The most anticipated football match of the tournament took place last night as Argentina and Brazil locked horns for a place in the final of the Olympic football.

Following a tight first half Argentina eventually ran out 3-0 winners to set up an Olympic final against Nigeria. The match was brought to life in the 53rd minute when Sergio Aguero put Argentina ahead bundling in a low cross. Five minutes later Messi danced his away into the box, showing great technique to lay the ball off to Garay who provided Aguero with an easy tap in.

Minutes later Brazil won a free kick on the edge of Argentina’s area. Ronaldinho stepped up and unleashed a superb free kick, which beat the goalkeeper but not the post. The rebound fell to Alexandre Pato but he was dubiously ruled offside. If the goal had been correctly ruled onside then the outcome of the game may have been different.

However in Lionel Messi Argentina had a world class match winner and he was influential throughout the game. Indeed it was his reverse pass that allowed Aguero to break into the box on the 75th minute, only to be clumsily brought down for a penalty. Juan Riquelme scored from the spot and effectively finished off any hopes Brazil had of winning their first ever Olympic gold medal in football.

To add insult to injury Brazil had Lucas Leiva and Thiago Neves sent off late on in the game.

Before the opening goal it had been a tight affair with few chances for either side but Argentina’s second half blitz saw them emerge as deserved winners and they will now go on to defend their Olympic title from Athens four years ago.

At half time the score was 0-0 and there had been few chances in a tentative affair. However Sergio Batista must have said something during the half time interval as Argentina came out looking like a new team and hungry for success.

The half-time period in a match is the only direct opportunity the coach has to speak to all the players once the match has started, and to influence the second half performance and result. Effective communication between the coach and players is therefore essential.

What a coach says to the players during half-time will depend on both the score, and the perspective of the match. If a team is winning 2-0 at half-time, they will almost certainly go into the changing rooms with a more positive attitude than the opposition. However, suppose the opposition score just before the break; although still losing at half-time, they may well feel very positive, believing that they now have the momentum.

The type of game also affects psychological perspectives; knockout games are different to league games and top of the league teams tend to have different expectations to those at the bottom! Whatever the perspective however, the half-time period is crucial because players will have their first opportunity to reflect consciously on the game for an extended period, and the role of the coach is critical.

With both Argentina and Brazil still very much in the game both sides would have gone in relatively happy at the break. However when a game is this close it is essential that a coach is able to maintain the players concentration as even the slightest mistake can cost a side dearly. With barely 15 minutes of the second half gone Brazil were 2-0 down thanks to a combination of sloppy defending and ruthless Argentinean attacking. The two teams couldn’t have looked any different. Argentina were focused, disciplined and motivated but in comparison the Brazilians were lacklustre and in disarray.

Maximising second half performance is the goal of any coach and this will entail discussions about tactics, state of the pitch, player formations etc. However, just as important as what is said is how effectively it is communicated.

How a coach communicates with the players is partly reflected in his or her leadership style; ideally this style should be adapted to the circumstances of the dressing room. For example, a hostile attitude among the players may require a more autocratic style, whereas a friendly and co-operative attitude may favour a more democratic style. The characteristics of these two styles are summarised below:

Autocratic Style (eg Portugal’s former national football team manager Phil Scolari)

• The coach decides what needs to be done;

• The players do not participate in the decision-making process;

• The coach clearly defines how what needs to be done should be done.

Democratic Style – (eg ex-England manager Sven Goran Errikson)

• The coach sets out what the players need to achieve;

• He then invites the players to out forward ideas or make suggestions on how to go about it;

• The coach decides the best course of action based on the suggestions the players have made.

In order to make these kind of decisions, it’s important that the manager and players are in the right frame of mind and this is where psychological techniques borrowed from neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) can come in handy.

Motivation appears to have been the difference between the two sides as the Argentinean team emerged hungrier for the win than their Brazilian counterparts did. Brazilian coach Dunga went into the Olympics under immense pressure to succeed and it is possible at such a high stakes moment of the tournament he failed to deliver a suitable half time team talk leaving his side unprepared for the second half.

To find out how to maximize your second-half performance read the rest of this fascinating report in the Peak Performance Premium area.

Click here to see what our other Olympic Blogger, Sam Bordiss, thought of this match