Steve, we met briefly at MIT/Sloan conf. You put this so clearly. I'd add something that has helped me: we keep treating skill as something you train into a kid through instruction, when it looks far more like something they acquire — the way children acquire a first language, through immersion and play, long before anyone teaches a rule. That's why early ID fails. We're testing nine-year-olds on a language we never let half of them learn to speak. The ones we cut for being small or "behind" were often just less far along in acquisition — and many become the most fluent of all. I spent fifteen years running a free, no-cuts program watching exactly this play out and a book that I think corners talent as a product of that Wittgenstein-like 'meaning is use' language.. It's called 'The Talent Thief ' think you'd like it--either way, thanks for shinning the light on development.
Soccer has a real problem with being stuck in a Fixed Mindset mode - the belief that observed “talent” is the determinant of future success. The philosophy promoted is attritional and coupled to a “Rank and Yank” way of filtering children. It is a destructive philosophy especially for younger children, but also up to young teenagers.
Can I get a summarized version to hang as a banner in my PT clinic so my 14 yo swimmer who swims 20hrs a week with shoulder[s] pain and my 11yo pitcher who’s dad will only let him pitch (rather than heavens forbid play another position while he recovers) can read?
I just started working with children after spending my career at the collegiate-level, and I’d heard about specialization being bad, but I didn’t realize that we were treating children like pro-athletes. Why does a 5 yo need cleats?! Let their feet develop. What are we doing here? Upon reflection, I’m going to start asking all my athletes, adults included, what their favorite part was about their game/match/meet practice/etc…Not the outcome.
We keep mistaking early visibility for future value.
In hiring, education and talent systems, we over-index on polished signals, linear paths and who looks ready now, then miss the people who could become exceptional under the right conditions.
The better question is not just “who is best today?”
It is: “what might this person become if the door stayed open long enough?”
Great post. Your comment about professional teams struggling to identify current pro players with untapped potential shows how that is nearly an impossible task. I think we typically want a narrative so we try to reverse engineer the pathway success in an effort to explain how it happens. When in reality, in sports especially, performance jumps emerge at random.
One thing that I think is under-appreciated is the impact on an athlete of knowing they have space to fail without losing their spot. That security provides space for playing with creativity and joy.
One of my favorite books on this is The Away Game, which tracked the Aspire Academy’s Football Dreams program that aimed to identify the best African 13-year-olds and turn them into top professionals. A big reason it ended up falling short is that it was just too unpredictable which 13-year-olds would become the best players as adults, and limiting themselves to a small cohort of teens meant they missed kids who didn’t look as good as 13-year-olds but might have been more successful in the long run
As you know, my son loves football (it's not soccer!) but the doorway to the local professional academy teams closes at 13. Thirteen! He's a late developer, good athlete (regional triple jumper) and loves football. He played for a very good local team, but no on is scouting those teams for 16 -year-old players. They have invested in 12-13 year olds and keep investing in them. As you say, the most important thing is that he enjoys his football: but now it has to be a decent enough level to challenge him to make it fun. He still goes to the park every week to kick around with his friends, but the 'closed-shop' and lack of opportunities is beginning to have an effect. The 'professional' coaches pick on size and call it 'talent'!
Ya, that's crazy, sad, and absurd. ENgland seems to be one of the worst at closing off talent early. For all its flaws, one of the good things about most American sports is there are so many paths into them that kids can at least keep playing. In running, we have a number of folks who went on to be professionals or Olympians after playing D3 college sports for example (i.e. no scholarships, lower level of overall competition). It keeps kids in the pipeline for those late bloomers to develop.
I think in soccer there's such a culture of go all-in early, that you miss the late bloomers. I mean if Alex Freeman was in the UK, he'd probably have quit and played another sport. Or if Steph Curry's talent was in soccer instead of basketball, he'd have been out of the sport before he developed into a GOAT.
The funny thing is. T&F is amateur (for the lower levels) and yet finds a way. There's so much money in football, and yet they squander potential like there's no tomorrow.
I had the opportunity to train Alex as part of a mindset development program I created and implemented for Orlando City’s youth academy. At the time, there were around 100 athletes in the program, and what stood out to me was his confidence, his desire to be elite, and his commitment to the work we did together (written goals, positive self-talk, after-action reviews, physiology, and leadership). When we discussed as a group that, statistically, only two athletes would likely turn professional, he was one of the few who remained fully committed to that goal. I’ve stayed in touch with many of those athletes; while many have gone on to earn full-ride college scholarships and are thriving in other areas of life, the program’s real success was in their growth. Development programs are often criticized, but when approached with a holistic view of the athlete, they can truly cultivate leaders on and off the pitch.
Interesting read. Slightly different, but related, here is an article about what really matters in youth sports. In it, I share a link of my son interviewing my brother, John O'Brien, former US National Team and AJAX player, that I think illuminates how his passion and abilities developed and his path to the Pros, which overlaps a lot with what you're exploring.
