Kelvin Giles is considered a “world leader” in the area of Long Term Athlete Development – he is a former UK National and Olympic Track & Field Coach, Inaugural Head Coach at the Australian Institute of Sport, Director of Performance for the Brisbane Broncos, Director of Strength & Conditioning at the Queensland Academy of Sport and world renowned strategist on modern performance attainment models.
Coach to 14 Olympians he has developed the first progressive exercise system that transports athletes along the development continuum from the Fundamental Training Stage through to the Training to Win Stage.
Experienced in operational reviews and infrastructure development for all layers of the sporting continuum he also consults with Coach Education entities worldwide and is adept at identifying and integrating the human, physical and financial resources necessary for change.
Kelvin will be in Europe for a large part of 2008 to conduct operational reviews for National and professional sports organisations.
Kelvin can be reached via email – [email protected]
Visit his website at www.movementdynamics.com
Introduction and Overview
“We concern ourselves with finding some spell, potion, gadget or magic program to give us the 1% edge over our competitors – when getting the basics, the other 99% right is the actual problem.”
Australia has, over the last quarter century, ‘punched above its weight’ in the world of elite sports. Armed with an influential National Institute / Academy structure and a national desire to ‘win’, it has led the world in many aspects of comparable sporting endeavour. Just as other nations are focusing human, physical and financial resources towards their sporting continuum and expecting similar results, Australia is rapidly finding out that it’s strategy has ignored a limitation that continues to blight athlete development and, of course, impacts on elite performance issues. This article is intended to illustrate the issues currently being faced by all practitioners and administrators involved in a Player Development strategy, particularly in Field and Court sports.
Those who have paid attention to the theories of long term athlete development (LTAD) (Balyi, 1999) will admit that little is being done to effectively integrate these theories into the national psyche or indeed the national sporting and education strategy. History and tradition prevail in an environment that is often reluctant to change. Available for more than a decade, the information provided by Balyi and others has given us the clearest indication of the relationship between maturation and sports performance.
Even with the best of intentions many development entities (Institutes, Academies, Clubs, Schools, Talent Squads etc.) continue to operate without any reference to the application of LTAD. As recently as August 2005, after nearly a decade of work, Balyi made the following statements about the current situation in athlete development around the world.
“Young developmental players under-train and over-compete”
“Adult competition schedules are imposed on young players”
“Adult training programs are imposed on young players”
“General motor skills are not learned before age 11 for females and 12 for males”
“Training is geared for outcomes and not for ‘process’ for the developmental players”
(Balyi, 2005)
After scores of operational reviews, presentations, conversations and email exchanges on this subject with practitioners and administrators both in Australia and around the world, I had initially been heartened by the common reply, “Yes, we do LTAD, we have a plan”. In reality, when looking behind this façade of acceptance, we actually see very little other than a regurgitation of Balyi’s language and vocabulary and copious amounts of paper models. In fact in these latter stages of the first decade of the new millennium there are many practitioners who are getting ‘sick and tired’ of the vocabulary of LTAD mostly due to the fact that the large amount of theory and dialogue has done nothing to help them prepare for the next practical coaching session. Accepting these and other theories is a ‘must’ and we should all be thankful for their existence but unless we form a practical, functional plan and intervention at the coaching end of the spectrum we will continue to flounder.
Our current mistakes are clearly illustrated by certain statistical information. By using chronological age as the key to player development, sticking blindly to history and tradition or by focusing solely on the player who is ‘ahead of all the rest’ we often select talent for the wrong reason.
Studies (Soccer) indicate, however, that increased selection opportunities favour older and physically taller boys. Proportionally fewer later maturing boys are represented on soccer teams after 13 years of age (Brewer, Balsom & Davis, 1995).
Furthermore, players born early in the competition year tend to dominate national soccer leagues (Dudink, 1994; Musch & Hay, 1999)
In the Football Associations School of Excellence, of the 106 boys selected over a six year period for the School, 67% were born in the first quarter of the selection year and less than 2% in the last three months. Since then this observation has also been noted in other sports e.g. tennis, swimming.
An explanation of this is that older individuals who are bigger, stronger and faster than their younger counterparts are selected because of these attributes and receive more coaching leading to greater success.(Williams, 2006)
The advent of the ‘growth spurt’ can offer greater risk particularly at the ankle, knee, shoulder and elbow joints. Reasons include incomplete development of muscle in adolescents, the limited shock absorption of developing muscle and the massive forces needed for many actions in acceleration, jumping, kicking and throwing (Price, Hawkins, Hulse and Hodson, 2004).
