The problem of sport

[The Beast of Bevendean]

MarathonDan suggested I might post something here which originally appeared on a blog of little merit that some of you have been kind enough to visit. He wrote thus:

'...Your bullet list is a great teaser for am interesting debate - I wonder if you should pose the question on the RC forum. We have representatives from the great sporting nations of Australia, Spain, Canada and Yorkshire , and they might throw up some interesting suggestions. (Apologies for mentioning throwing up in the context of school sports.)'

What bullet list you ask? You can see the full post at http://www.roper.org.uk/marathon2005/201...again.html but the important section is this:

While not running, I've had plenty of time to observe the post-Olympic debate. I've hesitated, not wanting to be crushed to death under the bandwagons' wheels. However, since anyone and everyone has an opinion, here's mine, and some account of its formation.

No one has yet found the answer to how to encourage people to be more active, though the public health consequences of our epidemic of laziness become clearer and clearer by the day. I know the way not to do it, the way they tried on me at school:

• compulsory team games, the more violent the better
  
• the autumn term was sacred to rugby, that game in which twenty-nine young men in their prime are allowed to jump on one of their fellows. I still bear a scar above one eye from a scrum
  
• in spring, hockey, much the same as rugby, for while there are fewer people wishing you harm, they are armed with sticks. I sustained a forearm injury in this game
  
• in summer, cricket. I enjoyed this. It was a civilised game, at least in those days, and I could see the poetry in a five-day test, and the intricacies of scoring fascinated me. Alas I was not much good but I have fond memories of lying under a tree as a game proceeded, reading an essay of Brigid Brophy's in which she showed how Cherubino's aria, Voi Che Sapete, represents the musings of the phallos
  
• ridicule of those not naturally athletic. The fast ones who finished early were encouraged to mock the slow and dyspraxic at the end of the race
  
• poor performance punished with the slipper. How exactly was this supposed to motivate us?
  

[El Gordo]

If we are talking disincentives here, then I'd offer the ghastly spectacle of a rugby team in full post-match rehydration mode. There is nothing in such an egregious performance to boost the appeal of the underlying activity.

Tom is generous towards cricket, but I have to say that while I can get carried away with the romance of the game -- and can happily watch it, particularly if the Aussies are offering themselves up for sacrifice, as is their modern preference -- that darn ball is just too bloody hard. If it were just a bit more fluffy and rubbery, instead of being made of granite, I would have been more enthusiastic about seeing it hurtling towards me at 100 miles per hour.

[The Beast of Bevendean]

You're right, of course. A games master took pleasure in telling us, when we were eight or so I think, and first learning the game, that on average one boy a year was killed in school cricket. Why do you think I enjoyed scoring?

[marathondan]

I think what's clear is that a one-size-fits-all approach to school sport doesn't work. The most gifted require high quality coaching to produce competitive success, the least able need inspiration and encouragement to find sports that they enjoy (and perhaps uncover hidden talents in the process), those in between need... something in between.

My secondary school sport experience in the 80s was quite good - we were streamed according to abililty, and I, being accustomed to the top stream for academic subjects, found myself down in the fourth stream for games. This worked well, there was no gulf in class in team games, and there was the opportunity to move up a stream (gain promotion, if you will) by prolonged effort (I never did).

The perennial comment on my school report for football was "reads the game well" - damned by faint praise, I think.

As far as my kids go, all competition has been eliminated in the infants (age 5-7) with the occasional exception of a single running race on sports day. I have no problem with this - at that age, I see no point generating competitiveness between children.

In the juniors (8-11) more competition is introduced - the most able can represent the school competitively, and sports day (athletics) this year included heats in games lessons, with only the fastest qualifying for the races on the day. Luke (9), to neither his or our surprise, didn't qualify for any running finals, but discovered on the day that relay races were held for teams of non-qualifiers, and was delighted with his team's third place. And thanks to the variety of extra-curricular sports on offer, he's found an activity to which he seems (so far) well suited - judo. But these extra-curricular activities have to be paid for of course, and are thus not so accessible to all.

[Sweder]

The key to engaging youngsters in sport is, in my view, exposure.
Before you all rush off to CYPOS or whatever it's called, this is not intended as a swipe at Roman Catholic schools. The problem seems to be getting a chance to try different sports. Had I ever tried rowing it might be me in those grinning shots of large, fit men in lycra*, waving medals under foppish mops.

It's not practical for all kids to try all things, but some variety and at least a flavour of different sports would be good. Kids who eschew team games - pretty much the majority, from what I can tell - might feel more comfortable in a solo pursuit. Most children ride bikes for fun, so doing so at pace around a basic track should pose no great challenge. Making it fun, and competitive, would help, I'm sure.

How many get to try tennis? Or fencing? Hmm. Perhaps not fencing, at least not in schools like the one I was desptached to in later years.


* apologies to anyone having lunch

[marathondan]

Good point, Sweder. But now we see why the staples of school sports - football, rugby, cricket, hockey, running - prevail. All they require is a few bits of wood and leather and a patch of grass. And they have lower supervision ratio requirements to boot. The more interesting sports need equipment, venues, and high coach ratios.

Who'd have thought it would all come down to money?

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

Here in Australia in the 60s and 70s in schools we played everything and enjoyed everything - even the weird stuff like American football and lacrosse. We did it all pretty badly (having no access to good coaching in the school system) but had loads of fun and no-one got terribly hurt. It was expected that you would play lots of sport - not because it was compulsory (it wasn't), rather it was because that's just what Aussie kids did. There were no expectations at school of success, either. It was simply that if you were any good at any particular sport or just liked it a lot, you would join a club and get proper coaching there. And as a system of sorts, it seemed to work.

What's different now? Well, all schools (private or government-funded doesn't matter) have lots more money and take sport far more seriously. The results (ie Olympics medal tally), perhaps speak for themselves... still good for a small nation, but definitely on a downward trend. Schools tend to focus on a couple of particular sports, and that's sad, for how else are kids to find their paricular niche?

On reflection, I tend to think the old way had its merits - let kids have a crack at everything, and when they find something they liked, you could be sure there'd be a club they could join. Not now though. Now you're hard-pressed to even find a badminton centre or judo club. And yet pay-TV is full of sport. Yes, we're definitely on a trend towards spectator-dom rather than participation.

Thank God for running.