Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Neil Mccarthy
 -- 1286 2022-06-13 11:41:43 |
2 format correct
Nora Tang
-6 word(s) 1280 2022-06-15 03:32:28 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Mccarthy, N.; Taylor, J.; , .; Collins, D. Relative Age dynamics in Professional Sport. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23972 (accessed on 06 August 2024).
Mccarthy N, Taylor J,  , Collins D. Relative Age dynamics in Professional Sport. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23972. Accessed August 06, 2024.
Mccarthy, Neil, Jamie Taylor,  , Dave Collins. "Relative Age dynamics in Professional Sport" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23972 (accessed August 06, 2024).
Mccarthy, N., Taylor, J., , ., & Collins, D. (2022, June 13). Relative Age dynamics in Professional Sport. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23972
Mccarthy, Neil, et al. "Relative Age dynamics in Professional Sport." Encyclopedia. Web. 13 June, 2022.
Relative Age dynamics in Professional Sport
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/sports10060082

There is abundant literature in talent development investigating the relative age effect in talent systems. There is also growing recognition of the reversal of relative age advantage, a phenomenon that sees significantly higher numbers of earlier born players leaving talent systems before the elite level. A rethink of approach to the relative age effect is warranted, whilst further investigations of mechanisms are necessary. Relative age appears to be a population-level effect, driven by challenge dynamics.

talent identification talent development challenge

1. Introduction

Effective and efficient talent identification and talent development (TD) processes are a significant part of the strategic management of TD systems. Increasing curiosity and investigation of such elements is a significant challenge for many national governing bodies (NGBs). TD systems are under increasing scrutiny, with data challenging established paradigms in relation to many TD dynamics [1]. Of significant debate are the dynamics pertaining to selection and development of athletes as they journey into, through and out of talent systems [2][3]. Whilst the accurate prediction of future performance has been a topic of significant research, practical application of this is significantly challenged by the biopsychosocial complexities of development [4][5]. This is especially so in the earlier years of talent development, with a variety of dynamics apparent, especially at selection gateways [6].
One such factor suggested as underpinning these selection biases is the relative age effect (RAE) [7][8]. The inevitable chronological grouping of children as they enter the education system has been shown to promote early advantage for those born just before or after the academic cut-off date (11). This mechanism for selecting children continues as they enter organised sport and talent systems. An abundance of literature highlighting asymmetric birthdates during selection processes has linked RAEs to maturation and the comparative advantages and/or disadvantages of being born one side or the other of the selection cutoff date within sport (typically Sept 1st in the United Kingdom, for a review see [9]). To date, much of the literature has focused on the disproportionate volume of players born in the first two quartiles of the selection year in comparison to those born towards the end of the selection year.
Explanations for these effects have tended to focus on advanced physical maturation offering relatively older individuals up to 12 months advantage over their relatively younger peers [8][10]. Less reported, however, are the advantages/disadvantages that have been identified in other domains such as the cognitive and emotional disruptions observed during formative developmental periods [11][12][13][14][15]. 
The orientation for the majority of RAE literature in sport has led to a focus on the potential negative effects age groupings have on the identification of individuals and their experiences [16]. These studies have generally focused on a specific moment in time for data collection (e.g., selection into talent systems) and thus offer limited perspective on long term effects. The general consensus is an assumption that the RAE is something to eradicate, to prevent large numbers of performers being excluded [17].

2. RAE Advantage Reversal

More recently, the literature has challenged these assumptions and has begun to report a potential positive that emerges from the attritional and/or challenging experiences of the relatively young. This has separately been identified as the ‘underdog hypothesis’ [18] and ‘advantage reversals’ [1][19], identifying that whilst a disproportionately high number of early birthday athletes are initially selected, the relatively young are proportionately more likely to reach senior elite status. This finding appears robust across a wide range of sporting contexts: in handball [20], cricket [21], ice hockey [22] and across male elite sport [23]. Indeed, highlighting the robustness of the finding, replications have consistently shown the same finding. For example, recent findings [8] show evidence of the same RAE advantage reversal previously found in a single academy [19] and across international pathways in rugby union and cricket [1]. Therefore, it appears that whilst those with early advantages are being selected into the initial stages of talent systems in greater proportions, earlier born athletes are leaving in far higher numbers than later born. Importantly, this ‘advantage reversal’ does not suggest a reversal of the RAE. Instead, it shows that those born later in the selection year are less likely to be deselected than their earlier born counterparts.

