Level - Coni

Transcription

Level - Coni

Projects and strategies for recruitment, j
g
identification and worldwide d l
development of talent
t ft l t
Roel Vaeyens
Seminario internazionale
PROGETTO TALENTO:
RICERCA, INDIVIDUAZIONE E SVILUPPO
SEARCHING FOR TALENT:
AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK?
AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK?
????
raw material Roel Vaeyens CONI Rome 2011
end product ELITE ATHLETE: A DREAM!?
ELITE ATHLETE: A DREAM!?
IMPORTANCE TALENT IDENTIFICATION
IMPORTANCE TALENT IDENTIFICATION
• Sportive success
Sportive success Â progression from youth to adult elite progression from youth to adult elite
level
• Evolutions in society
search for talent / ‘excellence’ e.g., Idol tv formats performance‐driven Â evaluation
sport = business
• New world power / Economic crisis / Small countries
decreasing competitiveness
decreasing competitiveness with financially stronger countries
with financially stronger countries
smaller talent pool
Roel Vaeyens CONI Rome 2011
WHAT IS TALENT?
WHAT IS TALENT?
• Definition: no consensus
Definition: no consensus
•
Gagné (1999): Talent = superior mastery of systematically developed abilities (competencies) in any field of human activity to a level that the individual belongs to the top 10% of peers active in that field
• Nature
Nature‐nurture
nurture debate:
debate:
combination of genes and environment
• Complex item Â ‘potential’ to become expert
• Different stages (Russel, 1989; Williams & Reilly, 2000)
Diff
t t
(R
l 1989 Willi
& R ill 2000)
STADIA
ST vs. LT
best individuals vs. best team
Talent SELECTION:
on‐going process of selecting most appropriate (group of) individual(s)
pp p
(g p )
()
Talent DEVELOPMENT:
suitable learning environment to realise
potentieal
Talent IDENTIFICATON:
potential elite athletes within soccer population
Talent DETECTION:
Talent DETECTION:
potential elite athletes who are currently not involved in soccer
Adapted from Williams & Reilly (2000)
DETERMINANTS & INFLUENCES
• Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (Gagné):
Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (Gagné):
Gagné (2005)
natural abilities via developmental process Â
systematically developed skills
• Clear distinction between
‘giftedeness’ = constituing elements
talent = end product of development
Gagné (2005)
natural abilities via developmental process Â
• Clear distinction between
‘giftedeness’ = constituing elements
talent = end product of development
• Trio of catalysts
intrapersonal
environment
chance
Gagné (2005)
PROBLEMS IN TID & TDE
TALENT COMPLEX
TALENT = COMPLEX
• Performance
Performance ~
~ great number of factors great number of factors
Expertise = sum of various components
POTENTIAL PREDICTORS OF TALENT
POTENTIAL PREDICTORS OF TALENT
Physical performance predictors
Anthropometric predictors
Length, weight, body dimensions, circumferences, muscle, somatotype, i
f
l
growth, body fat%
aerobic capacity, anaerobic endurance, anaerobic power
Potential i l
predictors of talent
Support of parents, socio‐economical background education coach‐child
background, education, coach‐child interaction, hours practice, cultural background
Sociological predictors
perceptual‐cognitive skills: attention, anticipation, decision‐making
anticipation, decision
making
Personality: selfconfidence, motivation, controle of fear
P h l i l
Psychological predictors
di t
Adapted from Williams & Franks (1998)
TALENT COMPLEX
TALENT = COMPLEX
• Performance
Performance ~
~ great number of factors great number of factors
Expertise can be achieved through individual or unique ways
Expertise can be achieved through individual or unique ways through different combinations of skills cf. compensation phenomenon (Bartmus et al., 1987) >< e.g., TIPS
e.g., discipline, type, playing position
TWEEVOETIGHEID?
COMPENSATION
COMPENSATION FOR WEAKNESSES
FOR WEAKNESSES
≠ TYPES DISCIPLINES?
≠ TYPES, DISCIPLINES?
9026
98.48
19.19
58.875
9.58
TALENT COMPLEX
TALENT = COMPLEX
• Performance
Performance ~ great number of factors great number of factors
Expertise can be achieved through individual or unique ways
Expertise can be achieved through individual or unique ways through different combinations of skills cf. compensation phenomenon (Bartmus et al., 1987) >< e.g., TIPS
e.g., discipline, type, playing position
• Abscence of objective performance characteristics e.g., Abscence of objective performance characteristics e g
time or distance
• More difficult to evaluate individual performance in team sports
HOW EVALUATE/IDENTIFY PLAYER?
HOW EVALUATE/IDENTIFY PLAYER?
• Evaluation (identification) based on observation during Evaluation (identification) based on observation during
game (scouting)
• Game is ideal environment to evaluate player
Game is ideal environment to evaluate player
BUT…
numerous influences
i fl

