The Tour on the horizon

The Tour de France - three weeks of drama awaits

Despite all the focus on the World Cup, it has not escaped our attention that one of the highlights of the sports year starts in a matter of days.  On Saturday, 20 teams of 9 riders each will start a three-week tour around Holland and then France in what is usually described as one of the most difficult tests of sporting performance in the world.

This year's Tour has been designed to be filled with drama.  Every stage is always vital, but with the cobbles of Arenberg awaiting on only the third stage, plus two trips up the Col du Tormalet, numerous mountain top finishes, only one individual time-trial (excluding Saturday's 8.9km prologue in Rotterdam), and numerous other challenges, 2010 should produce GC drama throughout.  Check out Cyclingnews.com for an overview of the Tour stages.

Scientific analysis of the race

The other reason why the Tour is so great to follow is that it lends itself to science and analysis.  Of strategy, of physiology, of performance.  In the last two years, we've tried to add some insight into the race here at The Science of Sport, and we'll certainly aim to do the same in 2010.  The measurement of power output opens up a world of discussion, comparison and prediction that inspired some great debate last year.

To refresh your memory, last year there was some great discussion over analysis that was done on the climbing performances on the Verbier, where Alberto Contador laid the foundations for his overall victory.  We first analysed the climb, then compared Contador's performance (in vertical ascending meters or VAMs - admittedly, an imprecise measure) to other climbs in Tour history.

And then, Antoine Vayer was quoted as having calculated that Contador's performance predicted a VO2max of 99.5ml/kg/min, which is of course very unlikely, and led to debates around whether it was an "unphysiological" performance.  That formed the basis for another lively discussion.

So the Tour equals analysis, and analysis always leads to discussion.  This year should be no different, and we're looking forward to having you along for the next three weeks.

Performance as a means to identify doping

It's early days yet, and who knows where the race will go.  But the analysis of performance lends itself to a very interesting discussion around whether a cyclist is doping or not.

And so to get the ball rolling, here is an interesting article that came out in New Scientist today, called "Superhuman performance could betray sport drug cheats".  I know it because I'm quoted in it and helped with some of the analysis.   The basic premise is this - in order to produce a certain power output on a climb, you have to have a certain capacity to use oxygen.   The work done has an oxygen cost, and this cost tells you a good deal about the "ceiling".  If the climbing power output predicts a ludicrously high oxygen consumption, then you have a waving red flag.

It's not proof, but a very suspicious question mark.  And I can assure you, the Tour is littered with question marks, from the 1990s up to perhaps last year.  This year's Giro d'Italia, many of you have already noticed, has seen a substantial drop in power outputs on the climbs, and they are now "physiological" again. 

If you read the New Scientist article, and feel a little under-informed and needing more detail, don't despair! I will definitely be covering this topic in much more detail in the coming weeks, explaining the method, the assumptions, the limitations and the implications.  Analysing performance, and predicting physiology based on what we see!

However, I'm going to be as direct as possible right now and say the following:

A sustained (over 40 minutes) power output of greater than 6.2 W/kg at the end of a Tour stage is simply not physiologically believable, and is strongly suggestive of doping.  In fact, anything above 6.0 W/kg is very, very suspect. Those are power outputs that are produced by riders who are doping, because the physiology required to drive that kind of performance, well, it just doesn't exist.

For the basis of that position, join us over the next few weeks!

Your input welcome

As always, we welcome any ideas, any questions, any data (if you have power output data for Tour riders, please send it).  I know many reading this are close to the sport, and you will have insights that all of us will enjoy, so please, don't hold back!

Other than this, I'll do my best to keep the Science of Sport Twitter account going during the Tour - not to overwhelm you with tweets, but for those who can't watch, I'll try to give the crucial updates, and a few snippets of information.  So please check us out on Twitter!

Who knows where the next three weeks will take us?  But wherever it is, we'll try to cover it for you!

