In an English Premiership soccer tilt this past December, powerhouse Manchester United was in full control of a game against a lesser opponent.
With a 3-0 lead, emerging star Carlo Tevez had scored twice already in the contest.
Fairly late in the contest, United was awarded a penalty kick. Cristiano Ronaldo prepared to handle the shot, as he is the player designated by Coach Sir Alex Ferguson to take such opportunities.
When Tevez quietly approached Ronaldo, the team’s “superstar”, to ask if he could take the kick to complete his “hat trick”, Ronaldo reportedly said “no”.
Ego and self-interest have always been a huge part of sport. In fact, many would argue that those are “qualities” that top athletes need, along with self-confidence, to ensure their success at the highest levels.
But Ronaldo’s response was a flawed one, nonetheless.
It is understandable that a proud athlete like Ronaldo would want to take that kick, as that is one of his designated jobs with United.
Perhaps he said “no” to his own teammate, Tevez, and later regretted it, though this is unlikely given Ronaldo’s history.
It could also happen that a player would let Tevez, or any other teammate, take his place in such a situation, and do the “right” thing publicly, but privately be unhappy about it.
This response would be quite human.
But the true leader, the real “team player”, would take it upon himself to give the opportunity to a teammate. He wouldn’t wait to be asked.
It could be argued that Tevez was being selfish, too, by even making that request; that he was putting his own personal glory ahead of his team.
But an athlete with class would not even have to be asked. He would have gone over to Tevez and insisted his young teammate take the shot.
That it didn’t happen is not a surprise. Just disappointing, and yet another poor example for young athletes around the globe.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Time for a priority check
Just days ago, in Southern Ontario, a "brawl" of sorts broke out during a hockey game.
That in and of itself is not stirring news. But when we discover that the participants were not professionals or even junior age players, but rather 8 year-olds, it does beg some questions, including:
- Where are the "coaches" in these situations? At the NHL level, in this day and age, coaches are suspended in situations where they are seen to not be "in control" of their players—players who themselves are grown men. Are these youth "coaches" not "in control" of their players?
- What messages are these young, impressionable children (they are children, not "athletes", at this age) receiving from their coaches?
- If we can’t "blame" the children for this kind of event, then where do we look? What influence are parents having, for example? The media?
We’ve all heard time and again that the "problem" is that parents all think their kinds will make it to the pro level, and thus are over-invested in their kids. And this leads, based on that theory, to misplaced priorities, etc.
But surely we’re not having brawls at the age of 8 because ALL the parents of these kids think they are raising future NHL’ers.
Are we taking youth sports way too seriously? Are our priorities in fact messed up? Do we keep score too soon? Is the pervasive ‘winning at all costs’ attitude seeping all the way down to the youngest levels of the game?
It’s too easy to generalize, but this is serious stuff. Not the "sky is falling" kind of serious, perhaps, but it’s serious when little kids start hockey brawls.
Hockey Canada and various provincial Associations have spent tons of money in recent years on education—ad campaigns directed at parents, seminars for coaches, clinics on not hitting from behind, players wearing STOP patches, studies on concussions and much more.
But as long as Canada wins gold every year at the World Juniors, everyone is happy.
What’s a brawl or two on the way to what’s really important?
That in and of itself is not stirring news. But when we discover that the participants were not professionals or even junior age players, but rather 8 year-olds, it does beg some questions, including:
- Where are the "coaches" in these situations? At the NHL level, in this day and age, coaches are suspended in situations where they are seen to not be "in control" of their players—players who themselves are grown men. Are these youth "coaches" not "in control" of their players?
- What messages are these young, impressionable children (they are children, not "athletes", at this age) receiving from their coaches?
- If we can’t "blame" the children for this kind of event, then where do we look? What influence are parents having, for example? The media?
We’ve all heard time and again that the "problem" is that parents all think their kinds will make it to the pro level, and thus are over-invested in their kids. And this leads, based on that theory, to misplaced priorities, etc.
But surely we’re not having brawls at the age of 8 because ALL the parents of these kids think they are raising future NHL’ers.
