The recent poor results of the Swedish men’s national team created quite a debate on social media, eventually extending in to local and national media (TV, newspapers). Once again, arguements displaying a varying level of “infomed” opinion have contributed to a polarised debate. A particular feature of this most recent debate was the amount of reductionist cause-effect arguments. Other countries or clubs do X and they get Y, we need to do the same. If it was only that simple! Further, a basic understanding of math should make it clear that decisons made in recent years (changes in coach education, removing the publication of results and tables before 13 years) have nothing to do with the results of the national team.
Another misguided argument is that we need more individual/isolated training with the younger players. From a Stockholm perspective, I doubt that there is any other country in Europe that has dedicated more time to individual and isolated training in practice and coach education (until 2014) than Sweden has over the last 25 years. Believe me, I have attended these courses!
This idea of more and more individualised/isolated training is a ’sticky’ culturally resilient belief that contributes to an inertia in Swedish youth football. It seems to partly have its roots in the false idea that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert. Indeed, SvFF have themselves contributed to this idea. A UEFA Pro course (highest UEFA coach qualification) held by the Swedish FA (SvFF) in Gothenburg in May 2011, claimed:
Becoming a good player has nothing to do with talent, it’s just about training. Everything is possible to influence through training except its length. There is a more or less accepted belief in the so-called “10-year rule” which states that to become an expert in an area requires a minimum of 10 years of training (Tipselit, 2011).
The message promoted here is associated with Malcolm Gladwell’s (2008) ‘popular’ misinterpretation of Ericsson and colleagues’ (1993) work on deliberate practice. The incredible momentum of this idea of the 10,000-hour rule, generated in Gladwell’s (2008) book, may go some way to explaining why many clubs, parents and coaches have bought in to the unnecessary generalisation that development of expertise has all to do with accumulated volume of practice (Seifert et al. 2018).
These generalized ideas are further confounded by a cultural -histiorical inheritance that has had a cascading influence on the type of practices promoted and appreciated in Swedish youth football (as highlighted in the recent debate). This can be traced back to the 1970s, when the pedagogical legitimacy of SvFF’s ‘Swedish model’ (based on the West German model) was being questioned by the successful sporting results and the seemingly more professional nature projected by the ‘English model’ (introduced to Sweden by professional coaches Bob Houghton and Roy Hodgson). The English model promoted a ‘teacher-centered’ pedagogy, where the coach had the overall picture of how the game should be organised and the players needed to comply, internalising the systematised knowledge that the coach promoted (Peterson,1993). This coach-imposed approach drew parallels with behaviourist (neglecting the players agency in thelearning process) (Lyle & Cushion, 2017) and information processing theories (Fitts & Posner, 1967; Schmidt,1975), that have underpinned traditional ‘drill/skill’ approaches (North et al., 2015). This was exemplified in the intricacies of the ‘technical register’ (coaching folder and video archive of 31 films11), that dominated coach education in Swedish football until 2014.
These type of practices promoted placed an emphasis on instructions and corrective feedback for reproducing forms of movement or predetermined patterns of play.The ‘technique register’ was sold as a ‘gold-standard textbook’ of ideal movements, promoting a reliance on external agency (i.e., high levels of instruction and feedback) in coach education, and a reductionist and mechanistic attitude towards practice and performance. Developed within and across generations, this perspective shaped beliefs, and expectations about coaching and how practice in child youth football should look.
Against this cultural-historical tide, the Swedish FA have in recent years done some serious reflection; and utilising a more evidence-based approach to human learning in development have attempted (it is still ongoing) to implement major changes in the area of coach education. In a recent article in Swedish national newspaper Dagens Nyheter, SvFF Technical Director Perra Widén and his colleague Claes Eriksson (head of development U21 national team), made a valuable contribution to this debate that deserves some analysis.
Here Perra highlights a major recent change in coach education:
– We are moving from a top-down steered leadership (coach centered) to a more involved leadership (player-environment centered)-to help players learn to make decisions themselves.
This is a welcome move towards a more ‘modern’ pedagogy that has the intention of shaking off some rather sticky culturally resilient beliefs and attitudes. For example, the idea of the young player being central to the learning process (not the coach) is something that will require a lot of education and patience, if the recent debate is anything to go by. The coach centered technical register, based on fake fundamentals and a one size fits all approach, has thankfully been shelved. Maybe another blog is needed to highlight how ideas promoted in the technical register may contribute to an excessive number of injuries in young players, having a possible negative effect on well-being.
On analysing the interview with Perra Widén and his colleague Claes Eriksson, a much deeper and more important message, in line with much of the current research into youth player development, is illuminated. Sweden is NOT Germany, Italy or Holland. We can even break it down, Swedish clubs are NOT Ajax, Barcelona or Liverpool. Context is key! To further highlight this point, North et al (2015) in their UEFA study of 7 top football nations warned against the uncritical application of practice ideas from other successful countries and clubs. It was argued that an approach which works in one socio-cultural context may be DISTRACTING or even DETRIMENTAL in another.
This message was central to a podcast discussion I had with the Dutch FA and the Canadian Soccer Association in May 2020 -If you try and copy and paste someone else’s ideas, it just won’t work!
The problem is, when you copy a Dutch model or a Dutch way (e.g.,Ajax) in to another country, it will not work. Our infrastructure is so unique for example. – Jan Verbeek (KNVB)
Jason DeVos, who has revamped coach education in Canada and is assistant coach with the Canadian national team that qualified for their first World Cup since 1986, added:
If I had a dollar for every person that told me that you just need to copy what Germany does, Belgium does, what Iceland does, then I would be able to retire right now – Jason DeVos (Canadian Soccer Association)
In summary, player development frameworks should evolve in, interaction with the socio-cultural context in which individuals are embedded- THERE IS NO COPY and PASTE TEMPLATE! (O’Sullivan et al., 2021)
For a practical example of how to move from a top-down steered leadership (coach centered) to a more involved leadership (player-environment centered)-to help players learn to make decisions themselves.(Sullivan et al., 2021), and place the player at the center of the learning process, please check this link:
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Brooks/Cole
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little Brown and Company
Lyle, J., & Cushion, C. (2017). Sport coaching concepts: A framework for coaching practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
North, J., Lara-Bercial, S., Morgan, G., & Rongen, F. (2015). The identification of good practice principles to inform player development and coaching in European youth football. Report commissioned by UEFA’s Research Grant Programme 2013–2014.
O’Sullivan, M., Vaughan, J., Rumbold, J. & Davids, K. (2021a). The Learning in
Development Research Framework for sports organizations. Sport, Education &
Peterson, T. (1993). The Swinglish model. Studentlitteratur.
Seifert, L., Papet, V., Strafford, B. W., Coughlan, E. K., & Davids, K. (2018). Skill transfer, expertise and talent development: An ecological dynamics perspective. Movement & Sport Sciences/Science & Motricité, (102), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2019010
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 225–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076770
Sullivan, M. O., Woods, C. T., Vaughan, J., & Davids, K. (2021). Towards a contemporary player learning in development framework for sports practitioners. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 16(5), 1214-1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211002335
The Learning in Development Research Framework for Sports Organizations
Recently some colleagues and I published a paper in the Sport, Education and Society journal. The paper, published August 2021, introduces the framework that James Vaughan and I have been using to carry out research at AIK youth football since 2017. More recently, English Premier League club Southampton FC have adopted the research framework (more on this later).
The importance of understanding how we become skillful is very important for sports organizations, especially in the realm of athlete development and for enhancing expertise (Clarke, 1995; Ribeiro et al., 2021). It has been recognized that a sports organization is part of a complex, multi-layered system, where the social, cultural, and historical contexts in which development occurs, are important constraints on the development and understanding of skilled performance (Bjørndal & Ronglan, 2019). However, traditional research approaches tend to neglect many of these critical features (e.g., sociocultural constraints) that have important implications for transferring findings to applied settings (e.g., coaching, talent development) (Araújo et al., 2007). Indeed, it was highlighted in a previous blog (see here), how specific unique social, cultural and historical factors, invite the potential for a myriad of possible complex, unpredictable and ill-defined challenges. We need to find ways to highlight and harness these factors (O’Sullivan et al., 2021; Vaughan et al., 2019).
In response, some colleagues and I proposed the Learning in Development Research Framework (LDRF), as a powerful theoretical and methodological framework to exemplify a move towards understanding human (athlete) action in the very contexts that behaviour occurs (Brunswik, 1955). The LDRF adopts an ecological perspective that simultaneously places an emphasis on both the individual and environment and their reciprocal interactions (Araújo et al., 2017). Consistent with this perspective, learning is understood to occur in the midst of ongoing developmental changes (Adolph, 2019), within speci!c socioecological contexts (Flôres et al., 2019), influenced by numerous contextualized, reciprocal interactions between people and places (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Vaughan et al., 2019). More directly, the LDRF offers as a novel way of guiding research and action, supporting the notion that athlete development frameworks should evolve in interaction with the sociocultural context in which individuals are embedded.
In the paper we provided a case study where we connected the (inter)actions of young players and the intentions of coaches to the sociocultural and historical context. Further, we highlighted how we utilized these findings to devise interventions to probe the system (e.g., amplify and dampen helpful and unhelpful factors that shape learning in development)
The following paragraph is an example of some of the findings from the first research phase that informed the first action phase (interventions/probes) at the club.
