Adventure has always been part of being human. From the early explorers who discovered that the world wasn’t as flat as it seemed, through to the invention of the Gap year. Discovery, surprise and uncertainty have always held appeal. Unpredictability is always potentially exciting or terrifying – and has been since dinosaurs roamed the planet.
This human inclination is repressed by a risk assessment culture. The principle of foreseeing and denying risk is at odds with the fundamental appeal of novelty and discovery. It might be sensible and functional, but it opposes the human desire for excitement.
A risk averse world needs sports, games and adventure activities to fulfil this need. But there is a fundamental difference between sport which reflects adventure, and that which is itself risk averse. The teams and players that captured the heart and imagination throughout history are not those that were efficient and error free. Though this approach might win competitive success, it rarely lights up the soul.
Risk is a strange thing. On an intellectual level, it is undesirable. But on an emotional basis, it has considerable, intoxicating appeal. The best sports experiences reflect this. The teams that flirt with danger and err on the side of adventure, are the ones that produce the memorable moments of magic. Those teams and players are remembered long after the efficiency driven achievements of their rivals. They suggest a different way of living, characterised by swashbuckling daring, a denial of logic and freedom from restriction. Flirting fearlessly on the knife edge between success and failure. Life lived to the full. An escape from care and terror of consequences.
Great games live long in the memory. Uncertainty is a significant part of their greatness. The outcome is in doubt until the last minute, There are heart stopping moments, when brilliance defies disaster. Emotions are heightened, and the functional world is temporarily suspended.
When school sport is seen as a vehicle for creativity, enterprise and excitement, it is delivered in a certain way. It is fashionable for schools to claim that they encourage pupils to take risks. Games can be a vehicle for delivering this approach, though it is an opportunity squandered by schools whose teams pursue victory through “patterns” and “systems” intended to reduce mistakes and promote efficiency. Attitudes to error and risk are too important to be left to individual coaches to make up as they go along. This should be a carefully considered organisational strategy, which is consistently implemented in all sports by coaches whose approach is quality controlled to deliver desired outcomes. There needs to be a cultural acceptance that errors made in an adventurous approach are acceptable and supported; only errors of effort are unacceptable.
Sport is neutral. It can be tense, exciting and uncertain – or it can seek to eliminate these qualities and replace them with predictability and efficiency. It’s a choice. But a Stachanovite approach to games can never be wholly satisfying, even when its fills the trophy cabinet. Sport can be an escape from the functional into a world of excitement, wonder and unpredictability – or it can be a reflection of a risk averse society. It’s a choice. And in youth sport, it is usually a choice made by adult coaches on behalf of their players.
