Drs Richardson and Nesti provide some insights into what we may have gleaned from attending the Leaders in Performance.
Richardson:
The musings of Dr Nesti and me from day one took us from ‘practice to perfection’. At the end of the day, the usual conference form is to retire for some refreshment and cordial conversation. The aspirations are clear from the outset; have a few beers, catch up with a few old friends and acquaintances, get something to eat, have one more beer then head off to bed. My colleagues and I followed this plan to the letter, up until the ‘just one more beer’ point. To be fair, we would have well overstayed our welcome at the Prozone party but the bar closed so we had to go! We probably had ‘one more’ too many but we were still in bed (asleep) at a reasonable and respectable hour! Scouring the landscape at the opening session, I note that one or two fellow delegates didn’t appear to fair so well in their pursuit of a well rested utopian state. The pudgy black coffee, a Leader’s speciality, appeared to have been well received by many a delegate. So, my first thoughts, of the morning, what have we learnt? Well for me, it is pretty clear that the social banter evolving from a few beers enables us to develop a more personable relationship with existing and potential clients. It also allows us to talk openly and honestly with our colleagues and fellow delegates. Such interaction is critical to our future business relationship. I for one am happy to encourage everyone to work on this. If we like you then we are more likely to work with you!
And back to the other reason as to why we have converged at Stamford Bridge, the speakers. First up for the Leaders in Performance delegates is the ‘Science of Sport: How to make the most out of talent’. For this we have the pleasure of Andy Barr performance specialist at the New York Knicks, Hakim Chalabi, assistant Chief Medical Officer, Aspetar and Gerry Ramogida who is the consultant chiropractor for the Seattle Seahawks and the performance therapist with UK Athletics. The session is chaired by Peter Bruckner, Head of Sports Science and Medicine at Liverpool Football Club. The session promises to explore the analysis of human performance including mind, biomechanics, time motion ratios, speed, agility, recovery and rehabilitation. This promise was a fairly extensive brief but given the nature of the panel it was not insurmountable. However, the session was dominated by the concept of injury prevention. Don’t get me wrong, whilst I appreciate that the balance of injury prevention and performance enhancement is critical to the pursuit of athletic excellence, I was left wanting a little more. The session, for me, didn’t do exactly what it said on the tin! However, I did come away with a fuller understanding that the science of sport (or sport science or at least a component of it – injury prevention and re-hab) is a critical aspect of high performance sport. It is also an area, whilst it appears fairly self-explanatory (i.e., reduced injuries equates to better performance), that is still required to justify its existence in the realms of many a high performance sport environments. There appears to be a constant need for these guys to ‘justify’ their existence with statistical evidence that reports injury reduction (non-traumatic and/or traumatic – depending on your view that any injury has the potential to be traumatic!) year on year. I can sympathise with this position but have concerns over the complexity of reducing injuries year on year. The discussion focuses on injury and the prevention of injury before addressing the notion of wellness data. From the debate, I’m still left wondering what this actually means. I am informed that there is a drive to collect (personal) data on athletes and players alike on a day-to-day basis; for example, how are you feeling today? How did you sleep? Do you feel sore? The concept appears to be striving for a long term picture of athlete mood and physical states. Now, none of the panellists claimed to be a psychologist nor lifestyle counsellor nor any other similarly aligned practitioner but to me such information would be the preserve of such practitioners or at least undertaken in collaboration with them. Again, there may be more to this, but unfortunately, this was not explored during the session. I was left wondering, as a player or an athlete, how I would respond to such questions if there was a big ‘meet’, Champions League game or NBA Play-off game coming up as opposed to (say) a trip to Yeovil (no offence intended) in the Carling cup or a non-ranking athletics event or friendly. I am left to wonder whether that the importance of having ‘scientific data’ on someone has become more important than understanding who they are and why they feel like they do? I’ll leave this one for you Mark. I’m sure you may have something to say on this topic! You could say I’ve set you up (maybe stitched you up) nicely, what do you think?
