I Holistic Athlete Development in Australian Rugby League: from A

Home , 2012 in rugby league, Australian Rugby League

Holistic Athlete Development in Australian Rugby League: From a Better Understanding of Developmental Environments to Addressing Individual Challenges

Balin Bede Cupples BA, MEd (Coach Education)

A thesis submitted to the University of Sydney in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Faculty of Art and Social Sciences School of Education and Social Work University of Sydney

September 2020

Thesis Declaration

This is a thesis submitted to the School of Education and Social Work at The

University of Sydney Australia in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy.

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person (except where explicitly defined in the acknowledgements), nor material that to a substantial extent has been submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institution of higher learning.

I, Balin B. Cupples, certify that the intellectual content of this thesis is my own work and all the assistance in preparing this thesis and sources have been acknowledged.

Name: Balin B. Cupples

Date: 30 September 2020

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my Supervisor Professor Donna O’Connor for her consistent and unwavering support over the duration of this thesis. Her patience and guidance in overcoming the challenges of balancing career and research has been invaluable.

As a personal mentor of mine, I am very grateful for her knowledge, expertise, honesty and ongoing communication in enabling the completion of this thesis. It has been an extensive journey and I thank her sincerely for her persistence in facilitating this accomplishment.

I would also like to thank my associate supervisor Ass. Prof Stephen Cobley. His expertise in the field and specialist knowledge has been a constant guide throughout the thesis. His regular feedback and ongoing support have played a major role in the completion of this thesis. I am privileged to have been supervised by two leading researchers and more importantly two humble and giving people that I will continue to seek guidance from in academia and life.

I also wish to acknowledge Elite Editing who edited my thesis and conducting editorial intervention only in accordance with Standards D and E of the Australian Standards for Editing Practice.

Thank you also to all the Rugby League stakeholders who supported and/or gave of their time so freely to be a part of this research. I have been involved in the game in a number of capacities for over 20 years so I am excited to give something back to the sport. I am in gratitude to the players, teachers, coaches, managers, clubs and governing bodies who supported this thesis.

Lastly thank you to my wife Teesha, my children Piala-Rose and Malyx, my parents, extended family and friends, for the ongoing support. Of most significance Teesha, your love and support drive me to be a better person. You have believed in me and pushed me throughout this thesis, and I am forever grateful.

Abstract

Rugby league (RL) in Australia has undergone significant changes in entering the professional era of sport. Increased funding has resulted in a greater emphasis on junior player development as optimisation of athlete development processes has become increasingly important both within and between sports. The control and development of the various RL talent development pathways are shared by various key bodies including rugby league governing bodies, individual National Rugby league (NRL) clubs and the secondary school system. Despite acknowledging the varying roles and practical integration of each body, there exists limited formal communication and cohesion in programs, philosophy and policy between them. This lack of collaboration and therefore transparency in process nevertheless still seems to produce enough ‘talented athletes’ to continue the success of the sport at the elite level. Therefore, it is hypothesised that current pathways contain significant

‘strengths’ in process, however co-existing with this a range of undiagnosed influencing factors may be limiting the efficiency and effectiveness of current talent development within the game.

This thesis seeks to explore, identify and evaluate a range of influencing factors of athlete development in the sport specific context of RL to assist player transition to the highest levels of competition. Adopting an ecological approach underpinned by

Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory of Human Development and consolidated Process-

Person-Context-Time (PPCT) framework, the research seeks to highlight both the properties and processes of the environment, and the roles and functions of the ‘person’ within RL development pathways. Examining athlete development from early participation through to the professional level this thesis incorporates various stakeholder perspectives (e.g. junior/emerging/professional players, coaches) within several pathway embedded environments. Acknowledging the complexity of talent development, the current research

iii

aims to increase the understanding of developmental processes in RL through a variety of methodological approaches interwoven into four separate but linked studies.

Study 1 applies a retrospective design in examining the behavioural developmental trajectories of 224 professional RL players. Guided by the Development Model of Sport

Participation (DMSP) and associated studies, a tailored sport specific questionnaire identified two distinct trajectory pathways to the professional level. Differentiated based upon “early”

(60.9%) or “delayed” (39.1%) entry into representative playing levels, findings show talent progression may be attained via an early intensified specialised investment as well as a rather decelerated and much less cost-intensive participation pattern. Implications of the study highlight the need to acknowledge non-traditional and non system dictated avenues for later- age player engagement and evaluation in RL. Further, the “delayed” trajectory promotes awareness for players, parents and recreational level coaches of continued involvement in the sport as achievement in youth tiers is not a necessity for success.

In Study 2, a finer grained approach to talent development analysis in RL is undertaken in exploring the ecological context strengths of three anecdotally ‘effective’ school-based talent development environments (TDEs). Utilising a mixed method approach incorporating validated psychometric questionnaires (N=118) and semi- structured interviews

(N=30; current/past players and coaches) perspectives were triangulated and corroborated to identify ‘strengths’. Compared to published benchmark ‘effective’ TDE data, strong coherence was shown in relation to strong support networks, a long-term focus, high behavioural standards, strong values of hard work, and promotion of personal ownership in athlete development. Opportunities to enhance TDE effectiveness were also identified with psychological skill development (e.g. self reflection, dealing with set backs) and balancing intra-rugby league pathway demands highlighted. Study findings identified characteristics, components, and processes of school-based TDEs associated with successful athlete

development which may be utilised to evaluate and inform TDEs across sport culture contexts.

Study 3 analysed the three school-based TDE’s over time to explore perceived change and association between environment ‘processes’ and the individual psycho-behavioural

‘outcomes’. This study utilises a mixed method approach including a cross-lagged analysis of validated psychometric questionnaires across four time points (2 years), supplemented with focus group interviews. Eliciting perspectives of 43 junior developmental players on TDE features and their perceived impact, the study more specifically attempts to identify which

TDE processes were associated with developing which psycho-behavioural outcomes.

Supporting the PPCT development framework, general findings identified TDE ‘processes’ were associated with ‘outcome’ development in subsequent time periods. TDE processes characterised by challenge, a culture of support, player understanding, and autonomy promotion were associated with and preceded perceived improvements in coping and self- regulation skills and behaviours. In contrast, TDE ‘processes’ were also identified to tax and challenge player perceived resources at respective timepoints. Further illustrated through ‘real life’ qualitative descriptions, overall findings highlight how TDEs can both foster and challenge individual psycho-behavioural development in preparation for future pathway transitions. The study also reinforces the complexity of development acknowledging TDEs exist within a wider ecological sporting context with success in one context not always translating to positive outcomes in another.

The fourth study concludes the research through the implementation of a mixed methods quasi-experimental designed intervention. Integrated at the final step of the RL development pathway (U20’s youth level) the study outlines the development and evaluation of a novel education program promoting psychosocial and coping skill development.

Adopting an ecological approach, the six session RL specific program (i.e. informed by

current player description of stress and coping; utilising sport and culturally specific content and resources) was embedded within a professional club. Based upon existing literature the program integrates key club-based stakeholders (e.g. coaches, emerging/professional players, and welfare staff) in content design and session delivery. The design included three time point quantitative measures (pre, post and 3-month follow up) for both intervention and control groups; and a post intervention focus group. Integrated comparative findings propose an organisation-supported program may have benefits. Initial quantitative data suggests participant confidence in coping abilities, the frequency of effective coping strategy use, and preparedness for future transition and challenge may have been enhanced through program participation. Focus group findings provide contextual examples of program informed behaviours and support the unique applied structure of the program. Acknowledging that multiple factors interact to the influence future performance study findings may provide a framework for future research and assist in enhancing efficacy of athlete transition.

The findings from each of the studies were integrated and analysed in relation to the research questions and an ecology perspective of development. Combined results provide an improved understanding of RL talent development in Australia in highlighting several key factors associated with ‘effective’ development. The importance of acknowledging multiple trajectories to higher levels in relation to practice and time investment, the value of the environment in shaping positive developmental outcomes and looking beyond the quantity and quality of training to a more holistic approach to development are identified. The strong influence of supportive cultures and the provision of resources to enhance individual abilities such as coping, self-regulation and self-evaluation to ensure any opportunities afforded are maximised were also identified. This study also adds to current literature in providing further sport specific evidence of features, processes and challenges associated with effective talent development. It advances the value of an ecological approach in evaluating the complexity of

sport expertise attainment. Practically, these findings are intended to provide valuable feedback for coaches, managers, parents and players involved within developmental programs, academies and competitions across team sports. Findings may assist in reflecting and evaluating upon current policies, structure, and resource allocation in relation to individual, team and club-based talent identification, development and subsequent recruitment decisions.

vii

Table of Contents

Thesis Declaration ...... i Acknowledgements ...... ii Abstract ...... iii Table of Contents ...... viii List of Tables ...... xiii List of Figures ...... xiv Conference Presentations ...... xv Journal Publications ...... xvi List of Abbreviations ...... xvii Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1 1.1 Background Study ...... 1 1.2 Study Rationale/Significance ...... 3 1.3 Relevant Theoretical Frameworks ...... 6 1.4 Thesis Aims ...... 7 1.5 Thesis Overview ...... 8 1.6 Originality and Significance of the Thesis ...... 10 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 12 2.1 Defining Talent ...... 12 2.2 Talent Development ...... 13 2.3 Talent Development in Rugby League ...... 18 2.4 Pathways ...... 24 2.4.1 Training activities ...... 25 2.4.2 Early specialisation and diversification...... 26 2.4.3 Practice histories ...... 29 2.4.4 Other influencing factors ...... 33 2.4.4.1 Growth and maturation ...... 33 2.4.4.2 Physical ...... 36 2.4.4.3 Relative age effects ...... 37 2.4.4.4 Broader contextual factors ...... 39 2.5 Transition ...... 41 2.5.1 Demands of transition ...... 42 2.5.2 Resources ...... 44 2.5.3 Psychological skills ...... 47 2.6 Psychosocial Factors ...... 54 2.6.1 Coaches ...... 55 2.6.2 Other Influences ...... 60 2.7 Talent Development Environments ...... 63 2.8 Summary ...... 67 Chapter 3: Theoretical Frameworks ...... 68 3.1 Overview of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Development ...... 68 3.1.1 Process ...... 71 3.1.2 Person ...... 72

viii

3.1.3 Context ...... 73 3.1.4 Time ...... 75 3.2 Overview of Supporting Models ...... 78 3.2.1 Developmental model of sport participation ...... 78 3.2.2 Athlete career transition models ...... 83 3.3 Summary ...... 86 Chapter 4: Methodology ...... 87 4.1 Philosophical stance ...... 87 4.2 Mixed Methods ...... 90 4.3 Mixed Methods Rationale ...... 93 4.4 Research design ...... 93 Chapter 5: Distinct Trajectories of Athlete Development: A Retrospective Analysis of Professional Rugby League Players ...... 95 5.1 Introduction ...... 95 5.2 Methods ...... 98 5.2.1 Participants ...... 98 5.2.2 Procedure ...... 99 5.2.2.1 National Rugby League Athlete Development Questionnaire ...... 99 5.2.2.2 National Rugby League Athlete Development Questionnaire validation and reliability ...... 101 5.2.2.3 Data analysis ...... 101 5.3 Results ...... 103 5.3.1 Trajectory milestones ...... 103 5.3.2 Game competition participation ...... 104 5.3.3 Deliberate practice engagement ...... 105 5.3.4 Deliberate play engagement ...... 106 5.3.5 Other sport(s) participation ...... 107 5.3.6 Training content descriptions ...... 108 5.4 Discussion ...... 110 5.4.1 Conceptual alignment ...... 110 5.4.2 Theoretical perspectives ...... 111 5.4.3 Methodological limitations and future directions ...... 113 5.4.4 Implications ...... 114 5.5 Conclusion ...... 115 Chapter 6: Assessing the Ecological-Context Strengths of School-Based Talent Development Programs in Rugby League ...... 116 6.1 Introduction ...... 116 6.2 Aims ...... 119 6.3 Methods ...... 120 6.3.1 Mixed methods approach ...... 120 6.3.2 Participants ...... 120 6.3.3 Data collection...... 121 6.3.4 Data analysis ...... 123 6.3.4.1 Quantitative questionnaire ratings ...... 123 6.3.4.2 Qualitative interview data ...... 124 6.4 Results ...... 125 6.4.1 Part 1: Quantitative questionnaire ratings ...... 125 6.4.2 Part 2: Qualitative interview data ...... 129 6.4.2.1 Talent development environment organisational context ...... 129

6.4.2.2 Talent development environment processes ...... 130 6.4.2.3 Talent development environment outcomes ...... 133 6.5 Discussion ...... 136 6.5.1 Organisational context...... 136 6.5.2 Processes ...... 137 6.5.3 Outcomes ...... 138 6.5.4 Conflicting perspectives ...... 139 6.5.5 Opportunities for talent development environment improvement: Questionnaire ratings and fourth higher-order theme ...... 140 6.5.6 Limitations ...... 141 6.6 Conclusion ...... 142 6.6.1 What does this article add?...... 143 Chapter 7: Features of School-Based Rugby League Talent Environments Facilitating Psychobehavioural Development Outcomes: A Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Study ...... 144 7.1 Introduction ...... 144 7.2 Methods ...... 149 7.2.1 Participants ...... 149 7.2.2 Research design and procedures ...... 150 7.2.3 Mixed methods approach (quantitative measures and qualitative interviews) ..... 151 7.2.3.1 Athlete environment processes: Talent Development Environment Questionnaire ...... 151 7.2.3.2 Athlete psychobehavioural outcomes: Coping ...... 153 7.2.3.3 Athlete psychobehavioural outcomes: Self-regulation ...... 153 7.2.3.4 Focus group interviews ...... 154 7.2.4 Data analysis ...... 155 7.2.4.1 Quantitative questionnaire measures ...... 155 7.2.4.2 Qualitative interviews ...... 157 7.3 Results ...... 157 7.3.1 Quantitative questionnaires ...... 157 7.3.2 Qualitative focus group interviews ...... 166 7.4 Discussion ...... 169 7.4.1 Overview of findings ...... 169 7.4.2 Limitations ...... 174 7.4.3 Implications ...... 174 7.5 Conclusion ...... 175 Chapter 8: Facilitating Transition into a High-Performance Environment: The Effect of a Coping Intervention Program on Elite Youth Rugby League Players ...... 177 8.1 Introduction ...... 177 8.2 Method ...... 181 8.2.1 Study design and procedure ...... 181 8.2.2 Participants ...... 183 8.2.3 Intervention development ...... 183 8.2.4 Intervention evaluation ...... 188 8.2.5 Data analysis ...... 190 8.2.5.1 Quantitative ...... 190 8.2.5.2 Qualitative ...... 191 8.3 Results ...... 191 8.3.1 Quantitative results ...... 191

8.3.1.1 Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport ...... 191 8.3.1.2 Coping Self-Efficacy Scale ...... 194 8.3.1.3 Psychological Wellbeing Scale ...... 196 8.3.2 Qualitative results ...... 196 8.4 Discussion ...... 198 8.4.1 Implications ...... 201 8.4.2 Limitations ...... 202 8.5 Conclusion ...... 202 Chapter 9: Discussion of key findings, practical implications, strengths, limitations, and recommendations ...... 204 9.1 Overview of the evolved thesis ...... 204 9.2 Theoretical Frameworks ...... 208 9.2.1 Processes ...... 209 9.2.2 Person ...... 212 9.2.3 Context ...... 215 9.2.4 Time ...... 219 9.3 Practical Implications ...... 221 9.3.1 Coaches ...... 221 9.3.2 Parents ...... 223 9.3.3 TDEs...... 224 9.3.4 NRL clubs ...... 225 9.3.5 RL Governing Bodies...... 227 9.4 Strengths & limitations ...... 227 9.4.1 Strengths ...... 227 9.4.2 Limitations ...... 229 9.5 Recommendations for future research ...... 231 9.6 Summary ...... 233

References ...... 235 Appendix A: National Rugby League Athlete Development Questionnaire ...... 295 Appendix B: Human Ethics Approval Athlete Pathways ...... 309 Appendix C: Participant Information Statement: Athlete Pathways ...... 310 Appendix D: Consent Form: Athlete Pathways ...... 312 Appendix E: Talent Development Environment for Sport Questionnaire ...... 313 Appendix F: Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence Questionnaire ... 316 Appendix G: Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale ...... 321 Appendix H: Talent Development Environment Stakeholder Interview Guide ...... 325 Appendix I: Talent Development Environment Focus Group Interview Guide ...... 327 Appendix J: Human Ethics Approval School-Based Talent Development Environment ...... 328 Appendix K: Sample Participant Information Statement for Student School-based Talent Development Environments ...... 330 Appendix L: Consent Form Talent Development Environments ...... 332 Appendix M: Sample Talent Research Approval Letter ...... 334 Appendix N: Coping Inventory Scale for Competitive Sport ...... 337 Appendix O: Coping Self-Efficacy Scale ...... 339 Appendix P: Scale of Psychological Wellbeing ...... 341 Appendix Q: U20’s Rugby League Stressor Audit Interview Guide...... 342 Appendix R: Coping Focus Group Interview Guide ...... 343 Appendix T: National Rugby League Research Board Approval ...... 346 Appendix U: Coping Intervention Participation Information Statement ...... 347 Appendix V: Coping Intervention Consent ...... 349

xii

List of Tables

Table 5.1 Overview of the Two Identified Generic Player Trajectories and Age-Related Achievement Milestones in Elite NRL Players ...... 104 Table 5.2 Developmental Stage Training Descriptions According to Age Categories and Pathway Trajectories in Elite NRL Players ...... 109 Table 6.1 School-Based Rugby League Talent Development Environment Player TDEQ Subscale Analysis v. Higher-Quality Environments a ...... 127 Table 6.2 School-Based Rugby League Talent Development Environment Player PCDEQ Subscale Analysis v. ‘Good Developers’ a ...... 128 Table 6.3 Strengths of School-Based Rugby League Talent Development Environments ... 134 Table 6.4 Opportunities for Improvement for School-Based Rugby League Talent Development Environments ...... 135 Table 7.1a Descriptive and Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Results: Talent Development Environment Process Variables ...... 159 Table 7.1b Descriptive and Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Results: Talent Development Environment Psychobehavioural Outcome Variables ...... 160 Table 7.2a Model A Multiple Regression Results: Talent Development Environment Processes and Psychobehavioural Outcomes ...... 164 Table 7.2b Model B Multiple Regression Results: Talent Development Environment Processes and Psychobehavioural Outcomes ...... 165 Table 8.1 Pre-Intervention Qualitative Stressor Audit with Elite Developing Rugby League Players (N = 8): A Summary of Identified Stressors, Explanatory Quotes and Existing Coping Strategy Examples ...... 184 Table 8.2 Summary of Session Topics, Structure and Content in the Rugby League Developing Player Coping Intervention ...... 186

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 General Overview: Rugby League Talent Pathways and Contributing Bodies in Australia ...... 20 Figure 3.1 Bronfenbrenner’s Process–Person–Context–Time Model in the Context of Rugby League ...... 76 Figure 3.2 Developmental Model of Sport Participation with Australian Rugby League Pathway Milestones ...... 82 Figure 4.1 Mixed Methodology (MM) schematic of the current thesis ...... 94 Figure 5.1 Mean Games Per Year of Self-Estimated Competition Match Play According to Trajectory Group and Age Category ...... 105 Figure 5.2a Mean Hours Per Week of Self-Estimated Deliberate Practice According to Trajectory Group and Age Category ...... 106 Figure 5.2b Mean Hours Per Week of Self-Estimated Deliberate Play According to Trajectory Group and Age Category ...... 107 Figure 7.1 Schematic Overview of the Study Design, Timeline of Measurements and When Focus Groups Occurred ...... 152 Figure 7.2 Descriptive Longitudinal RM-ANOVA Mean Score Changes for Talent Development Environment Process and Psychobehavioural Outcomes ...... 161 Figure 8.1 Schematic Overview of the Coping Intervention Development, Design and Timeline and Processes Involved in Evaluation ...... 182 Figure 8.2 Mean (95% CI) Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport Subscale Scores According to Intervention Time Point and Group ...... 193 Figure 8.3 Mean (95% CI) Coping Self Efficacy Scale Subscale Scores According to Intervention Time Point and Group ...... 195

xiv

Conference Presentations

Cupples, B., O’Connor, D., & Cobley, S. (2014). A snapshot of school-based rugby league

talent development environments: The impact of context and athlete psychological

skills [Paper presentation]. Association Internationale des Écoles Supérieures

d’Éducation Physique (AIESEP) World Congress 2014, Auckland, New Zealand.

https://aiesep.org/

Cupples, B., O’Connor, D., & Cobley, S. (2018). Distinct trajectories of athlete development:

A retrospective analysis of professional rugby league players [Paper presentation].

Canadian Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology (SCAPPS) 2018

Annual Conference, Toronto, Canada.

https://www.scapps.org/jems/index.php/1/issue/view/10

Cupples, B., O’Connor, D., & Cobley, S. (2019). Confirmation of effective school-based

talent development environments in rugby league: Findings and coaching implications

[Paper presentation]. Twelfth International Council for Coaching Excellence Global

Coach Conference, Tokyo, Japan. https://www.gcc2019.com/en-schedule

Cupples, B., O’Connor, D., & Cobley, S. (2019). The development of a sport specific coping

and psychosocial skill intervention in elite youth rugby league. [Paper presentation].

Ninth World Congress on Science and Football, Melbourne, Australia.

https://www.wcsf2019.com.au/conference/

Journal Publications

Cupples, B., O’Connor, D., & Cobley, S. (2018). Distinct trajectories of athlete development:

A retrospective analysis of professional rugby league players. Journal of Sports

Sciences, 36(22), 2558–2566. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1469227

Cupples, B., O’Connor, D., & Cobley, S. (2020). Assessing the ecological-context strengths

of school-based talent development programs in rugby league. Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2020.1769010

Cupples, B., O’Connor, D., & Cobley, S. (2020). Facilitating transition into a high-

performance environment: The effect of a coping intervention program on elite youth

rugby league players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

xvi

List of Abbreviations

BQ Birth quarter BW-ANOVA Between-within analysis of variance CI Confidence interval CICS Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport CSE Coping Self-Efficacy (Scale) DMSP Developmental model of sport participation GG Greenhouse–Geisser MANOVA Multivariate analysis of variance MM Mixed Methods NRLADQ National Rugby League Athlete Development Questionnaire OR Odds ratio PCDEQ Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence Questionnaire PPCT Person–process–context–time PWB Psychological Wellbeing (Scale) RAE Relative age effect RL Rugby League RM-ANOVA Repeated measures analysis of variance SRL Self-regulation of learning SRL-SRS Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale TD Talent development TDE Talent development environment TDEQ Talent Development Environment Questionnaire TID Talent identification and development UK United Kingdom

xvii

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background Study

The premise that talent exists and may be developed is a central tenet of athlete development and sport science. Talent is assumed to be identifiable and measurable and its indicators are considered able to predict future elite performance (Cobley et al., 2012). Talent development (TD) has received considerable attention in the literature and media, with stories of the success of gifted youth being attributed to superior natural abilities dominating the social discourse. In practice, youth athletes are being recruited at younger ages, placed in specialised training programs and pressured to achieve sporting success (Baker et al., 2018).

Despite the recognised volatile nature of development, the low conversion rates of junior success (Güllich, 2014b) and the potential negative health effects of early specialisation, the

TD process has been embraced by sport more than by any other domain. Justification for the value of TD in sport includes the progression of performance at the elite level (Starkes, 2008), the inter- and intra-sport competition for talent (Renshaw et al., 2012) and the general cultural admiration for athletic prowess and ability in a sporting career (Trankle & Cushion, 2006).

The significance of TD and its associated challenges at all levels of sport have been highlighted by Abernethy (2008), who describes the expertise associated with high-level performance:

Expertise in sport is so highly prized, and so difficult and time- and resource-

consuming to attain, that any means that can be found to accelerate the acquisition of

expertise and to make skill learning more efficient will be exceptionally valuable to

athletes, coaches, officials, and administrators alike. (p. 1)

However, despite the considerable high-quality evidence and reviews on TD processes and influencing factors, much conjecture remains because of its multidisciplinary, highly

dynamic and complex nature (Coutinho, Mesquita, & Fonseca, 2016; Gledhill et al., 2017;

Johnston et al., 2017).

Given that the accuracy rates for predicting athletic potential through identification and selection remain low (Güllich & Cobley, 2017), the focus has shifted towards TD. The aim of TD is to adapt and prepare athletes, ultimately accelerating the path towards elite performance (Cobley et al., 2012). Research on the development of expertise has highlighted a range of factors, including individual factors such as genetics, maturation and psychosocial abilities (Issurin, 2017) as well as support from others (e.g. coaches, peers and parents), that may directly or indirectly influence TD (Gledhill & Harwood, 2014; Holt & Dunn, 2004).

Key developmental activities such as the amount and quality of practice, play and competition and how they may positively influence TD or lead to negative outcomes such as injury or burnout have also been explored (Güllich et al., 2019; Rothwell et al., 2017). However, contrasting views on the roles of these abilities and factors in effective TD remain. The significant inter- and intra-pathway variabilities that exist in sport-specific trajectories add to the debate about the ideal TD process (Gulbin, Weissensteiner, et al., 2013; Güllich, 2014a).

Distinctive non-linear patterns of development affecting progress, including both planned and inevitable transitions and challenges, have been identified (Güllich, 2014b). Athletes’ abilities to overcome and navigate these barriers and cope with the associated pressures may determine whether they accelerate or regress in the path to elite performance or withdraw from it altogether. This has led to the recent promotion of holistic development ideals balancing both performance and individual physical and emotional health outcomes in achieving TD success

(Stambulova et al., 2020).

