OT - Black Athletes and Pace and Power

[Puja]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... e-coverage

Found this interesting article and wanted to share it with you lot. It reminded of a discussion I read in the NZ rugby press a while back about how it was a prejudice for years that players of Maori and Polynesian descent didn't have the control or the nous to play fly-half and how Sopoaga was breaking boundaries - that they were great to have at wing or number eight, where they could use their "pace and power", but at fly-half they were just too mercurial. Obviously racist bollocks, but the author said that youngsters got shunted out of the decision-making positions by coaches, who weren't intentionally or overtly racist, but just thought that they didn't look like a fly-half or might be better suited to the wing instead.

I then looked at English rugby and where black players tend to be - prop, lock, centre, back three. Pace and power. Made me think.

Puja

[Stom]

While I agree with the premise, there are two points to be made here...

1) All the examples given are of "beasts". Players who use their physicality exceptionally well. There's no mention of, for instance, Jay-Jay Okocha or Kevin-Prince Boateng, or even Jermain Defoe.

2) The comparison between Pogba and Andre Gomes is an interesting one, as Gomes has been someone consistently called out for NOT using his physical gifts and shirking the rough stuff. So is that not more to do with that, rather than a comment on Pogba, a player who tends to do one of two things: a showboat or a "surging" run.

It's about putting people in groups. Lampard's technical ability was often put to the side because he made those "surging" runs.

Rugby is a different case, though, and I do think there is a definite case for institutionalised racism there. It's not intended, but it's there.

[Scrumhead]

I agree. I would certainly prefer to think it is not intentional, but finding black half-backs outside of South Africa (which is still a relatively small pool) is very difficult indeed.

[twitchy]

There is a running joke in mma that commentators will often describe black fighters as "explosive". Even when they are quite slow and plodding. Like the article says a lot of it is unconscious but it's definitely worth being aware of.

[Oakboy]

All that matters is equal opportunity. FH is a unique position. Out of a 1000 aspirants at school level do 1 or 2 get to play FH at decent club level? If a black lad of the right size, with athletic ability and handling flair gets the same chance to be that one, that's all that counts.

[Which Tyler]

I just dunno. I suspect that there is unconscious racism in rugby. There has to be, it's throughout Western society.
However, towards the top level, its largely about role models and opinion formers.
The likes of Spencer or Serevi may well lead people to think that players "like that" are too mercurial and not to be trusted, whilst a Matawalu would absolutely be better on the wing than at SH.
Equally though, people like Gregan or Little would show the lie to the generalisation.

I would suspect that it just comes down to history and role models though. 30 years ago players of colour were very much the exception, and pretty much all fast guys. Oti, Guscott, Ntanack etc. So the black kids would watch them, identify with them, and want to emulate them. Did those 10 year olds who were too good looking or nimble to play in the forwards end up playing back4 because their coach put them there, or because they wanted to emulate a great player they identify with? Even if it's the coach, is that due to a "blacks are thick but athletic" mindset, or "I've got the next Guscott here"?
If it's "just" this, then it simply takes time to filter through. The more role models available, of a greater diversity, then the more kids will want to play those positions, and the more coaches will push them that way.
Of course, this problem is doubleled by the socioeconomics of rugby predominantly being played in the least diverse schools.

Of course there's a discussion to be had as to whether identity politics like this is in itself racist as well, but we do know that it's a thing.

[Puja]

All that matters is equal opportunity. FH is a unique position. Out of a 1000 aspirants at school level do 1 or 2 get to play FH at decent club level? If a black lad of the right size, with athletic ability and handling flair gets the same chance to be that one, that's all that counts.

Equality of opportunity is a myth though. Everyone has their biases and is racst to some extent. There's no such thing as being completely colourblind - the best you can hope for is to be as aware and openminded as you can to the possibility that you have flaws you don't know about yet.