Nesti:
Yes Dave, another hospital pass from you but I would expect nothing less (typical midfielder-get rid when you’re in a hole)! No, I’m not going to focus on the thorny issue of the value of scientific data to support the value of non-scientific craft knowledge. I am though, going to pick up on the skill that each panellist displayed in not over stating their case whilst being aware that they had to have solid reasons for the arguments they put forward. That each, in different ways, tended to say the same thing is a testimony to the ability of the conference organisers to invite these individuals to speak at the same session. It sounded at times as though they had met up earlier to rehearse their lines so that a collective view and a common underlying practice philosophy would emerge! And I mean this as a compliment to all concerned. It’s always a good sign when highly experienced specialists from diverse specialisms agree on things. Statisticians refer to this in terms of correlations, and those of us of a less numerate disposition call it common sense! However, as my favourite English author G.K. Chesterton put it, common sense is rarely seen and not too common.
Like my colleague Dr Richardson, I too was a little disappointed that we didn’t develop the interdisciplinary theme a little more fully. This was a shame because Andy and Gerry in particular stressed how important this was in their work. I wonder how much of this is because as therapists they are aware that you can’t easily compartmentalise when you have someone in front of you seeking help. It’s really quite hard for human beings to forget that they are speaking to a person like them, although there are some sport scientists, coaches and others who seem to have spent many years getting qualifications to help them ignore this fact. Such people fortunately are most usually found in universities although there are quite a few who are at large in the real world as well!
So, it seems that it always starts with a discussion about techniques, data and systems, and ends in… well, bodies, brains and minds. And we should be pleased about this, since in the final analysis, it was what we heard from the talented and expert individuals assembled here. It was noteworthy that all speakers constantly talked about still feeling that there remained much to do to move things forward. This is always a sign of top performers – an awareness that they know so much that they know there is so much more they don’t. We usually call it humility or modesty and think of it in moral terms. But actually, it is not infrequently also the key character trait of the very best.
Maybe it would have been nice to have heard more from each panellist and for the questions to probe more deeply into their ideas for the future. The discussion about psychology, lifestyle, mood, and performance management, especially in relation to injury prevention, could easily have been the whole focus of the session. There seemed to be a real awareness that this ‘final frontier’ must be considered more fully, although there was much less idea on how this could be achieved. It would have been great to have had a psychologist asking some hard questions at this point (I know Dave, some people think this is all psychologists do… but they are getting us mixed up with our close cousins in philosophy!). In all fairness to the conference team, the topics covered here might be better addressed in a book. And what a book that could be given the eminence of the contributors.
Richardson:
Thanks Mark. I’m not sure whether you answered the question or not!
Nesti:
That’s what’s wrong Dave… everyone expects an easy answer from us and when we do, they say they knew that already!
Richardson:
Maybe you should consider a political career in the future! Following the network break and a couple more pudgy coffees we were treated to the wisdom of Dr Steve Peters. Steve is a psychiatrist and Doctor with the British cycling team. Steve has been previously lauded by Dave Brailsford as an integral component of British cycling’s success over recent years. Moreover, Peters has helped Brailsford understand how personality and emotional state impact performance. Peters’ talk concerns this similar theme. Indeed, the concept is to ‘take the emotion out of decision making’ or, in essence, to prevent (as much as possible) the emotion interfering with the decision. On day one we witnessed the studious intensity that surrounded Mark Cavendish’s approach to winning alongside his despair with (some) ‘scientists’ that appeared to lack a real appreciation of his world. Peters is a psychiatrist with training in maths and medicine. Does he understand Cav’s world? Peters, explains the value of logic to us and explains how he helps the athlete and the coach (and us) to understand how we think and how we behave. Peters is famed for his chimp analogy and uses this as the framework for his presentation. Logically, he offers the audience a pared down version of mind events. The theory is of emotional control and coping. His approach is bespoke and introspective in that he encourages the athlete to understand how their mind works. He breaks the mind into 6 segments for us (the audience) and explains the distinct roles of the various components. The frontal lobe which influences logic, sentiment, thinking and personality. Then there is the computer and, of course, the chimp. The chimp is characterised as an extremely strong, yet demonic, primitive, irrational, almost animalistic part of the brain. In essence, he explains that you and your chimp do not always see eye to eye and that you need to first understand what (or which you) your chimp is and how your chimp thinks and behaves in order to subsequently control the chimp and/or put him, or her, away at critical moments. The talk is jolly, clear and enlightening and you get a sense that the audience is left thinking about their own chimps. How they deal with them is another matter… Hopefully, the coaches, and others responsible for performance, will recognise that this approach is not just a mechanism to enable better athlete performance but the analogy should transcend the athletes and their support staff. If we can all understand our chimp then we will also understand how it (and subsequently we) may affect others. In some cases our behaviours may instigate another’s chimp at precisely the time when they are trying to put him away… think on!