team mates
opponents
t
system of play, tactics, playing formation
‘game
game‐to‐game variability
to game variability’
practice history
…
MATURITY PERFORMANCE
MATURITY ~
• Large inter‐individual differences in growth, development Large inter‐individual differences in growth development
and training cause unstable, non‐linear development of performance‐related
performance
related capacities (e.g., Malina et al., 2004)
capacities (e.g., Malina et al., 2004)
GHENT YOUTH SOCCER PROJECT (Vaeyens et al., 2006)
maturity ~ speed, strength, endurance and technique
unique development and evolution of skills in function of timing and tempo of growth spurt
dt
f
th
t
Cm/yyear
INTER INDIVIDUAL IN GROWTH
INTER‐INDIVIDUAL ≠ IN GROWTH
Age
g
ANTHROPOMETRY
-12
-6
PHV
6
12
18
12
12
10
10
8
8
height
6
6
4
4
weight
Ge
ewicht (k
kg/ jaar)
Le
engte (cm
m/ jaar)
-18
APHV = 13.8 years
2
2
0
0
-18
-12
-6
PHV
6
12
18
Maanden tot PHV
Philippaerts et al. (2006)
DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO GROWTH
26
24
Increase
e in lenegth
m/year)
Toenam
T
LL(cm
(cm
m/
jaar)
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Strength & Speed
8
Flexibility
6
4
(An)aerobic
endurance
d
2
0
0
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Chronological
(years)
Chronologischeage
lft (jaar)
MATURITY ~
performance
dt
f
th
t
early vs. late mature players
EARLY vs. LATE MATURE
LATE MATURE

CA = 12.0 yrs
SA = 9.0 yrs
Ht = 143.1 cm

CA = 12.6 yrs
SA = 13.5 yrs
Ht = 165 cm
Skeletal age ((years)
EARLY
EARLY vs. LATE MATURE
LATE MATURE
Chronological age (years)
62% skeletal age > chronological age
NATIONAL LEVEL
NATIONAL LEVEL
18
17
Ske
letal agelfft
((years)
Sk
keletael
(jaar)
16
15
?
14
13
12
11
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Chronologische
lft (jaar)
Chronological
age (years)
PROVINCIAL LEVEL
PROVINCIAL LEVEL
18
Sk
keletale
(jaar)
Ske
letal age llft
((years)
17
16
15
?
14
13
12
11
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Chronological
age (years)
Chronologische
lft (jaar)
REGIONAL LEVEL
REGIONAL LEVEL
18
17
Skeleetal
age (y
Skeletale
S
lftears)
(jaar)
16
15
?
14
13
12
11
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Chronological
(years)
Chronologische age
lft (jaar)
MATURITY ~
performance
dt
f
th
t
early vs. late mature players
relative age effect
relative age effect
RELATIVE AGE EFFECT
RELATIVE AGE EFFECT
births belgium
births soccer
Perce
entage off sample
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
Quarter of birth
Vaeyens et al. (2005)
RELATIVE AGE EFFECT
RELATIVE AGE EFFECT
births belgium
births soccer
min (mean)
35
Perce
entage off sample
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
Q t off birth
Quarter
bi th
RELATIVE AGE EFFECT
RELATIVE AGE EFFECT
RELATIVE AGE EFFECT
RELATIVE AGE EFFECT
Mujika et al. (2009)
TALENT IS DYNAMIC ISSUE
• Talent ID = prediction on LONG TERM
Talent ID = prediction on LONG TERM
BUT… mainly based on CURRENT performances
Â
assumptions
youth sport = adult sport ???
y
p
p
retainment of characteristics through puberty (e.g., growth, training)??? cf. eternal promising players
physical advantage disappears
shifts in task demands e.g., rule changes (judo, gymnastics) or game characteristics (increased game demands)
game characteristics (increased game demands)
• GYSP: discriminating (elite vs. sub‐elite) characteristics: discriminating (elite vs sub‐elite) characteristics:
age‐specific
10‐14 years: anthropometry (Ht, Wt, body fat%) cf. maturity
U13
U13‐U14:
U14: technique & speed
technique & speed
U15‐U16: endurance
SUCCESS RATE OF TID PROGRAMMES
• Few scientific studies have examined the efficiency & Few scientific studies have examined the efficiency &
efficacy of TID programmes
Schumacher et aI. (2001): ca. 30% successful
Schumacher et aI (2001): ca 30% successful
Menaspa et al. (2010): physiological variables do not predict professional career of young cyclists
predict professional career of young cyclists

