Bio-banding in football; fad or fallacy?

A Scottish newspaper ran an article recently on the use of bio-banding to organise youth tournaments (you can read the article here if you are interested (http://goo.gl/4lncmF)) which was followed up more recently with a post on BBC sport.  For those of you unfamiliar with bio-banding it is a method of categorising young players based on their biological rather than chronological age.  The suggested benefit being that players get to compete with peers who are of a similar stature and mass making it easier (?) to spot those with greater technical proficiency.  Given the financial incentives of nurturing talented young players within a club’s academy system the notion of being able to steal a march on the competition is appealing however is bio-banding the way forward?

Before I address the philosophical issues there are some important methodological considerations which warrant a mention.  Firstly, assuming each child has a legitimate birth certificate chronological age is easily determined with a high degree of accuracy.  Biological age on the other hand poses more of a challenge.  The most valid method is to x-ray the wrist to determine skeletal age; some ethical questions exist around this method, not to mention the associated expense making it inaccessible to most.  A number of surrogate markers have been proposed, the most popular being an equation that uses mass, stature and seated stature to predict the maturity offset and years from peak height velocity (PHV).  Interested readers can view the original paper here (https://goo.gl/CI0AsO).  Whilst measures of stature and mass are accessible to most people it does require a level of accuracy in how the measurements are taken.  Furthermore, the accuracy of the equation improves with the more individual data points you collect bringing its use into question when used singularly before a tournament.  Finally, in every measure there is usually a degree of inherent error and maturity offset is no exception.  Wherever you set your cut off points (and this is as essential when dividing players by biological as it is chronological age) the error in the measure means that some will still be categorized incorrectly.

Putting these methodological questions to one side there are philosophical issues which are worth addressing.  The tournament reported by the Scottish Sun, to my knowledge, was for players already attached to academy teams which prompts the question, is bio-banding a talent identification or talent development tool?  For players who have already been identified by a club (and signed) I would expect coaches to track measures such as maturity status longitudinally allowing them to factor this in when assessing rate of improvement (itself a very subjective construct).  For example, if a club felt a specific player was too small we might expect then to cross check maturity status before making any decisions regarding their future.  Furthermore, I would suggest that for players who are either larger or smaller than their peers a number of ways exist to manage their development so that size is not a limiting factor.  For example, a player who is large for their age may have conditions placed upon them during training to limit how they use their physicality; being constrained to interceptions rather than tackling to regain possession of the ball.  This could be used in conjunction with short spells playing with older players of a more comparable size.  For smaller players, once selected, playing and competing with larger and heavier peers may be of benefit in the long term if they have a coaching team willing to give them time to develop.  Whether organising training and matches according to bio-bands represents a more valid method than those identified above in managing talented young players is of course debatable and I would be interested to heat counter points.

Bio-banding for talent identification purposes may be of more benefit.  We know from recent studies that the relative age effect exists within football, characterized by an over-representation of chronologically older players.  Facilitating opportunities for players to compete against size matched opponents, irrespective of age, may combat this. It should be remembered however that although the relative age effect exists there is limited evidence to suggest that chronologically older players display superior physical qualities, for example speed, agility and aerobic fitness.  Whilst there may be benefits in bio-banding there are also logistical issues in gaining anthropometric information prior to trial games or large scale selection tournaments.

There is no easy answer to this issue and I hope this does not discourage the pursuit of a solution.  It does however, and this may not appeal to the more scientifically minded, suggest a reliance on experienced scouts able to see past the size and shape of young players and recognise their ability to play the game effectively.  Having spent some time with an incredibly knowledgeable scout I would proffer that in this instance there really is no substitute for experience and a well-trained ‘eye for a player’.

Sport - are we in need of a crisis?

There is a popular saying in British politics which asserts the need for a crisis to pre-empt any change.  This seemed to true after Iceland’s 2 - 1 defeat of England on the 27^th June; in the immediate aftermath of the game their coaching team, led by Roy Hodgson, resigned with immediate effect which was followed by a myriad of reasons for the team’s demise the following day in the associated press.  There was an article in the Daily Mail written by a prominent ex-player turned pundit admonishing the environment within professional academies stating that it was too easy for young players since the passing of traditional apprenticeship schemes requiring young players to sweep the stadium and clean professional players boots; modern players it seems are too soft (http://goo.gl/1MfNhD).  Criticism was also levelled at the standard of coaching in an article published in The Times (http://goo.gl/MX7gOQ).  Whilst there may (or may not depending on your viewpoint) be elements of truth in these articles they do not discriminate between successful and unsuccessful teams – it is likely that there are poor coaches and relatively sanitised academies in teams that performed well at this summer’s European Championships.  Indeed, the vast majority of the hugely successful Wales team will have come through systems similar if not the same to the England players.

