Tag Archive: talent id

1. The oxymoronic Talent Pathway

   8th December 2022 11:03 am Leave a Comment

   How did people get good at sports before the existence of pathways and ‘talent’ academies?

   

   If you read biographies of a previous generation of sporting superstars there is usually a mention of a dedicated p.e. teacher or coach at a local sports club. Children discovered their love for the sport locally and affordably. They might have had a keen parent, like Tim Henman or Seb Coe, but most stumbled into the sport through normal p.e. and games or by going with a friend to a local club.

   The sport was fun, and well-coached and this lead to some successes and a desire to do a bit more training. There were no academies or pathways. ‘Sport for all’ was the Sport England motto.

   This changed with the introduction of the National Lottery and the mechanisation of sport in the UK, especially after the ‘failure’ of Team GB at the Atlanta Olympics. Medal tables and podium places took the place of ‘Sport for all.’

   Funding was dependent on National Governing Bodies (NGBs) meeting top-down objectives, including having a ‘pathway’ despite there being no evidence of such a thing working in reality. In his book, ‘The Talent Lab,’ Owen Slot summarises the report into Britain’s subsequent (and expensive) pursuit and attainment of medals thus,

   ‘There is no one single element of success, no one cap that fits all.’

   The goal of UK sport was to win more Olympic medals and that was achieved: between the Atlanta Games and Rio (2016), GB won 96 medals.

   However, just 12 people won or contributed to 49 of them.

   Over half the medals were won by just a dozen individuals.

   Or, to put it another way, is this a good use of public money?

   Where is the Olympic Legacy?

   In the ten years after the London Olympics, there has been a decrease in sporting participation. Part of that can be blamed on the Covid-pandemic and the various lockdowns. However, the pandemic may have hastened the decline rather than caused it.

   There are two stark facts that should be first and foremost on the minds of parents, teachers, coaches and public health figures:

   1. Only 1 in 5 adolescents and adults meet the current weekly recommendations for aerobic and muscle-strengthening exercises for health across 31 countries.
   2. The reported levels of anxiety and depression in adolescent athletes in the USA are higher now than they were pre-Covid.

   In other words, 80% of adolescents are not doing enough exercise to stay healthy.

   Those that do play sports have more mental health issues than they did prior to Covid even though they have returned to activity.

   And yet...

   There are more ‘talent pathway managers’ than coaches in NGBs nowadays. More ‘scholarships’ and ‘academies’ and ‘talent programmes’ than there are minibuses to ferry the kids around. As soon as a child shows an interest (or an early growth spurt or specialisation) then they are ‘identified’ and told they ‘must’ attend a training/ selection camp miles away from home.

   Those working within ‘Talent Pathways’ operate in an echo chamber where they attend conferences with other people in similar roles from different sports and share ‘best practice’ ideas! For those on an NGB salary, it is understandable that no one raises their hand and says,

   ‘Hold on! Shouldn’t we be focussed on helping young people get healthy and active and supporting them rather than cherry-picking from an ever-decreasing pool of participants?’

   They would risk losing their job and their salary, so they stick to the company line.

   Too much, too early

   NGBS are continuing to encourage young children to specialise, especially girls because they are afraid of losing ‘talent’ to another sport (see the Talent ID Bun Fight). They might not say so overtly, but when a child is told that they must attend weekly ‘talent’ sessions miles away and go to regular camps involving overnight stays, time and logistics prevent that child from doing anything else.

   When I worked with England Golf, the regional (under-16 coaches) were told to:

   1. Only select those girls who would definitely play for England at the senior level.

   2. Select them at under 13 so they would ‘be in the system for longer.’

   These young girls had barely started secondary school and they were put into the system. They were ill-equipped physically and emotionally for this intense training and expectation. Many of them quit the sport or just returned to their home coaches and courses.

   The perverseness of the NGB means that the child is in danger of dropping out of all sports: burnout, injury, or competing demands such as schoolwork are the major causes.

   The increased cost of fuel and a squeeze on family incomes means that even fewer children can afford to travel big distances, let alone afford overnight stays, to play sports.

   And, it is worth repeating, there is no evidence that early selection at a young age leads to representation at a senior level: in fact, the opposite is often the case.

   In German football, those playing in the National Team specialised later and played more ‘pick-up’ games with their friends than those just playing in the Bundesliga. The players who specialised earliest and had less ‘free-play’ ended up playing in semi-professional teams below the Bundesliga.

