 level of confidence.


Puducherry 7.32, Andhra Pradesh 32.87, Hyderabad 13.32 and Kerala 20.12 teams

were significant at 0.05 level of confidence because the obtained values were

greater than the table value 3.04 at 0.05 level of confidence.


power between the playfields and also between the southern region men hockey


As the simple effects test were significant the post hoc analysis of power in


in the table IV (d).

123

TABLE IV (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF POWER IN DIFFERENT PAYFIELDS


SOUTHERN

REGIONS


TURF

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

KARNATAKA

2.55 2.57 0.02

2.55 2.64 0.09*

2.57 2.64 0.07*

TAMILNADU

2.53 2.59 0.06*

2.53 2.62 0.09*

2.59 2.62 0.03*

PUDUCHERRY

2.48 2.50 0.02

2.48 2.55 0.07*

2.50 2.55 0.05*

ANDHRA

PRADESH

2.41 2.48 0.07*

2.41 2.57 0.16*

2.48 2.57 0.09*

HYDERABAD

2.43 2.46 0.03*

2.43 2.53 0.10*

2.46 2.53 0.07*

KERALA

2.40 2.51 0.11*

2.40 2.52 0.12*

2.51 2.52 0.01



124

Table IV (d) shows the post hoc analysis of power among the southern


differences noted among the paired means for playfields in power for Karnataka

team between the grass and artificial field; gravel and artificial turf field; and for

Tamilnadu team between grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Puducherry

team between the grass and artificial turf field; gravel and artificial turf field and

for Andhra Pradesh team between the grass, gravel and artificial turf fields and for

Hyderabad team between the grass, gravel and artificial turf fields and for the

Kerala team between the grass and gravel and grass and artificial turf fields.

And there was no significant difference in power for Karnataka team

between grass and gravel field; Puducherry team grass and gravel field and for

Kerala team between the gravel and artificial fields.


power among each southern region men hockey teams in different playfields

125

Figure 4.3.2: Average Performance of Power among the Southern Region Men


2.25

2.3

2.35

2.4

2.45

2.5

2.55

2.6

2.65


2.55

2.53

2.48

2.41

2.43

2.40

2.57 2.59

2.50

2.48

2.46

2.51

2.64

2.62

2.55 2.57

2.53 2.52

ME

AN

(m

ete

rs)

GRASS

GRAVEL

ARTIFICIAL TURF

126

The Figure 4.3.2 reveals that there were significant differences in power

among the paired means of playfields for Karnataka team between the grass and

artificial turf field; gravel and artificial field; and for Tamilnadu team between the

grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Puducherry team between the grass and

artificial turf field; gravel and artificial field; and for Andhra Pradesh team grass,

gravel and artificial fields; and for Hyderabad team between the grass, gravel and

artificial fields; and for the Kerala team between the grass and gravel and grass


And there was no significant difference in power for Karnataka team

between grass and gravel field; Puducherry team between grass and gravel field;

and for Kerala team between the gravel and artificial turf fields.

The post hoc analysis of power among the southern region men hockey

teams in the grass, gravel and the artificial turf fields have been presented in the

table IV(e), table IV (f) and table IV (g) respectively.

127

TABLE IV (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF POWER AMONG THE SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS IN THE GRASS FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 2.55 2.53 --- --- --- --- 0.02

2. 2.55 --- 2.48 --- --- --- 0.07*

3. 2.55 --- --- 2.41 --- --- 0.14*

4. 2.55 --- --- --- 2.43 --- 0.12*

5. 2.55 --- --- --- --- 2.40 0.15*

6. ---- 2.53 2.48 --- --- --- 0.05*

7. --- 2.53 --- 2.41 --- --- 0.12*

8. --- 2.53 --- --- 2.43 --- 0.10*

9. --- 2.53 --- --- --- 2.40 0.13*

10. --- --- 2.48 2.41 --- --- 0.07*

11. --- --- 2.48 --- 2.43 --- 0.05*

12. --- --- 2.48 --- --- 2.40 0.08*

13. --- --- --- 2.41 2.43 --- 0.02

14. --- --- --- 2.41 --- 2.40 0.01

15. --- --- --- --- 2.43 2.40 0.03


128

The table IV (e) shows the mean differences in power between the

southern region men hockey teams in grass field was 0.02 between karnataka and



Karnataka and Kerala, 0.05 between Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, 0.12 between






The results of the study indicated that the power performance of the

Karnataka team (2.55 meters) in the grass field was better when compared to

Puducherry (2.48 meters), Andhra Pradesh (2.41 meters)), Hyderabad (2.43

meters) and Kerala teams (2.40 meters). These mean differences were found to be

significant. There was no significant difference exists in power between the

Karnataka and Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and

Kerala and Hyderabad and Kerala teams in the grass field.

The next best performance in power was exhibited by the Tamilnadu team

(2.53 meters). Their power performance in the grass field was found better when

compared to Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then the

power performance of the Puducherry team (2.48 meters) was found better when

compared to Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

129

Figure 4.3.3: Average Performance of Power among the Southern Region


2.3

2.35

2.4

2.45

2.5

2.55

2.55

2.53

2.48

2.41

2.43

2.40

ME

AN

(m

ete

rs)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

130

TABLE IV (f)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF POWER AMONG SOUTHERN REGION MEN

HOCKEY TEAMS IN GRAVEL FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 2.57 2.59 --- --- --- --- 0.02

2. 2.57 --- 2.50 --- --- --- 0.07*

3. 2.57 --- --- 2.48 --- --- 0.09*

4. 2.57 --- --- --- 2.46 --- 0.11*

5. 2.57 --- --- --- --- 2.51 0.06*

6. ---- 2.59 2.50 --- --- --- 0.09*

7. --- 2.59 --- 2.48 --- --- 0.11*

8. --- 2.59 --- --- 2.46 --- 0.13*

9. --- 2.59 --- --- --- 2.51 0.08*

10. --- --- 2.50 2.48 --- --- 0.02

11. --- --- 2.50 --- 2.46 --- 0.04

12. --- --- 2.50 --- --- 2.51 0.01

13. --- --- --- 2.48 2.46 --- 0.02

14. --- --- --- 2.48 --- 2.51 0.03

15. --- --- --- --- 2.46 2.51 0.05*


131

The table IV (f) shows the mean differences in power between the

southern region men hockey teams in gravel field was 0.02 between karnataka and










Karnataka team (2.57 meters) in the gravel field was better when compared to

Puducherry (2.50 meters), Andhra Pradesh (2.48 meters), Hyderabad (2.46 meters)

and Kerala teams (2.51 meters). These mean differences were found to be

significant. There was no significant difference exists in power between the

Karnataka and Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and

Kerala, Puducherry and Kerala and Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh teams in the

gravel field.


(2.59 meters). Their power performance in the grass field was found better when

compared to Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then the

power performance of the Kerala team (2.51 meters) was found better when

compared to Hyderabad teams. Similarly the power performance of the

Puducherry team (2.50 meters) was found better when compared to Hyderabad

team.

132



2.38

2.4

2.42

2.44

2.46

2.48

2.5

2.52

2.54

2.56

2.58

2.6 2.57

2.59

2.50

2.48

2.46

2.51

ME

AN

(m

ete

rs)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

133

TABLE IV (g)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF POWER AMONG SOUTHERN REGION MEN

HOCKEY TEAMS IN ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 2.64 2.62 --- --- --- --- 0.02

2. 2.64 --- 2.55 --- --- --- 0.09*

3. 2.64 --- --- 2.57 --- --- 0.07*

4. 2.64 --- --- --- 2.53 --- 0.11*

5. 2.64 --- --- --- --- 2.52 0.12*

6. ---- 2.62 2.55 --- --- --- 0.07*

7. --- 2.62 --- 2.57 --- --- 0.05*

8. --- 2.62 --- --- 2.53 --- 0.09*

9. --- 2.62 --- --- --- 2.52 0.10*

10. --- --- 2.55 2.57 --- --- 0.02

11. --- --- 2.55 --- 2.53 --- 0.02

12. --- --- 2.55 --- --- 2.52 0.03

13. --- --- --- 2.57 2.53 --- 0.04*

14. --- --- --- 2.57 --- 2.52 0.05*

15. --- --- --- --- 2.53 2.52 0.01


134

The table IV (g) shows the mean differences in power between the











Karnataka team (2.64 meters) in the artificial turf field was better when compared

to Puducherry (2.55 meters), Andhra Pradesh (2.57 meters)), Hyderabad (2.53

meters) and Kerala teams (2.52 meters). These mean differences were found to

be significant. There was no significant difference exists in power between the

Karnataka and Tamilnadu, Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh, Puducherry and

Hyderabad, Puducherry and Kerala and Hyderabad and Kerala teams in the

artificial turf field.


(2.62 meters). Their power performance in the artificial turf field was found better

than the Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then the

power performance of the Andhra Pradesh team (2.57 meters) was found better

when compared to Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

135



2.46

2.48

2.5

2.52

2.54

2.56

2.58

2.6

2.62

2.64

2.64

2.62

2.55

2.57

2.53

2.52

ME

AN

(m

ete

rs)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

136

4.6. DISCUSSION ON THE RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL VARIABLE

POWER BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN REGION MEN HOCKEY

TEAMS:

Modern hockey requires highly speedy player with sufficient power. After

the introduction of artificial fields the players must have sufficient power to

execute all the skills adequately in any situation. For a long clearance, to take free

hits, penalty corners, 16 yards hits and even to score goal players must have

optimum power to achieve their aims. Power differs from individual to individual

and also from one playfield to other field due to the training and experience in that

particular playfield for the individual.


showed better power in the grass and artificial turf fields than the Tamilnadu,


Tamilnadu team showed better power than the Karnataka, Kerala, Puducherry,


observed in power between the Karnataka and Tamilnadu teams in the grass and

artificial turf fields. But when these teams power performances were compared

with the other teams like Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala

teams, Karnataka and Tamilnadu have shown statistically better power.

The Tamilnadu team showed better power in the gravel field when


teams. However there is no statistically significant difference in power was


power of these two teams were compared with other southern region men hockey

teams, they showed statistically better power. Among the playfields the power was

performed better in the artificial turf field than the gravel and grass fields. And

also, the power was performed by all the southern region men hockey teams were

found better in the artificial turf field than the gravel and grass fields.

137

SELF-CONFIDENCE

The mean and standard deviation of self-confidence of the southern region

men hockey teams on different playfields have been presented in table V (a).

TABLE V (a)

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF SELF-CONFIDENCE

AMONG SOUTHERN REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

ON DIFFERENT PLAY FIELDS

SOUTHERN

REGIONS

PLAYFIELDS

IRRESPECTIVE OF


FIELD

KARNATAKA 19.10 ± 1.68 18.60 ± 1.23 17.35 ± 1.18 18.35 ± 1.55

TAMILNADU 19.70 ± 1.84 18.25 ± 1.12 17.80 ± 1.28 18.58 ± 1.64

PUDUCHERRY 21.35 ± 1.66 20.70 ± 1.49 20.20 ± 1.67 20.75 ± 1.65

ANDHRA

PRADESH 22.10 ± 1.86 20.40 ± 1.43 19.75 ± 1.37 20.75 ± 1.84

HYDERABAD 21.75 ± 1.77 21.40 ± 1.57 20.80 ± 1.70 21.32 ± 1.70

KERALA 23.20 ± 2.35 22.00 ± 1.95 21.45 ± 2.11 22.22 ± 2.23

IRRESPECTIVE

OF REGIONS 21.20 ± 2.31 20.22 ± 2.01 19.56 ± 2.16

Table V (a) shows the mean and standard deviation of self-confidence

(Agnihothri Self-Confidence questionnaire by Rekha Aghihothri) of the southern

region men hockey teams on different playfields, in which Karnataka team’s self-

confidence level was highest, whereas Kerala team’s self-confidence level was

lowest.