The complexity of holistic development and the tension that exists between sport performance and overall health goals can present challenges for the TD practitioner. Given the desire for whole-person development outcomes combined with lack of time resources for

youth TD sport practitioners, supporting an individual in the TD process should be a collective responsibility. Ecological approaches exploring the influence of the environment, structures, people and processes in sporting contexts have begun to bridge the gap between theory and practice (Gledhill & Harwood, 2019; Larsen et al., 2013). For example, the notion of the TD environment (TDE), which encompasses all aspects of coaching, has been utilised to better understand the key factors contributing to achievement in specific contexts

(Martindale et al., 2005). Given that designated TDEs such as youth academies have been embraced in several team sports, explorations into successful TDEs have generated several shared features, including a strong organisational core, a focus on long-term development and a cohesive culture (Henriksen, 2010a). These features have been applied in the critical reflection and evaluation of the efficacy of desired learning outcomes for developing athletes in their environment (Henriksen & Stambulova, 2017). However, these explorations have also noted the highly context-specific nature of TDEs in influencing athlete outcomes. Therefore, culture- and domain-specific explorations are needed to enhance the relevance and understanding of TD for specific sports.

Adopting Rugby League (RL) as a vehicle through which to examine TD processes, the current thesis aims to further the understanding of TDEs and their role in athlete development by examining a range of factors that influence TD in RL. Given that TD is multifaceted, and expertise requires several years to achieve, the findings may also assist the efficiency of TD process, allocation of resources, and provide broad implications that may assist the effectiveness of current TD practice for individuals and sports (Till & Baker, 2020).

1.2 Study Rationale/Significance

National and professional sporting organisations have invested significant funds into

TD systems to ensure the continued success of their senior teams (Larkin & Reeves, 2018). In

RL, targeted initiatives aimed at increasing participation at the grassroots level have expanded

the pool of future talented players. However, from the top-down elite performance pathway perspective, traditional pyramidal systems regulated by a select few and based on limited subjective and/or objective assessments remain (Cobley & Till, 2015). These RL pathways consist of age-based performance levels, in which players from the age of 12 years may be selected or scouted through trial games or local recreational teams to participate in formal representative squads. Participation in these squads is highly desirable because it initiates the linear progression to formal representative competitions, from under-16 (U16) to under-20

(U20) to open-age semi-professional or professional National Rugby League (NRL) playing levels (see Figure 2.1). At the competition level, the only recent major pathway change took place in 2008, involving the redevelopment, rebranding and repositioning of the U20s youth competition to the final step in the player progression pyramid, just before open-age semi- professional competition. Despite the strong quantitative outcomes of these players progressing to the NRL level, the financial cost to the game and overall health costs for several developing players resulted in the competition being returned to its original format in

2018. Anecdotally, developing players were provided with ‘too much too early’ in relation to expectations, national competitions and associated travel, access to elite facilities and their perceived importance of the competition in terms of how close they were to the elite level.

These perceived pathway-specific stressors only added to the accumulation of other concurrent transitions at the psychological, academic, vocational and social levels (Wylleman

& Rosier, 2016). This contextual example of policy change and its effect on individual players assists in providing a context for the aims of the current thesis.

The value of TD from the professional club perspective is also significant. The capping of salaries to maintain an even spread of elite-level players across the competition and the reliance on governing body grants for TD programs has prompted immense competition in the identification and development of emerging players. In an attempt to gain a

competitive edge over opposing teams, the pressure to effectively allocate resources, develop comprehensive development programs, make appropriate talent selection decisions and add value by progressing players along the path towards the NRL is felt by stakeholders across clubs. However, in practice, professional clubs are only one part of the talent identification and development (TID) system in RL, with significant variations between clubs in terms of processes and people. A contributing factor to these variations is the emphasis and value placed on other pathway contributors, including recreational clubs, secondary school programs, state-based affiliate competitions and the NRL’s game pathways department. Of these, secondary schools have a proud history in the sport and play in prestigious nationwide competitions. Over the past decade, the growth of specialised RL sporting excellence programs in the education system has emerged as a key contributor to TD in RL. In general, there is some recognition and acknowledgement of the overlapping roles between organisations, with some informal links established between schools and NRL clubs.

However, the overall transparency, alignment and cohesion of organisations is limited, with conflicting opinions in terms of philosophies, priorities and training prescriptions, creating barriers to individual development (Webb et al., 2016).

The RL TD pathway in Australia continues to achieve success in developing players to sustain the game at the highest level. Nonetheless, despite an overwhelming emerging body of TD research highlighting the multitude of influences on TD, its effective integration into practice has been delayed (Gulbin, 2008; Ivarsson et al., 2020; Rees et al., 2016). Similar to other sports, RL reflects the continuing divide between academic evidence and real-world decisions by practitioners. Previous RL TD research has focused on the influence of biological factors such as maturity (Till et al., 2014), anthropometric factors (Till et al., 2010), physical qualities (Till, Scantlebury, & Jones, 2017) and tactical game demands (Gabbett,

2014; Woods et al., 2018; Woods et al., 2017). However, successful performance in team

sports is multifaceted (Cupples & O’Connor, 2011), and given the extended time frame and challenges in athletic development, other qualities and skills are required to facilitate pathway progression (Abbott & Collins, 2004). There is considerable evidence that certain psychological characteristics (e.g. motivation, self-regulation and coping abilities) are vital in navigating the challenges of transition, participating in the extensive practice hours required and ultimately reaching one’s potential as both an athlete and a person (Gledhill et al., 2017;

Á. MacNamara et al., 2010a). Despite the broader TD research promoting TD as a prerequisite for success (Collins et al., 2016b; Savage et al., 2017), there continues to be an absence of fundamental psychosocial skills being explicitly recognised and taught in RL and other high-performance team environments (Larsen et al., 2012). Therefore, drawing upon a range of stakeholder opinions and experiences, the current thesis aims to extend the understanding of TD processes and influences in RL. This may inform the efficacy and efficiency of future practice, potentially increasing the number of emerging players experiencing positive performance and health outcomes in their path to success.

1.3 Relevant Theoretical Frameworks

Given that TD is now considered a multidimensional and dynamic construct (Baker et al., 2019), a theoretical framework that considers the variability and diversity of outcomes is required. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 2005) bioecological model of development is an evolving ecological framework developed to analyse the significant influence of the environment on development. Providing a conceptual background rather than measurable causal links, the bioecological model of development (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris,

2006), also known as the person–process–context–time (PPCT) model, consists of four key concepts and the interactions between them. These four concepts—person, process, context and time—refer to the individual characteristics, proximal processes, contextual variables and temporal nature, respectively, of the person–environment relationship (Bronfenbrenner,

1995). Based on the tenets of ecological systems theory, this non-linear framework is based on the constant interactions between individuals and the environment.

To enhance the nuanced examination of holistic development, several other models have been developed to support the PPCT framework. The developmental model of sport participation (DMSP) (Côté et al., 2003, 2007) is a framework based on three participation trajectories, presenting a set of quantifiable and testable variables with clear indicators for each age-based stage. Consistent with theories of child and adolescent development (Côté et al., 2012), the DMSP supports this thesis in exploring the developmental activities and individual skills required to facilitate positive outcomes of activity participation.

The final theoretical underpinnings of this thesis are the two main frameworks of career transition: Stambulova’s (2003) athletic career transition model and Wylleman and

Lavallee’s (2004) developmental model of transitions. Unlike athlete development frameworks, these models focus on the nature and type of athletic transitions and how they influence an individual’s psychological, psychosocial and educational development. By dividing an athletic career into a number of stages, both models provide complementary frameworks to assist in the explanation of demands, coping processes and outcomes of transition across athletic and non-athletic domains (Coutinho, Mesquita, & Fonseca, 2016).

The supporting frameworks complement the overarching bioecological model of development by providing descriptions of how proximal processes across systems (i.e. microsystems to macrosystems) influence developing RL players over time.

1.4 Thesis Aims

The present thesis’s overall objective was to further understand TDEs and their role in athlete development by examining a range of factors that influence TD in RL. This is achieved through a series of sequential studies integrating the perspectives of multiple key stakeholder perspectives, including professional players, club representatives, teachers, junior

players and elite youth players, using a variety of methodological approaches. Starting with an overarching analysis of RL TD pathways, followed by cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations of key TD pathway environments and concluding with an action-based intervention in the final step of the pathway, the studies collectively aim to assist the transition of developing RL players to the elite level.

The following research questions were developed to guide this study:

1. What are the trajectories to becoming an elite level rugby league player in relation to a

multitude of factors (e.g. key milestones, influences and participation patterns) known

to influence athlete development?

2. What are the key stakeholder perceptions of the ecological characteristics, processes

and features of successful school-based RL TDEs?

3. What features of successful school-based RL TDEs affect the development of key

psychobehavioural skills and abilities over time to assist in the transition to high-

performance environments?

4. How can we help facilitate psychological transitions of developing RL players to elite

senior NRL programs? What is the effect of a sport-context tailored coping

intervention in elite youth rugby league players?

1.5 Thesis Overview

This thesis incorporates nine chapters, which align with the thesis aims. The current chapter provides an overview of the thesis project, background definitions and frameworks. It also presents the aims of the project, in which RL is used as a vehicle to examine the key factors of TD in team sports.

In Chapter 2, the extant background literature specific to athlete development and talent pathways in sport is reviewed, corroborated and critically analysed. Chapter 3 provides an explanation and rationale for the choice of the theoretical frameworks. Chapter 4 outlines

the key methodological features, philosophies and methods of inquiry adopted to address the research questions. It provides a justification for the research designs adopted for each of the four individual studies outlined below.

Chapter 5 examines the behavioural developmental trajectories of a large sample of professional NRL players using a retrospective design and guided by the DMSP. The findings show two distinctive development trajectories based on earlier or later nomination for representative teams. The study describes the trajectories in terms of common age-based milestones, practice and play engagement, competition and other activities across age categories. The emergence of a less intensive, positively accelerating and non-linear delayed investment trajectory is highlighted, and its implications discussed.

Adopting an ecological perspective, Chapters 6 and 7 explore the TDEs of three successful school-based RL programs. Chapter 6 evaluates the strengths of each environment by triangulating various stakeholder perspectives (e.g. current and past students and coaches) against benchmark TDE findings. The unique characteristics, processes and components of school-based TDEs associated with successful athlete development are outlined and analysed.

Building on the TDE strengths identified by stakeholders, including a highly supportive culture, strong interpersonal relationships and clear expectations of athlete roles and behaviours, the study presented in Chapter 7 shows the effects of school-based RL TDE processes on individual psychobehavioural outcomes over time. Adopting a longitudinal mixed methods approach based on validated psychometric questionnaires and player focus groups, the study found that TDEs characterised by challenges, cultural support, an understanding of individual players and autonomy may lead to the improvement of coping and self-regulation. Over the same tracking period, TDE processes centred around training and competition preparation and demands, both in the TDE and in the broader RL pathway, were explored.

Chapter 8 presents a psychosocial and coping intervention program that was developed and embedded in an elite U20s NRL club program. Adopting an ecological approach, the program was informed by the literature, participants and club stakeholders.

Designed to assist with the heightened challenges and uncertainties of transition to the elite level, the program explores a range of sport-specific stressors and demands, athlete resources and coping strategies. The intervention was evaluated using a multimethod, quasi- experimental between- and within-group design. The chapter describes the effect of the intervention on coping strategies, coping efficacy and wellbeing, which included a greater frequency of task-based coping strategies, a reduction in disengagement-based coping strategies and the increased efficacy of problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies.

Chapter 9 summarises and integrates the findings from the individual studies in relation to the overall aim, main research questions and theoretical frameworks. It discusses the implications of the findings for a range of TD stakeholders, acknowledges the limitations of the thesis, outlines directions for future research and presents the final conclusions.

1.6 Originality and Significance of the Thesis

This body of work enhances the understanding of the complexity of RL TD by examining and evaluating a range of empirically identified determinant factors. The ecological framework adds to knowledge of RL TD information by spanning multiple contexts across a range of developmental stages and integrating several valuable perspectives.

By integrating a comprehensive range of research designs, methodologies, instruments and rigorous analyses, the studies in this thesis collectively combine high-quality research methods (i.e. the use of validated and reliable tools) with real-world applications (i.e. rich descriptions of interactions on the training field) to assist practitioners (Collins et al., 2019).

Given that the developmental needs of athletes vary, this thesis includes a longitudinal

approach, leading to a greater understanding of how and potentially why key attributes evolve over time.

All aspects of the research involved navigating the real-world day-to-day constraints of both professional and developmental sporting organisations and people. The authenticity and originality of the findings in relation to RL, its multiple trajectories, the role of the environment and the value of psychosocial skills and abilities answers the call for a heightened contextual examination of TD. The sequential flow of the four chapters, each of which builds on the previous chapter’s topic and findings, culminates in a research-informing practice intervention, adding to the originality of the thesis. Overall, the collection of studies and their implications may challenge the beliefs (or biases) of individual players, parents, coaches and other stakeholders and broaden their perceptions of talent, how it may be shaped and what is required to navigate the path to elite performance.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This literature review consists of five main sections, each divided into subsections.

The following sections provide a definition of TD, examine athlete development pathways, discuss talent selection factors, highlight the effects of transition and describe how the environment may facilitate or constrain athlete progression, respectively. Each section is discussed in relation to the overall aims in RL.

2.1 Defining Talent

The premise that talent exists and can be developed is a central tenet of athlete development and sports science. Talent is assumed to be identifiable and measurable, and its indicators may predict future elite sport performance (Cobley et al., 2012). This has been traditionally reflected in high-performance sport through snapshot methods of performance evaluation (e.g. physiological testing), the application of adult performer benchmarks to inform talent selection decisions in youth sport, an increased emphasis on early identification of youth potential, the promotion of early specialisation and the exclusive focus on one sport and the maintenance of systematic bias that talent is fixed and subjective opinion determines future success (Baker et al., 2017; Cobley, 2016). The developmental implications and issues of these practical talent selection concepts have been widely reviewed (see Baker et al., 2017;

Vaeyens et al., 2008). The low predictive value and limited accuracy of talent selection decisions have been attributed to a range of individual (e.g. physical growth and cognitive maturation) and contextual factors (e.g. competition age groupings and selection/deselection practices of trajectories) (Cobley & Till, 2015; Güllich, 2014a; Koz et al., 2012). These confounding factors have led to the continued contestation of the definitions of talent and an increased focus on TD that recognises that talent selection is only one step on the path.

Grounded in developmental science and knowledge about the physiological, psychological, social and behavioural changes that occur over time, wider perspectives of

talent now exist that acknowledge this significant complexity. Emerging from the perennial nature–nurture dualism debate, talent is now recognised as influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, which interact to promote or limit developmental adaptability over time (Davids & Baker, 2007). Thus, changes occur via functional or dysfunctional relationships between individuals and their sporting environment (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) and depend on the multiple characteristics of individuals, the environment and the subsequent reciprocal effects between them (Araújo & Davids, 2011; Henriksen & Stambulova, 2017;

Henriksen et al., 2010a). These characteristics, such as anthropometric measures and motivational orientation, can exert their influence at multiple developmental time points.

Recent conceptualisations of talent have mirrored the breadth of findings, positioning talent as multidimensional, emergent, dynamic and symbiotic with the constraints of the environment

(Baker et al., 2019).

2.2 Talent Development

This section provides an evaluation of TD, its influencing factors and perceived value and the current divide between research and practice. The range of influencing factors will be examined in detail in later sections. The enhanced multidimensional and dynamic understanding of talent and its associated challenges (e.g. transitions and multilevel demands) further prioritises the need to determine the most effective method to accelerate learning and performance through optimal training environments (Abbott & Collins, 2004). TDEs aim to promote the emergence of adaptive behaviours (e.g. biopsychosocial skills, abilities and experiences) that enhance preparation for performance in a range of contexts (Davids et al.,

2017; Henriksen & Stambulova, 2017; Martindale et al., 2005). In line with the rise of professionalism in sport, TD programs across sports have proliferated as clubs and codes invest considerable time and resources in ensuring individual success and survival at the elite level (Finn & McKenna, 2010; Reeves, Littlewood, et al., 2018). However, despite the

increased attention by clubs to develop their own youth players, the value placed on TD and the attempts to optimise it continue to be heavily debated in terms of the concept of talent (i.e. variations in definition) and ethics (e.g. health outcomes, financial cost) (Baker et al., 2018;

Baker & Wattie, 2018; Rongen et al., 2015).

To highlight the complexity of TD, it is necessary to acknowledge the range of direct and indirect influences that constrain sports-related behaviours. Acknowledging various factors influence the acquisition of high-level performance, Baker and Horton’s (2004) work categorising factors into primary ‘direct’ and secondary ‘indirect’ influences on expertise, has continued to be explored and assist our understanding of TD. Direct influences include athletes’ contributions to their own performance. Genetics (Davids & Baker, 2007; Rees et al.,

2016), prolonged engagement in activity types such as play and practice (Côté & Fraser-

Thomas, 2008; Gulbin, Croser, et al., 2013) and the potentially unintentional influence of physiological variables (Malina et al., 2004; Till, Scantlebury, & Jones, 2017) are all widely recognised examples of factors directly contributing to the development of expertise.

Psychological and psychobehavioural characteristics also directly influence the level of athletic achievement (Hodges et al., 2017), future success (Toering et al., 2009), the ability to maintain focus in the considerable amount of practice required of elite performance (Toering et al., 2012) and the navigation of pathway challenges (Collins et al., 2016a).

Indirect influences have also been widely recognised as being crucial in development by moderating the power of primary influences on sport performance (Baker & Horton,

2004). The highly influential role of the coach and the unique knowledge, techniques and coaching strategies utilised to promote positive athlete outcomes have been supported by evidence (Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Gould et al., 2007). The broader coaching roles and skill sets involved in facilitating the culture, maintaining the learning environment and developing meaningful relationships with athletes have also been widely identified (Gledhill & Harwood,

2014; Gulbin et al., 2010; Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007). The influence of other support- providing stakeholders, such as family members (Côté, 1999; Elliott & Drummond, 2017;

Holt & Dunn, 2004) and peers (Storm et al., 2014; Ullrich-French & Smith, 2009), have also been highlighted. Other studies have identified broader indirect influences, including the local and national sport culture (Davids & Baker, 2007), birthdate, (Cobley et al., 2009; B Jones et al., 2018) and birth location (Cobley, Hanratty et al., 2014; Hancock et al., 2018; Pennell et al., 2017). As well as highlighting the variety of factors and their complex interactions, Baker and Horton’s (2004) review also promotes the use of multidisciplinary (i.e. biology, psychology and sociology) approaches to further the understanding of the degree of influence these factors have on TD. Influences are multifactorial and highly dynamic, with individual, contextual and temporal characteristics leading to further developmental uncertainty. This has been illustrated by the extensive empirical findings on team sport athlete development, identifying high variability in individual pathways (Araújo et al., 2010; Güllich, 2014b;

Phillips, Davids, Renshaw, & Portus, 2010). Collectively, these trajectory explorations have found that TD is highly individualised, domain specific and non-linear because players experience repeated setbacks (e.g. injuries or non-selection) and advances (e.g. new coaches or performance spikes) in their progression to performance (Gabbett et al., 2009; Gulbin,

Croser, et al., 2013; Güllich, 2014b; Güllich et al., 2019). Therefore, given the variations, multiplicative influences and dynamic nature of interactions that determine athlete developmental outcomes, broader multiscale ecological studies are now being promoted to further understand the TD phenomenon (Henriksen & Stambulova, 2017; Henriksen et al.,

2020; Larsen et al., 2012).

Beyond the theoretical and empirical perspectives, the focus on TD systems in practice has also intensified. Following initial athlete selection, TD processes typically consist of extensive time spent in sport-specific training, followed by an increased volume and intensity

of training and performance as individuals progress through consecutive stages of the TD system (Güllich & Cobley, 2017). In sport-specific pathways, stages are distinguished by age

(e.g. U18s) and the achievement of performance expectations. Athletes continue to linearly progress through to higher levels along the representative pathway. At each stage, the pool of players reduces, and resources are concentrated, until a small number of individuals reach the elite level. However, the traditional linear pathway to success has been questioned because of disruptions caused by player withdrawals, players entering stages from outside the system

(i.e. talent transfer) and heightened turnover arising from selections and deselections (Gulbin,

Croser, et al., 2013; Güllich, 2014a; Güllich & Emrich, 2012). This has led to assertions that traditional fixed and rigid TD programs do not effectively cater for developmental change, the diversity of trajectories and the holistic needs of youth (Cobley, 2016; Coutinho et al., 2016b;

Güllich et al., 2019).

TD programs and their roles and structures have been challenged in relation to their developmental effects on youth (Rongen et al., 2018). Despite an increased social awareness in the popular media about talent progression success and the expansion of structures and resources (e.g. increased employment of staff to assist TD processes), the underpinning ethos that only a few players will ‘make it’ has not changed (Ryan et al., 2018). Judging the effectiveness of TD programs based solely on the number of individuals progressing to the elite level is limited. Further, the ability to predict a player’s progression to the elite level is limited because conversion rates are small and extremely rare in the context of the sporting population (Güllich & Cobley, 2017). This has led to recent work querying whether the operational influences of TD systems are positive or negative. Rongen et al. (2018) suggest that the overall concept of TD systems is ‘neither inherently good nor bad’ (p. 2) but that how they are designed and managed in relation to their effect on overall youth development, rather than just sporting performance, is important. This suggests that TDEs and academy youth

development philosophies in relation to performance and positive youth development are crucial aspects of TD.

Holistic philosophies that aim to balance positive psychosocial development with performance-driven routines, training and physical enhancement can create challenges.

Despite this, individuals, TDEs and national sporting bodies effectively implementing or striving for this have emerged. Individual coaches who support autonomy (Adie et al., 2012) and mastery-focused environments (Curran et al., 2015) have been associated with positive holistic outcomes in terms of engagement, effort and accountability. TDEs focusing on long- term aims have been found to include strong support networks and focus on development rather than performance, demonstrating the effective integration of holistic developmental ideals (Henriksen et al., 2010b; Martindale et al., 2005; Mills et al., 2014a). The integration of research into the implementation of multidisciplinary paradigms in developing and progressing youth players is also seen at the governance level. For example, at the governing body level soccer academies in England incorporate an Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) that recommends and assesses multifaceted components of athlete development (Kelly et al.,

2020). The plan ensures that context-specific approaches to technical, psychological, social and physical development are evident in football academies and that the level of financial investment in individual academies depends on the achievement of key holistic developmental benchmarks (e.g. resilience strategies, increased coaching hours, welfare staff and education support) (S. Jones, 2018; Tears et al., 2018). Similarly, RL academies in the United Kingdom

(UK) are assessed on the quality of leadership (e.g. ability to connect culture to players), meeting the needs of players (i.e. ensuring they are physically, technically and psychologically ready) and the delivery of TD systems in compliance with Super League academy accreditation (Wilkinson & Grecic, 2019). Nonetheless, TD systems continue to prioritise current performance and repetitive high training volumes (Collins et al., 2019). This

has led to calls for research on the realignment of individual TD systems and processes to balance the dual outcomes of sustained performance at the elite level and the developmental health needs of emerging individuals (Till & Baker, 2020). Research-driven suggestions such as maintaining broader TD pathways for a longer period to promote more opportunities, delay deselection processes and shift resource allocation to higher age groups (Cobley, 2016; Till &

Baker, 2020) have had limited application in TD practice to date.

Despite the significant debate on the ideal TD program for optimal development, the fact remains that TD systems and environments are well placed to help address the wide societal concerns affecting young people as well as support the holistic health of individuals

(Collins et al., 2012). The influences, processes and conjectures highlighted above are discussed in relation to RL in the following sections.

2.3 Talent Development in Rugby League

RL is a dominant winter team sport in Australia, with over 162,000 registered participants outside elite-level competition in the NRL (2019). The game’s pinnacle representative fixture—the State of Origin series—has been the most watched television event in the last 5 years in Australia, highlighting the cultural value and integral role the game plays in the country’s sporting landscape (NRL, 2019). The game has continued to develop at the elite level, with its ongoing high standards evidenced by the consistent professional club membership numbers, governing body revenues and sponsorship numbers (NRL, 2019).

However, despite the maintenance of elite-level performance and the subsequent associated increases in funding for game development and pathways, there has been only a modest growth (1.23%) in new grassroots participants. This modest growth has implications for long- term TD processes because improving the efficiency of both the cost and the product (i.e. number of players) in current practice will become a greater priority (Till & Baker, 2020).

The RL TD system in Australia represents the pathway from initial entry into the sport through to potential professional performance. The RL pathway has been developed by national and state governing bodies as they seek to increase RL participation and produce elite performers (see Figure 2.1). Recreational and community-based games are at the base of the pyramid, where the focus is on inclusion and participation and the goal is to increase junior player numbers in the sport. The pyramidal structure (Güllich & Emrich, 2012) shows that from the age of 12 years, individuals can be selected into performance pathway squads. The main goal of the performance pathway is to efficiently select, develop and produce NRL- standard players. As the path progresses, the number of selection places reduces, the level of competition heightens and the intensity and volume of training increases. Annual age groupings include U16s, U18s, U20s and open-age semi-professional and professional levels.

Despite the linear progression of age-group–representative teams, individuals may be accelerated through the pathway; with the minimum age to play in the NRL set at 18 years. A variation from linear progression may also be seen with individuals entering the system at different time points (e.g. moving from club participation to a representative level in the U20s age bracket or being selected into the U16s, then missing subsequent age-group levels and returning through open-age competition) because club-based recruitment and selection continue throughout the development pathway.