   At some point, specialisation and more investment in training will be necessary: but it is at a later age than you think and only when the child is ready.

   Playing a variety of sports, locally, with friends still works at a young age. If they are still sleeping with a teddy bear they should not be specialising.

   

   Questions for parents to ask

   Parents are bombarded with information from NGBs and often told that their child ‘has’ to be on the pathway in order to become successful. I suggest that parents ask the NGB the following questions:

   1. Why?

   2. Is there evidence that these ‘pathways’ work?

   3. Can my child be successful without attending this academy?

   4. Did any of the elite performers in your sport use a different route?

   5. How much will it cost?

   6. What happens if they are de-selected: will you help support them back at their club?

   The answers that could be given are:

   1. To show that the NGB is ‘doing something.’

   2. Yes: for some people but not for all (as does every method). And there is a recency bias.

   3. Yes: if given the right support and encouragement locally.

   4. Yes, of course, they did. Some didn’t even start the sport until their late teens.

   5. A lot: fuel, time, accommodation. Money that could be best spent elsewhere (unless you are wealthy).

   6. No. The risk of dropping out entirely is high because the child perceives themselves as ‘a failure’ if they do not make the next set of teams.

   Excelsior Athletic Development Club

   

   Our club philosophy is to help every athlete get better. It is not to produce champions nor is it to be part of a ‘pathway.’ Every person has different motivations for training including:

   · Goal/success driven

   · Feeling fit and good about themselves.

   · Looking good

   · Hanging out with friends

   · Learning a new skill.

   All of these are valid and worthwhile. The problems only occur when there is a mismatch between their motivations for training and their willingness to train enough or if the coach’s expectations don’t match the athlete’s.

   A goal-driven athlete who doesn’t want to train frequently will be frustrated when they don’t succeed.

   The athlete who wants to feel fit and hang out with friends will be frustrated/ upset if the coach (me) tries to make them compete.

   This comes down to communication and education. If our athletes can meet their expectations at our club they will continue to participate and see the benefits. This is led by them and facilitated by the coach.

   It is not driven by an NGB setting targets.

   We coach people at our club, not statistics. It is worthwhile remembering the old motto,

   ‘Sport for All,’ and helping the young generation along their journeys of discovery rather than forcing them into someone else’s pathway.

2. Good enough is big enough

   24th March 2016 11:54 am Leave a Comment

   Does size matter in sport?

   

   Ready to fight

   Two of the athletes I train have recently had selection issues because of their height with new coaches discriminating against them, in 2 different sports. Both athletes are strong, but need to develop more power and quickness. That isn’t the reason they are having difficulty. Both are very bright, with good game sense and are tough.

   Those things are difficult to coach. They are also qualities that are difficult to gauge on first meeting.

   Height is an obvious factor when you first start to coach someone. So the coaches have made snap judgements on an obvious factor, without really analysing the athletes strengths and weaknesses in a game. They can then build judgements to reinforce their own first impression “not strong enough in the tackle” , “needs to work on controlling the middle” are  euphemisms related to lack of height.

   I have seen enough taller players who have been pushed into playing positions, or are the next great white hope who have no game sense, and more importantly no desire.

   

   Michael Jordan

   Michael Jordan once said “Individuals win matches, teams win championships.”

   I would put the two athletes I train into any team I was coaching (although one is female, one male so a bit difficult in practice) because when the pressure was on, I know I could rely on them.

   The NFL combine is an example of fitness testing becoming a game in itself where unrelated activities are measured and players rated accordingly. Better to look at  a player’s tapes in high pressure games against tough opponents.

   Better still, speak to their coaches about their influence on people around them.

   As a coach it is important to continually analyse your players performance objectively, don’t label the athletes early on, and then continue to select based on that. Instead, look with fresh eyes, and see what is actually happening on the field from a neutral perspective.

   Its not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

3. The Talent ID Bun Fight

   15th May 2014 9:15 am 19 Comments

   “I feel pressurised as a parent to choose between sports for my daughters”.

   Said a concerned Mum at a recent workshop. She is far from alone. Talent identification has been misused by sports as an excuse for working kids too early and too hard.

   Well meaning, but concerned, parents are being asked to ferry their children from “selection camp” to “regional centre” to “talent pathway nuclei” (O.K. I made that last one up).

   They are often told that if their child fails to attend, then their sporting career is over.... at 14! Is that true?