The data pertaining of self-confidence of the southern region men hockey

teams on different playfields have been analysed by repeated measures ANOVA

and the obtained results were presented in table V (b).

138

TABLE V (b)

REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA OF SELF-CONFIDENCE AMONG

SOUTHERN REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS ON



(SS) df

MEAN SQUARES

(MS) F RATIO

Between SS

Southern regions

711.42

5

142.28

18.85*


7.55

With in SS

Playfields

163.61

2

81.80

233.71*


Interaction


21.79

10

2.18

6.23*



F .05 (5,114) = 2.30; F .05 (2,228) =3.04; F .05 (10,228) =1.87

Table V (b) shows the repeated measures ANOVA of self-confidence of

the southern region men hockey teams on different playfields.




required table values, they are significant at 0.05 level.



The self-confidence in different playfields among the southern region men

hockey teams and their interactions have been graphically presented in the

139

Figure 4.4.1

Interaction of Average Scores of Self-Confidence among Southern

Region men hockey teams in Different Playfields



AV

ER

AG

E S

ELF

-CO

NF

IDE

NC

E (

score

s)

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

SOUTHERN REGIONS

Karnataka

Tamilnadu

Puducherry

Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad

Kerala

140

As the interaction was significant the simple effects test of self-confidence

among the southern region men hockey teams on different playfields have been

computed and presented in table V (c).

TABLE V (c)

SIMPLE EFFECTS TEST OF SELF-CONFIDENCE ON DIFFERENT

PLAYFIELDS AMONG THE SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

Source of variance

df

MS

‘F’ ratio

Grass

5

9.436

26.88*

Gravel

5

9.063

25.82*

Artificial Turf

5

10.829

30.85*

Karnataka

2

8.125

23.15*

Tamilnadu

2

9.858

28.09*

Puducherry

2

3.325

9.47*

Andhra Pradesh 2

14.725

41.95*

Hyderabad

2

2.308

6.58*

Kerala 2 8.008 22.81*

Residual

228

0.351


F .05 (5,228) =2.26; F .05 (2,228) =3.04.

141

Table V (c) shows the obtained F ratios of self-confidence of the southern

region men hockey teams in the grass field 26.88, gravel field 25.82 and the

artificial turf field 30.85 were significant because the obtained values were greater

than the table value 2.26 at 0.05 level of confidence.


Puducherry 9.47, Andhra Pradesh 41.95, Hyderabad 6.58 and Kerala 22.81 teams

were significant at 0.05 level of confidence because the obtained values were

greater than the table value 3.04 at 0.05 level of confidence.

The result of the study indicates that there were significant differences

observed in self-confidence between the playfields and also between the southern

region men hockey teams on different playfields.

As the simple effects test were significant the post hoc analysis of self-

confidence in different playfields for each southern region men hockey teams has

been presented in the table V (d).

.

142

TABLE V (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF SELF-CONFIDENCE IN DIFFERENT

PAYFIELDS AMONG EACH SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

SOUTHERN

REGIONS GRASS GRAVEL ARTIFICIAL

TURF

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

KARNATAKA

19.10 18.60 0.50*

19.10 17.35 1.75*

18.60 17.35 1.25*

TAMILNADU

19.70 18.25 1.45*

19.70 17.80 1.90*

18.25 17.80 0.45

PUDUCHERRY

21.35 20.70 0.65*

21.35 20.20 1.15*

20.70 20.20 0.50*

ANDHRA

PRADESH

22.10 20.40 1.70*

22.10 19.75 2.35*

20.40 19.75 0.65*

HYDERABAD

21.75 21.40 0.35

21.75 20.80 0.95*

21.40 20.80 0.60*

KERALA

23.20 22.00 1.20*

23.20 21.45 1.75*

22.00 21.45 0.55*



143

Table V (d) shows the post hoc analysis of self-confidence among the

southern region men hockey teams on different playfields. There were significant

differences noted among the paired means for playfields in self-confidence for

Karnataka team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields; and Tamilnadu

team between the grass and gravel; grass and artificial turf fields; and Puducherry

team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields; and Andhra Pradesh team

between the grass, gravel and artificial fields; and Hyderabad team between the

grass and artificial turf field; gravel and artificial field; and Kerala team between

the grass, gravel and artificial turf fields.

And there were no significant differences in self-confidence were observed

for Tamilnadu team between the gravel and artificial turf field; Hyderabad team

between the grass and gravel fields.


agility among each southern region men hockey teams in different playfields.

144

Figure 4.4.2: Average Scores of Self-Confidence among the Southern


0

5

10

15

20

25


19.10 19.70

21.35

22.10 21.75

23.20

18.60 18.25

20.70 20.40 21.40

22.12

17.35 17.80

20.20 19.75

20.80 21.45

ME

AN

(sco

res

)

GRASS

GRAVEL

ARTIFICIAL TURF

145

The Figure 4.4.2 shows that there were significant differences in self-

confidence among the paired means of playfields for Karnataka team between the

grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Tamilnadu team between the grass and

gravel and grass and artificial turf fields; and for Puducherry team between the

grass, gravel and artificial fields; and for Andhra Pradesh team between the grass,

gravel and artificial turf fields; and for Hyderabad team between the grass and

artificial fields and gravel and artificial turf fields; and for the Kerala team

between the grass; gravel and artificial turf fields.

And there were no significant differences in self-confidence were observed

for the Tamilnadu team between grass and artificial turf field and for Hyderabad

team between the grass and gravel fields.

The post hoc analysis of self-confidence among the southern region men

hockey teams in the grass, gravel and the artificial turf fields have been presented

in table V (e), table V (f) and table V (g) respectively.

146

TABLE V (e)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF SELF-CONFIDENCE AMONG SOUTHERN

REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS ON GRASS FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 19.10 19.70 --- --- --- --- 0.60*

2. 19.10 --- 21.35 --- --- --- 2.25*

3. 19.10 --- --- 22.10 --- --- 3.00*

4. 19.10 --- --- --- 21.75 --- 2.65*

5. 19.10 --- --- --- --- 23.20 4.10*

6. ---- 19.70 21.35 --- --- --- 1.65*

7. --- 19.70 --- 22.10 --- --- 2.40*

8. --- 19.70 --- --- 21.75 --- 2.05*

9. --- 19.70 --- --- --- 23.20 3.50*

10. --- --- 21.35 22.10 --- --- 0.75*

11. --- --- 21.35 --- 21.75 --- 0.40*

12. --- --- 21.35 --- --- 23.20 1.85*

13. --- --- --- 22.10 21.75 --- 0.35

14. --- --- --- 22.10 --- 23.20 1.10*

15. --- --- --- --- 21.75 23.20 1.45*


147

The table V (e) shows the self-confidence mean difference between the




Karnataka and Kerala,which is greater than the Table value 3.89, is significant,

1.65 between Tamil Nadu and puducherry, 2.40 between Tamil Nadu and Andhra

Pradesh, 2.05 between Tamil Nadu and Hyderabad, 3.50 between Tamil Nadu and

Kerala, 0.75 between Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh, 0.40 between Puducherry

and Hyderabadd, 1.85 between Puducherry and Kerala, 0.35 between Andhra

Pradesh and Hyderabad, 1.10 between Andhra Pradesh and Kerala and 1.45

between Hyderabad and Kerala.

The results of the study indicated that the self-confidence of the Karnataka

team (19.10 points) in the grass field was better when compared to Tamilnadu

(19.70 points), Puducherry (21.35 points), Andhra Pradesh (22.10 points),

Hyderabad (21.75 points) and Kerala (23.20 points) teams. These mean


in self-confidence between the Andhra Pradesh and Kerala teams in the grass

field.

Next the self-confidence of the Tamilnadu team (19.70 points) was better

when compared to the Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Then the Puducherry team (21.35 points) self-confidence level was better than the

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then the Andhra Pradesh team

(1.10 points) self-confidence was found better than the Kerala team. Similarly the

self-confidence of the Hyderabad team was better than the Kerala team.

148

Figure 4.4.3: Average Scores of Self-Confidence among Southern Region


0

5

10

15

20

25

19.10 19.70

21.35 22.10 21.75

23.20

ME

AN

(s

co

res

)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

149

TABLE V (f)


REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS ON GRAVEL FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 18.60 18.25 --- --- --- --- 0.35

2. 18.60 --- 20.70 --- --- --- 2.10*

3. 18.60 --- --- 20.40 --- --- 1.80*

4. 18.60 --- --- --- 21.40 --- 2.80*

5. 18.60 --- --- --- --- 22.00 3.40*

6. ---- 18.25 20.70 --- --- --- 2.45*

7. --- 18.25 --- 20.40 --- --- 2.15*

8. --- 18.25 --- --- 21.40 --- 3.15*

9. --- 18.25 --- --- --- 22.00 3.75*

10. --- --- 20.70 20.40 --- --- 0.30

11. --- --- 20.70 --- 21.40 --- 0.70*

12. --- --- 20.70 --- --- 22.00 1.30*

13. --- --- --- 20.40 21.40 --- 1.00*

14. --- --- --- 20.40 --- 22.00 1.60*

15. --- --- --- --- 21.40 22.00 0.60*


150

The table V (f) shows the self-confidence mean difference between the

southern region men hockey teams on the gravel field was 0.35 between karnataka







1.00 between Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad,1.60 between Andhra Pradesh and


The results of the study indicated that the self-confidence of the Tamilnadu

team (18.25 points) in the gravel field was better when compared to Karnataka

(18.60 points), Puducherry (20.70 points), Andhra Pradesh (20.40 points),

Hyderabad (21.40 points) and Kerala (22.00 points) teams. These mean


in self-confidence between the Tamilnadu and Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and

Puducherry teams in the gravel field.

Next the self-confidence of the Karnataka team (18.60 points) was better


Then the Andhra Pradesh team (20.40 points) self-confidence level was better than

the Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then the Puducherry team (20.70 points) self-

confidence was better than the Hyderabad Kerala team. Similarly the self-

confidence of the Hyderabad team was better than the Kerala team.

151

Figure 4.4.4: Average Scores of Self-Confidence among Southern Region


0

5

10

15

20

25

18.60 18.25

20.70 20.40 21.40 22.00

ME

AN

(sco

res)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

152

TABLE V (g)


REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS ON ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 17.35 17.80 --- --- --- --- 0.45*

2. 17.35 --- 20.20 --- --- --- 2.85*

3. 17.35 --- --- 19.75 --- --- 2.40*

4. 17.35 --- --- --- 20.80 --- 3.45*

5. 17.35 --- --- --- --- 21.45 4.10*

6. ---- 17.80 20.20 --- --- --- 2.40*

7. --- 17.80 --- 19.75 --- --- 1.95*

8. --- 17.80 --- --- 20.80 --- 3.00*

9. --- 17.80 --- --- --- 21.45 3.65*

10. --- --- 20.20 19.75 --- --- 0.45*

11. --- --- 20.20 --- 20.80 --- 0.60*

12. --- --- 20.20 --- --- 21.45 1.25*

13. --- --- --- 19.75 20.80 --- 1.05*

14. --- --- --- 19.75 --- 21.45 1.70*

15. --- --- --- --- 20.80 21.45 0.65*


153

The table V (g) shows the self-confidence mean difference between the










The results of the study indicated that the self-confidence of the Karnataka

team (17.35 points) in the artificial turf field was better when compared to

Tamilnadu (17.80 points), Puducherry (20.20 points), Andhra Pradesh (19.75

points), Hyderabad (20.80 points) and Kerala (21.45 points) teams. These mean

differences were found to be significant.