A coach centered “control over context” pedagogical inheritance
It was identified that coaching skill was being shaped by a landscape of traditional coach edu- cation practices, founded upon specific sociocultural and historical constraints. For instance, training designs in Swedish coach education have historically been underpinned by a culturally dominant planning paradigm, arguably promoting the assumption that human behavior can be predicted and controlled (e.g. coach determines in advance the specific theme, presents predetermined coaching points and controls the sequence and duration for each part of the session). Global-to-local processes were amplified in a coaching culture that attempted to control future outcomes. The actions of young players were routinely ‘drilled’ in choreographed practices where predetermined passing patterns were performed to be later regurgitated in competitive games. Indeed, these practices promoted in coach education highlighted a cultural-historical inheritance. This can be traced back to the 1970s, when the pedagogical legitimacy of the Swedish Football Association’s ‘Swedish model’ (based on West German football) was being questioned by the successful sporting results and the seemingly more professional nature projected by the ‘English model’ (introduced to Sweden by Bob Houghton and Roy Hodgson). This model promoted a ‘teacher-centered’ pedagogy, where the coach had the overall picture of how the game should be organized and the players needed to internalize the systematized knowledge that the coach pro- moted (Eliasson, 2003; Peterson, 1993). Subsequently, Sven Göran Eriksson successfully adopted the English model, developing it into the ‘Swenglish model’ which became the accepted model of prac- tice for the SvFF (Peterson, 1993).
We hope that this paper can support sports organizations, coaches, practitioners in becoming more aware of the extent to which different and unique sociocultural and historical constraints continuously shape their work. There is no copy and paste template, athlete development frameworks should evolve in, interaction with the sociocultural context in which individuals are embedded.
Earworm!!!
References
Adolph, K. (2019). An ecological approach to learning in (not and) development. Human Development, 63, 180–201. https://doi.org/ 10.1159/000503823
Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Passos, P. (2007). Ecological validity, representative design and correspondence between experimental task constraints and behavioral settings. Ecological Psychology, 19, 69–78
Araújo, D., Hristovski, R., Seifert, L., Carvalho, J., & Davids, K. (2017). Ecological cognition: Expert decision-making behaviour in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1349826
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R.M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 783–828). John Wiley & Sons.
Bjørndal, C., & Ronglan, L. T. (2019). Engaging with uncertainty in athlete development – orchestrating talent development through incremental leadership. Sport, Education and Society, 26(1), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13573322.2019.1695198
Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional
psychology. Psychological Review, 62(3), 193.
Clark, J. E. (1995). On becoming skillful: Patterns and constraints. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(3), 173–183. doi:10.1080/02701367.1995.10608831
Flôres, F.S., Rodrigues, L.P., Copetti, F., Lopes, F., & Cordovil, R. (2019). Affordances for motor skill development in home, school, and sport environments: A narrative review. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 126(3), 366–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512519829271
O’Sullivan, M., Vaughan, J., Rumbold, J. & Davids, K. (2021). The Learning in Development Research Framework for sports organizations. Sport, Education & Society. doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1966618
Peterson, T. (1993). The Swinglish model. Studentlitteratur.
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Davids, K., Potrac, P., & López-Felip, M. A. (2019). Developing creativity to enhance human potential in sport: A wicked transdisciplinary challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02090
Ribeiro, J., Davids, K., Silva, P., Coutinho, P., Barreira, D., & Garganta, J. (2021). Talent Development in Sport Requires Athlete Enrichment: Contemporary Insights from a Nonlinear Pedagogy and the Athletic Skills Model. Sports Medicine, 51, 1115 – 1122.
År 2015 släppte Internationella olympiska kommittén (IOK) en rapport som väckte oro över de senaste trenderna inom ungdomsidrott. Uttalandet ifrågasatte giltigheten av traditionella talangutvecklingsmodeller inom ungdomsidrott, samtidigt som det hänvisade till problematiken med tidig specialisering, föräldrapress, coachstilar, mediesensationalism och synen på ungdomar som handelsvaror (Bergeron et al, 2015). Fortsättningsvis rekommenderade IOK att ramverken för ungdomsutveckling inom idrott måste vara mer flexibla, med en kombination av både bästa träning och erfarenhet som stöds av kvalitetsuppdaterad forskning.
Sökandet efter den alkemiska processen för hur man identifierar och utvecklar professionella idrottare/spelare har beskrivits som den ”heliga gralen” för alla idrottsnationer (Weissenteiner, 2017). Miljöer inom fotboll som framgångsrikt utvecklar profesionella spelare kan avnjuta en ökad finansiell vinst och erkännande. (Henriksen, 2011). Detta sökandet har blivit mer intensiv sedan “Bernard -fallet” 2010, en uppföljning av Bosman -domen från 1995. EU -domstolen beslutade att fotbollsklubbar kan söka ersättning, om unga spelare de har tränat tecknade sitt första proffskontrakt med ett lag i ett annat EU -land. Ungdomsfotboll kunde nu beskrivas som en ekonomisk aktivitet och därmed uppmuntra till utbildningen av unga ”talangfulla” spelare som en form av investering i humankapital (Hendrickx, 2010). Detta har utan tvekan påskyndat ett “talent arm race” och resulterat i en trend att importera och reproducera talangutvecklingsmodeller från “framgångsrika” nationer eller klubbar, samtidigt som det delvis gav kontexten för att ytterligare legitimera och motivera den genomgripande användningen av det som har blivit allmänt känt som ’The Standard Model of Talent Development’ (SMTD).
SMTD (Bailey & Collins, 2013) delar gemensamma egenskaper som nu är centrala principer för talangvecklingsprogram runt om i världen (Güllich, 2014; Rongen et al., 2018). Till exempel, basera identifiering på tidig förmåga eller fysiologiska och/eller antropometriska mätningar; samt uteslutande av spelare från systemet när de går från en nivå (åldersgrupp) till en annan (Bjørndal et al., 2017). Denna pyramid-liknande struktur som är beroende av en stark samordnad central stryrning, saknar både empirisk och konceptuell validitet. (Bjørndal et al., 2017).
Trots dessa insikter är strukturerade spelarutvecklingsmodeller världen runt relativt homogena och vanliga, med många klubbar och organisationer som satsar stort på professionalisering av identifiering och utveckling av talanger (Ford et al., 2012, Williams et al., 2020). Forskning av Ford och kollegor (2020) i 29 av de bäst rankade professionella fotbollsklubbarna från hela världen belyste en relativt hög årlig omsättning av spelare, cirka 29%, genom alla åldersgrupper. Detta visade en pågående svårighet att identifiera unga spelare och behålla dem i systemet, samtidigt som de avslöjade systemens medföljande svårigheter att hantera variationer i prestation och utveckling som är naturligt förekommande aspekter av livet och lärandet inom sport (Adolph, 2019; Balagué et al. , 2017; Button et al., 2020;). Många modeller baserade på denna ‘pyramidform’ misslyckas med att ta hänsyn till komplexiteten och det icke linjära i mänsklig utveckling (Vaughan et al., 2019; Bailey & Collins, 2013), vilket i grunden belyser medföljande problem relaterade till framtida förutsägelser (Finnegan, 2020).
Forskning har belyst dessa medfödda problem relaterade till det förutsägande värdet av framtida prestation genom tidig identifiering (Williams & Reilly, 2000; Bailey & Collins, 2013; Koz, Fraser-Thomas och Baker, 2012). Exempelvis visade studier i Sverige (Lund & Söderström, 2017) och Nederländerna (Bergkamp et al., 2021) hur tränarnas och scouternas talangidentifiering stöds av ett ”intuitivt” tillvägagångssätt (det som känns rätt!). Men det som känns rätt påverkas starkt av deras erfarenhet av tidigare identifieringar, personliga tolkningar av vad elitfotboll innebär och den tränarkultur som de befinner sig i. Dessutom menades att scouter var medvetna om att tidiga prestationsindikatorer ofta är dåliga förutsägare för framtida prestanda.
Dessa subjektiva metoder har kritiserats på grund av det gynnar valet av spelare födda tidigare under (ålderskategori år) (Glamser & Vincent 2004; Helsen et al., 2005), ett fenomen som har kallats Relative Age Effect (RAE). I ungdomsfotboll har det visats hur RAE är mer uttalat i urval för akademin än inom ’grassroots footboll’ (Jackson & Comber, 2020). Förekomsten av RAE inom spelarsutvecklingssystem har förklarats av flera faktorer, såsom mognad, födelsedatum, miljöfaktorer, socioekonomisk klass (Teolda da Costa et al., 2010). Mognadsskillnaderna mellan individer har varit den vanligaste hypotesen. Till exempel, inom ett års åldersspann bland ungdomsfotboll kommer det att finnas en matchning av kronologiska åldrar men inte nödvändigtvis biologiska åldrar (Finnegan, 2020). Kronologiska och biologiska åldrar utvecklas sällan samtidigt i samma takt, vilket antyder att variationen sannolikt kommer att vara större än 12-månader i en åldersgrupp (Vaeyens et al., 2008; Helsen et al., 2005). Eftersom tidigare mognad kan påverka utvecklingen av flera antropometriska och fysiologiska variabler som påverkar valet av “äldre” spelare (Finnegan, 2020), finns det medföljande problem med ramar där varje steg är associerat med en kronologisk ålder. Det har hävdats att barn/ungdomar som missgynnas av födelsedatum eller fysisk mognad kunde blivit lika skickliga senioridrottare om de fick likvärdiga utvecklingsmöjligheter (Doyle & Bottomley, 2018). Trots påståenden från vissa styrande organ, så jämnar RAE inte ut sig i slutändan och ledande europeiska fotbollsklubbar fortsätter att rekrytera fler och fler tidigt födda spelare (Carling et al., 2009; Doyle & Bottomley, 2018).