Low to moderate success ratios in German and Low
to moderate success ratios in German and
Russian TID & TDE programmes (e.g., Riecken et al 1993; Güllich et al 2005 2008)
al., 1993; Güllich et al. 2005, 2008)

Majority of early recruited and supported children never become successful senior athletes
never become successful senior athletes
Many international successful senior athletes have not been supported in institutional TDE programmes at
been supported in institutional TDE programmes at young age
STARTING AGE OF OLYMPIC ATHLETES
Athens 2004 Olympic Organising Comittee
PREDICTION ACCURACY
PREDICTION ACCURACY

Time
Number of essential components
Open vs closed skills
NEED FOR LONGITUDINAL APPROACH
NEED FOR LONGITUDINAL APPROACH
• Vandorpe et al. (2010): two‐year follow‐up of 7‐year‐old Vandorpe et al (2010): two‐year follow‐up of 7‐year‐old
female gymnasts

35 selected: elite
35
selected: elite
27 not selected: sub‐elite
• MQKTK (Kiphard & Shilling, 1974)
MQKTK (Ki h d & Shilli 1974)
• Elite (135) > Sub‐elite (127) > Control (98)
• Retrospective regression analysis: 29% of total variance of competition result is explained by MQ score of of competition result is explained by MQ
score of ‐2
2 years
years
Physical + Motor
profile
Elementary school
6 to 11 years
2008-2010 (n= 5613)
Physical + Motor
p ofile
profile
Topsport school
12 to 18 years
y
2008-2010 (n= 1592)
Test profile
Ski
Physical + Motor
profile
Test profile
Fencing
6 to 11 years
Test profiile
Tennis
2008-2010 (n= 5613)
Test profile
Volleyball
ll b ll
Test profile
Fooball
Test profile
Judo
Testt profile
T
fil
Handball
Test profile
Badminton
Test profile
Gymnastics
Physical + Motor
profile
Top sport students
2008-2010
2008
2010 (n
(n= 1592)
Test profile
Athletics
Physical + Motor
profile
6 to 11 years
2008-2010 (n= 5613)
Talent detection
Physical + Motor
profile
Test profile
Gymnastcs
Top sport students
‘New’ Talent
2008-2010
2008
2010 (n
(n= 1592)
RECOMMENDATIONS
• TID test battery: useful complementary advice
TID test battery: useful complementary advice
• Primarily anthropometric, physical & physiological measures Æ
measures
Æ inclusion of other parameters e.g., technical inclusion of other parameters e g technical
& tactical skills
• Development of game‐based approach
p
g
pp
LATE MATURING PLAYERS: U16 FUTURES
30m sprint
30m sprint
Physical profile
sec
4,75
4,55
4,35
level
Niet‐selectie TSS
Non sel TSA
Selected TSA
Selectie TSS
Internationals IT Futures
Standing long jump
Standing long jump
cm
230
220
210
200
Non sel TSA TSS
Niet-selectie
level
SelectedTSS
TSA
Selectie
Internationals
IT Futures
Vandendriessche et al. (2010)
Jumping sideways
Coordination profile
n
n/30s
110
100
90
80
level
Non sel TSA
Niet‐Selectie TSS
Selected TSA
Selectie TSS
Internationals
IT Futures
Moving boxes
n/4
40s
70
65
60
55
Non sel TSA
Niet‐Selectie TSS
level
Selected TSA
Selectie TSS
Internationals
IT Futures
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Inclusion of other parameters e.g., technical & tactical skills
• Individualized approach taking into account (biological) maturity & training history profile
• Repetitive profiling of young athletes is essential
Identification vs reference values
Identification strengths & weaknesses
Monitoring progression & development
REPETITIVE PROFILING
REPETITIVE PROFILING
It’s not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent or skilled, but
the most intelligent or
skilled, but the one
the one most most
responsive to the environment”
(Charles Darwin, 1859)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
• TID research group Dept Movement & Sports Sciences
TID research group Dept Movement & Sports Sciences
Matthieu Lenoir
Renaat Philippaerts
R
t Phili
t
Dieter Deprez
Job Fransen
Stijn Matthys
Johan Pion
Joric Vandendriessche
Barbara Vandorpe
TID PROGRAM IN THE FIELD:
SOME EXAMPLES
A TOOL TO DETECT, ORIENT AND IDENTIFY TALENT
MISSION