Next the self-confidence of the Tamilnadu team (17.80 points) was better


Then the Andhra Pradesh team (19.75 points) self-confidence level was better than

the Puducherry, Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then the Puducherry team (20.20

points) self-confidence was better than the Hyderabad Kerala team. Similarly the

self-confidence of the Hyderabad team was better than the Kerala team.

154

Figure 4.4.5: Average Scores of Self-Confidence among the Southern Region


0

5

10

15

20

25

17.35 17.80

20.20 19.75

20.80 21.45

ME

AN

(sco

res)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

155

4.7. DISCUSSION ON THE RESULTS OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL

VARIABLE SELF-CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN

REGIONS MEN HOCKEY TEAMS:

Self-confidence is a positive attitude of oneself. Self-confidence means

confidence in oneself, one’s own power, strength and self reliance. Confident

players will always win the situations, which need high level of presence of mind

and concentration. In the game of hockey every team must have confident players

to raise the occasion. The levels of self-confidence were differs from team to team

in relation with the playfields in which they had training and experience; friendly

and competitive matches earlier similar to the playfield which they were compete.

Among the Southern Region men hockey teams Karnataka team had better

self-confidence in the grass and artificial turf fields than the Tamilnadu,


Tamilnadu team had better self-confidence than the Karnataka, Kerala,

Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad teams. However there was a

significant difference observed in self-confidence between the Karnataka and

Tamilnadu teams in the grass and artificial turf fields and there is no statistically

significant difference in self-confidence was observed between Tamilnadu and

Karnataka teams in the gravel field. But when these teams self-confidence were

compared with the other teams like Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and

Kerala teams, Karnataka and Tamilnadu have shown statistically better self-

confidence. Similarly there is no significant difference was observed in self-

confidence between the Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh teams in the gravel field.

Among the playfields the speed was performed better in the artificial turf

field than the gravel and grass fields. And also, the speed was performed by all the


gravel and grass fields.

156

ANXIETY

The mean and standard deviation of anxiety of the southern region men

hockey teams on different playfields have been presented in table VI (a).

TABLE VI (a)

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF ANXIETY AMONG



SOUTHERN

REGIONS

PLAYFIELDS

IRRESPECTIVE OF


FIELD

KARNATAKA 17.40 ± 1.19 16.55 ± 1.09 14.90 ± .788 16.28 ± 1.46

TAMILNADU 17.85 ± 1.46 16.10 ± .788 15.90 ± .641 16.62 ± 1.34

PUDUCHERRY 18.75 ± 1.12 18.45 ± .759 17.25 ± .786 18.15 ± 1.10

ANDHRA

PRADESH 21.15 ± 2.87 17.80 ± .410 16.95 ± .510 18.63 ± 2.47

HYDERABAD 20.90 ± 1.97 20.40 ± 1.76 19.60 ± 2.11 20.30 ± 1.99

KERALA 21.90 ± 2.96 21.30 ± 2.43 20.55 ± 2.23 21.23 ± 2.57

IRRESPECTIVE

OF REGIONS 19.65 ± 2.66 18.43 ± 2.34 17.52 ± 2.39

Table VI (a) shows the mean and standard deviation of anxiety (Sports

Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT) questionnaire by Rainer Martin) of the

southern region men hockey teams on different playfields, in which Karnataka

team’s anxiety scorel was highest, whereas Kerala team’s anxiety mean level was

lowest.

The data pertaining of anxiety of the southern region men hockey teams on


obtained results were presented in table VI (b)

157

TABLE VI (b)

REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA OF ANXIETY AMONG




(SS) df

MEAN SQUARES

(MS) F RATIO

Between SS

Southern regions

1163.656

5

232.731

70.48*


3.302

With in SS

Playfields

275.072

2

137.536

58.65*

Error between 534.733 228 2.345

Interaction


93.528

10

9.353

3.99*

Error between 534.733 228 2.345


F .05 (5,114) = 2.30; F .05 (2,228) =3.04; F .05 (10,228) =1.87

Table VI (b) shows the repeated measures ANOVA of anxiety among the

southern region men hockey teams on different playfields.




required table values, they are significant at 0.05 levels.



The anxiety in different playfields among the southern region men hockey

teams and their interactions have been graphically presented in the figure 4.2.2

158

Figure 4.5.1

Interaction of Average Anxiety Scores among Southern


DIFFERENT PLAYFIELDS


AV

ER

AG

E A

NX

IET

Y

(score

s)

24

22

20

18

16

14

SOUTHERN REGIONS

Karnataka

Tamilnadu

Puducherry

Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad

Kerala

159

As the interaction was significant, the simple effects test of anxiety among

the southern region men hockey teams on different playfields have been computed

and presented in table VI (c).

TABLE VI (c)

SIMPLE EFFECTS TEST OF ANXIETY ON DIFFERENT


MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

Source of variance

df

MS

‘F’ ratio

Grass

5

14.39

6.14*

Gravel

5

17.18

7.33*

Artificial Turf

5

18.71

7.98*

Karnataka

2

16.16

6.89*

Tamilnadu 2

11.51

4.91*

Puducherry

2

6.30

2.67

Andhra Pradesh

2

49.31

21.03*

Hyderabad

2

4.30

1.83

Kerala 2 4.57 1.95

Residual

228

2.345


F .05 (5,228) =2.26; F .05 (2,228) =3.04.

160

Table VI (c) shows the obtained F ratios of anxiety of the southern region

men hockey teams in the grass field 6.14, gravel field 7.33 and the artificial turf

field 7.98 were significant because the obtained values were greater than the table


Similarly the F ratios obtained for Karnataka 6.89, Tamilnadu 4.91 and

Andhra Pradesh 21.03, teams were significant at 0.05 level of confidence because

the obtained values were greater than the table value 3.04 at 0.05 level of

confidence. But the Puducherry 2.69, Hyderabad 1.83 and Kerala 1.95 teams

shows insignificant because the table value 3.04 was greater than the obtained

values at 0.05 level of confidence.


anxiety between the playfields.

As the simple effects test were significant the post hoc analysis of self-

confidence in different playfields for each southern region men hockey teams has

been presented in the table V (d).

161

TABLE VI (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF ANXIETY IN DIFFERENT PAYFIELDS


SOUTHERN

REGIONS


TURF

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

KARNATAKA

17.40 16.55 0.85

17.40 14.90 2.50*

16.55 14.90 1.65*

TAMILNADU

17.85 16.10 1.75*

17.85 15.90 1.95*

16.10 15.90 0.20

PUDUCHERRY

18.75 18.45 0.30

18.75 17.25 1.50*

18.45 17.25 1.20*

ANDHRA

PRADESH

21.15 17.80 3.35*

21.15 16.95 4.20*

17.80 16.95 0.85

HYDERABAD

20.90 20.40 0.50

20.90 19.60 1.30*

20.40 19.60 0.80

KERALA

21.90 21.30 0.60

21.90 20.55 1.35*

21.30 20.55 0.75



162

Table VI (d) shows the post hoc analysis of anxiety among the southern

region men hockey teams on different playfields. There were significant

differences noted among the paired means for playfields in anxiety for Karnataka

team between the grass and artificial turf field; gravel and artificial field; and

Tamilnadu team between the grass and gravel; grass and artificial turf field; and

Puducherry team between the grass and artificial turf field; gravel and artificial

turf field; and Andhra Pradesh team between the grass and gravel; grass and

artificial turf field; and Hyderabad team between the grass and artificial turf field;

gravel and artificial turf field; and the Kerala team between the grass and artificial

turf fields.

And there were no significant differences observed in anxiety for Karnataka

team between grass and gravel field; and Tamilnadu team between gravel and

artificial turf field; and Puducherry team between grass and gravel field; and

Andhra Pradesh team between gravel and artificial turf field; and Hyderabad team

between grass and gravel field; and gravel and artificial turf field; and the Kerala

team between the grass and gravel field; and gravel and artificial fields.

Figure 4.5.2 depicts the graphical representation of average score of

anxiety among each southern region men hockey teams in different playfields

163

Figure 4.5.2: Average Score of Anxiety among the Southern Region Men


0

5

10

15

20

25


17.40 17.85

18.75

21.15 20.90

21.90

16.55 16.10

18.45 17.80

20.40

21.30

14.90 15.90

17.25 16.95

19.60

20.55

ME

AN

(sco

res)

GRASS

GRAVEL

ARTIFICIAL TURF

164

Figure 4.5.2 shows that there was significant difference in anxiety among

the paired means of playfields for Karnataka team between the grass and artificial

turf field; gravel and artificial field; and Tamilnadu team between the grass and

gravel; grass and artificial turf field; and Puducherry team between the grass and

artificial turf field; gravel and artificial turf field; and Andhra Pradesh team

between the grass and gravel; grass and artificial turf field; and Hyderabad team

between the grass and artificial turf field; gravel and artificial turf field; and the

Kerala team between the grass and artificial turf fields.

And there were no significant differences observed in anxiety for Karnataka

team between grass and gravel field; and Tamilnadu team between gravel and

artificial turf field; and Puducherry team between grass and gravel field; and

Andhra Pradesh team between gravel and artificial turf field; and Hyderabad team

between grass and gravel field; and gravel and artificial turf field; and the Kerala

team between the grass and gravel field; and gravel and artificial fields.

The post hoc analysis of anxiety among the southern region men hockey


table VI (e), table VI (f) and table VI (g) respectively.

