‘A vision of paradise lost’: coaching as a grasshopper rather than an ant

ABSTRACT

The work of Bernard Suits continues to be discussed in the sports philosophy field, over forty years after the publication of his brilliant book, The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia. Much of this discussion has looked at how the perfectionist consequences of Suits’ definition of game playing impacts on gamewrighting. However, it is not just the cheat, the trifler, the spoilsport, or even the subperfectionist that the gamewrighter must be concerned with. This paper uses the spirit of the Grasshopper to suggest that what we should also be concerned about in contemporary sport at almost all levels, and what gamewrighting discussions should focus on, is the loss of player autonomy because of the control exerted by coaches, managers and analysts.

KEYWORDS:

• Suits
• gamewrighting
• perfectionism
• autonomy
• coaching
• analytics

Acknowledgments

I am enormously grateful to both Cheryl Ballantyne, Bernard Suits’ widow, who permitted me access to Bernard Suits’ collected work that is stored as fonds in the University of Waterloo Library, and to the kind librarian, Martha Lauzon, who copied and sent the files that I had requested. This does not give this work any special legitimacy, as the work is an extension of my reading of Suits. I am solely responsible for any misreadings of the work of Bernard Suits. I am also grateful to the two reviewers, and the editor Paul Gaffney, for their constructively critical, but still very kind, comments. In truth, this paper was messy before these comments helped me to work out its narrative themes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. John Gleaves (2017) has produced a strong and cogent criticism of the essentialism of the ‘comparative test premise’ that underpins both realist and antirealist depictions of perfectionism in sport.

2. William Morgan’s (2018, 2009) treatment/enhancement distinction is one example of a counterpoint to the universality of anti-doping laws, as is the John Devine example that I use in this paper.

3. It would be interesting to survey how many leading sports philosophers were also excellent, or excessively competitive, at their chosen sporting pastimes.

4. Jon Pike gives a good working example of the steps taken by World Rugby in dealing with regulations concerning transwomen players in women’s rugby, as the process included ‘key stakeholders and experts’ arguing the case from their different interested positions (2021, 156). For the purpose of this paper, how broadly we draw lines around discursive communities is important. Will the inexpert be included within the process that informs gamewrighting discussions?

5. Much of the first chapter of Suits’ book addresses this issue of grasshopperian perfection, so this claim is not a critique of Suits’ position. Grasshopper is, of course, excellent at being idle – and this ultimately leads to his death when confronting a winter of scarcity.

6. As suggested to me by Paul Gaffney, tennis is toying with the idea of allowing some coaching during matches. This would be a regressive step in my view. Golf continues to be played without coaches in most situations, although maybe the caddy is taking on more of a de-facto coaching role. Netball is an interesting team sport where sideline coaching is actively prevented by umpires, at least in junior competitions. However, even netball leagues at elite levels have now introduced the mid-period time-out.