Does Competing Against Other Players Change Willingness to Take Risks?

Introduction

Put two players in the same situation, and the presence of an opponent can change what each is willing to try. A pass through a crowded lane, a long-range shot or an aggressive move forward may seem sensible in training, but riskier when a competitor is ready to punish a mistake.

Competition doesn’t simply make athletes more daring. It can encourage calculated risks, but it can also narrow their focus and make them wary of visible failure. The question is whether an opponent’s influence improves decision-making or leads to hesitation or recklessness.

Gino Skills Training’s discussion of competition centres on the idea that avoiding tough opponents can limit development. Difficult match-ups test preparation, work habits and resilience. They also show how athletes respond when the safest option isn’t necessarily the best one.

Players under pressure

A stronger opponent can be a useful challenge. A player may recognise that routine solutions won’t be enough and take a well-judged chance: press earlier, attack space more directly or attempt a difficult skill at a decisive moment. That’s purposeful risk-taking, not risk for its own sake.

Another player may respond by holding back. A capable rival is more likely to exploit a mistake, and the consequences are immediate. The player might choose safer passes, delay decisions or avoid a move they would attempt more freely against weaker opposition.

Neither response is inevitable. Confidence, experience and the importance of the result all play a part. A player who sees a demanding contest as a chance to improve may prepare harder and stay engaged. One who sees it as a test of personal worth may focus on avoiding errors instead of creating opportunities.

Competing with an opponent is different from competing for status. A close rival can sharpen focus, but constant comparison can get in the way. An athlete intent on matching an opponent’s visible success may force plays that don’t suit the moment or abandon the disciplined choices that usually work.

Key factors

Preparation sets the floor. Athletes are more likely to take useful risks when they’ve practised the skills involved and understand their options. Preparation doesn’t guarantee success, but it means a decision relies less on hope. Without it, an ambitious attempt may be little more than a guess dressed up as confidence.

Perceived control shapes the choice. Players are more willing to act when they believe timing, technique or positioning can influence the outcome. When an opponent seems to control every exchange, taking a risk can feel pointless. Preparation helps restore a sense of control by giving athletes specific options, rather than a vague instruction to be brave.

Failure has a social cost. In competition, mistakes are public. Players may worry not only about losing possession or conceding a point, but also about what an error seems to say about them. That fear can encourage conservative play, even when a bolder attempt could benefit the team or support long-term development.

Adversity tests habits. Under pressure, athletes tend to fall back on what they’ve practised consistently. A player who prepares carefully and stays engaged after setbacks is better equipped to make the next sound decision. Avoiding tough competition means missing some of those tests; accepting it helps reveal which habits hold up when things get difficult.

The right level of risk depends on the situation. The score, time, position and likely response from the opponent all affect the decision. A high-risk attempt may help shift momentum, but could be wasteful when a safer option protects a lead. Courage doesn’t mean always choosing the aggressive move. It means taking it when the evidence supports it—and holding back when it doesn’t.

Match scenario

Imagine a player facing a defender who closes space quickly. Early in the contest, the player tries a difficult move, loses possession and is punished. The next decision is whether to retreat into predictable, safe play, repeat the move without adjusting, or learn from the defender’s response and try again at a better moment.

The first option may prevent another obvious mistake, but it also lets the opponent dictate play. The second confuses bravery with repetition. A more considered response is to change the setup, use the defender’s movement and take the risk when a real opening appears. The attempt may still fail, but it’s informed—and can teach the player about timing and execution.

Now change the circumstances. If the team is protecting a narrow lead late in the contest, the player may be right to keep possession and avoid a low-percentage move. If the team is behind with little time left, a risk that once seemed unnecessary may become the most sensible choice. The opponent affects the difficulty, but the situation determines which risks make sense.

That’s why coaches and players should judge decisions by the information available at the time, not just by the result. A sound attempt can fail, while a poor decision can succeed. Reviewing the choice, the preparation behind it and the response to setbacks offers a better measure of competitive growth than simply counting errors.

Conclusion

Competing against others can make athletes more willing to take risks—or more cautious. The response depends on preparation, confidence, perceived control and the ability to recover from a mistake without disengaging.

Avoiding tough competition may feel comfortable, but it limits opportunities to test preparation and decision-making under pressure. The goal isn’t to seek danger in every contest. It’s to face demanding opponents, stay prepared and take risks that suit the situation—not the ego or the fear of failure.