Rob Steen
Rob Steen Rob SteenRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

The red badge of courage

There are several reasons for sporting success but it's possible that bravery exerts the foremost influence

Rob Steen

September 11, 2013

Comments: 26 | Text size: A | A

Kevin Pietersen watches his switch-hit go to the boundary, England v India, 4th Test, The Oval, 2nd day, August 19, 2011
Kevin Pietersen: an inventor who outwits and confounds © Getty Images
Enlarge
Related Links
Players/Officials: Kevin Pietersen | Shane Warne

Half a century ago, Willie Mays was baseball's Garry Sobers. He ran like the wind, possessed a bone-chilling throw, maintained a sturdy batting average, and biffed home runs by the truckload. A superb centre-fielder, he also claimed the game's most celebrated catch, an over-the-shoulder number in the 1954 World Series that still inspires awe for its athleticism, spatial awareness and geometric precision.

Almost without exception, white New York sportswriters said he was gifted: the inference many drew was that this man, this black man, had succeeded not through hard work but because he had been granted a God-given head start. Even if you somehow manage not to classify this as racism, it remains deeply insulting.

"Gifted" is still shorthand for unfeasibly and unreasonably talented. We use it all the time in all sorts of contexts, mostly enviously. Wittingly or not, the implication is that the giftee has no right to fail. Hence the ludicrous situation wherein David Gower aroused far more scorn than Graham Gooch yet wound up with more Ashes centuries and a higher Test average.

Nature v nurture: has there ever been a more contentious or damaging sociological debate? Its eternal capacity to polarise was borne out last week when the Times devoted a hefty chunk of space to the views of two sporting achievers turned searching sportswriters, Matthew Syed and Ed Smith. Here was a fascinating clash of perspectives, not least since both have recently written books whose titles attest to the not inconsiderable role played by chance: Syed's Bounce and Smith's Luck.

In the red corner sits Syed, a two-time Olympian at table tennis. Referencing the original findings of the cognitive scientist Herbert Simon, winner of the 1978 Nobel Prize, he supported the theory espoused by Malcolm Gladwell, who argued in his recent book Outliers that success in any field only comes about through expertise, which means being willing to put in a minimum of 10,000 hours' practice.

Smith, the former England batsman and Middlesex captain who writes so thoughtfully and eloquently for this site, takes his cue from The Sports Gene: What Makes the Perfect Athlete, a new book by the American journalist and former athlete David Epstein, who takes issue with Gladwell.

Genetic make-up, Epstein concludes, is crucial. Usain Bolt, as he stresses, is freakishly tall for a sprinter. He also cites the example of Donald Thomas, who won the high jump title at the 2007 World Athletics Championships just eight months after taking his first serious leap. The key was an uncommonly long Achilles tendon, which doubled as a giant springboard. Subsequent practice, however, failed to generate any improvement. But if we insist, simplistically, that athletic talent is a gift of nature, counters Syed, echoing academic research, this can wreck resilience. "After all, if you are struggling with an activity, doesn't that mean you lack talent? Shouldn't you give up and try something else?"

The debate is rendered all the more complex, of course, by its prickliest subtext. Having conducted a globetrotting survey of attitudes, one "eye-opener" for Epstein was the reluctance of scientists to publish research on racial differences. Fear of the backlash continues to trump the need for understanding.

 
 
Sport is uniquely taxing because it asks young bodies to do the work of seasoned minds
 

These delicate issues and stark divergences of opinion, though, mask a deeper, more pertinent and resonant truth. To give nature all the credit is to deny the capacity for change; to plump for nurture is to ignore the inherent unfairness of genetics. Isn't it a matter of nurturing nature? Besides, surely success is more about application. Possessing gallons of ability is no guarantee if, like Chris Lewis, who promised so much for England in the 1990s and delivered conspicuously less, you lack the wherewithal to take full advantage. And if skill was the sole prerequisite, how did Steve Waugh become the game's most indomitable force?

Where would Waugh have been without determination? The same could be asked of the game's two most powerful current captains, MS Dhoni and Michael Clarke. Without that inner drive, would Dhoni have emerged from his Ranchi backwater? Would Clarke have risen from working-class boy to metrosexual man? Ah, but is determination innate or learnt? Cue a cascade of further questions. How telling is environment - social, economic and geographic? Does it have more impact during childhood or adulthood? Is temperament natural or nurtured? Can will be developed? Is confidence instinctive or acquired? I haven't the foggiest. All I can say with any vestige of certainty is that, when preparing a recipe for success, limiting ourselves to a single ingredient seems extraordinarily daft and utterly self-defeating.

