The Science of Rugby:
Articles of interest and the revisiting the role of science in sports performance
We're building up to the big London Marathon weekend, which has thankfully come one week after the Iceland Volcano and so most of the big names will line up in London on Sunday. As always, we've got the race covered - a preview tomorrow, then in-race coverage and splits, and the post-race analysis, so join us for that in the coming days!
For now, I have been putting off a post on the science of rugby for a while, but tonight I was an invited guest on a weekly South African TV show called Boots and All (Hollywood next week - my agent will be taking future bookings! Just kidding!), and the topic of conversation was rugby and the science of performance. The site got mentioned on the show, and so partly out of necessity (for those who now visit it looking for rugby pieces), but also out of a desire to post on this topic, below are the links to some interesting articles that those of you who follow the sport may enjoy. For those who don't know the sport, it's the newest (along with golf) Olympic sport (in the form of Sevens rugby) and well worth watching and enjoying if you haven't already! I'm sure I'll post on it in the future!
The articles - rugby through science's lens
- The physiological demands of rugby - how far do they run, how often do they tackle, how much energy, and what intensity is the game played at?
- Rugby and altitude - when should teams aim to arrive for altitude matches?
- Injuries in rugby - how often are players injured, when they are injured, and how seriously?
- Possession is not everything - why rugby has been a sport where the team with the ball is LESS likely to win
Answering the question vs explaining the answer? The true value of science
And finally, related to the above pieces and the topic of sports science in general, I have a philosophical thought regarding the application of science to rugby, and any sport, for that matter. Regular readers will know that a big focus here on this site is the role of science in improving sports performance. There are coaches who don't see the value of the science, and there are coaches who embrace it.
My personal and professional battle in the last few years, in the South African sporting landscape, has been to promote the value of the science, to help people realise what it can do to improve sports performances, because in SA at least, it has largely been under-valued.
And what has gradually dawned on me, particularly as a result of some fascinating discussions in the last two days (thank you Jimmy and Clinton) is that a big part of the problem is that the science itself has not communicated the value to the coaches. Instead, what has happened is that science has tended to explain the answers, rather than answering the questions.
So what often happens is that science arrives too late to the 'party', and then produces research that only serves to explain the mechanisms behind what is already known. The coach, who typically spends 8 waking hours a day (and probably a good few hours in their sleep) thinking about the sport, has often figured out the answer long in advance of the scientist arriving to tell them what they need to do. This kind of science is still valuable, of course, and there is enormous value in both understanding mechanisms and validating current methods and practices, but it often makes the science seem "out-of-touch".
The coach is less interested in looking back and proving himself correct than he is on finding the advantage moving forward, and so this kind of science is often dismissed as unhelpful. When the science is too forceful, and fails to appreciate this, it even creates hostility - the "who are you to tell me what I've known for five years?" syndrome. Good science, at least from a coach's point of view in high performance sport, is science that answers a very specific question and allows the coach/athlete to make changes in advance of failure or a negative outcome. It is prescriptive rather than reflective.
The way to achieve this is to have coaches and science working intimately with one another, so that the science is "coach-driven" to answer specific questions that he/she may have regarding player preparation, strategy, match tactics, injury rehabilitation, environmental management (heat, cold or altitude, for example) and ergogenic aids to performance. If the science is not "immersed" in the team environment, and not driven by the central character, the coach, then the likelihood of it adding value is greatly reduced.
I have said many times, and repeat it here - the value in science is NOT the content, but the process by which new things are discovered. In other words, the scientist is not there simply to contribute specific knowledge on energy, heart rate, muscle injuries and so forth. This is important, certainly, but the real value comes from implementing a "hypothesis-driven" approach, and then embarking on a process that produces deeper understanding of what would otherwise remain intangible and unknown.
In elite sport today, where the margins between winning and losing are so tiny, the purpose of science, in my opinion, is to instill a culture of measurement, monitoring and hypothesis testing at every level of player preparation and performance. You cannot manage what you don't measure is one adage, and science is there to help measure and manage the right things. In doing this, it could help the coach, his support staff and the player find 1% improvements in five different areas. If that happens, the result may be a 3-5% improvement, and a completely different outcome.
The articles I've linked to above are not intended to provide those answers. They are more of the "explaining answers" type of science, but their intent was to give a new perspective on the sport of rugby. If they stimulate discussion and force you to ask another question, to challenge a finding, then you've understood the value of science, and you've taken the first step towards understanding how science helps performance, because the answers to your questions, and the questions they generate, will ultimately help to inform decision-making.
Ross
Hey Ross.
ReplyDeleteAgree and disagree with some of this.
To me the big problem is that we have "sports science research" all in the one bag when there are three very different sports science research needs.
1. Academic standard research - research for its own sake, looking a high level of statistical significance, strong reliable and valid research methods etc - which is of little or no real practical use to most coaches and athletes;
2. Applied research - driven through academies, institutes of sport and with a focus on finding things that can then be relayed to coaches and athletes to enhance performance;
3. Coach driven / coach generated research which is where sports scientists have been smart enough to go to a coach and ask "what can i do to help you, your athletes and your program achieve success?". By doing it this way, the researchers avoid all the problems like trying to explain research findings to coaches or finding readily available research subjects. This research is sadly under accepted by the academic community and despite being potentially the biggest impact on sports performance, it is not respected as a valid research method in most countries I visit.
Most researchers in academia will come up with a research idea, go and research it, try to find some subjects - which are rarely truly elite or high performance athletes, do the research, go through the peer review process, then release the findings and try to convince coaches to follow their theories.
A much much smarter way of going is to try and understand the needs of the athletes, the coach and the sport, under take practical, applied but quality research that can directly enhance performance.
All three types of research have their role but when you start talking about enhancing elite level performance then research type three has to be given an increased focus.
Keep up the great work - always enjoy reading your work.
Wayne Goldsmith
Hi Wayne
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I'm certainly not dismissing the value of the academic standard research, as this is after all the area that I've been involved in and earned a PhD in. And yes, it's valuable, but it's not relevant to the context of the post.
I'm not sure I see the distinction between your number 2 and number 3 categories, except to say that if Number 2, the applied research is done properly, then it is the same as number three. If it's not, then it's what I was saying happens where the science doesn't add value and ends up explaining the answers to the coach who already knows them!
One thing that we have here in SA, and perhaps it's the same as in Aus, is that coaches don't often know how to answer that question of "What can I do to help you?"
So to me, the answer is not simply in asking the coach, because they don't know themselves (well, most don't). If the coach then drives the research process, it can sometimes end up failing to do justice to the capacity of the science.
That's why I think ongoing partnership where the scientist also teaches the coach what they need to know is the way forward. It needs a coach who is open to listen and to iterative discussion, and a scientist who is willing to learn (which is sometimes a rare commodity!).
but you're 100% right about the academic recognition of such science.
Thanks for the comment!
Ross
P.S. Which part do you disagree with? Wasn't clear from your post...
Thanks - I think you have nailed it - "partnership".
ReplyDeleteIt makes a lot of sense that coaches and sports scientists should partner together - with the athletes - and form a performance team capable of amazing things.
I have found it is very very rare around the world to find such partnerships but when you do, great innovation, creativity and performance success almost inevitably follow.
With the Academic recognition, it comes down to the contracts and KPIS of academic staff. If their employer says it will promote staff based on quality gold standard peer reviewed publications, then obviously that's the direction they have to go with in their research.
If we could convince the Academic world to maybe split contract rewards, e.g. 30% Peer reviewed research / 30 % teaching performance / 40 % applied, practical research in partnership with community partners......dream on.
Keep up the great work.
WG