Dessutom, en avgörande betydelse är hur ofta dessa modeller legitimeras och motiveras genom en ’copy & paste’ talangutvecklingsmall importerade från “framgångsrika” nationer eller klubbar. North och kollegor (2015) varnade i sin UEFA -studie, som undersökte utveckling av spelare och coachning i ungdomsfotboll i sju europeiska länder, mot den okritiska tillämpningen av idéer från andra framgångsrika länder och klubbar. Här hävdades att ett tillvägagångssätt som fungerar i ett sociokulturellt sammanhang kan vara distraherande eller till och med skadligt i ett annat.
Det finns tydlig anledning att tvivla på om dessa modeller av talangutveckling (SMTD) och organisation i många elitidrottsstrukturer har tillräcklig vetenskaplig validitet. Det finns ännu mer anledning att ifrågasätta med det okritiska ”copy and paste” av bästa praxis från framgångsrika länder eller klubbar. Även kravet på kontakttid (Finnegan, 2020), där styrande organ använder jämförelser med andra nationer angående antalet timmar som spenderas i träningar ledda av coacher, är ett mycket begränsat perspektiv av utvecklingen när vi överväger komplexiteten i utvecklingen av talanger inom sport (Güllich, 2014; Suppiah et al., 2015; Vaughan et al., 2019). Dessa meddelanden, som förmodligen är förknippade med den falskt främjade uppfattningen om 10 000 -timmarsregeln, kan på något sätt förklara varför många klubbar, föräldrar och tränare har köpt in sig på den onödiga generalisering som utveckling av expertis har att göra med ackumulerad volym av träning. (Seifert et al. 2019). Det är faktiskt ”illusionen av vetenskaplig trovärdighet och validitet” (skapad av idrottspolitiska beslutsfattare) som ger vissa tvivelaktiga idéer en viss auktoritet inom talangutvecklingsmiljö (Bailey & Collins, 2013, Bjørndal et al., 2017).
För att bättre förstå utveckling i och genom idrott spelar kultur och kontext en stor roll (Araújo et al., 2010; Vaughan et al., 2021; O’Sullivan et al., 2021). Kanske det är dags att undersöka ett sätt att förstå de olika kontextuella komplexiteterna i kulturer, samhällen och situationer för att stödja ett bredare perspektiv på utveckling av spelare/idrottare.
Förslag på hur vi går vidare: Skriv din egen historia?
Idrottsutvecklingsmiljöer, inom ett specifikt land eller en viss klubb, är inte en tomt blad utan socialt, historiskt och kulturellt inflytande (O ’Sullivan et al., 2021; Vaughan et al., 2021). Snarare påverkar sociala och kulturella faktorer kontinuerligt en spelares/idrottares utvecklingsresa. Araujos (2010) arbete med brasiliansk fotboll belyste hur olika typer av tidig specialisering kan existera i olika kulturella sammanhang. I motsats till traditionell praxis från andra sammanhang (t.ex. tidig upprepning av rörelseövningar i strukturerade coach-centrerad träning) utvecklades ett bredare utbud av tidig specialisering, med lite formell coachning, där spelare från tidig ålder specialiserade sig på olika ”bollaktiviteter ‟ (pelada, strandfotboll osv) , som har en direkt överensstämmelse med organiserad fotboll (Côté et al., 2007).
De typer av övningsdesign som utformas, individer som identifieras som talangfulla och karaktärsdrag som utmärker en bra coach, formas kontinuerligt av sociokulturella faktorer (Redelius, 2013; O ’Sullivan et al., 2021). Denna idé belyser i vilken utsträckning lärande och utveckling är inbäddade i ett större sociokulturellt sammanhang. Dessa specifika unika, sociala, kulturella och historiska faktorer inbjuder till potential för många möjliga komplexa, oförutsägbara och illa definierade utmaningar. (Bjørndal et al., 2019; Vaughan et al., 2019). Det kan därför föreslås att spelarutvecklingskontext (klubb, träning, tävling) kan inte ensam redogöra för sina invånares beteende (Rothwell et al., 2020). Om det var det, kunde vi faktiskt bara ”copy & paste” en lånad mall!!!
Inom idrott, liksom andra prestandamiljöer, betyder sammanhang allt. Vi måste skriva vår egen historia! Det som är möjligt i Barcelona eller Amsterdam kanske inte är möjligt eller behövs i Stockholm, Peking eller Dublin. Implikationen är att det inte finns någon ”copy & paste” -mall, spelarutvecklingsmodeller bör utvecklas i interaktion med det specifika sociokulturella sammanhang där individer är inbäddade (Vaughan et al., 2019; O ‘Sullivan et al., 2021). Eftersom det också är uppskattat att inlärning är en icke linjär process-vilket innebär att coachningsmetoder inom idrott ska vara tillmötesgående-är det rimligt att föreslå att idrottsutvecklingsstrukturer och modeller också ska ta hänsyn till denna icke linjärhet. (Sullivan et al 2021).
Som specifika unika, sociala, kulturella och historiska faktorer, bjuda in potentialen för en myriad av möjliga komplexa, oförutsägbara och illa definierade utmaningar, måste vi hitta sätt att lyfta fram och utnyttja dessa faktorer (O’Sullivan et al., 2021; Vaughan et al., 2019). Styrande organisationer och klubbar bör utmana sig själva att anta strategier för att vägleda pålitliga sätt att bedriva forskning och utforma praktiska tillämpningar för att stödja utvecklingen av flexibla ramar inom sin egen ekologi, specifikt för deras sociokulturella sammanhang.
Referenser:
Adolph, K. E. (2019). An Ecological Approach to Learning in ( Not and ) Development. Human Development, 63, 180–201. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503823
Araújo, D., Fonseca, C., Davids, K., Garganta, J., Volossovitch, A., Brandão, R., & Krebd, R. (2010). The role of ecological constraints on expertise development.
Bailey, R., & Collins, D. (2013). The standard model of talent development and its discontents. Kinesiology Review, 2(4), 248–259.
Balagué, N., Torrents, C., Hristovski, R., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2017). Sport Science Integration. An evolutionary synthesis. European Journal of Sport Science, 17:1(August), 51–62.
Bergeron, M., Mountjoy, M., Armstrong, N., Chia, M., Cȏté, J., Emery, C., Faigenbaum, A., Hall, G., Kriemler, S., Léglise, M., Malina, R., Pensgaard, A.M., Sanchez, A., Soligard, T., Sundgot-Borgen, J., Mechelen, W.V., Weissensteiner, J., & Engebretsen, L. (2015). International Olympic Committee consensus statement on youth athletic development. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49, 843 – 851.
Bergkamp, T.L., Frencken, W., Niessen, A., Meijer, R., & Hartigh, R.J. (2021). How Soccer Scouts Identify Talented Players. European journal of sport science, 1-39 .
Bjørndal, C., Ronglan, L.T., & Andersen, S.S. (2016). Talent development as an ecology of games: a case study of Norwegian handball. Sport, Education and Society, 22, 864 – 877.
Bjørndal, C., & Ronglan, L.T. (2019). Engaging with uncertainty in athlete development – orchestrating talent development through incremental leadership. Sport, Education and Society, 26, 104 – 116.
Button, C., Seifert, L., Chow, J.-Y., Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2020). Dynamics of Skill Acquisition: An Ecological Dynamics rationale (2nd ed.). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics.
Carling, C., Gall, F.L., Reilly, T., & Williams, A. (2009). Do anthropometric and fitness characteristics vary according to birth date distribution in elite youth academy soccer players? Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 19.
Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2007). Practice and play in the development of sport expertise. In G. Tenenbaum & R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 184–202). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Doyle JR, Bottomley PA (2018) Relative age effect in elite soccer: More early-born players, but no better valued, and no paragon clubs or countries. PLoS ONE 13(2): e0192209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192209
Finnegan, L. (2020). ‘The talent is out there’ Talent development in Irish football: an examination of organizational structure and practice
Ford, P., Bordonau, J.L., Bonanno, D., Tavares, J., Groenendijk, C., Fink, C., Gualtieri, D., Gregson, W., Varley, M., Weston, M., Lolli, L., Platt, D., & Salvo, V.D. (2020). A survey of talent identification and development processes in the youth academies of professional soccer clubs from around the world. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38, 1269 – 1278.
Ford, P., Carling, C., Garces, M., Marques, M., Miguel, C., Farrant, A., Stenling, A., Moreno, J., Gall, F.L., Holmström, S., Salmela, J., & Williams, M.A. (2012). The developmental activities of elite soccer players aged under-16 years from Brazil, England, France, Ghana, Mexico, Portugal and Sweden. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 1653 – 1663.