Figure 2.1

General Overview: Rugby League Talent Pathways and Contributing Bodies in Australia

Age Elite National Rugby League (NRL) NRL clubs (N = 16) and formal competition structures Secondary sport specialisation Recreational local (years) representative pathway schools (Rugby League) clubs Open-age elite (NRL) or semi-professional (second tier) state-based competitions Senior state and national team 20+ Players: Squads of up 36 (6 of 30 targeted youth positions) selection Games: Up to 28 Open-age local club Training: Full-time professional or work/study with 4–5 training/wk. competition Games: 1/week U20s state (e.g. NSW v. Qld) State-based U20s competition** 5–6/month Players: 25 per squad Players: Squads of 30 competition 19–20 Games: 1 Games: Up to 28 Training: 1–2/week + 3-day camp Training: 4–5 times/week for 9–10 months. Junior national side: 1 game U18s junior representative competitions Team: National sport school U18s state (e.g. NSW v. Qld) competition: Up to 10 games. Players: Squads of up to 30 Players: 25 per squad Individual: Regional, state, 17–18 Games: Up to 12 Games: 1 national U18s selection trials Training: 3–4 times/week, November–January Training: 1–2/week + 3-day camp Individual school program: NRL clubs may run U17s development squads as outlined below Training: 2–6/week Local club U16s junior representative competitions Team: Intersport school competition U16s state (e.g. NSW v. Qld) competitions: 6–8 games Players: Squads of up to 30 Games: 1/week Players: 25 per squad Individual: Regional and state- 15–16 Games: Up to 12 5-month Games: 1+ based U15s merit selection teams competition Training: 3–4 times/week, November–January Training: 1–2/week + 3-day camp Individual school program: Training: 1–2/week NRL clubs may run U15s development squads as outlined below Training: 2–4 trainings/week NRL club–based development squads (U12, U13, U14) Entry into secondary school Players: Up to 30 Rugby League programs 12–14 Games: Ad hoc games per year Games: 6–8 interschool games Training 1–2/week for 3–4 months or intensive holiday camps Training: 2–3 times/week

Note. Player pathways are highly variable, with players entering, transitioning and/or participating in several competitions and organisations simultaneously. Despite age-based categories, individuals may be accelerated through the pathways. ** Previously a nationwide competition occupying the second tier (behind NRL) of player progression.

As the performance pathway progresses, the level of support (i.e. number of coaches and other support staff such as physical performance coaches and physiotherapists) and resources (facilities, technology, financial assistance and education provision) available to players increases. For example, at the U20s level in the NRL, it is common for clubs to have a full-time coach, performance coach, team manager and welfare officer supplemented by two or three other part-time support staff.

The main responsibility for the performance pathway lies with the NRL and the 16 individual NRL clubs. However, other organisations such as highly regarded secondary RL sporting schools and participation-focused clubs also fulfil key roles, demonstrating that the participation and performance pathways are not rigid because individual players can be a part of one or both at different times across their development. However, similar to other sports and cultures (Bjørndal & Gjesdal, 2020), the communication between organisations in relation to competition frequency, training volumes and their contribution to individual development is limited. Players from the age of 14 years who show potential may be playing and training year-round across multiple settings. For example, a 14-year-old player who shows potential may train throughout the year at an RL sports secondary school and participate in NRL club–based junior representative preseason training and competition

(November–March), followed by training and competition with their recreational club (April–

August). It is not unusual for this potentially negative scenario to continue throughout an aspiring RL player’s teenage years. Each setting provides additional resources that may contribute to positive development; however, the collaboration of RL stakeholders (Pankhurst et al., 2013) and the identification of value in the multiple pathway environments, including sport schools, require further understanding (Bjørndal & Gjesdal, 2020; Burgess & Naughton,

2010; De Bosscher, 2018). Coherence in TD systems is enhanced by inputs from contributing stakeholders and organisations being structured, complementary and aimed at long-term

agendas (Webb et al., 2016). These suggested RL TD effectiveness characteristics require further exploration the Australian context.

Individual performance in RL is determined by a complex interplay of physical, cognitive, technical and tactical abilities (Cupples & O’Connor, 2011). Initial selection for and continuation of TD opportunities in the RL pathway often arises from the subjective opinions of coaches, teachers and recruitment staff in conjunction with the objective assessment of physical capabilities. Because there are a limited number of established long- term holistic frameworks for RL, subjective preferences (Williams & Reilly, 2000) and coach observations of games and/or selection trials (Schorer et al., 2017) are the dominant methods used to predict and select talent. This process often involves limited time to gather information, minimal interactions with players and a small number of individuals. The process is deeply rooted in RL because coaches’ previous experiences are continually perpetuated in TDEs (Christensen, 2009), and the status quo of replicating tradition limits change at the coach, club or organisational levels (Jeffreys, 2019). While talented players at the elite level continue to be produced, inaccurate and bias-driven decisions may contribute to talent wastage in youth pathways (Johnston & Baker, 2020). This may contribute to the low graduation rates of individuals who go on to play at least one game in the NRL—less than 5% of U16s and 12% of U18s representative players (Mather & Rotheram, 2019). Further understanding of how performance during the teenage years affects long-term career outcomes in conjunction with sport-specific operationalised descriptions of talent (e.g. technical, tactical, psychosocial and physical indicators of future performance) may enhance the TD process in RL (Baker et al., 2018).

From the age of 15 years, junior players may be signed to underage development contracts with NRL clubs and enter agreements with player managers. This priority for TD in professional clubs is universal because of the immense competition for talent and the need to

maintain a competitive edge at the elite level. Following selection into an RL performance pathway, there is a high degree of variability in protocols across clubs and schools. Given the lack of formal centralised funding and minimum standards of program delivery in terms of a core curriculum or development framework, clubs and schools can vary dramatically in their

TD approaches (Mather & Rotheram, 2019). In contrast, governing bodies and club-based academies in the UK have implemented relevant frameworks in collectively delaying selection decisions in acknowledgement of later-maturing players (Till, Morley, et al., 2017).

As well as the contextual system differences between countries (e.g. UK and Australia), differences in predetermined durations, intensities and sophistication of RL programs are influenced by several factors. These factors vary in their level of influence based on the individual and environment; however, their interactions over time have significant implications for player developmental outcomes. These factors include, but are not limited to, the geographical position of the club, the number of targeted programs, squad size, allocated time for face-to-face coaching, the number of full- and part-time staff, including coaches, physical performance staff, program managers and recruiters, formal or informal links with junior recreational geographical areas and the general culture of the club in relation to the

‘homegrown’ versus ‘recruitment from outside’ philosophies (Rowley et al., 2020). These dynamic and interrelated factors combine to promote varying degrees of success for RL clubs and school programs.

The RL pathway in Australia also contains several defined and normative transitions between representative age groups. Similar to other sports, the nature and timing of these transitions are concurrent with non-sport–related transitions (Drew et al., 2019). For example, in Australia, the transition to the U20s representative playing level is accompanied by the completion of secondary school, subsequent work and/or tertiary education choices and possible increased financial and life demands associated with leaving home and relocating. As

highlighted previously, the RL competition pathway has been modified in response to the negative outcomes, such as mental health concerns, stress and pressure at early pathway time points (e.g. U20s) and withdrawal, experienced by players in navigating these barriers. In conjunction with non-normative and unpredictable transitions associated with non-selection, injury or accelerated progression, these RL pathway transitions may represent turning points in individual careers (Stambulova et al., 2020). The understanding and implementation of holistic developmental ideals in RL programs can assist player readiness for these transitions.

However, despite recent governing body initiatives, such as the compulsory appointment of welfare officers at NRL clubs and the inclusion of psychosocial health discussions and workshops during the annual 3-day rookie camps for U20s players, the main focus remains on the physical, technical and tactical elements of the game.

Overall, the RL TD pathway in Australia provides multiple opportunities for individuals and continues to successfully develop players who sustain the game at the highest level; however, further understanding of TD pathway practices may reveal opportunities to enhance healthy outcomes for individuals and the game.

2.4 Pathways

Engaging in particular developmental activities during childhood and adolescence partly contributes to the development of expertise in sport. The long-term process of development involves participation in a range of activities across various time points. These activities are distinguished by domain (i.e. main sport v. other practice or play), organisation

(i.e. coach v. player led), time (i.e. early or late in the pathway) and perceived contribution to expertise (Davids & Baker, 2007). The following section examines the complexity of these practice activities along with other factors that may influence an individual’s ability to enter and progress in them.

2.4.1 Training activities

One of the most notable relations in behavioural science is the association between time spent in practice and improvement in proficiency (Côté et al., 2007). The premise developed by Ericsson et al. (1993) that expertise is directly related to the amount and type of practice has been successfully applied to distinguish between elite and non-elite players in team sports (Ford & Williams, 2012; Hendry et al., 2014; Ward et al., 2007). Suggesting that not just any type of training differentiates players, Ericsson and Charness (1994) assert that at least 10,000 hours or 10 years of engagement in deliberate practice in a sport is required. The deliberate practice framework involves effort, hard work and attention and is completed for the sole purpose of performance enhancement rather than enjoyment (Baker & Cobley, 2008).

Emphasising a strong motivational element, the deliberate practice framework has been supported in team sports (Baker et al., 2003); however, its definition, associated postulates and solitary nature have been questioned. For example, researchers have highlighted high variations within (Tucker & Collins, 2012) and between (Güllich et al., 2017) sports in the number of accumulated practice hours required to reach elite levels, with few examples exceeding 10,000 hours. Moreover, given that not all practice types can be defined as deliberate, it is likely that retrospective estimates of practice have been overestimated (Ford et al., 2015). The original postulate of deliberate practice being of low inherent enjoyment

(Ericsson et al., 1993) has also been queried because sport-specific training designed for improvement (i.e. game-based training) has also been described as highly enjoyable (Helsen et al., 1998; Ward et al., 2017). Further, in a recent meta-analysis, deliberate practice was found to only account for 18% of the variance in sport performance, suggesting that beyond practice, several other factors and processes influence individual progression in sport

(B. N. Macnamara et al., 2016). However, in response Ericsson (2016) suggests the definition of deliberate practice and associated 10,000 hour rule has been largely misinterpreted as not

all practice hours are equal in impact and they need to be more defined in objective measurements of practice histories.

An alternative view of practice has also generated significant research in the TD field.

Reflected in the stage-based DMSP developed by Côté et al. (2007), this view suggests that experts not only engage in deliberate practice but also in deliberate play. Deliberate play activities are intrinsically motivating, enjoyable and based on behaviour rather than results

(Côté et al., 2007). Initial engagement in fun, child-led play activities has been associated with a heightened sense of personal control and enjoyment (Baker & Young, 2014). This may lead to increased enthusiasm for the sport, enhancing motivation and potential skill acquisition (Côté et al., 2012). It is suggested that as players progress in sport, a shift occurs from play to practice designed to optimise performance (Côté et al., 2003). The accumulation of high play volumes in soccer has been found to improve tactical decision-making (Williams et al., 2012) and enhance senior level players’ decision-making skills (Roca et al., 2012), and differentiate playing level attained within unique sport contexts (i.e. German football) (Hornig et al., 2016). Moreover, positive associations between both sport- and non-sport–specific play and perceptual cognitive skills suggest that skill transfer may also occur between similar sports such as invasion games (Baker et al., 2003; Berry et al., 2008; Hendry & Hodges,

2018). Despite the proposed benefits of developmental play, limitations have also been highlighted—play volumes have been found to have no correlation with motivation (Hendry et al., 2014), and be less able to identify youth footballers with higher skills compared with practice (Hendry & Hodges, 2018).

2.4.2 Early specialisation and diversification

The early specialisation approach to TD involves an early starting age and early investment in intensive practice in a given sport (Baker, Cobley, & Fraser-Thomas, 2009).

Favoured in sports in which peak performance is achieved in adolescence (e.g. gymnastics),

the premise supporting increased training and competition at younger ages is largely unfounded (Baker et al., 2017). While early specialisation may enhance sport-specific performance in the short term, promoting juvenile success (Ford & Williams, 2012), this approach has been criticised in relation to long-term outcomes. The notion of early specialisation has been criticised in terms of what deliberate practice looks like in a sport setting (Farrow, 2012), its negative role in attaining specified practice hours (Côté & Fraser-

Thomas, 2008; Côté et al., 2009) and the lack of recognition of developmentally appropriate training and psychosocial influences (Baker & Côté, 2005). Other negative developmental consequences of early specialisation include the predisposal to injury (Brenner, 2007), overtraining and burnout (Wiersma, 2000), decreased motivation (Coakley, 2010) and the potential withdrawal from sport (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008). These negative consequences of early specialisation (Post et al., 2017) and the considerable variation in practice volumes within and between sports (Hornig et al., 2016; Memmert et al., 2010) suggest that other activities and experiences also contribute to expertise. Despite these risks and the associated lack of evidence, early talent selection practices and training are implemented in team sports because of the competition with other sports for talent (Baker & Wattie, 2018).

In contrast, a diversified approach to sport participation has been suggested. The majority of athlete development models, including the long-term athlete development model

(Balyi, 2002) and the DMSP (Côté et al., 2007), promote the diversification of sports in the early years of sport involvement. Engaging in a variety of sports allows players to experience a range of cognitive, psychosocial and physical environments, which may promote self- regulation in performance pathways at a later date (Côté et al., 2009). Retrospective developmental participation histories of elite athletes have revealed that many athletes engage in multiple sports in childhood (Gulbin et al., 2010; Güllich, 2014a; Rees et al., 2016). In a large sample of elite Australian athletes, Gulbin et al. (2010) found that 94% of athletes

trained in two to three other sports prior to their main sport specialisation. Increased organised involvement in other sports (i.e. delayed specialisation) has also been found to distinguish adult world-class from national-level athletes (Güllich & Emrich, 2014; Hornig et al., 2016;

Moesch et al., 2011). These various experiences in a diverse range of sports may facilitate the acquisition and refinement of specific skills that assist with later progression in the pathway

(Vaeyens et al., 2009).

Considerable debate exists regarding the microstructural pathway that is most beneficial for the attainment of expertise (Côté et al., 2012). To address this lack of consensus, Ford et al. (2009) examined the early participation of youth soccer players who had progressed to the elite level compared with ex-elite and recreational players. The findings showed that the hours of play rather than soccer-specific practice and competition or participation in other sports differentiated the players. This led to a proposed early engagement hypothesis because the data attained did not complement the current leading development theories (Ford et al., 2009; O’Connor & Larkin, 2015). Recognising the importance of both sport-specific practice and sport-specific play, early engagement promotes both heightened practice and play in one’s primary sport and minimal diversity to other sports

(Ford et al., 2009). Youth soccer findings identifying some participation in other sports and limiting full specialisation in one sport at an early age, has promoted pathway refinement to the be re-named the early ‘majority’ engagement pathway (Hendry & Hodges, 2018). This suggests some sampling is required however most of the time should be invested in one’s main sport from a young age. Despite its support in the football context, the application of this model outside of the UK or in other sports may be limited.

The known variability and subsequent debate associated with the contributions of practice and play to expertise have resulted in a number of stage-based athlete development models, including the long-term athlete development model (Balyi, 2002) and the foundation–

talent–elite–mastery framework (Gulbin, Croser, et al., 2013), which are aimed at providing approaches with associated features for progression (Coutinho, Mesquita, & Fonseca et al.,

2016). However, critics have asserted that models that rely on stability and categorisation may be too prescriptive and fail to recognise the variabilities in talent and athletic development

(Baker et al., 2019; Coutinho, Mesquita, & Fonseca et al., 2016; Á. MacNamara & Collins,

2014).

2.4.3 Practice histories

Investigation of the relevance of different activity types involves searching for commonalities in elite performer pathways and comparing them with those that are less successful (Davids et al., 2017). The importance and contributions of developmental sporting activities to expertise have been extensively explored with respect to differentiating individuals (Güllich et al., 2019; Rothwell et al., 2017; Hornig et al., 2016) and identifying significant inter- and intra-pathway variations in sports (Gulbin, Weissensteiner, et al., 2013;

Güllich, 2014a). However, the conjecture surrounding the optimisation of sport-specific pathways remains. Despite an abundance of research confirming a positive relationship between practice hours and expertise (Baker & Côté, 2005; Ericsson et al., 1993), contrasting findings have been revealed for team sports. Unlike individual sports, team sport participation is typically characterised by late specialisation and early diversification (Baker et al., 2003;

Güllich, 2014b). For example, both domestic and national-level RL players in the UK are exposed to multiple sports and play during their early participation years (Rothwell et al.,

2017). The exception is football, with the aforementioned early engagement path suggesting heightened practice in the early participation years (Ford et al., 2009; Ford & Williams,

2012). However, cultural differences between sports also need to be considered. For example, unlike the early engagement paths seen in the UK and in Australian Football (Ford et al.,

2009; O’Connor & Larkin, 2015), in German youth footballers, stronger performers have

been distinguished by higher levels of non-organised soccer play and organised training in other sports (Güllich et al., 2017).

The varied contributions of pathway activity types are thought to differentiate individuals by the performance level attained (e.g. elite junior, national and senior world-class athletes). In a review of participation history studies, Davids et al. (2017) highlighted variations in early junior success and long-term senior success trajectories. Junior elite players spent more time in sport-specific practice activities and less time in other sports compared with their less successful peers (Ford et al., 2009; Güllich & Emrich, 2012). In contrast, world-class adults accumulated more sport-specific practice, had higher involvement in other sports and specialised later compared with their national-level counterparts (Güllich, 2017;

Hendry & Hodges, 2018; Hornig et al., 2016). For example, in comparing Danish elite (i.e. world class) and near-elite (i.e. national) team sport players, Moesch et al. (2013) identified a delayed start, fewer training hours before the age of 12 years and less total accumulated training hours for the elite group. With respect to RL players, a study found that national-level players in the UK experienced a greater number of positive training experiences during amateur practice compared with domestic players (Rothwell et al., 2017). However, these findings were primarily qualitative, involved a limited UK-based participant sample and specifically targeted the microstructure of training before adolescence. Apart from this, few studies have explored RL developmental experiences. Therefore, a further understanding of the potential contribution of activities in RL is suggested.

Adding to the dynamic nature of athlete development, variations in trajectory type (i.e linear, mixed, truncated) and direction have also been identified in multiple sports (Gulbin,

Weissensteiner, et al., 2013; Güllich, 2014b, 2017; Haugaasen et al., 2014). Examining stage- based representative-level progression (i.e. club, regional, state and national) in a large sample of Australian athletes, Gulbin, Weissenteiner, et al. (2013) identified multiple types of

pathway progression in terms of being either linear or mixed (i.e. sideways, advancing or descending divergences from the linear path). In the same study, 72% of team sport participants (N = 138) were found to oscillate on a mixed pathway, with 42% of team sport participants experiencing concurrent senior and junior level competition (i.e. high-level junior and lower-level senior competition). Early senior competition experience for team sport players has also been suggested to assist skill and psychosocial development (Berry et al.,

2008; Larsen et al., 2012). In further contrast to the popular linear progression of player development are the ongoing reductionist talent selection, deselection and maintenance decisions that occur over time. In examining the retention of players across 13 German youth football academies, Güllich (2014b) found an annual turnover of 25%, with only 7% progressing from U10s to U19s. These limited conversion numbers are also mirrored in RL

(Mather & Rotheram, 2019). Other evidence highlighting the prevalence of talent transfer (i.e. changing sports along the path) or talent recycling (i.e. mature-age change of sports) also highlights the complexity of the role of practice and participation for developing experts

(Bullock et al., 2009; Gulbin, 2008; Vaeyens et al., 2009).

The role of practice and the rate of individual improvement may also be influenced by the type of training programs undertaken. Knowledge of biopsychosocial development processes is required for both coaches and broader TD support staff in youth sport settings.

Optimising training effects while ensuring player safety involves a consideration of maturation status. Models such as the youth physical development model (Lloyd & Oliver,

2012) and the subsequent composite youth development model (Lloyd et al., 2015) align the development of fitness attributes with growth and maturation processes. However, large variations in training experiences, physical development and performance capacities present challenges to support staff managing large playing squads because individuals may receive inadequate or excessive training (Booth et al., 2020). The influence of training age, defined as

the length of time a player has engaged in formal strength and conditioning practices (Till,

Darrall-Jones, et al., 2017), has also been identified as an important consideration. Training age may be an indicator of both deliberate practice and specialisation because individuals participate in additional training sessions with a focus on improving performance. Training age was found to influence the rate of physical development in a longitudinal study of

Australian youth representative RL players (i.e. U16s–U18s), which identified that a higher training age was associated with greater improvements in physiological factors (e.g. aerobic capacity, strength and change of direction) (Booth et al., 2020). This supports findings from

UK academy RL players, in which players with a 2-year training age had a continual increase in strength measures compared with those with a 1-year training age (Till, 2017). These findings suggest that training age is associated with improved load tolerance and technical competence. However, practitioner knowledge to safely increase training age is required because the risk of injury grows exponentially for youth players as game minutes, training sessions per week and training duration increase with playing level. At the RL youth level in

Australia, a greater number of injuries occurs in matches than in training; however, non- contact load-based injuries are more prevalent during training (Booth et al., 2017). This highlights the importance of load monitoring strategies and longitudinal tracking approaches in effectively increasing the training age of individuals. This is pertinent to RL pathways in

Australia because of the multiple pressures and demands (i.e. training and games) of schools, clubs and representative environments in the pathway. Poor load management may happen easily because of the limited amount of time available in the schedules of developing players.

This has been found in other sports and cultures (Bjørndal & Gjesdal, 2020), with suggestions that players themselves play a key role in ensuring positive overall loads. These challenges have strong implications because perceived physical preparedness and physical qualities continue to influence selection and playing levels (Baxter-Jones et al., 2020).

In summary, even in homogenous samples of elite players, individual differences in developmental activities and trajectories are considerable. Findings suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all approach because success is not purely based on the type, duration and timing of activity type. Therefore, trade-offs between individual behaviours and interactions with biological, psychological and social conditions may account for variations in trajectories in team sports.

2.4.4 Other influencing factors

2.4.4.1 Growth and maturation

Differentiating between a player’s current level of performance and the potential for future advancement is highly complex (Reilly et al., 2000). This is further confounded by both individual characteristics and sport-specific requirements. However, physiological characteristics and their perceived effects on performance dominate the literature. General findings across youth team sports assert that talent maintenance decisions are often influenced by physical qualities such as stature and strength (Baxter-Jones et al., 2020; Meylan et al.,

2010). Initial talent selection in the RL pathway often takes place between puberty and the adolescent growth spurt (i.e. 9–15 years); therefore, the influence of growth and maturation on both subjective coach opinions and objective physical assessments used to inform talent selection is significant.

Growth refers to changes in body size, body mass and stature (Malina et al., 2004).

Maturation includes both the chronological timing and tempo of maturation processes.

Maturation timing refers to the age at which specific maturational events occur and is frequently assessed by age at peak height velocity (Bergeron et al., 2015). Individual differences in both of these factors can be considerable. For example, a difference of 5 years in biological skeletal age has been identified between early and late maturers of the same age groups in youth soccer (Gouvea et al., 2016). Maturation is accompanied by gains in size and

physiological development, thus enhanced performance (Malina et al., 2015). Early-maturing players are afforded an athletic advantage in the early teenage years, especially in sports such as RL in which size, speed, strength and power are considered important. Maturity-related selection that favours early-maturing males has been identified across team sports, especially

RL (Till et al., 2010).

Maturational imbalances may also negatively influence individual progress by prompting alternate psychological behaviours to those considered a prerequisite for future success (e.g. commitment, coping, focus and self-evaluation) (Á. MacNamara & Collins,

2013). The variability of maturation can affect socioemotional and cognitive control systems that contribute to individual behaviours in adolescence (Steinberg, 2010). Characteristics of low maturity such as vulnerability, emotional unpredictability, challenge of authority and mixed levels of commitment are commonly seen in youth team sports (Devaney et al., 2018;

Hill et al., 2015); therefore, developing adolescents may be unable to cope with the increasing levels of expectation in athletic progression. These behaviours are in contrast to the suggested positive psychological characteristics associated with success. For example, a perceived lack of maturity was associated with lower levels of the ideal characteristics of independence in academy-level players (Winter et al., 2019). Thus, a general awareness of the influence of maturity beyond the physical to include psychosocial characteristics and behaviours is required from TD stakeholders to maintain individual talent progression.

Empirical findings suggest that enhanced physical abilities may affect player selection and subsequent progression (Till et al., 2016; Tredrea et al., 2017). For example, early selection of individuals based on their physical superiority to others in the same age group may result in those individuals accelerating in their development because of the immediate and ongoing access to superior coaching and resources. It is also important to note that early maturers may face both advantages and disadvantages from a psychosocial perspective

because of social stimuli that alter the way one is treated by others (Sherar et al., 2010). Early team selection may increase self-esteem, competence and motivation, furthering progression

(Cumming et al., 2012). In contrast, because of the perceived ease of early pathway selection and competition, early-maturing players may become complacent and bored and fail to develop the skills and values required for the commitment, problem-solving and hard work involved in overcoming challenges further along the pathway (Winter et al., 2019).

The early advantages arising from having a large physical size at an early age are transient and reduce once maturation plateaus (Barreiros et al., 2013; Malina et al., 2012). For example, anthropometric characteristics of English schoolboy soccer players did not predict the players that would attain professional status (Franks et al., 1999). Further, the progression to elite status in youth soccer in Serbia was found to gradually exclude early-maturing players over time (Ostojic et al., 2014). After tracking 21% of the late maturers in their original sample over an 8-year period, Ostojic et al. (2014) found that over 60% of them transitioned successfully. Similarly, with respect to RL, Till et al. (2014) identified that in early adolescence (i.e. 13–15 years), later maturers generally catch up to their age- and skill- matched peers in terms of both anthropometric and fitness characteristics. However, the rationale for the early (de)selection of later maturers entering representative squads still needs to be assessed. Later maturers catching up physically may highlight the limitations of individuals who have attained early success based on their maturation. For example, the latter group may not be adequately prepared for competition against more physically able opponents, they may have neglected the development of technical skills because of their physical prowess and they may lack the ability to overcome future challenges because of a perceived ease of the pathway in the early years (Malina et al., 2015).