• Approximately 50% of the Flemish 6‐12 year‐old children Approximately 50% of the Flemish 6‐12 year‐old children
engages in organised sport activities. The ‘Flemisch Sports Kompas’ wants to help these children in their choice for a Kompas
wants to help these children in their choice for a
sport / sport clusters for which it is best suited
• A profile is made based on
fil i
d b d
Body composition
Physical characteristics
Ph i l h
i i
Motor characteristics
Preference for sporting activities
Preference for sporting activities
TARGET GROUP ALL CHILDREN
TARGET GROUP: ALL CHILDREN
• Design of an orienting sporting advice with a threefold Design of an orienting sporting advice with a threefold
aim
• Low scores: orientation towards a healthy development
Low scores: orientation towards a healthy development
• High scores: orientation towards organised/competitive sport
• Very high scores: orientation towards top sport
y g
p p
• Features
Long‐term vision
Cross‐federational approach
Based on uniform and objective measures
Based on niform and objecti e meas res
• Analyse van de
componenten van “talent”
• Unieke combinatie van
scores is richtinggevend
voor een cluster van sporten
p
• Eerste grootschalige
oriëntatie
ië t ti op Topdagen
T d
voorjaar 2009
Physical + Motor
profile
Elementary school
6 to 11 years
2008-2010 (n= 5613)
Physical + Motor
p ofile
profile
Topsport school
12 to 18 years
y
2008-2010 (n= 1592)
Test profile
Ski
Physical + Motor
profile
Test profile
Fencing
6 to 11 years
Test profiile
Tennis
2008-2010 (n= 5613)
Test profile
Volleyball
ll b ll
Test profile
Fooball
Test profile
Judo
Testt profile
T
fil
Handball
Test profile
Badminton
Test profile
Gymnastics
Physical + Motor
profile
Top sport students
2008-2010
2008
2010 (n
(n= 1592)
Test profile
Athletics
Physical + Motor
profile
6 to 11 years
2008-2010 (n= 5613)
Talent detection
Physical + Motor
profile
Test profile
Gymnastcs
Top sport students
‘New’ Talent
2008-2010
2008
2010 (n
(n= 1592)
POTENTIAL PREDICTORS OF SOCCER TALENT
Anthropometric predictors
Length, weight, body dimensions, circumferences muscle somatotype
circumferences, muscle, somatotype, growth, body fat%
aerobic capacity, anaerobic aerobic
capacity anaerobic
endurance, anaerobic power
Potential
Potential predictors of talent
Support of parents, socio‐economical g
,
,
background, education, coach‐child interaction, hours practice, cultural background
perceptual‐cognitive skills: attention, anticipation, decision‐making
Personality: selfconfidence, motivation, controle of fear
Adapted from Williams & Franks (1998)
SCIENCE IN THE FIELD?
SCIENCE IN THE FIELD?
• Williams & Reilly (2000):
Williams & Reilly (2000):
“Professional soccer clubs are now more aware of the importance of identifying and developing their own importance
of identifying and developing their own
talented players with the ability to play in the first team…”
“…However, many existing TID programmes have a relatively flimsy scientific foundation.”
A JOINT APPROACH
A JOINT APPROACH
• Selection for top sport academy:
Selection for top sport academy:
Talent identification test procedure (objective)
Games 2vs2, 5vs5, 8vs8, 11vs11 (experts)
Games 2vs2 5vs5 8vs8 11vs11 (experts)
May 2009 (325 players, 14‐18 years)
May 2009 (325 players 14 18 years)
Internationals youth teams
Anthropometric
predictors
Potential
predictors
of talent
Potential Potential
predictors of talent
Potential
predictors
of talent
Potential
Potential predictors of talent
•Ego‐Task questionnaire
•Training profiles
Training profiles
DISCRIMINATIVE POWER PHYSICAL TESTS – U16
30m sprint
30m sprint
*
*
4,75
4,7
4,65
sec
4,6
4,55
4,5
4,45
4,4
4,35
Level
Not selected TSA
Niet‐selectie TSS
Niet‐selectie
TSS
SelectedTSS
TSA
Selectie TSS
Selectie
Internationals Internationals
DISCRIMINATIVE POWER PHYSICAL TESTS – U16
Standing Long Jump
Standing Long Jump
*
225
*
cm
220
215
210
205
200
Level
Not selected TSA
