The relative age effect revisited

Last year I wrote this article on the relative age effect. Since then, for my dissertation in my degree I researched the impact of the coach as a social agent on RAE and whether their knowledge levels are sufficient in combatting birth bias. If you wish to read my dissertation feel free to contact me or comment below! 

Istvan Balyi, a sports scientist, devised the long-term athlete development model during the 1990s. Balyi recognised that the talent identification process in sport was flawed and that someone who is identified as talented at a young age does not mean they will always become an elite athlete. An easy example is that often a young player would simply be physically mature for their age and stand out as a result because they could use their size as an advantage at that time, leading to smaller talents going unnoticed.

Balyi's model sought to restore the balance between training load and competition during childhood and adolescence, recognising the different stages that young people are ready to develop at. If
fundamental skills were taught during these optimal stages of development, it could help divert the focus away from short terms results (or selecting the current best performers) and focus on long term development. For this reason the Football Association adopted, and adapted, this model in order to create a holistic method for coaches to follow.

This is relevant when discussing the Relative Age Effect (RAE) as the theory suggests that those born earlier in the year, and thus more likely to be bigger in physical size, benefit in the early years of talent identification and selection. But why is it that coaches and scouts identify more physically mature children as 'talented'?

My dissertation research primarily sought to gain an understanding of the knowledge grassroots coaches have of the relative age effect, and furthermore how they impact this and their understanding of the FA's Long Term Player Development model (LTPD). It involved over 200 coaches answering questionnaires and some attending a focus group.

In my results, there was a chasm in levels of understanding of RAE between UEFA qualified coaches and Level 1 grassroots coaches. On the face of it, this is understandable. Coaches who have more time to invest in themselves and coach at a higher level were more likely to have encountered education on RAE. It was also identified in the focus group that Level 1 coaches are more likely to be a parent or family member with less spare time than a career coach who has UEFA qualifications.

However, this is problematic because when children are identified to be selected for a professional club it tends to be in the grassroots game, probably coached by coaches with Level 1 or 2 qualifications. These coaches tend to have less of an understanding of the Relative Age Effect and as a 'social agent' may be allowing RAE to manifest as a result. They may be giving increased and better quality opportunities due to their perception of a player as 'talented'. This is known as the Pygmalion effect. A player who may have more talent but just hasn't been able to showcase it yet because of their current physical disadvantages may miss out on these opportunities. It has been shown in research that "talent" at a young age is not a very good indicator of their chance of making it as an athlete and this could be a possible reason why.

My research found that the majority of coaches (particularly those with the Level 1 and/or 2) felt inadequately educated on the matter. Though there has been an increased emphasis on implementing RAE into coach education, the majority of coaches responding to the questionnaire felt they had not been made suitably aware of the issue. This suggests that although most have encountered RAE not enough time has been spent on it nor has there been much depth to this education. Due to the time constraints of coaches who volunteer in the grassroots games, ideas such as short refresher courses and online modules were recommended for further education on the Relative Age Effect, which could also count towards any FA Licensed Coaches Club (FALCC) members continuous professional development. Details such as ways that coaches can combat RAE were mentioned, as they felt that a lack of solutions were provided for coaches to use at grassroots level. More information on how the FA's LTPD model can reduce RAE would also be hugely beneficial! A holistic approach will reduce the reliance on one area where someone may be forging ahead, such as physical development, which is mentioned is not always a good indicator of future ability.

In the FA's adapted LTAD model they introduced four corners which they believe impact a player's development. Technical, Psychological, Physical and Social. In the questionnaire and focus group, participants were asked to rate which they felt were most important but also which they felt they could impact on the most. The issue with identifying young people as naturally gifted is that this means that they do not believe they can coach this. It is 'nature' after all! However, this is another mechanism that allows RAE to manifest

The physical corner of development was also recognised by the coaches as less important to consider and less likely for them to be able to impact on. Whereas it has previously been an accepted idea that in English football too much emphasis is placed on a player's physical ability to help win games, it might also be a less conscious factor that creates this birth bias. Because coaches do not consider it as important, they are less likely to cater someone who is physically smaller and recognise that they need more time to develop before they are discarded as not good enough! Furthermore, if a coach does not believe they can affect a player's physical development due to it being an issue of 'nature' then that player may suffer more in the future too.

This was an interesting topic to cover for my dissertation and one that I consider very important in the grassroots games, particularly at the younger ages. Players are picked up (wrongly in my opinion) at ages as young as four and five nowadays. Everyone is in a rush to beat each other to talent and therefore these decisions are made in an instant. Subconsciously, are these people going to identify the smaller, younger, possibly less noticeable players or the players who make an impact on the game in that moment in time? Hopefully this is a trend that will begin to change and more due diligence will be made!