It's all relative: birth bias in youth football

As a coach, have you ever considered your players' date of birth?

If the answer to that question is no, you may be missing a trick.

Concerning statistics reveal that a large proportion of youngsters in professional academies are born in the first three months of the selection year (i.e. September-November). This is also found to be prevalent in grassroots football where there is competition and a league structure.

The Relative Age Effect was highlighted in the mid eighties in elite youth ice hockey by Roger Barnsley. It was discovered that those that had been selected at elite level were born nearer the set selection date. The Relative Age Effect proposes that in the higher levels of sport, participation comes largely from those born in the first three months after an eligibility cut off date.

Just consider it.

Your star player in your under sevens side may be standing out currently but just remember, he or she may be up to eleven months older than another of your players. Someone who is seemingly dominant at the beginning of the season can easily be caught up. It's often a mistake that a coach, or scout or even parents can identify an individual's early physical maturation as 'talent'.

We could be overlooking a large amount of talented young players because of the opportunities given at a young age based on their date of birth.

Harry Kane - one of many of Spurs latest academy
graduates who are summer born!

It is very difficult to get into an academy set up past a certain age. If you aren't being watched from an early age and having exposure to the academy life (i.e. three training sessions a week) your chances slip away as time goes by. Some academies sign up to twenty five boys at under nines.

A theoretical model was put forward to suggest why this birth bias occurs. It considers that there are three social agents that affect the relative age effect; the parent, the coach and the athlete.

The theory behind how the coach can impact the relative age effect is called the pygmalion effect. It suggests that when an individual places greater expectation on someone then they will conform to that expectation. So if a coach perceives a young player to have high levels of ability for their physical maturity, it is possible that they are shaping that player's development with those expectation levels. Meanwhile, little Jane or Johnny are being further disadvantaged.

Ask yourself this, do you find yourself praising just the players who you see as the stars? Or can you manage the whole squad and meet their individual needs?

On the FA Youth Module 1 course, the relative age effect is indeed touched upon. If you own 'the future game' book published by the FA there is also a large section around it.  Through education, coaches can help themselves understand and limit the relative age effect.

How can this be further combatted? Is it just down to the coaches?

Since last year, academies have begun to trial "bio-banding". This is a process of grouping young players according by their physical maturity. Sports scientists are tasked to work out a young person's biological age for this process.

My issue with this is that considerations for the other three corners (technical, psychological, social) of the long term player development model might now be taken out of the equation.

In Nick Levett's article on the relative age effect, he mentions that although there are fewer late born players in academies, those players are given a fantastic education because of the challenges they face.

Lots of early maturers can also be talented!

Those challenges can help them become better learners, deal with being smaller physically and improve the other three areas while they mature physically. For the earlier born players who were once considered the big talent in their age group, they are given less of those challenge and may not be asked to maintain as high a standard as the others. I have definitely seen that happen to players at a local professional club where I grew up. It works both ways!

West Brom have a late birthday project and Tottenham have shadow squads throughout their younger ages. It certainly is not something that has been ignored.

A key concern of mine is towards grassroots football and participation. Where there is less competition and in non-elite sport the relative age effect is found to be reduced. However, managements, coaches and parents are far less likely to have received the education on the matter to assist in reducing birth bias. It is entirely possible that in physical sports such as football less developed children will be out off by the demands, and also being perceived as having low levels of ability. Can this be considered a form of social exclusion?

I welcome your views surrounding the Relative Age Effect, and the possible ways you or your club may be looking to combat this phenomenon!

There is no 'I' in 'team'...

... but there are five in 'individual brilliance'!

A common theme that I tend to hear on the touchline in grassroots football is the shout of "use your team mates, pass!" from anxious, or sometimes angry, coaches. "It's a team game" they say.

These are the same coaches who will reminisce and rave about the days of George Best or Diego Maradona and now Lionel Messi.

And yet when a nine year old dribbles down the line (and quite often, it does not matter if they are also successful in doing so) the screams are so often "PASS!" from coaches and parents alike.

Is it not entirely possible that these children are also 'team players'?!

Where an individual's strength may lie in defending or passing, another's may be in taking players on! Players who can play one versus one effectively are rare commodities so why are we quite actively discouraging children from being this type of player?

Jack Grealish rolls his socks down and
inevitably is fouled quite frequently

Of course, some just have their view of the way the game should be played and favour a strict passing game. That team work looks like running around lots, making tackles and giving someone else the ball quickly. I am not for one moment questioning that these are important factors of a successful team! However, the 'dribbler' plays a very crucial role in any team. They attract opposition, they create spaces for others to exploit, they win free kicks, they give their team mates a breather. Sounds to me like this player is doing plenty of work for the team already.

There is a more sinister view, too, of the angst towards dribblers. One that I have witnessed myself. That parents who tell other people's children they need to pass the ball more are simply jealous of their talents. Why can my child not do those things? I have coached a talented young boy who was playing a year up, at ease, and some of the shouting I would hear during games was terrible. Sarcastic remarks towards a seven year old, commenting to the parent of said child on their performance, shocking! It is likely that these adults are not acting in the best interests of the team, but their own child. This was resolved appropriately by a senior coach but scenarios such as this can put young people off of football and we certainly do not want that.

Finally, the dribbler to me is one of the bravest players there is. Resisting all urges from spectators, your peers, your coach to change your style of play, to pass when you would not usually and knowing full well you are going to get a good kicking at some point too.

All types of footballers should be embraced and this is just one of many, but I would hate to see this type of players disappear from the game. The new England DNA asks players to 'stay on the ball, to master the ball'. I hope that this message can be shared amongst grassroots coaches across the country as we continue to attempt to develop technically excellent footballers!