Niet‐selectie TSS
Selectie TSS
Selected TSA
Internationals
DISCRIMINATIVE POWER COORDINATION TESTS – U16
Jumping sideways
*
110
*
105
n/3
30s
100
95
90
85
80
level
NotSselected
TSA
Niet‐Selectie TSS
Ni
l i TSS
Selected
SSelectie TSS
l i TSS
TSA
I
Internationals
i
l
DISCRIMINATIVE POWER COORDINATION TESTS – U16
Moving boxes
*
70
68
*
n/4
40s
66
64
62
60
58
56
level
Not selected TSA
Niet‐Selectie TSS
Selected
Selectie TSS
TSA
Internationals
MEASUREMENT OF MATURITY
MEASUREMENT OF MATURITY
10 5
10.5 yrs
17 5
17.5 yrs
• Field tests
• Age at peak height velocity (Mirwald et al., 2005)
Indication of timing of peak growth spurt
I di ti
f ti i
f
k
th
t
30m sprint
30m sprint
Physical profile
sec
4,75
4,55
4,35
level
Niet‐selectie TSS
Non sel TSA
Selected TSA
Selectie TSS
Internationals IT Futures
Standing long jump
Standing long jump
cm
230
220
210
200
Non sel TSA TSS
Niet-selectie
level
SelectedTSS
TSA
Selectie
Internationals
IT Futures
Jumping sideways
Coordination profile
n
n/30s
110
100
90
80
level
Non sel TSA
Niet‐Selectie TSS
Selected TSA
Selectie TSS
Internationals
IT Futures
Moving boxes
n/4
40s
70
65
60
55
Non sel TSA
Niet‐Selectie TSS
level
Selected TSA
Selectie TSS
Internationals
IT Futures
TID TESTS ADDED VALUE
TID TESTS: ADDED VALUE
• Discriminative power
Selected vs non‐selected players
Benchmarks of different levels per age group
Benchmarks of different levels per age group
• Take into account maturity‐level!
Physical characteristics: differences
General motor coordination: no differences
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Inclusion of other parameters e.g., technical & tactical skills
• Individualized approach taking into account (biological) maturity & training history profile
• Repetitive profiling of young athletes is essential
Identification vs reference values
Identification strengths & weaknesses
TALENT DEVELOPMENT
EARLY VS LATE SPECIALIZATION
• Early specialization
Early specialization
Negative impact on development of general abilities (Wiersma, 2000)
(Wiersma, 2000)
Increased risk for burn‐out (Henschen, 1998) or drop‐out (Wiersma 2000)
(Wiersma, 2000)
Not essential to reach elite level (Côté, 1999)
No exposure to benefits of other sports (Wolstencroft, 2002)
MULTIPLE SPORTS BACKGROUND
• Baker et al. (2003)
Baker et al (2003)
Beneficial for general and sport‐specific development
More consistent performances, less injuries and drop‐out
• Sportakus project
Sportakus project
Handball – Volleyball – Basketball – Soccer – Dance –
Atletics – Tennis
Atletics
6‐12 years (n=288) Roel Vaeyens CONI Rome 2011
SPORTAKUS GENERAL ABILITIES
SPORTAKUS –
GENERAL ABILITIES
SBJ
170
*
160
150
cm
140
130
120
110
100
> 1 sport
1 sport
group
Fransen et al. (unpublished)
SPORTAKUS GENERAL ABILITIES
SPORTAKUS –
GENERAL ABILITIES
SAR
30
*
25
cm
20
15
10
5
0
> 1 sport
1 sport
group
Fransen et al. (unpublished)
SPORTAKUS SPORTSPECIFIC SKILLS
SPORTAKUS –
SPORTSPECIFIC SKILLS
• Soccer dribble test
Soccer dribble test
Significant differences between soccer group and other sports from 7 yrs
sports from 7 yrs
• Multiple sports background is beneficial for complete Multiple sports background is beneficial for complete
development cf. Developmental Model of Sport Participation (Côté and Fraser‐Thomas,
Participation (Côté and Fraser
Thomas, 2007)
2007)
• Early involvement in some sports may be essential to Early involvement in some sports may be essential to
reach elite level
OPTIMAL DEV OPPORTUNITIES
OPTIMAL DEV OPPORTUNITIES
• Individualised approach cf. maturity
Individualised approach cf maturity
• Targets and methods: long term
• Identification & development of skills
essential at adult age
l
d l
increase opportunities to learn and successfully develop ((youth: LT plan vs. adults: ST)
th LT l
d lt ST)
tid test battery: useful support in decision‐making process
• Repetitive profiling: progression rather than performance!
WCSS 2012
WCS