Does Early Selection for Talent Pathways Confer Success in Junior and Senior Competition?
Research Insights and Applications #2
Welcome back to our new feature showcasing important studies in the research literature. Once again, we will highlight the key take-away findings, provide commentary and interpret the information presented to see how we might translate the insights offered into real world practice.
Our second study examines whether it is an advantage for young performers to be selected early for talent development pathways. On the surface, earlier access to higher calibre coaching, training facilities and other forms of athlete support that come with being part of a talent development pathway should prove more beneficial in advancing young athletes’ development over the long term. But is this found to be the case in practice?
To answer this question, the authors collated the findings from the available studies on the topic to assess whether being part of these programmes from a younger age was associated with higher levels of attainment in junior and senior competition, relative to their peers who were selected later. The studies featured a range of sports, encompassing both individual and team sports. The ‘talent promotion programmes’ included national federation junior squads and regional youth academies. The measure of success was whether early age of selection showed a positive association with competitive performance at junior level and senior level, respectively.
Based on their analysis, the authors concluded that being selected to talent development programmes at an earlier age was associated with diverging outcomes in terms of subsequent performance in junior versus senior competition. Kids who entered talent promotion programmes at a younger age did appear to show accelerated development, based on their achievements in junior competition. However, this apparent advantage did not translate into competitive success at senior level. Conversely, young performers who were relatively older when they were selected may not have had the same level of success in junior competition but were ultimately more successful once they reached senior level.
We should note that these findings do not prove causation. It would follow that standout performers in age-grade junior competition would be more likely to be selected for talent squads and youth academies from an early age. It also follows that kids who do not have the same early success in junior competion would be selected later (assuming they were selected at all). What takes more explaining is why kids who were selected later should prove more to be more successful than their early-selected peers in senior-level competition.
To make sense of these findings, it is important to note that talent identification is notoriously unreliable at younger ages and naturally this is reflected in selection decisions. Performers at junior level might be more advanced than their peers for a number of different reasons that are not necessarily reflective of their potential over the long term. Age-grade selection favours kids who are older due to where their birth date falls in the calendar and early maturers are likewise over-represented in junior squads. Naturally, these early advantages diminish over time and may disappear entirely as growth curves converge. Selection judgements made later in young athletes’ development thus offer a more reliable indicator of an individual’s potential to succeed in senior-level competition. Early specialisation is another factor - kids who have spent more time practising the sport to the exclusion of others from a younger age may have a competitive edge in junior competition, yet this often comes at a cost to their long-term athletic potential.
Early selection to talent development pathways may also lead to paradoxical effects that can be detrimental to young athletes’ development over the long term. Being marked out as talented confers status and this can influence the individual’s attitudes towards their participation in sport in unhelpful ways. For instance, they might become more defensive in how they engage in practice, playing it safe and avoiding situations where they might fail, as they seek to preserve their status and protect their standing in the eyes of others. As we explored in a previous post, the treatment that precocious talents receive is also not necessarily conducive to developing the habits, attitudes and behaviours they need to continue to progress:
The Responsibility of Athletic Gifts
Natural talent and work ethic do not necessarily go together. Many will be familiar with the scenario of a talented performer relying on his or her athletic gifts and being lackadaisical in their approach. A sign of how often this phenomenon is observed is that it has given rise to the adage ‘hard work …
The impetus to select early is in part driven by the belief that earlier exposure to talent development pathways will provide advantages that can be expected to accrue over time. The fact that early selection was not associated with success at senior level challenges this assumption. Whilst selection offers opportunity, there are also costs. Being part of a talent pathway involves greater commitment from the young athlete, meaning more time spent engaging in the sport, probably for a greater proportion of the year and likely to the exclusion of others sports and activities. The earlier they take this step, the more they might miss out on. Clearly we need to account for these factors and acknowledge that there are potential downsides that need to be managed.
There is also the question of readiness. That is, are they ready and equipped to take advantage of the opportunity they are being presented with? This is an important consideration for those involved in talent development pathways, as it will have a direct bearing on whether the potential benefits are realised. It might be more prudent to adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach early on.
In reality, the push to select early is also driven by competitive pressures and other interests. In team sports, youth academies attached to professional teams compete with each other to secure up-and-coming young talents. There is also competition between sports to try to ensure that promising young performers opt to pursue their particular sport rather than the alternatives. Commercial youth sports academies also exist (notably in North America) that are motivated more by financial interests than such niceties as what might be best for the young athletes’ long-term development. These agendas and the incentives involved can act in direct opposition to adopting the long-term, ‘slow and steady’ approach that is seemingly more conducive to long-term success.
One thing that is important to note is that the studies included in the analysis predominantly featured young males athletes (82% of the subjects in the sample were male). It is conceivable that the picture might look distinctly different if we only included young females in the analysis and we would draw very different conclusions as a result. Early success in junior competition may be a more reliable basis for selecting young female athletes (compared with males) given that puberty occurs around two years earlier with girls. As girls mature earlier, their psychological readiness for being part of a talent development pathway from a younger age is also typically greater than we would expect with boys of the same age. Moreover, the need for athlete support - specifically dryland training - from an earlier age is much greater for girls, given the lack of natural gains in strength to accompany the growth that occurs during puberty and the subsequent difficulties they will otherwise face as a result. For each of these reasons, earlier selection and early access to support is arguably more appropriate and more likely to confer important and lasting benefits for young females.
Those important caveats aside, what the findings show is that, all things considered, it is better to emerge later! This take-home message echoes an earlier post:
Go Quickly or Go Far?
When guiding aspiring young athletes we must carefully consider whether we are optimising for success in the short-term or the long-term. Put more simply, the question for a young performer is ‘do you want to win now or win once you reach senior elite-level?’. At first glance it is not obvious that th…
On that basis, rather than chasing rapid development, we should be striving for steady but consistent progress that is sustained through the developmental years. As coaches and parents, it is important that we take the long view so that we are not in too much of a hurry. Parents need to be a steadying influence. Young performers who have early success are likely to be bombarded with invitations and it pays to be selective and consider the costs that accompany the prospective opportunities. Likewise, the defining characteristic of development coaching is that it emphasises building the foundations for medium- and long-term success over quick wins and short-term performance outcomes.
The same longer term perspective applies to talent development - and even talent identification. Given the inherent uncertainty involved with talent identification and selection, a more pragmatic approach has been advocated for talent development pathways over recent years, encapsulated by the mantra ‘as many as possible for as long as possible’. Given the constraints on time and resources, this of course means less time and support for each individual, especially early on. The findings of this study suggest that this might not be a bad thing.