Nesti:
This was a very clever presentation from Dr Steve Peters during which he managed to describe some of his psychological work with British cycling in a very entertaining and accessible way. This was no mean feat since for many of us the last time we laughed at a shrink was probably during one of those pomposity busting episodes of Frasier. Of course that’s the problem with psychiatrists; they use fancy scientific sounding terms to shrink our consciousness so we can confront our unconscious desires to deal with them constructively! Or that’s what the official strap line says… well, sort of. But when the id, ego, super ego, repression and sublimation are described by reference to chimps and claims to be (like my wife!) a straight talking Yorkshire person, you know that what follows will be real and stimulating for all. Although in my own approach I adopt a very different psychological model and underpinning philosophy, I was able to recognise much common ground both theoretically and more importantly from practice in real sport. Dealing with top athletes requires professional confidence based on knowledge and skills. It also demands that the practitioner brings their personality and personal qualities to the table as well. Steve made this point very apparent in the examples he used and stories he told. It was this aspect of the talk that made it most powerful and engaging.
I did hope (and still do) that there were psychologists in the audience and others with a critical mind who found the session provocative and challenging rather than reassuring and easy to accept. I say this because all good psychologists and psychiatrists know that our understanding of mind (as opposed to brain) is far from complete. When this is discussed in relation to high performance domains like elite sport things often get even more complex. I am sure that Dr Peters would be happy to know that many listeners went home from the conference motivated to find out more, much more, about the psychology in sport. I am sure that they will have benefitted from hearing that although models are a good place to start, to be useful, they need to be put into context and applied by someone who understands the art of practice. Listening to the stories about empathy, belief, integrity and care from the world of elite cycling, I remembered again why psychology’s most famous son, Sigmund Freud, the founder of psycho analysis, always maintained despite being a medical doctor and surgeon himself that this training was not necessary to be a successful psychotherapist.
Maybe Steve will be invited back again soon to talk about an area that many in academic sport psychology seem unaware of. As Dave mentioned earlier, I refer to the work with staff, the managers, coaches, sports scientists and others who make up the performance team. This key topic was alluded to in the presentation but is surely one to focus on in the future. Can we expect our athletes to deliver exceptional performance when the support staff are in need of support themselves? Listening to Steve and the relationships he has at British cycling I am sure he will have a view!
Richardson:
So, I think we agree. Peters seems to work with the athlete in their world. We also need people such as Peters to work with the support staff. Their world is complex and pressurised too!
The networking lunch is full of chatter about everyone’s various chimps; stories of chimps going off on one alongside some (non-professional) advice from those who believed that their chimp had been were shared between many a delegate. In essence, we might not fully understand what to do next but you know when a presenter has stimulated and intrigued an audience when the debate and personalisation of the topic carries over into lunch. It might not be every psychologist’s approach, but it offers an interesting and tangible perspective to emotional control and coping strategies.