Ross

FIFA and goal-line technology

FIFA and video technology - no science, only humans... and human error

The Round of 16 has produced three great matches so far, and one highly controversial moment.  England v Germany was a fabulous match, end to end, and far more open than many might have expected, given the history of penalties between the sides.  In the end, Germany won handsomely, and for good reason - they were excellent, and deserved the win and the margin of victory.

Sadly, however, the game will be debated for an amazing incident only moments after England had pulled the score back to 2-1.  Virtually straight from the kick-off, a move down the England right resulted in a Frank Lampard shot which struck the bar, bounced down and then back out of the German goal.  The picture below tells you all you need to know about the goal.

So clearly, England should have been level at 2-2.  The linesman however ruled that the ball had not crossed the line and the score remained 2-1.  In the second half, Germany were able to sit deep and counter-attack England, who had already been exposed defensively in the first half, and the result was a 4-1 win.

Let me first say that I don't believe the decision affected the eventual outcome of the match.  Granted, it would certainly have changed the tempo of the match, and a 2-2 scoreline at half-time would have made for a different strategy in the second half.  However, Germany were deservedly 2-0 up, and it might have been three or four.  A 2-2 scoreline would have flattered England massively - "papering over the cracks" is how John Barnes correctly described it.  Germany's failure to score more was however their fault, England's was an official's decision.

In the aftermath, some of England's football pundits bemoaned the goal but acknowledged that they were outplayed by Germany.  Others have blamed the defeat on the decision - this is nothing new.  Here in SA, the 'blame-game' is a national past-time because we feel that our teams are never beaten by better sides either - it's always someone else's fault.  Watching English news reactions to the game, it seems they are world-champions at this particular sport.  Some of the football pundits are even blaming Germany's goalkeeper for not giving them the goal, as if any keeper in the world would do this.  This kind of stupid reporting does no one any favours.  Even Fabio Capello stupidly claimed that five officials missed it - in reality, it was one, and he erred.  As humans do...

Aside from the post-mortems, the relevant question in this affair is whether goal-line technology should be used.  And this is not a new issue, but it might help you to learn what FIFA's position is.

Technology and video review:  FIFA's position on science

In March this year, an organization called the IFAB (International Football Association Board) met to discuss goal-line technology.  IFAB is made up of representatives from FIFA and the football associations of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.  Presentations were heard from two companies - Hawkeye and Cairos Technologies.  Hawkeye you know - they do line calls for tennis and third-umpire decisions for cricket, while Cairos insert microchips into the ball to signal whether a goal is scored.

A vote was held, and the use of technology was defeated, 6-2.  FIFA used their four votes to vote against it, with one vote each from Wales and Northern Ireland contributing to what FIFA announced after the meeting as the "end to the potential use of technology within football" (Jerome Valcke, FIFA's General Secretary).

Quite how this body, with such peculiar voting power, rules on this matter, is difficult to say.  IFAB was formed in 1886, 18 years before FIFA, and consisted of the four British associations who had two votes each.  FIFA joined in 1913, and received a block of four votes with the original associations of British football retaining one vote each.

FIFA has since grown to more than 200 national federations, but the body controlling the laws still comprises a 50% block from the original British associations, and four from FIFA.  Quite how FIFA decides to make use of its four votes is another question mark.  But as it stands, almost 200 member federations have no direct say in the rules of the game (ironically, England are one of the nations who voted "For" in the May vote) - they are represented rather narrowly, and it would be interesting to see how a vote put to all federations would go.

It should also be noted that FIFA have decided to introduce goal-line officials who will be stationed in and around the penalty area.  They would certainly have ruled correctly today, but their introduction is symptomatic of FIFA's desire to 'go-human'.

So why the resistance to technology?

About two weeks ago, Sepp Blatter was quoted as saying that the introduction of technology into football would detract from the fervour of the sport. He said "Then the science is coming in the game, no discussions, we don't want that. We want to have these emotions, and then a little bit more than emotions, passion".  Sepp and FIFA want human error, and so human error they get!

Blatter has also cited other reasons including:  the game's universality, fans who love debating incidents, the cost and fear of extended use of technology, and interference with the flow of the game.