What a great and comprehensive post- thank you. I absolutely agree with all the key points and can add a few :
Yamal and similar others (Williams sisters, Tiger, etc) are outliers and do not prove that this is the way to go. Throw a bag of eggs against a wall and, if one doesn’t break, that doesn’t prove it’s a good plan.
A little bit of early struggle - which the child gets through - is a REALLY good thing and much better long term than breezing through your early years.
Playing multiple sports is really beneficial. Playing multiple roles within your chosen sport is also very helpful (especially if you’re going to specialise early).
The more kids play in unorganized, small sided games on different surfaces the better they get.
We don't need to identify talent better at younger ages. Instead we need to develop a larger pool of talented 20 year olds a decade from now.
Clubs play a role but should be the least important aspect of development until kids go through puberty.
We started a small weekly meet-up last summer and had 40 kids roll out last week for 2 hours at a local park.
Several clubs caught on and host their own sessions in the evenings. Our son plays 4 or 5 times a week with kids of different skill levels and ages for less than $20.
We're expanding our meet-ups to new surfaces - tennis/basketball courts and parking lots - so we can play in the winter and are keeping costs as low as possible. 10/10 for development and easily replicable in any town in America.
Is there any research out there about using parental athletic achievement as a way to identify talent? My guess is that me asking 8 year olds if there mom and dad played pro or college sports is a better method than having coaches watch 2 days of tryouts.
Antero et al. (2018), "A Medal in the Olympics Runs in the Family" (Frontiers in Physiology), found Olympic medal-winning aggregates within families, with an estimated genetic contribution around 20%. The sibling literature is even stronger. Siblings of elite athletes are dramatically more likely to be elite themselves (one line of research found younger siblings of elite athletes ~4x more likely to play competitive sport regularly than younger siblings of non-elites), and interestingly the sibling–sibling predisposition is stronger than the parent–offspring one.
It’s still not a strong individual predictor. But it’s a real, very cheap signal.
I find it odd that I’ve never once had one of my kids’ coaches ask me if my wife or I played sports at a high level. Again, I’m sure it’s not a good predictor but it is another data point worth considering.
Ya, I mean the truth is, based on the data, it's probably better than most of what coaches use, ha. At least as a starting point.
Maybe they need a family history form like in a doctors office...Parents, granparents, siblings, etc. It at least tells you that you may want to watch out!
Talent ID makes little difference until the conditions are present that form the athlete and those conditions must remain for extended periods of demand
Steve, we met briefly at MIT/Sloan conf. You put this so clearly. I'd add something that has helped me: we keep treating skill as something you train into a kid through instruction, when it looks far more like something they acquire — the way children acquire a first language, through immersion and play, long before anyone teaches a rule. That's why early ID fails. We're testing nine-year-olds on a language we never let half of them learn to speak. The ones we cut for being small or "behind" were often just less far along in acquisition — and many become the most fluent of all. I spent fifteen years running a free, no-cuts program watching exactly this play out and a book that I think corners talent as a product of that Wittgenstein-like 'meaning is use' language.. It's called 'The Talent Thief ' think you'd like it--either way, thanks for shinning the light on development.
Soccer has a real problem with being stuck in a Fixed Mindset mode - the belief that observed “talent” is the determinant of future success. The philosophy promoted is attritional and coupled to a “Rank and Yank” way of filtering children. It is a destructive philosophy especially for younger children, but also up to young teenagers.
Can I get a summarized version to hang as a banner in my PT clinic so my 14 yo swimmer who swims 20hrs a week with shoulder[s] pain and my 11yo pitcher who’s dad will only let him pitch (rather than heavens forbid play another position while he recovers) can read?
I just started working with children after spending my career at the collegiate-level, and I’d heard about specialization being bad, but I didn’t realize that we were treating children like pro-athletes. Why does a 5 yo need cleats?! Let their feet develop. What are we doing here? Upon reflection, I’m going to start asking all my athletes, adults included, what their favorite part was about their game/match/meet practice/etc…Not the outcome.
This applies far beyond football.
We keep mistaking early visibility for future value.
In hiring, education and talent systems, we over-index on polished signals, linear paths and who looks ready now, then miss the people who could become exceptional under the right conditions.
The better question is not just “who is best today?”
It is: “what might this person become if the door stayed open long enough?”
Great post. Your comment about professional teams struggling to identify current pro players with untapped potential shows how that is nearly an impossible task. I think we typically want a narrative so we try to reverse engineer the pathway success in an effort to explain how it happens. When in reality, in sports especially, performance jumps emerge at random.
One thing that I think is under-appreciated is the impact on an athlete of knowing they have space to fail without losing their spot. That security provides space for playing with creativity and joy.
One of my favorite books on this is The Away Game, which tracked the Aspire Academy’s Football Dreams program that aimed to identify the best African 13-year-olds and turn them into top professionals. A big reason it ended up falling short is that it was just too unpredictable which 13-year-olds would become the best players as adults, and limiting themselves to a small cohort of teens meant they missed kids who didn’t look as good as 13-year-olds but might have been more successful in the long run
Thanks! I’ll check that out.