There is an increase in injury frequency in the 9 – 19 year age group especially with regard to the lower limbs in Field and Court sports and the shoulder in Swimming and Tennis. (DiFiori, 1999)
The above statements hold the key to our many problems. Early maturing players attract the adult who is hell-bent on winning something with all age groups. Bigger, stronger and often faster, the early maturer tends to create two environments –
(a) Their immediate ‘winning’ results keep them at the centre of all training and competition activity. The coach focuses on them, gives them more coaching time, creates more opportunity and amasses greater resources for them. The late developer is often ignored.
(b) Their immediate ‘winning’ results actually stops their development as the coach focuses on the next game or competition and in essence stops coaching them. Their talent to out-perform the opposition becomes their only tool. The coach stops developing the fundamentals and focuses on ‘end stage’ activity. Risks for injury increase as movement mechanics deteriorate as the volume and intensity of training increase. Competition and competition specific activity predominates the programs and outcomes far outweigh process.
Are Talent I/D systems based solely upon the “he / she can play” focus or is there more to the process? If the identification process is only focused on the recent competition results or ranking then we have missed the point. In the more advanced systems we see ‘end stage tests’ such as Speed, Vertical Jump, and MSFT playing a part in talent identification. Although this information is valuable there are many more components that we should be examining. What is the level of Physical Literacy? What is the level of Physical Competence? These factors are the ‘glue’ that holds the Skill, Speed, Strength and Endurance capabilities together.
A typical LTAD plan on the internet usually includes some reference to the training stages as outlined by Balyi. The ‘Fundamental’ stage of training is usually described as:
“…FUN with the emphasis on basic movement literacy and fundamental movement skills.”
Simply stating “…emphasis on basic movement literacy and fundamental movement skills” does little to arm the coach with specific practical information for the next training session. In fact the coach is still left with questions such as, …What is the current physical competence of my athlete? What exercises should I choose for the athlete with a limited training age? How do I develop ‘total structural strength’, ‘total structural stability’ and ‘total structural flexibility’ as this ‘physical literacy’ is pursued? What physical competence does my athlete need to carry out the sports specific skills?
The issue facing the world is how to colour in these theories with practical, exercise based decisions for the developing athlete. Understanding the theory is fine but we still don´t have the tools to express these theories in actual training activities. What is needed, alongside plans and strategies, is a progressive exercise syllabus that transports the developing athlete along a coordinated pathway of attainment towards the required structural strength, stability and flexibility. It needs to be a scheme that can be integrated with technical and tactical development and at the same time give the athlete an exercise starting point and a comprehensive exercise journey. This journey should reflect the individual training age of the athlete and relate directly to their unique requirements.
“All today’s teaching and coaching is dependent on “what has gone before”.”
Long Term Player Development – Soccer
In some countries where soccer is the national game, in particular the United Kingdom, there has been an ongoing desire to see an increase in technique. “First touch” and “comfort on the ball” are skills that are displayed by those nations that have dominated the world game over several decades.
The central issue is that all skill learning requires physical competence be present and that this competence be expressed as “efficiency of movement throughout the entire kinetic chain regardless of the skill being executed” (Giles, 2000). This is often described as ‘all-round athleticism’ or ‘physical literacy’ and should form the cornerstone to the progressive development of the player. Running, jumping, throwing, kicking, catching and hitting activities require the body to express force, reduce force and retain stability (often multi-directional and multi-plane) in a precise, sequenced manner throughout the activity.