Glamser, F., & Vincent, J. (2004). The relative age effect among elite American youth soccer players. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 27(1), 31–38.
Güllich A. (2014). Selection, de-selection and progression in German football talent promotion. European journal of sport science, 14(6), 530–537.
Helsen, W. F., Van Winckel, J., & Williams, A. M. (2005). The relative age effect in youth soccer across Europe. Journal of Sports Science, 23, 629–636.
Hendrickx, F. (2010). The Bernard-Case and Training Compensation in Professional Football. European Labour Law Journal, 1, 380 – 397.
Henriksen K (2010). The ecology of talent development in sport: a multiple case study of successful athletic talent development environments in Scandinavia. PhD Thesis, Syddansk Universitet. Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet.
Jackson, R., & Comber, G. (2020). Hill on a mountaintop: A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of the relative age effect in competitive youth football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38, 1352 – 1358.
Koz, D., Fraser-Thomas, J., & Baker, J. (2012). Accuracy of professional sports drafts in predicting career potential. Scandavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 22, 64-69. doi: 10.1111/j.
North, J., Lara-Bercial, S., Morgan, G., & Rongen, F. (2015). The identification of good practice principles to inform player development and coaching in European youth football. Report commissioned by UEFA’s Research Grant Programme 2013-2014.
O’Sullivan, M., Vaughan, J., Rumbold, J. L., & Davids, K. (2021). The learning in development research framework for sports organizations. Sport, Education and Society, DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2021.1966618
Redelius, K. (2013) Att vilja och kunna fortsätta – Om idrottens utformning och tillgänglighet (s. 19-40), i Spela vidare: en antologi om vad som får unga att fortsätta idrotta, Stockholm: Centrum för idrottsforskning.
Rongen, F., McKenna, J., Cobley, S., & Till, K. (2018). Are youth sport talent identification and development systems necessary and healthy? Sports Medicine – Open, 4.
Rothwell, M., Stone, J., & Davids, K. (2020). Investigating the athlete-environment relationship in a form of life: an ethnographic study. Sport Education and Society. Advance online publication.
Soderstrom, N., & Bjork, R.. (2015). Learning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. 10. 176-199. 10.1177/1745691615569000.
Sullivan, M.O., Woods, C., Vaughan, J., & Davids, K. (2021). Towards a contemporary player learning in development framework for sports practitioners. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 174795412110023.
Suppiah, H. T., Low, C. Y., & Chia, M. (2015). Detecting and developing youth athlete potential: different strokes for different folks are warranted. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(13), 878–882.
Teolda da Costa, I., Garganta, J., Greco, P.J., Mesquita, I., & Seabra, A. (2010). Influence of relative age effects and quality of tactical behaviour in the performance of youth soccer players. International Journal of Performance Analysis of Sport, 10, 82-97. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2010.11868504
Vaeyens, R., Lenoir, M., Williams, A. & Phillippaerts, R. (2008). Talent identification and development programmes in sports. Sports Medicine, 38, 703-714. doi: 10.2165/00007256- 200838090-00001
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Davids, K., Potrac, P., & López-felip, M. A. (2019). Developing Creativity to Enhance Human Potential in Sport: A Wicked Transdisciplinary Challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(September), 116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02090
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Potrac, P., López-Felip, M. A., & Davids, K. (2021). Football, Culture, Skill Development and Sport Coaching: Extending Ecological Approaches in Athlete Development using the Skilled Intentionality Framework. Frontiers in Psychology.
Weissenteiner, J.R. (2017). How contemporary international perspectives have consolidated a best-practice approach for identifying and developing sporting talent. In J. Baker, S. Cobley, J. Schorer, & N. Wattie (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Talent Identification and Development in Sport (pp. 101-112). Abingdon: Routledge.
Williams, A., Ford, P., & Drust, B. (2020). Talent identification and development in soccer since the millennium. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38, 1199 – 1210.
Williams, A. M., & Reilly, T. (2000). Talent identification and development in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(9), 657–667. http://doi.org/10.1080/02640410050120041
Woods, C.T., McKeown, I., O’Sullivan, M., Roberston, S., & Davids, K. (2020)Theory to Practice: Performance Preparation Models in Contemporary High-Level Sport Guided by an Ecological Dynamics Framework. Sports Med – Open 6, 36.
Don’t be blinded by unicorns and survivors and misled by economic forces – Ross Tucker
In 2015, the International Olympic Committee released a consensus statement raising concerns regarding recent trends in youth athlete development. The statement questioned the validity of talent development models in youth sport, while also referring to the problematic nature of early specialisation, parental pressure, coaching styles, media sensationalism, and the view of youth athletes as commodities (Bergeron et al, 2015). Further, the IOC consensus statement recommended that frameworks for youth development need to be more flexible, incorporating a combination of both best practice and experience underpinned by quality up to date research.
The search and pursuit of the alchemic process of how to unearth and develop professional athletes has been described as the’holy grail’ of any sporting nation (Weissenteiner, 2017). In football, environments that successfully develop professional players can enjoy both increased profits and recognition (Henriksen, 2011). This pursuit has gained intensity since the “Bernard case” in 2010, a follow up to the Bosman ruling. The European Court of Justice ruled that football clubs can seek compensation, if young players they trained signed their first professional contract with a team in another EU country. Youth football could now be framed as an economic activity, thus encouraging the training of young ’talented’ players as a form of human capital investment (Hendrickx, 2010). This has arguably accelerated a ’talent arms race’, resulting in incentives to import and reproduce talent development models from ‘successful’ nations or clubs, while partly providing the context to further legitamise and justify the pervasive use of what has become broadly known as the Standard Model of Talent Development (SMTD).
Coined by Bailey and Collins (2013), the SMTD shares common characteristics that are now central tenets of player development programs around the world (Güllich, 2014; Rongen et al., 2018). For example, basing identification on early ability or physiological and/or anthropometrical measures; and the removal of athletes from the system as they progress from one level to the next (Bjørndal et al., 2017). Described as a ‘pyramid’ structure dependent on strong coordinated central governance, this model lacks both empirical and conceptual validity (Bjørndal et al., 2017).
Despite these insights, structured performance pathways across countries are relatively homogenous and commonplace, with many clubs and organisations investing heavily into the professionalisation of the identification and development of talent (Ford et al., 2012, Williams et al., 2020). More recent work carried out by Ford and colleagues (2020) in 29 of the best professional soccer clubs from around the world, highlighted a relatively high annual turnover of players, around 29%, through age groups. This showed an ongoing difficulty in identifying young players and keeping them in the system, while revealing the systems inherent difficulty in coping with fluctuations in performance and development that are naturally occurring aspects of life and learning in sport (Adolph, 2019; Balagué et al., 2017; Button et al., 2020;). Many models based on this ‘pyramid’ shape clearly fail to account for the complexity and nonlinearity of human development (Vaughan et al., 2019; Bailey & Collins, 2013), fundamentally highlighting inherent problems related to the prediction of the future (Finnegan, 2020).
Research has highlighted these inherent problems related to the predictive value of future performance through early identification (Williams & Reilly, 2000; Bailey & Collins, 2013; Koz, Fraser-Thomas, & Baker, 2012). For instance, studies in Sweden (Lund & Söderström, 2017) and the Netherlands (Bergkamp et al., 2021) showed how coaches’ talent identification is underpinned by an ‘intuitive’ approach (what feels right!). But what feels right is greatly influenced by their experience of previous identifications, personal interpretations of what elite football entails, and the coaching culture in which they find themselves. It was further suggested that scouts were aware that early indicators of performance are often poor predictors of future performance.
These subjective methods have been criticised due to a bias towards the selection of players born earlier in the (age category year) (Glamser & Vincent 2004; Helsen et al., 2005), a phenomenon that has been referred to as the Relative Age Effect (RAE). In youth football it has been shown how RAE is more pronounced in selection to the academy than in grassroots football (Jackson & Comber, 2020). The presence of RAE within athlete development systems has been explained by several factors, such as, maturation, date of birth, environmental factors, socioeconomic class (Teolda da Costa et al., 2010). The maturational differences between individuals has been the most common hypothesis. For example, within a one-year age bracket in youth football, there will be a match of chronological ages but not necessarily biological ages (Finnegan, 2020). Chronological and biological ages rarely progress concurrently to the same degree, implying the variance is likely to be greater than the 12-month age band (Vaeyens et al., 2008; Helsen et al., 2005). As earlier maturation can affect the development of several anthropometric and physiological variables biasing the selection of ‘older’ players (Finnegan, 2020), there are inherent problems with frameworks where each stage is associated with a chronological age. It has been argued that children disadvantaged by birth date or physical maturity might have become equally skilled senior athletes if they were afforded equivalent developmental opportunities (Doyle & Bottomley, 2018). Despite claims from some governing bodies, reversals of the RAE rarely exist in a true sense (see here). Yet leading European football clubs continue to recruit more and more early born players (Carling et al., 2009; Doyle & Bottomley, 2018).
Also, of critical importance is how often these models are legitimised and justified through a ‘copy and paste’ template of talent development models imported from ‘successful’ nations or clubs. North and colleagues (2015), in their UEFA study, investigating player development and coaching in youth football in seven European countries, warned against the uncritical application of good practice ideas from other successful countries and clubs. Here it was argued that an approach which works in one sociocultural context may be distracting or even detrimental in another.
