Better Rugby Coaching / Better Rugby Coaching / The Huddle / Long Term Athlete Development / Latest Posts

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

Tony Allen — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:57:58 GMT

I think size is the issue. Rugby is a physical sport. I'd argue that at all levels size is generally considered an advantage over skill.

For example, at a junior level you might see a 6'3" (2 metres) 14 stone (196lbs, c. 90kgs) 14 year-old boy simply running through a team of technically superior and committed 9-stoners (126lbs, c. 57kgs).

How many coaches would prefer a 15 year old fly half to be able to kick tactically prefectly, but only manage 15 metres with a clearance, to a "hoofer" who can kick 40 metres from hand, but in an uncontrolled way?

Which players benefit?

Teams with smaller kids tend to lose. Teams with bigger kids don't get the chance to learn how to play properly.

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

Tight 5 — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:15:05 GMT

From a rugby (selfish) point of view I think it is better to follow a path of LTPD (Long Term Player Development), using a combination of skills/technique that are relevant to the game/postion. If you make things interesting, give achivable goals, & try to set them in a relevant sport specific context, then development should follow.

If the tasks/drills etc are boring & repetitive then most tend not to give 100% or give all together, as we all would in any aspect of what we do, sporting or otherwise.

Developing players (athletes) at what ever level or age is about getting them to push themselves & not realise that they are doing so. Making activities relevant & achivable can achive this.

What would you rather do, run 10 shuttle sprints of 50m, or play in a controlled game situation that could be running between 10 rucks at set positions on the pitch, outcome is the same but the relevance is very different.

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

DanC — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:29:03 GMT

It would be interesting to know on what basis the bodies who are using LTAD took up the system.

There is a real push to get some science behind the systems of coaching and the LTAD certainly helps it.

I would concur that is "fits" nicely into what we think. The key problem lies in 12-16 age group due to problems PHV (different growth rates).

The debate might shift at this stage in "weights" instead of "ages" and whether teams should play in leagues - another can of worms!

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

cjp — Thu, 31 May 2007 23:33:25 GMT

The point you make is one of the big issues with the LTAD. What is it actually supposed to be for? Is it a system designed to give youngsters a great sporting grounding and provide a framework to take them on through to the highest level - enabling them to reach their genetic potential (whatever that might be)? A system for producing elite athletes if you will. Or is it a system to encourage long term participation in sport with no particular claims to produce high performing elite athletes? Both are laudable but both are rather different.

I cannot know, but suspect that a lot of sporting bodies such as the RFU have adopted it believing it to be the former. These bodies are concerned with improving standards within their sports particularly as money tends to follow success. This is especially true in athletics where the willingness of funding bodies to put their hands in their pockets does depend upon success at major games etc.

Of course one would not use LTAD with elite performers, they are already "developed". I had understood it to be about developing athletes over the long term to get to as many of them as possible to the top level (clearly only a proportion will have the inate talents required). Is it about developing athletes or retaining them in their sports? It's a pretty fundamental.

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

cjp — Thu, 31 May 2007 23:32:26 GMT

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

EKW — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:17:52 GMT

Chris,

I understand your point. What you have to remember is that the model we are working with in sports was created only a couple of years ago and it is totally different to the 1 stage worked on in the early 90s.

I use a different model when working with hopeful Olympians!

To take an extract from the report you quote [Please note the phrase "by inference"]:

Chris Earle, Director of Loughborough Sport, by inference says (explicitly by saying that the LTAD is not an elitist [high performance] model) that the LTAD lacks both internal and external validity - it does not do what it says it does, develop elite high performance athletes - rather he suggests that it provides a model to retain people in sport, reframing it as the LTAP! Long term athlete "participation"(and - consistent with Balyi- provides no research evidence to support this!)

I see little problem in this, of course it is not elitist, if it was, we would not be using it at grassroots! What is wrong with 'participation' and retention? Is that not what we coaches are all about? I do not believe Earle would suggest that we should only be interested in elite athletes? Of course the athletes are developed! If you have a programme that moves forward and progresses it must develop!!

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

cjp — Thu, 31 May 2007 20:44:19 GMT

Hi EKW,

I know what you are saying, LTAD is a very attractive model, that is what drew me to it.

It has, however been around for some years, and can trace its roots back to Dr Balyi's 1990 article. He has been working on it since then. It seems to have been through various incarnations in papers from 2001 and 2004 (and maybe more I am not aware of). In short, it's been around long enough for there to be some results. Given he has been working on it for 17 years we might expect to find some studies having been carried out on it or aspects of it over that time.

The criticisms contained in the Sport Development pages http://www.sportdevelopment.org.uk/html/rg_ltad.html are trenchant and serious. They cannot be dismissed lightly and must be known to Dr Balyi - Google finds that page before any others when searching on LTAD.

I make no judgement as to whether LTAD is effective or not, there is no evidence either way. The author of the Sport Development article notes:

"we imagine that the LTAD provides a convenient and intuitively attractive model and we understand that there will be reluctance for an evidence base to get in the way of what seems to be a nice idea."

However it is evidence that is so vital here. Plenty of good ideas turn out to be wrong, the history of science is littered with abandoned theories that seemed perfectly logical and solid and were used in good faith by highly intelligent people at the time.

In summary, I guess all I am saying is that logical and intuitively attractive as the LTAD may be, in the absence of solid research evidence don't treat it as gospel and handle with care!

Chris

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

EKW — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:10:46 GMT

Chris,

Forgive me, I now know from where you are coming.

Basically, LTAD has not been around long enough, or wide enough, to produce any 'real' scientific evidence; anything else would be pure conjecture.