Recognition of greater opportunities for early maturers has informed several practical and research changes to sport-specific development practices. These include bio-banding players for competitions and the establishment of late-maturer development squads. Bio- banding involves grouping players on the basis of size and/or maturity rather than age

(Cumming et al., 2018). Assessments of stakeholder perceptions of bio-banding in youth football competition and training have identified various benefits, such as players having the opportunity to demonstrate their technical abilities and leadership behaviours (Bradley et al.,

2019), as well as challenges, such as the need to educate stakeholders (e.g. parents) and social isolation from friends (M. J. Reeves, Enright, et al., 2018). The inclusion of weight-based criteria to group children into age groups has been piloted in Australian RL in recent years; however, its long-term viability has not yet been established (New South Wales Rugby

League, 2017). Similar philosophies and practical initiatives have been recently reported in

RL. For example, Till and Bell (2019) implemented a TD program for later-maturing players in a single UK RL club. Despite the challenges for practitioners in relation to resources and the limitations of the fortnightly RL program, parent and participant reflections about coaches’ time, multidisciplinary support and access to facilities were positive (Till & Bell,

2019). Although the RL-specific program is in its infancy, it links theory to practice and ultimately provides developmental opportunities for more players in the future. Further, despite the limitations for the late maturer, the potential benefits of being the underdog and having to overcome greater physical challenges, thus work harder at other elements of the game, have been attributed to future success (Kelly et al., 2020; Schorer et al., 2009).

2.4.4.2 Physical

Given that RL is physically demanding and involves intermittent bouts of high-speed running, sprinting, tackling and getting off the ground, preparedness for physical performance is required, as reflected in the TD literature (Till, Scantlebury, & Jones, 2017). The physical

aspects of junior RL have been shown to influence TD, with individual physical game output influencing performance levels (e.g. first tier v. second tier) in age-group–based tournaments

(Gabbett, 2013) and combined physical and technical skills (e.g. tackles and runs) varying between positional groups (Bennett et al., 2018). In general, reduced body fat percentage and increased height and body mass may be advantages in the RL pathway progression (Gabbett et al., 2009; Till et al., 2011; Till, Morley, et al., 2017). The importance of physical qualities

(speed, aerobic capacity and strength) to the attainment of higher playing levels and a possible future sporting career have also been suggested for both RL (Till, Cobley et al., 2015; Till,

Jones, & Geeson-Brown, 2015; Tredrea et al., 2017) and other youth contact sports (B. Jones et al., 2018).

Overall, the physical development of youth players is likely to be influenced by a combination of age, biological maturity and training experience along with interplayer variabilities in developmental timing. This suggests that a predisposition to sport-related performance is partly genetic but that genes do not operate independently of the environment

(Baker, 2012). Both genetic and environmental factors influence athletic development, with more or less favourable genetic dispositions coupled with more or less appropriate environmental stimuli leading to a continuum of performance success levels (Baker & Horton,

2004). Therefore, practitioners working in youth settings are recommended to act with caution before applying genetic factors to their talent selection test batteries (Kelly et al., 2020).

2.4.4.3 Relative age effects

Relative age effect (RAE) refers to the interaction between a player’s birthdate and the dates used for annual chronological age groups in TD systems (Cobley et al., 2009). Youth sport competitions usually involve single-year age groupings to ensure players are competing against individuals with similar skills and maturation levels. However, the difference in chronological and maturational age between players born at the start of the selection year (i.e.

in the first birth quarter [BQ] = first 3 months of year) and those born near the end (i.e. BQ4) can be significant. These differences mean that relatively older individuals have advantages such as increased physical abilities, enhancing current performance. This may result in the over-representation of relatively older players within TD age-group levels (Mann et al., 2017).

These advantages have both immediate (e.g. talent selection) and long-term (e.g. accumulation of coaching time and training) development implications. Caused by a complex mix of direct (e.g. maturational dissimilarities such as size and strength) and indirect (e.g. subjective evaluations by others such as junior coaches and recruiters, perpetuating the direct advantages) contributing factors, RAE continues to be experienced in youth sport ((Baker et al., 2012; Cobley et al., 2009; Cobley & Till, 2017). RAE is particularly evident in male team sports, where it influences whether an individual gains and maintains access to TD pathways.

Its prevalence has been highlighted in RL in both Australia (Cobley, Hanratty, et al., 2014) and the UK (Till et al., 2014). The higher likelihood of sport cessation for younger players

(i.e. those born in the BQ4), illustrated by the negative impact of RAE in soccer-based cohorts

(Figueiredo et al., 2009; Helsen et al., 1998), has also been highlighted in RL. Examining participation rates in a large sample of recreational UK RL players, Cobley and Till (2017) found that during the adolescent period of development, relatively younger players (i.e. BQ4 v. BQ1) were less likely to continue. The temporary physical and cognitive disadvantages influencing selection opportunities may result in lower perceptions of competence, enjoyment and satisfaction, which may contribute to heightened dropout rates (Crane & Temple, 2014).

With the aim of moderating the influence of RAE, several initiatives have been suggested, including the improvement of coach education of adolescent biopsychosocial development (Till & Baker, 2020), selection proformas establishing a selection quota based on BQ (Bennet, 2018), labelling shirts with age-based numbers in selection trials (Mann et al.,

2017) and being flexible with age groupings such as allowing players in BQ1 and BQ4 to play

down or up, respectively (Kelly et al., 2020). However, despite the positive outcomes of these suggested strategies based on cross-sectional data, further detail is needed in relation to allocating resources and providing the authority to make and rationalise these decisions in practice. Contrasting views of the RAE facilitating or reversing potential positive outcomes have also been identified. Aligned with the notion that ‘talent needs trauma’, the beneficial outcomes of overcoming adversity early in the development path are suggested to assist further along the path. In a sample of academy rugby and cricket players analysed over a 10- year period, McCarthy et al. (2016) found that RAE bias in younger age groups does not manifest when transitioning to senior levels. More specifically, in English soccer academies,

Kelly et al. (2020) found that individuals born in BQ1 were three times more likely to be recruited compared with those born in BQ4; however, those born in BQ4 were four times more likely to attain a professional contract. This suggests that although RAE bias in selection may significantly affect development, the focus of early selection decision-makers should be on players’ characteristics over the course of their development rather than on current performance indicators.

2.4.4.4 Broader contextual factors

Other broader environmental factors, including place of birth, relative size and density of the community and socioeconomic status, have also been shown to influence development

(Côté et al., 2006). A strong body of literature supports the birthplace effect (or community size effect) across multiple sports and cultures (Abernethy & Farrow, 2005; Baker, Cobley, &

Fraser-Thomas, 2009). Community size has been hypothesised to affect development because of the available opportunities to engage in a variety of sports and competition for leisure (Côté et al., 2006). In general, the environmental structure of smaller communities may facilitate greater and more diverse sporting involvement (Hancock et al., 2018). This may be assisted by more open spaces supporting play opportunities, less parental behavioural constraints

because of perceived safety, access to play against older peers or adults (Phillips, Davids, &

Portus, 2010) and more stable microsystems (e.g. coach–athlete relations), which may provide a more intimate and supportive environment (Bruner et al., 2011; Hancock et al., 2018).

Utilising a sample of over 1,500 NRL participants over a 12-year period, Cobley, Hanratty, et al. (2014) found an over-representation of small (i.e. > 20,000) and medium-sized (i.e.

100,000–399,999) communities in players’ backgrounds. The under-representation of players from cities and high-density areas was also highlighted in the Australian Football League talent yield from regional areas (Toohey et al., 2018). The likelihood of RAE may also be lower in smaller communities because of the lower numbers of participants and reduced competition for positions (Cobley, Hanratty et al., 2014). On the contrary, growing up in cities has been found to positively influence development through a greater access to resources, equipment, facilities and coaching (Baker, Schorer, et al., 2009). Adding to the complexity, a comparison of the distribution of Olympians from several countries (Canada,

United States, UK and Germany) showed that the optimal population size varied (Baker,

Schorer, et al., 2009). Therefore, the population size of a player’s developmental environment is suggested to act as a proxy for other more salient constraints on development (Wattie et al.,

2018).

The socioeconomic status of a player’s family can influence sporting and recreational participation (Bailey et al., 2010). Children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in

Australia participate in less sport because their parents cannot afford access to facilities and do not having time to support their children (Maher & Olds, 2011). Findings from Welsh youth rugby union also show that lower socioeconomic status is associated with fewer sports played; however, it does not affect total participation hours (i.e. competition, practice and play) or the attainment of developmental milestones in the game of rugby (Winn et al., 2017).

Financial factors that either enable or constrain development were identified by talent

managers in the UK (Morley et al., 2018). TD pathway costs such as equipment, travel, camps and registration escalate with development. In line with this, the responsibility for payment moves from parents (Harwood et al., 2010) to clubs/institutes, governing bodies or individual players. For example, for a youth RL player who is attempting to balance a low-paying contract, the high training demands of U20s participation, work/study hours and the increased costs of living out of home, the financial constraints may be significant. Further, elite players from multiple countries have cited financial and wider support services (e.g. medical and nutrition) as being critical to their development and success (Güllich & Emrich, 2006; Rees et al., 2016). In recognition of the effects of broader environmental factors, the contextual nature of these supporting studies means they have limited application to multiple sports and cultures, with inter-country variations within the same sports identified (Wattie et al., 2018).

2.5 Transition

In progressing along the dynamic and non-linear pathway to elite performance players will need navigate several transitions. Transition is a phase in an athlete’s development that usually results in a new set of demands that require adequate coping processes to continue sporting and other parallel pathways (Stambulova, 2009). The individual's perception of the transition, the availability of support and their coping skills are discussed below as critical factors in their ability to adapt to the consistent change of athletic development.

To assist our understanding of the complexity of career transitions two classification taxonomies currently exist. Firstly, a domain based taxonomy has been utilised to distinguish demands between sport (elite youth to senior), non-sport (i.e. secondary to tertiary education), and dual career transitions (i.e. simultaneous transition in sport and education). The transitions challenge players in athletic and non-athletic domains (Morris, 2013). Performance focussed pathways of TD also coincide with adolescence where individual’s experience numerous changes on a psychological, social and physical level (Schnell, 2014). For example,

the struggle of balancing one’s athletic identity with their social identity during demanding periods of TD has been highlighted across cultures in youth athletes (Bjørndal et al., 2017; S.

Brown, 2015). Secondly, a taxonomy based on the predictability of transitions has provided further categories to explore transition features and their outcomes including normative (i.e. athlete retirement, age group pathway progression), quasi-normative (i.e. predictable transitions for specific athlete groups such regionally based RL players relocating to NRL clubs post secondary schooling), and non-normative (i.e. injuries, or unexpected transfers of clubs) (Bennie & O'Connor, 2006; Stambulova et al., 2020). These combined taxonomies provided the structure to broaden transition theories to include ecological holistic perspectives acknowledging concurrent, interactive, and reciprocal nature of influences shaping transition outcomes (Stambulova, 2010; Wylleman & Rosier, 2016).

2.5.1 Demands of transition

Relevant to current thesis aims the junior to senior transition (JST) has been cited as the most difficult within athletic careers (Pummel et al., 2008; Stambulova et al., 2009). The

JST may span several years, be a time of continual uncertainty (i.e. team selection, contract attainment) involving ups and downs (Franck & Stambulova, 2020; Stambulova et al., 2017), and involve a substantially larger investment of time. Required time invested is due to higher training frequency, heightened standards of training (i.e. increased preparation required), longer competition schedules, and overall increased professionalism expectations away from training (i.e. sleep, recovery, self-evaluation of games/training). The JST usually occurs in the late teenage years (Wylleman & Rosier, 2016), with concurrent transitions in education, social life and moving into young adulthood. For example, in RL the increased athletic demands of transitioning into elite youth U20’s settings is accompanied by work or academic transition, increased financial responsibilities, and potential re-location away from parents. This complexity of process can both challenge and excite players with player perception of

transition and their own ‘resources’ suggested to determine the level of difficulty they may face. Furthermore, the cultural expectations of some senior coaches of young players being

‘ready-made’ for senior teams (Røynesdal et al., 2018) and findings suggesting JST can occur instaneously suggests being adequately prepared is critical (Gledhill et al., 2017).

As the level of stress can determine transition outcomes (Schlossberg, 1981), a substantial range of empirical studies across sports have identified athlete ‘stressors’ within transition and across development. Athlete narratives have identified internal stressors such as putting pressure on themselves (Morris et al., 2016), negative thoughts, limited belief in their own ability (Stambulova, 2017) and challenge to athletic identities (i.e. diminished social status in new group) as contributing to a decline in motivation and confidence within transition (Richardson et al., 2013; Swainston et al., 2020). External sources of stress associated with coaches (i.e. new coach-athlete relationship, training demands, approachability), team mates (i.e. emphasis on competition limiting relationships) and the organisation (e.g. perceived inadequate support, staff available to provide information, value of ‘whole’ person) have been highlighted by stakeholders and athletes (Drew et al., 2019; R.

A. Jones et al., 2014; Morris et al., 2015; Røynesdal et al., 2018). Significant others outside the TD environment can also be a source of stress in adding pressure to maintain roles. For example parental influence to live up to athletic expectations, teachers suggesting stronger academic focus, and non-sporting peers pushing to maintain usual social lives of youth all contribute to the strain of managing the roles and demands of TD transition (Gledhill &

Harwood, 2015; Morris et al., 2016). However, these significant others are also the same people that provide the support needed to overcome transition challenges (Harwood &

Knight, 2015).

The importance of adaptation to barriers such as transition is crucial as previous positive experiences in navigating challenge promote enhanced potential outcomes in the

future (Collins & MacNamara, 2012). Therefore, careful consideration of transition types and associated challenges is required to ensure ‘the bumps in the road’ can be prepared for and positively exploited to facilitate development (Collins et al., 2016b; McCarthy et al., 2016).

Adversity related experiences (i.e. repeated non-selection, serious injury) and the growth- performance relationship have been deemed vital with elite athlete populations (Sarkar et al.,

2015). For example, allowing certain players to experience planned challenges on their own to reveal and develop important psychological characteristic such as coping to also assist along the pathway (Gledhill et al., 2017). The value of gradually building individual response to stress has promoted the use of ‘artificial’ challenges to assist resilience (Fletcher & Sarkar,

2016), and coping processes via a ‘learning by guided discovery’ approach (Collins &

MacNamara, 2012). Requiring a supportive environment, the coach periodises disruptions within training (i.e. changing location, punishments, rewards, distractions), and within environments (i.e. pushing players to complete in higher age groups) have been ultilised to create awareness, and refine personal resources (Kegelaers et al., 2020). As players that do

‘make it’ have achieved success and experience in overcoming trauma and transition a number of times across their development developing resources to assist emerging players is critical (Taylor & Collins, 2019; Van Yperen, 2009).

2.5.2 Resources

Opportunities to mitigate the risk of the potential negative outcomes of transition have also been widely identified. Stakeholder perspectives have highlighted individual and environmental preconditions that assist with transition. Individual psychological factors and skills, including acceptance of responsibility, patience, self-confidence, adaptability and resilience, have been associated with positive transitions in sports (Finn & McKenna, 2010;

R. A. Jones et al., 2014; Mills et al., 2012; Swainston et al., 2020). These characteristics are suggested to act as personal protective resources in positively influencing challenge appraisal,

coping strategies applied and adaptive responses (Fletcher & Sarker, 2012). However, the variability of adolescence in conjunction with high-performance expectations at youth levels have led to athletes displaying challenging behaviours, emotional unpredictability, vulnerability, and commitment issues (Devaney, Nesti, Ronkainen, Littlewood, &

Richardson, 2018; Hill, MacNamara, & Collins, 2015; Morris, Tod, & Oliver, 2016). These behaviours are incompatible with ‘initial signs’ of higher performance suggested by youth coaches (Cupples & O’Connor, 2011). Therefore, the promotion of commitment to learning, goal setting, work ethic, and interpersonal competence is suggested (Harwood, 2008; Larsen,

2014).

The coach’s role in the provision of social and emotional support, duty of care and the development of psychosocial skills can aid in coping with transitions (D. J. Brown et al.,

2018; Larsen et al., 2014; Stambulova et al., 2020). The role of a club, academy or school environment and its perceived (and actual) cultural importance for TD also affects transition.

Organisational factors of increased support, sharing knowledge of expected of roles and training demands prior to transition and establishing strong links between junior and senior players decrease the uncertainty associated with future transitions (Henriksen et al., 2010a;

Larsen et al., 2013).

Other broader suggested facilitators of transition include achieving life balance (i.e. sport, education, relationships (Hollings, 2014), to ensure an individual’s identity is not exclusively tied to their sporting success (Bennie & O'Connor, 2006). To achieve this balance, formal and informal collaboration and communication between TD pathway environments such as schools and clubs is required, although this is limited in practice (Bjørndal & Gjesdal,

2020; Burgess & Naughton, 2010). The transitional impact of the organisation and how it operates within the political and cultural landscape of the specific sport also requires further understanding. For example recent findings in soccer (Røynesdal et al., 2018) and RL

(Rothwell et al., 2019) highlight how the masculine and authoritarian culture of team sport may influence beliefs and attitudes of expected behaviours such as aggressiveness, being ruthless, and ‘just getting it done’ which may be detrimental to transition. Collectively these findings suggest the need to look beyond the current immediate environment, to create combined provision of support (i.e. individual, external to environment, and within the organisation) to assist young players during phases of transition.

Whilst the importance of supporting stakeholder roles and the environment is extensive, the value of targeted ‘transition’ intervention programs have also been highlighted

(Larsen et al., 2014; Pummell & Lavallee, 2019). For example, Larsen and colleagues

(Larsen et al., 2014) implemented a program within a youth soccer academy to raise awareness of, and provide strategies (i.e. coping, support seeking) to overcome the challenges and adversities associated with junior to senior transition. Programs targeting the establishment of formal role model relationships may increase the positive outcomes of transition (Pummell & Lavallee, 2019). Seeking to promote appropriate support, develop individual psych-social skills and sign post transition expectations and demands these initiatives advance the field (Morris et al., 2015). However, due to transition being highly specific to the sport and the culture, practitioners need to be cognisant of limitations in attempting to apply programs to their sport. Acknowledging this specificity, utilising within sport social networks to share insights of both positive and negative narratives of transition circulating within opposing clubs has been promoted to improve the day to day transition experiences (i.e. youth RL coaches having established forums to discuss initiatives that have assisted transition in their squads) (Morris et al., 2017). Establishing communities of discourse, and the design, implementation and evaluation of sport specific education programs would assist in deepening our understanding of the multi-level challenges of within-career transitions within sport specific contexts. This expansion of knowledge may subsequently

promote the development and direction of appropriate resources to develop psychological and social skills which are currently limited within practice (Larsen et al., 2014; Morris et al.,

2016).

2.5.3 Psychological skills

There is considerable evidence that having a range of psychological characteristics

(e.g. motivation, self-regulation and coping processes) is vital in navigating the challenges of development, participating in the extensive practice hours required and ultimately reaching one’s potential as both an athlete and a person (Gledhill et al., 2017; Á. MacNamara et al.,

2010a). The role of psychological characteristics has been highlighted for several decades as a highly significant measure of variance in development efficacy (Abbott & Collins, 2004;

Kunst & Florescu, 1971). Unfortunately, this has not been reflected in practice and policy, with traditional snapshot measures of performance and physiology continuing to dominate most sports. The importance of psychological skills has been comprehensively highlighted in elite-level sports, with players acknowledging factors such as work ethic, ability to overcome obstacles, intrinsic motivation and concentration as important to success (Fletcher & Sarkar,

2016; Gould et al., 2002; Gulbin et al., 2010). Similarly, psychological skills (i.e. commitment, confidence , control) have been found to play a vital role in assisting young players’ capacity to learn and fulfil their potential (Harwood, 2008; Larsen et al., 2012).

Within TD, Á. MacNamara et al. (2010a, 2010b) early work with elite athletes and their parents, suggest the psychological determinants of both achieving and maintaining success at the elite level supports their role in TD practice. Aiming to highlight the role of psychological and psychobehavioural characteristics in facilitating the pathway to elite performance, studies have found that key psychological variables such as commitment, self- evaluation and coping skills enable individuals to deal with the highly variable trajectory of development. Further qualitative findings within youth sport also support the premise that

psychological skills can discriminate between players ‘who get there’ and those ‘who stay there’ (Collins & MacNamara, 2012; Kreiner-Phillips & Orlick, 1993, p. 47). This is reflected in coaches’ perception of ‘ideal’ players having strong psychological skill in youth team sports including RL (Cupples & O’Connor, 2011; Hill et al., 2015; Oliver et al., 2010).

Discipline, self-awareness, and resilience, and support seeking behaviours (i.e. willingness to speak up, express feelings, confidence in support) have been identified as desirable for TD given the time, effort and barriers to overcome in attaining expertise (Collins & MacNamara,

2012; Holt & Dunn, 2004).

Utilising qualitative findings Á. MacNamara & Collins, (2011) developed the

Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence (PCDE) framework and subsequent questionnaire instrument. PCDEs include a mix of characteristics, attitudes, behaviours, and skills suggested to optimise development opportunities (Saward et al., 2019). The PCDEs are suggested to be context specific and developed over time as an player progresses and adapts to the changing demands of multiple stages of development (MacNamara et al., 2010b). The

PCDE questionnaire is designed for developmental athletes suggesting psychological skill deployment is highly variable based on the sport-specific context and the learning stage of the player. Promoted as a practical tool to monitor and evaluate psychological skill development and deployment the PCDE questionnaire (PCDEQ) has been integrated within youth populations to evaluate their psychological skill abilities (MacNamara & Collins, 2012). The instrument has differentiated coach perceived ‘good’ and ‘poor’ developers amongst team sport players (MacNamara & Collins, 2013); and more recently identified coping with developmental pressure, evaluating performances, and working on weaknesses as potentially key influencing progression factors within a 20-month longitudinal tracking of U12-U16 elite youth soccer player in the UK (Saward et al., 2020).

Beyond the broad construct of PCDEs other specific psychological constructs have also been suggested as essential to assist navigation of the diverse challenges encountered in development. Coping skills is one that has received considerable research focus (Arnold et al.,

2017; Nicholls et al., 2013; Nicholls & Polman, 2007; Tamminen & Holt, 2010, 2012).

Coping refers to all cognitive and behavioural efforts aimed at managing demands perceived as stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). From a transactional perspective, stress involves the continual appraisal of environmental demands in relation to an individual’s resources to meet them (Lazarus, 1999). The appraisal of demands in relation to harm, threats, challenges or benefits (e.g. injury, non-selection or coach encouragement) is dependent on an individual’s perceived coping resources and the degree to which they can be applied. Stressors have been widely identified across sports (Nicholls, Jones, et al., 2009; Nicholls & Polman, 2007;

C. W. Reeves et al., 2009) in relation to competition (e.g. injury, pressure and not performing), the organisation (e.g. coach interactions, coach personality and team support) and life outside of sport (e.g. work–life balance, relationships and family). Athlete transition research has also highlighted the increased stressors and demands that potentially exceed personal resources at key times of change during TD (Drew et al., 2019; R. A. Jones et al.,

2014; Stambulova, 2009).

Several types of coping classifications based on the perceived level of control an individual has over such stressors have also emerged in the literature (Bandura, 2001). This includes problem-focused coping, which involves problem-solving and effort to change situations over which one has some control, and emotion-focused coping, which involves strategies (e.g. relaxation, breathing and acceptance) to regulate emotional responses in situations over which one has less control. Despite its extensive classification, coping is also highly dynamic, with research indicating that it can vary depending on both situational factors such as environments and people (e.g. training, competition and level of support) and

dispositional factors, including experiences of players (Tamminen & Gaudreau, 2014) and cognitive maturity (Nicholls et al., 2013). This variability in stressors and coping responses in sport reinforces the need to provide developing players with learned coping skills and abilities. There is a strong consensus between coaches and stakeholders across sports, including RL, highlighting the influence a coach and/or environment can have in the development of coping skills (Arnold et al., 2017; Finn & McKenna, 2010; Staff et al., 2017).

However, in contrast to the widely accepted value of coping skill development, limited practical initiatives such as coach education programs (Nicholls, 2014) and environment- specific interventions with youth players (Larsen et al., 2014; C. W. Reeves et al., 2011) exist.

Coping can be learned through trial and error and reflective practice (Tamminen & Holt,

2012); however, based on the consistent changing demands of TD, promoting proactive programs that facilitate coping skills and self-efficacy should be explored.

As challenge is suggested to contribute to effective learning environments, psychological skills and processes involved in the self-regulation of learning (SRL) have received increasing attention in TD (Erikstad et al., 2018; Holt & Mitchell, 2006; Toering et al., 2011). SRL refers to self-directed learning that provides learners the opportunity to transform their mental abilities into performance skills (Zimmerman, 2008). SRL has been found to be positively related to performance (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002) through learners being proactive, adaptive and showing perseverance using favourable cognitive and motivational strategies (Zimmerman, 2008). The definition, sport-specific application and proposed measurement of self-regulation is highly applicable to TD because players move away from parental and coach-led motivation to self-promotion as the development continuum progresses (Á. MacNamara & Collins, 2012). In relation to sport, the processes of planning, self-monitoring, self-reflection, self-evaluation, self-efficacy and effort are suggested to assist individuals to maximise their practice (Baker & Young, 2014) and

collectively assist with the sustained expenditure of effort in the years of practice required for expertise (Toering et al., 2012).