There is clear reason to doubt whether these models of talent development and organisation in many elite sporting structures have sufficient scientific validity. There is even further reason to reinforce issues associated with the uncritical “copy and paste” of best practice from successful countries or clubs. Even the clamour for contact time (Finnegan, 2020), where Governing Bodies use comparisons with other nations regarding the number of hours spent in coach led training, is a very narrow lens through which to view development when we consider the complexities involved in developing talent in sport (Güllich, 2014; Suppiah et al., 2015; Vaughan et al., 2019). These messages, arguably associated with the falsely promoted notion of the 10, 000 hour rule, may go some way to explaining why many clubs, parents and coaches have bought in to the unnecessary generalisation that development of expertise has all to do with accumulated volume of practice (Seifert et al. 2019). Indeed, it is ‘the illusion of scientific credibility and validity (created by sports policy makers) that provides a degree of authority to some dubious ideas’ evident in talent development structures (Bailey & Collins, 2013, Bjørndal et al., 2017).
To better understand player/athlete development in and through sport, culture and context do matter (Araújo et al., 2010; Vaughan et al., 2021; O’Sullivan et al., 2021). Perhaps it is time to investigate ways to comprehend the distinct contextual complexities of cultures, communities and situations to support a broader perspective on player/athlete development.
Suggestions for moving forward: Write your own story?
Athlete development environments, within a specific country or club, are not blank slates devoid of social, historical and cultural influence (O’ Sullivan et al., 2021; Vaughan et al., 2021). Rather, social and cultural factors continually shape an athlete’s development journey. Araujo’s (2010) work on Brazilian football highlighted how different kinds of early specialisation can exist in different cultural contexts. In contrast with traditional practices from other contexts (e.g., early deliberate practice, precise repetition of movement drills in structured practice tasks), a broader range of early specialisation was developed, with little formal coaching, where players from an early age specialised in “feet-ball activities‟, that have a direct correspondence to organized football (Côté et al., 2007).
The types of practice designed, which individuals are identified as talented and the characteristics that distinguish a good coach, are continually shaped by sociocultural factors (Redelius, 2013; O’ Sullivan et al., 2021).This idea highlights the extent to which learning, and skill development are embedded in a larger sociocultural context. These specific unique social, cultural and historical factors, invite the potential for a myriad of possible complex, unpredictable and ill-defined challenges. (Bjørndal et al., 2019; Vaughan et al., 2019). It can therefore be suggested that the athlete development setting (club, training, competition) alone cannot account for the behaviour of its inhabitants (Rothwell et al., 2020). Indeed, if it was, we could just ‘copy and paste’ a borrowed template.
In sports, like other performance environments, context means everything. We need to write our own story! What is possible in Barcelona or Amsterdam might not be possible, or needed, in Stockholm, Beijing or Dublin. The implication is that there is no ‘copy and paste’ template, athlete development frameworks should evolve in interaction with the specific sociocultural context in which practitioners and individuals are embedded (Vaughan et al., 2019; O’ Sullivan et al., 2021). Also, as it is be appreciated that learning is a non-linear process – implying that coaching methodologies in sport should be accommodative – it is reasonable to suggest that athlete development structures and models should also account for this non-linearity (Sullivan et al 2021).
As specific unique social, cultural and historical factors, invite the potential for a myriad of possible complex, unpredictable and ill-defined challenges, we need to find ways to highlight and harness these factors (O’Sullivan et al., 2021; Vaughan et al., 2019). Governing bodies, clubs and organisations should challenge themselves to adopt strategies to guide reliable ways of conducting research and designing practical applications to support the evolution of athlete development frameworks within their own ecology, specific to their sociocultural context.
In a recent discussion with my friend and colleague Michael Cooke at Northern Ireland Sport, he asked two questions that are of relevance to this piece.
What opportunities does your culture/ context afford that could support the healthy development and performance of young people as they grow?
What are the unique aspects of your sport/ country/ culture that transcend the ‘copy and paste’ culture
Many thanks to Michael Cooke and Andrew Kirkland for being critical friends during the process of writing this piece
On a separate note: I have re-launched my record label. The first offering is the digital release of a collection of tracks previously only released (between 1999-2002) on vinyl and CD.
Adolph, K. E. (2019). An Ecological Approach to Learning in ( Not and ) Development. Human Development, 63, 180–201. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503823
Araújo, D., Fonseca, C., Davids, K., Garganta, J., Volossovitch, A., Brandão, R., & Krebd, R. (2010). The role of ecological constraints on expertise development.
Bailey, R., & Collins, D. (2013). The standard model of talent development and its discontents. Kinesiology Review, 2(4), 248–259.
Balagué, N., Torrents, C., Hristovski, R., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2017). Sport Science Integration. An evolutionary synthesis. European Journal of Sport Science, 17:1(August), 51–62.
Bergeron, M., Mountjoy, M., Armstrong, N., Chia, M., Cȏté, J., Emery, C., Faigenbaum, A., Hall, G., Kriemler, S., Léglise, M., Malina, R., Pensgaard, A.M., Sanchez, A., Soligard, T., Sundgot-Borgen, J., Mechelen, W.V., Weissensteiner, J., & Engebretsen, L. (2015). International Olympic Committee consensus statement on youth athletic development. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49, 843 – 851.
Bergkamp, T.L., Frencken, W., Niessen, A., Meijer, R., & Hartigh, R.J. (2021). How Soccer Scouts Identify Talented Players. European journal of sport science, 1-39 .
Bjørndal, C., Ronglan, L.T., & Andersen, S.S. (2016). Talent development as an ecology of games: a case study of Norwegian handball. Sport, Education and Society, 22, 864 – 877.
Bjørndal, C., & Ronglan, L.T. (2019). Engaging with uncertainty in athlete development – orchestrating talent development through incremental leadership. Sport, Education and Society, 26, 104 – 116.
Button, C., Seifert, L., Chow, J.-Y., Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2020). Dynamics of Skill Acquisition: An Ecological Dynamics rationale (2nd ed.). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics.
Carling, C., Gall, F.L., Reilly, T., & Williams, A. (2009). Do anthropometric and fitness characteristics vary according to birth date distribution in elite youth academy soccer players? Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 19.
Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2007). Practice and play in the development of sport expertise. In G. Tenenbaum & R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 184–202). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Doyle JR, Bottomley PA (2018) Relative age effect in elite soccer: More early-born players, but no better valued, and no paragon clubs or countries. PLoS ONE 13(2): e0192209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192209
Finnegan, L. (2020). ‘The talent is out there’ Talent development in Irish football: an examination of organizational structure and practice
Ford, P., Bordonau, J.L., Bonanno, D., Tavares, J., Groenendijk, C., Fink, C., Gualtieri, D., Gregson, W., Varley, M., Weston, M., Lolli, L., Platt, D., & Salvo, V.D. (2020). A survey of talent identification and development processes in the youth academies of professional soccer clubs from around the world. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38, 1269 – 1278.
Ford, P., Carling, C., Garces, M., Marques, M., Miguel, C., Farrant, A., Stenling, A., Moreno, J., Gall, F.L., Holmström, S., Salmela, J., & Williams, M.A. (2012). The developmental activities of elite soccer players aged under-16 years from Brazil, England, France, Ghana, Mexico, Portugal and Sweden. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 1653 – 1663.
Glamser, F., & Vincent, J. (2004). The relative age effect among elite American youth soccer players. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 27(1), 31–38.
Güllich A. (2014). Selection, de-selection and progression in German football talent promotion. European journal of sport science, 14(6), 530–537.
Helsen, W. F., Van Winckel, J., & Williams, A. M. (2005). The relative age effect in youth soccer across Europe. Journal of Sports Science, 23, 629–636.
Hendrickx, F. (2010). The Bernard-Case and Training Compensation in Professional Football. European Labour Law Journal, 1, 380 – 397.
Henriksen K (2010). The ecology of talent development in sport: a multiple case study of successful athletic talent development environments in Scandinavia. PhD Thesis, Syddansk Universitet. Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet.
Jackson, R., & Comber, G. (2020). Hill on a mountaintop: A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of the relative age effect in competitive youth football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38, 1352 – 1358.
Koz, D., Fraser-Thomas, J., & Baker, J. (2012). Accuracy of professional sports drafts in predicting career potential. Scandavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 22, 64-69. doi: 10.1111/j.
North, J., Lara-Bercial, S., Morgan, G., & Rongen, F. (2015). The identification of good practice principles to inform player development and coaching in European youth football. Report commissioned by UEFA’s Research Grant Programme 2013-2014.
O’Sullivan, M., Vaughan, J., Rumbold, J. L., & Davids, K. (2021, in press). The learning in development research framework for sports organisations.
Redelius, K. (2013) Att vilja och kunna fortsätta – Om idrottens utformning och tillgänglighet (s. 19-40), i Spela vidare: en antologi om vad som får unga att fortsätta idrotta, Stockholm: Centrum för idrottsforskning.
Rongen, F., McKenna, J., Cobley, S., & Till, K. (2018). Are youth sport talent identification and development systems necessary and healthy? Sports Medicine – Open, 4.
Rothwell, M., Stone, J., & Davids, K. (2020). Investigating the athlete-environment relationship in a form of life: an ethnographic study. Sport Education and Society. Advance online publication.