165

TABLE VI (e)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF ANXIETY AMONG SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS ON GRASS FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 17.40 17.85 --- --- --- --- 0.45

2. 17.40 --- 18.75 --- --- --- 1.35*

3. 17.40 --- --- 21.15 --- --- 3.75*

4. 17.40 --- --- --- 20.90 --- 3.50*

5. 17.40 --- --- --- --- 21.90 4.50*

6. ---- 17.85 18.75 --- --- --- 0.90

7. --- 17.85 --- 21.15 --- --- 3.30*

8. --- 17.85 --- --- 20.90 --- 3.05*

9. --- 17.85 --- --- --- 21.90 4.05*

10. --- --- 18.75 21.15 --- --- 2.40*

11. --- --- 18.75 --- 20.90 --- 2.15*

12. --- --- 18.75 --- --- 21.90 3.15*

13. --- --- --- 21.15 20.90 --- 0.25

14. --- --- --- 21.15 --- 21.90 0.75

15. --- --- --- --- 20.90 21.90 1.00


166

The table VI (e) shows the mean differences in anxiety between the

southern region men hockey teams in the grass field 0.45 between karnataka and









The results of the study indicated that the anxiety of the Karnataka team

(17.40 scores) in the grass field was better when compared to Puducherry (18.75

scores), Andhra Pradesh (21.15 scores), Hyderabad (20.90 scores) and Kerala

(21.90 scores) teams. These mean differences were found to be significant. There

was no significant difference exists in anxiety between the Karnataka and

Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad, Andhra

Pradesh and Kerala and Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Next the anxiety of the Tamilnadu (17.85 scores) was better when

compared to the Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then the

Puducherry team (18.75 scores) anxiety level was better than the Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

167

Figure 4.5.3: Average Scores of Anxiety among the Southern Region


0

5

10

15

20

25

17.40 17.85

18.75

21.15 20.90 21.90

ME

AN

(sco

res)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

168

TABLE VI (f)


MEN HOCKEY TEAMS ON GRAVEL FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 16.55 16.10 --- --- --- --- 0.45

2. 16.55 --- 18.45 --- --- --- 1.90*

3. 16.55 --- --- 17.80 --- --- 1.25*

4. 16.55 --- --- --- 20.40 --- 3.85*

5. 16.55 --- --- --- --- 21.30 4.75*

6. ---- 16.10 18.45 --- --- --- 2.35*

7. --- 16.10 --- 17.80 --- --- 1.70*

8. --- 16.10 --- --- 20.40 --- 4.30*

9. --- 16.10 --- --- --- 21.30 5.20*

10. --- --- 18.45 17.80 --- --- 0.65

11. --- --- 18.45 --- 20.40 --- 1.95*

12. --- --- 18.45 --- --- 21.30 2.85*

13. --- --- --- 17.80 20.40 --- 2.60*

14. --- --- --- 17.80 --- 21.30 3.50*

15. --- --- --- --- 20.40 21.30 0.90


169

The table VI (f) shows the mean differences in anxiety between the










The results of the study indicated that the anxiety of the Tamilnadu team

(16.10 scores) in the gravel field was better when compared to Puducherry (18.45




Tamilnadu, Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Next the anxiety of the Karnataka team (16.55 scores) was better when

compared to the Puduchery, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then

the Andhra Pradesh team (17.80 scores) anxiety level was better than the

Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Similarly the anxiety of the Puducherry team (18.45

scores) was better than the Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

170

Figure 4.5.4: Average Scores of Anxiety among the Southern Region


0

5

10

15

20

25

16.55 16.10

18.45 17.80

20.40 21.30

ME

AN

(sco

res)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

171

TABLE VI (g)


MEN HOCKEY TEAMS ON ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 14.90 15.90 --- --- --- --- 1.00

2. 14.90 --- 17.25 --- --- --- 2.35*

3. 14.90 --- --- 16.95 --- --- 2.05*

4. 14.90 --- --- --- 19.60 --- 4.70*

5. 14.90 --- --- --- --- 20.55 5.65*

6. ---- 15.90 17.25 --- --- --- 1.35*

7. --- 15.90 --- 16.95 --- --- 1.05*

8. --- 15.90 --- --- 19.60 --- 3.70*

9. --- 15.90 --- --- --- 20.55 4.65*

10. --- --- 17.25 16.95 --- --- 0.30

11. --- --- 17.25 --- 19.60 --- 2.35*

12. --- --- 17.25 --- --- 20.55 3.30*

13. --- --- --- 16.95 19.60 --- 2.65*

14. --- --- --- 16.95 --- 20.55 3.60*

15. --- --- --- --- 19.60 20.55 0.95


172

The table VI (f) shows the mean differences in anxiety between the










The results of the study indicated that the anxiety of the Karnataka team

(14.90 scores) in the gravel field was better when compared to Puducherry (17.25




Tamilnadu, Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Next the anxiety of the Tamilnadu team (15.90 scores) was better when

compared to the Puduchery, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Then

the Andhra Pradesh team (16.95 scores) anxiety level was better than the

Hyderabad and Kerala teams. Similarly the anxiety of the Puducherry team (17.25

scores) was better than the Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

173

Figure 4.5.5: Average Scores of Anxiety among Southern Region


0

5

10

15

20

25

14.90

15.90 17.25 16.95

19.60

20.55

ME

AN

(sco

res)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

174


VARIABLE ANXIETY BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN REGION MEN

HOCKEY TEAMS:

Anxiety results when an individual doubts his ability to cope with the

situation that causes stress. Moderate level of anxiety improves the performance.

It acts as a caution or a mind set-up to face the situations with expectations. The

level of anxiety differs from individual to individual and also from playfield to

playfield. Warm up, Training and experiences, practice and competitive matches

will control the anxiety level and make it into positive attitude of an individual to

achieve or win any situation.


showed better anxiety in the grass and artificial turf fields than the Puducherry,

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala teams. But in the gravel field Tamilnadu

team showed better anxiety than the Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad and

Kerala teams. However no significant difference was observed in anxiety between

the Karnataka and Tamilnadu teams in all the three playfields. But when these

teams anxiety were compared with the other teams like Puducherry, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams, Karnataka and Tamilnadu have shown

statistically better anxiety.

The Tamilnadu team showed better anxiety in the gravel field when

compared with Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

However there is no statistically significant difference in anxiety was observed

between Tamilnadu and Karnataka teams. When the performances in anxiety of

these two teams were compared with other southern region men hockey teams,

they showed statistically better anxiety

Among the playfields the psychological variable anxiety was much better in

the artificial turf field followed by the gravel and grass fields. And also, the

anxiety level of all the southern region men hockey teams were found better in the

artificial turf field followed by gravel and grass fields.

175

AGGRESSION

The mean and standard deviation of aggression among the southern region

men hockey teams on different playfields have been presented in table VII (a).

TABLE VII (a)

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF AGGRESION AMONG


ON DIFFERENT PLAY FIELDS

SOUTHERN

REGIONS

PLAYFIELDS

IRRESPECTIVE OF


FIELD

KARNATAKA 16.60 ± 1.31 17.70 ± .864 18.80 ± 1.36 17.70 ± 1.38

TAMILNADU 16.30 ± 1.75 18.10 ± 1.07 18.40 ± 1.19 17.60 ± 1.54

PUDUCHERRY 15.95 ± 1.05 16.90 ± 1.02 17.60 ± .940 16.82 ± 1.12

ANDHRA

PRADESH 15.50 ± .945 16.50 ± .827 17.30 ± .864 16.43 ± 1.55

HYDERABAD 15.70 ± 1.52 16.15 ± 1.09 16.70 ± 1.13 16.18 ± 1.11

KERALA 14.90 ± 1.16 15.75 ± .850 16.35 ± .933 15.67 ± 1.36

IRRESPECTIVE

OF REGIONS 15.82 ± 1.41 16.85 ± 1.25 17.52 ± 1.37

Table VII (a) shows the mean and standard deviation of aggression

(Smith’s Aggressive Inventory questionnaire) of the southern region men hockey

teams on different playfields in which Karnataka team’s aggression mean level

was highest, whereas Kerala team’s aggression mean level was lowest.

The data pertaining of aggression of the southern region men hockey teams

on different playfields have been analysed by repeated measures ANOVA and the

obtained results were presented in table VII (b).

176

TABLE VII (b)

REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA OF AGGRESSION AMONG

SOUTHERN REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS ON



(SS) df

MEAN SQUARES

(MS) F RATIO

Between SS

Southern regions

193.367

5

38.673

19.25*


2.009

With in SS

Playfields

175.850

2

87.925

95.99*

Error between 208.767 228 0.916

Interaction


15.383

10

1.538

1.68

Error between 208.767 228 0.916


F .05 (5,114) = 2.30; F .05 (2,228) =3.04; F .05 (10,228) =1.87

Table VII (b) shows the repeated measures ANOVA of aggression of the

southern region men hockey teams on different playfields.

The obtained ‘F’ ratio for southern regions (rows) and different playfields

(columns) have been 19.25 and 95.99 which were higher than the required table

values; they are significant at 0.05 level. Whereas the obtained F ratio for southern

regions and different playfields (interactions) 1.68 has been found lower than the

table value, were insignificant.

Though the interaction was not significant simple effect test were not

computed. Scheffe’s post hoc test for columns and rows were computed separately

for aggression and presented in table VII (c) and table VII (d) respectively.

177

TABLE VII (c)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF AGGRESSION ON DIFFERENT

PLAYFIELDS IRRESPECTIVE OF SOUTHERN

REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

DIFFERENT PLAYFIELDS MEAN

DIFFERENCE GRASS GRAVEL ARTIFICIALTURF

15.83 16.85 1.02*

15.83 17.53 1.70*

16.85 17.53 0.68*

* Significant at 0.05 level.

Confidence interval value required for significant 0.31.

The table VII (c) shows the Scheffe’s post hoc test of aggression for

columns on different playfields. Significant differences were noted among the

paired means for playfields on grass and artificial turf fields and also between

gravel and artificial turf fields. Whereas there was also significant difference

observed between the paired means for playfields on grass and gravel fields.

Irrespective of southern regions the aggressiveness exhibited on the

artificial field was better than the grass and gravel fields.

Figure 4.6.1 depicts the graphical representation of average scores of

aggression in different playfields irrespective of southern region men hockey

teams.

178

Figure 4.6.1: Average Scores of Aggression on Different Playfields Irrespective

of Southern Region Men Hockey Teams

14.5

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

PLAYFIELDS

15.83

16.85

17.53

ME

AN

(sco

res)

GRASS

GRAVEL

ARTIFICIAL TURF

179

Figure 4.6.1 depicts that there were significant differences among paired

means for the playfields of grass field (lowest) and artificial turf field (highest),

whereas no significant differences were observed on the playfields of grass and

gravel field for the combined effect in the mean performance of aggression were

exhibited by the southern region men hockey teams.

The post hoc analysis of combined effect (rows) exhibited in the average

scores of aggression among the southern region men hockey teams irrespective of

different playfields have been presented in table VII (d)

180

TABLE VII (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF AGGRESSION AMONG SOUTHERN

REGION MN HOCKEY TEAMS IRRESPECTIVE

OF DIFFERENT PLAYFIELDS

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 17.70 17.60 --- --- --- --- 0.10

2. 17.70 --- 16.82 --- --- --- 0.88*

3. 17.70 --- --- 16.43 --- --- 1.27*

4. 17.70 --- --- --- 16.17 --- 1.53*

5. 17.70 --- --- --- --- 15.67 2.03*

6. ---- 17.60 16.82 --- --- --- 0.78

7. --- 17.60 --- 16.43 --- --- 1.17*

8. --- 17.60 --- --- 16.17 --- 1.43*

9. --- 17.60 --- --- --- 15.67 1.93*

10. --- --- 16.82 16.43 --- --- 0.39

11. --- --- 16.82 --- 16.17 --- 0.65

12. --- --- 16.82 --- --- 15.67 1.15*

13. --- --- --- 16.43 16.17 --- 0.26

14. --- --- --- 16.43 --- 15.67 0.76

15. --- --- --- --- 16.17 15.67 0.50

Confidence interval value required for significant 0.88

181

Table VII (d) reveals that there were significant differences in the

combined effect of playfields of aggression among the paired means of Karnataka

and Puduchery; Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh; Karnataka and Hyderabad;

Karnataka and Kerala; Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh; Tamilnadu and

Hyderabad; Tamilnadu and Kerala and Puducherry and Kerala teams. There were

no significant differences noted among the paired means of Karnataka and

Tamilnadu; Tamilnadu and Puducherry; Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh;

Puducherry and Hyderabad; Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad; Andhra Pradesh and

Kerala; and Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Irrespective of playfields the aggressiveness exhibited by the Karnataka

team was better than the other southern region men hockey teams.