So here's another thought. Given that, for the vast majority, achieving sporting success invariably involves battling against at least a couple of odds, surely courage has something to do with it: the courage to overcome prejudice, disadvantage or fear of failure. The courage to perform when thousands are urging you to fail - or, worse, succeed. The courage to take on the bigger man, the better-trained man, to stand your ground, put bones at risk, resist defeatism. The courage not just to be different but act different. The courage not to play the percentages. The courage not to be cautious. The courage to try the unorthodox, the outrageous. The courage to risk humiliation. And the courage, after suffering it, to risk it again.


Shane Warne bowls at the end of the third day at the end of the third day, Australia v England, 5th Test, Sydney, January 4, 2007
Shane Warne: one of those rare cricketers who aspired to something loftier than mere excellence © Getty Images
Enlarge

The older we get, theoretically at least, the safer we feel and the less courage we need. The less courage I need, the more I admire it in others, hence the growing conviction that bravery exerts the foremost influence on a sportsman's fate, as critical on the field as in the ring or on chicane. In team sports, it is even more imperative: sure, the load can be shared, but it still takes a special type of courage, of nerve, to satisfy the selfish gene - i.e. express yourself - while serving the collective good.

What makes this even more complicated is that when sportsfolk most need courage - between the ages of, say, 14 and 40 - few have fully matured as human beings. How many of the most powerful business leaders or successful lawyers or respected doctors are under 50? How many of the most eminent actors, musicians, authors or chat-show hosts? Sport is uniquely taxing because it asks young bodies to do the work of seasoned minds.

In cricket, the first test of courage comes early. Of all the factors that dissuade wide-eyed schoolboys from pursuing the game professionally, none quite matches the fear of leather and cork. Even for those at the summit, it remains a fear to be acknowledged, tolerated and respected. As Ian Bell recently highlighted when discussing the delights of fielding at short leg, conquest is impossible.

Where the air is rarest and the stakes highest, spiritual courage is even more vital. "I was an outsider. I still am. I didn't do what they wanted." Lou Reed's words they may be, but they could just as easily be the reflections of another couple of performers happy to walk on the wild side, Kevin Pietersen and Shane Warne. That these brothers-in-fitful-charms happen to be 21st-century cricket's foremost salesmen seems far from accidental.

Both are victories for nurture. Both practise(d) with ardour and diligence, mastering their craft, continually honing and refining, then building on it, then honing and refining some more. Both studied opponents assiduously, the better to parry, outwit and confound. Both became inventors, devising daring drives and dastardly deliveries. Yet nature, too, has played a significant role. Both are enthusiasts and positive thinkers. Both radiate self-belief and superiority. Both boast heavenly hand-eye co-ordination. Above all, nonetheless, both aspire(d) to something loftier than mere excellence. Both craved not just to be the best, nor even to dominate, but to astound. To do that takes another very special brand of courage.

For Warne, this meant having the courage to give up one sport and pursue one for which he seemed, physically and temperamentally, far less suited. For Pietersen, it meant having the courage to leave his homeland and to be reviled as both intruder and traitor. Neither, moreover, could completely suppress nature, so they remained true to their gambling instincts and innate showmanship. Without the mental strength to achieve the right balance, such an intricate juggling act would have been beyond them. Perhaps that's what courage really is: the strength to stick to your own path.

Don't take it from me; listen to Bolt: "I'd seen so many people mess up their careers because people had told them what to do and what not to do, almost from the moment their lives had become successful, if not before. The joy had been taken from them. To compensate, they felt the need to take drugs, get drunk every night, or go wild. I realised I had to enjoy myself to stay sane."

Nature versus nurture. Mind versus matter. Means versus ends. Turn those antagonists into protagonists and we might get somewhere. First, though, there must be acceptance: compiling an idiot-proof guide to success is akin to tackling a vat of soup with miniature chopsticks. Besides, if it were easy, there would be more winners than losers. In sport, where success means nothing if nobody fails, that might present a particularly prickly problem.