3. Mechanisms

This would suggest that the current literature base is limited by some key assumptions and by a lack of mechanistic focus. Those who are born earlier in the selection year are more likely to be selected for a TD system. It also appears that, at the population level, their relatively younger peers are more likely to continue through the TD system to elite performance. Yet, to this point, much of the extant literature has focused on ‘solving’ a variety of early advantage effects by focusing on levelling the playing field, for example: bio-banding [24]; age order shirt banding [25]; birthday banding [26], performance banding [27] and corrective adjustment procedures [28]. Yet, very little attention has been paid to the dropout rates of those with earlier advantage [29] and investigation of underpinning mechanisms is disappointingly sparse. This is a key barrier for the practitioner seeking to optimise TD processes. McCarthy and Collins [1] suggested a potential mechanism could be the initial impact of negative selection experiences, with these early disadvantages being facilitative of greater psychological ‘growth’ and/or acting as a mechanism for a more intrinsically focused and longer-term motivational orientation This hypothesis suggested that RAE advantage reversals may be driven by the motivational orientation of individuals and how that is anchored through formative experiences.
Motivation is a significant factor in sports participation, progression and drop out [30][31][32]. One underpinning feature of an individual’s motivation is perceived competence. Perceived competence acts as a domain-specific indicator of self-esteem that contributes to and is affected by the individual’s motivational orientation [33][34]. For example, the relatively old may progress rapidly as a result of early challenge-free experiences, arriving at early selection gateways with a high degree of perceived competence. This may inadvertently develop an individual with extrinsically anchored motivational orientation. Conversely, those athletes not afforded this advantage may develop a more intrinsic motivational orientation, becoming more likely to remain and persevere within TD systems. As such, later drop out from TD systems is proportionately higher from relatively older cohorts [8], suggesting these individuals may not be sufficiently orientated and/or equipped to cope with and prosper motivationally through transitions when early advantages begin to disappear [19][35]. Notably, this hypothesis seems to marry with other research suggesting a complex interaction between challenge and psycho-behavioural skills [2] and the risk posed to progression when there is a mismatch between the two [32].
Accordingly, there appears to be increasing evidence pointing to the interaction of challenge and psycho-behavioural skills [36][37][38]. This need for athletes to be challenged in their development has been accepted from a variety of research perspectives [29][39][40]. Key differences between these positions notwithstanding, it appears that performers who bring a variety of psycho-behavioral resources to challenging periods will be more likely to cope with and learn from their experience [41]. In this regard, recent investigations have suggested that challenge-filled sporting pathways are an essential feature of developmental journeys [42]. Further, it appears that sporting ‘traumas’ and/or challenging experiences, rather than being directly causative of ‘psychological growth’, instead act to test, prove and encourage previously developed psychological skills [41]. Indeed, perceptions of control, confidence and perspective, underpinned by psycho-behavioural skills [37], along with appropriate reflection and social support, appear particularly important in this regard [36][43]. This also appears to be the case amongst the limited populations where the reversal of relative advantage has been tested [44].
Reflecting these complexities, and beyond establishing RAEs and consequently advantage reversals in different contexts, there is a need to understand the mechanisms at play [22]. This is especially the case for the applied practitioner or policy maker who needs to make decisions regarding sporting systems, placing the individual performer’s experience as a primary concern [42].

