The parallels between coaching and parenting are striking and both of these elements naturally come together with youth sports. The concept of free-range kids popularised by author (and parent) Lenore Skenazy thus readily applies to how we coach young athletes (as well as sport parenting). In each case, free play and participating in unsupervised games are essential parts of how children and young athletes develop. Engaging in play is central to how we learn to navigate the world and engage with others. Voluntarily participating in games with others (without intervention from the grown ups) teaches kids how to conduct themselves and develops the capability to interact with peers in a competitive context and a cooperative manner. A less structured environment where the kids themselves decide the playing area and the rules of the game affords the opportunity to apply what they have learned, explore different tactics and engage in trial and error. As such, free play and unsupervised games are particularly rich in opportunities to acquire and adapt sport skills and develop game sense. Given the myriad benefits and the essential role that these opportunities play in developing adept athletes and capable humans, it seems baffling that they are systematically being eliminated with today’s youth. So here we will make the case for applying the free-range perspective to rethink youth sports participation and talent development in a way that fosters engagement and creates self-reliant athletes.

What we want to hear and what we need to hear do not always match up. Indeed in some instances they are distinctly different things! On the youth sports journey the performer will encounter numerous trials and situations that offer abundant lessons. The conversations with those around them are an integral part of how the performer makes sense of events, puzzle things through and elucidate what lessons to take. As the grown ups, it follows that coaches and parents alike have a duty to help performers be objective and uncover the insights to make the best use of these experiences. To that end, there is an onus on us to ensure that the performer maintains a healthy relationship with the truth and remains in touch with reality.

Getting a handle on a young performer’s present status from a developmental perspective is crucial. After all, without this information we have no real frame of reference for making judgements or deciding on the best way forward. The reason that talent identification policy and development pathways at junior level frequently go awry in practice (as we noted in a previous post) is in large part due to a failure to account for maturation and relative age effects. Young performers at age-grade level are far from a homogenous group. Kids in the same age group may be at very different points in their trajectory. That growth and development curves for young performers can vary so widely inevitably thwarts any attempt to adopt a blanket approach. Whilst individual growth curves eventually converge, during their formative teenage years young performers can differ dramatically in how they present at any given time and this is manifested both physically and in the performance capabilities that they exhibit. Given that much of the variability we see at age-grade is simply due to the fact that kids are at very different stages in their relative stage of development, it follows we need some way to assess where a young performer is on their individual growth trajectory. Aside from the addressing the challenge of parsing genuine ‘talent’ versus maturation effects for sporting organisations, we equally need to be able to evaluate these factors on an individual level to inform decisions on how to best support the young performer. In this post we present a tool to estimate biological age and relative stage of maturation and describe how to use this information to inform the priority areas for development and guide training for the young performer.