The best advice? Try Laura Nyro's rallying-cry:
Oh-h, but I'm still mixed up like a teenager
Goin' like the 4th of July
For the sweet sky

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

RSS Feeds: Rob Steen

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by jay57870 on (September 14, 2013, 11:52 GMT)

Rob - Exceptional sportsmen succeed because they do things out of the ordinary! It's possibly a cumulative effect of positive "nature" & "nurture" factors. Call it "personal mastery"! Peter Senge, the renowned author of the seminal book "Fifth Discipline" calls it "the discipline of personal growth and learning". Uber-coach Gary Kirsten is an avid practitioner of personal mastery & that's why his teams - SA & India - successfully scaled the summit. Gary had his SA team train hard last summer in the Alps with Mike Horn the adventurer. The hard physical & mental regimen paid off. Even Kallis beat his fear of heights. SA won the Test crown in England! Gary similarly had Horn conduct motivational sessions for Team India, which won WC 2011! It's no coincidence Tendulkar & Kallis were key stars on Gary's winning teams. They exemplify personal mastery: It drives them to achieve extraordinary success by mustering (as Senge says) "the courage to step outside the bubble"! Spot on, Rob!

Posted by Joll on (September 13, 2013, 2:04 GMT)

Nature v nurture? I say both. Take Bradman. Can it really be said his extraordinary prowess with a bat was due 100% to either nature or nurture, but not both? I don't think so. And what Rob suggests is courage, I suggest is not: it's more an inner belief, a determination, a confidence a player has in himself (even if seemingly unjustified). Bradman often recounted how, during the course of his career, he was given tips on batting by various coaches, all of which he ignored. Was this courageous of Bradman? No, it was just a quite confidence and belief he had himself.

Posted by   on (September 12, 2013, 18:44 GMT)

Nature versus nurture? Courage and determination can do only so much. All the application I ever put into the game couldn't disguise the fact that I have dreadful eye-hand coordination, no throwing arm, and can't reliably put a cricket ball within three feet of the same place twice in a row, and that only at a lollipop pace. Talent isn't everything - someone who's in the top 0.001% of natural ability isn't necessarily superior to someone who's only in the top 0.01% but has a superior work ethic and determination. Either of them, however, can make it a complete waste of time for someone born in the bottom 50% to even bother turning up. It's like the old saying about the secret of success being "rise early, work late, strike oil" and let's not pretend otherwise.

In some company I've been called a "gifted" musician (not, generally, in the company of those who are good enough to do it for a living, but hey). I'd have to turn my offenderometer up to eleven to consider it an insult.

Posted by IPSY on (September 12, 2013, 15:45 GMT)

Rob, apart from the level and frequency of bravery that each athlete outputs when he's called upon to perform, there are a few other observable differences between 'Nature' and 'Nurture' athletes: (i) Nurture athletes may experience much longer periods of failure than the gifted. That is due to the fact that part of their skill is manually acquired, by frequent practice - this may also be reflected by technical problems which may be corrected by regular practice. Since the skill of the gifted is inherent, their flaws are few and short lived - and usually naturally corrected (ii) "Nurture lose proficiency capability at a significantly faster rate than Nature athletes! It has to do with the fact that skills learnt are more easy to forget than those inherited naturally.

Posted by IPSY on (September 12, 2013, 15:44 GMT)

Rob, athletes who may be defined by Gladwell's "Nurture" theory or Epstein's "Nature" theory are a homogeneous group - all have talent. But here's where your "Courage" theory comes in: It's the level and frequency of bravery that each athlete exerts at every event, and their individual level and frequency of success that separate them. The 'bravery scale' has 3 levels: brave, braver, bravest. "Nature athletes" are the gifted ones. They always operate within the 'bravest zone", and achieve regular and awesome success most times. They're always fearless and brim full of confidence."Nurture or talented athletes" too are brave but at times can be timid; being not as confident. The Gifted aren't afraid to compete without practice. The talented take no chance. They must practicise often to achieve at the level of the gifted. It explains why the gifted Lara, after spending every day at a liquor bar, can still outclass the talented Tendulkar who's in the nets everyday knocking up 1000 balls!

Posted by   on (September 12, 2013, 11:16 GMT)

Courage? Well, the first thing which reminds me of courage is an innings that was played 5 decades ago. Many of us were not even born at that time. And I believe no one will be having its footage as well. It was a game where a young Hanif Mohammed walked in without a helmet and the modern padding to face the Windies bowlers, who at that time were the true definition of fury. He then scored 337, the best rearguard of all times. A record which still stands tall to date.

