True story! Two boys were great friends at the same Primary School; both showed great potential in sport, one in rugby and the other in hockey. The key question for their parents, when it came to choosing a Secondary school for their child, was the matter of which Secondary school could bring about the sporting ambition of the child (or perhaps it was of the parent) to gain national colours. The one family chose an established school with a noted ‘success’ rate in sport while the other chose a newer school which did not match the ‘successes’ of the other. The boy who went to the established school, who played rugby, represented that school in the A team throughout his career but never played at provincial or national level at any of the age groups; the other boy, at the newer school, who played hockey, was brought into the school First team while still in Form Three and was selected for the Zimbabwe Under 17 team. Did the parents make the right choice?
There are obvious differences between the two sports and there is naturally no ‘proof’ of the claim but the story highlights the mistaken logic that many parents (and indeed schools) have about the best way for their child to achieve ‘success’ in sport. People think that if a child is very good at sport he or she must go to a school whose teams win all the time. Sadly, may parents have fallen victim to this trap; they have seen their child play for their Primary School First team and so choose a school whose teams win often, only to find that their child does not make the A team (sometimes not even the B team) of the Secondary school of their choice. However there are other, more significant, reasons that parents may have failed to note.
Firstly, greater opportunity is given to a talented player who is playing for a weaker team. He is going to face, week in and week out, stronger players and stronger teams and is therefore going to learn more quickly how to combat better players, or else he will sink. He is going to improve more quickly by being pitted against strong players and teams. In contrast, the talented player who joins a ‘successful’ winning team will not have to try too hard in order to win, will not have to develop new skills or tactics – he may simply come through on top due to his talented team-mates. When he then comes across a stronger player or team, he may not be able to cope as he has managed to coast along without any trouble in all the other matches.
Secondly, it should be noted and understood that greater responsibility will be placed on the talented, stronger player in a weaker team, and the test of a great player will be seen in how he handles responsibility. Everyone will look to the stronger player in a weaker team to carry the team through; the stronger player will not have anywhere to hide but rather has to shine. He will have more to do; he will have to do the work of others, especially against stronger teams. This writer can testify to playing for his university team in the National League Division Six while representing his country. In contrast the talented player in a stronger team can easily coast, hide or cruise without damaging his team’s cause. Instead, though, he can damage his own development. He need not do much for his team to win but can bask in the team’s glory.
It is a mistaken fallacy to claim that ‘a better school means a better player’, that a school that wins matches produces better players. That school may only win because they buy in better players, not because they coach them better. Winning does not mean that development of individual players is happening (just as a few strong schools will not help Zimbabwe to be strong).
It is a similar fallacy to that which many parents fall in thinking that if their child is offered a scholarship to a South African school or to a South African provincial rugby academy he will end up playing for the Springboks. Dream on! If he is good enough, he is good enough; if not, he will not!
It is similar to the fallacy that many parents believe that their child must gain national representation at a young age for them to go on to represent their country at full level. There are many players, this writer included, who never played for their province, let alone country, at age group level but did so
at full international – just as there are many players who were selected for their country at age group level who never were selected again.