More British cycling after lunch as Brailsford himself takes the stage to chair a session on ‘Innovation and Performance’. Brailsford is ideal for this session. He appears to leave no stone unturned in his pursuit of success for his team. Prior to his rise to become the Performance Director of British Cycling he spent some time working in the design and engineering aspects of the sport and was keen to embrace the science and technology of performance early in his tenure. However, it is not Brailsford who is the main attraction as he is joined by Stephen Park his fellow Olympic Performance Manager with the Royal Yatching Association and Geoff McGrath, Managing Director of McLaren Applied Technologies. The session starts off with similar yet contrasting ‘promo’ videos depicting the fortunes of the respective worlds that Stephen and Geoff operate in. Both ‘promos’ are slick and intriguing with relevant musical accompaniment overlayed onto the action. Each carries its own message about the philosophy of the sporting worlds. However, it is noticeable that Stephen Park and the RYA function within an entirely different financial model to that of Geoff and McLaren. We learn that McLaren host and embrace a technological world similar to that of NASA scientists. This world is one of constant innovation that includes the intricate testing of the smallest of technological alteration to the body of the Formula One car or to its internal workings. Minute alterations are introduced, tested and re-tested in conditions that (mirror) the reality of race day. McLaren’s world is one of real-time data collection, data modelling and analytics. McLaren operate in an environment where ‘if you don’t know what will happen if you make a change, then how can you be sure it’s worth changing’. The mantra is quite simple, ‘innovate, test, re-test’. In essence, we see a model of informed decision-making and evidence-based practice as opposed to working on myths and hunches. However, having the wherewithal, technology and financial clout to operationalise such a philosophy is something else. Park’s world is one where the (aspiring) philosophy may be similar but the ability to operationalise such an approach is more challenging. Needless to say, Park has tried to instil the scientific, nee clinical, approach to engineering and mechanics that surrounds the McLaren garages; men in clean white coats as opposed to oily overalls who are precious about cleanliness, creating an environment where dust is a bacteria that may impact performance. The boathouses of the RYA have never been cleaner! It could also be claimed that motor sports are more about the car than say sailing is about the boat. However, both Park and McGrath claim that there is a need to embrace the symbiotic relationship that exists between the athlete and the machine. Similarly, the argument that it is all about the car was (slightly) dispelled with McLaren’s approach to athlete development. MacLaren adopt a holistic programme of skill development, health and wellbeing, fitness and mental energy for their drivers. The testing and simulation includes the testing, monitoring and development of the driver and the support staff. The innovation here is holistic and symbiotic. However, the main innovation is a philosophy that affords people time and resources to be able to innovate.
Nesti:
Very clever, very clever indeed! So who was the bright spark that decided to put two incredibly different sports together at this point in the conference? One takes place on water, uses wind and is arguably the oldest form of transport known to mankind. The other is loud, brash, flash and full of cash! Or so it all appears to those who judge the world on appearances alone…. In fact, as this session demonstrated, the activities of the RYA sailing and McClaren motorsport teams share much in common. Attention to detail in both camps sounds like something close to organisational obsessive compulsive disorder! But then, getting near to, but not beyond the limit of extreme behaviour is common to all top performing organisations.
Stephen Park and Geoff McGrath also spoke about the value of innovation, the need to keep ahead of the opposition. They explained that creativity, not novelty for novelty’s sake, was the key to their success. How did they do this? By giving responsibility and constantly measuring for evidence of impact. That’s impact that that makes things better, not impact that makes things different! It sometimes sounded as though working for these two individuals would be simultaneously remarkably empowering and incredibly scary! Or as existential psychologists would have it… lots of freedom and plenty of anxiety. This is the best psychological state for optimum performance as long as the environment is a supportive one underpinned by sound values. Away from the detail about the details of how these issues are addressed, it was clear from both speakers that they fully recognised the importance of providing the best culture in their teams. This was a thoroughly refreshing hour or so for those of us who argue constantly against the either/or scenarios presented at second and third rate organisations. Both of these teams and their leadership have avoided these false dichotomies but have not opted for a safe middle ground. What we heard was that they passionately support their staff who commit fully to the team and they (quite logically and morally) feel able to deal ruthlessly with those who hold something of themselves back.
Gosh, engineers and performance directors with heart. Whatever next? Coaches with accountancy qualifications and degrees in astrophysics!