As you know, my son loves football (it's not soccer!) but the doorway to the local professional academy teams closes at 13. Thirteen! He's a late developer, good athlete (regional triple jumper) and loves football. He played for a very good local team, but no on is scouting those teams for 16 -year-old players. They have invested in 12-13 year olds and keep investing in them. As you say, the most important thing is that he enjoys his football: but now it has to be a decent enough level to challenge him to make it fun. He still goes to the park every week to kick around with his friends, but the 'closed-shop' and lack of opportunities is beginning to have an effect. The 'professional' coaches pick on size and call it 'talent'!
Ya, that's crazy, sad, and absurd. ENgland seems to be one of the worst at closing off talent early. For all its flaws, one of the good things about most American sports is there are so many paths into them that kids can at least keep playing. In running, we have a number of folks who went on to be professionals or Olympians after playing D3 college sports for example (i.e. no scholarships, lower level of overall competition). It keeps kids in the pipeline for those late bloomers to develop.
I think in soccer there's such a culture of go all-in early, that you miss the late bloomers. I mean if Alex Freeman was in the UK, he'd probably have quit and played another sport. Or if Steph Curry's talent was in soccer instead of basketball, he'd have been out of the sport before he developed into a GOAT.
The funny thing is. T&F is amateur (for the lower levels) and yet finds a way. There's so much money in football, and yet they squander potential like there's no tomorrow.
I had the opportunity to train Alex as part of a mindset development program I created and implemented for Orlando City’s youth academy. At the time, there were around 100 athletes in the program, and what stood out to me was his confidence, his desire to be elite, and his commitment to the work we did together (written goals, positive self-talk, after-action reviews, physiology, and leadership). When we discussed as a group that, statistically, only two athletes would likely turn professional, he was one of the few who remained fully committed to that goal. I’ve stayed in touch with many of those athletes; while many have gone on to earn full-ride college scholarships and are thriving in other areas of life, the program’s real success was in their growth. Development programs are often criticized, but when approached with a holistic view of the athlete, they can truly cultivate leaders on and off the pitch.
Great article. Soccer is also very expensive to do at a high level, which makes access limited for many.
Interesting read. Slightly different, but related, here is an article about what really matters in youth sports. In it, I share a link of my son interviewing my brother, John O'Brien, former US National Team and AJAX player, that I think illuminates how his passion and abilities developed and his path to the Pros, which overlaps a lot with what you're exploring.
https://annobrientherapy.substack.com/p/are-youth-sports-ruining-your-marriage
What a great and comprehensive post- thank you. I absolutely agree with all the key points and can add a few :
Yamal and similar others (Williams sisters, Tiger, etc) are outliers and do not prove that this is the way to go. Throw a bag of eggs against a wall and, if one doesn’t break, that doesn’t prove it’s a good plan.
A little bit of early struggle - which the child gets through - is a REALLY good thing and much better long term than breezing through your early years.
Playing multiple sports is really beneficial. Playing multiple roles within your chosen sport is also very helpful (especially if you’re going to specialise early).
Fall in love with playing before anything else.
Excellent post.
The more kids play in unorganized, small sided games on different surfaces the better they get.
We don't need to identify talent better at younger ages. Instead we need to develop a larger pool of talented 20 year olds a decade from now.
Clubs play a role but should be the least important aspect of development until kids go through puberty.
We started a small weekly meet-up last summer and had 40 kids roll out last week for 2 hours at a local park.
Several clubs caught on and host their own sessions in the evenings. Our son plays 4 or 5 times a week with kids of different skill levels and ages for less than $20.
We're expanding our meet-ups to new surfaces - tennis/basketball courts and parking lots - so we can play in the winter and are keeping costs as low as possible. 10/10 for development and easily replicable in any town in America.
Is there any research out there about using parental athletic achievement as a way to identify talent? My guess is that me asking 8 year olds if there mom and dad played pro or college sports is a better method than having coaches watch 2 days of tryouts.
Yes. There’s research on this.
Antero et al. (2018), "A Medal in the Olympics Runs in the Family" (Frontiers in Physiology), found Olympic medal-winning aggregates within families, with an estimated genetic contribution around 20%. The sibling literature is even stronger. Siblings of elite athletes are dramatically more likely to be elite themselves (one line of research found younger siblings of elite athletes ~4x more likely to play competitive sport regularly than younger siblings of non-elites), and interestingly the sibling–sibling predisposition is stronger than the parent–offspring one.
It’s still not a strong individual predictor. But it’s a real, very cheap signal.
I find it odd that I’ve never once had one of my kids’ coaches ask me if my wife or I played sports at a high level. Again, I’m sure it’s not a good predictor but it is another data point worth considering.
Ya, I mean the truth is, based on the data, it's probably better than most of what coaches use, ha. At least as a starting point.
Maybe they need a family history form like in a doctors office...Parents, granparents, siblings, etc. It at least tells you that you may want to watch out!
Talent ID makes little difference until the conditions are present that form the athlete and those conditions must remain for extended periods of demand
Imma just leave this here
https://www.bradstulberg.org/p/norways-dominance-in-sport-has-a