Introducing Odysseus, your new role model in sport

Achilles was a pretty successful chap (his heel not withstanding), lauded for his physicality, brute strength and prowess on the battlefield.  Indeed, it was his physical precociousness and honest disposition which gained popular acclaim; from a modern day perspective you may have described his as ‘what you see is what you get’.  It is often these characteristics and attributes that we value in identifying young people likely to excel in their chosen sport (or any chosen career path for that matter); those that are willing to work hard, develop physical precociousness through adherence to a prescribed training programme and compliance with the requests of their coach and support team.  These qualities are of course important however there are a different set of skills which are overlooked, those displayed and practised by another successful yet perhaps less well known Greek, Odysseus.

Odysseus displayed a smart mind, and has been described as cunning and in a slightly more derogatory tone, deceptive.  His ability to communicate whilst hiding his true purpose, feelings and thoughts are well documented.  He was the adventurer who managed to avoid the sirens through foreplaning and escaped from the clutches of the Cyclops through an intricate series of lies, deception and double crossing.  These qualities were less popular amongst the ancient Greeks than those of Achilles and so is the case today; few would readily identify an athlete who was descried as cunning or deceitful as being someone they would want to work with.  Perhaps however this requires a re-think?

The ability to be cunning and deceitful are key attributes in a range of sports from a tactical and strategic perspective.  Never before has the influence of ‘mind games’ been so publicised in the popular media, a practise which requires athletes (and coaches) to use a range of techniques that hide their true agenda.  Furthermore, once they enter the field of play athletes are required to deceive their opponent through feints, disguised movements and in some cases feigned injury.  Despite the positive influence these actions and behavior's can have on the intended outcome we seem to apportion a relatively low priority to them in selecting athletes (and coaches) who are likely to be successful.  Not only are these skills undervalued in how we select able young athletes but their development is often not specifically targeted.  Perhaps we expect the subtleties of subterfuge and deception to be developed tacitly, or perhaps we are less conformable with acknowledging and using practises designed to enhance their use.  In previous roles I heard coaches complain that some athletes would always seem to find the easiest way of doing things, or work out the best way to win (even if it wasn’t necessarily in the sprint of the game or strictly within the rules).  This was generally conferred in a negative way yet demonstrated an important skill and mind set, the ability to be cunning and flexible in their approach.  Although athletes who display these skills may be harder to manage this should not deter us from working with them, unless of course they take the path of least resistance to avoid a challenge.

The recent publication of athletes TUE data has brought this topic into stark focus.  Team Sky were previously lauded for their ‘leave no stone unturned’ approach, perhaps because it was seen to reflect an unfaltering work ethic.  The suggestion however that their practices may have bent the rules or pushed the boundaries of laws that govern cycling (and other sports) following the release of TUE data was viewed in a more sinister way, with words like deceitful and dishonest used.  Even their own athletes have suggested that individuals need to do more to uphold the new found ‘clean’ image of the sport.  Your viewpoint on this issue is likely influenced by how comfortable you are with teams and athletes massaging the rules of their sport and working to uncover technicalities and loopholes they can use to infer a competitive advantage versus an ethical obligation to uphold the principles muscular Christianity.  To cite a different example, diving in football is vilified and now has sanctions attached to its use including free kicks and yellow cards.  Claiming for a throw in or corner which clearly should be awarded to the opposition however goes unacknowledged and unpunished; although the modus operandi is different the behaviour is not, a willingness to deceive the referee, her assistants and your opponent.

When we place so much importance on winning and when the rewards are so great we should not be surprised when practises emerge that, in normal society, would be at best frowned upon and at worst deplored.  Despite this, and as uncomfortable as some may find it, perhaps they are necessary to be successful at the very highest level.  This I suspect is as true in business as it is in sport; the debate continues regarding the tax avoidance practises of big business and whether this is a question of law or ethics (I will hold my own counsel on this one).  When determining which athletes to support, select and retain we should value attributes such as the ability to be cunning and deceptive, as difficult as that may be, in the same way as we would physicality.  Achilles may be a great role model for some of your athletes however most teams and organisations need an Odysseus to gain the competitive advantage.

Perception in sport: are we asking the right questions?

There has never been a better time to be a sport scientist; true there is more competition than ever for jobs however for those in gainful employment there is a wealth of information to consider in the pursuit of enhancing performance. Practitioners attached to more affluent organisations may have access to GPS technology or sophisticated equipment that allows them to monitor a range of physiological responses.  For those who do not have the advantage (or hindrance depending in your perspective) of a bottomless budget there is the more traditional paper and pen techniques, such as ratings of perceived exertion and scales that assess an athletes 'wellness' and readiness to train.  Plenty it would seem to keep us busy!

When we consider commonly used questionnaires in sport science however there appears to be a general trend to ‘nudge’ athletes in a certain direction, that of assuming a level of fatigue or sensations that would inhibit rather than enhance performance.  How many validated scales can you think of which require athletes to rate their level of ‘soreness’, ‘fatigue’ or ‘stress’, all negative connotations.  The way we frame questions and present information, known as priming, can significantly influence subsequent actions and therefore warrants consideration.  For example, asking people whether they are going to vote prior to an election increases turnout whilst suggesting that the majority of people pay their taxes has a positive effect on the return of honest income returns (we all, it would seem, want to fit in and be part of the crowd). 

With this in mind we may question why so many scales for monitoring the response of athletes to training use such negative terms, especially when the objective is to maximise exposure to training and practises that enhance technical, tactical and physical prowess.  What we are essentially saying is, 'we know there must be a level of soreness, stress and fatigue, we just need you to tell us how much'.  It is not hard to see how questioning of this nature may persuade an athlete who feels good that there is a degree of fatigue which they were hitherto unaware of.  Perhaps if these questions were redefined in terms of muscle strength, happiness and freshness we may get different results and feel compelled to interpret the data in a different way.  Although there is a need for a process of validation, is it time to adopt scales and questionnaires that ask athletes to tell us how good they feel rather than how bad they feel?

Thanks to colleagues at the SFA for the idea behind this blog.