Soderstrom, N., & Bjork, R.. (2015). Learning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. 10. 176-199. 10.1177/1745691615569000.
Sullivan, M.O., Woods, C., Vaughan, J., & Davids, K. (2021). Towards a contemporary player learning in development framework for sports practitioners. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 174795412110023.
Suppiah, H. T., Low, C. Y., & Chia, M. (2015). Detecting and developing youth athlete potential: different strokes for different folks are warranted. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(13), 878–882.
Teolda da Costa, I., Garganta, J., Greco, P.J., Mesquita, I., & Seabra, A. (2010). Influence of relative age effects and quality of tactical behaviour in the performance of youth soccer players. International Journal of Performance Analysis of Sport, 10, 82-97. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2010.11868504
Vaeyens, R., Lenoir, M., Williams, A. & Phillippaerts, R. (2008). Talent identification and development programmes in sports. Sports Medicine, 38, 703-714. doi: 10.2165/00007256- 200838090-00001
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Davids, K., Potrac, P., & López-felip, M. A. (2019). Developing Creativity to Enhance Human Potential in Sport: A Wicked Transdisciplinary Challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(September), 116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02090
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Potrac, P., López-Felip, M. A., & Davids, K. (2021). Football, Culture, Skill Development and Sport Coaching: Extending Ecological Approaches in Athlete Development using the Skilled Intentionality Framework. Frontiers in Psychology.
Weissenteiner, J.R. (2017). How contemporary international perspectives have consolidated a best-practice approach for identifying and developing sporting talent. In J. Baker, S. Cobley, J. Schorer, & N. Wattie (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Talent Identification and Development in Sport (pp. 101-112). Abingdon: Routledge.
Williams, A., Ford, P., & Drust, B. (2020). Talent identification and development in soccer since the millennium. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38, 1199 – 1210.
Williams, A. M., & Reilly, T. (2000). Talent identification and development in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(9), 657–667. http://doi.org/10.1080/02640410050120041
Woods, C.T., McKeown, I., O’Sullivan, M., Roberston, S., & Davids, K. (2020)Theory to Practice: Performance Preparation Models in Contemporary High-Level Sport Guided by an Ecological Dynamics Framework. Sports Med – Open 6, 36.
In this paper we propose that a constraints-led approach (CLA), predicated on the theory of ecological dynamics, utilising Adolph’s (2019) notion of learning IN development, provides a viable framework for capturing the non-linearity of learning, development and performance in sport. We highlight some of the misinterpretations and misunderstandings of the CLA in coach education and practice. Further, we provide a user-friendly framework that demonstrates the benefits of the CLA. Throughput the paper we offer deeply contextualized ‘real world’ examples to support our argument.
Some main points
As it is appreciated that learning is a non-linear process – implying that coaching methodologies in sport should be accommodative – it is reasonable to suggest that player development pathways should also account for this non-linearity.
Contemporary non-linear pedagogical frameworks, such as the constraints-led approach (CLA), have emerged to theoretically guide practitioners through this challenge
Uptake effects have not been helped by some misinterpretations of the CLA in practice and coach education.
When used appropriately the CLA highlights the nature of the continuous complex and dynamic non-linear interactions between a performer (individual), task, and environment. Termed as constraints (Individual, environment, task), these interconnected system features guide or channel the direction and rate of development by providing the boundaries within which learning happens. A key point here is that constraints do not determine an individual’s learning and performance behaviors, but continually interact to guide and shape them.
The term “non-linear” refers to the notion that small changes in system properties (e.g. the physical, psychological and emotional characteristics of an individual; a team’s practice conditions) can lead to large changes in emergent behavior and vice-versa.
Critically, while the CLA helps conceptualize how skills emerge, it does not provide a framework for how to design appropriate learning environments in team sports. Principles of a non-linear pedagogy can address this limitation, supporting practitioners to harness CLA methods in a range of practice task designs.
Knowledge about and Knowledge of the environment: Knowledge about is typically developed through verbal responses to questions or coach-provided declarative instruction, may be useful when describing performance ex situ. However, while young players may display knowledge about the game when verbalizing responses to questions posed from a coach or educator, it does not necessarily imply that they can actually perform these actions in the game. Knowledge of the environment is reflective of embodied-embedded knowledge developed by, and exemplified in, activities (e.g., movements, behaviors, performances) that enhance the coupling between perception and action.
An important contention of this paper, though, is that practice tasks need to be designed by coaches with an extensive knowledge about the game, as this knowledge about collective and individual performance can inform practice designs to support the development of a performer’s knowledge of (in) the game.
The Foundations for Task Design Model captures the main principles of non-linear pedagogy to support the design of football specific tasks in training.
The purpose of the Player Learning in Development Framework is twofold; first, to help practitioners conceptualize the inherent non-linearity and highly personal nature of learning in order to inform player development pathways, and second, to show how to integrate a CLA in practice task design.
The 3 phases of the Player Learning in Development Framework is a cycle that aims to guide practitioners towards a more flexible and adaptable approach to planning, where, through the implementation and refinement of task designs, they can continually assess and evaluate each individual’s needs (within a team) over various timescales of development.
It’s time for better questions: Living up to the idea of as many as possible, as long as good as good as possible
There is an ongoing discussion within youth football around the subject of ability grouping. The practice of early selection and de-selection of children through ages and stages are now central tenets of player development programs around the world (Güllich, 2014; Rongen et al., 2018) and have become a common point of departure for these discussions. Often pyramid like in structure, these type of development programs have been termed by Bailey and Collins (2013) as the Standard Model of Talent Development. Lacking in both empirical and conceptual validity this model is based on the presumption that development and performance in sport are conceptually linear and predictable (Bjørndal, Ronglan & Andersen, 2017).
Language precedes culture
More recently these models have come under media scrutiny (Shannon, 17 November 2020) highlighting how there are many social norms and organisational pressures present within the facets of professional football that impinge on child youth football. For example, the use of words such as ‘elite’ in reference to children and youth has added to the development of a sensationalist artificial mythology in and around the culture of child youth sports programs (Kirkland, O’Sullivan, 2018).
Similar concerns were raised by the International Olympic Committee in a consensus statement on youth athlete development in 2015, highlighting possible negative influences on health and well-being. It was suggested that the ‘culture’ of youth sports in general, has become disproportionately both adult and media centered, viewing youth athletes as commodities promoting a sensationalism that has an influential grip on adult expectations (Bergeron et al., 2015).
Indeed, language plays an important role as does acknowledging that learning and development cannot be fully understood without taking in to consideration the environmental, historical, and socio- cultural constraints that can influence learning and development. For example, many resilient beliefs and even the attributes and skills appreciated in young players are culturally embedded in traditional pedagogical approaches, organisational settings and structural mechanisms founded upon specific socio-cultural and historical constraints (Woods et al, 2020). There is a need to investigate which specific sociocultural constraints on behaviours that we need to amplify and which ones we need to dampen (Vaughan et al., 2019)?
In Sweden, the well-worn cliché “lika barn leka bäst” (children that are alike play best together) is something that I hear regularly in connection with ability grouping in child-youth sport. This for me highlights an important aspect of any youth player development program, how performance can be an unreliable index in relation to learning (Söderstrom & Bjork, 2015).
The debate here though less polarized is still at time driven by anecdotal evidence with certain individuals referring to the players that ‘they’ have created!
Here, the idea of survivorship bias is something that is worth reflecting over
“You’ve been blinded by the unicorns and survivors, and misled by economic forces” – Ross Tucker (twitter)
Time for better questions- The learner and the learning process
For a more nuanced approach and in order to place the child/youth/player at the center of this discussion from a long-term learning perspective, we need to turn the question around.
When I am asked about ability grouping/selection-deselection (yes or no?), I now answer with another question.
What is your understanding of the learner and the learning process?
What is your understanding of human learning and development in a youth football context?
Re-conceptualising youth development
AIK Youth Football, took the decision in 2017 to reposition itself within the world of youth football (see here). This decision was underpinned by a long-term strategy; (i) promote the wellbeing of children; (ii) follow relevant guideline documents (e.g. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child); (iii) increase the development and promotion of players to our respective senior teams, as well as increase the number of players in the U16-U19 age groups.
A research and development (R&D) department has been embedded in the club’s daily activities since 2017 to support AIK youth football in its endeavor. Its stance and work can be summed up as follows –
While it is understood that human learning is nonlinear in nature, implying that coaching methodologies should account for such nonlinearity, it should also be recognized that there is a need for our player development structures and models to account for this nonlinearity
If we really want to support the well-being and foster more and better players, then it is important to consider the complexity and non-linearity of human development. This requires an understanding of what learning and development is and what factors that can influence it?
Learning IN Development
The concept of Learning in development (Adolph, 2019) can help coaches, parents and organisations understand how different factors influence learning throughout development, helping us to gain an understanding of the non-linear and individualized nature of players learning in development.
Development describes the continuous changes (physical, psychological, skilled, social, cultural) in individual-environmental relationships.
Learning takes place in the midst of these developmental changes. Learning is what the player does about these changes.
As coaches, parents, clubs and governing bodies, we need to find a balance in our between both supporting and challenging young players during their learning IN development.
