High Performance programmes: are we putting the cart before the horse

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.