How to destroy (or develop) talent - a case study

Firstly, sorry for the lack of posts recently...I got sidelined with another project that took up all of my available writing time. Anyway, I'm back and will be back to posting every friday again!

I wanted to share with you a video of a young rugby player who goes by the name of Tyrese Johnson-Mitchell. The video is from Tyrese playing in the semi final of the U15 Natwest Schools Vase competition and features him scoring 4 tries.

Pretty impressive stuff huh? Clearly the boy can play...

What was interesting was the response on social media..here are a few excerpts below

Most of the responses were pretty positive but there was a theme that I noticed. The responses were either from the 'wow this is great, what a talent, lets really get behind him' side of the fence or were from the 'I have seen loads of lads like this, he is just big for his age and when everyone else catches up he won't be anything special' camp.

Who is right? Probably both of them, but both of them could just as easily destroy this player's talent with the stances they are taking. This is what I call the 'Double edged sword of talent'.

Let me explain...

Those wanting to throw adulation and praise on the player will think that they are building his self esteem and confidence and helping him to avoid being dragged down by the 'negative haters'' that only want to pull people back down to their level when they show promise.

This is a natural response but it could just as easily be 'killing him with kindness' by putting across a message that this player is so good that he is now on a natural trajectory to greatness which may well carry with it a subminal message that he doesn't need to work hard to get better. (It may also have the effect of sending out a more serious message to others in his age group that they aren't as good now and therefore won't be as good in the future).

On the other hand there are those that want to say that he is just a freak of nature who is more physically gifted for his age than his peers and that we shouldn't get too excited about him as he will be caught up in time and will then just be mediocre.

This overly 'deterministic' stance is equally dangerous as it can limit the belief that he has the potential to achieve something. It says that he is only good because he is bigger, stronger and faster than his peers and his abilities are an illusion, he is 'fools gold'.

So it seems that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't right?

Not necessarily...

The problem with these 2 positions is that they are too focussed on the future...one is saying that the 'sky's the limit' while the other is saying 'don;t be fooled, he won't be that good in a few years'.

They should be focussed on the here and now...the message needs to be "you are doing well, you are showing promise, that is good, what have you learned today that will help you to get better".

It is tempting to view talent as a some kind of magical glimpse of the future but, in my view, this is where we run into trouble. By placing too much emphais on the outcome it is all too easy for us to take kid's minds away from the all important process of improving day to day and then letting the outcome be what it will be.

That's why I am so passinate about moving away from the flawed concept of 'Talent Identification' towards which is based on making guesses towards a future outcome towards a model of 'Talent Development' which is much more focussed on process.

I would welcome your thoughts...

7 ways to generate intensity in your coaching

I recently recorded an interview with Jeremy Boone from the 'Coach Your Best' podcast (check it out at www.athletebydesign.com). Afterwards Jeremy forwarded me this question that he had recieved from a High School Athletic Director...

"Do you have 3-5 strategies for how to best raise the intensity of a practice for a team? When I observe one of my coaches running practice everything is all setup in lines and a lot of talking. The kids are so disengaged and bored!"

Below is my answer....

Just to be clear about what we mean when we talk about intensity. I define intensity as effort x focus. Often I find that the players are working really hard but the standard of training is low because the mental focus isn't right. In my mind the right level of intensity is the ideal combination of effort combined with the right mindset.

So onto the how....

1. Establish what the right level of intensity looks like

Firstly I would want to give the group a reality check to ensure that we have a common understanding of intensity is in relation to theirs.

I would have worked with them to establish some goals so that I can ask the group what level of intensity they want based on their goals. If they don't want to work with that level of intensity then they have to reevaluate their goals.

Then I ask them to rate their usual/existing level of intensity on a scale of 1 to 10 (I usually go round the group 1 by 1). If they then agree that they need to be at 10 to achieve their goals then I can help to show them what 10 looks like and use this as a reference point from then on whenever the level drops below the agreed standard.

2. 'Gamification'

I use a lot of games or game forms in my coaching. This means that I can get creative with points systems that raise the level of competitiveness in the session and also keeps intensity high. One thing I do that really raises the level is create a league table where the same players or same teams of players are scoring points for their team based on the parameters that we agree.

