So you could charge them for structurally balancing them
AND you could get a cut from the pre-tester you referred them to, I’d bet.
I don’t want to come off as a jerk here about training methods. There are many ways to get the job done but it is essential to critically evaluate what you hear and ask the right questions about the cost/benefit of any approach before accepting it.
Training methods aside, there is one universal truth. You MUST have a broad enough group to guarantee that the talent is there and you must give the group enough time to allow the talent to flourish.
Every so often after trying to delve deep into some aspect of sports science to look for ‘the edge’ I eventually come back to the conlcusion that coaching is an Art not a science where ‘cop-on’ and comon-sense is far more valuable than statisical anaylsis.
SO TRUE!
I don’t buy the story of talent identification with some tests and statistics…
I am currently in bball and I hear all the time: “Well, he is only 195cm height, he will not grow any more” — well HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT??? Maybe he is decelerant (slow grow), maybe he will get growth spurt etc. Just leave the kid alone and train them — the talent will come byitself!
This is called NATURAL SELECTION and I am proponent of that — but the clubs don’t have enough money to pay the courts and gyms for a larger number of kids and they want a TALENT IDENTIFICATION so they can get rid of those non-talented kids. I can undestand them, but this approach has yielded very well-known situation where todays top athletes has been told that they are not for that sport — The example is Sasa Djordjevic, who has been told he will never be a bball player — oh no? Look at him now!
This happened to me with PHYSIOLOGY! All that mess around lactates, VO2max — you should only look at the atletes and ask the right questions at the right time and use common sense to make training adjustments — well it is more “holistic” than measuring bLA!
Nice to hear that from you No23! BTW you got mail 
Because Bob down the road said so and his athlete is fast. He said the biomechanics expert had some really fancy equipment and it cost thousands and it is supported by research. The main researcher has one thousand publications!
Bob said that biomechanics expert told him the secret of winning - run fast!
We have talent identification here in Canada and it’s worked wonderfully with our Soccer geniuses. They dumped one player because he didn’t fit the size mold they were looking for.
Ironically, they were exactly right. He wasn’t like the rest of them! OWEN HARGREAVE.
Britain appreciates our fine work.
One of the best substitutes around:D! I’ll cheer for him, even when England boo’s…I always wondered why he didnt play for Canada?
Arguably England’s best player of the tournament. He proved his critics wrong and showed that he had more heart than the over paid overrated players who were born in the UK.
Yes indeed, he was brilliant in the WC. God knows how many other talents Canada dumped cause most would never get another chance to prove themselves.
What seems to becoming apparent in the UK is that most, if not all sports seem to be adopting an Balyi model approach. Some of these talent id managers don’t have a bloody clue about sports training.
Charlie,
Is there a real certanity to state for 14-15yo kid which is slow (11.5-12sec) that he cannot ever be fast (recorder)??? If your club state that you must kick some non-talented kids what would you do?
In my club we got 2-3 very talented kids, 3-4 talented and the rest are only there to fullfill the team (bball). I work with all of them as they are all talented. But some non-talented seams to take alot of time to understand some things — thus I decrease the time for those talented. My head coach stated that “you should prioritize your corrections to most talented, while those who are not will learn along the way”.
Note that the atribute talented is given by the current level of skill and abilities (speed, etc) and progress of skill over time (adaptation, capacity to recover, to learn etc.). I have just spoke with head coach, and he said that it is better to kick out those non-talented (atributed according the mentioned criteria) and to buy talented kids from other clubs. It is cheaper for the club to spend 1000 eu on new kid player than to pay 5 years (and to wait for progression) for camps etc for that untalented. But this is a bouble-edged approach ---- you can allways be wrong!
It is interesting to note that 80% of kids in little leagues (14-15yo) are accelerants (those whoe grow earlier). Also interesting is to note that 70-80% players are born in 1st half of a year in a given age group. Thus it is better to create even 1/2 year groups, like 92.5’ 93’ 93.5’ age groups etc. But the most interesting is that in well developed athletes (over18) there is a larger procent of decelerants!!! Only small proportion of kids from little leagues progress to the major league.
Altought we are never certain about will a talented kid with 14yo be also talented with 22yo and that un-talented kid at 14yo will remain same till 22, we must make selection due limited coaching time and sources from the club. The question is how to do this with the certainity??? What methods to use?? Prof Koprivica stated that there are two methods of selection:
- To pick those who can (who are talented), and
2 To kick-out thos for who we are certain they can’t
— Solution 2 is more “precise” I belive!