   Research consistently shows that elite sports performers come from a diverse sporting background, and only specialised at around 15-16 years old (1). Most often they are late maturers.

   NGBS are trying to select “talent” at 13-14 years old and keep them in their own pathway. They recognise that there is massive competition between sports, this is especially true with female athletes who are good at both Netball and Hockey.

   But “talent” really is hard to identify until after puberty and some maturation- about 16 years old. What NGBS are selecting is often “early maturers” or “early birth date” children. This is a temporary advantage that is eliminated when the children get to be 17-19 years old.

   Selection is also reliant on “devoted parents“: simply those parents who can survive the Corinthian task of organising the logistics of attending all these sessions.

   Examples of the madness

   Hockey says that players need to come up through its “Single System“. This requires endless camps and selection days, with selectors looking at who made it on the squad last year, rather than who is the current best player.

   This means a desperate rush to get onto the Under-16s squad so that you are “in the system”.

   Anyone on the Under 18s squad is supposed to sign up to the AASE programme which requires extra sessions in Bristol every week.

   Is that necessary for kids who are already studying for 3-4 A levels? They hardly need to be part of an apprenticeship.

   Netball players in Devon have to choose between training in Bath or Truro (2 hours drive each way) every week if they want to progress.

   One 15 year old I coach told Netball South West that she was struggling to get her homework done in GCSE year, she was told “do your homework in the car”.

   Another Netballer was told “to move to a school closer to the Talent and Performance Centre in Bath” ! Who are these people? Do they have any touch with reality?

   Talent Development Model or Pay per Hour Model?

   

   Too young to specialise

   Cricket players are told to take part in “Winter nets” to stay in the county squad. The fact that year round training of a high impact activity increases the risk of spinal injury like Pars defects seems to be an afterthought.

   Tennis is in it’s own mad race to the bottom. 

   One “Talent ID” session in Exeter was looking at 5 year olds and whether they had a chopper grip serve: 5 years old! Is that talent or a learned activity? 

   I see some local 13 year olds doing 30 hours of tennis a week! This is hardly necessary at this age: what it does is line the pockets of coaches.

   It is a pay per hour model (thanks to Brendan Chaplin for pointing this out to me).

   It is recommended that young athletes have 2-3 months off from their sport each year to prevent burnout (1).

   They could use this time to play another sport, and allow their bodies to grow, develop and recover from the one sided dominant nature of tennis or cricket or golf.

   More importantly, they could play in the park with their mates. Middle class parents especially may be hampering their child’s development through over formalising the process. Kids who spend more than hours a week than their age in organised sports are at greater injury risk (4).

   But how would the coach earn money in that case?

   Unfortunately, I rarely see a good looking athlete with a tennis racquet or cricket bat. Instead, I see a lot of early specialisers who lack all round physical skills that will help their Long Term Athletic Development (LTAD) (research articles on that link).

   Note to Parents

   Your child’s health and well being is paramount. All else is secondary to that. Whilst you may be under pressure to make a decision that affects your child’s selection in the next month, be aware that there is no evidence that early specialisation has any benefit.

   In fact, early specialisation is fraught with danger: risk of overuse, injury and burnout (3). Remember that the NGBS are trying to capture your child early for their benefit: they need numbers, and they are worried about another sport getting them!

   The model shown below shows 3 different strands of Talent development and the potential outcomes (thanks to Professor Jean Côté for sharing).

   Here are the key points you may wish to consider:

   1. Early participation is great, early specialisation less so.
   2. Your child needs an off season from their sport: every year.
   3. Motor skill learning is dependent on “trial and error” and “free play“. The body learns better when the brain is free from too much technical instruction. Kick about games in the local park are essential.
   4. Variety of sport and activity is crucial: water, land, jumping, bat and ball, bike, horse, board, individual, team. Get your child to taste everything: informally at first.
   5. Competition is great: but led by kids, rather than an adult imposed top down model. Let them win and lose the street “British Bulldog Championships” and come home with scraped knees. Better than the under -12s regional 11 a side “must win” football tournament led by parents..
   6. Play, play, play: a minimum ratio of 1 hour of play for every hour of organised activity is recommended to reduce injury risk (4).

   If your child is being forced to choose: take a deep breath and gain a sense of perspective. Having fun and some down time is important for their development. It is a long term approach.

   Further reading

   • Training young athletes
   • Is my child overtraining?