By way of an example last night my group were focussed on a particular technical aspect involving the players carrying the ball into space, I would shout out bonus points every time I saw them perform the particular technique we were working on which really dialled them into the performance. (I also gave points for attempting to do it even if it failed as I wanted them to understand that it is the intent to try that is as the most important thing).

3. Use consequences like a volume dial

I use consequences to raise or lower intensity. If I really want the players to experience some pressure then I might use a conditioning based consequence which has the added benefit of getting them more conditioned for competition. This works but I tend to use these physical consequences more in pre season to build conditioning into sessions. During the season when I want less pressure / fear but still want intensity I will ask the players to come up with a forfeit.

Last night they said that the team that loses the scrimmage had to sing a song from Disney's Frozen to the other team...it was hilarious watching them belt out 'let it go' I can tell you! The atmosphere was really good and there was a lot of laughter but the intensity definitely went up during this.

4. Use the 'reset button'

Periodically I will create a game that is pretty demanding on the players either technically, mentally or physically and will put a time limit on the activity and start a countdown. If the level of intensity drops then we press the reset button and the countdown starts again until they have completed the set time (This one is like a rocket ship for intensity but it needs to be managed carefully!).

5. Finish early!

This might sound counter intuitive but from time to time I will finish a session or an exercise early because the players have shown high intensity and have really put it in. This sends out the message that if they bring their 10 out of 10 focus to training I won't keep them any longer than necessary (More often than not they ask for something more and we keep going but the message has been sent).

6. Establish 'acceptables' and 'exceptionals'

Before every session or every exercise we will establish what is acceptable and what is exceptional. As long as we don't drop below the acceptable level then everything is good but we want to see athletes 'striving for the exceptional'.

7. Have an 'everytime philosophy'

I am pretty relentless when it comes to maintaining the quality of practice that the group have agreed to. I will tell them that I can't step back from that because that would not be doing the right thing by them. I view it the same way as I view the behaviour of my children, if I let them get away with bad manners or behaviour then I am not doing my best as a father. Why should my players be any different?

When to specialise in sport - the debate rages on (sigh)

In the excellent 'The Talent Code' Blog, Daniel Coyle posted the following passage discussing the potential pitfalls of kids specialising early in sports...

"In the glossy heart of the 1980s, in the dimly lit halls of East Anchorage High School there walked a god. He was rangy, blond, and bore the cinematically perfect name of Trace Savage. And Trace Savage was awesome. (Just say it out loud: Trace Savage.)

Trace Savage was awesome partly because he was cool, partly because he was nice, but mostly because he was the best all-around athlete any of us had ever seen: quarterback of the football team, starting forward on the basketball team, and track star. He was living our American sports dream, and the dream of everyone we knew. Then, in the space of a few years, that dream changed. Maybe it was the rise of superfocused prodigies like Tiger Woods, Andre Agassi, and the Williams sisters. Maybe it was the rise of parenting as a competitive sport. Maybe it was the ESPN-ification of youth sports, which lost its community base and morphed into a free-market bazaar of travel teams, trophies, and tournaments, with each kid (read: parent) seeking the holy grail of success: the college scholarship. By the time the mid-nineties rolled around Trace Savage had vanished from the landscape like the white rhino. In his place stood a different species: the specialists. Every sport became a highly organized year-round enterprise: indoor soccer in winter, hockey in summer, baseball all year round. Suddenly kids had to choose before they turned 10 or so, or risk falling behind the pack. The logic seems straightforward: if you want to be good at a sport, you should play intensively year-round. It makes perfect sense. It was also, in retrospect, a perfectly bad idea. While early specialization works for a lucky few, an increasingly large wave of research has provided proof that early specialization doesn’t work so well for the rest of us. Let us count the ways:

• 1) early specialization increases the chance of injuries.

• 2) early specialization creates worse overall athletes (more evidence here).

• 3) early specialization makes kids less likely to participate in sports as adults.