What specific soicocultural constraints on behaviours do we need to amplify and what do we need to dampen?
The aim with this piece is to stimulate a broad and informed debate within youth sport by emphasising the complexity and non-linearity of human development and the need to understand the dynamic interrelations between various components, if we are to truly live up to the idea of ‘as many as possible, as long as possible, as good as possible’
Perhaps it’s time for better questions?
References
Adolph, K. E. (2019). An ecological approach to learning in (not and) development. Human Development, 63, 180–201.
Bailey, R., & Collins, D. (2013). The standard model of talent development and its discontents. Kinesiology Review, 2(4), 248–259.
Bergeron, M. F., Mountjoy, M., Armstrong, N., Chia, M., Côté, J., Emery, C. A., Faigenbaum, A., Hall, G., Jr, Kriemler, S., Léglise, M., Malina, R. M., Pensgaard, A. M., Sanchez, A., Soligard, T., Sundgot-Borgen, J., van Mechelen, W., Weissensteiner, J. R., & Engebretsen, L. (2015). International Olympic Committee consensus statement on youth athletic development. British journal of sports medicine, 49(13), 843–851.
Bjørndal, C.T. Ronglan, L.T., & Andersen, S.A. (2017). The diversity of developmental paths among youth athletes: A 3-year longitudinal study of Norwegian handball players. Talent development & Excellence, 8(2), 20-32.
Chow, J. Y. (2013). Nonlinear learning underpinning pedagogy: Evidence, challenges, and implications. Quest, 65(4), 469-484.
Güllich A. (2014). Selection, de-selection and progression in German football talent promotion. European journal of sport science, 14(6), 530–537.
Rongen, F., McKenna, J., Cobley, S., & Till, K. (2018). Are youth sport talent identification and development systems necessary and healthy? Sports Medicine – Open, 4.
Soderstrom, N., & Bjork, R.. (2015). Learning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. 10. 176-199. 10.1177/1745691615569000.
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Davids, K., Potrac, P., & López-felip, M. A. (2019). Developing Creativity to Enhance Human Potential in Sport: A Wicked Transdisciplinary Challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(September), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02090
Woods, C.T., McKeown, I., O’Sullivan, M., Roberston, S., & Davids, K. (2020)Theory to Practice: Performance Preparation Models in Contemporary High-Level Sport Guided by an Ecological Dynamics Framework. Sports Med – Open 6, 36 .
I am delighted to have published two papers together with some inspiring colleagues over the summer.
Theory to practice; performance preparation models in contemporary high-level sport guided by an Ecological Dynamics framework is published in sports medicine.
Conceptualizing Physical Literacy within an Ecological Dynamics Framework is published in Quest.
Theory to Practice: Performance Preparation Models in Contemporary High-Level Sport Guided by an Ecological Dynamics Framework
This paper was written together with some colleagues in the UK and Australia and is partly a collaboration with Port Adelaide FC (Aussie rules) and AIK Research & Development department (Stockholm).
Carl Woods (twitter) excellent work at Port Adelaide is featured in the article and is a powerful example of how they are utilising an ecological dynamics approach in high performance Australian Rules Football. While the work being done at AIK youth football (8-12) can provide some insights how adopting and ecological dynamics perspective is helping the club to re-conceptualise youth player development.
The paper gives some insights in to practice environments that are
utilising empirical and experiential knowledge sources within a Department of Methodology to inform present and future practice
repositioning the coaches role to one of an environment designer, who facilitates athlete- environment interactions
embedding a constraints led approach
we also look at how
coaching skill was being developed and shaped by the landscape of traditional coaching practices and coach education programmes,
attributes and skills appreciated in players were culturally embedded in traditional pedagogical approaches, organisational settings and structural mechanisms founded upon specific socio-cultural and historical constraints.
training designs have typically been underpinned by a culturally dominant planning paradigm pervasive in traditional educational approaches (e.g. coach determines in advance the specific theme, presents predetermined coaching points and controls the sequence and duration for each part of the session)
“Do players have the freedom to explore solutions to problems designed? Youth players should not be ‘props’ in some type of coach-conducted orchestration, where players learned to play an idealised model of the game as opposed to functioning in the game itself, limiting player autonomy and self-regulating tendencies” (Woods, C.T., McKeown, I., O’Sullivan, M. et al. Theory to Practice: Performance Preparation Models in Contemporary High-Level Sport Guided by an Ecological Dynamics Framework. Sports Med – Open6, 36 (2020).
Conceptualizing physical literacy within and Ecological Dynamics framework
“The shared intentionality across sporting and physical activity landscapes should be about supporting self-regulation, thus supporting the individuals’ continued physical literacy across a lifespan.”
This paper has an interesting history. In March 2019 I presented together with colleagues James Vaughan (twitter) and Jean Cote (twitter) at a Riksidrottsförbundet (Swedish Sports Confederation) conference in Stockholm. There was a lot of talk about physical literacy, from measuring it, to how it should be central to school physical education, to even commercial organisations selling physical literacy as a product. What I realised was that there was no clear consensus of what Physical Literacy actually is and how it can be implemented. I had some great conversations with James and Jean about this that inspired me to dig a bit deeper.
I originally wrote a blog about this rather promiscuous (thanks Richard) concept called Physical Literacy and just before the summer together with some great colleagues we put together this paper.
The abstract will give some insights with the intentions of the article.
We look in to
the definitional vagueness
problem with how it is being promoted through national governing bodies
the problem with the idea of Fundamental Movement Skills and how physical literacy is measured
how the lack of a theoretical framework underpinning the concept has been an issue
We recommended a way forward for the concept by utilising the Ecological Dynamics framework
These are the concussing remarks:
As a complimentary to this paper, I highly recommend listening to James Rudd (twitter) on the Perception Action Podcast (see here)
As part of a series of webinars for Movement & Skill Acquisition Ireland (Twitter), Dennis Hörtin (twitter) and I recently had the honor of presenting the work being carried out at AIK youth football in Sweden. You can check out the presentation here, with a really interesting Q&A.
The presentation focused on AIK youth football and their decision to remove its early selection model (see here), with a particular focus on the 8-12 age groups that are immediately affected by this decision. We delve in to the work of the AIK Research & Development department and offered some pedagogical principles to guide practice task design.
I have taken the liberty to add some extra notes to the presentation based on the numerous conversations and the great feedback we had after the presentation. Again, it needs to be made clear, this is no silver bullet.
Building a player development framework
Frameworks for youth player development need to be flexible (Bergeron et al., 2015), dynamic and adaptable to both, the cultural context, and that of the individual (Meyers et al., 2013; Vaughan et al., 2019). In other words, a player development framework needs to evolve in, interaction with the sociocultural context in which we are embedded. Avoid copy and paste!
“The problem is, when you copy a Dutch model or a Dutch way in to another country, it will not work. Our infrastructure is so unique for example”. – Jan Verbeek (KNVB)on the Learning in Development Podcast (See here)
Inherent barriers to changing practice in sports organizations, shaped by socio- cultural-historical constraints reveal a trajectory, a path dependency (see here), which is often difficult to change (Kiely, 2017, Rothwell, Davids & Stone, 2018; Ross, Gupta, & Sanders, 2018).
We need to investigate form of life to understand these socio-cultural- historical constraints and to create our own knowledge about the means of transforming ways of action to develop a flexible player development framework.
Form of life (What the AIK Research & Development department are continually investigating).
Form of life (Wittgenstein, 1953), describes the behaviors, attitudes, values, beliefs, practices and customs that shape the culture, philosophy, and climate of societies, institutions, sports organizations and player development programs in different societies (Rothwell, Davids & Stone, 2018). Karin Redelius (2013) captures the influence of form of life in Swedish youth sport, when she suggested that culture in a particular club or sports organization can be understood as partly a result of a historical process influenced by the development of society and the views of individual leaders, influencing type of practice design, who is considered talented, what distinguishes a good leader and what is considered success.
AIK Base
Working within a unified conceptual framework encouraged the coordination of shared principles and language that informed the ‘AIK Base’ framework, forming a coherent foundation for the club’s practice design and education programs.
Figure 1 AIK Base: AIK Research & Development
Practice task design
Coaches should see themselves as learning designers and what they do in practice is underpinned by a theoretical framework (at AIK we use ecological dynamics) as this will give them principles to guide their practice. This emphasizes the idea that young players are still on a learning journey. So, as Jason DeVos suggested in the Learning in Development podcast, “instead of player development pathway we should say player development journey”.
Regarding coach interventions and session objectives:
We encourage coaches to move away from theme-based sessions and design practice around principles of play
In Possession: Search Discover Exploit gaps and space.
Recovering the Ball: Minimize opportunities for opponents to utilize space and gaps. Win the ball.
Coaches can check their design and reflect using the following diagram.
Ball-opponent-direction
Consequence (e.g. lose the ball, if you don’t win it back, opponents can score)
Information in practice task design should be representative of the game or aspects of the game
Figure 2 AIK Research & Development
We start where people are at not where we want them to be. The above ideas may help explain the principles of nonlinear pedagogy to parent coaches
Representative learning design,
Task simplification instead of task reduction. Modify the task while insuring that functional information -movement couplings are maintained
Repetition without repetition (movement variation)
The manipulation of constraints: Adjust task constraints (pitch size, number of players, starting positions, ball feed, rules)
Promote an external focus of attention: Reduce conscious and explicit control of movement (instructions should promote an external focus of attention to help players learn to learn how to exploit information)
Coaches and players are architects of a learning experience.
