From academics to sports

LENNOX FRANCIS

THE MINISTRY of Education must be given full marks for having a syllabus for every stage of academic pursuit, from kindergarten to university. The organisation is so objective that the results are predictable and there is quality assurance in the output. So the best minds are certified in pecking order to play their roles in the world of work (referred to here as the academic industry).

If academic education has this high standard why then can’t we transfer these “brains” into sports and also have them excel in that field? We have the raw material for an industry (sports) that pays salaries second to none.

Both in stone-age and modern-day TT, sports is still playing games after a hard day’s work, or in school after an intense week of study.

Which sporting organisation in TT can boast of having a syllabus detailing the skills a child at ten years, 14 years and 18 years will learn to become a professional in the field of choice? Any such organisation with a pathway like that must pattern itself after the Ministry of Education.

We take it for granted that children “born” in cricket, football and athletics will master these skills automatically. Anything else must be taught and left to the whims and fancy of a coach. This approach is not in sync with science. It leaves coaching in the subjective stage with no clear-cut route to follow.

In academia teaching is always exam-related be to a national, regional or international exam. In sports the national level is the target. For example, in tennis once a child can serve, return and rally, especially if the child is an age group champion, there is no coaching for the future but simply to maintain the standard.

In football if a child represents their school in inter-col, that’s enough. Anytime the child sets foot on foreign soil the limitations are glaring, the performance is under par and the lack of success discouraging. So extrapolating the national level into the regional or international scenario is never a successful manoeuvre.

Adopting a process of teaching, examining, taking results as feedback and adjusting methods is a sure way to increase the probability of success in the academic system.

A parent may pose a question to a tennis coach: “Why is my 14-year-old unable to smash?” The common response from the coach might be: “I taught that already. It’s just that he has not learnt it as yet.” In sports the inability to grasp and execute is ignored if the skill was taught already.

People pursuing academic qualifications have the comfort of an examination testing the contents of a particular syllabus. It is possible to teach all the scenarios that will make the results perennial and excellent.

In sports the parameters are dynamic and situational. It is impossible to teach all the options and how to counter them. The coach is then charged with teaching the athlete to think on his feet, make the best decision, take the instant result as feedback and adjust.

In team sports think of the chaos that can arise if the players are not cultured in the same process: roles can be forgotten or confused; performance is downgraded and results uncertain.

At the different stages in the education system teachers are specialist in their levels. They are relevant and have experience in preparing children for particular exams. There is no cross-over: in primary school teachers prepare children for SEA and secondary school teachers train children for CSEC or CAPE.

Coaches straddle between levels of their discipline. The experience of the coach ten years ago may not be relevant to another level presently. The style of the coach might be tested to the limit if age and gender are new factors.

Students who are successful in academics have developed the right attitude, made 100 per cent effort, have energy and the will to succeed. Why can’t our system of sports take these same successful students and chisel them into elite athletes? The question to be answered: is it that the system of coaching is incompetent or is the raw material still too dense?

A compromised answer is the academic system produces individuals versed in theory while the system of sports tries to mould these individuals into team players performing many roles in diverse situations.

So what are the stumbling blocks to producing skilful team athletes? What does academia produce? Intelligent people versed in theory. What does sports require? Intelligent people who can think on their feet. One does not necessarily transform into the other for some bookworms may not become functional in the sports arena.

A blend of IQ for academics and sports is needed. In the TT context there is no system to help individuals choose the sport most suitable to them. At best individuals and parents choose and the mix and match is not always the ideal, sometimes resulting in dropouts, early burnout or transfer to another sport.

The academic industry caters for every level of academic achievement and people respond because employment is secure. In the sports industry even though athletes are the most highly paid globally, only the diehards and extremely confident rush headlong into sports as a career. Why?

Participation in sports can last a lifetime and you become a millionaire, or in one minute, because of injury, the athlete has to switch to a career requiring academic certification for job tenure. The choice is a foregone conclusion for people want to be safe now rather than be sorry later.

The pursuit of academia is so organised and continuous that every level is a stepping stone to professionalism. Can sports make that claim? Does the amateur training filter into the professional arena that requires 100 per cent effort and commitment?

TT can lock horns with international academic institutions but our performance in sports continues to languish in limbo because of multiple factors preventing our transitioning from academia to amateur sports to professionalism.