Comment on “Match Analysis of U9 and U10 English Premier League Academy Soccer Players Using a Global Positioning System: Relevance for Talent Identification and Development”

To the Editor: We read with interest the recent article written by Goto et al. (8): “Match Analysis of U9 and U10 English Premier League Academy Soccer Players using a Global Positioning System: Relevance for Talent Identification and Development.” We welcome the idea underpinning this study as a limitation of research in the area of talent identification and development processes is the absence of performance assessments from within the “open” competitive environment (9,10). In summary, the authors reported time-motion analysis data from match play showing that players who were eventually retained by their Academy over the following 2 seasons covered a significantly greater distance overall and in low-speed running in comparison to peers who were released. Consequently, the authors discussed their results in the context of talent identification and development processes. In light of their findings and discussion, however, and a number of flaws apparent therein, it is of our opinion that further debate in the context of the current body of literature is necessary. First, we have some concerns with the specific use of workload indices as a primary and sole variable. The authors state that it is useful for younger players themselves to know that a high “work rate” may increase the chances of retention within the academy system. Interpretation of work comparing elite and subelite under-14 English Premier League and Division 1 Academy soccer players, respectively, would partly support this statement as the former covered more total- and high-intensity distance in match play (10). In our opinion, these results and the results of Goto et al. can easily be interpreted as suggesting that, if youth soccer players are to eventually attain the very highest standards of play, only those with the best physical abilities will succeed. This, we suggest, is a gross oversimplification. Although the physical demands in professional soccer competition have increased substantially over the last 2 decades, a recent compilation of time-motion analysis research has demonstrated the lack of an association between “success” and physical efforts, notably high-intensity running activity (6). This is the case in senior players in the English Premier and Italian Serie League notably. Indeed, players belonging to the most successful clubs (higher ranking) in the English Premier League actually performed less high-intensity running than lower ranked peers. Furthermore, players in the same League (highest level) performed less high-intensity running than peers in the League 1 and the Championship (second and third tier professional Leagues, respectively) (3). Perhaps, more logically and, in the present circumstance more pertinently, superior technical proficiency was observed in the Premier League players compared with the lower standards. Finally, data reported by Buchheit et al. (4) in international standard youth soccer players question the importance of work rate in developing players notably because of the low occurrence of “critical” intense game actions such as repeated sprint sequences over short periods of time. Thus, although knowledge of the physical loads imposed during competitive matches (combined with daily training data) according to age are valuable as part of a larger development process to monitor, manage, and aid young players in achieving their potential, we feel that practitioners, players, and sports scientists must be made aware that lesser competitive physical performance at an early age should not be considered a brake to players' potential to “make the grade” or used it as a “marker” to discriminate against a certain type of player. Rather than the distances covered per se, we tend to agree with Ali (2) that the ability to execute skilled movement patterns efficiently and effectively is a more important aspect of soccer performance with this dependent on the application of cognitive, perceptual, and motor skills to rapidly changing situations. A second issue lies with the authors' clear suggestion of implication for talent identification and selection processes. The choice of retaining players who performed better “physically” in competition brings into focus the potential talent selection policies of the Premier League club investigated by the authors. It may be that the practitioners identified physical ability and high competitive work rate as prerequisites for performance and success at their club and therefore tended to retain individuals who had what they deemed “necessary” standards. However, we can only speculate on the actual importance of physical performance in this particular club because of the absence of information both on the club's playing style philosophy and perceptions of the coaches across various age categories involved in the talent selection process. It is a notable problem that coach selection criteria, especially “weighting scales,” which they apply to different factors, are often dysfunctionally different at the various ages. Nevertheless, the apparent selection policy seems to fit in with identification policies based largely on physical attributes (frequently associated with biological maturity and the relative age effect, confounding factors apparently not accounted for by the present authors in their analysis, perhaps because of the small sample size) that serve only to identify current performance levels and prematurely exclude those who might have the potential to excel in the future. We would like to remind the authors that physical attributes at a younger age are not necessarily retained throughout the development process or apparent until late adolescence or conversely, automatically translated into exceptional performance in adulthood. Although anthropometric characteristics and physical abilities are seemingly appealing for initial talent identification and selection processes, their ability to successfully predict a subsequent professional career is debatable (7). Similarly, the authors report that endurance performance determined through a Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test was better in retained players and suggest that enhancing this particular athletic component even in players younger than 10 years would lead to greater work rate and potentially improve their chances of being retained in their academy. Although research has frequently identified a strong association between competitive running performance determined through the time-motion analysis measures in relation to physical capacity in both young and adult soccer players, individual fitness does not directly limit work rate (especially high-speed running activity), and enhancements in players' physical condition do not always lead to a concomitant improvement in match running performance (5). In the context of senior professional soccer, the relationship between physical capacity and match running performance is complex because of a myriad of factors influencing the efforts of players. Tactical role and/or situational influences associated with individual playing positions greatly alter the association. Indeed, some players with large physical capacities do not cover large distances simply because of the tactical constrains of their position or the tactics or playing formation used by (or against) their team. In summary, although sympathetic to the purposes of this article, we see a significant number of flaws, which severely weaken its impact. Against the contentions we have highlighted, and reflecting on the data reported by Goto et al., there is a need to consider some alternative explanations. For example, were the retained players who ran more relatively older or more biologically advanced, did they have higher motivation levels or were tougher mentally, or had they different playing history profiles potentially leading to greater perceptual-cognitive expertise and more physical “involvement” in play? We are afraid that each of these suggestions is equally tenable to the competitive physical performance–based explanations provided by Goto et al. The relative age effect and biological maturity–related problems notably are nothing new, and these alone sound a death knell for studies such as the study by Goto et al., however, well intentioned and professionally executed. Also well established in the literature is the recognition that the interplay of factors in talent identification and development is truly a complex system requiring the application of multifactorial “representative designs” (1) rather than the “young to old,” unifactorial approach used by Goto et al. In our opinion therefore, a more holistic approach to the evaluation of competitive performance is required, including emphasis on evaluations of tactical and technical skills and players' game intelligence, decision-making and anticipation abilities in the pressure of the match play setting. A preliminary investigation to this effect has shown that the frequency of specific skills attempted and successful ball retentions in competition discriminated between elite and subelite (English Premier League and Division 1 academy) under-14 players (10). Research in an attempt to identify key objective outcome measures that can be used as talent identification and development tools within the match play setting is clearly desirable (9). Furthermore, fitting these measures into a multidisciplinary monitoring model that is traditionally based on performance in a battery of tests performed out of the competition environment is a challenge for researchers and practitioners involved in talent identification and selection processes.