If the design is rich in representative information and tailored to the age and capacities of the young players then the first feedback should come from the design directly to the children. It is their behavior that the coach observes, and that determines the necessary interventions. However, if a coach must step in too often and explicitly instruct, then the coach needs to re-examine their design.
A key point is to use game forms in training sessions that “directly talk to the players”. This means that feedback is directly “coming from the game forms”, so that the coach has to give less feedback from the outside and providing instructions that reduce the player’s breadth of attention.(Daniel Memmert, Footblogball, 2015)
A great point brought up by Andrew Abraham (Twitter), was that all coach interventions have the potential to disempower the young players. This is something that needs to be considered carefully.
For me guided discovery is as much about the design as the questions and task manipulations. This is often forgotten. Interventions should help players focus their attention and intentions towards developing understanding in (Understanding of the game does not imply understanding inthe game)
Practical example
It is quite common that opportunities to design practice are constrained by environmental factors such as available pitch space, amount of goals on pitch. For example, AIK 8 and 9 -year-olds play 5 a side competitive games and the 10 and 11 year-olds play 7 a side. Due to the limited amount of pitches availabe in the municipality we can have up to 8 teams on a full-size pitch with only four available 5 a side and 7 a side goals. This is a common issue in Stockholm and indeed in many large urban cities.
Taking this in to consideration I would like to give an example of how a coach can design practice with limited field space and material.
You can check a video of these session designs in the presentation for MSA Ireland (see here)
references
Bergeron MF, Mountjoy M, Armstrong N, Chia M, Coˆ te ́ J, Emery CA, Faigenbaum A, Hall G Jr, Kriemler S, Le ́ glise M, Malina RM, Pensgaard AM, Sanchez A, Soligard T, Sundgot-Borgen J, van Mechelen WV, Weissensteiner JR, and Engebretsen L.International Olympic Committee consensus statement on youth athletic development. Br J Sports Med 49: 843– 851.
Redelius, K. (2013) Att vilja och kunna fortsätta – Om idrottens utformning och tillgänglighet (s. 19-40), i Spela vidare: en antologi om vad som får unga att fortsätta idrotta, Stockholm: Centrum för idrottsforskning.
Ross, E., Gupta, L., & Sanders, L. (2018). When research leads to learning, but not action in high performance sport. Progress in Brain Research Sport and the Brain: The Science of Preparing, Enduring and Winning, Part C,201–217. doi: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.08.001′
Rothwell, Martyn & Davids, Keith & Stone, Joe. (2018). Harnessing Socio-cultural Constraints on Athlete Development to Create a Form of Life. Journal of Expertise.
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Davids, K., Potrac, P., & López-felip, M. A. (2019). Developing Creativity to Enhance Human Potential in Sport: A Wicked Transdisciplinary Challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(September), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02090
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
For the 5thguest discussion on our Learning in Development podcast we invited in Dr. Jennifer Turnnidge from Queens University, Kingston. Ontario.
Jennifer did her doctorate degree in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University under the supervision of Jean Côté. In addition to her doctoral work, she also completed her Undergraduate (2009) and Master’s (2011) degrees at Queen’s. Broadly, her program of research explores how coach-athlete and peer relationships can promote positive development in sport. Specifically, she examines how coaches’ leadership behaviours can influence the quality of youth’s sport experiences. Outside of her role as a researcher and a student, Jennifer loves to spend time with her family and friends.
While the aim of this series of podcasts is not to present the ‘silver bullet’ answers, it is hoped that after listening we will all leave these discussions with better questions (I know that I certainly have).
Insights
How can we use research to improve the sporting experience for people?
We should be embedding collaborations between researchers and practice in national governing bodies, sports organisations or clubs in representative environments (coach education, day to day club activities)
This approach invites a possibility for rich shared experiences and discussions that can further inform the research.
Research can inform practice and practice can inform research – Its bi-directional, reciprocal and dynamic. We need to create opportunities for this.
Can we create environments for children to play for ‘play’s sake’?
We often focus on the long-term outcomes of sport. We also need to focus on the immediate experience, the meaning and value of what is happening to them (the children) now.
Sports development comes back to the day to day experiences
Who are we organising sport for?
How can we improve the immediate experience?
What are the barriers to change?
Do we need to reconceptualise child youth sport as something that is participated in away from organised sport?
How can we encourage a diversity of experiences?
How do we design in opportunities for these experiences?
What do children ‘not’ miss about organised sport?
Are we really paying attention to what matters?
Reccomended reading: The play deficit – Peter Gray (see here)
It’s difficult to change the system if you are only talking to part of the system
We need to deliberately engage more with parents
We need to provide parents with good examples of what good youth sport looks like. The examples we have now tend to come from the professional level. For example, adult driven examples of what good coaching looks like.
The coach is part of the activity
We need to educate coaches about the important role they have
Coaches can better define their objectives if they are underpinned by the quality of their interactions. For example, objectives for a practice can be co-designed with the young players
A good youth coach can find the link between the behaviours they see and the outcomes that the players are hoping to achieve?
The 4thguest discussion on our Learning in Development podcast brought together two national federations from different sides of the globe to discuss how they are looking to evolve player development and coach education. We also discussed the culturally pervasive beliefs that underpin the values, belief, ideas and behaviors (form of life) in and around child-youth football.
From the Dutch football federation (KNVB) we have Jorg van der Breggen (twitter) and Jan Verbeek – KNVB
From the Canadian Soccer Association, we have Director of Development Jason De Vos (twitter)
While the aim of this series of podcasts is not to present the ‘silver bullet’ answers, it is hoped that after listening we will all leave these discussions with better questions (I know that I certainly have).
Insights
There are many positives for youth football when you consider the geography of the Netherlands. With a population of 17 million and 3,000 clubs in such a small country, there are opportunities everywhere for children to play football locally. A football club is often just a bike ride away.
The biggest challenge Canada Soccer faces is the vast scale of the country. Football, how it looks and the culture of the game can be very different on one side of the country when compared to the other side. It has been common for young children to travel 6 hours or more in a car just to take part in a football tournament.
It is the role of a national federation to be progressive and to continuously ask questions about their current practice and structures.
Despite having different football cultures, both federations are basically investigating and assessing the same thing, youth football. For example, they are both asking, how do we structure youth football to meet the needs of the young players? Are the systems already in place respecting the nonlinearity of player development?
Investigating this is a delicate process as is how we act on the information we collect and the knowledge we create. Are we going to regulate the system with restrictions, or are we going to build it on relationships with people through education?
It is a common mistake to assume that success at senior national level directly reflects the state of youth football in that country at that time. While a system may seem effective, as you may be getting players through that can perform at the top level, it does not imply that it is efficient. For example, an inefficiency in the system may be seen in the relative age effect. As a federation we need to ask how we can work with these inefficiencies?
Words like ‘production line of talent’,’ football factory’ are highly problematic. This can shape form of life (e.g., the conversation, values, beliefs, behaviors and ideas) in and around youth football and make for a resilient culture.
It seems that there is one common model- in practice The Standard Model of Talent Development (see here). It gives the illusion that it is working as players come through the system. But does this model adhere and respect principles that underpin the nonlinearity of human and therefore player development?
The KNVB “Equal Opportunities Project” is investigating this system, the selection and deselection of players at a very young age. This system has many assumptions that need to be challenged and there is much room for improvement.
Children compete, adults compare
In both countries many adults have assumed that by not publishing league tables with the youngest age groups we are stopping children from competing.
We had an adult competition model super imposed on to children’s football
We don’t need to teach kids how to compete: The idea not publishing league tables or not having promotion and regulation with 9 and 10 -years old’s, will not stop children from competing
The new game formats at the foundation phase that KNVB are promoting are in line with the vision of Johan Cruyff. In many ways it goes back to street football. Cruyff was quite ahead of his time without knowing it. His ideas and the ideas been promoted within KNVB align pretty well the concepts of Representative Learning Design (see here) and Ecological Dynamics (see here)
Do not copy and paste
If you try and copy and paste someone else’s ideas, it just won’t work!
“If I had a dollar for every person that told me that you just need to copy what Germany does, Belgium does, what Iceland does, then I would be able to retire right now” – Jason DeVos (Canadian Soccer Association)
“The problem is, when you copy a Dutch model or a Dutch way in to another country, it will not work. Our infrastructure is so unique for example”. – Jan Verbeek (KNVB)
You have to have a deep understanding of your own national culture
Coach Education
We need to ask why are we delivering our coach education programs in the manner we are?
The traditional evaluation systems used in coach education need to be questioned
Move coach education away from the standardised approach. Start with a conversation and some self-reflections and base the course around the individual’s needs.
Coach education programmes should have the same individualised approach towards coaches as we should have with players.
To change what we do, to better serve what they need
We are not in the football business, we are in the relationship business.
You can put the best structure in place, but it’s down to creating environments for kids to fall in love with football
Our job is to understand how we can try and help and support people and Covid-19 has really shown how important this is.
The challenge is, how can we change what we do, to better serve what they (the young players) need?
We start where people are at, not where we want them to be
footblogball 