A recent review of studies on SRL in sport by McCardle et al. (2019) found evidence for SRL in training processes (e.g. reflecting on practice, coaching and peers and asking coaches for feedback) (McCardle, 2015); SRL characteristics (e.g. self-organisation and realistic performance evaluations) from coach and player perspectives, including in RL TDEs

(Hill et al., 2015); the value of SRL in distinguishing between individual and team sport players (e.g. elite v. non-elite) using self-reporting instruments (Bartulovic et al., 2017;

Toering et al., 2012; Toering et al., 2009); and SRL processes in relation to other psychological constructs such as emotion and motivation (Gaudreau et al., 2010). SLR has also been studied in sporting contexts in relation to pacing in endurance events (Elferink-

Gemser & Hettinga, 2017), the occurrence and management of overuse injuries (van der Sluis et al., 2019) and SRL skills attained from sport affecting performance in other areas such as academia (Jonker et al., 2015). While the sports literature highlights the general importance of

SRL for learning and training, given that SRL is both general and domain specific, there is an opportunity to better understand the interplay between these processes and the social and contextual characteristics of sport-specific environments (McCardle et al., 2019). The resources and opportunities provided by TDEs to engage in SRL and its contribution to individual TD requires further exploration.

In contrast to the abundance of psychological characteristics that have been identified as positive to development (Abbott et al., 2005; Collins & MacNamara, 2012;

Gould et al., 2002) maladaptive psychological behaviours that could derail TD have also been identified. Inappropriate high levels of desired characteristics such as commitment and passion have been associated with potentially negative outcomes in relation to over commitment, obsession (Vallerand et al., 2003), and perfectionism (Flett & Hewitt, 2002).

Often these characteristics are well meant from the athlete believing ‘more is better’, however if left unmanaged through a lack of player education and limited social support these factors can lead to burnout and injury (Winter et al., 2019). Coaches and academy directors in youth rugby union shared their views of numerous potentially negative psychological characteristics and dispositions that can impact development (Hill et al., 2015). They identified the use of avoidance-based coping, behaviour incongruence in not ‘walking the walk’ in relation to time and application sacrifices, heightened levels of perceived entitlement, and a lack of self- awareness in relation to on-field performance and position on the TP pathway as characteristics of less successful rugby players (Hill et al., 2015).

The role of mental health has also emerged within research at the elite (Rice et al.,

2016) and developmental levels of sport (Henriksen, Schinke, Moesch, et al., 2019) due to the range of stressors associated with sport performance. Specifically, mental health issues have been identified within both the NRL and U20’s levels RL in Australia (Du Preez et al., 2017) and the UK national competition (Nicholls et al., 2020) with a cross sectional exploration revealing players struggling with depression and anxiety. As psychological well-being and basic psychological need satisfaction have also been associated with TD progression and healthy individual outcomes, exploring mental health is important (Gledhill & Harwood,

2015). Youth sport coaches have acknowledged health issues such as anxiety, depression, obsession and eating disorders that may derail development (Hill et al., 2015), and recognise and embrace their roles as mentor, educator, confidant, and motivator to promote mental health (Ferguson et al., 2018). In addition, psychologists have indicated anger, changes in behaviour, disruptive tendencies, and emotional suppression as risk factors for potential mental health concerns (Hill et al., 2016). Several protective factors including general social support (Breslin et al., 2017), self-reflection skills and a trusting mastery orientated climate

(Lundqvist & Raglin, 2015) have been identified to assist coaches and TDEs in creating

positive health outcomes for players. Promoting the mental health of players also involves coaches breaking down the stigma of ‘weakness’ associated with those that seek help with psychological problems, and also reducing barriers associated with demanding schedules (i.e, family, social, school, club and work commitments of TD trajectories (Souter et al., 2018).

Coaches’ role in the development of players psychological constructs such as PCDE’s, mental toughness, commitment and resilience has been associated with strong coach-athlete relationships, competitive practice design, fostering independence and the provision of coping resources (Gucciardi et al., 2009; Li et al., 2019; Mahoney et al., 2014). Specific strategies employed to enhance these constructs including the use of more senior role models (i.e, 1-2 years above current level), pairing players with same age hard working peers (i.e. to promote modelling and observational learning), being honest, and involving parents, peers and the wider club stakeholders have recently been highlighted by a sample of UK academy coaches

(Winter, 2019). The role of TDEs in promoting a long-term focus, alignment of expectations, and strong communication has also been widely reported to assist psychological skill development (Henriksen et al., 2011; Larsen et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2011). In that, shared

TDE values of support, trust, effort, self-organisation and holistic development provide optimal conditions for psychological skill learning. Despite this recognition of environments facilitating psychological skills development, actioning learning of these skills through explicit practice within TDEs has been limited (Larsen, 2014; Mills, 2014). For example, practitioners not being aware of teaching strategies, psychological skills being rarely spoken about, limited education provided around goal setting and planning, and environments explicitly orientated to success on the field have been identified as potential inhibitors to psychological skill development (Gledhill & Harwood, 2019; Larsen et al., 2013; Mills et al.,

2014a)

Several practical education programs and interventions within elite youth settings aiming to better equip players with mental skills to facilitate progression have been examined

(Larsen et al., 2014; Lauer et al., 2020; Pummell & Lavallee, 2019). Empirical interventions have ranged from governing body pilot programs aiming to normalise mental skill strategies such as journaling, breathing, imagery and self-talk (Lauer et al., 2020), to self-awareness and self-acceptance skill development within elite school settings (Kiens & Larsen, 2020). The formal integration of senior players and other stakeholders as role models to provide informational support in assisting younger athletes in their readiness to cope with transition challenges has also been evidenced within interventions (Pummell & Lavallee, 2019). The flexibility required to and potential issues (i.e. multiple stakeholder support required, demanding schedules) involved in facilitating research informed in situ programs within professional sport settings highlights the strong contribution of these intervention studies.

However, limited studies have examined the residual effects of these programs with a lack of longitudinal follow ups examining sustained benefits post transition.

Psychological skill development barriers have also been highlighted in accounts of individual sport psychology providers in professional youth settings (Rowley et al., 2020).

The challenge of practitioners collaborating, negotiating, and managing conflict with multidisciplinary team settings has been identified (Henriksen et al., 2020). For example, a recent ethnographical inquiry into a sport psychologist’s experiences within an RL academy in the UK highlighted ideological diversity, poor coordination and conflict between stakeholders as detrimental to the effective integration of sport psychological programs

(Rowley et al., 2020).

2.6 Psychosocial Factors

Psycho-social development involves the interaction between an individual’s psychological traits and their social environment (Côté, 1999). The interrelation between

individuals and social influences may shape and guide behaviours that impact development outcomes. As training activities alone are not enough to reach elite sport the influence of the environment and the key stakeholders (i.e. coaches, teachers, parents, peers) within it play key roles in fostering progression in athlete development (Burgess & Naughton, 2010; Coutinho et al., 2016; Henriksen & Stambulova, 2017). Social support is recognised as a key factor of player success and wellbeing (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012; Rees et al., 2016) with multiple stakeholders contributing over the time course of development.

2.6.1 Coaches

The role of the coach is highly significant within the development of players (Côté et al., 2007). The coaches influence on the performance and psycho-social outcomes of sporting talent is substantial as they contribute to player’s enjoyment, intrinsic motivation and self- belief in abilities within sport (Erickson & Gilbert, 2013; Gould et al., 2007; Martindale et al.,

2007). A coaches’ role extends well beyond tactical and technical knowledge, to include the creation of appropriate training environments (Lyle, 2002), adapting strategies to stage- specific (i.e. age and ability levels) needs of players (Curran et al., 2015), establishing strong coach-athlete relationships (Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007; Rhind & Jowett, 2012), and managing a wide range of contextual stakeholders (i.e. parents, support staff, teachers, other coaches, club management) (Harwood et al., 2010; Mills et al., 2014b; Pankhurst et al.,

2013b). These roles are influenced by one’s coaching philosophy which is crucial for coaches at all levels as they reflect core values and direct coaching behaviour (Cushion & Partington,

2016). Individual philosophies of coaches may change overtime however the underlying attitudes and principles are suggested as key component of coaching success (Gould et al.,

2007). For example, holistic coaching philosophies of develop the ‘person’ and the player, and focus upon player improvement rather than results, have been previous highlighted within senior RL coaches emphasising inside and outside of sport motives (Bennie & O'Connor,

2010). These philosophies shape the day-to day coaching behaviours and interactions with players which play a central role in psychosocial skill development (Wylleman & Rosier,

2016). Rather than results, it is these interactions and associated behaviours that are suggested to positive influence sport enjoyment and coach evaluation in early adolescents (Cumming et al., 2007).

Coaching effectiveness at all levels is associated with humanistic ideals of developing athlete competence, confidence, connection and character (Côté & Gilbert, 2009), with methods to achieve this varying based on the stage (i.e. age) and level (i.e. competency based; local, state, national) specific requirements of players (Lyle, 2002). Research suggests the role of the coach changes across development as qualities that influence success vary across stages. In early stages of development high teaching ability, instructive approaches, confidence, and ability to encourage are required in coaching approaches (Bloom, 1985;

Hansen & Andersen, 2014; van Rossum, 2001). However, during the pre-elite and elite years discipline, detailed knowledge, a more consultative yet more demanding approach are suggested as key coaching characteristics (Bloom, 1985; Hansen & Andersen, 2014). Elite developmental athlete perspectives of desired coaching qualities also reflect the variation in athlete needs overtime, suggesting pedagogical qualities (i.e. motivation, encouragement, teaching) changed to more technical qualities (i.e, detailed knowledge of the sport, insistence of perfection) (Gulbin et al., 2010). Furthermore, at the elite level interactions with coaches often intensify due to increased engagement in the sport and balancing individual needs whilst managing a team may be a challenge for coaches (Wylleman et al., 2016). Coach responsibilities of creating an inclusive ‘family’ culture, establishing trust between staff and players, and opportunities for frequent interaction have been identified by professional rugby players as crucial to balancing ‘winning’ and individual development at the elite team sport level (Brown et al., 2018). These stage-specific findings suggest philosophies and attributes of

coaches need to match the developmental level and abilities of players to ensure a facilitative

(i.e. enjoyment, adequate challenge, player confidence) rather than debilitative (i.e. conflict, boredom, motivation decline) influence on development.

The ability of the coach to create appropriate training environments strongly influence psycho-social outcome of players. For example, in line with achievement goal theory

(Reinboth & Duda, 2006) coach establishment of mastery task learning climates with emphasis on effort and learning has been shown to positively influences player confidence and engagement (Curran et al., 2015), adaptive motivational responses such as competence and self-esteem (Harwood et al., 2015), and subjective well-being which may buffer performance related stressors. As highlighted in youth soccer practice design; varied tasks, opportunities for decision-making and recognition of effort resulted in several adaptive player behaviours of wanting the ball, active questioning, seeking challenge and persistence in practice (Kingston et al., 2020). Autonomy supportive environments facilitated by coaches taking players perspective into account, promoting choice and decision-making have also been shown to foster positive player outcomes such as player trust (Adie et al., 2012), basic need satisfaction (Smith et al., 2007), and increased motivation and effort (Kegelaers &

Wylleman, 2019); and contribute to expertise level attainment within UK RL (Rothwell et al.,

2017). These climates and approaches in promoting player confidence and intrinsic motivation have been suggested to be reciprocally related to deliberate practice volumes in specialising team sport players, helps maintain a demanding schedule of training and assist players through career transitions (Stambulova, 2009; Vink et al., 2015).

The role of the coach in relation to planning and development of practice activities chosen such as balancing enjoyment (e.g., game play) and challenge (i.e. technical, physical, questioning) impacts motivational orientation (Zuber et al., 2015). For example, activities

such as small-sided games and scenario-based training (i.e. placing players in game situations to promote decision-making) within practice design were associated with playing level attainment in UK RL players (Rothwell et al., 2017). More specifically the coaching behaviours associated with activity types such as concurrent instruction, demonstrations and feedback have been explored. Within adolescent soccer (Ford et al., 2010; O’Connor et al.,

2017a), concurrent instruction was the dominant form of behaviour, however the components of instruction such as techniques used, tactics and/or decision making has been suggested to differentiate player outcomes (O'Connor & Larkin, 2015). For example, soccer coaches in

Australia, utilised questioning and short verbal statements promoting decision-making and self-regulation skills. This highlights the intricacies of coaching session delivery in that value of the TD coach may not be fully explained through systematic observation alone (Ford et al.,

2010; O’Connor et al., 2017b)

The level of technical expertise of the coach may vary along the development pathway, the importance of a strong coach-athlete relationship is paramount throughout the pathway. As the coach-athlete relationship is highly dynamic and influenced by both the coach and the player, the coaches’ ability to appropriately connect and interact with players to provide support is critical (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012). Antecedents of perceived coach support and relationships are multifactorial and include agreeableness, perceived coach competency, and a shared common identity (Coussens et al., 2015). Characterised by trust, closeness and open communication effective coach-athlete relationships are associated with increased self- confidence and less burnout (Freeman & Rees, 2010), support to handle setbacks at all levels of sport (Burns et al., 2019; White & Bennie, 2015), and enhance stress appraisal (Nicholls,

2016). The influence of quality relationships is significant with findings suggesting values associated with deep and meaningful coach-athlete relationships can transcend developmental stages in shaping identities after the player has moved on (Storm, 2014). The coach-athlete

relationship is a crucial learning context (Becker, 2009) that operates within several settings.

The functions of the coach are complex in developing players within situations including one on one interactions off the field (i.e. communication styles, time available), coaching on the training field (i.e. coaching style, questioning, feedback levels) and within wider management roles of the team, club or organisation (i.e. establishing cultural expectations and norms).Despite some interpersonal skill coach development programs being explored (Evans et al., 2015), targeted population findings inform other contexts are limited. As a result, context specific examinations on how the person, context and time interact to develop such important relationships are limited (Gledhill et al., 2017; Larsen et al., 2014).

The role of the coach goes far beyond training players (Henriksen & Stambulova,

2017; Larsen et al., 2013) to include the maintenance of and/or contribution to wider club or school TD cultures. Henriksen’s (2010a; 2010b, 2011) work examining successful environments identifies coaches play an integral role in establishing demanding yet supportive environments, fostering relationships between developmental and higher-level players, and understanding the holistic needs of individuals. For example, coach flexibility in planning and being able to adapt programs ‘on the run’ to facilitate player’ involvement in other domains

(i.e. school, work, representative teams), the ability to socialise new players into a culture and effectively manage multiple stakeholders (i.e, sponsors, parents, recruiters) are all skills required of coaches within effective TDEs. Coaches also operate within the culture and organisational structure of the club or TDE they function in (Pankhurst et al., 2013b).

Variation in coaching practices, organisational set up, specific philosophies and values between playing levels can influence coaching practice suggesting flexibility in preferred approach may be needed (Wagstaff & Burton-Wylie, 2018).

Coaching is complex, characterised by the fluid and dynamic processes of initiating and re-initiating relationships with several staff and players. Coaching within the TDE

organisations normally involves multiple coaches of different hierarchal positions where coaches may not always share the same views which can lead to tension. For example, coaches within a UK RL academy trying to manage the first team’s agenda in relation to holistic player outcomes, suggested progression timelines, recruitment negotiations, and vulnerability of their own roles can be create conflict as coach philosophies and ‘ideal’ individual player plans collide (Rowley et al., 2020). Recent work within U21’s soccer, also highlights the coaching challenge of balancing wining and optimising individual development, with winning increasing in priority the closer stages get to the elite level

(Dowling et al., 2018). Of concern is when these espoused coach, club and/or governing body values of “winning” enter younger age groups and become detrimental to individual player progression. Simulation of professional environments in youth settings is recommended to prepare players for the senior level transition (Finn & McKenna, 2010). However, implementation can be difficult with findings in youth soccer suggesting mimicking of higher level teams has been associated with coaches overcompensating in the frequency of recognising errors and verbally comparing of players in social settings (Kingston et al., 2020).

This leads to a disempowering environment as perceived competence is diminished, leading to reduced effort and less adaptive motivational strategies. This complexity suggests coaches need to be highly cognisant of their own philosophies, the influence of their context and the overall health outcomes of players in effectively contributing to TD pathways.

2.6.2 Other Influences

Wylleman & Lavallee’s (2004), lifespan model of development demonstrates how different persons act as significant others in different stages of development, as athletes are embedded in various contexts the level and significance of relationships change. One of these relationship providers is parents who provide multiple types of support across development as they transition from a support leadership role in initial stages to committed supporters once

main sport is chosen (Bloom, 1985). Parents are recognised as playing a vital socialisation role initiating engagement in sport participation in providing tangible (i.e. travel, finance), informational (i.e. game knowledge) and emotional (i.e. emphasising enjoyment, respect) support (Holt & Dunn, 2004). As a players’ sporting participation increases at later stages parental roles move beyond just attending games and fulfilling voluntary roles (Bean et al

2016), they become more involved in before and after competition debriefing performances, and support coping with increasing demands (Elliot & Drummond, 2017). Parents also act as role models for developing athletes with how they react to sport and life situations, their work ethic, how they interact with others and their own temperament under stress all influencing their child’s interactions with the sporting environment (Harwood, 2015).

The challenges of parenting are seen in balancing high levels of support whilst facilitating levels of independence, so that individuals can be autonomous and make their own decisions as they specialise in their chosen sport. This can be difficult as parents often experience the same stressors and time demands of the child’s participation (Harwood, Drew

& Knight, 2010). A parents’ identity is also impacted by their child’s sporting participation.

Their own personal and social lives are shaped by wider travel routines, reduced personal leisure time (i.e. missed holidays for training camps), and extended time commitments associated with performance pathway participation (Harwood et al., 2010). The increased time demands for players also promotes potential heightened involvement for parents as they seek relationships with coaches, speak to other parents, and seek more information (Holt &

Knight, 2014). Once players begin in performance pathways (i.e. RL representative teams) it has been identified parents also feel the pressure to step up and be more proactively involved and embrace the sport culture (Clarke & Harwood, 2014). However, as part of this parental pressure such as excessive expectations can have detrimental impact of developmental outcomes (Ross et. al., 2015). Beyond the individual, increased parental pressure can also

indirectly impacts coaching with parental role recognised as positive and crucial by youth coaches (Mills et al., 2012). However, recent findings in a sample of youth RL coaches in the

UK identified changing session design to be more ‘professional’ to appease parents negatively impacted individual players (Rothwell & Stone, 2019). The influence parents have on their child’s sporting experience is dependent on many factors. Characteristics of the parents themselves, their interaction with the youth sport environment and associated stakeholders, and the goals and behaviours of the child need to align to promote positive sport and health outcomes (Knight et al., 2017).

Peers play a significant role in the provision of social support for developing players.

From early stage initiation in the sport, peer led play can influence player enjoyment, and foster intrinsic motivation to maintain initial engagement in the sport (Côté, 2002; Ullrich-

French et al., 2009). As sport participation progresses supporting roles of parents may be taken over by peers as athletes spend extended periods of time together within and getting to and from training and competition (Keegan et al 2010). This increased level and strength of peer support has been associated with higher levels of task orientated motivation, buffering of performance self-confidence issues, and led to appraisals of competition being perceived as less a of threat and more a challenge (Freeman & Rees, 2010). The types of support provided by friends has also been differentiated based upon whether they are inside or out of sport.

Having ‘in sport’ friends can assist in promoting adaptive lifestyle behaviours such as discipline to maintain routines, seeking feedback and preparing effectively for training and games (Gledhill & Harwood, 2014). Having ‘in sport’ friends also positively balances the reduced social life associated with the time demands of elite levels of sport (Pummel et al.,

2008). In contrast maintaining strong peer relation outside of sport can assist in maintaining a sense of normality outside of sport and providing ‘time out’ when a rest from the demands of sport are required (Gledhill & Harwood, 2014). However, peers can also have a negative

impact of TD as potentially losing friendships and the reduction in social lives due to increased training, may lead to decreased commitment and potential drop out

(Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993)

Peers acting as role models and instigating leadership within teams positively impacts development. Adolescent athletes identified as peer leaders by teammates were identified as higher in perceived competence, intrinsic motivation, and having a significant impact on social cohesion in their teams (Price & Weiss, 2013). Furthermore, the benefits of proximal training sessions near senior peers within TDEs and the role of senior players in setting the standards, modelling behaviours, and reinforcing values (i.e. hard work, commitment) have been recognised as important (Henriksen & Stambulova, 2017). Senior peers can also assist preparedness for transition through offering of advice (Pummel et al., 2008). Team cohesion and the wider peer social network is important in overcoming barriers of development in relation to communal coping practices where stressful events are overcome by pooling team mate resources together to assist the individual (Neely et al., 2017). Although, both peers and parents have direct influence within athlete development, it is suggested it is not ‘who’ the key providers are but rather ‘what’ they do in their support provision that has the highest influence on a players development (Storm, 2014). Therefore, further research surrounding the type (i.e. emotional, technical, tangible), and effectiveness of social support across the stages of development are required.

2.7 Talent Development Environments

Adopting a holistic perspective, the acquisition of desired skills and the influence of key ‘providers’ of support in relation to the talent development environment (TDE) and the wider ecological context in which an individual exists have now been promoted (Davids et al.,

2017; Henriksen et al., 2010a). A holistic approach promotes focus to extend attention

beyond physical, tactical and technical development of players to examining psycho-social factors and their influence on talent development (Coutinho et al., 2016). The TDE is the dynamic system that includes players’ immediate surroundings, the people (i.e, coaches, teachers, peers, parents) and the interrelations within it (Henriksen et al., 2010a; Thomas et al., 2020). TDE success is defined as consistently producing players that progress to the next and/or senior levels and being able to provide them with a range of experiences, skills, and resources to assist future transitions (Alfermann & Stambulova, 2007). Research has shown a growing appreciation of TDE influence upon development as TD goes beyond the individual to be the collective responsibility of the environment (Gledhill & Harwood, 2017;

Stambulova et al., 2020).

Defined as ‘all aspects of the coaching situation’ early descriptions of TDEs were grounded in Martindale et al. (2005) four suggested key characteristics. These included long term aims, coherent support messages (i.e, TD philosophies) prioritise development over success [(i.e, concentration, attitudes) of life skills (i.e. planning, self-evaluate) and physical skills (i.e. tactical)], and individualised and ongoing development (i.e. goal setting and review). Moving beyond retrospective individual accounts to explore records, observations and interviews, Henriksen’s (2010a; 2010b, 2011) exploration of multiple Scandinavian individual sport case studies expanded the TDE definition, suggesting TDEs as a dynamic system of player immediate surroundings, the inter-relations between surroundings and the larger context in which the TDE operates. Seeking to investigate the complexity of these

TDE components and relationships between them Henriksen (2010a; 2010b, 2011) identified several shared key features of successful TDEs. These effectiveness characteristics have since been examined across sports and cultures highlighting shared and unique characteristics

(Larsen et al., 2012; Mills et al., 2014a, 2014b). Integrating the perspectives of several stakeholders (i.e, player, coach, managers) shared features of a strong organisational culture,

focus upon the ‘whole’ player, a long term developmental approach, and high levels of support have been identified within youth football academies (Henriksen et al., 2010a;

Henriksen et al., 2010b, 2011; Larsen et al., 2012; Larsen et al., 2013; Mills et al., 2014a).

Other suggested TDE effectiveness characteristics of individual psycho-social skill development; access to proximal role models (i.e.first team players), and explicit connections to senior progression pathways have been identified as potential limitations and improvement areas in specific contexts (Larsen et al., 2012; Larsen et al., 2013; Mills et al., 2014a).

RL specific studies have also identified club environments of sub-elite players promoting a balanced lifestyle, skills to assist coping with challenge, and the promotion of ownership over development as valuable in promoting transition to senior levels. (Jones et al.,

2014). In contrast former UK based RL academy participants noted a lack of coach resources to manage expectation and lower quality coach-athlete relationships within TDEs as potential factors in their ‘drop out’ of the sport (Rothwell et al., 2018). Other insights into RL academy environments have highlighted potential TDE challenges. Although players are consistently collaborating with each other (i.e. team goal setting, game performances), the nature of the setting (i.e. limited opportunities to progress to the next level) means players also strongly compete with one another (i.e. selection, playing minutes, contracts) which may cause tension and anxiety for individuals (Rowley et al., 2020). This enhanced competition for positions may be further exacerbated as TDEs balance a ‘winning mentality’ with holistic development ideals identified as both a facilitator and barrier of effect development (Mills et al., 2012).

Similarly, a lack of supportive training groups and an incoherent organisational culture (i.e,

‘development’ vs ‘winning’ ideals; incongruent senior team vs youth philosophies; players

‘let go’ too early have been highlighted in unsuccessful TDE cultures (Gledhill & Harwood,

2019; Henriksen et al., 2014).

Although approaches to understanding TDEs have been primarily qualitative, quantitative instruments have also been developed to further evaluate key generic processes of

TDEs (i.e. coach-athlete interaction, support provided, quality of practice, opportunities provided). Based upon previous work (Martindale et al., 2005; Martindale et al., 2007) and utilising perspectives from elite level youth coaches and players in the UK, the Talent

Development Environment Questionnaire (TDEQ) explore key areas including long term aims, emphasis upon ongoing individual development, and strong support networks

(Martindale et al., 2012). In general, positive athlete perspectives of TDE features have generally highlighted through the TDEQ (Gledhill & Harwood, 2017; Hall et al., 2019).

Player perceptions of positive and supporting TDEs have been associated with increased athlete well-being, less stress, increased needs satisfaction and potentially low levels of burnout (Ivarsson et al., 2015; Li et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2020). The TDEQ has also been utilised to monitor the development of TDEs overtime. For example, Hall et al. (2019) utilised the instrument on multiple occasions with a professional rugby team to inform an organisational intervention. and evaluate cultural change. Based upon TDEQ player perspectives, increased player welfare (i.e. new staff member), psychological skill provision

(i.e. goal setting), role model availability, and player empowerment strategies (i.e. error evaluation) were integrated into the environment resulting in positive TDEQ rating outcomes.