The issue is that I suspect the black lad of the right size with athletic ability and handling flair doesn't get the same chance, not because of overt or conscious bias, but because he's quick and strong and looks like a full-back or wing, despite not being any quicker or stronger than the white kid who does play 10. Not saying there's anyone being wicked or mendacious, just being human.

Puja

[Stom]

All that matters is equal opportunity. FH is a unique position. Out of a 1000 aspirants at school level do 1 or 2 get to play FH at decent club level? If a black lad of the right size, with athletic ability and handling flair gets the same chance to be that one, that's all that counts.

Equality of opportunity is a myth though. Everyone has their biases and is racst to some extent. There's no such thing as being completely colourblind - the best you can hope for is to be as aware and openminded as you can to the possibility that you have flaws you don't know about yet.

The issue is that I suspect the black lad of the right size with athletic ability and handling flair doesn't get the same chance, not because of overt or conscious bias, but because he's quick and strong and looks like a full-back or wing, despite not being any quicker or stronger than the white kid who does play 10. Not saying there's anyone being wicked or mendacious, just being human.

Puja

Yeah, that's it, pretty much.

Doesn't matter if he's a really good handler, his pace and power put him at wing in the juniors and he's stuck there ever since.

[Peat]

I'd never really thought of it in rugby terms, but its certainly very conspicuous in football.

I would note though that, irregardless of race, pretty much any fly-half who relies a lot on their pace will be considered mercurial. If, like Which says, kids of different ethnic backgrounds are gravitating to the play styles of the players who look like them, then they'll run a lot, and will be considered mercurial in a half-back position.

Which may be a result of only one guys with truly special physical gifts breaking the race barrier to begin with.

[Oakboy]

All that matters is equal opportunity. FH is a unique position. Out of a 1000 aspirants at school level do 1 or 2 get to play FH at decent club level? If a black lad of the right size, with athletic ability and handling flair gets the same chance to be that one, that's all that counts.

Equality of opportunity is a myth though. Everyone has their biases and is racst to some extent. There's no such thing as being completely colourblind - the best you can hope for is to be as aware and openminded as you can to the possibility that you have flaws you don't know about yet.

The issue is that I suspect the black lad of the right size with athletic ability and handling flair doesn't get the same chance, not because of overt or conscious bias, but because he's quick and strong and looks like a full-back or wing, despite not being any quicker or stronger than the white kid who does play 10. Not saying there's anyone being wicked or mendacious, just being human.

Puja

Well put but is that still the case today or was it the case a year or two back? I really don't know but in other areas of selection there now appears to me to be an inverse prejudice. In an effort to be politically correct, minorities are given a deliberate edge in the 'benefit of doubt' areas. If a black lad declares that he wants to play FH and has the required attributes would he not get a chance?

[padprop]

This is just a hypothesis but I may suggest that white players start playing rugby earlier at very young ages whereas most black players pick up the sport in secondary school due to there being less of a cultural tradition of taking your son to his local rugby club. Therefore those white players are more likely to be lifelong fly halfs as they’ve got such early exposure and commitment to the position.

[Stom]

All that matters is equal opportunity. FH is a unique position. Out of a 1000 aspirants at school level do 1 or 2 get to play FH at decent club level? If a black lad of the right size, with athletic ability and handling flair gets the same chance to be that one, that's all that counts.

Equality of opportunity is a myth though. Everyone has their biases and is racst to some extent. There's no such thing as being completely colourblind - the best you can hope for is to be as aware and openminded as you can to the possibility that you have flaws you don't know about yet.

The issue is that I suspect the black lad of the right size with athletic ability and handling flair doesn't get the same chance, not because of overt or conscious bias, but because he's quick and strong and looks like a full-back or wing, despite not being any quicker or stronger than the white kid who does play 10. Not saying there's anyone being wicked or mendacious, just being human.