One of mine proffesors at faculty stated that the best selectors are actually kids!!! Thus you ask a kid “With who would you play with — who is the best player in your team” and he will surelly point a finger to the best player!!!
Again: will the best player at 14yo remain best at 22yo???
Note that we use (and believe) in expert qualitative assessment rather than some laborathory testing! It is also very important to note that selection is a process not an action! — to not select on a “first ball”! And do not accept selection tips from somoene who didn’t followed a particular team for a while!
the only certainty is that no one will succeed who is excluded. there are perhaps more time constraints where ball handling and other tactical issues come into play early but with sprints, the beginners all have basically the same work and simply drop off according to tolerance throughout the workout so it’s easier to handle bigger numbers at first.
In grade school, i noticed that tonns. Being born in Nov. i competited against people in my Yr level and seemed to always be beaten by others born in the 1st half of the yr. I noticed that trend big time. Also competiting in Surf Life Saving where you compete against basically last half of your yr and the 1st half of the following yr. By the age 14-15yrs, i finally started to have success against others in individual sport. Due to that Age grouping structure. It was not untill around the age 18-19 yrs where i noticed that it no longer mattered how old you were v’s others. Everybody basically stopped growing. Now it just became a case of, he who trains smarter and harder, Wins. And i loved it.
Also, when i was 13, i didnt make the final in a regional beach sprint. The Following yr, age 14, i made and i think medaled in that regional final, and the guy who won the previous yrs 13yr old state titles, didnt even make the regional final, (level or two lower than state). Which goes to show how just in 1yr, how much physical development can change.
Duxx and Bold, your accounts are validated by research carried out in 1999 on professional soccer players. This study suggests that the “talented” owe their success to training and the time of year that they were born in.
In Germany, Brazil, Japan and Australia, the players were much more likely than average to have been born in first quarter after the cutoff date for youth soccer leagues. Because these players were older than their teammates when they joined the leagues, they would enjoy advantages in size and strength, allowing them to handle the ball and score often. Their success in early years would have motiveted them to keep improving, explaining their disproportionate representation in the professional leagues.
Checkout the article in Scientific American August 2006, “The Expert Mind” by Philip E. Ross. Page 46-53
I read this article as well in Scientific American and correct me if I am wrong Martn76 but wasn’t the consensus among the researchers that “talent is made not necessarily born”? As opposed to the old adage “talent is born and not made”?
I believe one of the phrases used was “effortful practice” and the “10 year rule (mastering anything takes 10 years minimum)”!
After reading some stuff over the net I would love to post my opinions about that “deficit” training, or provocing of “delayed adaptation due accumulated fatigue”.
When I first read the Supertraining book, I saw that Verkho’s block training for provocing delayed adaptation due fatigue accumulation. Motor abilites (GCT, explosive strenght, starting strenght etc) start to decline during this concentrated loading phase (which is a longer mesocycle), and then after the unload they jump over the base value much more than if “normal” training was used. This means that the sprinter (or any other athlete) will show lower performance during this period due acute overtraining, but after the unload, it is going to jump “all over the place”! Honestly, I don’t buy this approach (expect maybe in endurance athletes, but maybe), and I am more leaned toward Charlie’s opinions.
But (on my opinion), people started to equal (I opened my eyes recently too) term “concentrated loading” and term “delayed adaptation - deficient - acute overtraining”! Concentrated loading is a block (sharp or smooth period) of unidirectional training used with elite athletes to stimulate futher improvements, while maintaining all other necesary traits. The reason for this is that elites don’t respond too well to sequential approach (lose it or lose it) and concurent (there is too many of traits-abilties to be developed at the same time)! This doesn’t necessary inolve fatigue accumulation or acute overtraining (as depicted in Verkho’s stuff) — and doesn’t necessary involve abilites decrease! I just wanted to clear this up!
Now let’s get back to the topic…
As I said I am leaned toward Charlie’s approcah that speed sessions should be done in most rested state of the athlete, and that speed should improve over time and not decrease over time. Charlie’s HI/LO approach allows this to hapen — the athlete must be fully rested for next speed session! This means no fatigue accumulation and no deficiets!