As an example Soccer can be viewed as a series of repeated multi-directional accelerations and decelerations while executing the fine motor skills of coordination, balance and control. Most modern day talent I/D structures seek out the player who displays high levels of skill, speed and agility. In most development training programs there will be some level of commitment to speed and agility and as such the coach often turns to the stock standard use of ‘Running Drills’ or ‘Speed, Agility and Quickness (SAQ)™’ drills. The running drills, copied from the world of Track and Field athletics, are misguidedly used to enhance performance in football speed. The SAQ™ drills are a little closer in specificity and, again, are used to find all the answers to acceleration and agility. Herein lies the problem. The running qualities of the soccer player have little resemblance to those of the 100m Track sprinter. The soccer player needs:
- ‘Off-the-mark speed’
- ‘Change-Gear ability’
- ‘Stop and Turn ability’
- ‘Multi-directional, multi-plane force production, reduction and stabilisation’
And from a further physiological / psychological point of view:
- Technique under fatigue (TUF)
- Power under fatigue (PUF)
- Decision making under fatigue (DUF)
(with due reference to Ted Polglaze)
For example, as the young player encounters running drills in the shape of the ‘Mach’ series (often seen in the warm up and usually executed very poorly) they will have to provide certain physical qualities to execute the drills correctly. Their ankle, hamstring and hip flexibility will be placed under scrutiny as they attempt to copy the demonstration given by the coach. Their ability to hold the ‘Tall Hips’ position will demand that they have the required hip extension and stability capability, some degree of single leg strength and gluteus activation to call upon. Their upper body posture will demand a high degree of trunk stability if they are to remain in the correct stance. In fact the whole kinetic chain is being challenged. It would seem sensible to create competence in these areas before attempting to apply them into the running drills.
Understanding the relationship between physical competence and skill development is crucial if the coach is to establish a progressive pathway for the player. Each time the coach asks for a certain technique to be repeated, the player will need to seek a physical answer to this technical question. The essence of this model is to keep the physical competence developing just ahead of the skills being executed at each training stage. In this way the player will always have an available efficiency of movement ‘answers’ to impart to the skill ‘question’ as they become more complex or as they are executed more intensively. Precise technique, permanently embedded in muscle memory, able to withstand the effects of speed and fatigue, must be the long term aim of the program.
Simply repeating a skill without this physical competence will not only slow skill acquisition down but may see the development of unwanted compensatory movements as the body struggles to find the physical answers to the task. This is particularly relevant during the adolescent period when the athlete goes through considerable cognitive and emotional changes. Add these changes to the ever- complex bio-motor development and skill learning may well falter.
“You must have the physical competence to do the technical stuff and the technical qualities to do the tactical stuff…in that order.”
– Movement Dynamics, 2005
As we enter the second half of this first decade of the new millennium many organisations at different layers of the sporting continuum around the world appear oblivious to the limitations born of their athlete’s lack of physical competence. Physical literacy or ‘movement vocabulary’ is a priority in the development of the young player yet its omission causes repercussions throughout the athlete’s life. The chase for skill, speed, strength, power, agility and endurance dominates the coaching plan as the crusade for ‘a winner at all ages’ continues. Trying to find ‘a winner at all ages’ is the main limitation of current strategies. Vital functional development is missed when this plan is pursued. The eradication of all limitations to future elite performance must take place. Many lower limb injuries / disorders can be reduced / controlled by a sound functional development program. Many techniques are fragile due to unacceptable limitations in function. All these functional and athletic qualities should be developed by following a sequence clearly associated with maturation.
Whether the aim is repeatable excellence or ongoing participation at a recreational level, the player’s development plan must contain a model that eradicates the limitations to future performance. Too often a limitation secured in the developmental stages raises its head at the most inopportune time in the player’s career. At the senior level of elite performance the occurrence of injury or the failure of a skill under pressure can often be traced back to a mismanaged developmental stage.
During my work inside Australia’s National and State Institute and State Academy network and during my duties in talent recruitment in professional football, it became clear that new recruits, as well as existing scholarship holders already in national teams, were presenting with limitations in physical competence. After conducting the Movement Dynamics Physical Competence screening alongside the standard physiotherapy screening it became obvious that “Athletes in their mid to late-teens are presenting with increasing limitations in their Athletic, Functional and Training Development.” (Movement Dynamics, 2005)
The limitations
The extensive testing undertaken with the developing athlete over the last decade has allowed us to rank order the limitations in order of their importance to the training scheme. Flexibility, or lack thereof, ranks number one on the list and is described as the limitation with the greatest negative influence on progress across all exercise streams and progressions. For the field and court athlete there is no greater impediment than poor running and agility mechanics and the lack of functional flexibility, particularly in the anterior and posterior hip areas. This environment is proving to be catastrophic in both injury prevention and performance production in all running / agility related activities.
Second culprit is the limitation of an inefficient running action for agility, acceleration and maximum velocity. Heavily influenced by the flexibility limitation this facet of the required physical qualities also impedes the development of agility and running endurance due to the lack of running efficiency.