• 4) early specialization creates a falsely high barrier to participation, eliminating kids who might otherwise succeed in a more open system.

I think the bigger point is this: when it comes to athletic skills, we are natural omnivores. Our bodies and brains are built to grow through variety of activities, not just one.Think about what happens when you play multiple sports. You develop whole-body skills like balance, quickness, core strength. You cross-train skills from one sport to another.It is not a coincidence that many top performers were multiple-sport kids growing up. Roger Federer played soccer until 12; Steve Nash and Kobe Bryant did the same. The reason they possess such brilliant footwork and vision is because they built those skills, over time, by being omnivorous.Most important, multi-sport kids develop a far more useful skill: how to learn. They learn how to adapt to different situations, make connections, and to take true ownership over the improvement process.I’d also argue that multi-sport kids have a better chance to stay emotionally healthy, because they’re free of the all-the-eggs-in-one-basket pressure that goes with specialization — a pressure that can lead unhealthy patterns when it comes to relationships and emotional stability. (See: Woods, Tiger.) They are free of the sense that, should they fail, they are at risk of losing their identity, and letting down their parents.So the real question is, what do you do? How do you nurture a Trace Savage in a Tiger Woods world? Here are three useful approaches, courtesy of Ross Tucker of The Science of Sport, who’s written widely on the subject.

• Delay: wait as long as possible before choosing a single sport to pursue. It varies according to sport, but research puts the ideal age for specialization around the early teenage years. (That doesn’t mean you start at that age, of course, but rather that you start getting serious.)

• Diversify: embrace all possibilities to broaden skills. Experiment and cross train.

• Co-operate: seek ways to build connections between the silos of individual sports, so that families are not forced to choose one over the other too soon.

I’d add one more word: Connect. One of the main reason specialization is hard to resist is the parental peer-pressure that comes with joining any “elite” team. When every other family on the team is skipping school to travel to that “prestigious” out-of-state tournament, it’s awfully hard to say no. So I’d suggest seeking out other parents, kids, and coaches who share the multi-sport view, and working together to create fun, homegrown, omnivorous alternatives."

This post cause a massive ammount of debate in the comments area and I put forward my own view (as you might have guessed I would) I thought I would share it here.

For me...this is actually a moral argument as it raises questions that relate to the best way for us to bring up our children. Some think that they need to provide opportunity and put investment into their children from an early age to give their kids the best chance in life. Others are fearful that this approach will have the opposite effect in the long run as a generation of 'pushy parents' sees a generation of kids fall out of love with a sport that they have been doing for too long.

Within rugby we have researched this area as we have a major problem with kids leaving the sport between the ages of 16 and 24 and we have discovered that the earlier kids start playing the more likely they are to drop out. We also discovered that the main reasons for drop out relate to burnout due to boredom or the attraction of other sport which suggest to us that the varied diet of sport for as late as possible is very important. We are working very hard to ensure that our talent selection systems are now starting much later (i.e. post maturation) so that we keep windows open to kids who have great athletic ability and drop out of other sports. From our perspective we hope the other sports keep going with their early specialisation models as we may well benefit long term!

Much of the problem stems from the fact that kid's sport has become big business. The weight of evidence in support of the late specialisation model (see this link for some more http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423172601.htm) is pretty heavy and yet people are still finding spurious arguments in support of it...why...because their livelihoods depend on it!

The problem is that every time we get an elite star that came from a early specialised background that this is presented as the case for this model, the media love to report this and it then takes on a bit of a folk following as a story. What nobody will consider is the 100's of kids that did the same but didn't make it and dropped out. It comes down to a straight trade off...the odd elite star and the risk of large scale drop out or a healthy sport full of lifelong participants and the promise of more elite stars as a happy by product.

The challenge for sports administrators is that we try to use research and logic to strengthen our argument but we are fighting against a powerful triumvirate of the hard line opinions of a commercial industry fueled by parents who are emotionally attached to the futures of their children which is in turn powered by the media's delight in a romantic story of the 'boy or girl done good' by trying hard from early childhood.

I am fearful that the only way that this super tanker can be turned around will be be when it is too late....