Image by Bazuki Muhammad/Reuters
The NYTimes ran a great article the other day surrounding the controversy and “scandal” that was the badminton doubles competition. For those sitting in a cave, 4 pairs of teams from various countries played terribly in their last group stage matches because they wanted to either draw or lose, so as to play a less difficult opponent in the elimination rounds.
At first glance, I was shocked to say the least; the fact that a team would decidedly throw a game felt so fundamentally wrong. But then I read that NYTimes article and it really got me to think: was what those teams did wrong? Or, simply part of their overall winning strategy? The NYTimes lists many different times, in many different sports, where athletes don’t necessarily “give it their all” at any particular moment, and yet, no one reacts as we did when we found out about what those badminton teams were doing on the court.
“They simply looked at the information that was presented to them, looked at their ultimate goal and went in the direction that seemed to have the best chance of leading them there. A loss in those matches, they decided, would give them a better path to winning a medal. How is this different from, say, a swimmer who coasts to the wall in a preliminary heat or a runner who jogs past the finish line in a semifinal to conserve energy for the final? Is it even that much different from a baseball player bunting?” – Sam Borden, New York Times
Was the competition at the Olympic level, and all the pride, duty, honor, sacrifice, etc. to blame for our overblown reaction to what should be simply viewed as a winning strategy for teams who want to try and capture gold? What I found most surprising too, is how this has played out plenty of times in the past, particularly in major soccer tournaments like the Euro Cup or the World Cup. A team can easily win their first couple group stage matches, and then “coast” in their third match. There are caveats here of course: there are things to consider like goal differential, goals for and goals against, etc. so it would behoove the winning team to still play well. However, the thought process and logic is still there: “we don’t need to give this our all, and we don’t even mind if we lose (by that much) because we have already secured our place in the next round and cannot affect that.”
It is worth noting, too, that the notion of “always give it your all” or whatever other hoary chestnut you can imagine a hyperactive Little League coach spewing in a pregame huddle is largely Western. As the British have been so quick to remind us over the past two weeks, fair play and sportsmanship were invented here. But what does that truly mean? Play to win in a meaningless match, only to be rewarded with a more difficult path later on? – Sam Borden, New York Times
I was initially very supportive of the ruling to throw out the players, especially after watching the extremely dismal and dull display that they were putting on for the crowd (that is a separate discussion, as to whether or not the fans “deserve” to see something spectacular when it comes to competition on such a big stage). Right now I am leaning towards the camp of what those teams did was simply part of an overall winning strategy, in an attempt to provide themselves with the best possible chance of taking home gold in the end. I could be wrong.