Early success in sports rarely leads to success at later ages. Why is this?
Let’s look at the work of Dr Arne Gullich who is the Director of the Institute of Applied Sport Science at Kaiserslautern Institute of Technology.
He reported recently at the 2016 Youth Athlete Development Conference that there is no correlation between success in youth sports and success in sports as an adult.
“Junior success is a poor indicator of long-term senior success. Their success at the age of 10 had a zero correlation with their success as a senior. Same was true with their success at 11-14, 15-18. We have a zero correlation.”
These results were indicated across all types of sports.
Further his researchers determined that those who succeeded in some sports were actually those who were behind in their early or preteens.
So, why is this? Why do some young athletic stars who achieved early success never reach the highest level of their sport? Some of the most famous athletes have biographies filled with tales of failures and challenges during their youth. Is this significant? Why are there so many late bloomers finding professional and national team success?
We don’t fully know the answers to these questions yet, but emerging research points at some answers to these questions.
One of Gullich’s findings was that those who succeeded as adults had played multiple sports when younger.
The research leaves many questions about the best age to begin specialization and elite selection not only for long term success, but also for long term retention.
At his presentation at the World Rowing Youth Conference in 2013 he also posed a question about coaching. He wondered whether it was more helpful to have a coach with specialized knowledge about your sport. In fact, he indicated that free play or peer-led play during early years of sports had more impact on higher level success.
Many people believe that the ‘theory of deliberate practice’ applies to young athletes in sport, which suggests that through repetition and correction of one single activity success is more likely, that is whether starting rowing at an early age and making it one’s sole focus, with adequate coaching and support will be more likely to lead to success. Gullich however disagrees citing a more recent ‘diversification theory’ as the route to a successful elite sporting career. This theory supports a child’s participation in multiple sports and sporting leisure play in long-term performance development.
Gullich focused his presentation on examples of athletes from specialised (coach-led) backgrounds with those who had a diverse, peer-led sport pathway in their athletic development. What he illustrated was that at youth level, early specialisation is more likely to lead to results at junior level in sport. However, at a higher level it was the athletes who had participated in multiple sports at a young age who ultimately achieved higher results.
It’s interesting to note here that athletes who specialize early do have success during their junior level. This can create the impression that it’s a good decision to have invested early in elite programs or specialized coaching. It may be, but the research so far does not mean that you will then go on to the elite or professional level later. You need to know your own goals and intentions.
Talent Selector or Talent Identifier
John O’Sullivan writing at The Changing the Game Project raises another interesting variable. He makes a distinction between youth coaches who are selecting talent based on current ability versus those identifying potential talent and future performance.
Talent selection is the culling of players with the current ability to participate and be successful in events taking place in the near future. Talent identification, on the other hand, is the prediction of future performance based upon an evaluation of current physical, technical, tactical and psychological qualities. Talent selection is pretty simple; talent identification is an art. One yields great results today; the other builds elite athletes and winning teams for the future.
This makes the interesting point that maybe the lack of correlation really indicates that we are selecting the wrong people at 14. If we got the the identification process correct would there be as little correlation between youth and adult success?
His entire column is worth the read.
Then there is the work by Mustafa Sarker and David Fletcher that looks at the profound role mental resilience plays in determining athletic success.
An article at Psychology Today credits adversity with being a key factor in each athlete’s success. The lack of early success provided an opportunity for some young athletes to develop the strength required to succeed.
Paradoxically, not being selected for major international competitions was frequently cited by Gold Medalists as the foundation for increased endeavour and exertion. Competition losses were viewed as learning opportunities, enabling future improved performances. Set-backs were re-interpreted in ways which meant they merely re-doubled their efforts, and didn’t become disheartened.
Failure didn’t break them; it made them.
Another interesting finding is that great athletes don’t view the time devoted to the sport as sacrifice, but rather as a powerful and positive choice.
So, these are just a few potential reasons that early success does not lead to greatness later on.
By taking a look at them we can craft smarter pathways for athletes.
You can read further about Gullich’s presentation to 2016 Youth Athlete Development Conference here.