Few of us
who are interested in sport will have failed to come across the term sport
science, be that in an article relating to how top athletes train or in the
advertising campaign for one of the many sports drinks currently on the
market. To those unaccustomed to the
discipline this probably translates to the simple 'science of sport' or put
more simply, how we make our athletes run, jump and throw faster, higher and
further. For those of us working within
the sport science industry however the term may at times feel more like a lead
weight than something which encapsulates our multifaceted discipline. Let me explain why.
When the
term sport science first came into our vocabulary it was probably as a result
of the influence of 3 main disciplines, namely physiology, biomechanics and
psychology, the founding disciplines within the British Association of Sport
and Exercise Sciences. All are still to
a greater or lesser extent incorporated within many sport science degrees and
performance program's. Over the years
however there have been a number of new players on the scene, all with their
own inherent merits; to name but a few performance analysis, skill acquisition,
strength and conditioning and performance nutrition. If you were to trawl through the performance
program's of institutes and professional clubs you may find practitioners with
an identified role in one or more of these areas. What is more likely however is that you will
meet the 'sport scientist' responsible for the whole gamut. With such a broad spectrum of knowledge it is
perhaps no surprise that certain areas become marginalised whilst others
flourish. This represents a problem for
the practitioner who must keep abreast of a growing amount of research and
literature but also for the athlete who may be unlucky enough to require
expertise in an area which is not being catered for. Perhaps the biggest problem however with this
umbrella term is its connotations for coaching staff.
A couple
of weeks ago a coach declared to me that he 'does not need sport science'. Opinions of this nature are not
uncommon. Conversations with coaches in
various sports have highlighted a range of opinions relating to sport science
from the complimentary to the downright disparaging. In these situations it is easy adopt a
standpoint of blame however to do so ignores the issue at hand.
Spot
science or simply science if you prefer is embedded in the way that we prepare
athletes for competition be that in a contemporary or traditional manner. Few coaches would question the efficacy of a
warm up or undertake large periods of blocked practise in order it develop a
skill. Both have strong foundations and
supporting evidence in their respective fields of research which has
successfully integrated into the coaches practise, be that consciously or
unconsciously. To categorise sport science
as a singular entity and dispel it as useless therefore is to ignore many of
the benefits it brings to athlete preparation.
Sport
science can also be said to suffer from its title in other ways, specifically
regarding the connotations surrounding the very word 'science'. If we take the dictionary definition of the
term we see phrases such as 'systematic study' and 'experimentation and
observation'. At no point do we see the
phrase 'proof giving' as this is not and never has been its function. As our understanding, methodology and
equipment improve we see changes in the way information is interpreted, that is
to say that science evolves and it is this trait which is perhaps its strongest
quality. Of course this is no use to the
coach who wants answers now, in the same way that a judge must decide whether
the defendant before them is guilty or not.
The decision is permanent, and hopefully (although history tells us that
this is not always the case) correct.
Ensuring that coaches understand this process as part of their coach
education program is vital in allowing them to maximise the impact of sport
scientists with whom they work. I would
suggest however that at present and in a number of NGB's this is simply not the
case. It is perhaps this absence which
allows guru's to make their name proffering cure all solutions and proven
performance enhancing strategies, many of which may work in the short term but
are rarely beneficial longitudinally.
After all if something has been proven to work all the time there is
little or no requirement to evaluate or reflect on it, elements that as
psychology has taught us are essential for development and growth.
Coach
education also needs to address the skill set of being able to understand and
identify which facets of scientific support are of most relevant I their team
or athlete and how these can be integrated.
Few roles in society require the myriad of skills that coaching does; a
normal day may involve the psychology of learning, man management, delivery, data
analysis and team leadership. And for
many of or coaches this is a part time role.
As such education resources must better equip coaches to manage the
support environment and where possible clubs and NGB's should actively assist
in the process. This may centre on the
simple question relating t whether the information is 'nice to know or need to
know' (thanks to Ailsa Niven for the quote).
It is perhaps in this area that sport psychology can have its greatest impact
especially where developing a culture of learning is concerned.
Practitioners
themselves have a role to play and must develop skills in identifying what the
most relevant facet of support is and in what way to best integrate any data
they may collect to the benefit of the coaching process. Nobody likes to be bombarded with
information, in fact retail research tells us that customers have been shown
make less purchases when confronted with a greater amount of choice. At times the work we do may not seem
particularly cutting edge however if it is what is needed then it should be
pursued with fervour and guile. In doing
so we may find it easier to explain and evaluate the impact of our work. Of course for the practitioner wishing to
enhance their credentials in the scientific community this may not help their
research or academic profile. Clearly
then being a successful sport scientist is not synonymous with being a
successful scientist, unfortunately.
I hope in
the preceding paragraphs I have successfully managed to extol the benefits of
science in sport, if not necessarily sport science. As we move forward it seems
that perhaps the traditional umbrella term may be 'leaking' and in need of a
re-think, comments and suggestions on alternatives would be warmly welcomed.