Richardson:
Talking of accountants or number crunchers, the last session takes us back over the pond to two of the United States’ leading sports business minds. Billy Beane, General Manager of the Oakland A’s is joined by RC Buford, General Manager of the San Antonio Spurs. We are reminded that Billy has recently been immortalised by Brad Pitt on the silver screen as he plays out Beane’s experiences as the man who fought the collosals of the baseball world on a shoestring budget. The founding father of statistical analysis in sport is more that a number cruncher. Beane is famed for picking up unwanted and sometimes unloved players based on their ability to get to first base or their walk to strike ratio or various other obscure but measurable essential functions of baseball performance. In essence, Beane is similar to Peters in that he was taking the emotion out of the decision-making process. Stripping everything back to logic and dismissing the romanticism that surrounded certain ‘glamour’ players and the scepticism, doubt or baggage that plagued so called ‘has been’ players. Beane’s strategic wisdom was based on a sound business model that was alien to high performance sport. He just realised that he could win (more) with due diligence, care and attention to detail. RC Buford is similar in that he wants to win in sport and in business. He portrays a confidence that has given rise to the Spurs recent successes and what appears to be an underlying requisite trait to leave nothing to chance. RC does however, recognise that Basketball is not baseball and that basketball is a far more complex and dynamic sport and does not lend itself (explicitly) to statistical analysis. Sure, there are statistics in basketball, but it is also an emotionally charged, transient game that is a hostage to a multitude of complex and personal interactions over a period of highly intense involvement. Both Beane and RC are moving towards their next career chapters. It would appear that both are now championing the notion of athlete/player care as the next frontier in high performance sport. Importantly, no matter how you recruit your players you need to manage their health when they are with you. From a business sense, this suggests value for money, look after your assets. Today’s high performance athlete needs looking after. We find ourselves back in Andy Barr, Hakim Chalabi and Gerry Ramogida territory. The requirement to ensure that performance is prolonged and ‘the numbers stack up’ is to spend some time looking after the athletes that you have.
Nesti:
And so to the finale! What was I saying about a future with coaches who are as comfortable with figures as they are with feelings? Well, in this session we were treated to the stories of Billy Beane and RC Burford who had quite a few things to say that differed from one another and some very important elements that were very similar. The most important of these was that each emphasised that long established practices from the world of business could be used to bring great advantages in player recruitment in sport. Although they acknowledged that some sports lent themselves to these practices more easily than others, the general principle was that careful use of hard data could give real advantages that other competitors often overlooked. Especially in top level professional sport there exists a market value for players’ that is influenced and shaped by a type of mass psychology. Media perceptions, activities of agents and views of the fans are just some of the factors that can dramatically increase or decrease a player’s value. Sometimes these valuations are out of line with reality! More precisely they may be the result of short term achievements, collective success by being in a strong team, or even luck. And the famed scout’s eye can sometimes see things beyond the human eye that maybe only agents can see!
Of course these things happen in even the best top 100 businesses, but the aim is to reduce their frequency. And when you are not one of the big players the need to do this, to better manage risk, is even greater. In this we were fortunate to hear from practitioners in sport who had skilfully integrated the models of business to help them to join the top table where waste seems to be more accepted and even expected! Although we were hearing about the activities of two highly successful managers in sport, it would have been nice for some of our politicians to have been in the room. Maybe if BB and RCB put themselves up for election we will see less waste and more focused use of our precious resources. It can’t be a bad thing that Brad Pitt wants to play you in a film, although I was always more of a Clint Eastwood man myself.
Richardson:
I’m sure Clint would be privileged to play you fella! So what have we learnt today. Yet again we’ve been privileged to listen to the reality of working in high performance environments. The pressure to justify your existence and worth is forever heightened and it would appear that people want evidence to reinforce this. Perhaps we should take a step back for a few seconds, before we all rush out to create a spreadsheet that depicts ‘our value’ to the organisation. As Dr Steve Peters eloquently articulated, the athlete’s world is a complex and pressurised place that is visible to us all. We have learnt that the need to succeed is not just the preserve of the athlete. The owners, Directors, managers, chief executives and support staff are all affected by such hostile and volatile demands. We’ve learnt that we all have to live in this world together. The next frontier would appear to embrace athlete and people (or asset) care. The more we understand each other and the more the others understand this world then the more likely you are to live and work in harmony. Success will likely follow. See you next year. It’s been a pleasure…
Dave Richardson PhD is a specialist in youth development, organisational culture and community and the assistant director of the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Liverpool John Moores University.
Mark Nesti is PhD is Reader in Sport Psychology at Liverpool John Moores University. He is the first chartered sport psychologist in the UK to utilise existential phenomenological psychology in work with elite sport performers.
The views of our regular columnists are independent, and as such do not represent those of Leaders in Performance.
THIS MONTH’S ARTICLES:
MARK NESTI:SPORT IS THE MIRROR OF SOCIETY…
PROZONE ANALYSIS: EFFICIENT RECRUITMENT – A JANUARY TRANSFER WINDOW ANALYSIS
DAVE RICHARDSON: ALL BARR ONE!