Are we taking youth sports way too seriously? Are our priorities in fact messed up? Do we keep score too soon? Is the pervasive ‘winning at all costs’ attitude seeping all the way down to the youngest levels of the game?
It’s too easy to generalize, but this is serious stuff. Not the "sky is falling" kind of serious, perhaps, but it’s serious when little kids start hockey brawls.
Hockey Canada and various provincial Associations have spent tons of money in recent years on education—ad campaigns directed at parents, seminars for coaches, clinics on not hitting from behind, players wearing STOP patches, studies on concussions and much more.
But as long as Canada wins gold every year at the World Juniors, everyone is happy.
What’s a brawl or two on the way to what’s really important?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Criticizing a teammate has its price
I’ve spoken often in these commentaries about the importance of being a true team player.
This applies at any level, from elite youth sports to the professional ranks.
It is not easy to be a team player. Every athlete, every competitor, wants to be on the field of play, wants to contribute to their team’s success and wants to be recognized in some fashion.
This can put you at odds with the “team” concept when you are the one called upon to take a seat—especially if you are generally a “starter” and expect to play.
The fact that in sports we count not only wins and losses (a team stat) but goals and assists, or home runs and touchdowns (individual stats) makes it even more difficult.
We hear, for example, about the NFL running back that gains 2,000 yards in a season, but most fans could not name two of the offensive linemen who made the blocks to allow the all-star back to shine.
This makes the player who contributes in subtle but important ways less visible to most fans, though generally not to astute coaches.
One recent example of the difficulty in being a ‘team player’ came as the U.S. women’s soccer team was preparing to play the semi-final of a World Cup qualifier against Brazil.
The U.S. coach decided to play a veteran keeper over a younger goalie, Hope Solo, who had played well leading up to the Brazil game.
The U.S. lost 4-0 and afterwards, on her personal web site, Solo commented that,
"There's no doubt in my mind I would have made those saves," Solo said. "You have to live in the present. And you can't live by big names. You can't live in the past."
The implication was clear: the U.S. squad started the other goalie based on past reputation; she (Solo) would have made the stops the other goalie didn’t.
And Solo said so publicly.
Reaction to her comments was quite negative.
Seemingly trying to work her way through the reaction—so as not to appear as though she had “jumped ship”, in terms of standing by her teammates—an ESPN web story later related the following:
On Friday, Solo said while she still doubts Ryan's strategy, she did not mean to hurt Scurry.
"Although I stand strong in everything I said, the true disheartening moment for me was realizing it could look as though I was taking a direct shot at my own teammate," Solo said, according to the Web site. "I would never throw such a low blow. Never."
Is it easy to understand Solo’s frustration at being benched before the biggest game of the year?
Certainly.
But did she, in effect, cross the invisible line when she made her initial post-game comments?
Yes again.
A day later, the U.S. team’s Head Coach removed Solo from the squad, perhaps only temporarily. But she was not even on the bench when the U.S. won the event’s third-place game.
The coach’s comment:
“We have moved forward with 20 players who have stood by each other, who have battled for each other. And when the hard times came -- and the Brazil game was a hard time -- they stood strong."
The inference was clear: Solo, in making her comments—and subsequent apology notwithstanding—had indeed crossed that invisible line.
I have often reiterated that the media criticizes athletes for being vanilla, but in the same breath often admonishes them when they are candid and honest.
In this instance, Solo’s sin was not simply being honest and speaking her mind, but seemingly putting her own feelings above those of the team, in a public forum.
Is this fair?
Coaches want athletes who are confident, who believe in themselves. Solo was showing, by her comments, that she believed very strongly in herself.
But when she made the comments, she also, perhaps inadvertently, criticized her own teammate.
Reports suggest the U.S. may now bring in other goalies as part of the national squad going forward.
There is sometimes a price to pay for speaking out. In this instance, the comments will be remembered for a long time in the soccer world, and will no doubt follow Solo.
A steep price, for sure.
The cooling-off period between the game and the time she created her web comments might have provided Solo with the opportunity to massage the rough edges of her true feelings.