Beyond, Hall et al. (2019), TDEQ use to inform practice is limited within research.

Evaluating context specific TDEs has also highlighted the benefits of cooperation between environments such as school, club and home (Mills et al., 2014b). The promotion of shared basic assumptions of talent development such as a long-term approach and strong purpose of collaboration has been suggested to eliminate potential conflicts between stakeholders (Henriksen et al., 2010a; Mathorne et al., 2020). However, there is conjecture and tension in practice as time pressures, conflicting demands, balancing load and lack of

formal coordination continue to be barriers (Bjørndal & Gjesdal, 2020; Bjørndal & Ronglan,

2018). In contrast, despite expecting similar tensions, Rongen et al. (2020) recent longitudinal findings within football academies in the UK, identified positive findings in relation to psycho-social outcome of youth soccer players.

Overall, the TDEs have significant influence on the developing individual.

Nonetheless, despite this emergence of TDE literature, sport, and culturally specific explorations remain limited with football in the UK and Europe dominating team sport findings. Guided examinations of TDEs in relation to structures, influences and processes suggested to assist the desired player learning outcomes in specific contexts are required

(Gledhill & Harwood, 2017; Larsen et al., 2013). The unique context specific favourable alignment of these individual-context characteristics and conditions in relation to learning activities are facilitative of talent development (Simonton, 1999).

2.8 Summary

This chapter has provided a detailed review of the current state of knowledge in relation to TD across all sports. TD is a highly complex and dynamic process involving a range of influencing environmental and personal characteristics interacting to determine progress. With a specific focus on RL, the variability of player pathways, the key supporting roles of significant others (i.e, coaches, parents, peers), the ecological impact of TDEs, and the unique player skillset (i.e. coping, motivation, self-regulation) required to navigate the repetitive challenges of development were highly influential in the development of expertise.

Chapter 3: Theoretical Frameworks

This chapter describes the theoretical frameworks underpinning this research, which examines TD in RL. Given that talent is now widely acknowledged as a multidimensional and dynamic construct (Baker et al., 2019), the theoretical frameworks and models shaping the research in the field should reflect this. Thus, this chapter examines the literature on the relevance and suitability of the bioecological model of development, the DMSP and models of athlete career transition to further understand TD in elite youth RL.

3.1 Overview of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Development

According to Araújo and Davids (2011), ‘talent is not a possession acquired by an individual, nor a fixed property of a performer, but rather a dynamically varying relationship captured by the constraints imposed by the environment and the resources of a performer’

(p. 24). This definition of talent explains the recent promotion of ecological psychology theories in sport. Focusing on individual adaptability in the evolutionary functional context, the ecological approach views the individual and the environment as contributing equally to the development of behaviours and performance (Araújo, 2007). This recognition of the reciprocal influence of the environment on TID has led to the promotion of a range of ecological frameworks, including Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) bioecological model of development.

Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) bioecological model of development is an evolving ecological framework designed to analyse the significant influence of the environment on development. Criticising the narrowness of research in human development at the time,

Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed a theoretical framework for an ecology of human development based on Lewin’s (1936) well-known equation of behaviour being a function of the person and their environment as well as his definition of systems theory, which are evident in Bronfenbrenner’s early theories.

Systems theories emphasise interactions, change and stability, acknowledging that the dynamic properties of a whole are different from the sum of its parts (Lewin, 1936). Systems theories are required to investigate systems that are so complex that isolating specific elements may influence the outcome of the whole. For Bronfenbrenner (1979), human development illustrated this complexity. His early ecological systems theory focused on the development of various nested system levels in defining the environment. These system levels are defined as follows:

• Microsystem: The microsystem is the immediate environment in which an individual

is operating, encompassing the processes (e.g. training activities) and interactions (e.g.

coach/athlete, parent/athlete, teacher/athlete) directly influencing development.

• Mesosystem: Mesosystems are formed through the interactions and relationships

between two or more microsystems. For example, athlete–family interactions can

influence athlete interactions in other contexts, such as schools, clubs and peer groups.

• Exosystem: The relationships and processes between factors (e.g. governing body

policies, sporting culture and size of the local community) that indirectly influence

development.

• Macrosystem: The macrosystem is the most distal layer, encompassing the broader

sociocultural patterns and belief systems (e.g. national sporting policies and changing

societal views on sport) affecting the individual.

These individual nested systems vary in their power to influence individuals, depending on the strength, consistency and coordination of interactions between stakeholders, groups and organisations (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). For example, increased collaboration and cohesion of athlete messaging between coaches across multiple settings, such as clubs, schools and representatives, would enhance meaning for individuals. This focus on interactions has evolved to include an emphasis on the person (Bronfenbrenner, 1989) and the

development of the process, which can explain the relationships between the context, person and outcome of interest over time. The bioecological model subsequently matured into the

PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). The dynamic interrelations between the four dimensions of the PPCT model form the basis of the theory today. These four concepts will be outlined in subsequent sections and are summarised in the context of RL in Figure 3.1. However, the PPCT model is ideally understood through two supporting and interdependent propositions: process and person. The first proposition is that human development is the result of a series of progressively more complex, consistent, reciprocal and long-lasting interactions between an actively evolving individual and the objects, symbols and people in his or her immediate environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,

2006). These continual interactions (e.g. skills development through training and coach– athlete communication), are termed proximal processes and are considered the primary engines of development because of their enduring interaction patterns and the individual’s ability to engage with them. The second proposition states that the power of the process is a function of the characteristics of both the person and the environment. Therefore, the effects of proximal processes on development outcomes are determined by individual traits (e.g. maturation or self-regulation abilities) and the environment (e.g. training setting or wider sporting culture) in which they occur (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

Compared with other ecological development theories that have been adapted to sport, including Barker’s (1968) concept of behaviour settings and Gibson’s (1979) concept of affordances, the bioecological model offers the broadest scope in relation to environmental conditions, personal characteristics, interactions and time in applying a theoretical framework to the development context (Nitsch, 2009; Owen, 2009). Bronfenbrenner’s theory is based on the conditions of development in providing a systematic description of a variety of factors influencing development (Nitsch, 2009). Coaches and sports administrators seek to further

understand these conditions to enhance TID effectiveness. Further support for the suitability of the bioecological model in current TD research includes its interdisciplinary and integrative focus on youth development (Araújo et al., 2010) and consideration of individual differences

(e.g. maturation and experience) in examining change over time (Araújo & Davids, 2009).

The bioecological framework has been effectively utilised to further understand TD in the examination of sport-specific TDEs (Henriksen et al., 2010a, 2010b, 2011), TID across countries (M. J. Reeves & Roberts, 2019), the development of psychological skills (Mahoney et al., 2014) and cross-cultural comparisons of athletic life spans and transitions (Stambulova et al., 2007). More specifically, Krebs’s (2009a) bioecological model of sports TD proposes that TD may be interpreted as a series of stage-based proximal processes reciprocally linked to the concepts of time, context and person. Explicitly linking each of the PPCT concepts to sport-specific examples—sport practice (i.e. process), physical fitness (i.e. person), athlete’s club (i.e. context) and the sequence of daily sporting activities (i.e. time), Krebs’s (2009a) model highlights the suitability of the bioecological framework and prompts further examinations of TD in sport. The following sections provide more detail about each of the four PPCT components.

3.1.1 Process

The process component of Bronfenbrenner’s model (2005) encompasses proximal processes, which are the central tenet of the PPCT model. For development to occur, proximal processes must embody several characteristics: activities must be undertaken regularly over an extended period, take place long enough to become increasingly complex, be initiated by both the individual and the environment and involve interpersonal interactions as well as interactions with objects and symbols (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). In the context of the current thesis, the developmental experiences of elite youth and adult RL players involve a range of proximal processes, such as the increasing complexity of practice, play and

competition over time (Bengoechea & Johnson, 2001) and the interpersonal interactions that occur during these activities. The quality of interactions between athletes and significant others, such as coaches, training staff, parents or peers, during practice contributes to the power of process in development (Côté, 1999, 2002; Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007;

Stambulova, 2009).

3.1.2 Person

For Bronfenbrenner (2005), the characteristics of person function as indirect producers and products of development (Araújo & Davids, 2009). Three types of personal characteristics are identified as being most influential in shaping development and contributing to the power of proximal processes. The first is the dispositions (or forces) that set proximal processes in motion, such as temperament, motivation and persistence (Tudge et al., 2009). Dispositions are developmentally generative if they sustain proximal processes or developmentally disruptive if they retard or limit proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner &

Morris, 2006). In relation to sport, a coaching culture that supports autonomy and values effort over results may be generative in promoting prolonged engagement in sport-specific practice (Cheval et al., 2017). In contrast, dispositions can be negative—for example, if an athlete’s intrinsic motivation declines because of non-selection and lack of enjoyment, the continuity of their practice to promote proficiency will be challenged (Vink et al., 2015).

The second person characteristic—resources—pertains to the personal attributes that involve no selective disposition to action per se but represent the barriers limiting functional integrity (e.g. young age, injury or illness) or facilitators influencing the capacity of the individual to engage in proximal processes (e.g. parental and peer support, experience overcoming challenges and appropriate training) (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Resource characteristics may be psychological, such as coping effectiveness (Nicholls et al., 2015) and self-regulation skills (Bartulovic et al., 2017) assisting in pathway transitions. Resources also

relate to the availability of social resources, such as strong support networks within TDEs to assist individual developmental outcomes (Larsen et al., 2012).

The final set of person characteristics is demand characteristics, which foster or discourage behaviours from others that either promote or disrupt the operation of proximal processes. Demand characteristics, including age, gender, skin colour and physical appearance, act as immediate stimuli to others. They may influence initial interactions because of the creation of immediate expectations (Tudge et al., 2009); for example, a physically large junior RL player may attract the initial attention of a talent scout over a smaller player. This initial judgement subsequently informs the opportunities (or lack thereof) of individuals compared with their peers (Till et al., 2010). Building on this example,

Bronfenbrenner (2005) acknowledged the relevance of the biological and genetic aspects of the person.

3.1.3 Context

In developmental psychology, context refers to the social and physical environments that directly and indirectly influence proximal processes (Wachs & Evans, 2010).

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 2005) analysis of the environment led to these spheres being modelled as a four-level ecological structure. The descriptions of the four levels include not only their objective properties but also how each property is experienced by the individual.

The first and most proximal of these levels is the microsystem, such as the sports practice setting of a school, club or an athlete’s family home (Krebs, 2009a). Three components of the microsystem are thought to exert the greatest influence on development (Hoare, 2009): activities, such as sport-specific practice skills (Côté & Vierimaa, 2014; Ericsson, 2020), interpersonal relationships with coaches and peers (Fraser-Thomas & Côté, 2009; Jowett &

Poczwardowski, 2007; Stambulova et al., 2020) and the social roles expected of an athlete in a TDE setting, such as the long-term commitment to participation and engagement in both

formal (e.g. training) and informal (e.g. role modelling for junior athletes) settings (Henriksen

& Stambulova, 2017; Martindale et al., 2007).

The second level of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological structure is the mesosystem.

The mesosystem comprises the interrelations between two or more settings in which the individual actively participates, such as family, school and club settings. The mesosystem reflects the reciprocal influences between the various structures and the individual. For example, a common practice in elite youth RL is to play for both a club and a school; therefore, the relations between the individual and both contexts need to be monitored. In addressing this person–context relationship, the capacity of the interdependent mesosystems to function effectively as a context for development depends on ‘the existence and nature of the social interconnections between settings, including joint participation, communication, and the existence of information in each setting about the other’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 6).

These characteristics of effectiveness can be related to current TID practice in RL, with limited formal policies and practices between key development stakeholders. The influence of these contexts and their social agents is crucial to long-term development outcomes (Keegan et al., 2010).

The final two systems of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) four-level context—exosystem and macrosystem—do not involve the individual as an active participant but indirectly influence development. At the exosystem level, governing body policies and funding decisions can lead to financial constraints and potential hardships, influencing individual developmental outcomes (Morley et al., 2018). The macrosystem, which encompasses any group culture, subculture, social structure and belief system, includes all possible connections between the other systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In their exploration of TDEs, Henriksen et al. (2010a,

2010b, 2011) identified macrosystem factors such as the history of the sport, national culture and youth culture as factors influencing TID. With respect to RL specifically, the

sociocultural ideologies of masculinity (in relation to the physicality of the sport) and replication (the one-size-fits-all approach to training and coaching) were reported to influence individual outcomes in the British version of the game (Rothwell et al., 2019).

3.1.4 Time

The final component of the PPCT context—time—is significant because all other aspects of the bioecological model may be defined in terms of relative constancy and change

(Tudge et al., 2009). Time is highly relevant to TID because processes and interactions must occur on a regular basis for results to be effective (Bengoechea & Johnson, 2001). Time and change relate directly to individuals in terms of age, maturity, growth and development (Till et al., 2010), the types and continuity of activities in which they engage such as practice and play (Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2008) and the evolving nature of the various microsystems in which they are engaged (Keegan et al., 2010). Time also applies to the time taken to navigate the path from recreational participation to senior performance levels, which can vary significantly between sports (Baker & Young, 2014). The duration and importance of sport- specific career transitions can also be understood from a time perspective (Stambulova, 2009).

Time can apply to the historical period in relation to the maturity of the sport (Horton, 2012).

For example, the historically structured and rigid RL coaching approach to training and playing has gradually changed over the years to having a greater focus on creativity and decision-making in games (Rothwell, Davids, & Stone, 2018). Finally, the rise of professionalism in sport and the subsequent financial and human resources allocated to TDEs such as soccer academies further illustrate how time influences proximal processes

(M. J. Reeves & Roberts, 2018).

Figure 3.1 summarises the PPCT model in the context of RL.

Figure 3.1

Bronfenbrenner’s Process–Person–Context–Time Model in the Context of Rugby League

Process–Person–Context–Time Model in Rugby League

Process

Interactions between RL Interactions between Player managing the Player's experiences training/competition play and other sports interactions between and support when and coaches participation with peers people and processes in navigating RL pathway RL microsystems transitions

Person Player's experience of Player's motivation and Variations in players' selection based on age, persistence in RL coaches' subjective experiences, shaping maturation and facilitating effective RL views of talent and the capacity to maintain physiological training and seeking what is required RL path engagement characteristics coach feedback

Context Interactions between Nature of interactions Changing NRL youth players, coaches Conflicting demands in microsystems such as recruitment policies, (school-based TDEs, and ideals of intra-RL school TDEs and competition structures clubs, representative pathway environments representative teams and regulations teams) and family

Time Years of practice and Individual events such Historical timepoint learning as missing team Repeated RL-specific changes in response to (biopsychosocial) to selection or first and physical (e.g. gym- 'ideal' processes and improve RL training session at the based) training sessions desired attributes of RL performance and next performance level players progress

Note. RL: Rugby League; TDE: talent development environment; NRL: National Rugby League. Adapted from ‘Exploring Obstacles Faced by Gifted Minority Students Through Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory’, by B. F. Crawford, K. E. Snyder, K. E., and J. L. Adelson, 2020, High Ability Studies, 31(1), p. 48 (https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1568231). Copyright 2020 by Taylor & Francis.

Despite the suggested applicability of bioecological theory to the context of sport and

TID, limitations have been raised in the current literature (M. J. Reeves & Roberts, 2019;

Tudge, 2016; Tudge et al., 2009). Several limitations surround the broad and evolving nature of Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) theory. In their review of the model in the field of family relationships, Tudge et al. (2009) highlight several limitations, which may be applicable to

TID. These include the lack of a clear methodological guide for effectively translating

Bronfenbrenner’s theory into research and that the model is too broad and complex to incorporate into a single study. This difficulty in integrating all aspects and levels of the model in a research design continues to be acknowledged (M. J. Reeves & Roberts, 2019).

Despite this, applying the theory to TD research in the context of exploration and the provision of a unique situational perspective will further the current TID literature (Collins et al., 2019). These assertions are acknowledged in the application of the most recent modification of the PPCT model and its associated literature to a generative series of studies exploring TID.

Questions have also been raised about the specific application of Bronfenbrenner’s

PPCT concept (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) to sport. In their review of ecological approaches to sport, Araújo and Davids (2009) challenged the operational validity of the bioecological model, querying how to distinguish between the person, system and time influences on proximal processes. Given its complexity, the theory has been suggested more as a framework for organising knowledge than a theory of sports expertise (Araújo et al.,

2010). In addressing both of these operational queries, Krebs (2009b) clarified the model’s application in the sporting context by providing several constructed research design examples, from examining the whole sport team as a unit simultaneously focusing on multiple phenomena through to the effect of individual behavioural dispositions on psychological variables such as anxiety and performance.

Further, it is important to acknowledge the position of the bioecological model in the significant theoretical variability of TID research. As highlighted by Baker and Schorer

(2010), the diversity of theoretical foundations reflects the inherent complexity of the research topic. Therefore, the present research recognises that this theory, like any other, is simply a representation of TID reality (Tudge et al., 2009). However, as outlined above, its suitability serves a valuable purpose in guiding, supporting and critically evaluating data obtained in the

TID field.

Overall, Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory provides a model that simultaneously focuses on multiple levels of TID (players, coaches, families, sport practice settings and community life) as well as emphasising the interactions between behavioural units (during the game and at home). Thus, the bioecological model assists stakeholders to understand behaviour in context and shows how units of varying sizes and levels of complexity mutually influence each other (Krebs, 2009b).

3.2 Overview of Supporting Models

3.2.1 Developmental model of sport participation

Several TD models have emerged in recent years, dividing athletic careers into stages to describe changes in individuals and their environments (Coutinho, Mesquita, & Fonseca,

2016). However, despite their meaningful contributions, these models have been questioned in relation to the provision of testable tenets, a lack of quantifiable components, limited clarity on transitions and being too prescriptive in describing the highly dynamic nature of development (Coutinho, Mesquita, & Fonseca, 2016). Developed and refined over time, the

DMSP (Côté et al., 2007) attempts to remedy some of these limitations in presenting a series of concepts that can be quantifiably tested (Côté & Hancock, 2016). Citation network analysis studies (Bruner et al., 2009; Bruner et al., 2010) have found DMSP to be the most prominent conceptualisation of athlete development within the sports literature. Complementing holistic

development ideals, the DMSP (Côté et al., 2007) promotes multiple objectives of youth sport participation, including performance, participation and personal development (Côté &

Hancock, 2016).

Built on Bloom’s generalised initiation, development and perfection lifespan developmental model (Bloom & Sosniak, 1985), the original sport-specific DMSP (Côté,

1999) was developed to explore the contribution of sporting activity to development.

Emerging from retrospective interviews with athletes, parents and coaches, the model was initially centred on chronological age-based activity types, with the main elements of diversity and play being proposed to complement established deliberate practice frameworks (Ericsson et al., 1993). Diversity refers to the sampling of several different sports during childhood.

This has been shown in multiple settings and sports to increase athlete engagement and promote long-term participation and performance (Côté et al., 2012; Roca et al., 2012).

Experiencing several sports increases the opportunity to participate across a range of social environments and be exposed to a breadth of skills. The concept of deliberate play is described as inherently enjoyable activities differing from organised sport and adult-led training. Play is suggested to amplify the diversification of experience by maximising fun and maintaining motivation (Hornig et al., 2016). Assumption testing and accrued knowledge of the contributions of both play and diversity have led to the refinement of the DMSP, including the addition of extra developmental pathways and stages.

The adapted DMSP (Côté et al., 2007), illustrated in Figure 3.2, proposes three key developmental pathways, including their performance and participation outcomes.

Acknowledging the variability in developmental pathways, these include two relating to elite performance (early specialisation or sampling) and one relating to recreational participation.

The specialisation pathway consists of an early-age focus on one sport, with high levels of structured deliberate practice and competition, undertaken with the sole aim of improving

performance. In contrast, the early diversification pathway involves sampling a range of sports, increased levels of deliberate play and a delay in starting intensive practice in one sport. Both of these performance pathways will be discussed and integrated into the current

RL-based study.

The DMSP model was further refined through the creation and subsequent validation of seven postulates related to model outcomes (Côté & Vierimaa, 2014). The seven postulates can be divided into three categories associated with early diversification (Postulates 1–3), deliberate play (Postulates 4 and 5) and age-based stipulations in relation to specialisation and investment (Postulates 6 and 7). Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment,

Development and Evaluation approach, Rehfuess and Akl (2013) assessed the quality of study design, consistency (e.g. similarity of results) and directness (e.g. alignment of results to outcomes) of each of these areas. Each postulate was categorised into one of four levels (high, moderate, low or very low) based on the authors’ confidence about whether the postulates would change with further research. For example, a rating of ‘high’ meant that further research would be unlikely to change confidence, suggesting strong support in the literature.

Diversification postulates relating to sampling being beneficial to both long-term sport involvement and positive youth development while not hindering elite performance were rated as ‘moderate’ to ‘high’. Deliberate play propositions related to the benefits of enhanced intrinsic motivation with motor and cognitive skills development were rated as ‘moderate’.

Finally, of the age-based postulates, adolescents having the choice to specialise or continue at a recreational level was rated as ‘high’, while the proposal that by the age of 16 years individuals have developed all the biopsychosocial skills required for investment in specialised training was rated as ‘low’ (Côté & Vierimaa, 2014). Overall, this suggests that the DMSP has a sound level of empirical evidence supporting the model; however, further research is needed to further strengthen and verify the postulates of the model.

Aligning with Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) bioecological theory, the DMSP is an example of a nested system describing the process of development through sport and the attainment of a number of outcomes (Côté & Erickson, 2016). Focusing on individual–environment interactions and the changing contributions of play and practice throughout development, the

DMSP asserts that outcomes are determined by the proximal processes associated with each activity. For example, the level of positive outcomes from participation in sport results from the personal engagement, social relationships and settings that comprise each practice or play activity (Côté & Erickson, 2016).

It is important to recognise that despite 15 years of refinement and attempts to address the limitations of other stage-based athlete development models noted above, the DMSP model has also been appraised and questioned. For example, the use of chronological age- based stages determining the increase or decline in activity types has been queried, with benefits identified in persisting with other organised sports until later adolescence (Güllich,

2017). Empirical studies have also identified several important activity types, such as play practice (i.e. games led by adults for enjoyment and competition), that do not align with the original deliberate practice and play definitions (Vierimaa et al., 2016). Other possible limitations include the lack of data supporting the superiority of early specialisation for long- term attainment of senior success in any sport (Côté et al., 2009; Güllich & Emrich, 2014;

Post et al., 2017), the inability to account for individual variations and contributions of activity patterns across stages (Gulbin, Weissensteiner, et al., 2013) and several sport-specific trajectory explorations showing only partial agreement with suggested DMSP model pathways (Coutinho, Mesquita, Davids, et al., 2016; Güllich, 2014a). With consideration of these findings and the potential gaps in the evidence, this thesis utilises the DMSP as a complementary model to further verify the postulates and increase the understanding of TD in

RL.

Figure 3.2

Developmental Model of Sport Participation with Australian Rugby League Pathway

Milestones

Pathway Outcomes Pathway Outcomes Pathway Outcomes • Recreational • Elite performance • Elite performance RL Pathway participation • Enhanced • Compromised Alignment • Improved biopsychosocial biopsychosocial health, health outcomes health outcomes • NRL/Second-tier wellbeing and • Enhanced and enjoyment semi-professional enjoyment enjoyment competition • Open-age club-based recreational*

Recreational Years Investment Years Early Specialisation (from 13 yrs) (16–19 yrs) (from childhood) • State-based U20’s Features: Features: Features: representative • High levels of • High levels of • High levels of competition deliberate play deliberate deliberate • State-based U18’s • Low levels of practice practice representative deliberate • Low levels of • Low levels of competition. practice deliberate play deliberate play • Secondary school RL • Activities • Focus on primary • Focus on primary competitions focused on sport sport • State-based U16’s fitness, health representative and enjoyment Specialising Years competition (12–15 yrs) • NRL U13’s–U15’s Features: club and community • Balance of competition deliberate play representative teams and practice and squads • Focus upon fewer sports

• Modified rule (field Sampling Years (6–11 yrs) size, no. of players, Features: tackle type, size of • High levels of deliberate play player) versions of the • Low levels of deliberate practice game • -Involved in a variety of sports

1. Start point: 2. Start point: 3. Start point: Recreational Elite performance Elite performance *Participation pathway participation through sampling through early exists for all age groups through sampling specialisation

Note. RL: Rugby League. Adapted from Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2003). From play to practice: A developmental framework for the acquisition of expertise in team sports. In J. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sport expertise (p. 197). Copyright 2020 by Human Kinetics.

3.2.2 Athlete career transition models

Athlete career transition models seek to describe the reasons for and the demands and processes of transitions in sport (Stambulova et al., 2020). Because athletic careers can span over 20 years, the desire to increase the understanding of transitional challenges is highly relevant to pursuing efficacy in TD practice. Transitions can both facilitate or derail an individual’s progression along the developmental path. The rationale for including athlete career transition frameworks was based on their lifelong holistic perspectives, complementing the bioecological model of development (Bronfenbrenner, 1999), and their ability to address some of the limitations of TD models. As recently suggested by Coutinho, Mesquita, Fonseca et al. (2016), the disconnection in the research between the two dominant perspectives of athlete development—TD and career transition—may limit the cohesion and depth of knowledge acquired. Therefore, incorporating both domains of evidence and their associated models in the current research will provide further detail in examining and furthering the understanding of the developmental processes in RL.