All of these are reasonable, but not insurmountable.  Time is not an issue for goal-line decisions.  Today, the replay of Lampard's shot was shown within 20 seconds, much quicker than many celebrations take to complete.

Cost too can be offset through sponsorship - in tennis, Rolex have taken the challenge system on as a sponsorship, and it has worked very effectively as a means to heighten tension there.  The same could happen for soccer (and let's be honest, FIFA would find a sponsor and commercialize this to within an inch of its life).

Emotion & Passion: Is it beneficial if it's negative?

The remaining resistance then comes from FIFA's insistence that human error and debate drive passion and emotion.  This is certainly supported by their attitude to the disgraceful play-acting and cheating where players are diving and getting other players sent off without any sanction after matches. 

The question I would ask in response to this whether correct decisions would really kill the emotion?  Right now, all I'm seeing are complaints and excuses, and sadly, it detracts  from a brilliant game. If such negative emotions are what FIFA want, then fine, let's keep making mistakes.  But surely had the game gone 2-2, the second half would have been no less exciting.

England would have come out with positive intent, Germany would have resumed their approach, which up to that point had produced exciting, flowing football.  The result may have been 3-2, it may have been 4-2, it may have gone to extra-time and penalties.  But it most definitely would not have lacked emotion or passion.  The only "passion" that has been added by today's controversy is anger, and that can't be good for the sport, surely?  Or is this football's equivalent of "There's no such thing as bad publicity?" As always, your opinions welcome.

To me, it's a no-brainer.  Then again, I'm "science" and clearly, Sepp and FIFA don't care much for science.  They'd rather keep technology and expertise out of the game, so that "everyone watching from their couches can be an expert too".  I wonder if Blatter realises that implicit in his argument is the admission that he is a "non-expert" himself.  What is the polar opposite of "expert"?  If you are an England fan, you can write to FIFA and let them know...

Ross

Isner vs Mahut finally ends at 70-68

Isner v Mahut: Game over, Isner wins 70-68, and a lot of potatoes

It's been over 24 hours since the longest game in history finally ended.  At one point, it seemed that we might still be playing into the second week of Wimbledon, but eventually, in the 138th match of an epic set, Mahut finally conceded a game on serve, and John Isner of the USA emerged victorious, in the longest match in tennis history.

The final set was in fact almost two hours longer than the previous longest match ever played.  It would come as no surprise to you to learn that John Isner paid for his 183 game marathon, and lost 6-0, 6-3, 6-2 to Thiemo de Bakker in the second round.

Yesterday I did a post describing some of the demands of playing a match this long.  This was picked up by the Washington Post, and they contacted me last night for some comments and ideas of the physiological demand.  But rather than repost all those thoughts, below is the graphic they drew based on my eventual assumptions, which you can see in its original format here.

A whole lot of potatoes...

One of the things I realized after is that one of the most amazing things about the match is the energy expenditure involved.  A tennis player would expect to burn between 11 and 15kCal per minute.  So, if we go for the middle ground, we assume 13 kCal per minute.  In a match where serving was do dominant, this could well be a slight over-estimate, but it'll do for assumption and illustration's sake.

Therefore, in 11 hours and 5 minutes, the energy burned would be around 8500 kCal.  How much is this?  Well, if someone like Isner, who weighs 110kg, were to run a marathon, he would burn approximately 4600 kCal.  So, his 11 hour tennis match came at the cost of almost two marathons.  Sure, it was "run" over 3 days in installments, but the numbers are extra-ordinary.

To give you an idea of just how amazing, three medium sized potatoes provide about 200 kCal, and so the Isner-Mahut match "cost" about 129 potatoes per player.  Or, if they prefer Coca-Cola as a source of fuel, then you're looking at 20 liters (about 5.3 gallons) of Coke to replace the energy.

This is conceptual, of course, it's intended to highlight just how much work is done playing tennis at that level for that long!  It also shows just how important nutrition would have been to recovery, both during change of ends and after the day's play.  Like Tour de France cyclists must eat to survive, Isner and Mahut would have had to get a lot of food down to replace their glycogen reserves!

