I remember, years ago, finding a book in the library of the school where I used to teach called So, what’s rugby, cricket?
It was written by Bollie Seeff, who is, I believe, the father of former national cricketer Lawrence Seeff, the founder of the Seeff property organisation.
The book is about Jewish South African sportsmen, and the title comes from a question Seeff’s Yiddishe mama asked him one day when he set off for rugby training. She thought he was going to cricket practice, and when he set her straight she asked the question.
I thought of it again recently while offering the opinion that early sports specialisation was one of the unethical practices that schools condone these days, in pursuit of their obsession with victory.
Seeff played rugby and cricket at UCT, in different seasons, though his mama apparently never quite got the distinction.
Everyone who was keen on sport played more than one sport those days. Specialisation was for professionals and that era was yet to come.
So, what’s wrong with early specialisation?
There are some easy answers to that question - the risk of repetitive stress injuries in immature athletes who focus on one set of exercises; the limitation in motor skill development that goes with not being involved in a variety of activities; and the social development implications in limiting the sort of people the child interacts with.
I came across an article on the subject while doing my homework ahead of writing this piece.
It’s by John O’Sullivan, titled Is it wise to specialize? and he lists a number of reasons why early specialisation is bad, and a number of reasons why being involved in a range of sporting activities at an early age is good.
On the basis of research, he claims that commitment to a single sport at an early age leads to a far greater risk of injury, and that, far from producing the professional athletes of the future, early specialisation in fact leads to a higher incidence of post-school drop-outs and physical inactivity among adults.
Among the research-based reasons why multi-sport participation is good for you, he says, is that it leads to better overall motor and athletic development; to smarter, more creative players; and to increased motivation and confidence.
Those who try to justify early specialisation often quote the “10 000 hours” rule as a justification.
It’s a theory popularised by Canadian author Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, but based on the work of Anders Ericsson, a Swedish psychologist.
The idea is that you need 10 000 hours of deliberate practice to really master an activity (implying that you need to specialise to get the time to do that).
Gladwell uses Tiger Woods as an example, but his other case studies are in areas like chess, music and computer programming.
It doesn’t necessarily translate into sport and Ericsson himself says deliberate practice is only part of it - genetics, coaching and luck also come into it.
O’Sullivan points out that in some activities, far fewer than 10 000 hours are needed to master them.
So why is early specialisation an unethical practice?
Simply because it’s about winning for the school, not about the development of the child.
Promises of future professional contracts are made to persuade parents to agree, and the athlete typically has no say in the matter.
Everyone knows that only a tiny percentage of school prodigies go on to become international players and, in the case of rugby, a professional’s career is so short and the risk of injury so high that encouraging a youngster to take it up as a career is educationally shaky.
Rather let him or her play as many different games as they want to. And the parents, rather than try to map out careers in sport for their offspring, should be wondering just where the heck they are going to this time.
* You can find John O’Sullivan’s Is it wise to specialize? at http://changingthegameproject.com/is-it-wise-to-specialize/
Independent Media