Looking at the RFU model, in particular, it is just common sense. Take FUNdamentals of Movement, we should be teaching our children how to move; teaching them agility, balance, co-ordination and speed before we give them a ball to pass or kick and how many people have you seen waste energy through poor, untaught running technique? We should be teaching these children how to fall and recover themselves before we teach them how to tackle.

As the athletes get older, through performance profiling, it becomes athlete led and not coach led. Coaching is extended from pure technical to encompass tactical, physiological and psychological qualities. Of course, this makes it more difficult for the coaches. They must become psychologists, strategists and personal trainers [or employ people like me J ] No longer are they able to coach the squad as one but must take the athlete’s opinions/concerns/qualities in to account. Of course, good coaches have always done this but now, inexperienced coaches have a framework from which to work. If this is carried out correctly, how could it fail to maximise an individual’s potential?

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

cjp — Thu, 31 May 2007 12:14:10 GMT

Hi EKW,

I am hear what you say re Dr Bayli and realise that he is an advisor to all sorts of bodies. My difficulty comes from the apparent lack of hard evidence to show whether LTAD is actually scientifically proven to work. It may well be that it takes X years to produce a champion, this does not mean that LTAD is proven one way or the other. In the absence of quality research published in peer reviewed scientific journals (ie vetted by suitably qualified academics before publication) it is not possible to know whether it is correct or not. Is it an insightful leap forward in the way we train atheletes or just a nice theory that Dr Bayli has turned into a lucrative career? I do not know as I have not been able to turn up any hard science on the subject. It may be out there, but I have not found it. If anyone knows of such an article in a respected journal do let us know.

I first came across LTAD in a paper written by Ray Unsworth of the RFU, it caught my imagination and looked like a very logical and attractive theory, so I wanted to find out more about it. That is when alarm bells started to ring as I could not find and hard sceintific research to underpin it. Does any of this matter? Well, yes it does when national sporting bodies are basing their athelete development programmes on it. My unease was further heightened by Chris Earle of Loughborough Univ. arguing that LTAD is not an elite development programme at all but a long term participation/retention programme (but he provides no evidence for this assertion, just as there seems to be no evidence that LTAD is an elite development programme.) If Earle is right its use by sporting bodies as a means of producing elite atheletes is highly questionably.

Many thanks for the link, most interesting. Interesting also to note, the complete absence of references in it. Mr Taplin may well be right in what he says but we have no way of knowing as he makes no references to where the information comes from that underpin what he says. Furthermore, we, the lay readers, have no way of knowing what other experts in the field think of the paper as it is not peer reviewed. This my all sound unnecessarily picky and scientific but it all comes down to the difference between fact (in so far as one can ever be certain about anything and let's leave Karl Popper out of this!) and opinion. I would argue that it does matter as if coaches, in good faith, adopt training techniques that have not been thoroughly researched and tested, there is always the risk that they might be wrong, not produce the desired results, or worse cause injury. Similarly, adopting an unproven athelete development programme could, if it does not work, not deliver the desired results or worse, hamper the careers of talented individuals who could have achieved more.

Chris

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

EKW — Wed, 30 May 2007 21:54:35 GMT

I am a performance coach, specialising in the Long Term Athlete Development Programme ("LTAD") and have worked with various NGBs' models.

LTAD was developed by Dr Istvan Balyi . His work was instigated by scientific research that shows it takes between 8-12 years of training for a talented athlete to reach elite levels (Bloom 1985; Ericsson et al. 1993; Ericsson and Charness 1994.)

Although the model was developed to support the successful development of elite athletes it also serves to promote a life-long healthy involvement in sport and exercise, and to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential in sport (whether that is to be a future performance athlete, or simply to gain social skills, confidence and a positive attitude to sport and exercise).

Istvan is acknowledged worldwide as the expert in long term athlete development and the periodisation of training plans. He is currently employed as a World Class Advisor for Sport England, helping to redevelop their long-term high performance programs. He concurrently advises UK Athletics, the English Rugby Union, the English Cricket Board, British Swimming and the Football Association (Women) on high performance training and development.

If you would like any further information, I would be more than happy to answer any questions.

I am also a gym instructor, personal trainer and sports conditioning coach so have plenty to say regarding young people and resistance training. However, Ian Taplin puts it very well. Try the following link: http://www.community-rugby.com/communityrugby/index.cfm/fuseaction/Home.Download_Counter/downloadId/137/filename%0D%0A/strength_power.pdf

Again, if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

cjp — Wed, 30 May 2007 20:55:21 GMT

I have been trying to get hold of a copy of the Panther's one, with no luck so far!

RE: Long Term Athlete Development

Gareth — Wed, 30 May 2007 15:20:23 GMT

I think without any scientific data to back it up, its more of a hope then anything else.

As for the long term development, does anyone have any experiences to relate to the forum regarding the ages youngsters should start extra physical development - like gym work ?

If you come across a rugby skills matrix, please post it!

Long Term Athlete Development

cjp — Wed, 30 May 2007 13:33:09 GMT

This model seems to have been fairly universally accepted as THE way of doing things, and looks like a nice idea. I notice that the RFU have a publication on the subject. However, from what I have read (inter alia - http://www.sportdevelopment.org.uk/html/rg_ltad.html) there seems to be little if any scientific evidence that it actually works or is anything more than a nice, if unsubstantiated, theory. Is anyone aware of any good quality peer reviewed scientific research that looks at whether or not it actually works?

Whilst on the subject of player development, I have learned of "a skills matrix" used by Penrith Panthers as a guide for coaches as to what skill levels are to be expected from the average player at each age. Has anyone developed a similar thing for use in RU at their club that they might share with us?