Posted by Insult_2_Injury on (September 12, 2013, 4:03 GMT)

Good thought provoking article. As with all things outside mathematics, there is no one answer. As you allude to, Rob, sport is of no consequence, other than an enjoyable distraction, hence my frustration at references to sportspeople displaying courage or bravery. The sporting sphere of choice by the individual is broadly known before entering the fray. Natural aptitude certainly leads many to pursue their sport, while nurture and in many cases bravado enable a few to excel. I'll never accept courage being defined as leaving your country to ply your sporting trade. Courage is walking hundreds of miles towards an unknown horizon. Bravery is standing between a perpetrator and target without a second thought. Ask the truly courageous and they can tell you how and why they acted, but very few can tell you what made them act. Real life and death - not a bat or ball in sight.

Posted by __PK on (September 11, 2013, 22:00 GMT)

Charindra Chandrasena has it right. Muralitharan's deserves mention for his courage in continuing to bowl the way he did, in defiance of the laws of the game, until he brought the administrators to their knees and forced them to change the law. That's the message we want to pass on to our kids! Courage? No, Darryl Hair showed courage.

Posted by Zubair on (September 11, 2013, 21:31 GMT)

When you are talking about courage, how can you miss a player like IMRAN KHAN?? Not saying this being a Pakistani, sayin this being a cricket fan..

Posted by Bonehead_maz on (September 11, 2013, 20:14 GMT)

The age old question :). Although never a basketball fan, I always think of Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell. There'll never be a more perfect natural athlete than Chamberlain. Rarely have there been more successful winners than Russell. The difference having nothing to do with either nature or nurture, it was a state of mind ?

Posted by Sandman5five on (September 11, 2013, 15:53 GMT)

A young Tendulkar had the courage to tell his Coach (who was trying to correct him) that the bottom-hand grip worked for him.

Posted by   on (September 11, 2013, 13:24 GMT)

@Swagat Pani -- Interesting read. Eloquently put.

Posted by VijaySaraswat on (September 11, 2013, 12:29 GMT)

Fantastic article -- sharing on FB. Courage is an absolutely central element for the successful sportsman.

Also perhaps a need to *express* oneself. "This is what I do", you can imagine KP and Warne saying to themselves, "this is *who I am*". For them your phrase "need to astound" is right on.

For many of us warriors who still battle on the sports-field on week-ends, even well into our middle age, a related question: why, after a week of engagement at work, do pick up the bat or ball, or don the goalie's gloves? Perhaps, it is the need to show that we can still face (physical, mental) challenges. Challenges on the sports field, yes, contained in time and space, yes, but none the less meaningful, for arrayed against us are scheming human opponents, intent on defeating us, perhaps inflicting bodily harm. Together with our team, we must find a way to prevail.

Perhaps, this is just what we do. This is who we are. We play, because we must.

Posted by   on (September 11, 2013, 12:19 GMT)

"Is temperament natural or nurtured? Can will be developed?"; Rob Steen, you asked. Here is my response.

I am from the Management field. Both teaching and practicing. At least in my field it is both, it is not 'either or'. So is the case with 'talent', 'leadership'. And many other attributes. Thanks for a thoroughly thought through article. A trifle too long, though.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (September 11, 2013, 12:09 GMT)

As the piece points ,courage mostly in adversity is what seperates the 'merely' really good from the greatest . And it is the same virtue that made Warne the legend he is and the greatest of all and 1 of the main cogs in what will be in history the greatest team of all only matched by another great team -W Indies of late70 to late 80s- and of an incredibly long run of jaw dropping success in all formats and tournaments - if you don't count so called 'hit n giggle' t20 World Cup which was just bit late for that great lot to lay upon which I am sure they would have done atleast 1-ce if they had 2 goes of them with all the luck involved . But why seriously compare Warney with a KP who is barely a great of even this time like Clarkes,Amlas,and Sanga .If playing fancy t20/OD shots like the Switch hit is a sign of courage ,greatness ,there would be a bunch of 'greats' now likes of Dilshan ,Jos Buttler and such . But good read as always.

