Just some food for thought.
Recently heard an interview with Jeffrey Ma (the MIT student about whom the book "Bringing Down The House" was written in regards a college student becoming a blackjack expert and being banned from Las Vegas) and he introduced some interesting theory as to the mindset of sporting players and coaches.
He now works as a consultant to the sporting industry and how the mathematics of gambling can be implemented in the sporting world. He believes there is one great premise that most coaches work upon which is best described by the British Economist John Maynard Keynes which is loosely translated as "a man would rather lose by taking a conservative option instead of attempting to win via unconventional means".
Whilst it is mainly based on American sports, such as in American Football where coaches always take the 40+ yard field goal attempt when on 4th and 1 yardage when the statistics overwhelmingly favour going for it on 4th down. Just why would coaches do this? The only logical answer is the aforementioned Keynesian theory.
Very few coaches simply do not have the job security to make a risky move and not pay a hefty penalty if it goes pear shaped. You can almost hear the supporters baying for the blood of the coach if a match was lost on what was deemed an unconventional decision. Kevin Sheedy is widely lauded for seemingly thinking outside the square but in retrospect was some of his decision making assisted by being very secure in his surroundings and feeling free to take that risk.
Cricket selectors always stick to a formatted team structure but as an example, would it be better if they played 6 bowlers on certain flat tracks on the sub continent to give them greater hope of obtaining the necessary 20 wickets to win a match on pitches where batting collapses are almost non existent. The answer is probably not but we will never really get to know as no selector would be brave enough to go outside what are considered normal boundaries.
Ma also mentioned a recent golf tournament that featured a 280 yard par 4 which was drivable for the entire field yet less than 50% of players attempted to drive the green and at the end of 4 rounds those who pulled out the big stick averaged 3.41 shots for the hole opposed to 3.78 for those who laid up off the tee. When he questioned a few of the players as to why they laid up, the common answer was "I trust my short game enough to put it inside 10 feet if I lay up". Clearly a safety first mentality.
Horse trainers are creatures of habit with an if it ain't broke then don't fix it mentality and it makes me think if many of them would have had the foresight to ride Vo Rogue in the manner he was ridden under instructions by Vic Rail who definitely was of a different ilk to most.
Some of the great moments in Australian sport have come about when coaches have taken a risk. The 1970 Grand Final is widely regarded as changing the face of the game with Carlton being instructed to handball and run by Ron Barassi when nearly 40 points down at half time and getting up to win.
Well, why don't more take the risk? Its a simple answer, you only have to ask Shane Dye who is still hearing about the ride on Vendercross in the Caulfield Cup, Damien Martyn attempting a lavish drive in a Sydney test v South Africa also springs to mind and anybody who follows American sport will recall the outcry by Patriots fans when coach Bill Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 last year and failed when a field goal would have sent the match to overtime and that is just naming a few.
However, the major reason players and coaches don't take the risk is that they want to keep their job which essentially supports the Keynesian theory that "a man would rather lose by taking a conservative option instead of attempting to win via unconventional means".
Can't believe I am quoting Keynes! Thought I had heard the last of him after finishing my Uni degree.
