Welcome to the Science of Sport, where we bring you the second, third, and fourth level of analysis you will not find anywhere else.

Be it doping in sport, hot topics like Caster Semenya or Oscar Pistorius, or the dehydration myth, we try to translate the science behind sports and sports performance.

Consider a donation if you like what you see here!

Did you know?
We published The Runner's Body in May 2009. With an average 4.4/5 stars on Amazon.com, it has been receiving positive reviews from runners and non-runners alike.

Available for the Kindle and also in the traditional paper back. It will make a great gift for the runners you know, and helps support our work here on The Science of Sport.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

2010 World Cup: South Africa, France & Nigeria

South Africa's World cup - over at the first hurdle

The 23rd of June was always going to be a significant day for South African sport, if not our history.  Either we would be waking up with the euphoria of having booked a place in the Second Round of the tournament, or we would know that we'd become the first host nation in history to fall at the first hurdle (The same debate will no doubt be taking place in Nigeria, and France, though different emotions and explanations will be offered for each)

It's turned out to be the latter, though the blow was softened somewhat by a victory over a catastrophic French team.  In the end, a brave and honorable exit for South Africa, but a disappointing one nevertheless. 

There is a peculiar mixture of soul-searching, blaming, justifying and congratulating going on in the local media today.  Globally, the South Africa exit has been somewhat overshadowed by a French implosion, the likes of which is rarely seen in elite sport.  France entered the tournament under a cloud of Henry's handball, and they're leaving with one of the more humiliating episodes in World Cup history under their belts.  Any sympathy for them was extinguished by the classless refusal of their coach to shake hands after the match.

But for South Africa, it seems the public is not quite sure how to feel.  Most will accept that a team ranked 83rd in the world would have to pull off a minor miracle to advance from a group where the lowest ranked team is 17th.  Most are objective enough to appreciate that we went into this battle armed not with cannons and tanks but with water pistols.  However, most found the belief that we could actually pull it off.  This was thanks to a media who, either by accident or by design, reflect a collective arrogance of South Africans that there is some level of entitlement in sport.

We've been caught out by this before - we genuinely believe we are world-beaters, that "it is our time" and that other teams should fear us.  I have very rarely heard an athlete cite his source of confidence as the hard work and many hours spent preparing meticulously for competition.  Rather, we want to win because "it is our turn", as though elite sport is a nursery school where everyone has a chance.  This is true not only in football, but across all sports - we regularly dominate African and Commonwealth competition, proudly congratulating ourselves for a job well done, while the real standard, the Olympic or global level, remains a distant line on the horizon.

It is this combination of "entitlement" and false measurement/benchmarking that is most to blame for South African sports failures in the last 15 years, because over and over, the administrators who run their sports have failed to recognize that high performance sport rewards discipline, planning and very, very hard work.  And most of all, it rewards the best people working the hardest.  Entitlement is a cancer on sport, whether it be in team selection, or the selection of the people who run the sport.  If the best people are not involved, failure is inevitable. 

I've written many times about sports science and the role it plays in high performance sport.  Failure in sport is always a product of innumerable factors that determine the outcome well before the actual game takes place.  The adage is that 99% of the work must be done before the whistle sounds the start of the match, and sports science makes up a small part of that 99% (I do not wish to overstate the value, because this too can be detrimental).  The 90 minutes of play, the agonizing miss, penalties conceded, shot that hits the frame of the goal, red cards - these make up 1% of the result.  This is an exaggeration of course, to make the point that preparation wins matches and tournaments.

So if we are looking this morning for explanation, I do not believe it will be found on the field, where the 1% is found.  What we will find there is a team who tried hard, perhaps too hard at times, where they appeared frozen by the occasion for long periods, and constrained by what have been described as "fearful tactical" decisions.  But on the field, our players committed to do everything they could.  Their 1% was arguably equal to that of other teams.

The problem was the 99%, and this is the result of six years of management failures.  Not coaching failures - Carlos Alberto Parreira did all that he could in 2010 - he took the team away from South Africa for international camps and friendly matches (sadly, sporting success in South Africa requires that one leave the country).  He restored the confidence of the players and won matches against opposition that two years ago, would have been unbeatable.  He effectively "sequestered" the best players we had to offer and tried to raise their level of performance to that which would make us competitive.  And he succeeded - we were fit enough, certainly, and reached a level that we've not been at since perhaps a decade ago.  But ultimately, the margins between winning and losing are so small (the width of a goal-post, for example, because had Mphela not hit that post against Mexico, things would be different), that we were found out at the highest level of competition.

South Africa performed above any realistic expectations.  Fans, of course, are entitled to have unrealistic expectations - their passion drives their opinions!  But media, and the sports authorities, are not.  Will we perform the correct evaluation of our football system after this tournament?  Or will the result be glossed over, allowing us to continue on our merry path to mediocrity, the result against France providing the justification for doing nothing differently in the future?  Time will tell. 

But as harsh as it may be to say this now, this was a failure, and until we recognize this, and invest not in hope and entitlement, but rather in expertise and professionalism, we'll fail over and over.