For reasons only she can answer, she chose to go a different route with her public comments.
Once made, you can’t take them back.
This applies at any level, from elite youth sports to the professional ranks.
It is not easy to be a team player. Every athlete, every competitor, wants to be on the field of play, wants to contribute to their team’s success and wants to be recognized in some fashion.
This can put you at odds with the “team” concept when you are the one called upon to take a seat—especially if you are generally a “starter” and expect to play.
The fact that in sports we count not only wins and losses (a team stat) but goals and assists, or home runs and touchdowns (individual stats) makes it even more difficult.
We hear, for example, about the NFL running back that gains 2,000 yards in a season, but most fans could not name two of the offensive linemen who made the blocks to allow the all-star back to shine.
This makes the player who contributes in subtle but important ways less visible to most fans, though generally not to astute coaches.
One recent example of the difficulty in being a ‘team player’ came as the U.S. women’s soccer team was preparing to play the semi-final of a World Cup qualifier against Brazil.
The U.S. coach decided to play a veteran keeper over a younger goalie, Hope Solo, who had played well leading up to the Brazil game.
The U.S. lost 4-0 and afterwards, on her personal web site, Solo commented that,
"There's no doubt in my mind I would have made those saves," Solo said. "You have to live in the present. And you can't live by big names. You can't live in the past."
The implication was clear: the U.S. squad started the other goalie based on past reputation; she (Solo) would have made the stops the other goalie didn’t.
And Solo said so publicly.
Reaction to her comments was quite negative.
Seemingly trying to work her way through the reaction—so as not to appear as though she had “jumped ship”, in terms of standing by her teammates—an ESPN web story later related the following:
On Friday, Solo said while she still doubts Ryan's strategy, she did not mean to hurt Scurry.
"Although I stand strong in everything I said, the true disheartening moment for me was realizing it could look as though I was taking a direct shot at my own teammate," Solo said, according to the Web site. "I would never throw such a low blow. Never."
Is it easy to understand Solo’s frustration at being benched before the biggest game of the year?
Certainly.
But did she, in effect, cross the invisible line when she made her initial post-game comments?
Yes again.
A day later, the U.S. team’s Head Coach removed Solo from the squad, perhaps only temporarily. But she was not even on the bench when the U.S. won the event’s third-place game.
The coach’s comment:
“We have moved forward with 20 players who have stood by each other, who have battled for each other. And when the hard times came -- and the Brazil game was a hard time -- they stood strong."
The inference was clear: Solo, in making her comments—and subsequent apology notwithstanding—had indeed crossed that invisible line.
I have often reiterated that the media criticizes athletes for being vanilla, but in the same breath often admonishes them when they are candid and honest.
In this instance, Solo’s sin was not simply being honest and speaking her mind, but seemingly putting her own feelings above those of the team, in a public forum.
Is this fair?
Coaches want athletes who are confident, who believe in themselves. Solo was showing, by her comments, that she believed very strongly in herself.
But when she made the comments, she also, perhaps inadvertently, criticized her own teammate.
Reports suggest the U.S. may now bring in other goalies as part of the national squad going forward.
There is sometimes a price to pay for speaking out. In this instance, the comments will be remembered for a long time in the soccer world, and will no doubt follow Solo.
A steep price, for sure.
The cooling-off period between the game and the time she created her web comments might have provided Solo with the opportunity to massage the rough edges of her true feelings.
For reasons only she can answer, she chose to go a different route with her public comments.
Once made, you can’t take them back.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Bill Belichick: stand in line
That an NFL team has been "caught" cheating (illegal videotaping of opposition signals) should come as little surprise. Cheating has been a temptation in—and a part of—sports for all long as we all can remember.
It is part of the human condition, it would seem—at least the temptation to do so. Everyone wants to get “the edge”, whether achieved “legally” or otherwise.