References

  1. McCarthy, N.; Collins, D.; Court, D. Start Hard, Finish Better: Further Evidence for the Reversal of the RAE Advantage. J. Sports Sci. 2016, 34, 1461–1465.
  2. Collins, D.; MacNamara, Á.; McCarthy, N. Super Champions, Champions, and Almosts: Important Differences and Commonalities on the Rocky Road. Front. Psychol. 2016, 6, 2009.
  3. Güllich, A. Selection, de-selection and progression in German football talent promotion. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2014, 14, 530–537.
  4. Bailey, R.; Collins, D. The Standard Model of Talent Development and Its Discontents. Kinesiol. Rev. 2013, 2, 248–259.
  5. Bailey, R.P.; Collins, D.; Ford, P.A.; MacNamara, Á.; Pearce, G.; Toms, M. Participant development in sport: An academic literature review. Comm. Rep. Sports Coach. UK. Leeds Sports Coach. UK 2010, 4, 1–134.
  6. Johnston, K.; Baker, J. Waste Reduction Strategies: Factors Affecting Talent Wastage and the Efficacy of Talent Selection in Sport. Front. Psychol. 2020, 10, 2925.
  7. Barnsley, R.H.; Thompson, A.H.; Barnsley, P.E. Hockey success and birthdate: The relative age effect. Can. Assoc. Health Phys. Educ. Recreat. J. (CAHPER) 1985, 51, 23–28.
  8. Kelly, A.L.; Till, K.; Jackson, D.; Barrell, D.; Burke, K.; Turnnidge, J. Talent Identification and Relative Age Effects in English Male Rugby Union Pathways: From Entry to Expertise. Front. Sports Act. Living 2021, 3, 12.
  9. Musch, J.; Grondin, S. Unequal Competition as an Impediment to Personal Development: A Review of the Relative Age Effect in Sport. Dev. Rev. 2001, 21, 147–167.
  10. Dimundo, F.; Cole, M.; Blagrove, R.C.; Till, K.; McAuley, A.B.; Hall, M.; Gale, C.; Kelly, A.L. Talent Identification and Development in Male Rugby Union: A Systematic Review. J. Expert. 2021, 4, 33–55.
  11. Armstrong, H.G. A comparison of the performance of summer and autumn-born children at eleven and sixteen. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 1966, 36, 72–76.
  12. Bell, J.F.; Daniels, S. Are Summer-born Children Disadvantaged? The Birthdate Effect in Education. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 1990, 16, 67–80.
  13. Hauck, A.L.; Finch, A.J., Jr. The effect of relative age on achievement in middle school. Psychol. Sch. 1993, 30, 74–79.
  14. Martin, R.P.; Foels, P.; Clanton, G.; Moon, K. Season of Birth Is Related to Child Retention Rates, Achievement, and Rate of Diagnosis of Specific LD. J. Learn. Disabil. 2004, 37, 307–317.
  15. Doncaster, G.; Medina, D.; Drobnic, F.; Gómez-Díaz, A.J.; Unnithan, V. Appreciating Factors Beyond the Physical in Talent Identification and Development: Insights From the FC Barcelona Sporting Model. Front. Sports Act. Living 2020, 2, 91.
  16. Kelly, A.L.; Williams, C.A. Physical Characteristics and the Talent Identification and Development Processes in Male Youth Soccer: A Narrative Review. Strength Cond. J. 2020, 42, 15–34.
  17. Webdale, K.; Baker, J.; Schorer, J.; Wattie, N. Solving sport’s ‘relative age’ problem: A systematic review of proposed solutions. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2020, 13, 187–204.
  18. Gibbs, B.G.; Jarvis, J.A.; Dufur, M.J. The Rise of the Underdog? The Relative Age Effect Reversal Among Canadian-born NHL Hockey Players: A Reply to Nolan and Howell. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 2011, 47, 644–649.
  19. McCarthy, N.; Collins, D. Initial identification & selection bias versus the eventual confirmation of talent: Evidence for the benefits of a rocky road? J. Sports Sci. 2014, 32, 1604–1610.
  20. Bjørndal, C.T.; Luteberget, L.S.; Till, K.; Holm, S. The relative age effect in selection to international team matches in Norwegian handball. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0209288.
  21. Jones, B.D.; Lawrence, G.P.; Hardy, L. New evidence of relative age effects in “super-elite” sportsmen: A case for the survival and evolution of the fittest. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 36, 697–703.
  22. Fumarco, L.; Gibbs, B.G.; Jarvis, J.A.; Rossi, G. The relative age effect reversal among the National Hockey League elite. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0182827.
  23. Ford, P.R.; Williams, A.M. No relative age effect in the birth dates of award-winning athletes in male professional team sports. Res. Q Exerc. Sport 2011, 82, 570–573.
  24. Malina, R.M.; Cumming, S.P.; Rogol, A.D.; Coelho-e-Silva, M.J.; Figueiredo, A.J.; Konarski, J.M.; Kozieł, S.M. Bio-Banding in Youth Sports: Background, Concept, and Application. Sports Med. 2019, 49, 1671–1685.
