So I was thinking about trends in the NBA and how you could conceivably use terminology typically applied to competitive video games to describe it and that got me thinking of the question in the title. The first question is, what do we mean by depth? Imo there are two ways to define depth here- technical and strategic. By technical depth, I mean actual physical skills required to play the game (e.g. shooting in basketball), both in terms of their skill ceiling and their relative importance to the sport in question (as an example, compare the relative importance of skill vs athleticism in basketball and swimming). Then there's strategic depth, which I see as the game plan devised in order to win, usually by a coach.
The first thing that stands out is that almost all racing sports (swimming, track, etc.) have almost no depth according to my definitions. There's a significant mental element that plays into these things, which means they're not totally devoid of depth, and even at an elite level technique can be optimised, but overall these sports are defined by the demands of athleticism- if you're not a world class athlete, you cannot succeed in say, competitive swimming whatsoever. The second is that strategic depth strongly correlates with the frequency of stoppages or resets of play. This allows teams/coaches to manage the tactics and strategies utilised in play to an even greater extent, increasing their importance and the overall depth of the game. There is perhaps no greater example of this than in gridiron (no, I'm not calling it football), which takes this to almost comical extremes, however basketball is also notable, as is tennis, with the latter being notable for banning mid-match coaching due to the expectation that players are responsible for their strategies/tactics. That's not to say that more continuous sports can't also be deep in this regard- I'm thinking of football here- but they're generally not as deep.
So I kinda already touched on some of the sports I think have the most strategic depth, but what about technical depth? Again, I think tennis and basketball rank extremely highly here. Shooting is the most prominent skill in basketball with a high skill ceiling, as even the best players in the world miss more shots than they take due to the level of precision required, while from a purely mechanical standpoint it's a highly complex motion with plenty of room for optimisation. The latter point doesn't quite apply to dribbling and passing (I don't think defending is anywhere near as technical, being more about decision-making than anything), but they also have extremely high potential skill ceilings. Tennis I feel is self-explanatory. Again, there is a lot of room for mastery of complex techniques, while it demands power and precision simultaneously to an extent that I think is unrivalled.
Anyway, I might've missed something and idk if you agree with my premise/definitions or my conclusions, but hey, that's what discussion is about right?
The first thing that stands out is that almost all racing sports (swimming, track, etc.) have almost no depth according to my definitions. There's a significant mental element that plays into these things, which means they're not totally devoid of depth, and even at an elite level technique can be optimised, but overall these sports are defined by the demands of athleticism- if you're not a world class athlete, you cannot succeed in say, competitive swimming whatsoever. The second is that strategic depth strongly correlates with the frequency of stoppages or resets of play. This allows teams/coaches to manage the tactics and strategies utilised in play to an even greater extent, increasing their importance and the overall depth of the game. There is perhaps no greater example of this than in gridiron (no, I'm not calling it football), which takes this to almost comical extremes, however basketball is also notable, as is tennis, with the latter being notable for banning mid-match coaching due to the expectation that players are responsible for their strategies/tactics. That's not to say that more continuous sports can't also be deep in this regard- I'm thinking of football here- but they're generally not as deep.
So I kinda already touched on some of the sports I think have the most strategic depth, but what about technical depth? Again, I think tennis and basketball rank extremely highly here. Shooting is the most prominent skill in basketball with a high skill ceiling, as even the best players in the world miss more shots than they take due to the level of precision required, while from a purely mechanical standpoint it's a highly complex motion with plenty of room for optimisation. The latter point doesn't quite apply to dribbling and passing (I don't think defending is anywhere near as technical, being more about decision-making than anything), but they also have extremely high potential skill ceilings. Tennis I feel is self-explanatory. Again, there is a lot of room for mastery of complex techniques, while it demands power and precision simultaneously to an extent that I think is unrivalled.
Anyway, I might've missed something and idk if you agree with my premise/definitions or my conclusions, but hey, that's what discussion is about right?