Comments on: Does sports science really produce better athletes?

By: Pippinu

Pippinu — Fri, 08 May 2009 04:11:46 +0000

Yeh – good article.

I think there is a difference between the technology that allows some athletes to get better performances with the same effort (e.g. swimsuite, bikes, etc), and technology that is used as an anlytical tool in allowing athletes to train better (when to work hard, when to rest, what to focus on, etc).

I have zero problem with the latter, and completely loathe the former (because it basically creates an bigger uneven playing field than even drugs can manage).

By: Redb

Redb — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:59:43 +0000

The use of GPS tracking is becoming commonplace in the AFL and other codes. I don’t think it is producing better athletes but maybe better performances to suit the individual. As long as it is accessbile to you all I dont see the problem with it. Same goes for the swim suits.

From a spectators’ perspective I like the GPS tracker as it enhances the information we receive about the game and the player stats, eg: Buddy Franklin ran 9.7km in that game, his average is over 14km, perhaps he’s not working hard enough to get to contests, etc.

Redb

By: davido

davido — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:48:55 +0000

I think sports science is the last frontier of sport. I cant see how it takes away from any raw talent or competitive spirit.
Rather it adds a further dimension. I must however agree that developments in equipment are probably the exception here.
They rarely enhance the entertainment factor of the game but do allow unfair advantages to well equipped athletes.

The other ‘dodgy’ sport science is the sports psychologist. This is generally hocus pocus and a waste of money.
Although it must be said that it has been demonstrated that athletes with optimistic outlooks take a defeat and respond to it better than athletes with pessimistic mindsets. So there is something to be tapped into there… I just question that sports psychologists can actually do it.

By the way do they still have the ‘pig farm’ for you netballers up at the AIS? (Not that I am suggesting anything! I am sure you are in great shape)

By: Spiro Zavos

Spiro Zavos — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:28:46 +0000

Natalie, This is most provocative. My feeling is that the technological advances in equipment (swimsuits, golf clubs, cricket bats, running shoes, bikes etc) have had a huge effect on performance. But I’m doubtful about the mind games stuff that many athletes are subjected to. Most sports are essentially quite simple in terms of tactics and strategies, even methods. The modern tendency is to over-complicate things so that the athletes have too much in their head when they are trying to perform.
The ideal is to train and think out methods and tactics and then let instinct take over on the field.
One of the reasons why I really like to see Roger Federer win is because he coaches himself most of the time.
However, having said that, young Murray last year showed (or his coach worked it out) how to beat Nadal, something that was beyond Federer.

By: Benjamin Conkey

Benjamin Conkey — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:55:22 +0000

Great article Natalie. I think when you get to the elite level sports science is more about psychology than anything. I liked your placebo effect example with the swimsuit. Surely it’s just in their minds that they can swim faster because the suit makes them feel more comfortable through the water. It would be an interesting study.

By: Brett McKay

Brett McKay — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:20:36 +0000

Good questions, Natalie, and if by ‘better’ athletes, you mean ‘lazy’, then a simple answer to your heading line is ‘probably’..