Figure 4.6.2 depicts the graphical representation of the average scores of

aggression among the southern region men hockey teams irrespective of different

playfields.

182

Figure 4.6.2: Average Scores of Aggression among the Southern Region Men

Hockey Teams Irrespective of Different Playfields

14.5

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

SOUTHERN REGIONS

17.70 17.60

16.82

16.43

16.17

15.67

ME

AN

(sco

res)

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

183

Figure: 4. 6. 2 depicts that there were significant differences in the

combined effect of playfields of aggression among the paired means of

Karnataka and Puduchery; Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh; Karnataka and

Hyderabad; Karnataka and Kerala; Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh; Tamilnadu

and Hyderabad; Tamilnadu and Kerala and Puducherry and Kerala teams. There

were no significant differences observed among the paired means of Karnataka

and Tamilnadu; Tamilnadu and Puducherry; Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh;

Puducherry and Hyderabad; Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad; Andhra Pradesh and

Kerala; and Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

184


VARIABLE AGGRESSION BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN

REGIONS MEN HOCKEY TEAMS:

Aggressive behavior is quite visible in sport. To observe aggressive sport

behaviour, we could attend a team game and watch the players ‘fight for the ball’.

Aggression could have positive influence on the performance outcome of an

individual or a team. It is an essential part of coaching to cultivate positive

aggression and to transfer it into action, so as to achieve the goals.

In this among the southern region men hockey teams Karnataka team

showed better aggression in the grass and artificial turf fields than the Tamilnadu,


Tamilnadu team showed better aggression than the Karnataka, Kerala, Puducherry,


observed in aggression between the Karnataka and Tamilnadu teams in the gravel

and artificial turf fields. But when these teams aggression performances were

compared with the other teams like Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and

Kerala teams, Karnataka and Tamilnadu have shown statistically better

aggression.

The Tamilnadu team showed better aggression in the gravel field when


teams. However there is no statistically significant difference in aggression was


aggression of these two teams were compared with other southern region men

hockey teams, they showed statistically better aggression

. Among the playfields the psychological variable aggression level was much

better in the artificial turf field followed by gravel and grass fields. And also, the

aggression level for all the southern region men hockey teams were found better in

the artificial turf field followed by gravel and grass fields.

185

DRIBBLING

The mean and standard deviation of dribbling of the southern region men

hockey teams in different playfields have been presented in table VIII (a)

TABLE VIII (a)

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF DRIBBLING AMONG



SOUTHERN

REGIONS

PLAYFIELDS

IRRESPECTIVE OF


FIELD

KARNATAKA 15.23 ± .055 15.13 ± .021 14.89 ± .038 15.08 ± .145

TAMILNADU 15.27 ± .086 15.24 ± .033 14.94 ± .029 15.15 ± .159

PUDUCHERRY 15.33 ± .052 15.30 ± .059 15.00 ± .031 15.21 ± .160

ANDHRA

PRADESH 15.36 ± .065 15.28 ± .052 15.12 ± .081 15.25 ± .120

HYDERABAD 15.36 ± .050 15.30 ± .053 15.14 ± .083 15.28 ± .111

KERALA 15.51 ± .113 15.33 ± .059 15.24 ± .127 15.36 ± .150

IRRESPECTIVE

OF REGIONS 15.34 ± .114 15.26 ± .082 15.06 ± .142

Table VIII (a) shows the mean and standard deviation of dribbling (‘W’

form Dribbling) of the southern region men hockey teams in different playfields,

in which Karnataka team’s dribbling performance was better when compared to


The data pertaining of dribbling of the southern region men hockey teams in


obtained results were presented in table VIII (b).

186

TABLE VIII (b)

REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA OF DRIBBLING AMONG




(SS) df

MEAN SQUARES

(MS) F RATIO

Between SS

Southern regions

2.797

5

0.559

55.94*


0.010

With in SS

Playfields

5.250

2

2.625

2625.00*


Interaction


0.423

10

0.042

42.00*



F .05 (5,114) = 2.30; F .05 (2,228) =3.04; F .05 (10,228) =1.87

Table VIII (b) shows the repeated measures ANOVA of dribbling

among the southern region men hockey teams in different playfields.



been 55.94, 2625.00 and 42.00 respectively. Since these values were higher than

the required table values, they are significant at 0.05 levels.


the significant F ratios obtained for rows and columns. Average dribbling

performance of southern region men hockey teams in different playfields and their

interactions have been graphically presented in the figure.4.7.1

187

Figure 4.7.1:

Interaction of Average Dribbling Performances among Southern Region




AV

ER

AG

E D

RIB

BLIN

G (

seconds)

15.6

15.5

15.4

15.3

15.2

15.1

15.0

14.9

14.8

SOUTHERN REGIONS

Karnataka

Tamilnadu

Puducherry

Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad

Kerala

188

As the interaction was significant, the simple effects test of dribbling

among the southern region men hockey teams in different playfields have been

computed and presented in table VIII (c).

TABLE VIII (c)

SIMPLE EFFECTS TEST OF DRIBBLING IN DIFFERENT

PLAYFIELDS AMONG THE SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

Source of variance

df

MS

‘F’ ratio

Grass

5

0.036836

36.83*

Gravel

5

0.021222

21.22*

Artificial Turf

5

0.070758

70.76*

Karnataka 2

0.290031

290.03*

Tamilnadu 2

0.328386

328.38*

Puducherry

2

0.344756

344.75*

Andhra Pradesh

2

0.149856

149.85*

Hyderabad 2

0.126797

126.80*

Kerala-speed 2 0.17839 178.39*

Residual

228

0.001


F .05 (5,228) =2.26; F .05 (2,228) =3.04.

189

Table VIII (c) shows the obtained F ratios of dribbling of the southern

region men hockey teams in grass field 36.83, gravel field 21.22 and artificial turf

fields 70.76 were significant because the obtained values were greater than the

table value 2.26 at 0.05 level of confidence.





The result of the study indicates that there were significant differences in

dribbling between the playfields and also between the southern region men hockey


As the simple effects test were significant the post hoc analysis of dribbling

in different playfields for each southern region men hockey teams has been

presented in the table VIII (d).

190

TABLE VIII (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF DRIBBLING IN DIFFERENT PAYFIELDS


SOUTHERN

REGIONS


TURF

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

KARNATAKA

15.23 15.13 0.10*

15.23 14.89 0.34*

15.13 14.89 0.24*

TAMILNADU

15.27 15.24 0.03*

15.27 14.94 0.33*

15.24 14.94 0.30*

PUDUCHERRY

15.33 15.30 0.03*

15.33 15.00 0.33*

15.30 15.00 0.30*

ANDHRA

PRADESH

15.36 15.28 0.08*

15.36 15.12 0.24*

15.28 15.12 0.16*

HYDERABAD

15.36 15.30 0.06*

15.36 15.14 0.22*

15.30 15.14 0.16*

KERALA

15.51 15.33 0.18*

15.51 15.24 0.27*

15.33 15.24 0.09*



191

Table VI (d) shows the post hoc analysis of dribbling among the southern


differences noted among the paired means for playfields in dribbling for

Karnataka team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Tamilnadu

team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Puducherry team

between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Andhra Pradesh team

between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Hyderabad team between the

grass, gravel and artificial fields and for the Kerala team between the grass and

gravel and grass and artificial fields.


dribbling among each southern region men hockey teams in different playfields.

192

Figure 4.7.2: Average Performance of Dribbling among the Southern Region


14.5

14.6

14.7

14.8

14.9

15

15.1

15.2

15.3

15.4

15.5

15.6


15.23 15.27

15.33 15.36 15.36

15.51

15.13

15.24

15.30 15.28

15.30 15.33

14.89 14.94

15.00

15.12 15.14

15.24

ME

AN

(seco

nd

s)

GRASS

GRAVEL

ARTIFICIAL TURF

193

Figure 4.7.2 shows that there were significant differences noted among

the paired means for playfields in dribbling for Karnataka team between the grass,

gravel and artificial fields and for Tamilnadu team between the grass, gravel and

artificial fields and for Puducherry team between the grass, gravel and artificial

fields and for Andhra Pradesh team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields

and for Hyderabad team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for the

Kerala team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields.

The post hoc analysis of dribbling among the southern region men hockey


table VIII (e), table VIII (f) and table VIII (g) respectively.

194

TABLE VIII (e)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF DRIBBLING AMONG SOUTHERN REGION


Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 15.23 15.27 --- --- --- --- 0.04*

2. 15.23 --- 15.33 --- --- --- 0.10*

3. 15.23 --- --- 15.36 --- --- 0.13*

4. 15.23 --- --- --- 15.36 --- 0.13*

5. 15.23 --- --- --- --- 15.51 0.28*

6. ---- 15.27 15.33 --- --- --- 0.06*

7. --- 15.27 --- 15.36 --- --- 0.09*

8. --- 15.27 --- --- 15.36 --- 0.09*

9. --- 15.27 --- --- --- 15.51 0.23*

10. --- --- 15.33 15.36 --- --- 0.03*

11. --- --- 15.33 --- 15.36 --- 0.03*

12. --- --- 15.33 --- --- 15.51 0.17*

13. --- --- --- 15.36 15.36 --- 0.00*

14. --- --- --- 15.36 --- 15.51 0.15*

15. --- --- --- --- 15.36 15.51 0.15*


195

The table VIII (e) shows the mean differences in dribbling between the










The results of the study indicated that the dribbling performance of the


Tamilnadu (15.27 seconds), (Puducherry (15.33 seconds), Andhra Pradesh (15.36

seconds), Hyderabad (15.36 seconds) and Kerala (15.51 seconds) teams. These

mean differences were found to be significant. There was no significant difference

in dribbling between the Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad teams in the grass field.

The next best performance in dribbling was exhibited by the Tamilnadu

team (15.27 seconds). Their dribbling performance in the grass field was found

better when compared to Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala

teams. Then the dribbling performance of the Puducherry team (15.33 seconds)

was found better when compared to Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala

teams. Similarly the dribbling performance of the Andhra Pradesh (15.36 seconds)

and Hyderabad teams (15.36 seconds) were found better than the Kerala team.

196



15.05

15.1

15.15

15.2

15.25

15.3

15.35

15.4

15.45

15.5

15.55

15.23

15.27

15.33

15.36 15.36

15.51

ME

AN

(seco

nd

s)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

197

TABLE VIII (f)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF DRIBBLING AMONG SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS IN THE GRAVEL FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 15.13 15.24 --- --- --- --- 0.11*

2. 15.13 --- 15.30 --- --- --- 0.17*

3. 15.13 --- --- 15.28 --- --- 0.15*

4. 15.13 --- --- --- 15.30 --- 0.17*

5. 15.13 --- --- --- --- 15.33 0.20*

6. ---- 15.24 15.30 --- --- --- 0.06*

7. --- 15.24 --- 15.28 --- --- 0.04*

8. --- 15.24 --- --- 15.30 --- 0.06*

9. --- 15.24 --- --- --- 15.33 0.09*

10. --- --- 15.30 15.28 --- --- 0.02

11. --- --- 15.30 --- 15.30 --- 0.00

12. --- --- 15.30 --- --- 15.33 0.03*

13. --- --- --- 15.28 15.30 --- 0.02

14. --- --- --- 15.28 --- 15.33 0.05*

15. --- --- --- --- 15.30 15.33 0.03*


198

The table VIII (f) shows the mean differences in dribbling between the







0.00 between Puducherry and Hyderabad, 0.03 between Puducherry and Kerala,




Karnataka team (15.13 seconds) in the gravel field was better when compared to

Tamilnadu (15.24 seconds), (Puducherry (15.30 seconds), Andhra Pradesh (15.28

seconds), Hyderabad (15.30 seconds) and Kerala (15.33 seconds) teams. These

mean differences were found to be significant. There was no significant difference

in dribbling between the Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad teams in the grass field.


team (15.24 seconds). Their dribbling performance in the gravel field was found


teams. Then the dribbling performance of the Andhra Pradesh team (15.28

seconds) was found better when compared to, Puducherry, Hyderabad and Kerala

teams. Similarly the dribbling performance of the Puducherry (15.30 seconds) and

Hyderabad teams (15.30 seconds) were found better than the Kerala team.