Puja

Well put but is that still the case today or was it the case a year or two back? I really don't know but in other areas of selection there now appears to me to be an inverse prejudice. In an effort to be politically correct, minorities are given a deliberate edge in the 'benefit of doubt' areas. If a black lad declares that he wants to play FH and has the required attributes would he not get a chance?

It's not intentional prejudice, Dors. It's just the way we're wired. We put people into boxes. We lump characteristics together. It's just easier to do that and it's one of the skills that let us develop as a species.

But it does lead to situations like this. Where we lump people together based on the easy characteristic of skin colour, without thinking, instead of looking at them in a bit more detail.

"Oh, he's quick and powerful, he'd make a great wing. Plus his hands are superb! That's an extra bonus".
instead of
"He has lovely hands, he'll make a great 10. Plus he's quick and powerful! That's an extra bonus".

You're not thinking less of them, you just see other attributes first.

[old-n-slo-2nd-row]

There is a lot written about the racism and prejudice surrounding black quarterbacks in the NFL. Watched a documentary about Warren Moon recently which also touched on this subject.

[Puja]

All that matters is equal opportunity. FH is a unique position. Out of a 1000 aspirants at school level do 1 or 2 get to play FH at decent club level? If a black lad of the right size, with athletic ability and handling flair gets the same chance to be that one, that's all that counts.

Equality of opportunity is a myth though. Everyone has their biases and is racst to some extent. There's no such thing as being completely colourblind - the best you can hope for is to be as aware and openminded as you can to the possibility that you have flaws you don't know about yet.

The issue is that I suspect the black lad of the right size with athletic ability and handling flair doesn't get the same chance, not because of overt or conscious bias, but because he's quick and strong and looks like a full-back or wing, despite not being any quicker or stronger than the white kid who does play 10. Not saying there's anyone being wicked or mendacious, just being human.

Puja

Well put but is that still the case today or was it the case a year or two back? I really don't know but in other areas of selection there now appears to me to be an inverse prejudice. In an effort to be politically correct, minorities are given a deliberate edge in the 'benefit of doubt' areas. If a black lad declares that he wants to play FH and has the required attributes would he not get a chance?

I think in order for any positive discrimination to happen, the bias would have to be well known (which is partly the aim of the article - to get people to think and acknowledge their biases). And coaches in schools rugby don't usually pick based on the wants of 13 year olds, but on their opinions.

On a side note, I hate the phrase "politically correct" - it's a stick to beat things you don't like with. It doesn't have any meaning in and of itself and is far too often used in sentences as a pejorative replacement for "treating other people equally and fairly".

Puja

[Puja]

Equality of opportunity is a myth though. Everyone has their biases and is racst to some extent. There's no such thing as being completely colourblind - the best you can hope for is to be as aware and openminded as you can to the possibility that you have flaws you don't know about yet.

The issue is that I suspect the black lad of the right size with athletic ability and handling flair doesn't get the same chance, not because of overt or conscious bias, but because he's quick and strong and looks like a full-back or wing, despite not being any quicker or stronger than the white kid who does play 10. Not saying there's anyone being wicked or mendacious, just being human.

Puja

Well put but is that still the case today or was it the case a year or two back? I really don't know but in other areas of selection there now appears to me to be an inverse prejudice. In an effort to be politically correct, minorities are given a deliberate edge in the 'benefit of doubt' areas. If a black lad declares that he wants to play FH and has the required attributes would he not get a chance?

It's not intentional prejudice, Dors. It's just the way we're wired. We put people into boxes. We lump characteristics together. It's just easier to do that and it's one of the skills that let us develop as a species.

But it does lead to situations like this. Where we lump people together based on the easy characteristic of skin colour, without thinking, instead of looking at them in a bit more detail.

"Oh, he's quick and powerful, he'd make a great wing. Plus his hands are superb! That's an extra bonus".
instead of
"He has lovely hands, he'll make a great 10. Plus he's quick and powerful! That's an extra bonus".