Athlete career transition models have emerged from conceptual frameworks outside of the scope of sport, such as Schlossberg’s (1981, 1984) model of human adaptation to transition, which defines and describes the interacting factors during transition. Originally focusing on individual factors and transitions into or out of organised sport, career transition research is now highlighting the relevance of the environment and the repeated occurrence of transitions that athletes face throughout their careers (Wylleman & Rosier, 2016). Defined as

‘one or a combination of events that are perceived to be beyond the ongoing changes of everyday life and possibly causing a change on assumption about oneself’, transitions can be both predictable and idiosyncratic (Schlossberg, 1984). Normative progressions in sport include both age- and proficiency-based progressions of specific sports for junior levels, as suggested by the DMSP model. Outside of sport, normative life progressions include changes

in educational or work settings, social support transitions from parents to peers and financial change. Unpredictable transitions also occur both within the sports context (e.g. injuries, missing contracts or changing coaches) and outside of the sporting domain (e.g. family breakdowns, failing exams).

Initially, descriptive models based on empirical findings from elite and former elite athletes across multiple sports, including Stambulova’s (1994) analytical model of career transitions and Wylleman and Lavallee’s (2004) developmental model of transitions, were expanded to reflect the various stages of athletic development as well as the key transitions between the stages. For example, Stambulova’s (1994) six normative stages of career transitions—beginning of specialisation; intensive training in the chosen sport; transition from junior to senior/high achievement; transition from amateur to professional; transition from peak to final; and retirement—represent the changes in processes between the athlete and the environment at each stage. Expanding on previous work, Wylleman and Lavallee (2004) developed similar stages—initiation, development, mastery and discontinuation—but also included several supportive levels—psychological (e.g. self-identity development), psychosocial (e.g. interpersonal relationships) and academic–vocation (high school to higher education or work)—to acknowledge the multilevel demands inside and outside of sport.

Further extensions to the holistic athletic career model (Wylleman, 2019) include financial

(i.e. family or governing body support) and legal (i.e. minor through to adult) aspects, highlighting further influences on transition. Acknowledging these concurrent and interactive holistic influences, these models support the notion that transition is a process rather than a single event. This is reflected in the evolution of career transition literature, which now recognises the athlete as a whole person and that sporting transition processes complement life processes (Stambulova et al., 2020). Further addressing the separation between TD and athletic career transition findings, the progressive interactions between individuals and the

environment in mutually affecting athletic career journeys have now been acknowledged

(Stambulova et al., 2020). Based on successful TDE case studies on the role of the environment in optimising preparation for future transitions (Henriksen & Stambulova, 2017;

Larsen et al., 2012; Larsen et al., 2014), ecological approaches examining junior-to-senior transitions and transitions between environments are now being promoted. These refined models showing the processes and demands of transition challenge athletes to find resources

(e.g. social support from coaches and parents) and develop coping strategies (e.g. problem- solving and time-management skills). They provide a framework to explain the interactions between the unique demands, individual abilities and influence of sport-specific contexts in determining transition outcomes.

With respect to the aims of the current thesis, the broad stages associated with athlete progression to the elite level, including the first three stages of each model, are incorporated into the understanding of experiences and processes in RL. Empirical evidence has consistently highlighted the heightened demands of the junior-to-senior transition, with appraisal and coping effectiveness influencing potential career trajectories (Morris et al.,

2017; Stambulova et al., 2009). An increased understanding of sport and culturally specific demands has emerged from athlete, coach and organisational perspectives (Finn & McKenna,

2010; Morris et al., 2017; Morris et al., 2015). However, evidence on how to best facilitate these processes to support and equip individuals with psychosocial abilities to handle the demands (e.g. educational programs and mentoring) is limited (Larsen et al., 2014; Pummell

& Lavallee, 2019). The aforementioned empirical findings and career models are complementary to the bioecological PPCT framework on a number of levels. For example, transitions relate to the context in which they occur: the level of microsystem social support

(e.g. from coaches and support staff) and macrosystem recognition of transition challenges

(e.g. from clubs or governing bodies) may affect outcomes (Drew et al., 2019). The role of

effective proximal processes in the development of personal characteristics such as self- efficacy and coping skills may assist transition outcomes. Moreover, the point in time at which a transition occurs in a lifespan model, the duration of specific athletic transitions and the temporal nature of individual biopsychosocial maturity and experience attained as preconditions of transition all encompass the time element in the PPCT model

(Bronfenbrenner, 1999).

3.3 Summary

The key to taking an ecological perspective on development is to describe and measure the influences of the environment in determining how an individual may attain the knowledge and skills necessary for progress. The bioecological framework and supporting models highlight the multidimensional nature of TD and complement the empirical evidence, suggesting its strong suitability to the research aims. The outcomes of using an ecological approach to increase the understanding of TD in sport are evident in describing the complexity of sport environments. Sports contexts vary dramatically depending on a range of inter- and intra-sport factors, including competition level, available resources, coaches, history and culture of the specific sport. This specificity of context and the acknowledgement that behaviour does not occur in a vacuum have led to the current motive for describing and measuring environmental factors in RL prior to questioning an individual’s adaptation to it

(Araújo & Davids, 2009).

Chapter 4: Methodology

This chapter outlies the key methodological features of the thesis. It includes the researcher’s philosophical stance, approach to inquiry and methods adopted to address individual research questions. An overview and justification of the mixed methods (MM) research design of the thesis is also discussed.

4.1 Philosophical stance

The philosophical stance of a researcher is the general orientation of principles and beliefs that guide research method selection (Bishop, 2015; Sparkes & Smith, 2009). These philosophies have various definitions based upon a set of principles or beliefs that direct researcher actions. These paradigms include epistemology (i.e. theory of knowledge and how it is acquired), ontology (i.e. study of ‘ being’ and how an individual perceives a reality, and axiology (i.e. the role of values in research and researcher judgements (Crotty, 1989; Guba &

Lincoln, 1994; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). These paradigms subsequently guide the research, approach, conceptual framework selection and research methodology.

Research methodologies are differentiated with the broad categories of ways to understand a phenomenon. Firstly, quantitative researchers are associated with positivist epistemologies that entail a (realist) belief of an independent reality that is knowable and objective. A quantitative approach utilises standardised methods (i.e. questionnaires, tests) where the use of statistical tests can establish relationships between observable phenomena

(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Seeking to create value free (i.e. bias-free) general inferences within a subject area, quantitative objectives include hypothesis testing and seeking to establish cause and effect relationships. This approach was adapted within several Chapters

(5-8) of this thesis through the integration of several empirically validated instruments.

Secondly, qualitative researchers adopt constructivist (or interpretative) perspectives which typically entail a relativist belief that reality is constructed by people’s perception of it

(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2014). A relativist ontology suggests social reality is humanly constructed and therefore fluid and multifaceted. Multiple subjective realities exist as we give meaning to objects and interpret people movements and communications (i.e. language and cultural symbolism). These interpretations are socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Accordingly, knowledge is embedded within social contexts (i.e. values and cultures) with personal meanings often shared among many individuals and across cultures. Therefore, as participants actively construct their realities of everyday life, the aim of research is to interpret the interpretations of others within their context (Sparkes & Smith, 2013). Associated with research methods such as interviews and focus groups, the approach seeks to explore meaningful realities of the same phenomena in exploring the ‘whole picture’ of a topic (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). An interpretative methodological approach was adopted in Chapters 5-8 to further explore and understand TD processes from a range of stakeholder perspectives. Coaches, players and former players from various contexts (i.e. school-based TDEs, NRL clubs) perspectives were analysed inductively in evaluating their personal meaning associated with the social phenomena (i.e. TDE processes, psycho-social coping intervention).

Due to the subjective nature of, and emic perspective in ‘entering into’ the research phenomenon (i.e. school-based RL TDEs) of qualitative approaches, the subjectivity and values of the researcher are linked to both participants and the research subject. Therefore, the declaration of values or bias within each step of the methodology needs to be addressed to limit previous experiences influencing the research process and/or results (Tracey, 2010). For example, the my (as the principal researcher) extensive background within RL (i.e. player, coach, manager) creates certain assumptions of TD that may influence research direction and data interpretation. This may be advantageous in understanding subject matter, building connections, and being empathetic of participant situations (Yardley, 2015). However, my

personal experiences and sets of assumptions of RL TD had the potential to influence reflexivity in research design such as question types (Hesse-Biber, 2015) and finding interpretation (Finlay & Gough, 2003). Acknowledging my background as a researcher in being part of the system, historically ingrained in Australian RL culture, and subsequently influenced by potential biases, several methods were utilised to ensure reflexivity. Being mindful of these potential viewpoints and integrating various methods to minimise potential bias (i.e. supervisors acting as ‘critical findings’ use of journals, regular debriefing of findings, and receiving feedback through publication of findings) were integrated.

Lastly, a mixed methodological (MM) approach involves the integration and utilisation of both quantitative and qualitative methods within single or a series of studies.

Mixed methodological approaches are underpinned by a pragmatist epistemology which acknowledges difference between qualitative and quantitative forms of inquiry but advocates a shared aim for all research (Bishop, 2015; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). A pragmatist approach allows the freedom to test hypotheses deductively in the quantitative phase and use induction in the qualitative phases to determine emerging themes (i.e. Chapters 6-8). This contrasts the rigidity of traditional qualitative and quantitative approaches promoting flexibility at different stages of the research process. Pragmatist approaches to research have been questioned in relation to the highly specific assumptions of each approach (i.e. qualitative vs quantitative) (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). However, integrating observable phenomenon (i.e. quantitative questionnaire findings) and subjective interpretation of data

(i.e. interview) data to form knowledge to best address the research questions are supported

(Bryman, 2006; Creswell, 2015; Doyle, 2016). A pragmatist ontology is based upon the applied usefulness of information (Sparkes, 2015). Aiming to inform practice in providing evidence to assist RL TD processes and further understanding of stakeholders (i.e. coaches,

TD managers), a MM typology was identified as an effective means to obtain and convey

information for the desired audience (Cresswell, 2009). Further MM is well suited for investigating multidimensional theoretical and practical concepts such as TD (Araujo et al,

2010).

The justification of the approach to inquiry taken within this thesis evolved across the four unique studies (Chapters 5-8). The studies progressed from an external ‘outside approach’ of quantitative positivist epistemology focussing on wider population athlete development trajectories of RL TD to incorporating relativist ontologies in exploring social contexts and individual perceptions. The relativist associated qualitative methods (i.e.,

Chapters 6-7) promoted an internal approach of entering the contexts (i.e., school-based RL

TDEs) to move beyond instruments (i.e. TDEQ, Martindale et al., 2010; PCDEQ,

MacNamara & Collins, 2011; SRL-SRS. Toering et al., 2012) and analyse how personal meanings and associated barriers connect. This provided a more textured understanding of the

TD phenomenon. The selection of methodological approaches was fluid and based on the data attained. This enabled the application of appropriate methods to the research question, the context, and the participants. For example, the final study (i.e., Chapter 7) adopts a pragmatist stance in creating meaning for the participants by seeking to resolve identified barriers (i.e. athlete transition) within RL TD. Overall, the thesis integrated multiple approaches and ontologies with relativist and pragmatist approaches increasing across the four studies as more in-depth and granular understandings were sought.

4.2 Mixed Methods

MM typologies are the systematic ordering for information and communication purposes that frame and structure the research (Creswell, 2013; Creswell & Plano-Clark,

2011). Primary considerations are how the research components will be integrated (i.e. levels of mixing), and the relative timing (i.e. sequential, concurrent) of when each component will be carried out. These two components define the fundamental relationship of within and

between study components (Curry, 2015). The MM process is initially based upon the nature of the data and the research questions. Other influencing typologies have been suggested such as weighted status of quantitative and qualitative elements (i.e. equal or dominant) (Teddlie &

Tashakkori, 2012) . Some researchers assert weighting is required to ensure research strength and clarity (Morse & Niehaus, 2009), however due to the complexity of data, priority of weighting may not be able to be assessed in advance with determination of findings ‘value’ suggested post data analysis (Guest, 2013).

MM integration of data include merging, embedding and connecting data sets

(Creswell, 2011). Merged integration occurs after both quantitative and qualitative components are completed. This method ‘s findings are interpreted in total to identify complementarity of findings. Merging data was integrated within Chapter 6. Embedded MM integration occurs when secondary questions are integrated into the research to support the primary research questions. For example, in Chapter 8, qualitative methods were employed to inform (i.e. individual ‘stressor audit’ interviews) and further evaluate (i.e. social validation through focus groups) the primary intervention illustrating the embedded approach. Lastly, the connecting MM integration type occurs when one data set builds into and informs another.

The sequential flow of studies within this thesis highlight the connecting of findings as studies

1 and 2 subsequently inform topics and research directions of studies 3 and 4.

The timing of MM research can be carried out concurrently (i.e. at the same time) or in sequence (i.e. one following the other) (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2003; Morse & Niehaus,

2009). The timing of MM studies are illustrated in a number of designs. A convergent design is where data collected concurrently, although the findings of one phase are not dependent upon the results of the other. Convergent designs are suggested to afford researchers a more complete understanding of a phenomena such as the features and processes of a school-based

RL TDE (Doyle, 2016). Limitations of this approach relate to the potential divergence of

simultaneous findings. Sequential designs consist of explanatory and exploratory approaches.

An explanatory sequential design usually consists of larger quantitative phase followed by a supporting quantitative phase. Utilising a longitudinal approach to examine psychobehavioural outcomes of individual TDE participation (Chapter 7) the additional (and concluding) focus group data provided supplementary in-depth descriptions of repeat quantitative measures. In contrast the exploratory sequential design is characterised by a primary qualitative phase which informs quantitative phases. (Creswell, 2015). The embedded intervention design (e.g. quasi-experimental intervention) is another example of how MM research may be differentiated based on ‘timing’. A number of designs were utilised within the individual studies of this thesis; however, the overall thesis is aligned primarily to the sequential explanatory design.

Assessing the quality of MM application involves addressing the scientific rigour of both quantatitive and qualitative research methologies. Any forms of enquiry needs to be assessed using the criteria that is consistent with it’s epistemology (Sparkes, 2015). Quantitative analysis is set upon a foundational set of principles that are assisted by both procedural and statistical measures. Applied within studies 1-

4 procedures such as pilot testing (i.e reliability) of the National Rugby Legaue Athlete Development

Questionnaire (NRLADQ), and the use of empirically validated instruments (studies 2-4) (i.e. internal validity) promote rigour of quantitative approaches. Further, statistical procedures (i.e. normality, homogenity, sphericity, and distribution assumption checks) ensuring validity and reliability of analysis were integrated. Methods adopted to ensure the validity of qualitative analysis were evidenced across studies 2-4 in meeting a criterion relevant to the inherent complexities of the methodology (Burke, 2016). Following thematic analysis guidelines (Braun & Clark, 2012), severel strategies were integrated to ensure trustworthiness (i.e. triangulation of findings, research team consensus) (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), interpetative accuracy (i.e. ‘critical friend’ integration) (Tracy,

2010), and reflexivity (i.e. reflexive journal) (Sparkes & Smith, 2009). The familiarity of the lead researcher to the RL context, associated jargon and wider RL culture also contributed to the strength of qualitative research in assisting perspective evaluation (Rothwell et al, 2018). The inclusion of

multiple strategies and analysis steps within each of the studies assisted overcoming suggested barriers of MM (Brynan, 2007).

4.3 Mixed Methods Rationale

The explanatory and sequenced nature of the current thesis aimed at examining the highly complex phenomenon of TD in RL justifies MM application. The rationale of MM approaches has been promoted in relation to expansion, triangulation, completeness and illustration of research questions (Brynan, 2006; Green et. al., 1989). Specifically, ‘expansion’ applies when the first phase of research requires further qualitative exploration or identifies new information that warrants further investigation (i.e. NRLADQ findings from chapter five informed the subsequent research study direction. Due to the multiple influencing factors and stakeholders involved in TD, triangulation (ie. convergence) of findings also strengthens the accuracy of the thesis findings. Integrating multiple stakeholder qualitative perspectives (i.e. coaches, teachers, students, ex-students) and corroborating these with quantitative findings

(i.e. empirical instruments) furthers our understanding of the complexity of the processes within a specific TD context. Integrating qualitative data to further illuminate quantitative findings (Brynan, 2006), provides a more comprehensive and ‘complete’ account of the phenomena being explored, hence a greater scope to explain, justify and clarify results.

4.4 Research design

Reflecting the sequential design of the thesis, the unique mixed methodologies applied are presented as separate studies (Chapter 5-8) and integrated within the final discussion

(Chapter 9). Illustrated in Figure 4.1 each study integrates unique instruments, methods, analyses and interpretation with respect to specific research questions. Detailed descriptions of each specific study’s research methodologies are provided in the respective chapters.

Figure 4.1 Mixed Methodology (MM) schematic of the current thesis

Study 1: Methods: Analysis: Trajectories of Quantitative: Quantitative: professional RL NRLADQ Descriptive and players Instrument BW ANOVAs (N=224) Integration Type: Quantitative

Study 2: Methods: Analysis: Individual within Assessing Quantitative Quantitative: study (i.e. 2-4) ecological instruments: Descriptive and T interpretation strengths of TDEQ, PCDEQ -Test including school-based (N=118) comparisons integration of TDEs. Qualitative: quantitative and Qualitative: Deductive Type: Convergent qualitative findings. Interviews (N=30) thematic analysis (merged) qualitative and

Study 3: Psycho- Methods: Analysis:

behavioural Quantitative Quantitative: impact of School instruments: RM ANOVA and Collective Thesis based RL TDEs. TDEQ, SRL-SRS, and Cross-lagged findings PCDEQ stepwise Type: interpretation in (N=53) regression Explanatory relation to Qualitative: Qualitative: Sequential Bronfenbrenner’s Focus groups x 3 (N=4) Deductive Quantitative >> (2005) PPCT thematic analysis qualitative framework, supporting DMSP (Côté etal, 2007), and career Study 4: Coping Methods: Analysis: transition Intervention Quantitative Quantitative: frameworks U20’s RL Instruments: MANOVA with (Stambulova, 1994; CSE, CICS and PWB follow up BW Wylleman & Type: Qualitative: Pre ANOVA Lavallee, 2016); Embedded intervention interviews Qualitative: and overall thesis Intervention: (N=5) & post Deductive research questions. Qualitative >> intervention focus thematic analysis (Chapter 9) quantitative >> groups (N=7) qualitative

Note. RL: Rugby League; TDE: talent development environment; NRLADQ: National Rugby League Athlete Development questionnaire; TDEQ: Talent Development Environment Questionnaire (Martindale et al., 2010); PCDE: Psychological Charateristics of Developing Excellence Questionnaires (MacNamara & Collins, 2011 ); SRL-SRS: Self-regulation of Learning Self report scale (Toering et al., 2012); CSE: Coping Self Efficacy Scale (Chesney et al., 2006); CICS: Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport (CICS - Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002); PWB: Psychological Well-Being (Ryff and Keyes, 1995). Adapted from Doyle, L., Brady, A.-M., & Byrne, G. (2016). An overview of mixed methods research – revisited. Journal of Research in Nursing, 21(8), 623-635. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987116674257 ) Copyright 2016 by SAGE.

Chapter 5: Distinct Trajectories of Athlete Development: A

Retrospective Analysis of Professional Rugby League Players

5.1 Introduction

The optimisation of athlete development processes and policy has become increasingly important for sports stakeholders. The emergence of literature exploring developmental sport patterns and activities in relation to expertise development has mirrored this interest ((Baker & Cobley, 2008; Gulbin et al., 2010; Güllich, 2014a). Here, despite acknowledging the inherent complexity of factors and process, theoretical discussions have in the main shown the benefits of a more accelerated and cost-intensive (athlete and sport system) approach to TD (Baker et al., 2017; Gulbin, Weissensteiner, et al., 2013). However, sport- and culture-specific examinations of athlete engagement trajectory patterns in relation to successful athlete development over time remain both relatively limited and open to debate

(Cobley & Till, 2017; Güllich, 2017). Thus, an examination of existing development pathways and athlete transitions towards senior elite performance remains significant to understanding how athlete expertise can be healthily developed (Coutinho, Mesquita, &

Fonseca, 2016; Huxley et al., 2017).

Research has identified several consistent factors influencing athlete development across several contexts (Rees et al., 2016). However, of central prominence has been the relationship between time spent in highly structured and intense deliberate practice and improved skill proficiency (Ericsson, 2006; Ericsson et al., 1993). Ericsson’s (2006) notion of deliberate practice has been supported (Ward et al., 2007; Weissensteiner et al., 2008); however, it is hotly debated in terms of its explanatory power (B. N. Macnamara et al., 2014), its ability to account for inter-individual differences in skill attainment (Tucker & Collins,

2012) and the importance of psychosocial factors affecting deliberate practice engagement

(Baker & Côté, 2005). The value of other developmental activities, such as Côté’s (1999)

concept of deliberate play as an effective precursor activity to deliberate practice, has been highlighted. Defined as early-age developmental activities that are intrinsically motivating, providing immediate gratification, and designed to maximise enjoyment (Côté, 1999), deliberate play has been hypothesised to develop intrinsic motivation that may underpin subsequent challenging skill learning (Côté & Erickson, 2015) and perceptual motor skill development in team sports (Berry et al., 2008; Roca et al., 2012). However, recent findings identified no correlation between childhood unstructured play and motivation (Hendry et al.,

2014) and that unstructured play volume in childhood did not differentiate adult elite performance levels (Güllich, 2017; Memmert et al., 2010; Weissensteiner et al., 2009).

Structured around the variability and debate of practice and play activities and behaviours noted above, athlete development models have emerged (Coutinho, Mesquita, &

Fonseca, 2016; Gulbin, Croser, et al., 2013), with the stage-based developmental model of sport participation (DMSP) (Côté et al., 2003, 2007) being prominent. Based on a retrospective examination of athletes, the DMSP highlights common behavioural characteristics and trajectory paths across chronological age time points (summarised as stages) from the early years (e.g. 5–6 onward) of participation to elite performance attainment

(Côté & Hancock, 2016). An early specialisation trajectory is characterised by single-sport involvement, low deliberate play and progressive investment in deliberate practice with age, whereas a more diversified ‘sampling–specialising–investment’ staged trajectory is typified by multiple activities and sport involvement in the early years, with low and high engagement in deliberate practice and play, respectively. Over time, transitions between these behaviours were conceptualised, with specialisation towards a primary sport (e.g. 13–15 years) and eventual investment (i.e. 16 years plus) (Côté & Vierimaa, 2014; Coutinho, Mesquita, Davids, et al., 2016). The latter trajectory has been associated more with elite attainment in team sport contexts (Baker et al., 2003; Berry et al., 2008).

Irrespective of the DMSP, many developmental systems in team sports have instead established systems and practices encouraging earlier age specialisation, even though such a trajectory has been associated with costs and pitfalls (e.g. overtraining, injury and dropout)

(Bergeron et al., 2015; Wiersma, 2000). While the Australian governing body now has an age restriction of 15 years before players can sign a National Rugby League (NRL) contract, some players still focus on Rugby League (RL) from an early age (12 years) in anticipation of the benefits of gaining one of the highly coveted positions in professional team academy squads and/or scholarships at RL secondary schools. With this in mind, examining whether facets of the DMSP model are evident and whether even later development trajectories are evident in elite athlete attainment is significant. Such significance is also validated by a series of longitudinal studies in UK RL, where Till and colleagues (Till et al., 2016; Till, Morley, et al.,

2017) highlighted that professional attainment was affected by growth and development as well as trainable physiological fitness (Cobley, Till, et al., 2014) at earlier participation and investment stages (i.e. 13–16 years of age). More specifically, in relation to age-matched peers, later-maturing players—exhibiting delayed anthropometric characteristics and physical fitness until later in adolescence—were more likely to attain professional status (Till et al.,

2016).

RL is a highly popular team sport in Australia, with 1.4 million participants, from recreational to senior professional level (National Rugby League, 2015). Similar to UK RL pathways (Till, Morley, et al., 2015), talented recreational youth players from 12 years old can be selected through selection trial games and/or scouted from local teams by professional clubs to participate in formal representative training squads. Club representative level is in addition to school and local club participation and representation tiers, permitting the possibility of high training loads and competition investment (i.e. earlier age specialisation).

Subsequently, players can potentially progress to formal representative programs from U16–

U18 to national developmental U20 competition, open-age semi-professional (second-tier sub-NRL competition) and then professional (NRL) playing levels.

Using a retrospective design, the current study purposefully examined the behavioural developmental trajectories of a large sample of professional Australian NRL players. Guided by the DMSP model and associated studies, the study defined two contrasting developmental trajectories based on earlier or later nomination for representative teams. The study described and compared the trajectories with regard to common age milestones of attainment across the

RL development system, deliberate practice and play engagement, RL game competition and other sport involvement across chronological age categories. To accompany reported RL- related deliberate practice and play, players also provided qualitative summary descriptions of training activities (e.g. general skill drill, small-sided games, tactical teamwork). Given the conjecture within associated research debating the value and contribution of pathway activities, we hypothesised that even within a sport context promoting earlier specialisation tendencies, different development trajectories were likely. We considered that identifying trajectory types would be important, highlighting potential benefits and protection from developmental costs such as premature withdrawal (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008) and injury

(Bergeron et al., 2015) for players and other stakeholders.

5.2 Methods

5.2.1 Participants

Following institutional ethical approval, participants comprised a sample of 224 male

Australian professionally contracted RL players (M age = 25.6 years, SD = 3.63, range = 18.6–34.7 years), with NRL experience ranging between 0 and 260 professional games (M = 67.9 games; SD = 64.87). At the time of data collection, participants were training and playing full-time for 11 of 16 clubs (68%), reflecting 56% of the available population at NRL clubs. Each club had a professional squad of 25 players.