Two weeks on and the furore has subsided.  Other than some cursory comments from commentators who really should be concentrating on teams still in the tournament, there has been little media attention.  Most of the clubs from which the England squad were selected, along with many others, will have already started their pre-season preparations, likely with no change to plans established prior to England’s exit.  The truth is that within the club system there really is no crisis; most (if not all in the Premier League from where the squad were selected, more on this later) have successful academies that have produced professional players, if not for the parent club then another in the league structure and thanks to the Elite Player Performance Programme (EPPP) receive substantial financial support from the Premier League.  Furthermore, an announcement was made this week that a number of professional academy teams would be competing in the EFL trophy (formerly Johnston Paint) providing young players with a more competitive format to ply their trade (although the senior league teams may not agree) in the season 2016/2017.

Within football (the UK at least) there is a discord between the success of the domestic league and its national team for which there is no easy solution, despite knee jerk commentaries issued by the media following a disappointment in a major competition.  There may be a huge number of eligible players who do not get the opportunity to play in a league that showcases their ability but who have been successful in the age group system at national level.  England 21’s were successful in their tournament campaign this summer.  This may be because of overseas players or more experienced domestic players being picked ahead of them; this is a detrimental outcome of having such a thriving and financially strong domestic league, very few in the Premier League would want to see this challenged on the premise that it might strengthen the national team I suspect.  Rugby Union seemed to have navigated this issue well with centralised contracts for international players however it is difficult to see a situation when football may follow suit, especially if, like in Rugby Union, players are removed from their clubs for extended periods.

As far as discriminating factors are concerned the one striking factor is the lack of diversity amongst the England team in terms of competitive leagues from which players were selected from. Moreover, when you consider the home nation teams within the tournament, only Wales and ROI selected players playing in overseas competitions and only one in each instance, Gareth Bale and Robbie Keane.  England selected their entire squad from the Premier League.  This is in stark contrast to the other teams contesting the semi-finals; Germany, France, Portugal were all made up of players selected from a host of leagues around Europe.  This broad range of experiences in terms of playing style and tactics may be an important factor at major competitions; however how the home nations achieve this (should they see value in it) when lucrative contracts are available for young players at their parent clubs is hard to imagine.  

The fitness gap

I have borne witness to a number of debates surrounding the merits and relative importance of physical versus mental strength amongst athletes.  With more and more ‘average joes’ taking in weekend challenges including the moon walk, marathons and cycling sportives the debate seems to have taken on a wider relevance with these events requiring both physical and psychological strength to last the distance.  The argument proffered by psychologists often centres around the fact that at the top level of athletic competition there is little (if anything) to choose between the physiology of athletes.  Despite this there has to be a winner and a loser; the difference between the podium finishers and the ‘also rans’ being the ability to use their mental strength to maximise their physical qualities and triumph on the day.  This type of thinking may have led to amateur athletes competing in endurance events stating that it ‘will be alright on the night’ and ‘adrenalin will get me through’ when their physical preparation hasn’t quite gone to plan.  Perhaps the question people should be asking is at what point does mental strength in the absence of physical precocity begin to yield diminishing returns.

Barry McGuigan famously said, ‘it isn’t the size of dog in the fight that counts but the fight in the dog’; agreed in principle but the fighter (in this instance) must have the necessary physical capacity to get to the point where mental strength begins to play a part.  There seems to be a wave of popularity in recent years around positivity and a ‘can do’ attitude.  Adidas ran an advertising campaign around the tag line, ‘impossible is nothing’.  This message is laudable when it motivates people to strive for horizons they may have previously thought unattainable.  It may also however have brought us to the point where the very act of signing up for an event, irrespective of the performance, is met with acclaim and pomp; well done for taking part being a popular cheer.  In some circumstances this may be true, in others I would suggest not; in events where you pin a number to your chest there is a requirement (in my opinion at least) to prepare to a level that allows the task to be taken on with a degree of proficiency.  A proficiency that requires physical preparation, the likes of which enables competitors to run through at least the first mile in a half marathon (those of you who have competed in running events will have seen individuals walking before the turn of mile two resplendent with gels galore tucked into fetching bum bags and scrambling for water at every opportunity).