The examples of cheating in sports are many. Hall-of-Fame pitcher Gaylord Perry was a well-known “cheat”, scuffing and greasing baseballs on his way to 300+ career victories. No one speaks of his plaque being taken down at Cooperstown. Fellow Hall-of-Famer Whitey Ford has admitted publicly that he cheated toward the end of his career in an effort to hang on; he is still a hero to many. Well-known White Sox broadcaster and former player Ken “Hawk” Harrelson has admitted that he corked his bat; many others have done the same through the years. (Albert Belle and Sammy Sosa were caught; most aren’t.)
But the slippery ethical slope has manifested itself in myriad ways in the current era, and it does not reflect well on professional sports, or its ongoing and pervasively negative influence on youth sports.
Professional sports is entertainment, to be sure. Perhaps we assume an element of trickery, of ego, of smugness— among other less than admirable traits.
But far too many pro athletes act as though a good play must be followed by a Hulk Hogan pose or a dance. The limits of what is acceptable bend further and further every year.
We all understand that greed is at the forefront of the pro game. I recall my father and I, in the late 1970’s, discussing that Bruce Sutter held out for the then un-heard of (for a relief pitcher) sum of $700,000, I think it was. His comment was that he had to look out for his family’s future. My dad, who raised 5 children and never made more than $6,000 a year in his life, couldn’t believe the comment. He must have wondered how athletes could be such poor financial planners.
Thirty years later, we actually hear athletes saying the same thing when they are “insulted” by the latest multi-million dollar offer from their clubs. They need even more, because, we are told, they must “look out for their family’s future”.
Remarkable. Is it the arrogance, the selfishness, or the simple lack of perspective that people find disheartening?
(It is these same athletes, in the NFL, for example, who can’t share their immense wealth to help retired athletes who are now destitute and in need of basic medial care, but that is a situation we have already discussed…)
We already have young athletes talking back to umpires and to hockey and soccer referees; diving on the ice and the soccer pitch looking to draw un-deserved fouls, utilizing attitudes and “skills” they have learned from the pros. (This does not even take into account example of athletes who run afoul of the law, seemingly because they, with their wealth and their sense of superiority, believe they are above the law…and other people.)
But now, we are going beyond mere greed, or bad behaviour that sets a poor example for young people.
Now, the integrity of the game itself is coming into question.
Just in the last couple of years, professional soccer has seen massive scandals in Italy and elsewhere, specifically with Clubs and Referees on the take. Juventus gets pushed down one division and is right back in the top League. Not much of a lesson there.
Baseball saw records smashed in the 1990’s. Does anyone believe those records were set without the use of steroids? Not a chance. People – the media, fans, the commissioner—knew what was happening then, and they know it now. But it was OK when the game needed a boost. Now a kind of deathbed, superficial show of repentance is on display. Players like Rafael Palmeiro become a scapegoat because they are “caught”.
Basketball has it own issues. A referee is going to jail because he was involved in fixing games. This is the NBA, the league that didn’t want people in the province of Ontario to be able to bet on Raptor games through ProLine, if I recall correctly.
And now it is confirmed that the 3-time Super Bowl Champion Patriots and their future Hall-of-Fame Coach have cheated. Not by accident, by design.
To add insult to injury, Bill Belichick won’t comment on the deception. No regrets, no real apologies—saying only that he is “moving on”.
I’m sure he is.
The League’s response: a modest fine, and a lost draft choice.
(Pete Rose won’t be allowed into the Hall-of Fame because he bet on baseball games, though he did this as a manager, not a player…He was banned for life and we don’t even know if his betting influenced his judgment as a manager. We know what the Patriots did gave them a competitive advantage but they receive not even a suspension of any kind…)
Many used to think boxing was the sport that was seen as tainted because of its apparent connection with organized crime.
Now, is it fair to say that most major professional sports are no better than boxing ever was in ethical terms?
What do we tell our kids?
Or do we bother to even have the conversation because it’s too late to change how we view sports, and the role of sports in society?
It is part of the human condition, it would seem—at least the temptation to do so. Everyone wants to get “the edge”, whether achieved “legally” or otherwise.
