Support programmes with the adage, ‘high
performance’ are proliferating sport at all levels and targeted at a range of
ages, some as young as eight if we consider academies attached to professional
football clubs. We see universities,
schools, colleges, professional clubs and national governing bodies advertise
roles for those with experience in high performance environments; what is less
clear is whether these roles require those who occupy them to display high
performance behaviours or whether the requirement relates to the athletes they
will support. It is worth discussing the
relative merits and problems associated with high performance programmes for
young athletes, particularly those under the age of 16.
Are we guilty of developing high
performance programmes before appropriate athletes have been identified as
warranting this level of support and coaching?
In some cases I think the answer to this question is yes, which results in
coaches and practitioners charged with delivering performance outcomes with a
group of athletes ill equipped to meet the demands, either as a result of
commitment, technical proficiency or in some cases, both. When this situation arises we may hear
coaches and administrators admonish athletes, suggesting they don’t ‘deserve’
the support they have been given. This
begs the question; did they ask for or want the support in the first place? I would suggest that enjoyment, in whatever
guise that takes, is the single most important factor in ensuring young
athletes remain active within their sport long enough to develop the skills
required to compete at the highest level.
Introducing programmes that are overly structured and demanding before
the athlete has developed an intrinsic love of the activity may begin to erode
their desire to continue to practice and improve. Unfortunately, structure and an almost
formulaic approach are often hallmarks of high performance programmes and so called
development pathways. To use an example
from my own discipline, few young footballers take up the game to improve their
‘movement competency’ however academies invest significant amounts of time
trying to improve this quality and wonder why young players would rather ‘get
the ball out’. I am particularly
concerned when I hear people take about the requirement to ‘earn the right to
progress’ when we discuss the topic of athleticism; a stumbling block here
surrounds the motivation levels of the player to improve in an activity they
may not particularly enjoy.
Each year sporting organisations invest
hundreds if not thousands of pounds in high performance programmes without
athletes of a sufficient level to benefit from the support being offered. Perhaps a new approach to the development of these
programmes is required. Firstly, there
needs to be a group of athletes who can challenge each other. These need not necessarily be the best of the
best, rather individuals who, as we have discussed earlier, possess a deep
rooted love of the activity and as such are willing to invest significant
amounts of their time in both organised and self-guided practice. There is a saying that suggests, choose a job
you love and you will never have to work a day in your life (Confucius): no
more so than in sport is this the case.
Without these vital ingredients I would suggest that any programme
designed with the aim of achieving high performance are likely to fail, not
least because the outcome will be more important to support staff than the athletes
it has been established to serve.
Secondly, those responsible for providing support to the athletes need
to be immersed in the sport, understanding the technical, tactical and physical
demands that competition entails. This
cannot be learnt quickly and requires practitioners to combine formal qualifications
with practical coaching skills in the sports that most interest them. We cannot expect to make small yet meaningful
changes to a discipline or sport in which you know only the broad outline.
The best way to produce athletes with the
potential to win on the world stage is to get as many young people interested
and regularly participating as possible.
This doesn’t require support systems it requires space, enthusiastic
coaches and a challenging yet supportive environment (I should probably add
willing and committed parents). This
should be the first priority for all sports.
Once this has been established it may be that a group of young athletes show
sufficient promise that extra support and/or opportunities to practice seem
warranted. This potential is not
assessed over a couple of weeks but over an extended period of time having
witnessed their continued commitment to get better and enjoyment in doing so. It is at this point that selecting the right
individuals is key, a high performance programme by its very nature will be
exclusive and include only a small number of people. This is perhaps where programmes falter, as
selection processes are not robust enough to withstand the interrogation from
disgruntled parents and guardians who feel their children should have been selected. High performance programmes are for those who
are committed, as we discussed earlier we should have established these systems
first, it is for those who are committed and show a propensity for outstanding achievement. With this approach and small numbers a truly
bespoke programme can be developed without the distraction of individuals who,
for whatever reason, are not as committed (or talented). This is perhaps a notion that doesn’t sit
well with some organisations especially where public money is used to fund
them, however if we really want to pursue high performance we need programmes
that are exclusive and clear on what they expect and require of the athletes
they select. We should be immediately
concerned if we hear of a performance programme laud how many athletes it has
recruited; quality over quantity unless we are relying on probability and
weight of numbers to create the next world champion, something countries with a
small populations can ill afford.
For a sport with few options in terms of
athletes who have the potential to succeed on the national, commonwealth or
world stage resources may be better channeled into recreational, grass roots
and participation initiatives. This
priority may expand over time to reflect a changing demographic and potential
for success as a critical mass of those practicing and competing regularly is
established. This approach also ensures
that sports only earmark resources for high performance programmes in instances
when they have the personnel to pursue this goal with vigor. A counterargument to this point is that
without a high performance programme, or international competition schedule
young athletes will be deterred from taking up the sport. Whilst this seems plausible I am yet to see
reliable evidence that it is true. What
is more likely to deter young athletes and their parents is a sport preoccupied
with supporting athletes ill equipped to achieve the objectives set out for
them whilst they nurse along a development system that is under funded and
under valued.