You're not thinking less of them, you just see other attributes first.

Well put.

Puja

[Scrumhead]

There are loads of factors to this. Some of them may be racist (intentionally or otherwise). However, there are definitely socio-economic and cultural factors at play too.

There is a high prevelance of black players with Nigerian heritage in English rugby (Itoje being the obvious current example) and I believe there is also statistically a higher number of students with Nigerian backgrounds in grammar/private schools than there are of West Indian heritage. It’s obviously an over simplification, but I think the Nigerian representation in rugby is definitely connected to this. Add in the fact that Nigerians are often athletically gifted and above average height and it’s not a huge surprise. Football has less of the socio-economic barriers that rugby has (perceived or otherwise) that open it up to a far broader cross-section of the black community. Plus the fact it’s a far more popular sport with more obvious role models.

[Tigersman]

Freddie Burns in his prime was considered "mercurial" by most of the commentators from what I remember.

In terms of positions, I think on the whole you would be very hard pushed to find a 10 or 9 in top flight rugby (And how many 10's seem to have dads that where coaches.....) that didn't start playing rugby since they where kids and I just don't think rugby is a big enough draw in the black communities to be getting those kids in at that age over say football.

Wing, Lock, Outside Centre, and 6/8 are relativity easy to pick up at 15+ and you can rely on more of your raw abilities than skill.

Rugby big problem is it's just not getting in a more diverse demographic at a younger age.

[Oakboy]

Equality of opportunity is a myth though. Everyone has their biases and is racst to some extent. There's no such thing as being completely colourblind - the best you can hope for is to be as aware and openminded as you can to the possibility that you have flaws you don't know about yet.

The issue is that I suspect the black lad of the right size with athletic ability and handling flair doesn't get the same chance, not because of overt or conscious bias, but because he's quick and strong and looks like a full-back or wing, despite not being any quicker or stronger than the white kid who does play 10. Not saying there's anyone being wicked or mendacious, just being human.

Puja

Well put but is that still the case today or was it the case a year or two back? I really don't know but in other areas of selection there now appears to me to be an inverse prejudice. In an effort to be politically correct, minorities are given a deliberate edge in the 'benefit of doubt' areas. If a black lad declares that he wants to play FH and has the required attributes would he not get a chance?

I think in order for any positive discrimination to happen, the bias would have to be well known (which is partly the aim of the article - to get people to think and acknowledge their biases). And coaches in schools rugby don't usually pick based on the wants of 13 year olds, but on their opinions.

On a side note, I hate the phrase "politically correct" - it's a stick to beat things you don't like with. It doesn't have any meaning in and of itself and is far too often used in sentences as a pejorative replacement for "treating other people equally and fairly".

Puja

Bloody hell, Puja. I got used to Banquo lecturing me. Now, you are doing it.

I admit to using 'politically correct' as a catch-all phrase to represent going beyond necessity and common sense. What was it Bernie Grant said, 'No-person's-land?' Now, in the interests of accuracy were there any women in the area between the trenches 1914-18?

I'll try never to use the phrase again and consider my wrists slapped.

[Puja]

Well put but is that still the case today or was it the case a year or two back? I really don't know but in other areas of selection there now appears to me to be an inverse prejudice. In an effort to be politically correct, minorities are given a deliberate edge in the 'benefit of doubt' areas. If a black lad declares that he wants to play FH and has the required attributes would he not get a chance?

I think in order for any positive discrimination to happen, the bias would have to be well known (which is partly the aim of the article - to get people to think and acknowledge their biases). And coaches in schools rugby don't usually pick based on the wants of 13 year olds, but on their opinions.

On a side note, I hate the phrase "politically correct" - it's a stick to beat things you don't like with. It doesn't have any meaning in and of itself and is far too often used in sentences as a pejorative replacement for "treating other people equally and fairly".

Puja

Bloody hell, Puja. I got used to Banquo lecturing me. Now, you are doing it.