The examples of cheating in sports are many. Hall-of-Fame pitcher Gaylord Perry was a well-known “cheat”, scuffing and greasing baseballs on his way to 300+ career victories. No one speaks of his plaque being taken down at Cooperstown. Fellow Hall-of-Famer Whitey Ford has admitted publicly that he cheated toward the end of his career in an effort to hang on; he is still a hero to many. Well-known White Sox broadcaster and former player Ken “Hawk” Harrelson has admitted that he corked his bat; many others have done the same through the years. (Albert Belle and Sammy Sosa were caught; most aren’t.)
But the slippery ethical slope has manifested itself in myriad ways in the current era, and it does not reflect well on professional sports, or its ongoing and pervasively negative influence on youth sports.
Professional sports is entertainment, to be sure. Perhaps we assume an element of trickery, of ego, of smugness— among other less than admirable traits.
But far too many pro athletes act as though a good play must be followed by a Hulk Hogan pose or a dance. The limits of what is acceptable bend further and further every year.
We all understand that greed is at the forefront of the pro game. I recall my father and I, in the late 1970’s, discussing that Bruce Sutter held out for the then un-heard of (for a relief pitcher) sum of $700,000, I think it was. His comment was that he had to look out for his family’s future. My dad, who raised 5 children and never made more than $6,000 a year in his life, couldn’t believe the comment. He must have wondered how athletes could be such poor financial planners.
Thirty years later, we actually hear athletes saying the same thing when they are “insulted” by the latest multi-million dollar offer from their clubs. They need even more, because, we are told, they must “look out for their family’s future”.
Remarkable. Is it the arrogance, the selfishness, or the simple lack of perspective that people find disheartening?
(It is these same athletes, in the NFL, for example, who can’t share their immense wealth to help retired athletes who are now destitute and in need of basic medial care, but that is a situation we have already discussed…)
We already have young athletes talking back to umpires and to hockey and soccer referees; diving on the ice and the soccer pitch looking to draw un-deserved fouls, utilizing attitudes and “skills” they have learned from the pros. (This does not even take into account example of athletes who run afoul of the law, seemingly because they, with their wealth and their sense of superiority, believe they are above the law…and other people.)
But now, we are going beyond mere greed, or bad behaviour that sets a poor example for young people.
Now, the integrity of the game itself is coming into question.
Just in the last couple of years, professional soccer has seen massive scandals in Italy and elsewhere, specifically with Clubs and Referees on the take. Juventus gets pushed down one division and is right back in the top League. Not much of a lesson there.
Baseball saw records smashed in the 1990’s. Does anyone believe those records were set without the use of steroids? Not a chance. People – the media, fans, the commissioner—knew what was happening then, and they know it now. But it was OK when the game needed a boost. Now a kind of deathbed, superficial show of repentance is on display. Players like Rafael Palmeiro become a scapegoat because they are “caught”.
Basketball has it own issues. A referee is going to jail because he was involved in fixing games. This is the NBA, the league that didn’t want people in the province of Ontario to be able to bet on Raptor games through ProLine, if I recall correctly.
And now it is confirmed that the 3-time Super Bowl Champion Patriots and their future Hall-of-Fame Coach have cheated. Not by accident, by design.
To add insult to injury, Bill Belichick won’t comment on the deception. No regrets, no real apologies—saying only that he is “moving on”.
I’m sure he is.
The League’s response: a modest fine, and a lost draft choice.
(Pete Rose won’t be allowed into the Hall-of Fame because he bet on baseball games, though he did this as a manager, not a player…He was banned for life and we don’t even know if his betting influenced his judgment as a manager. We know what the Patriots did gave them a competitive advantage but they receive not even a suspension of any kind…)
Many used to think boxing was the sport that was seen as tainted because of its apparent connection with organized crime.
Now, is it fair to say that most major professional sports are no better than boxing ever was in ethical terms?
What do we tell our kids?
Or do we bother to even have the conversation because it’s too late to change how we view sports, and the role of sports in society?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Serena, athletes, and class
Venus and Serena Williams are unquestionably two of the finest tennis players ever. Athletic and strong, when focused and healthy they are almost unbeatable.