Third on the list is the lack of ability in force reduction as illustrated in the athlete’s lack of ability to land efficiently during jumping activities or ‘brake’ during change of direction work. With ‘force production’ having the upper hand in strength training, at the expense of ‘force reduction’ and ‘force stabilisation’, it is highly recommended that the coach consider the following scheme: Exercise selection and progression must see force production, force reduction and force stabilisation developed via multi-joint, multi-direction and multi-plane activities. (Movement Dynamics, 2005)
Fourth ranked limitation is a more generic one and can be described as poor exercise technique. Across all exercises seen in the screening battery and also those exercises chosen for inclusion in the training program that are not in the test battery, the quality of movement and control is poor. For example, the simple push-up has vital coaching points that simply must be executed if the pushing aspect of the exercise is to be effective within the entire kinetic chain. Another classic limitation that is actually compounded by coaches is seen in the simple squat movement. When hip mechanics or, more importantly, ankle range is limited one often sees the heels coming off the ground as the athlete nears the ‘parallel thigh’ position. What is the typical response to this situation?…..raise the heels on to blocks! By doing this we are ignoring the cause of the problem and allowing the athlete to progress along the physical performance pathway with a permanent limitation. Many other exercises suffer the same disfigurement during the formative years as coaches employ the ‘circuit training’ type of session. The athletes are invariably told to work within a time limit and invariably rush through their technique. They simply repeat poor technique at speed with stability and control non-existent. As a guide, coaches should consider the following mantra when selecting the training type: Think – static to dynamic, slow to fast, simple to complex, unloaded to loaded as the prime tools of progression (Movement Dynamics, 2005)
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate limitations in Athletic and Functional development of both male and female athletes in their early to mid-teens. A proportion of the tests conducted on the 14-16 year old athletes were applied to senior professional players for comparison (Table 3). Relative to the data base assembled over the last 10 years of screening, the expectation is for the athlete in question, junior or senior, to be able to score 5 across all variables. It must be noted that a score of 5 is viewed as being the minimum requirement.
Results from the Movement Dynamics test battery indicates that the senior players are also operating with a series of athletic and functional limitations. It can be assumed that the limitations seen at the senior level are established early in the career of the player and never eradicated.
Balyi’s reference to ‘adult training programs being imposed on young athletes’ is, in my experience, true. The problem of this watered down adult training bias is usually one of choice where the coach capitulates to the desire for immediate results and appeases the modern ‘fast-tracking’ approach. The desire for outcomes rather than process in the early stages of an athlete’s development creates this unfortunate environment. It can also be argued that this emphasis is caused by the limited knowledge base of the coach concerned. With most early level coach education courses highlighting sports specific skill and the components of competition it is unlikely that the coach will have the knowledge to investigate the development of ‘physical literacy’. Little is done to arm the coach with the knowledge of how to develop the required physical qualities to carry out these sports-specific skills. We are left with a biased program of competition and sport specific skills and little else.
Those athletes that do make the transition from junior to senior participation are likely to have suffered from this ‘fast tracking’ and take with them severe limitations to ongoing performance improvement. With size and early maturation being the dominant factor in performance in the early teens it is not helpful to concentrate on these outcomes. The cultural shift required is a considerable one and it must be seen as a strategic issue for all NGB’s who wish to improve the lot of the developing athlete.
When tests are conducted to assist talent identification we see the 10/40m speed test, the Vertical Jump and the “Beep” test predominating. Little is done to evaluate the movement efficiency of the athlete, a vital component in the execution of these tests. Maximum strength values are still used as a measure of success with the developing age athlete even at the Training to Train stage and exercises that give us force production appear, wrongly, to be more attractive than those that train function. In recent times a S&C coach at a local High School broadcast the fact that a number of his 15 year old athletes had gained entry to the “350 Club” where their maximum strength in Squat, Bench Press and Deadlift were assessed. What of their functional ability? What about their physical literacy?
“…exercises that give us force production appear, wrongly, to be more attractive than those that give us function.”
Coaches are implored to ‘get the basics right’. Establishing what the basics are is the purpose of this article. “Physical literacy’, a ‘movement vocabulary’, ‘physical competence’ are the cornerstones to a positive journey in athletic, functional and training development.