I admit to using 'politically correct' as a catch-all phrase to represent going beyond necessity and common sense. What was it Bernie Grant said, 'No-person's-land?' Now, in the interests of accuracy were there any women in the area between the trenches 1914-18?

I'll try never to use the phrase again and consider my wrists slapped.

Okay, I'll let you off this once...

Although I'll note that there were female nurses who regularly went between the trenches to recover wounded soldiers, but that's mostly just because I'm mean.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

In terms of positions, I think on the whole you would be very hard pushed to find a 10 or 9 in top flight rugby (And how many 10's seem to have dads that where coaches.....) that didn't start playing rugby since they where kids and I just don't think rugby is a big enough draw in the black communities to be getting those kids in at that age over say football.

Wing, Lock, Outside Centre, and 6/8 are relativity easy to pick up at 15+ and you can rely on more of your raw abilities than skill.

Rugby big problem is it's just not getting in a more diverse demographic at a younger age.

Yup

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The idea that there's positive discrimination (outside South Africa) in rugby is, quite obviously, utterly bullshit. And someone who states this exists but denies any more conventional discrimination frankly has to take a long hard look at themselves.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... e-coverage

Found this interesting article and wanted to share it with you lot. It reminded of a discussion I read in the NZ rugby press a while back about how it was a prejudice for years that players of Maori and Polynesian descent didn't have the control or the nous to play fly-half and how Sopoaga was breaking boundaries - that they were great to have at wing or number eight, where they could use their "pace and power", but at fly-half they were just too mercurial. Obviously racist bollocks, but the author said that youngsters got shunted out of the decision-making positions by coaches, who weren't intentionally or overtly racist, but just thought that they didn't look like a fly-half or might be better suited to the wing instead.

I then looked at English rugby and where black players tend to be - prop, lock, centre, back three. Pace and power. Made me think.

Puja

I admit to feeling uncomfortable at seeing a mainly white crowd shout "BEAST" when Mtawarira gets the ball but given that even his mum and dad call him Beast that's my issue as much as anything.

I had thought that football had got past this sort of thing, but I don't really follow it enough to know. It was a major issue in American football but there are a load of black QBs knocking about now so I'm guessing it's a lot less of a problem. Rugby, well it's difficult really to assess. We can see that we've progressed but with the lack of decision makers and yes the way that some talk about the black players that we do have there is probably an ongoing problem.

I've deliberately said black in relation to rugby because, as we've discussed before, there are precious few Asian (whether south or east) players knocking around these Isles. That does give you an indication that some of it is down to sheer numbers and culture. Some of it will be socio-economic, and I'm sure that some of it is down to the age that one starts to play. I suspect there is less rugby available at primary school in cities due to the restrictions of space. However there are a fair few BAME kids knocking around the clubs and preps that you'd expect some to start filtering through.

It is a complex picture. All we can do is be aware of the dangers and do our best to avoid falling into error.

[Stom]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... e-coverage

Found this interesting article and wanted to share it with you lot. It reminded of a discussion I read in the NZ rugby press a while back about how it was a prejudice for years that players of Maori and Polynesian descent didn't have the control or the nous to play fly-half and how Sopoaga was breaking boundaries - that they were great to have at wing or number eight, where they could use their "pace and power", but at fly-half they were just too mercurial. Obviously racist bollocks, but the author said that youngsters got shunted out of the decision-making positions by coaches, who weren't intentionally or overtly racist, but just thought that they didn't look like a fly-half or might be better suited to the wing instead.

I then looked at English rugby and where black players tend to be - prop, lock, centre, back three. Pace and power. Made me think.

Puja

I admit to feeling uncomfortable at seeing a mainly white crowd shout "BEAST" when Mtawarira gets the ball but given that even his mum and dad call him Beast that's my issue as much as anything.

