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.

What has Elton John got to do with the Olympics?

Sacrifice! The title to one of his greatest hits is also one of the most used words in the post competition interviews given by athletes in Team GB (and possibly others).  I am a huge fan of the Olympics; whether it is the greatest show on earth is debateable, for me that is, and here comes an affront to my masculinity, Les Miserables (stage rather than cinematic production).  I do feel however that there is an over-emphasis placed on the level of sacrifice that athletes make in order to achieve their goals and an under representation of the opportunities they have been able to access that have allowed them to compete on the world stage.  The level of effort and hard work they commit to their event is admirable and I certainly do not wish to underplay the achievement of getting to the Olympics, rather frame that against the opportunities that have allowed them to be there.

Since the inception of the National Lottery there has been a significant level of funding given over to performance sport.  Although this funding is still insufficient according to some, it has allowed sports to establish performance programmes that give selected athletes access full time training, skilled coaches, expert medics and dedicated practitioners committed to helping them get improve their performance.  Whilst there is certainly a degree of sacrifice involved in committing to a performance programme, for example moving home to be closer to a central training base or postponing other career ambitions, access to this type of support represents a significant opportunity.  Such opportunities are evident long before the point at which an athlete’s skills are recognised by their national governing body.  In order to get to the level where you might be considered for a performance programme there has likely been numerous opportunities presented to you.  Firstly, being born into the type of family willing to expose you to sport and support a range of activities to find out which you enjoy (and excel at) the most.  Secondly, an educational environment that allows you to pursue sporting ambitions, especially when this involves extensive travel and training at unsociable times.  These are all significant opportunities that, unfortunately, do not exist for most people.  How many people reading this post for example have had the opportunity in their formative years to try their hand at fencing, sailing or equestrian?

Sacrifice I appreciate is a subjective construct and one that many people will feel applies to them.  Most of us will at some point make a sacrifice for one reason or another; whether other people see that as being significant or not is open to debate.  Some sacrifice seeing their family in order to pursue a career, others sacrifice a pursuit that some might see as being detrimental in the first place, drinking, smoking, gambling, in order to live a happier and healthier life.  In the most noble circumstances, parents sacrifice their own ambitions and free time to ensure their family enjoy a roof over their heads and food on the table.  Sacrifice is all around us, often as a result of circumstances much more important (and I accept this is relative as well) than competing or medalling at the Olympics.

Those of us lucky enough to work in sport, be that as an athlete or member of the support network, have had numerous opportunities presented to us or that we have sought out ourselves in order to pursue that goal.  For me this is a much more positive message to proffer than that of sacrifice.  Perhaps events such as the Olympics are a time to reflect on the opportunities we have been given rather than those which we have missed.

Bio-banding in football; fad or fallacy?

A Scottish newspaper ran an article recently on the use of bio-banding to organise youth tournaments (you can read the article here if you are interested (http://goo.gl/4lncmF)) which was followed up more recently with a post on BBC sport.  For those of you unfamiliar with bio-banding it is a method of categorising young players based on their biological rather than chronological age.  The suggested benefit being that players get to compete with peers who are of a similar stature and mass making it easier (?) to spot those with greater technical proficiency.  Given the financial incentives of nurturing talented young players within a club’s academy system the notion of being able to steal a march on the competition is appealing however is bio-banding the way forward?

Before I address the philosophical issues there are some important methodological considerations which warrant a mention.  Firstly, assuming each child has a legitimate birth certificate chronological age is easily determined with a high degree of accuracy.  Biological age on the other hand poses more of a challenge.  The most valid method is to x-ray the wrist to determine skeletal age; some ethical questions exist around this method, not to mention the associated expense making it inaccessible to most.  A number of surrogate markers have been proposed, the most popular being an equation that uses mass, stature and seated stature to predict the maturity offset and years from peak height velocity (PHV).  Interested readers can view the original paper here (https://goo.gl/CI0AsO).  Whilst measures of stature and mass are accessible to most people it does require a level of accuracy in how the measurements are taken.  Furthermore, the accuracy of the equation improves with the more individual data points you collect bringing its use into question when used singularly before a tournament.  Finally, in every measure there is usually a degree of inherent error and maturity offset is no exception.  Wherever you set your cut off points (and this is as essential when dividing players by biological as it is chronological age) the error in the measure means that some will still be categorized incorrectly.

Putting these methodological questions to one side there are philosophical issues which are worth addressing.  The tournament reported by the Scottish Sun, to my knowledge, was for players already attached to academy teams which prompts the question, is bio-banding a talent identification or talent development tool?  For players who have already been identified by a club (and signed) I would expect coaches to track measures such as maturity status longitudinally allowing them to factor this in when assessing rate of improvement (itself a very subjective construct).  For example, if a club felt a specific player was too small we might expect then to cross check maturity status before making any decisions regarding their future.  Furthermore, I would suggest that for players who are either larger or smaller than their peers a number of ways exist to manage their development so that size is not a limiting factor.  For example, a player who is large for their age may have conditions placed upon them during training to limit how they use their physicality; being constrained to interceptions rather than tackling to regain possession of the ball.  This could be used in conjunction with short spells playing with older players of a more comparable size.  For smaller players, once selected, playing and competing with larger and heavier peers may be of benefit in the long term if they have a coaching team willing to give them time to develop.  Whether organising training and matches according to bio-bands represents a more valid method than those identified above in managing talented young players is of course debatable and I would be interested to heat counter points.

Bio-banding for talent identification purposes may be of more benefit.  We know from recent studies that the relative age effect exists within football, characterized by an over-representation of chronologically older players.  Facilitating opportunities for players to compete against size matched opponents, irrespective of age, may combat this. It should be remembered however that although the relative age effect exists there is limited evidence to suggest that chronologically older players display superior physical qualities, for example speed, agility and aerobic fitness.  Whilst there may be benefits in bio-banding there are also logistical issues in gaining anthropometric information prior to trial games or large scale selection tournaments.

There is no easy answer to this issue and I hope this does not discourage the pursuit of a solution.  It does however, and this may not appeal to the more scientifically minded, suggest a reliance on experienced scouts able to see past the size and shape of young players and recognise their ability to play the game effectively.  Having spent some time with an incredibly knowledgeable scout I would proffer that in this instance there really is no substitute for experience and a well-trained ‘eye for a player’.