But is this the case, really? Then, how do we explain what happens during taper/peaking period? Let me expand more on this…
Wanted or not, athletes will alway be little fatigued due training components. But this should not prevent performance to go UP! This little level of fatigue is allway there (dual factor theory) and should not be accumulated. The performance should go UP all the time.
When the athlete reach taper period, and the volumes go down, this underlying fatigue will diminsh and the true performance will raise!!!
To conclude: Performance should go UP instead of down during time, but there will be allways some minimal level of fatigue present — thus the athlete is allways in the state of “deficiet” wanted we that or not — the exception is taper period when the athlete “clear” this fatigue and allow the full performance to happen! There is not fatigue accumulation nor performance decreases!
I hope I cleared this mess up!
— Conclussion: Charlie is right and James Colbert is right! It seems that there is a “third solution” to this!
interesting perespective. i would like to point out that what i advocate is a chronic condition of overtraining. please do not construde chronic as negative. the level of overtraining is slight, and dipping bellow the perscribed levels results in the symptoms so typically associated with overtraining, the symptoms charile warned about. the bottom line is that both methods will procude results. one is much less mainstream than the other, one is counterintuitive to much of what is now excepted in our field, hence the apprehension and oppostiion to my position. the fact of the matter is that i could say if u snorted egg whites it would make you an olympic calibir sprinter, and hell it may but you will never know unless you put it to the test. now ofcourse no one is going to snort egg whites (i hope).
I guess the issue is not whether any regimen gives results; it’s how good the results are for a particular event; a specific matter of degree and significance. We should not be too quick to dichotomize matters.
Surely, training induces fatigue and recovery from that results in a momentary rise in performance (that’s why tapering works). However, the question is how much fatigue, how often, for how long, and how many times within a training year should such fatigue be completely recovered from. From a strictly physical perspective, the answer might be more fatigue for a longer time, whereas when things get technical, – with much emphasis on technical learning – we might look at a completely different answer. We must first look at the event in question and its requirements, and only then look at how to train… not the other way around. Anyhow, it’s a matter of pragmatism and compromise.
What interests me is the fine line with inducing CNS fatigue without hampering technical learning in the short term (micro) versus the long term (meso). Should this ratio be static = having a plan where each microcycle find the same kind of balance between recovery and training (like Charlie’s high-low strategy), or should it be more dynamic = different mesocycles can invite more CNS stress within the micro and thus create a better next meso when recovery is better. Interestingly, for some events, further technical learning can only happen when physique gets better (tapering a little).
One interesting thing with creating a massive CNS overload (I did that many many years ago myself and had a very bad summer) is the possible compensation many months later (my summer was awful, but after two months of complete rest I was running and flying like never before). This is not recommended because it’s more like a lottery and sometimes that compensation will not occur, but when it does, it’s massive. Still, from a learning perspective I have found maximal CNS recovery between each hard session as the most fruitful (every third day hard), especially in the short term (a few months), but there’s a slight problem with maintaining physical performance level the whole summer. Going too heavy too often in the micro, was terrible for technique, but ok for physique when recovery kicked in.
Lorien very good point, the goals need to be stated clearly before attempting to understand what level of fatigue can be tolerated or necessary.
I tend to lean to a more static approach to the level of fatigue which needs to be induced. In early cycles where I focus more on max strength I tend to really push the limits of what my body can handle in terms of fatigue hoping for a delayed on set of results during the off week, almost like a tapering effect.
However as the cycles shift towards speed development I tend to lay off the extent of my workout and focus more on the quality of the speed work, I dont believe you can properly develop speed when in a deficiet. I dont think the same type of compensation would be possible running at say 90-95% area as would be possible running at the 95-99% area. Running in a fatigued state IMO will not give anwhere near the results that running fresh would give the athlete.
Lorien why would recovery only kick in sometimes and not in others, obviously it probably deals with the fine line between compensation and overtraining, however with proper monitoring could it not be possible to always get the great gains you speak of???
James, obviously you have no responded to my last post on this thread, could you atleast respond to what types of gains or success you see while training speed work and other explosive exercises and movements in this deficiet, I would believe it would have a negative effect as you shouldnt be able to get the same type of explosion or speed when training in deficiets of 5-7% constantly. That would almost equate to intensive tempo rather than speed work.