I had thought that football had got past this sort of thing, but I don't really follow it enough to know. It was a major issue in American football but there are a load of black QBs knocking about now so I'm guessing it's a lot less of a problem. Rugby, well it's difficult really to assess. We can see that we've progressed but with the lack of decision makers and yes the way that some talk about the black players that we do have there is probably an ongoing problem.

I've deliberately said black in relation to rugby because, as we've discussed before, there are precious few Asian (whether south or east) players knocking around these Isles. That does give you an indication that some of it is down to sheer numbers and culture. Some of it will be socio-economic, and I'm sure that some of it is down to the age that one starts to play. I suspect there is less rugby available at primary school in cities due to the restrictions of space. However there are a fair few BAME kids knocking around the clubs and preps that you'd expect some to start filtering through.

It is a complex picture. All we can do is be aware of the dangers and do our best to avoid falling into error.

I don't think football really did get past it. Have a look at the English black footballers and not many of them are...creative. Plenty of wingers, strikers, hard runners, defensive midfielders, tough centrebacks, FBs...not many you'd think of as the team's creator.

It is an interesting idea, and one I hadn't really thought of before.

I don't think there is a participation problem with Asian kids, though, it's more that they don't tend to become pros. And that's true across sports. I think that's got more to do with cultural hangups and could have been something we'd see decrease if it weren't for Brexit and the added focus on race we're getting...

(Look ma, I managed to add Brexit to another debate!!!)

[Peej]

This is just a hypothesis but I may suggest that white players start playing rugby earlier at very young ages whereas most black players pick up the sport in secondary school due to there being less of a cultural tradition of taking your son to his local rugby club. Therefore those white players are more likely to be lifelong fly halfs as they’ve got such early exposure and commitment to the position.

I think this is a large part of it, actually, and it's also bound up in class. Look at guys like Itoje and Vunipola - were they going to be brought in on a scholarship to Harrow and given a chance at playing 10? Wade is similar - though went to grammar school. Hadn't grown up playing rigby, so was pushed to the wing because he was freakishly fast.

I know there's been breakdowns of state school versus private school in the England squads, but has it been done by position? Who was the last 10 to play for England who hadn't been privately educated, for example? Is it Farrell? He went to a mixed fee-paying/public school. But before him? Ford certainly was privately educated for a time. Cips was at Whitgift. Wilko was at Lord Wandsworth. Goode at King Henry VIII school, Flood at King's Priory (which was fee-paying until 2013), Hodgson at bradford Grammar (which is an independent despite the name), and Walder was at Oundle.

That's more than 10 years of 10s.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

This is just a hypothesis but I may suggest that white players start playing rugby earlier at very young ages whereas most black players pick up the sport in secondary school due to there being less of a cultural tradition of taking your son to his local rugby club. Therefore those white players are more likely to be lifelong fly halfs as they’ve got such early exposure and commitment to the position.

I think this is a large part of it, actually, and it's also bound up in class. Look at guys like Itoje and Vunipola - were they going to be brought in on a scholarship to Harrow and given a chance at playing 10? Wade is similar - though went to grammar school. Hadn't grown up playing rigby, so was pushed to the wing because he was freakishly fast.

I know there's been breakdowns of state school versus private school in the England squads, but has it been done by position? Who was the last 10 to play for England who hadn't been privately educated, for example? Is it Farrell? He went to a mixed fee-paying/public school. But before him? Ford certainly was privately educated for a time. Cips was at Whitgift. Wilko was at Lord Wandsworth. Goode at King Henry VIII school, Flood at King's Priory (which was fee-paying until 2013), Hodgson at bradford Grammar (which is an independent despite the name), and Walder was at Oundle.

That's more than 10 years of 10s.

The thing is that they've only got a couple of years head start and usually in reduced forms. A coach worth their salt should be looking to see the potential in other players. I think there's a certain amount of looking for the Officer class that goes on in England which doesn't help.