199



15

15.05

15.1

15.15

15.2

15.25

15.3

15.35

15.13

15.24

15.30

15.28

15.30 15.33

ME

AN

(seco

nd

s)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

200

TABLE VIII (g)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF DRIBBLING AMONG SOUTHERN REGION MEN

HOCKEY TEAMS IN THE ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 14.89 14.94 --- --- --- --- 0.05*

2. 14.89 --- 15.00 --- --- --- 0.11*

3. 14.89 --- --- 15.12 --- --- 0.23*

4. 14.89 --- --- --- 15.14 --- 0.25*

5. 14.89 --- --- --- --- 15.24 0.35*

6. ---- 14.94 15.00 --- --- --- 0.06*

7. --- 14.94 --- 15.12 --- --- 0.18*

8. --- 14.94 --- --- 15.14 --- 0.20*

9. --- 14.94 --- --- --- 15.24 0.30*

10. --- --- 15.00 15.12 --- --- 0.12*

11. --- --- 15.00 --- 15.14 --- 0.15*

12. --- --- 15.00 --- --- 15.24 0.25*

13. --- --- --- 15.12 15.14 --- 0.02

14. --- --- --- 15.12 --- 15.24 0.12*

15. --- --- --- --- 15.14 15.24 0.10*


201

The table VIII (g) shows the mean differences in dribbling between the











Karnataka team (14.89 seconds) in the artificial turf field was better when

compared to Tamilnadu (14.92 seconds), (Puducherry (15.00 seconds), Andhra

Pradesh (15.12 seconds), Hyderabad (15.14 seconds) and Kerala (15.24 seconds)

teams. These mean differences were found to be significant. There was no

significant difference in dribbling between the Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad

teams in the artificial turf field.


team (14.92 seconds). Their dribbling performance in the artificial turf field was

found better when compared to Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and

Kerala teams. Then the dribbling performance of the Puducherry team (15.00

seconds) was found better when compared to, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and

Kerala teams. Similarly the dribbling performance of the Andhra Pradesh team

(15.12 seconds) was found better than the Kerala team.

202



14.7

14.8

14.9

15

15.1

15.2

15.3

14.89 14.94

15.00

15.12 15.14

15.24

ME

AN

(seco

nd

s)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

203

4.10. DISCUSSION ON THE RESULTS OF THE PERFORMANCE

VARIABLE DRIBBLING AMONG THE SOUTHERN REGIONS

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS:

Dribbling in hockey is an important aspect of individual tactics. Dribbling

plays a vital role for an individual to possess the ball and to control the game while

there is no possibility of scoring or passing. Dribbling differs from individual to

individual and also playfield to playfield. Depends upon the training, practice and

experiences, friendly and competitive matches in that particular field a player can

perform better when compete in the similar field.


showed better dribbling in all the three playfields than the Tamilnadu, Puducherry,

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala teams. There was no significant difference

observed in dribbling between the Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad teams in the

grass, gravel and artificial turf fields. In the gravel field no significant difference

was observed between Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh, Puducherry and

Hyderabad and Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad teams.

Next the Tamilnadu team showed better dribbling in all the three playfields

when compared with Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Then the Puducherry team showed better dribbling in the grass and artificial turf

fields when compared with Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Among the playfields the dribbling was performed better in the artificial

turf field than the gravel and grass fields. And also, the dribbling was performed

by all the southern region men hockey teams, were found better in the artificial

turf field than the gravel and grass fields.

204

HITTING

The mean and standard deviation of hitting of the southern region men

hockey teams in different playfields have been presented in table IX (a).

TABLE IX (a)

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF HITTING AMONG



SOUTHERN

REGIONS

PLAYFIELDS

IRRESPECTIVE OF


FIELD

KARNATAKA 9.00 ± .019 9.35 ± .125 9.50 ± .143 9.28 ± .640

TAMILNADU 8.75 ± .052 9.15 ± .138 9.25 ± .156 9.05 ± .746

PUDUCHERRY 8.60 ± .055 8.80 ± .069 9.00 ± .162 8.80 ± .732

ANDHRA

PRADESH 8.50 ± .030 8.90 ± .074 9.10 ± .106 8.83 ± .740

HYDERABAD 8.25 ± .065 8.45 ± .069 8.70 ± .113 8.47 ± .965

KERALA 8.00 ± .080 8.25 ± .070 8.40 ± .087 8.22 ± .940

IRRESPECTIVE

OF REGIONS 8.52 ± .073 8.82 ± .103 8.99 ± .157

Table IX (a) shows the mean and standard deviation of hitting (Target

Hitting) of the southern region men hockey teams in different playfields, in which

Karnataka team’s dribbling performance was better when compared to the other

southern regions in three different playfields.

The data pertaining of hitting of the southern region men hockey teams in


obtained results were presented in table IX (b).

205

TABLE IX (b)

REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA OF HITTING AMONG




(SS) df

MEAN SQUARES

(MS) F ‘ RATIO

Between SS

Southern regions

44.692

5

8.938

6.79*


1.317

With in SS

Playfields

13.50

2

6.925

24.82*


Interaction


0.583

10

0.058

0.21



F .05 (5,114) = 2.30; F .05 (2,228) =3.04; F .05 (10,228) =1.87

Table IX (b) shows the repeated measures ANOVA of hitting among the


The obtained ‘F’ ratio of southern regions (rows) and different playfields

(columns) have been 6.79, 24.82 which were higher than the required table values,

they are significant at 0.05 levels. Where as the obtained F ratios of the southern

regions and different playfields (interaction) 0.21 has been found lower than the

table value, was insignificant.

As the interaction was not significant, the simple effects test was not

computed. Scheffe’s post hoc test for columns and rows were computed separately

for hitting and presented in table IX (c) and table IX (d).

206

TABLE IX (c)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF HITTING IN DIFFERENT PLAYFIELDS

IRRESPECTIVE OF SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

DIFFERENT PLAYFIELDS MEAN

DIFFERENCE GRASS GRAVEL ARTIFICIAL TURF

8.52 8.82 0.30*

8.52 8.99 0.47*

8.82 8.99 0.17


Confidence interval value required for significant 0.182

The table IX (c) shows the Scheffe’s post hoc test of hitting for columns in

different playfields. Significant difference was noted among the paired means for

playfields in grass and artificial turf fields. There were significant differences

observed among the paired means for the playfields in grass and gravel fields.

There was no significance difference observed among gravel and artificial fields.

Irrespective of regions the hitting performance in the artificial turf field was

better than the grass and gravel fields.


hitting in different playfields irrespective of southern region men hockey teams

207

Figure 4.8.1: Average Performance of Hitting in Different Playfields Irrespective

of Southern Region Men Hockey Teams

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

8.8

8.9

9

PLAYFIELDS

8.52

8.82

8.99

ME

AN

(p

oin

ts)

GRASS

GRAVEL

ARTIFICIAL TURF

208

Figure 4.8.1 depicts that there was significant differences among paired

means of the playfields of grass (lowest) and artificial turf field (highest), whereas

no significant difference was observed between the grass and gravel field; and

gravel and artificial turf field for the combined effect in the mean performance of

hitting exhibited by the southern region men hockey teams.

The post hoc analysis for the combined effect (rows) exhibited in the mean

performance of hitting among the southern region men hockey teams irrespective

of different playfields have been presented in table IX (d).

209

TABLE IX (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF HITTING AMONG SOUTHERN

REGION MEN HOCKEY TEAMS IRRESPECTIVE

OF DIFFERENT PLAYFIELDS

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 9.28 9.05 --- --- --- --- 0.23

2. 9.28 --- 8.80 --- --- --- 0.48

3. 9.28 --- --- 8.83 --- --- 0.45

4. 9.28 --- --- --- 8.47 --- 0.81*

5. 9.28 --- --- --- --- 8.22 1.06*

6. ---- 9.05 8.80 --- --- --- 0.25

7. --- 9.05 --- 8.83 --- --- 0.22

8. --- 9.05 --- --- 8.47 --- 0.58

9. --- 9.05 --- --- --- 8.22 0.83*

10. --- --- 8.80 8.83 --- --- 0.03

11. --- --- 8.80 --- 8.47 --- 0.33

12. --- --- 8.80 --- --- 8.22 0.58

13. --- --- --- 8.83 8.47 --- 0.36

14. --- --- --- 8.83 --- 8.22 0.61

15. --- --- --- --- 8.47 8.22 0.25

Confidence interval value required for significant at 0.05 level was 0.709

210

The table IX (d) reveals that there were significant differences in the

combined effect of playfields of hitting among the paired means of Karnataka and

Hyderabad; Karnataka and Kerala; and Tamilnadu and Kerala teams. There were

no significant differences among the paired means of Karnataka and Andhra

Pradesh; Karnataka and Puducherry; Karnataka and Tamilnadu; Tamilnadu and

Hyderabad; Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh; Tamilnadu and Puducherry;

Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh; Puducherry and Hyderabad; Puducherry and

Kerala; Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad; Andhra Pradesh and Kerala teams; and

Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Irrespective of playfields the hitting performance of the Karnataka team

was better than the other southern region men hockey teams.

Figure 4.8.2 depicts the graphical representation of the average

performances of hitting among the southern region men hockey teams irrespective

of different playfields.

211

Figure 4.8.2: Average Performances of Hitting among Southern Region Men

Hockey Teams Irrespective of Different Playfields

7.60

7.80

8.00

8.20

8.40

8.60

8.80

9.00

9.20

9.40

SOUTHERN REGIONS

9.28

9.05

8.80 8.83

8.47

8.22

ME

AN

(p

oin

ts)

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

212

Figure 4.8.2 depicts that there were significant differences in the combined

effect of playfields of hitting among the paired means of Karnataka and

Hyderabad; Karnataka and Kerala; and Tamilnadu and Kerala teams. There were

no significant differences among the paired means of Karnataka and Andhra

Pradesh; Karnataka and Puducherry; Karnataka and Tamilnadu teams; Tamilnadu

and Hyderabad; Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh; Tamilnadu and Puducherry

teams; Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh; Puducherry and Hyderabad; Puducherry

and Kerala teams; Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad; Andhra Pradesh and Kerala

teams; and Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

213


VARIABLE HITTING BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN REGIONS

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS:

Hitting is one of the most important skills in hockey. Nowadays hitting

plays a vital role in the modern field. The free hits, 16 yards hits, long corners and

the penalty corners were also performed successfully through hitting. Even to

score goals, for long clearances, varieties of passes were also executed only

through powerful and precise hits. Hitting differs from individual to individual and

also playfield to playfield, depends upon the training and experience in that

particular field.


performed better hitting in the grass, gravel and artificial turf fields than the

Tamilnadu, Puducherry, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala teams. However

no significant difference was observed in hitting between the Karnataka and

Tamilnadu teams in the gravel and artificial turf fields. But when these teams

speed performances were compared with the other teams like Puducherry, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams, Karnataka and Tamilnadu have shown

statistically better speed.