By all accounts they can be charismatic and charming. Not that these are essential qualities for what many define as “success” in sports (victories and material wealth) as the sisters are very wealthy, indeed.
But for many of us, we prefer sporting stars who are grounded, perhaps even a bit humble.
This is where one of the talented sisters hit a stumbling block recently. After losing a quarter-final match at the U.S. Open to Justine Henin, Serene was quoted as saying:
"I just think she made a lot of lucky shots and I made a lot of errors. I really don't feel like talking about it. It's like I don't want to get fined. That's the only reason I came. I can't afford to pay the fines because I keep losing."
This was not the usual comment made by players after a loss. Customarily players will at least grudgingly offer congratulations at the media conference, and at least concede that the winner played well.
So stunned was the U.S. media by Serena’s comportment at the press gathering, that many wrote stories which referred to Serena as “classless”.
Here is the rub. One the one hand, the media criticizes athletes who give pat, rehearsed, superficial answers. But at the same time, when a player steps off that line in a manner which does not please reporters, the response is often swift – and negative.
In my work with many athletes over the years it has become clear that there is a real pressure to be interesting when interviewed by the media, not to simply mouth clichés and the standard jock stuff.
Yet they all realize they are one strong opinion from being categorized in some negative manner by the media. And once an athlete has a “reputation” with the media, sometimes based on even one small incident, the issue can take on a life of its own.
One of the follies (though necessary, it seems) of the way we cover sports has always been the need to make athletes answer questions at moments of absolute frustration, immediately after a personal or team defeat. We expect them to say something of interest, but criticize them if they fall short of our imposed ideal.
Was Serena off base? Just being honest? Or both?
Would she have handled the questions a little differently if allowed to conduct the interviews a day later?
We’ll never know.
For now, it’s easy to criticize an athlete’s choice of words when they are tired and downhearted.
That said, graceful acknowledgement—even if somewhat forced and superficial—of the victor costs an athlete nothing, can enhance one’s reputation and can save a fair bit of aggravation.
By all accounts they can be charismatic and charming. Not that these are essential qualities for what many define as “success” in sports (victories and material wealth) as the sisters are very wealthy, indeed.
But for many of us, we prefer sporting stars who are grounded, perhaps even a bit humble.
This is where one of the talented sisters hit a stumbling block recently. After losing a quarter-final match at the U.S. Open to Justine Henin, Serene was quoted as saying:
"I just think she made a lot of lucky shots and I made a lot of errors. I really don't feel like talking about it. It's like I don't want to get fined. That's the only reason I came. I can't afford to pay the fines because I keep losing."
This was not the usual comment made by players after a loss. Customarily players will at least grudgingly offer congratulations at the media conference, and at least concede that the winner played well.
So stunned was the U.S. media by Serena’s comportment at the press gathering, that many wrote stories which referred to Serena as “classless”.
Here is the rub. One the one hand, the media criticizes athletes who give pat, rehearsed, superficial answers. But at the same time, when a player steps off that line in a manner which does not please reporters, the response is often swift – and negative.
In my work with many athletes over the years it has become clear that there is a real pressure to be interesting when interviewed by the media, not to simply mouth clichés and the standard jock stuff.
Yet they all realize they are one strong opinion from being categorized in some negative manner by the media. And once an athlete has a “reputation” with the media, sometimes based on even one small incident, the issue can take on a life of its own.
One of the follies (though necessary, it seems) of the way we cover sports has always been the need to make athletes answer questions at moments of absolute frustration, immediately after a personal or team defeat. We expect them to say something of interest, but criticize them if they fall short of our imposed ideal.
Was Serena off base? Just being honest? Or both?
Would she have handled the questions a little differently if allowed to conduct the interviews a day later?
We’ll never know.
For now, it’s easy to criticize an athlete’s choice of words when they are tired and downhearted.
That said, graceful acknowledgement—even if somewhat forced and superficial—of the victor costs an athlete nothing, can enhance one’s reputation and can save a fair bit of aggravation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)