The message then is that if you want to be a competitor you have to compete, and this requires undergoing some degree of preparation that improves both physical and mental capacity.  Indeed, it is this commitment to improvement and betterment that makes the performance all the more enjoyable; delayed satisfaction over instant gratification.  Without this investment no amount of mental strength or gumption will be rewarded and there can be no sense of achievement in ‘just finishing’ if we never gave ourselves the chance to do anything more.

Systems thinking in sport

During a conversation with a colleague I was challenged as to the relevance of ‘systems thinking’ within sport.  My (and I regret to say) uneducated stance was that the theory wouldn’t carry much relevance within the sporting world; the description that followed however was of much greater significance than I originally thought.

Although I still cannot profess to understand the intricacies of systems thinking there is one anecdote that rang true, that of the ‘Trim Tab’.  A Trim Tab, as I understand it, is a small component that attaches to the rudder of a ship, or propeller of a plane, and facilitates the fluid movement of these often massive pieces of machinery, improving the manoeuvrability of the vessel.  Essentially this is a very small addition that has a significant, positive effect on performance.  There are many scenarios in sport where the addition of a hypothetical Trim Tab may be preferable to more wholesale changes when performance levels are not as we would have hoped.  Some may argue this sounds a lot like the pursuit of marginal gains however I would suggest otherwise.  Marginal gains apply in situations where performance is ‘good’ however small, incremental improvements are needed to become ‘great’, the accrual of 1% improvements over time.  Systems thinking and the analogy of the Trim Tab suggests that small changes can have a large impact on underperforming teams and individuals – more of a tipping point to use the analogy of Malcom Gladwell.

When we encounter players and/or teams that are underperforming, how often do we in the first instance try to make a large change to an aspect of their preparatory or completive routine? This may take the form of extra training, a change in dietary habits, a new and innovative intervention or, in some cases, removing an individual from the team, as often happens within professional team sport.  These may be valid courses of action, however, do we first consider whether small tweaks can be made to what we are already doing?  When trying to help an individual learn a new skill I have seen an array of approaches taken including the use of video analysis, biomechanical profiling and additional practise hours.  Very rarely however have I seen people maintain the training environment yet try different coaching cues, be they visual, auditory or kinaesthetic.  Subtle alterations in the way we deliver our message may be all that is required to bring about a long and permanent change in behaviour and should perhaps be the first port of call.  This is just one example; however I can think of many more that would make this post rather longer (perhaps some are thinking it is too long already!)

This is also true in paradigms of thought.  Within team sports there appears to be a reliance on external markers of training load, predominantly through the use of GPS, whilst internal load, especially monitoring via the use of heart rate has fallen out of favour.  This is not meant to be a critique of new technology, more an acknowledgement that its adoption has signalled a paradigm shift in how we prepare athletes without, to my understanding anyway, the identification of a genuine problem with the old method (In the case of heart rate, yes there were aspects of performance it was unsuitable for quantifying however there are still a range of training practises where its use is valid).  A wholesale change when a small ‘tweak’ or indeed addition may have been more beneficial.  We see this in a range of scenarios; for a period, Olympic lifts were ‘in vogue’ irrespective of the sport you were taking part in; however we are now seeing a move back to callisthenic-based exercises.  I recently learned a football club had installed a ‘play area’ for young athletes to encourage them to jump, climb and swing rather than conducting S&C in the gym environment.  The shift in training practises associated with developing strength and power represented a fundamental change rather than making small adjustments and improvements over time.  I can attest to personal experience in this instance.  A couple of years ago I attended an excellent two-part course developed and delivered by a physiotherapist and movement specialist.  After the course had finished I found my programmes taken over by exercises and techniques I had only recently learned.  As good as these new approaches were they certainly should not have replaced in totality what I was doing before; after being presented with an alternative I had forgotten all the good things that were going on previously.  There is no doubt that advances in technology and our understanding of the training response have helped athletes and coaches; there is perhaps a danger however that we have forgotten the benefits and qualities of the processes and procedures employed before their introduction.

When considering making a change to your personnel and/or training/completive routine, start with a simple question; what can we improve.  Once you have answered this question you can move onto aspects that can be changed in instances where improvement is not possible.  This may help to identify all the things that are working well, even in instances were performance is compromised, of which there will be many. This may be difficult in an industry that seems more and more driven by technology, gadgets and gimmicks resulting in a pressure to keep up to date with current trends.  Remember, most of what you are doing will be effective, if it wasn’t you wouldn’t have started using it in the first place.  Musing over how practises can be improved may be a far more productive use of your time than pursuing an alternative.