The Tamilnadu team showed better speed in the gravel field when


teams. However there is no statistically significant difference in speed was


speed of these two teams were compared with other southern region men hockey

teams, they showed statistically better speed. Among the playfields the speed was

performed better in the artificial turf field than the gravel and grass fields. And

also, the speed was performed by all the southern region men hockey teams were

found better in the artificial turf field than gravel and grass fields.

214

TRAPPING

The mean and standard deviation of trapping of the southern region men

hockey teams in different playfields have been presented in table X (a).

TABLE X (a)

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF TRAPPING AMONG



SOUTHERN

REGIONS

PLAYFIELDS

IRRESPECTIVE OF


FIELD


3.85 ± .051 4.68 ± .100 4.04

± .476

TAMILNADU 3.59 ± .130 3.76 ± .127 4.37 ± .146 3.90 ± .363

PUDUCHERRY 3.50 ± .099

3.52 ± .170 4.10 ± .056 3.70

± .305

ANDHRA

PRADESH 3.44 ± .134 3.59 ± .141 3.93 ± .130 3.65

± .247

HYDERABAD 3.38 ± .147

3.43 ± .208 3.90 ± .146 3.57

± .287

KERALA 3.34 ± .163 3.41 ± .218 3.79 ± .181 3.51 ± .272

IRRESPECTIVE

OF REGIONS 3.47

± .166

3.59 ± .228 4.12 ± .336

Table X (a) shows the mean and standard deviation of trapping (Goal line

Trapping) of the southern region men hockey teams in different playfields, in

which Karnataka team’s dribbling performance was better when compared to the

other southern regions in three different playfields.

The data pertaining of trapping of the southern region men hockey teams in


obtained results were presented in table X (b).

215

TABLE X (b)

REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA OF TRAPPING AMONG




(SS) df

MEAN SQUARES

(MS) F RATIO

Between SS

Southern regions

12.537

5

2.507

45.58*


0.055

With in SS

Playfields

29.055

2

14.528

3631.87*


Interaction


3.248

10

0.325

81.20*



F .05 (5,114) = 2.30; F .05 (2,228) =3.04; F .05 (10,228) =1.87

Table X (b) shows the repeated measures ANOVA of trapping among the


The obtained ‘F’ ratios for southern regions (rows), different playfields


been 45.58, 3631.87 and 81.20 respectively. Since these values were higher than

the required table values, they are significant at 0.05 levels.



Mean differences of trapping of the southern regions in different playfields

and their interactions have been graphically presented in the figure 4.9.1

216

Figure 4.9.1

Interaction of Average Trapping Performances among Southern Region



Artificial turfGravelGrass

AV

ER

AG

E T

RA

PP

ING

(p

oin

ts)

4.8

4.6

4.4

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

SOUTHERN REGIONS

Karnataka

Tamilnadu

Puducherry

Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad

Kerala

217

As the interaction was significant, the simple effects test of trapping among


and presented in table X (c).

TABLE X (c)

SIMPLE EFFECTS TEST OF TRAPPING IN DIFFERENT


MEN HOCKEY TEAMS

Source of variance

df

MS

‘F’ ratio

Grass

5

0.05

11.39*

Gravel

5

0.13

31.91*

Artificial Turf

5

0.46

114.55*

Karnataka

2

3.19

799.08*

Tamilnadu

2

1.68

420.58*

Puducherry

2

1.17

292.94*

Andhra Pradesh

2

0.64

160.27*

Hyderabad

2

0.81

201.64*

Kerala 2 0.58 144.44*

Residual

228

0.004


F .05 (5,228) =2.26; F .05 (2,228) =3.04.

218

Table X (c) shows the obtained F ratios of trapping of the southern region

men hockey teams in grass field 11.39, gravel field 31.91 and artificial turf field

114.55 were significant because the obtained values were greater than the table






The results of the study indicated that there were significant differences in

trapping between the playfields and also between the southern region men hockey


As the simple effects test were significant the post hoc analysis of dribbling

in different playfields for each southern region men hockey teams has been

presented in the table X (d).

219

TABLE X (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF TRAPPING IN DIFFERENT PAYFIELDS


SOUTHERN

REGIONS


TURF

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

KARNATAKA

3.60 3.85 0.25*

3.60 4.68 1.08*

3.85 4.68 0.83*

TAMILNADU

3.59 3.76 0.17*

3.59 4.37 0.78*

3.76 4.37 0.61*

PUDUCHERRY

3.50 3.52 0.02

3.50 4.10 0.60*

3.52 4.10 0.58*

ANDHRA

PRADESH

3.44 3.59 0.15*

3.44 3.93 0.49*

3.59 3.93 0.34*

HYDERABAD

3.38 3.43 0.05*

3.38 3.90 0.52*

3.43 3.90 0.47*

KERALA

3.34 3.41 0.07*

3.34 3.79 0.45*

3.41 3.79 0.38*



220

Table X (d) shows the post hoc analysis of trapping among the southern


differences noted among the paired means for playfields in trapping for Karnataka

team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Tamilnadu team

between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Puducherry team between

the grass and artificial field, gravel and artificial fields and for Andhra Pradesh

team between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for Hyderabad team

between the grass, gravel and artificial fields and for the Kerala team between the

grass and gravel and grass and artificial fields.

And there was no significant differences noted in trapping for Puducherry



trapping among each southern region men hockey teams in different playfields

221

Figure 4.9.2: Average Performances of Trapping among the Southern Region


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


3.60 3.59 3.50 3.44 3.38 3.34

3.85 3.76

3.52 3.59

3.43 3.41

4.68

4.37

4.10

3.93 3.90 3.79

ME

AN

(p

oin

ts)

GRASS

GRAVEL

ARTIFICIAL TURF

222

Figure 4.9.2 shows that there was significant difference in trapping among

the paired means of playfields for Karnataka team between the grass, gravel and

artificial fields and for Tamilnadu team between the grass, gravel and artificial

fields and for Puducherry team between the grass and artificial field and gravel

and artificial fields and for Andhra Pradesh team between the grass, gravel and

artificial fields and for Hyderabad team between the grass, gravel and artificial

fields and for the Kerala team between the grass and gravel and grass and

artificial fields.

And there was no significant differences noted in trapping for Puducherry


The post hoc analysis of trapping among the southern region men hockey


table X (e), table X (f) and table X (g) respectively.

223

TABLE X (d)

POST HOC ANALYSIS OF TRAPPING AMONG SOUTHERN REGION


Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 3.60 3.59 --- --- --- --- 0.01

2. 3.60 --- 3.50 --- --- --- 0.10*

3. 3.60 --- --- 3.44 --- --- 0.16*

4. 3.60 --- --- --- 3.38 --- 0.22*

5. 3.60 --- --- --- --- 3.34 0.26*

6. ---- 3.59 3.50 --- --- --- 0.09

7. --- 3.59 --- 3.44 --- --- 0.15*

8. --- 3.59 --- --- 3.38 --- 0.21*

9. --- 3.59 --- --- --- 3.34 0.25*

10. --- --- 3.50 3.44 --- --- 0.06*

11. --- --- 3.50 --- 3.38 --- 0.12*

12. --- --- 3.50 --- --- 3.34 0.16*

13. --- --- --- 3.44 3.38 --- 0.06*

14. --- --- --- 3.44 --- 3.34 0.10*

15. --- --- --- --- 3.38 3.34 0.04


224

The table X (d) shows the mean differences in trapping between the

southern region men hockey teams in the grass field was 0.01 between karnataka









The results of the study indicated that the trapping performance of the

Karnataka team (3.60 points) in the grass field was better when compared to

Puducherry (3.50 points), Andhra Pradesh (3.44 points), Hyderabad (3.38 points)

and Kerala (3.34 points) teams. These mean differences were found to be

significant. There was no significant difference exists in trapping between the

Karnataka and Tamilnadu teams in the grass field.

The next best performance in trapping was exhibited by the Tamilnadu

team (3.59 points). Their trapping performance in the grass field was found better


Then the trapping performance of the Puduchery team (3.50 points) was found

better when compared to the Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Similarly the trapping performance of the Andhra Pradesh team was found better

than the Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

225


Men Hockey Teams in Grass field

3.2

3.25

3.3

3.35

3.4

3.45

3.5

3.55

3.6

3.60 3.59

3.50

3.44

3.38

3.34 ME

AN

(p

oin

ts)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

226

TABLE X (e)



Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 3.85 3.76 --- --- --- --- 0.09*

2. 3.85 --- 3.52 --- --- --- 0.33*

3. 3.85 --- --- 3.59 --- --- 0.26*

4. 3.85 --- --- --- 3.43 --- 0.42*

5. 3.85 --- --- --- --- 3.41 0.44*

6. ---- 3.76 3.52 --- --- --- 0.23*

7. --- 3.76 --- 3.59 --- --- 0.17*

8. --- 3.76 --- --- 3.43 --- 0.33*

9. --- 3.76 --- --- --- 3.41 0.35*

10. --- --- 3.52 3.59 --- --- 0.07*

11. --- --- 3.52 --- 3.43 --- 0.09*

12. --- --- 3.52 --- --- 3.41 0.12*

13. --- --- --- 3.59 3.43 --- 0.16*

14. --- --- --- 3.59 --- 3.41 0.19*

15. --- --- --- --- 3.43 3.41 0.02


227

The table X (e) shows the mean differences in trapping between the










The results of the study indicated that the trapping performance of the

Karnataka team (3.85 points) in the gravel field was better when compared to

Tamilnadu (3.76 points), Puducherry (3.52 points), Andhra Pradesh (3.59 points),

Hyderabad (3.43 points) and Kerala (3.41 points) teams. These mean differences

were found to be significant. There was no significant difference exists in trapping

between the Hyderabad and Kerala teams in the gravel field.


team (3.76 points). Their trapping performance in the gravel field was found better


Then the trapping performance of the Andhra Pradesh team (3.59 points) was

found better when compared to the, Puducherry, Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Similarly the trapping performance of the Puducherry team was found better than

the Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

228



3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.85

3.76

3.52

3.59

3.43 3.41

ME

AN

(p

oin

ts)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

229

TABLE X (f)


MEN HOCKEY TEAMS IN ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD

Sl.

no


Pradesh

Hyderabad Kerala MD

1. 4.68 4.37 --- --- --- --- 0.31*

2. 4.68 --- 4.10 --- --- --- 0.58*

3. 4.68 --- --- 3.93 --- --- 0.75*

4. 4.68 --- --- --- 3.90 --- 0.78*

5. 4.68 --- --- --- --- 3.79 0.89*

6. ---- 4.37 4.10 --- --- --- 0.27*

7. --- 4.37 --- 3.93 --- --- 0.44*

8. --- 4.37 --- --- 3.90 --- 0.47*

9. --- 4.37 --- --- --- 3.79 0.58*

10. --- --- 4.10 3.93 --- --- 0.17*

11. --- --- 4.10 --- 3.90 --- 0.20*

12. --- --- 4.10 --- --- 3.79 0.31*

13. --- --- --- 3.93 3.90 --- 0.03

14. --- --- --- 3.93 --- 3.79 0.14*

15. --- --- --- --- 3.90 3.79 0.11*


230

The Table X (f) shows the mean differences in trapping between the










The results of the study indicated the trapping performance of the

Karnataka team (4.6 points) in the artificial turf field was better when compared to

the Tamilnadu (4.37 points), Puducherry (4.10 points), Andhra Pradesh (3.93

points), Hyderabad (3.90 points) and Kerala (3.79 points) teams. These mean


in trapping between the Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad teams in the artificial turf

field.


team (4.37 points). Their trapping performance in the artificial turf was found


teams. Then the trapping performance of the Puduchery team (4.10 points) was

found better when compared to the Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Kerala teams.