Posted by   on (September 11, 2013, 10:22 GMT)

I'm not sure you can compare athletics - especially running and jumping - with games like cricket. In athletics it seems obvious that certain physical attributes are vital to success. In cricket (and football), physical prowess certainly helps, but skill/technique plays a far greater role. So, Gladwell is right with cricket, Smith/Epstein right about athletics.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (September 11, 2013, 9:33 GMT)

I'll throw this into the pot. Courage is not, I think, a single element, but a compostion of a number of strands. It's an inner conviction in self-belief, born of a history of succeeding against the odds that almost certainly goes back to early childhood (no matter if there have been set backs since those crucial formative years); it's a relegating of fear where the body's chemistry - presumably including the release of the right amount of adrenaline (and I am in no respects medically qualified) - provides the necessary reaction to cope with the moment when the externally imposed stress (say, Michael Holding approaching his delivery stride, or, in another, more serious age, realising a Messerschmitt 109 is on your tail!) is at its zenith. Courage is the conquest of fear & when fear is minimalised, then indeed, do sportsmen & sportswomen walk the walk that shows them to belong to that rarest of all categories - The 'Wow!' performers. (Ace fighter pilots must have had it too!)

Posted by Sathyasing on (September 11, 2013, 9:26 GMT)

Great stuff.The values possessed by sportpersons is not measured and sometimes its been masked for some reasons.Sports should be considered as one of the assessing tool in any profession ,in academics and should apply more for leaders.Its been taken lightly in many parts of the world and hope more research work or crossfunctional studies in this area will define a new dimension in the coming days.

Posted by tickcric on (September 11, 2013, 9:11 GMT)

Thanks for this wonderful discussion. Courage has to be one the fundamental factors, if not the most important one to reach greatness. I think the debate over mind over matter is misleading. As human beings we are mind-matter, the psychological and physical are intermingled each coaffecting the other. Genetics can give an athlete a great edge, like Bolt or Phelps but surely their courage, concentration have played pivotal role in making them giants of sporting world. These factors (courage, determination, focus) are not just pschological. They come and/or developed through a interplay of both physical and mental forces in the individual.

Posted by Ayan_D on (September 11, 2013, 6:37 GMT)

"The courage to perform when thousands are urging you to fail - or, worse, succeed". Wow.

Posted by vikram501 on (September 11, 2013, 5:51 GMT)

Good article Rob. I have one comment regarding this line - "Sport is uniquely taxing because it asks young bodies to do the work of seasoned minds". Don't you think it is more the other way around - i.e. unlike other professions the challenge with sports is unique because young minds need to get the best out of seasoned bodies.

Posted by   on (September 11, 2013, 5:49 GMT)

Brilliant stuff. My favorite cricket articles end up talking about a lot more than cricket. Thanks a lot!

Posted by Jstreeter on (September 11, 2013, 3:36 GMT)

Not sure about the comparison between Gooch and Gower. Gower may have scored more ashes centuries, but the measure of a player then was not performance against Australia, a weak team in at least three of the ashes series Gower played in (1978/79, 1985, 1986/7). Gooch scored five centuries against West Indies to Gower's one, and West Indies were the best team throughout both of their careers.

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Rob SteenClose
Rob Steen Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton, whose books include biographies of Desmond Haynes and David Gower (Cricket Society Literary Award winner) and 500-1 - The Miracle of Headingley '81. His investigation for the Wisden Cricketer, "Whatever Happened to the Black Cricketer?", won the UK section of the 2005 EU Journalism Award "For diversity, against discrimination"

    Trading places

All Out Cricket: In a world where £50m can be staked on a single IPL game, armies of professional cricket traders work the betting markets. But who are these people?

The set-up

The Cricket Monthly: When Tony Greig was outwitted by Ashley Mallett
Download the app: for iPad | for Android tablet

    Automaton, man, inspiration

Twenty years on, Shivnarine Chanderpaul continues to be understated. And that doesn't bother him. What's not to like? By Brydon Coverdale

    85 Tests, 70 defeats

Numbers Game: Bangladesh's stats are easily the worst among all teams when they'd played as many Tests

The case against revoking ODI status

Tim Wigmore: The ICC's decision to restrict the number of ODI teams deprives Associates of the ability to generate enough funds to survive, and to gain new fans

News | Features Last 7 days

Champions League T20 still battling for meaning

The thrills are rather low-octane, the skills are a bit lightweight, and the tournament overly India-centric

From Constantine to Chanderpaul

As West Indies play their 500th Test, here's an interactive journey through their Test history

Busy keepers, and Waqar's bowleds

Also, high scores and low averages, most ducks in international cricket, and the 12-year-old Test player

'My kind of bowling style is gone now'

Former New Zealand seamer Gavin Larsen talks about wobbly seam-up bowling, the 1992 World Cup, and his role in the next tournament

Automaton, man, inspiration

Twenty years on, Shivnarine Chanderpaul continues to be understated, underestimated. And that doesn't bother him. What's not to like?

News | Features Last 7 days