Let’s put some Razzmatazz into swimming!
When was the last time you overheard two strangers talking and one of them said something along the lines of “Hey, did you see the swimming on the telly last night? Wasn't it AMAZING”?
My guess is that you've never heard anyone say that. And I think there are two reasons for that. First, the average sports watcher just doesn't get that worked up about swimming and second, it isn't shown on the telly very often anyway (at least not here in the UK). Of course, the latter is a direct consequence of the former. And thus swimming is relegated to one of those sports that we might catch during the World Championships or the Olympics but for the rest of the time, for most, it's a case of being out of sight and out of mind.
Does this matter? Well, yes, I think it does. Any sport is maintained at the grass-roots level. If it is to grow and prosper then that will come from mass participation. But that in turn needs to come from the inspiration provided by those at the elite end of performance. As budgets are squeezed ever tighter, public facilities such as swimming pools need the life-blood of popularity and financial support if they are to remain viable commercial operations. Yet in 2021 a report by Swim England predicted that as many as 2,000 pools may close in the country by the end of 2030, representing a drop of 40% in the availability of quality facilities.
Watching swimmers with a the eye of a coach is always fascinating. Trying to work out what a swimmer is doing and how they might improve is a continual mental challenge and one from which most coaches cannot escape. But most spectators of course, don't have that specialised knowledge and the harsh truth needs to be faced that, if you don't understand it, swimming can be pretty mind-numbing and dull to watch.
The problem as I see it, is that there is little room for sudden excitement. Now, I freely admit that's not entirely true and many of you may well disagree. Have I never experienced the tension as a swimmers' lead is whittled away in the final 25m and inch by inch the chasing pack close him or her down until it all depends on the final touch to the wall? Naturally races like that are thrilling affairs. But just as often the lead is maintained and the result of the race is clear long before it finishes.
Even if you do get a thriller, in relative terms, the shift in the balance of power happens slowly. There's no room for the equivilent to a match-changing spectacular goal, incredible shot or miraculous save that you might find in other sports. In many sports the pattern of the match is continually changing and evolving, but swimming is one of those rarer sports wherby success largely comes from the athlete perfecting a movement pattern and then repeating it continuously and perfectly until the end (and, yes, I know that's an over-simplification, but you know what I mean). Add to this the fact that much of the stroke happens under water and out of the spectators view and you end up with a situation where the Average Joe might be able to see a swimmer being caught in the final stages of a race but have no appreciation of how or why it's happening or the skill being demonsrated.
So what, if anything, can be done? How can the sport be made more exciting, increasing its profile and thus, hopefully attracting more funding which can trickle down to the benefit of all?
I am no expert in these things but I see potential parallels in another sport which has an even worse reputation for being dull to watch. Cricket. I appreciate that not all of you are familiar with the game and I have to confess to loving it myself. However, to many, all they see is a man running up, throwing a ball at an opposition player who watches it sail by without doing anything and then everyone waits for two minutes before that all happens again. And that goes on for five days. And at the end of it all it's a draw; no-one has even won. Just occasionally a batsman might be dismissed. Or he might hit a shot to the boundary, but on the whole, very little happens.
If you went to a cricket match thirty years ago it was almost always like that. Yes, there were different types of bowlers and diffferent shots played and the fielders occasionally moved to stand somewhere else but, if you didn't understand why or how that happened, then to be honest, half the enjoyment lay in sitting in a semi-somnambulant state in the sun with the occasional burst of lethargic applause. And if it should start to rain there was the very civilised tradition that everyone went indoors for a nice cup of tea and a bun.
And so the popularity of cricket began to decline as spectators drifted away to more dynamic and involving entertainment.
Gradually waking up to this phenomenan the cricket authorities realised that they needed to change. They recognised that, whilst the purists might still appreciate the difference between a Chinaman bowled over the wicket and a Googly bowled around the wicket, most spectators hadn't a clue what that meant and cared even less. What they wanted was to see was the batsman's stumps cartwheeling out of theground or the batsman wellying the ball high into the stands. And in order to force players to do that more the shortened version of the game became more popular.
Each side was limited to just fifty overs (an “over” being six deliveries for the uninitatted). Then the T20 format was develped (twenty overs per side). Now “The 100” is taking root. No time now to get a feel for match. For the batsman it's crash bang wallop from the get-go. Risks are taken. Big shots are scored but if they get it wrong the bowlers can easily come out on top. Add in some flamethrowers, dancing girls, coloured clothing, television adjudication of disputed umpiring decisions and a pulsating bass-heavy rock soundtrack whenever there is a lull in the action and it's pretty pulsating stuff. A mile away from the gentle atmosphere of the village green. Some would say that something important has been lost from the traditional character of cricket but there's no denying that the new fomats are packing them in.
So can swimming learn some lessons from cricket? Why not? What is stopping the setting up of a league of teams which the public can relate to and support? Why not re-structure competions so that there are more of the exciting bits and less of the repetitive bits? Would you, for example, watch a race where the slowest competitor is eliminated every 25m so that swimmers have to balance their speed to make sure they aren't ever in last place with consrving their energy to last the entire race? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure there are better ideas out there. But is anyone exploring them? Is anyone noting the undeniable assets that swimming has of scantily clad athletic bodies (of both genders in case you think I'm being sexist) and an echoy environment ideally suited to blasting out heavy rock music and having it reverberate until your teeth rattle? Add some flashing lights and a hysterical commentator and now you've got a TV event!
Yes, all this razzmatazz will mean that something of the heart of the sport is lost. But we may have to recognise that this is a price worth paying. For most people the true skill and subtlty of swimming can only be appreciated by “doing” not “watching”. Unless they swim themselves, the majority of folks don't appreciate the skill of the top level swimmer and they never will. But they need some sort of inspiration to get into the water and experience the challenges and the skills for themselves. In a world of “use it or lose it” the swimming authorities need to do whatever they can to make that happen.
Phil
(Please note. The views expressed here are my own. They do not necessarily reflect those of SwimMastery)