Similarly the trapping performance of the Andhra Pradesh team (3.93 points) was

found better than the Kerala team. Next the trapping performance of the

Hyderabad team (3.90 points) was found better than the Kerala team in the


231



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

4.68

4.37 4.10

3.93 3.90 3.79

ME

AN

(sco

res)

SOUTHERN REGIONS

KARNATAKA

TAMILNADU

PUDUCHERRY

ANDHRA

HYDERABAD

KERALA

232


VARIABLE TRAPPING BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS:

Trapping is considered as the mother of all skills in hockey. Because all

other skills could be performed only after the perfection of this skill either to

defend or to attack trapping is more useful and important in hockey. Trapping is

the key tactics to slow down or to speed the game or to form new strategy,

formation either to attack or to defend while playing. Trapping differs from

individual to individual and also from playfield to playfield.

In this study, among the southern region men hockey teams Karnataka team

showed better trapping performance in all the three playfields than the Tamilnadu,

Puducherry, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala teams. However no statistical

difference was observed in trapping between the Karnataka and Tamilnadu teams

in the grass field. But when these two teams performances were compared with the

other southern region teams they showed statistically better trapping. Then there

was no significant difference observed in trapping between the Hyderabad and

Kerala teams in the grass and gravel fields. Similarly no significant difference in

trapping was observed between Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad teams in the


Next the Tamilnadu team showed better trapping performance in all the

three playfields when compared with Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and

Kerala teams. Then the Puducherry team showed better trapping performance in

the grass and artificial turf fields when compared with Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

and Kerala teams.

Among the playfields the trapping was performed better in the artificial turf

field than the gravel and grass fields. And also, the trapping was performed by all

the southern region men hockey teams, were found better in the artificial turf field

than the gravel and grass fields.

233

4.30. DISCUSSION ON THE HYPOTHESES POINTS:

Hypothesis point one says that the Puducherry team may have better

physical variables in the grass field than the other southern region men hockey

teams.

From the statistical analysis it was found out that the physical variables of

Puducherry team was not better in the grass field than the other southern region

men hockey teams. And hence the hypothesis point one is rejected.

Hypothesis point two says that the Tamilnadu team may have better

physical variables in the gravel field than the other southern region men hockey

teams


Tamilnadu team was better in the gravel field than the other southern region men

hockey teams. And hence the hypothesis point two is accepted.

Hypothesis point three says that the Karnataka team may have better

physical variables in the artificial turf field than the other southern region men

hockey teams.


Karnataka team was better in the artificial turf field than the other southern region

men hockey teams. And hence the hypothesis point three is accepted.

Hypothesis point four says that the Puducherry team may have better

psychological variables in the grass field than the other southern region men

hockey teams.

234

From the statistical analysis it was found out that the psycholoical

variables of Puducherry team was not better in the grass field than the other

southern region men hockey teams. And hence the hypothesis point four is

rejected.

Hypothesis point five says that the Tamilnadu team may have better

psychological variables in the gravel field than the other southern region men

hockey teams.

From the statistical analysis it was found out that the psychological

variables of Tamilnadu team was better in the gravel field than the other southern

region men hockey teams. And hence the hypothesis point five is accepted.

Hypothesis point six says that the Karnataka team may have better

psychological variables in the artificial turf field than the other southern region

men hockey teams.

From the statistical analysis it was found out that the psychological

variables of Karnataka team was better in the artificial turf field than the other

southern region men hockey teams. And hence the hypothesis point six is

accepted.

Hypothesis point seven says that the Puducherry team may have better

performance variables in the grass field than the other southern region men

hockey teams.

235

From the statistical analysis it was found out that the performance

variables of Puducherry team was not better in the grass field than the other

southern region men hockey teams. And hence the hypothesis point seven is

rejected.

Hypothesis point eight says that the Tamilnadu team may have better

performance variables in the gravel field than the other southern region men

hockey teams.

From the statistical analysis it was found out that the performance

variables of Karnataka team was better in the gravel field than the other southern

region men hockey teams. And hence the hypothesis point eight is rejected.

Hypothesis point nine says that the Karnataka team may have better

performance variables in the artificial turf field than the other southern region

men hockey teams.

From the statistical analysis it was found out that the performance variables

of Karnataka team was better in the artificial turf field than the other southern

region men hockey teams. And hence the hypothesis point nine is accepted.

Hypothesis point ten says that in general the physical, psychological and

performance variables of all the southern region men hockey teams were better in

the artificial turf field followed by gravel and grass fields.

From the statistical analysis it was found out that the physical,

psychological and performance variables of all the southern region men hockey

teams were better in the artificial turf field followed by gravel and grass fields.

And hence the hypothesis point ten is accepted.

236

4.31. DISCUSSON IN GENERAL [the overall results]

In general this study reveals that the overall performance of Karnataka team

was better when compare to the other Southern Region men hockey teams,

because there are so many reasons behind that enhanced performance.

The Karnataka team consecutively won the South Zone hockey

championships from 2005 to 2007 and also won many A grade tournaments, South

Zone Interuniversity tournaments. Even a couple months before Karnataka team

won the recently concluded South Zone Interuniversity tournament at Bangalore.

Reasons:

1. In general, their association had conducted league matches regularly for all

the grades of players.

2. The associated clubs, various organizations and departments were

adequately conducting many tournaments for all grades of players and also

recruiting players under sports quota in merits.

3. There are minimum three to four players in the team were regularly playing

for our National team (India). The experience of those players will motivate

the other players to play a better game, obviously the total performance of

the team was better and enables to won the competitions.

4. Regular and long term coaching camps were conducted for all the grades of

players by the experienced coaches.

5. The grass root level of players can also get practiced in the artifificial turf

fields regularly.

6. Sports appointments, sponsors, voluntary organizations will give their

attentions to enhance the popularity of the National game in all the levels in

the region.

237

Next the performance of the Tamilnadu team was better in the gravel field

when compare to other Southern Region men hockey teams, because mostly the

division, district and state tournaments were conducted only in gravel fields. The

grass roots levels of players are also get practiced only in the gravel field which is

mostly available in their districts and also in schools. They are introduced to

artificial turf field only when they came for senior level tournaments. So the

performance of the Tamilnadu team was better in the gravel field when compare to

other Southern Region men hockey teams in other fields.

Among the playfields the performance of the teams were better in the

artificial turf fields, because the grass fields has lots of ups and downs and mostly

they are multipurpose fields in which football and other games were played. Next

the gravel field is mostly filled with mud and has lots of ups and downs due to

small projected stones in the field; the ball was rising suddenly which affects the

rhythm of play, tempo of the player and the performance of the teams. In the

artificial turf field the ball, moves faster in the expected direction, moves along the

field, advanced skills and techniques can be executed perfectly in the artificial

field. The perfection of the playfield will increase the confidence of the players

while executing their skills, so the performance of the players were very good in

the artificial turf field which is available for playing in all the weather conditions.

So among the playfields artificial turf field was better in extracting the performance

of the Southern Region men hockey teams.

238

TABLE -XI

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE SCORES OF SOUTHERN REGION

MEN HOCKEY TEAMS IN DIFFERENT PLAYFIELDS

SO

UT

HE

RN

RE

GIO

NS

Physical Variable Psychological Variable Performance Variable

Speed Agility Power Self-

Confidence Anxiety Aggression Dribbling Hitting Trapping

GR

AS

S

GR

AV

EL

AR

TIF

ICIA

LT

UR

F

GR

AS

S

GR

AV

EL

AR

TIF

ICIA

L.T

UR

F

FF

G

RA

SS

GR

AV

EL

AR

TIF

ICIA

LT

UR

F

GR

AS

S

GR

AV

EL

AR

TIF

ICIA

L.T

UR

F

GR

AS

S

GR

AV

EL

AR

TIF

ICIA

LT

UR

F

GR

AS

S

GR

AV

EL

AR

TIF

ICIA

LT

UR

F

GR

AS

S

GR

AV

EL

AR

TIF

ICIA

LT

UR

F

GR

AS

S

GR

AV

EL

AR

TIF

ICIA

LT

UR

F

GR

AS

S

GR

AV

EL

AR

TIF

ICIA

LT

UR

F

Ka

rn

ata

ka

6.4

7

6.4

4

6.2

9

9.0

8

8.8

6

8.7

0

2.5

5

2.5

7

2.6

4

19

.10

18

.60

17

.35

17

.40

16

.55

14

.90

16

.60

17

.70

18

.80

15

.23

15

.13

14

.89

9.0

0

9.3

5

9.5

0

3.6

0

3.8

5

4.6

8

Tam

iln

ad

u

6.5

6

6.4

1

6.3

3

9.1

2

8.8

3

8.7

5

2.5

3

2.5

9

2.6

2

19

.70

18

.25

17

.80

17

.85

16

.10

15

.90

16

.30

18

.10

18

.40

15

.27

15

.24

14

.94

8.7

5

9.1

5

9.2

5

3.5

9

3.7

6

4.3

7

Pu

du

ch

err

y

6.6

1

6.5

6

6.4

7

9.1

5

8.8

8

8.7

9

2.4

8

2.5

0

2.5

5

21

.35

20

.70

20

.20

18

.75

18

.45

17

.25

15

.95

16

.90

17

.60

15

.33

15

.30

15

.00

8.6

0

8.8

0

9.0

0

3.5

0

3.5

2

4.1

0

An

dh

ra

6.6

4

6.5

9

6.4

3

9.2

0

8.9

1

8.7

8

2.4

1

2.4

8

2.5

7

22

.10

20

.40

19

.75

21

.15

17

.80

16

.95

15

.50

16

.50

17

.30

15

.36

15

.28

15

.12

8.5

0

8.9

0

9.1

0

3.4

4

3.5

9

3.9

3

Hy

der

ab

ad

6.6

2

6.6

0

6.5

1

9.1

8

8.9

6

8.8

5

2.4

3

2.4

6

2.5

3

21

.75

21

.40

20

.80

20

.90

20

.40

19

.60

15

.70

16

.15

16

.70

15

.36

15

.30

15

.14

8.2

5

8.4

5

8.7

0

3.3

8

3.4

3

3.9

0

Ker

ala

6.6

5

6.5

5

6.5

3

9.2

3

8.8

7

8.8

7

2.4

0

2.5

1

2.5

2

23

.20

22

.00

21

.45

21

.90

21

.30

20

.55

14

.90

15

.75

16

.35

15

.51

15

.33

15

.24

8.0

0

8.2

5

8.4

0

3.3

4

3.4

1

3.7

9

analysis of data and results of the study 4.1....

Documents