The failure is not in finishing third in a four-team group, going out on goal difference - that is a commendable performance, and congratulations to the players.  The problem is the "generals", who sent the soldiers into battle unprotected and underpowered.  Our infrastructure, our expertise, our wealth and our resources simply cannot add up to 83rd in the world.  There is something wrong with that picture.



Andy K said...

Haha "a media who... reflect a collective arrogance of South Africans that there is some level of entitlement in sport"?

Try living in England when a major soccer tournament is on! Just because we won in 1966 and have a great domestic league (of foreign players), there's always a view that our generally average team can win the tournament. This year, any rational observer would say we'd be good for a quarter final spot but no more, and yet the bookies over here had England at 7/1 for the cup prior to the start...

Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas said...

Hi Andy

Thanks for the comments! I can imagine it must be bad there! I will say that England were in most people's top 4 before this tournament, even outside England. I'd imagine some of them would be irrational, but I think many would consider themselves rational! I can't decide whether perhaps they'd fallen foul of the same thinking you've mentioned in your post - the history, the league etc.

I must confess, I had England making the semi-finals, and perhaps they still will, because I felt the players would be professional enough with a good coach, good firepower. They also had a relatively easy draw, had they won the group and avoided the big names until the semis.

I suppose media everywhere will create these expectations (I would ignore bookies, because that, to me, reflects irrational fan beliefs!). One thing I will say is that here (and I'm not speaking only about the 2010 WC, but sport generally), our expectation is empty, without substance. England's is misplaced!

But, they're still in it, for at least 4 more hours, let's see how it goes later!


ErR said...

The U.S. is quite susceptible to this as well. 2006 is a prime example of the "our time" mentality sans the hard work/development vs. high-level competition to produce actual results.

Indeed our national team identity is very nearly founded on it.

Read this American writer's perspective:


Robbie Fields said...


I can't believe I am reading a comment on the internet from a Saffer that does not reek of self satisfaction!

If anything you've gone too easy on team Bafana Bafana.

They had the benefit of a fixed draw, yes fixed in 2 ways and some highly dubious refereeing in the France "match" (Did I use the word "fix"?).

South Africa were the only team guaranteed to play all 3 group matches at altitude; bizarre, not playing in Cape Town considering its status as the parliamentary capital of the country, the mother city, #2 population centre and having the #2

Then South Africa were nonsensically seeded as one of the top 16 teams.

Unfortunately the actual "draw" was not kind to them, pitting them against high altitude specialists, non seeded Mexico, a Diego Forlan inspired non seeded Uruguay and France. The only break that came their way was the French implosion but France were hardly less inept than England coming into the final group match.

The Colombian referee made 2 game changing decisions to benefit Bafana, Bafana allowing the first goal and then sending off Gourcuff.

Still, South Africa were only an equal match for the 10 men dispirited, depleted French team over the remaining 65 minutes of the game. And remember the French had not prepared at altitude (touché, Ross)!

But all hail Bafana, Bafana for their "courageous" performance in getting beaten out of the R/16 qualifying by 2 unseeded teams.

Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas said...

HI Robbie

Fair points. A really good post actually.

I guess the reason I'm not being harder on them is because they entered the tournament ranked 83rd, and I think this ranking is a fair reflection of our true status in world football. By that yardstick, then, not losing all four matches is an effort that I guess deserves some credit, even given the large benefit of home advantage.

The seedings for the groups were false, you're absolutely right, and I dare say that we (and probably FIFA) were hoping for teams like North Korea and New Zealand to come out of the pot in Pool A! As you say, it didn't happen and we found ourselves with three good teams, one of whom became a poor team in the tournament.

But to me, the strong criticism should be reserved for the organization that has somehow overseen a team that fell from top 20 to 83rd over the course of a decade, even knowing they'd be hosting the World Cup for 6 years of that decade. When we were awarded this World Cup, we were ranked in the 40s. When then dropped another 40 - with the "best league in Africa", the most money, the best facilities. It's unbelievable.

And that's where the criticism should be directed. Once the tournament began, we were always going to struggle, despite the nation's optimism (misplaced) over what we were capable of because "it was our time".

Then again, I look at New Zealand, who had "no chance" and they fought hard and did a good job on limited player resources. So teams can certainly punch above their weight, and we didn't.

And as you say, had we not beaten France, with 10 men, a mutiny and a depression, it would have been shambolic. I don't see victory over that French team as a great result.

But, the response here has been bizarre - as you say, a lot of self-congratulation and praise. Maybe we know just how poor our football actually is. But I wouldn't be hard on these players - the problem was ten years in the making...

Perhaps when the euphoria of the tournament has passed, the cold light of day will reveal the true 'failure'. It's an unpopular opinion here though - too much national pride blinds people to reality!


thepowerrank said...

Ross and Jonathan,

First, I want to thank you for putting up this great blog. I'm a physicist runner who loves all your marathon analysis and insights into physiology. I'm also a barefoot/vibrams runner, and I've been closely following your coverage of that topic as well.

Thanks for the thoughtful post about South Africa's run at the World Cup. As fellow scientists, I thought you might be interested in a ranking system I've developed for the teams at the World Cup.


I'm sorry about your Bafana Bafana, but this list might stimulate an interest in some of the remaining matches.

Thanks again.