   References

   1. P. Ford, M. De Ste Croix, R. Lloyd, R. Meyers, M. Moosavi, J. Oliver, K. Till, and C. Williams, “The Long-Term Athlete Development model: Physiological evidence and application”, Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 29, pp. 389-402, 2011
   2. Brenner, J. S. (2007). Overuse injuries, overtraining, and burnout in child and adolescent athletes. Pediatrics, 119, 1242-1245.
   3. Position Statement from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM,2014).
   4. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Sports specialization, hours spent in organized sports may predict young athlete injury.” ScienceDaily, 28 October 2013

4. Do you want to Run Faster?

   24th October 2013 8:45 am Leave a Comment

   Run Faster book now available on Amazon

   My latest book Run Faster is now available here.

   It contains a 6 week training programme based around technical drills and resistance training.

   It contains all the ideas and thoughts that I have learnt from working with both athletes and top coaches from around the world. 

   Whilst it is a short book, it has taken a long time to write, because I wanted to ensure that it was as up to date as possible.

   I have been refining the drills and sequences over the summer, and this is the culmination of that work.

   The book contains many video clips highlighting each drill and practice.

   This includes the specific resistance training exercises that are needed to enhance your running action. This also forms your hamstring injury prevention programme.

   Programme overview

   You can see the Run Faster programme overview below.

   

   

   If you are a team sports player, a recreational runner, or a track athlete then this book will help you refine and develop your running technique and fitness.

    Most people associate running fitness with getting tired first, technique second. This book shows the importance of developing your technique and strength concurrently. You then practice running well and at speed. Your fitness develops by repeating quality work.

   My underlying principle is: Run Well, Run Fast, Rest and Repeat.

   Buy the book here and start to Run Faster

5. Talent ID- The Australian Myth: Paula Jardine

   1st March 2013 10:26 am 5 Comments

   

   Physiology tests don’t identify talent.

   The idea that physical abilities tests can predict talent is now so pervasive that I’m beginning to lose track of the number of times I’m asked by athletes who’ve completed physiology tests what sports the tests suggest they’d be good at.

   When I explain that the tests are intended to help them assess their own fitness and identify areas they can work on to improve their performance they’re often a little disappointed. If only it were so easy to identify future stars this way but despite the spin, the reality is that it certainly isn’t.

   The Australians were the first to try to identify athletes this way an initiative that began with their rowing programme in 1988.  More than 20 years later the much talked about Talent Search programme has produced results that are far more modest than the hype suggests — just over a half dozen female Olympic athletes and 3 Olympic medals which represents about 1 percent of Australia’s medal haul.

   Even these results were dependent on a bit of luck as the first two Talent ID athletes to compete in an Olympic Games for Australia (rower Megan Still and cyclist Alayna Burns) were in fact almost not selected for their respective programmes.

   Learning from the Eastern Bloc

   This type of Talent ID testing is widely thought to be a Westernised adaptation of the methods used in the Eastern Bloc to select elite athletes.

   The Eastern Bloc didn’t rely on one off tests at all – they tracked athletes physical development over many years and were more interested in the trajectory that their training and results were taking.       (Excelsior ADC athletes come in all sorts of shapes and sizes).

   What the tests generally do is deselect individuals who don’t fit an idealised model of what an athlete in a particular sport looks like. Had the height criteria been rigorously applied in the case of British Olympic rowing medallist Annie Vernon she would never have been selected.  Promoted as a Talent ID find Vernon had been active in the sport for over 3 years by the time she was identified and fast tracked.

   Most sports already have problems with selection bias at junior age group level skewing the talent pool as is evidenced by the relative age effect and the over representation of early maturing athletes in selective junior programmes.

   As physical abilities tests are being used with increasing frequency in our schools to identify “the gifted and talented” with the intention of providing additional resources to support their development it is highly likely to compound the problem of selection bias as those administering the tests look at the numbers without taking age or biological maturity into consideration when making supposedly scientific assessments of someone’s innate abilities.

   Talent ID testing has a limited use as a gimmicky way to recruit athletes for some sports but there’s a real danger that as it becomes more pervasive it could have the unintended consequence of eroding rather than expanding the talent pool when those labelled gifted at an early age turn out not to be.

   Paula Jardine: South West Talent Manager, University of Bath.

   Further reading:

   • The talent id bun fight 
   • Long term athlete development (LTAD) resource pack

6. How to get fit for tennis

   27th June 2012 9:27 am 1 Comment

   On Monday we looked at the demands of tennis, now we look at putting that into practice. With a nation inspired by British hopes at Wimbledon, start getting fit now.

    How can I get fit for tennis?

   Start with flexibility and build from there. Every player needs to have a foundation of mobility and flexibility to build upwards from. This needs to be worked on regularly, not something that is done once a week or when you feel tight.

   At Excelsior we encourage our athletes to do a series of exercises called 5×5’s, these are 5 exercises to be done daily for a minute each, these work on control, technique and flexibility.

   

   Flexibility can be worked on during warm ups with exercises like multi-directional lunges, this exercise gradually puts the body into full extension stretching muscles and nerves prior to playing.

   Getting into the habit of a daily stretch routine is a great way to improve flexibility, this needs to take into consideration exercises that you as an athlete feel working not just one you have been told to do.

   Working out three routines that can be alternated, can alleviate the monotony of one routine

   Fit for 5 sets?

   Training endurance directly is not always simple due to time constraints and should therefore be done during a tennis session if possible. From looking at the demands and research I would suggest a mixture of interval training and longer distance training.

   In a session shorter distance sprints can be done during an extended warm up or within drills themselves. Longer distances can be done when the athlete has time and for example going on a 5 mile bike ride.

   One problem with common training methods for the aerobic system is that it can result in injuries. Athletes going on long slow runs use poor form compared to if they trained over shorter distances, swimming and cycling would be better methods as they reduce impact on joints. injuries.

   (For running technique tips see here)

    Speed/ Agility

   Before working on speed and agility you need to make sure you can brake and control the movements, this is where a base level of control and co-ordination is required. (More information on different surface requirements here)

   The majority of tennis sessions will involve a large amount of agility, if during conditioning sessions this is worked on solely for long periods of time, there is a good chance the body will not be able to recover and see any adaptations before injury occurs.

   Another time this can be worked on is during warm ups, this does not mean repeated sprints but looking at first steps and braking.

   Over the last 4 months the cricketers I work with have used bodyweight exercises to strengthen and braking drills to improve co-ordination. They have all now met the ECB’s criteria on the yoyo test, this is due to being more efficient and stronger when turning.

   Strength

   To make it to the top in any sport you need to practice, this is impossible if you are injured! A strength programme should help build control and technique to withstand the rigors of intensive training.

   All athletes need to improve their strength, this does not mean looking at how much you lift in comparison to your bodyweight, it means improving strength that is relevant to your sport. Tennis for example is a game where you lunge with varying degrees of extension and control.

   By improving areas such as the BIG HOUSE and legs, you will be able to not only control a lunge better but also at greater speed enabling you to return to a ready position quicker.

   When many people try to improve these they use resistance machines in their gyms, these were designed to reduce the need for stabilisation during a movement and are therefore not ideal. Below is an example of exercises that take away the need for machines and are more athletic.

   Muscle	Machine Exercise	Preferred option 1	Preferred option 2
   Quadriceps	Leg Extension	Squat	Single leg squat
   Hamstrings	Leg Flexion	Single leg bridge	Deadlift

    

   Summary

   • Tennis has evolved over the years and is now a more powerful game, due to different technology and athletes realising conditioning is a vital component of their training.
   • Your programme needs to have a long term plan not just work on a quick fix to one specific area, unless you are in post injury rehab.
   • Building a strong foundation and making small progress will lead you to being an overall better athlete.
   • Starting a training programme can be difficult and you need to get into a routine.
   • It is like pushing a heavy object, getting the object moving takes a lot of effort but as momentum builds its becomes easier to continue the momentum.

   For a comprehensive training programme that fits into your schedule, try our Sports Training System

   Duncan Buckmaster  

7. How can I sprint quicker?

   30th April 2012 1:57 pm 11 Comments

   Speed kills…

   Almost every athlete needs to sprint quickly in their sport, those who do it quicker, beat their opponents.  Putting aside the need for braking and change of direction, pure sprint speed is a useful asset.

   Before working on these aspects, we always make sure that the foundation movement patterns and underlying structural integrity are in place. Otherwise, you simply can’t progress as quickly.

   The two key parts to running faster

   Acceleration:

   the start phase which requires the ability to apply great force and the ability to hold Straight Line Extension (SLX). This can be improved through strength training and correct technique (more detail here)

   Running Technique:

   Once you are upright, then running technique is very important. Athletes broadly fall into either those with good co-ordination (fluidity?) but need strengthening, or those who are strong, but lack co-ordination.

   Sprinting technique can be improved. As part of the Sports Training System we offer more detail, with video clips. 

   The top 7 technical running points

   1. Brief surface contact: Run in the air, not on the ground. When landing, think of a short sharp tick.
   2. Small range for leg movement: A smaller range will conserve energy. A more efficient action is when the rear leg doesn’t move too far backward and the front leg isn’t lifted too high.
   3. Holding the trunk upright: Keep the hips directly under the shoulders with the back held stretched. This helps the abdominal muscles work and stops over rotation of the shoulders.
   4. Keeping the foot in as neutral a position as possible: A 90 degree angle at the ankle joint  is optimal. Get this as soon after push off as possible and maintain until you land at the front.
   5. Optimal arm action: A greater backward swing than forward swing is optimal. The elbow should drive back to the rear and upwards in time with the scissor leg action.
   6. Optimal vertical displacement: It sounds strange, but a higher vertical displacement (without  long ground contact time) leads to longer flight time and faster running.
   7. Rapid linear pendular motion of the swing leg: After push off, the leg should be brought rapidly forward as linearly as possible. This means hip and knee bend together. Rather than the heel kicking up towards your bum.

   Our goal is to make everyone faster: the underlying principles are universal, but we apply them to each individual and sport differently. Speed training for running also needs strengthening exercises. The training for running speed is itself strenuous, especially for non athletes.

   Do you want to run faster too? Then click here.

   (Technical aspects taken from Frans Bosch)

8. “Talent” Books debunked: Nature and Nurture are both needed.

   5th September 2011 2:52 pm 10 Comments

   What happens when Journalists tackle science?

   A number of books have appeared recently in the USA and the UK purporting to explain the development of talent and excellence in the sporting and business environments. A common feature of these books is that they are written by journalists,who attempt to deal with complex scientific concepts.

   Four of the most popular are: “Talent is Over-rated” by Geoff Colvin (Nicholas Brearley2008); “The Talent Code” by Daniel Coyle (Random House Books 2009); “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell (Little Brown & Co 2008) and “Bounce” by Matthew Syed (Harper Perennial 2010).

   The common message of these books is that to achieve excellence in a chosen field, all that is needed is hard work and the correct – so-called “deliberate”- type of practice .  The books all suggest that talent is not innate.

   Through a basic misunderstanding of science, all four books re-open the false dichotomy of the nature versus nurture debate. The authors present stories in order to support their cases but repeatedly confuse correlation with causation.

   The books’ messages appeal simultaneously to two opposing ideals: one of the largely American free-market right, who profess that whatever a person’s social and economic circumstances, he or she can get to the top in society through hard work; the other, the liberal left tradition that all individuals are born equal with a “blank slate” that is then molded by society (the environment).  One review of Bounce describes it as “banalities for egalitarians” with good reason.

   Ordinarily, the topics contained in popular literature would be largely of no concern to the coaching and sports science fraternities, but this is different. These books are increasingly described in reviews as if they were scientific masterpieces on sporting performance and talent development.

   First, the general message that talent is not innate, “not in the genes”, “not genetic”.

   All the authors suggest that those they perceive as being on the “nature” side of the debate believe that there are “genes for sport” and that a person is born with this immutable advantage. Nothing could be further from the truth; none of the geneticists quoted in their books believes this to be true and to suggest otherwise  is the most simplistic form of reductionism
   

   But I am of course not suggesting that small genetic units work in isolation from each other, any more than a chemist thinks that atoms do. (⁽Dawkins R. The Extended Phenotype Oxford 1982 p 113)

   The authors also variously describe DNA as being a “blueprint”, but geneticists don’t believes this to be the case  (The blueprint myth is dealt with adequately by Dawkins in The Greatest Show on Earth, chapter 8).

   There are approximately 30,000 genes in the human genome. These genes interact with each other and both the cellular and external environment from conception to death. This process is very fluid and some genes switch on or off other genes, depending upon certain environmental conditions; we are certainly not born with a blueprint that remains fixed for the rest of our lives.

   There are, however, relationships between certain genes and many human conditions, including certain diseases ; I.Q.; grip strength; VO2max, willingness to train. Some of these can be related to single genes and others not as yet identified but whose heritability is verified through twin studies. To deny this as the authors do, is to deny science in the same way that creationists deny evolution or homeopaths deny chemistry.

   What is also very damaging is that genetic mapping is only in its infancy having previously concerned itself with what is known as single nucleotide polymorphisms which is a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack, whereas now we are entering the start of “genome wide mapping” which will aim to identify correlations and possible causes across a whole range of human expressions.

   Adopting the “not in our genes” stance within sport would retard scientific advancement in the areas of talent identification, development and injury prevention.

   The books themselves contain errors:

   Here is what Professor Steven Pinker says about Gladwell’s “Outliers”:

   The reasoning in “Outliers,” which consists of cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies, had me gnawing on my Kindle.

   Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “sagittal plane” and “power law” and quotes an expert speaking about an “igon value” (that’s eigen value, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aperçus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.
   

   The common thread in Gladwell’s writing is a kind of populism, which seeks to undermine the ideals of talent, intelligence and analytical prowess in favor of luck, opportunity, experience and intuition. Unfortunately he wildly overstates his empirical case. It is simply not true that a quarter­back’s rank in the draft is uncorrelated with his success in the pros, that cognitive skills don’t predict a teacher’s effectiveness, that intelligence scores are poorly related to job performance or (the major claim in “Outliers”) that above a minimum I.Q. of 120, higher intelligence does not bring greater intellectual achievements.

   (Gladwell responded in the New York Times (SW) and the stats dept of the NFL intervened – and sided with Pinker)

    “Talent is Over-rated” is the least reductionist and dogmatic of the books, and on p 81 the author says:

   …but practice proponents do not dispute the possibilities that genes could play a role in a person’s willingness to put himself through the extremely rigorous demands..

   In chapter 11 he refers to:

   an intrinsic drive working alongside extrinsic forces and practice (i.e. nature and nuture).

   He also admits on p196 that many things “remain a mystery”,but he still makes many basic scientific errors e.g.

   Since talent is by definition innate, there should be a gene for it… scientists could yet find the piano playing gene or investing gene or accounting gene…..

   ….genetic changes which take thousands of years.
   

   Genetic changes do not take thousands of years; they happen every generation.  This is discussed in Dawkin’s “Greatest Show on Earth”

   When talking about mainly sporting potential, Colvin states:

   ..clear evidence that such non-physical (by this he means “anthropometric” SW) constraints exist has not been found so far …

   This simply is not true, since there is evidence for example of differences in inherited VO2 max potential.

   They pick an isolated paper and printing its findings as fact.

   Colvin refers to  a paper “A day at the races” from 1986 and treats the results as fact. This paper was criticised and the results dismissed the following year in the same journal and again by different authors in the same journal in 1988.

   He later states:

   but it’s important to note that advocates of the deliberate practice framework have never excluded the possibility of a genetic role in high performance. Their stance has been that they have not seen the evidence supporting it.
   

   As Matt Ridley says about personality:

   indeed, given that twin studies could find almost no effect of shared environment on personality, the genetic hypothesis should actually be the null hypothesis; the burden of proof was on nurture. If a socialization study did not control for genes, it proved nothing at all. Yet socialization researchers went on year after year publishing these correlations without even paying lip-service to the alternative genetic theory.
   

   The Talent Code

   The book is largely about myelinationation i.e. the laying down of myelin (white matter) in the neural pathway via extended practice. What is not mentioned is that this process is highly heritable.

   The author describes the birth order of 100-metre world record holders and attributes success to chasing siblings, which myelinated their sprinting neurons.  At least one of the men in the list did not grow up with his siblings and another’s birth order is simply wrong.

   The Spartak tennis club in Russia that he writes about screens kids at 5yearsold and they continue to screen them and remove them from the program at every stage if they are not up to par. Any population that starts pre-screened cannot purport to demonstratet hat everybody and anybody can become excellence.

   For the last century and a half, we’ve understood talent through a Darwin inspired model of genes and environment….Since Darwin the traditional way of thinking about talent has gone something like this: genes…..

   This shows complete ignorance of the facts, since Darwin knew nothing of genes.

   Nature/nuture has been a terrifically popular model because it’s clear and dramatic..

   Iit was to philosophers in a previous era but this model is no longer used. This is followed by a number of pages describing the flawed “blueprint” as the correct model of the human genome. Throughout chapter 2 and 3 the impression is given that genes are static entities (following the “blueprint”):

   …their genes do not change, as they grow older.

   But this definition is far too simple, as many genes are turned on and off during a person’s lifetime in response to both environmental changes and the action of other genes.

    Bounce

   Bounce contains factual inaccuracies e.g. the claim on p242 that sickle cell anaemia does not just affect “black” people is plain wrong (see S. Jones, “Language of the Genes” p219-220). The author suggests that geneticists Yannis Pitsiladis and Daniel MacArthur are of the opinion that genes have no role to play in athletic talent development when what their research papers reveal is the opposite.  On page 59, he writes:

   there is no evidence at the moment for differences in innate specific capacities for mathematics.

    There are a number of published papers showing this statement to be wrong. The same is true of the genetic component in children’s reading, IQ, VO2 max, response of muscles to training, inclination to train, response to endurance training and so on. This is part of Syed’s denial of genetic influences against all the available and growing body of evidence.

   (For Simon Worsnop’s detailed critique of Bounce, see here)

   For a comprehensive overview of the false dichotomy between nature and nurture, see Matt Ridley’s “Nature via Nuture” (Harper Perennial 2004)

   For an accessible book on evolution and genetics, see Richard Dawkins’ “Greatest Show On Earth” (Bantam Press; First U.K. Edition edition (3 Sep 2009)

   For an accessible book on genetics, see Steve Jones “Language of the Genes” (Flamingo; New Ed edition (14 Mar 1994)

   For a review paper, see Keith Davids and Joseph Baker’s “Genes, Environment and Sport Performance – Why the Nature-Nuture Dualism is no Longer Relevant” Sports Medicine 2007:37 (11)

   For a magazine article, read David Epstein’s “Sports Genes”, Sports Illustrated May 2010

   I am indebted to Yannis Pitsiladis for his review of my original draft critique of Bounce.

   Simon Worsnop

9. How to get faster: working with young athletes

   3rd June 2011 1:11 pm 4 Comments

   How can I get faster?

   One of the questions I get asked most. There are two main parts to the answer:

   1. Practice running fast.
   2. Do things that help you do the above.

   Yesterday I was working with a group of young athletes from different sports as part of the South West Talent programme.

   The day consisted of several different parts.

   Part 1: Planning.

   A lot of the athletes have a big competition at the end of this month. We looked at how to set a priority for the next 4 weeks, put that into a meaningful goal and then see what training we needed to do to achieve that. I spent some time looking at how different training sessions have an impact on what is to follow. Worryingly, a lot of the plans consisted of 4 weeks solid training with no rest days.

   You will not get faster unless you schedule the training correctly.

   Part 2: Running.

   I split the group into 2 for the next 90 minutes. Those who we do not see regularly worked with Matt and Jason on their 5×5 exercises. These are designed to assist them in becoming more balanced, controlled, flexible and strong. They are the foundation upon which more intense and specific training can be built. You can not run fast if your body is either broken, or inefficient.

   The regular group worked with me outside focussing on ankles and hips when running. I interspersed drills to develop rhythm and control, with running. The idea was to get the drill directly impacting on what was to follow, rather than just drilling. I also wanted the athletes to “feel” what was going on with their technique, rather than just “doing”.

   The body is an amazing self organising system, by concentrating on only 2 aspects, the knee has to sort itself out, and the upper bodies of the runners also improved.

   (Will Roberts was also there observing me Coach all day- pictured filming the athletes)

   Part 3 – Hydration

   It was getting warm yesterday, so a timely intervention with an interactive workshop and quiz was next. Presented by Matt and Jason,they looked at what constitutes a useful sports drink.

   This was a chance for the athletes to ask questions they had after reading Matt’s Blogs this week on Lucozade versus water and How to make your own sports drinks.

   A useful benchmark on coaching is how many questions, and what type the athletes are asking? In both seminars, the questions, and thoughts behind them, showed a real level of excitement and engagement.

   Part 4- Fun Time

   All that learning can’t be good for you, so we finished the day with a Superstars style competition between 4 teams. The events worked on skill\ co ordination, teamwork, strength,  and speed with skill. We finished with small sided football which was probably best described as “enthusiastic.”

   Again, we wanted to get the athletes doing things they are not used to, so as to challenge these systems in a competitive, but fun environment.

   Thanks to everyone concerned who participated. We will be supporting the planning and hydration aspects over the next 2 weeks with these athletes to continue to reinforce the message.

    You can learn to run faster with our Run Faster programme here. My latest book Run Faster is now available here