As for dehydration - I've seen a few reports saying how "dangerous" this would be - it's not.  As long as players are able to drink to thirst, they're fine.  And with change of ends every five minutes, Isner and Mahut would have had plenty of chance to drink enough to stay perfectly hydrated.  The bigger problems were energy intake, and then muscle fatigue.

Muscle damage - can't stand the shock

One final point - the biggest demand in the match is the mechanical loading of the muscles.  This is because of the nature of the game.  About 4,500 changes of direction, 500 jumps and 2000 short, sharp accelerations and decelerations put significant load on muscles, and in particular, they require eccentric contractions.  These contractions cause muscle damage - microscopic tears in muscle fibres.  This is why players lose their speed and power after about 20-20 in the fifth, and this is why they look so sluggish playing.  For Isner, this would have been a big factor affecting him playing against de Bakker today - the worst muscle soreness comes about 48 to 72 hours after the exercise bout.  So today would be perhaps the worst day!

So Isner, not surprisingly, saw his Wimbledon campaign end in three very short sets against de Bakker.  He played the equivalent of five matches just to reach the second round, but had little chance of progressing.  However, his status in history, along with that of Nicolas Mahut, will remain forever.

Ross

Mahut v Isner, 59-59: An epic for the ages

"Game Mahut.  59 games all, final set"

Update:  The marathon match finally ended, the USA's John Isner claiming an extra-ordinary 70-68 victory in the fifth and final set.  Below is a post that was written at 59-59 in the fifth, when play was halted due to light on the second day.

The match will go down as one of the truly great sporting events, and one of the most amazing tennis matches played, simply because of the sheer length of the match (11 hours), the tenacity of the players to hold serve 68 consecutive times (69 for Isner, of course), and for the mind-blowing physiological challenge it would impose.

History will document the number of records broken by the epic.  It was also show that John Isner collapsed, as predicted, in his next match against Thiemo de Bakker, losing 6-0, 6-3, 6-2.  This is hardly surprising, and would have been expected given his efforts over 183 games against Mahut.  Some of the physiology is explained below.

The longest match ever played 

It was, simply, an extra-ordinary feat of consistency, big serving and willpower, in a match that eventually concluded after 11 hours and five minutes.  The scoreboard couldn't stand the pace - the picture to the right was taken at 47-47, and at 50-50, it went blank...

Not surprisingly, the match has seen all kinds of records broken:

• Longest match in history in terms of games played at 183 .  The previous record was 112 matches between Pancho Gonzales and and Charlie Pasarell in 1969.  And that was before the introduction of the tie-break in sets 1 to 4.  Post tie-breakers, the record was Andy Roddick's 21-19 win over Younes el Aynaoui in Australia in 2003.  That match had 83 games, which means Isner-Mahut is about to double it!
• Longest match in history in terms of time played - 11 hours 5 mintues.  In fact, the fifth set in the Isner-Mahut match is longer than any match ever played!  It's taken 8 hours 11 minutes to play, and the previous longest match ever played was 6 hours, 33 minutes long (Santoro vs Clement, French Open 2004)
• Most aces ever served.  It's not surprising, but given 59 services games in the final set alone, both players have easily surpassed the aces record, which stood at 78 to Ivo Karlovic in a Davis Cup match in 2009.  As it stands, Isner is the new record holder at 112 aces, and Mahut is on 103!
• A total of 980 points has been played.  I'm not 100% sure whether this is a record, but even a match with 100 games would be unlikely to see 900 points played - I would estimate that the number of points per game is 6.  So 980 points is likely to be a record.

Looking a bit more deeply into the stats, and if you watched the second night, the set hardly really looked like ending!  There were two moments - one at 33-32 (or something, I forget, it was so long ago) when Isner had two break points on Mahut's serve.  The Frenchman saved them, and it would take another 40-odd games before the next break points - this time to Mahut.  And then in the final game of the night, Mahut dug deep again to save a fourth match point.