  25. Mann, D.L.; van Ginneken, P.J.M.A. Age-ordered shirt numbering reduces the selection bias associated with the relative age effect. J. Sports Sci. 2017, 35, 784–790.
  26. Kelly, A.L.; Jackson, D.T.; Taylor, J.J.; Jeffreys, M.A.; Turnnidge, J. “Birthday-Banding” as a Strategy to Moderate the Relative Age Effect: A Case Study Into the England Squash Talent Pathway. Front. Sports Act. Living 2020, 2, 145.
  27. Moran, J.; Cervera, V.; Jones, B.; Hope, E.; Drury, B.; Sandercock, G. Can discreet performance banding, as compared to bio-banding, discriminate technical skills in male adolescent soccer players? A preliminary investigation. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2022, 17, 325–333.
  28. Cobley, S.; Abbott, S.; Eisenhuth, J.; Salter, J.; McGregor, D.; Romann, M. Removing relative age effects from youth swimming: The development and testing of corrective adjustment procedures. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2019, 22, 735–740.
  29. Collins, D.; MacNamara, Á. The Rocky Road to the Top: Why Talent Needs Trauma. Sports Med. 2012, 42, 907–914.
  30. Boiché, J.C.S.; Sarrazin, P.G. Proximal and distal factors associated with dropout versus maintained participation in organized sport. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2009, 8, 9–16.
  31. Baron-Thiene, A.; Alfermann, D. Personal characteristics as predictors for dual career dropout versus continuation—A prospective study of adolescent athletes from German elite sport schools. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2015, 21, 42–49.
  32. Taylor, J.; Collins, D. Shoulda, Coulda, Didnae—Why Don’t High-Potential Players Make it? Sport Psychol. 2019, 33, 85–96.
  33. Harter, S. Effectance Motivation Reconsidered. Toward a Developmental Model. Hum. Dev. 1978, 21, 34–64.
  34. Losier, G.F.; Vallerand, R.J. The Temporal Relationship between Perceived Competence and Self-Determined Motivation. J. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 134, 793–801.
  35. Collins, D.; MacNamara, Á.; McCarthy, N. Putting the Bumps in the Rocky Road: Optimizing the Pathway to Excellence. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1482.
  36. Taylor, J.; Collins, D. Navigating the Winds of Change on the Smooth Sea—The Interaction of feedback and emotional disruption on the talent pathway. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 2021, 1–27.
  37. Savage, J.; Cruickshank, A.; Collins, D. Perspective, Control, and Confidence: Perceived Outcomes of Using Psycho-Behavioral Skills in the Developmental Trauma Experience. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2021, 20, 377–396.
  38. Barnes, F.B.; Fletcher, D.; Neely, K.C. Stress-Related Growth in Elite Sport Performers: Qualitative Differentiators in Psychosocial Mechanisms. Sport Psychol. 2021, 1, 1–2.
  39. Rees, T.; Hardy, L.; Güllich, A.; Abernethy, B.; Côté, J.; Woodman, T.; Montgomery, H.; Laing, S.; Warr, C. The Great British Medalists Project: A Review of Current Knowledge on the Development of the World’s Best Sporting Talent. Sports Med. 2016, 46, 1041–1058.
  40. Sarkar, M.; Fletcher, D.; Brown, D.J. What Doesn’t Kill Me…: Adversity-Related Experiences Are Vital In The Development Of Superior Olympic Performance. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2015, 18, 475–479.
  41. Savage, J.; Collins, D.; Cruickshank, A. Exploring Traumas in the Development of Talent: What Are They, What Do They Do, and What Do They Require? J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 2017, 29, 101–117.
  42. Taylor, J.; Collins, D. The Highs and the Lows—Exploring the Nature of Optimally Impactful Development Experiences on the Talent Pathway. Sport Psychol. 2020, 34, 319–328.
  43. Williams, G.G.; MacNamara, Á. Challenge is in the eye of the beholder: Exploring young athlete’s experience of challenges on the talent pathway. J. Sports Sci. 2022, 40, 1078–1087.
  44. Cumming, S.P.; Searle, C.; Hemsley, J.K.; Haswell, F.; Edwards, H.; Scott, S.; Gross, A.; Ryan, D.; Lewis, J.; White, P.; et al. Biological maturation, relative age and self-regulation in male professional academy soccer players: A test of the underdog hypothesis. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2018, 39, 147–153.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Education & Educational Research
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Neil Mccarthy
,
Jamie Taylor
,
,
Dave Collins
View Times: 273
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 Jun 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback