Long – Term Athlete Development – Are we creating the best pathways for young athletes?
Today’s coaching landscape puts more demands than ever on coaches to provide the best possible training experiences for young athletes. Access to social media and the desire to reach elite levels of sport means that young athletes are more demanding of their coaches and expect high quality training sessions which are planned and strategically put in place to develop each individual athlete. Progressive sports clubs are continually searching for methods that will allow better coaching practices to be implemented within their teams and with this in mind many have adopted Long-Term Athlete Development plans. But are these plans worth implementing? What are the potential issues and what alternatives exist? Let’s take a look at the background to LTAD firstly.
LTAD Model
The original LTAD model was created in the late 1990’s by Canadian academic Istvan Bayli, who has worked in various Canadian sports centres as a high-performance advisor and is recognised as a planning and periodisation expert with over 75 articles and chapters published on these topics.
Bayli’s model suggests that youth athlete development can be separated into key stages including those outlined in the above table. The model is based on the concept that there are ‘Windows of Opportunity’ for young athletes where they can optimally develop certain athletic qualities such as speed, strength, suppleness and stamina. So what’s not to like about a structured plan that allows for progressive development for all athletes? Despite this model and some of the subsequent ones that have since been developed being a good start, there are many elements that although not wrong, may be incomplete or misleading for coaches.
Limitations
The model suggests that it provides the framework to systematically train and develop physical, technical, mental and emotional capacities in athletes according to scientifically recognised principles and stages of human development. The model proclaims itself as the ultimate model and the best way to achieve elite levels of athletic performance for the young athlete. It also claims that there are no shortcuts and that athletes develop over time and stages cannot be skipped or rushed. Many talented athletes miss out on certain periods of training at specific age groups and still reach elite status. This may be a result of numerous circumstances including injury, illness, coach availability, financial issues, parental support or geographical location.
If an athlete misses out on the ‘Window of Opportunity’ for speed development, which apparently occurs just before PHV for boys, does this mean they can no longer develop their speed or that they would have been faster if they had been exposed to appropriate training in this window? Professor Jose Afonso, a well published researcher in this area, refutes this idea in his critique of LTAD, highlighting the different pathways of development seen within babies as they learn to walk. Afonso states that some babies go through the typical sequence of development to walking: They crawl first and then move onto walking. Despite this being universally accepted it is not the only way. Afonso outlines that some babies never crawl and go straight to walking. Other babies perform bottom shuffling and then move to walking. This does not negatively affect them in later life in terms of health or coordination patterns and goes against the claim proposed by Bayli’s LTAD with regard to the need to fulfil every stage of development in order to reach a certain end point of performance.
Another limitation worth highlighting within the LTAD model is the idea that “training to win” is a stage which should only begin at age 17+ for girls and 18+ for boys. Although it is accepted that at younger ages we want to develop a love of the sport and involvement in numerous sports, suggesting that a focus on winning only occurs at this later adolescent stage is unrealistic. Sport is of course about enjoyment first and foremost, but success and competitiveness, alongside learning to deal with victory and defeat, should also be nurtured appropriately from a young age.
Finally, another shortcoming of the model centres around issues surrounding the chronological and developmental age. The model suggests that chronological age should not dictate when an athlete enters a certain stage of training and that the athlete’s developmental age (growth & maturation) should be used as a more relevant marker of their readiness to progress within the LTAD model. Development age can differ greatly between individuals with growth spurts occurring at different points leading to differences of up to 5 years between athletes in terms of maturation and growth. However, the LTAD model contradicts itself here as it clearly defines age intervals for each stage as outlined in table 1.
Alternatives
Many sports clubs have adopted variations of this model in an attempt to streamline their coaching approach at youth levels. Whilst the idea of having an overall coaching model to adhere to as a club is admirable, it should be noted that in a lot of cases these plans are adopted with the best intentions, only to be placed in a folder or hung on a wall. The reality is the implementation of these plans is a totally different challenge. In terms of the coaching scene in the GAA (Gaelic Games Association) and indeed most other sporting clubs in Ireland which are amateur at youth level, most, if not all coaches are volunteers. There should be an awareness of the level of expertise that is present within the people involved in coaching roles. In order to implement the LTAD model, coaches will need to be aware of concepts such as PHV and be monitoring player’s height on a regular basis. Many clubs adopt these models but do not up skill their coaches on how to know when PHV may be occurring and how training may be altered as a result of this phase. This leads to disillusionment amongst coaches and the plan falls by the wayside.
The LTAD model places a strong emphasis on certain attributes being trained within windows of opportunity. This may lead coaches to believe that they should focus solely on training that attribute during these periods. Of course, this is a mistake. Rhodri Lloyd’s Youth Physical Development Model builds nicely on the original idea of LTAD model and highlights that all physical attributes may be trained at any time in the athlete’s development. Lloyd and Oliver (2012) created this model in an attempt to improve on the LTAD model which they highlight as one-dimensional and lacking empirical evidence.
Coaches should be aware of how to best address each attribute during maturation to achieve the best long-term and sustainable outcomes. The image of the YPD model below shows how Lloyd & Oliver suggest all attributes are maintained in the training process but that at certain stages the training focus may shift more towards one quality. For example, Hypertrophy may become more a focus in strength training sessions after the onset of PHV and the subsequent increase in circulating androgens such as testosterone. However, as mentioned above, coaches must be educated on these concepts and able to assess PHV in order to become aware of when to implement certain training strategies.
More positives can be found within the YPD model as it includes discussion of the level of structure in training for the young athlete as they progress. It also acknowledges that it based on an average maturing child and coaching plans need to be individualised to suit the early or late developer in a group. Other considerations will include training implications pertaining to gender, training age and athlete well-being. Consideration of mental health, social interactions, nutritional habits and emotional well-being could lead to creation of a more holistic model as all the above models tend to focus mainly on the physical attributes.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”
A famous quote from mathematician George Box - "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”. We can relate this to the idea of LTAD. Although there are flaws in the LTAD model, the overall idea is one that can be built on to enhance our coaching practice with youth athletes. Children are not robots and we must be mindful that there are so many factors that come into consideration in order to develop well rounded and robust young people who also happen to be athletes. Strong parental support that helps foster a love and interest in sport is of paramount importance. Quality coaching from empathetic coaches who understand the social landscape that young people encounter nowadays will always trump elaborate plans that may look fantastic on paper but prove difficult to implement. Coaching models should reflect the specific situations that are most relevant to the young athletes you work with in your surroundings in order to create the most effective and meaningful experiences for these young people.
References
Balyi, I., Way, R., & Higgs, C. (2013). Long-Term Athlete Development. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Lloyd, R. & Oliver, Jon. (2012). The Youth Physical Development Model. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 4, 61-72.
Comments