On both occasions, brilliant serving rescued the situation and the match continued.  Isner in particular, produced remarkable serving, only because he looked so exhausted after about the 90th game that it seemed almost inconceivable that he could continue to survive.  Between points, Isner looked more like an Ironman triathlete having the worst day of his life than a tennis player, making almost statuesque movements as he seemed to stagger from one side of the court to the other.  But with the ball in hand, he smashed down unreturnable serves one after the other, and the quality of the play, given the occasion, was quite remarkable. 

Mahut's performance is no less amazing.  In fact, in many respects, it's quite astonishing - Mahut had to qualify for Wimbledon by playing three matches - the second one went to 24-22 in the fifth set!  And then the third went to five sets as well - he won it 6-4.  So Mahut has now played three consecutive five set matches.  And the third of them, well, it's the equivalent of about about 13 fifth sets!  And yet he continued to run with energy, making some amazing shots off the ground, in addition to his ever rising ace count.

The physiological demand of 10 hours of tennis?

I'm always curious about what the physiological demands are of sport and this type of match demands that kind of question!  Using GPS, it would be quite simple to get a handle on how many times a player changes direction, stops and then accelerates again, as well as distance covered.  Unfortunately, that is not done for tennis like it is for football (as we've seen in our 2010 WC coverage).  However, a couple of estimations/assumptions may give you an idea of why this would be interesting:

• With 980 points in the match, one might assume an average rally length of 2 shots per player (serving was dominant, so rallies would be short).  Two shots means four changes of direction, because a player must run to the ball, play the shot, and then return to court position.  
• The distance covered per point might then be about 10m.  So that gives us ± 4,400 changes of direction, and 10 km of running, much of which is sideways, and most of which consists of short accelerations to the ball, followed by rapid decelerations.  Add to this the walking between points, which is at least another 15m, and the total distance covered is closer to 30km.  
• That may not seem significant (if you come from an endurance sport background), but remember that each run is ended with a sudden stop, and an acceleration to return to good court position.  And, you're not moving forward in a straight line, but sideways.  So you're looking at about 2000 lateral "sprints" making up about 10km, by my assumptions.
• The deceleration is perhaps the most demanding part - stopping, and then driving off the same leg in the other direction imposes a significant challenge, which you can easily experience by going out and doing lateral runs over 5m for even 10 minutes
• Every serve is a jump - so that's 491 jumps for Mahut and 489 jumps for Isner.  They may be small, but each jump and landing comes at a cost and I can only imagine how tired their legs will be today.  The problem with jumping is that when landing, the muscle must perform an eccentric contraction, where it decelerations the body.  This type of contraction causes microscopic damage to the muscle, and this is ultimately responsible for the failure of muscle, which was so visibly demonstrated on the second night.  Also, Isner's sluggishness during his next match, a straight-sets loss to de Bakker, could be attributed to the muscle damage and recovery from this kind of jumping, combined with multiple decelerations.
• Then there's the significant matter of having to swing a racket through the ball at least 2000 times, and the upper body fatigue that this would cause.  All in all, an incredible challenge to sustain this for 10 hours.

Of course, these are assumptions, I'd love to have real data, but sadly, tennis doesn't seem to invite that kind of research (unless I'm missing something).  Then there is the mental pressure of being in what is really 'sudden death', particularly for Mahut, who is serving second. 

To be continued...

In any event, what was interesting is that when the match was eventually suspended for darkness, it was Isner who seemed most reluctant to leave.  He seemed to be moving more and more slowly, and John McEnroe suggested that he looked "delirious".  Mahut was saying he could no longer see the ball, and the match was suspended.  It resumes at 3.30pm today, and given how these things go, it might well go another 20 matches (or more), or it could be over in 2.

It may seem like an anticlimax, and to have finished last night in the gloom would have been a fitting end.  But nothing can take away from what is surely one of the greatest tests of mental, tactical and physical strength that we have seen.

And for the winner - a match against Thiemo de Bakker, later in the same day...