All 16 NRL clubs were initially contacted to participate. Data collection occurred by liaising directly with a nominated club representative, typically a coach. They facilitated the distribution, collation and return of the National Rugby League Athlete Development

Questionnaire (NRLADQ). Player response rates varied between 6–25 players per club

(M = 20.4 players; SD = 9.14).

Drawing on theory and empirical evidence in the literature, the initial step was to purposefully define two distinct participant groups defined by earlier or later debut in representative teams. Based on the present empirical data, one group attaining a higher performance level earlier between the ages of 16 and 18 years (n = 125) versus a group who had entered the higher representative playing levels later within the U20s age group (n = 79) were identified. The Early and Later trajectory groups were then examined and compared regarding developmental participation patterns.

5.2.2 Procedure

5.2.2.1 National Rugby League Athlete Development Questionnaire

The NRLADQ was designed to retrospectively capture the developmental behaviours experiences and perceptions of professional elite RL players. The NRLADQ instrument included 61 items, comprising 41 short-answer items, 11 table-based items (e.g. related to training and participation history information) and nine Likert scale (1–5 point) response items (e.g. examining athlete transition, coaching and competition). To aid NRLADQ implementation and minimise disruption, representatives were recommended to schedule three 15–20-minute sessions. Eight (73%) clubs adhered, with three completing the NRLADQ in one session. The present study examined six short-answer and four table-based NRLADQ items including:

• ages of milestone attainment, including start age of formal RL competition; age of

specialisation, defined as age of RL-focused sport participation and engagement; start

age of additional ‘extras’ training; start age of playing position specialisation; age of

first playing contract; and age of NRL playing debut

• mean competition games per week and months per year of formal match play within

representative, club and school RL contexts

• mean hours per week and months per year player engagement in deliberate practice

and deliberate play activities. Deliberate practice was defined as individual and/or

team training activities that were cognitively and physically most effortful and done

with the specific purpose of improving present performance (Ericsson et al., 1993).

Deliberate play was defined as RL-related participation or training activities that

emphasised enjoyment, fun and satisfaction and were intrinsically motivating (Côté et

al., 2007). Both practice and play definitions were supported by examples in the

questionnaires such as ‘skill-based drills and physical preparation’ and ‘backyard 3 v.

3 and tap and run games’ for practice and play, respectively

• number of ‘other sports’ played, defined as participation in organised formal sports

other than RL. Participants listed how many other sports they were involved in within

the specific age categories

• short-answer descriptions to the question, ‘What were the key feature aspects (or

emphasis) in training?’ were requested across age categories with examples provided

(e.g. ‘Training focused on sprint running for physical preparation’). Participants could

list multiple subjective descriptors for each age grouping. These descriptors were first

coded into general themes (as shown in Table 5.2) and analysed based on the

frequency of each in relation to the total number of responses. The most frequent

descriptions (e.g. tactical—strategy game training) were examined (see Table 5.2).

100

5.2.2.2 National Rugby League Athlete Development Questionnaire validation and reliability

The NRLADQ was designed and informed by prior studies applying retrospective questionnaire methodological designs (Côté et al., 2005; Gulbin et al., 2010; Hodges &

Starkes, 1996). To reflect the Australian RL cultural context (Araújo et al., 2010) and the nature of athlete development therein, NRLADQ content and wording was adapted. For face and content validity, six athletes (two recently retired, two current players and two developmental level) completed the NRLADQ. After consultation and feedback, the

NRLADQ was modified to include the addition of example answers in formatted tables, and the number of short-answer questions was reduced. NRLADQ reliability was determined using the test–retest method. Ten players (three different clubs) completed the NRLADQ twice, one month after initial completion. Pearson intraclass correlations on quantitative items across NRLADQ subsections ranged between 0.73 and 0.97. For example, specialising age

(r = 0.97), respective representative-level transition ratings (e.g. recreational to U16s and/or

U18s junior representative teams: r = 0.79, junior representative to U20s: r = 0.73, U20s to

NRL: r = 1.00) all showed consistency.

5.2.2.3 Data analysis

Descriptive age milestone characteristics associated with both trajectories were summarised for statistical comparisons; initial data checks identified that milestone data were not normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk test: p > 0.05). Thus, eight independent one-way

Mann–Whitney U comparisons compared trajectory groups for each milestone (see Table

5.1). Probability was set at p ≤ 0.05, and r indicated effect size using Cohen’s (1988) criteria

(i.e. 0.1–0.29 = small, 0.3–0.49 = medium and ≥ 0.5 = large).

With reference to the DMSP model, no evidence of a pure early specialisation trajectory was evident. However, accompanying descriptive data on deliberate practice, play,

101

game and sporting involvement did suggest trajectory differences that still adhered to the

DMSP’s sampling–specialising–investment pathway. Therefore, the second analysis step examined whether player trajectory groups were associated with changes across age categories for game competition, deliberate practice, deliberate play and other sporting involvement. Data related to the four variables were summarised into four age group categories (i.e. 5–9 years, 10–12, 13–16, 17–20), coinciding with transition steps in the

Australian RL development pathway based on governing body age-based game format progressions (mini format: 5–9 years to mod format: 10–12 years) and also formal representative age group competitions (U16s, U18s and U20s) (NRL, 2017). Then, four independent between-within analysis of variance (BW-ANOVA) were conducted, with factors of trajectory group (Early and Later) and age category (5–9 years, 10–12, 13–16, 17–

20) applied.

Initial data checks identified that all four dependent variables were not normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk test: p > 0.05). However, BW-ANOVAs were still applied, akin to prior studies (Glass et al., 1972), as the false positive rate is not affected by assumption violation (Winn et al., 2017). The analysis of standardised residuals revealed four outliers (i.e. one = deliberate practice, one = deliberate play hours, two = other sport involvement), so data for these players were removed. In conducting analyses, violations to sphericity were apparent for age category. Thus, Greenhouse–Geisser (GG) corrected estimates were applied.

Significant interaction and/or main effects were supplemented by post-hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons. Probability was set at p ≤ 0.05, and partial eta squared (η2) indicated effect sizes. Effect sizes were 0.01–0.05 = small, 0.06–0.13 = medium and ≥ 0.14 = large

(Cohen, 1988).

In the final analysis step, the key feature descriptions of training were deductively analysed and summarised according to trajectory group at each age category. The six most

102

frequently reported group descriptions across age categories were examined (see Table 5.2).

The frequency of reporting a training description was assessed using odds ratios (OR), and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI) determined significance. With the Later group acting as the referent, OR estimates and accompanying CIs > 1 identified an odds increase in favour of the Early group, while ORs and CIs < 1 indicated a risk reduction. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0.

5.3 Results

5.3.1 Trajectory milestones

Table 5.1 summarises the findings related to the two development trajectories and age time points for RL milestone attainment. The Early group contained 60.9% of the total sample, Later = 39.1%, and significant between-trajectory differences were apparent for four of the six age milestones. At the time of data collection, the Later group was slighter older

(M = 26.6 v. 25 years, p = 0.003, r = 0.20). The Later trajectory players reported a later age on all defined milestones; these trajectory differences were significant regarding age of RL specialisation (M = 16.4 v. 15.1 years, p > 0.01, r = 0.28), starting extra training (M = 16.9 approx. v. 15.9 years, p = 0.005, r = 0.21), obtaining a first contract (M = 17.5 v. 16.4 years, p > 0.01, r = 0.34) and making their RL professional debut (M age = 20.4 v. 19.7 years, p > 0.02, r = 0.15), with small to medium effect sizes. However, no difference was identified in NRL games played at that point in time (p = 0.16). Interestingly, an ‘interrupted’ trajectory

(n = 25) was also identified in the Early group, where players attained higher representative levels at the U16 or U18 age group but subsequently missed the following age group before eventually reaching the NRL level.

103

Table 5.1

Overview of the Two Identified Generic Player Trajectories and Age-Related Achievement

Milestones in Elite NRL Players

Pathway Early Later

Entry U16s Representative U18s playing level National U20s Senior NRL/second- tier competition N M SD N M SD p r Age 125 25.04 3.54 81 26.59 3.73 .003* 0.2 Start age 119 7.17 3.00 77 8.59 4.53 0.101 0.12 Specialisation age 117 15.16 2.41 74 16.35 2.33 < 0.001* 0.28 Extra training age 111 15.88 1.75 70 16.96 2.65 .005* 0.21 Milestones Playing position 89 16.69 3.46 56 17.04 3.16 0.58 0.05 specialisation age First contract age 112 16.41 1.32 70 17.51 1.61 < 0.001* 0.34 NRL debut age 114 19.68 1.50 74 20.43 2.01 .025* 0.15 NRL games played 125 65.07 66.39 81 75.65 63.28 0.163 0.09

Note. NRL: National Rugby League.* p ≤ 0.05

5.3.2 Game competition participation

As shown in Figure 5.1 the BW-ANOVA on competition games played per year identified no significant interaction effect (Wilks’s lambda = 0.97, F(3, 99.00) = 1.03, p = 0.385, η2 = 0.03). However, main effects for trajectory group (F(1, 101) = 7.67, p = 0.007,

η2 = 0.07) and age category (GG: F(2.55, 101) = 48.89, p > 0.01, η2 = 0.32) were evident. The

Early group increased game competition linearly until 17–20 years (5–9 v. 10–12 years:

Mdifference = 9.83, p < 0.001; 10–12 v. 13–16 years: Mdifference = 8.00, p = 0.006; 13–16 v. 17–

20 years: Mdifference = 5.71, p = 0.130). By contrast, the Later group reported similar increased game competition at 5–9 to 10–12 years (Mdifference = 10.06, p = 0.001) but only gradual increments thereafter (10–12 v. 13–16 years: Mdifference = 4.00, p = 0.19; 13–16 v. 17–20 years:

104

Mdifference = 3.64, p = 1.00). Game competition volumes according to school, club and representative involvements across age categories is shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1

Mean Games Per Year of Self-Estimated Competition Match Play According to Trajectory

Group and Age Category

55 50 45 40 35 30 Representative 25 School 20 Club

15 Competition(games/yr) 10 5 0 Early Later Early Later Early Later Early Later 5-9 Years 10-12 Years 13-16 Years 17-20 Years

Age Group Categories

5.3.3 Deliberate practice engagement

As shown in Figure 5.2a, the BW-ANOVA of deliberate practice hours identified a significant interaction effect (Wilks’s lambda = 0.89, F(3, 152.00) = 5.93, p = 0.001,

η2 = 0.10), confounding lower-order main effects. The main effects for trajectory group (F(1,

154) = 30.29, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.16) and age category were also significant (GG: F(1.41,

154.00) = 326.25, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.67). The Early group reported consistently higher deliberate practice (hrs/week) from 5–9 until 17–20 years (Mdifference 5–9 years = 0.72; 10–

12 years = 1.37; 13–16 years = 2.45; 17–20 years = 3.39). Deliberate practice engagement for the Early group was positively accelerated (5–9 v. 10–12 years: Mdifference = 1.17, p < 0.001;

105

10–12 v. 13–16 years: Mdifference = 3.35, p < 0.001; 13–16 v. 17–20 years: Mdifference = 7.87, p < 0.001). A similar trajectory was evident for the Later group, though acceleration was lower at certain time points and more gradual (i.e. 5–9 v. 10–12 years: Mdifference = 0.6, p < 0.001; 10–12 v. 13–16 years: Mdifference = 2.1, p < 0.001; 13–16 v. 17–20 years:

Mdifference = 7.32, p < 0.001).

Figure 5.2a

Mean Hours Per Week of Self-Estimated Deliberate Practice According to Trajectory Group and Age Category

22.5 Early 20 Later 17.5 15 12.5 10 7.5 5

2.5 Deliberate Deliberate Practice (hrs/week) 0 5-9 10-12 13-16 17-20 Years Years Years Years Age Group Categories 5.3.4 Deliberate play engagement

Figure 5.2b shows that the BW-ANOVA of deliberate play hours identified a significant interaction effect (Wilks’s lambda = 0.90, F(3, 130) = 4.82, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.10).

The main effects for trajectory group (F(1, 132) = 5.98, p = 0.016, η2 = 0.04) and age category were also significant (GG: F(2.44, 132.00) = 14.43, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.09). The Early group reported increasing and higher deliberate play (hrs/week) at 5–9 year (Mdifference = 1.71, p = 0.001) and 10–12 year age categories (Mdifference = 2.29, p < 0.001), although between- group differences were nullified by 13–16 years. By contrast, the Later group showed lower initial play engagement (e.g. 5–9 v. 10–12 years: Mdifference = 0.48, p = 0.67) prior to increased

106

play between 10–12 and 13–16 years of age. Both trajectories then declined in deliberate play

engagement between 13–16 and 17–20 years (e.g. Early Mdifference = −2.49, p < 0.001; Later

Mdifference = −0.98, p = 0.41).

Figure 5.2b

Mean Hours Per Week of Self-Estimated Deliberate Play According to Trajectory Group and

Age Category

10.5 9.5 Early Later 8.5 7.5 6.5 5.5 4.5 3.5

2.5 Deliberate Deliberate Play (hrs/week) 1.5 5-9 10-12 17-20 13-16 Years Years Years Years Age Group Categories

5.3.5 Other sport(s) participation

The BW-ANOVA of participation in other sports identified no significant interaction effect (Wilks’s lambda = 0.92, F(3, 87.00) = 2.36, p = 0.07, η2 = 0.07). A main effect for trajectory group (F(1, 89) = 1.19, p = 0.27, η2 = 0.01) was not evident, but it was for age category (GG: F(2.52, 224.25) = 23.52, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.20). Follow-up comparisons identified that between 5–9 sports (M = 1.61) and 10–12 sports (M = 2.01), other sporting involvement generally increased (Mdifference = 0.41, p = 0.04), stabilising between 10–12 and

13–16 years (Mdifference = 0.04, p > 0.05), before reducing at 17–20 years (13–16 v. 17–20:

Mdifference = −1.30, p < 0.001; 5–9 v. 17–20: Mdifference = −0.93, p < 0.001). Only descriptively

107

did the Early trajectory show earlier reductions in the number of other sports played, with reductions between 10–12 and 13–16 years (Later = 13–16 and 17–20 years).

5.3.6 Training content descriptions

Table 5.2 summarises the results from OR comparisons assessing the likelihood of reporting particular training descriptions according to age category time points. During initial

RL participation (i.e. 5–9 and 10–12 years old), player training descriptions of ‘fun and enjoyment’, ‘general skill drills’ and ‘games’ were the most frequently reported, irrespective of group trajectory. While most training descriptions were reported as ‘frequently’, at 13–

16 years the Early trajectory were 2.45 times more likely to report RL training as emphasising

‘physical fitness/conditioning’.

108

Table 5.2

Developmental Stage Training Descriptions According to Age Categories and Pathway

Trajectories in Elite NRL Players

Age Early (N = 139) Later (N = 84) Training description OR [CI] (years) Freq. % Freq. % Fun and enjoyment 43 38.7 27 37 1.01 [0.59, 1.98] General skill drills (pass/kick/catch) 37 33.3 25 34 0.96 [0.51, 1.79] Games (skill-based, small-sided) 28 25.2 17 23 1.11 [0.56, 2.22] 5–9 Physical (fitness/conditioning) 3 2.7 3 4 0.65 [0.13, 3.30] Tactical skills 0 0 1 1 0 Intense and competitive 0 0 0 0 0 Fun and enjoyment 49 30.2 19 28 1.14 [0.61, 2.13] General skill drills (pass/kick/catch) 58 35.8 27 39 0.87 [0.49, 1.55] Games (skill-based, small-sided) 34 21 18 26 0.75 [0.39, 1.45] 10–12 Physical (fitness/conditioning) 12 7.4 2 3 2.68 [0.58, 12.31] Tactical skills 9 5.6 3 4 1.29 [0.34, 4.93] Intense and competitive 0 0 0 0 0 Fun and enjoyment 22 11 13 14 0.74 [0.36, 1.55] General skill drills (pass/kick/catch) 59 29.5 33 36 0.73 [0.44, 1.24] Games (skill-based, small-sided) 23 11.5 16 18 0.61 [0.31, 1.22] 13–16 Physical (fitness/conditioning) 58 29 13 14 2.45 [1.26, 4.75]* Tactical skills 26 13 11 12 1.09 [0.51, 2.31] Intense and competitive 12 6 5 5 1.01 [0.37, 3.21] Fun and enjoyment 6 3.3 2 2 1.54 [0.31, 7.79] General skill drills (pass/kick/catch) 41 22.4 26 28 0.74 [0.42, 1.32] Games (skill-based, small-sided) 6 3.3 2 2 1.54 [0.30, 7.79] 17–20 Physical (fitness/conditioning) 71 38.8 32 34 1.21 [0.72, 2.03] Tactical skills 26 14.2 19 20 0.65 [0.34, 1.24] Intense and competitive 33 18 12 13 1.49 [0.73, 3.03]

Note: Age category: age categories across development to which participants were asked to evaluate; training description: player descriptions of Rugby League training at each age category; N: total number of players in category; Freq.: number of responses within training description; %: percentage of trajectory group providing training description responses; OR: odds ratio value in reporting a training description between trajectory groups at a given age category; CI: confidence interval. * p ≤ 0.05.

109

5.4 Discussion

The current study retrospectively examined the longitudinal developmental trajectories of Australian professional RL players. The first step identified two distinct trajectory groups,

Early (60.9%) and Later (39.1%), based on (non-) selection to U16 and U18 higher representative teams. The second step examined and compared their developmental sport activities, highlighting two unique and nuanced pathways to elite RL.

5.4.1 Conceptual alignment

When set against the DMSP (Côté et al., 2007), present findings identified no evidence of any athletes adhering to an early specialisation trajectory. Rather, trajectories shared behavioural patterns adhering to the DMSP’s sampling–specialising–investment pathway because both groups transitioned through similar stages, although at different developmental time points (i.e. Early: early investment, Later: delayed investment).

Importantly though, findings diverged from the DMSP as to when (i.e. age category time points) behavioural transitions were made, suggesting the potential for DMSP refinement

(Davids et al., 2017). Consistent with findings from other studies (Güllich & Emrich, 2014;

Hornig et al., 2016; Johnson et al., 2006), transitions such as cessation of other sporting activity and reductions in play occurred at later ages than proposed by the DMSP model, particularly in our Later group. Findings also challenged the notion of stages based on chronological ages and time points given both the continuous nature of and variation in activities across both trajectories.

The early investment trajectory adhered to both the dictated sport system path and characteristics of the DMSP’s sampling–investment pathway. Players reported a linear high participation and representative-level ascent from early age groups onwards, typified by accelerated deliberate practice engagement in the specialising years (i.e. 13–16, akin to

DMSP’s 13–15 years) and concomitant reductions in deliberate play. Conceptually, this

110

intensified early sport-specific practice, subsequent rapid performance improvement and more accomplished youth performance, aligning with the deliberate practice framework and corresponding with several team sport findings (Ford et al., 2009; Haugaasen et al., 2014;

Ward et al., 2004). Efficacy of earlier investment and deliberate practice at 13–16 years was also supported, with higher average volumes of competitive games per season (representative- level involvement added approximately 10 games/season on average) and training emphasis.

Here, descriptions highlighted the Early group as being 2.5 times more likely to report RL training as emphasising physical fitness/conditioning.

In contrast, the delayed investment trajectory, characterised by comparatively lower practice volumes and increments from 10–12 until 17–20 years, lower initial levels of deliberate play (5–9 and 10–12 years) and lower increments of game competition per season from 10–12 until 17–20 years, contradicts the tenets of deliberate practice. This is evidenced by the attainment of equivalent senior expert performance levels with considerably less overall practice volume and, more significantly, greater multi-year performance improvements with less practice through late adolescence and early adulthood. Current findings support the notion that similar adult level performance can be attained with reduced practice and training (Güllich, 2017; Hornig et al., 2016). Also, overall, despite comparative activity findings being limited because of the culturally specific nature of development systems (Araújo et al., 2010), when indirectly comparing current engagement, volumes are significantly less than they are in soccer (Ford & Williams, 2012; Hendry et al., 2014) and

Australian Football (Berry et al., 2008), although slightly elevated compared with findings in northern hemisphere rugby (Winn et al., 2017).

5.4.2 Theoretical perspectives

To account for present findings in the large sample and when aligned against existing literature, the distribution of trajectories (0% early specialisation; 61% early investment; 39%

111

later/delayed investment) highlights the complexity of TD. Findings potentially reflect the many reciprocal interactions between individuals (physical, psychological, social) and their environment (sport system, stakeholders, coach, peers) that occur. These potential interactions and associated trade-offs in relation to the timing may accelerate, regulate or inhibit progress at certain times along each specific trajectory (Bruner et al., 2009; Cobley, 2016). The most significant finding in relation to these ideal interactions and trade-offs is the greater efficacy of RL development for delayed investors through late adolescence and early adulthood.

Specifically, these players came from a lower performance level (i.e. U16s and U18s non- selection) and attained greater multi-year improvement with less practice volumes to reach the same adult performance level.

Recent findings examining other athlete contexts also found that those who started specialised preparation at later ages and who efficiently attained higher skill mastery were associated with higher levels of success (Güllich, 2014b, 2017; Issurin, 2017). The rationale for the efficiency and potency of this period for delayed investors can be hypothesised through a combination of potentially influencing factors. First, it may be attributed to the potential reductions in interplayer biological and physical variability (Till et al., 2016).

Accelerated biological maturation and physical and physiological growth kinetics benefit early selection, but these advantages disappear by maturity (Till et al., 2010). Second, the heightened deliberate practice and competition of the Early trajectory may also increase exposure and risk of exertion-related and physical contact injuries (e.g. overuse injuries)

(Bergeron et al., 2015; Huxley et al., 2014) at a time where growth and maturation can induce physical vulnerability (Capranica & Millard-Stafford, 2011; Post et al., 2017). Alternatively, they may have experienced less optimal anthropometric and physical progressions as the physical intensity and tempo of the game increased at higher RL standards (Till et al., 2016;

Till, Morley, et al., 2017). Thus, during the post-maturation years, a physically more

112

equitable, movement-able and less repetitive injury–exposed player may be better prepared for accelerated deliberate practice volume, intensities and competition loads at a time with closer proximity to senior professional attainment.

Further, for the delayed investors, a prolonged—but diversified—involvement in other sports may have provided a broader base of both fundamental movement skills and the capability to coordinatively control and adapt movement (Goodway & Robinson, 2015). Also, the different environments of other sports may have provided a more diverse range of practice designs, skill-learning processes and learning constraints to facilitate perceptual motor skills and learning (Güllich, 2017). In contrast, some of the potential positive interactions for early investors, such as superior participation levels and game volume involvement, may have led to benefits from social access and resources (e.g. higher level of coaching exposure, physical conditioning, etc.), enhancing, for example, tactical and game knowledge (Cupples &

O’Connor, 2011; Ford & Williams, 2012).

Last, the repetitive high training and competition loads of the early investors may also be accompanied by psychological costs (e.g. fatigue, overcommitment and loss of perceived behavioural control, undermined motivation, social identity conflict) (Baker, Cobley, et al.,

2009). The 40% loss of early-invested players previously involved in the sport system may, to some extent, reflect those experiencing costs or setbacks (Güllich & Emrich, 2012). However, the psychobehavioural and coping skills that may have been developed through overcoming challenges (i.e. early—increased time and effort expenditure; delayed—missed selection) may also be a contributing factor in enhancing the efficacy of development for both trajectories

(Sarkar et al., 2015; Savage et al., 2017).

5.4.3 Methodological limitations and future directions

While current study findings provide a more nuanced understanding of athlete development in the DMSP and in terms of RL player development, limitations are still

113

evident. First, there is potential inaccuracy and bias limitations in self-reporting when using retrospective approaches, an issue well recognised (Baker & Young, 2014; Sosniak, 2006).

Second, although activity details were defined, irrespective of their settings, recent findings have identified that organised coach-led practice and non-organised peer-led play can involve both deliberate play and deliberate practice levels (Hornig et al., 2016). Similarly, the use of relatively coarse definitions of sporting activity types to estimate actual behaviour can be problematic (Güllich, 2014a). Further, it should be recognised that defining activities by subjective perceptions (e.g. effort, enjoyment, level of purpose) also has limitations because of motives being multidimensional and difficult to reconstruct when they have changed between childhood to adulthood. Further, given that athlete development trajectories are highly dependent on social culture and context (Suppiah et al., 2015), caution is necessary when considering broader ecological applicability. Finally, the authors direct future studies to better capture an understanding of the transitions in later developing players, examining their training (e.g. load progression, management) and social environment microstructure (e.g. coaching) that may accelerate their development (Hornig et al., 2016; O’Connor et al., 2018).

5.4.4 Implications

In consideration of study findings, several implications can be highlighted. For team sport development systems, the findings suggest the potential need to acknowledge and permit non-traditional avenues (not system dictated) for later-age player engagement, assessment and evaluation. The findings suggest that greater efficacy and validity may be achieved from a later age (i.e. 17–20 years) for athlete identification and evaluation in RL.

Practitioners, players and parents should be aware that delayed investment trajectories promote continual RL involvement but with different aims and emphases at different ages and stages of development. The delayed trajectory leads us to acknowledge the valued

114

contribution of club-based non-representative coaches, who through age and maturation- appropriate timing may facilitate the long-term development of future professional players.

5.5 Conclusion

Based on an examination of a large sample of Australian professional RL players, study findings identify two distinctive and nuanced athlete development trajectories. The emergence and size of the delayed investment trajectory suggests maximal linear achievement in junior/youth tiers and that representative levels are not a necessity for long-term attainment.

A delayed (later-age) positive acceleration of deliberate practice, progressive reductions in deliberate play and increments in competitive game involvement (which possibly are carefully managed) without selection to the highest tiers of representative RL may still lead to professional attainment. Trade-offs between particular individual behaviours and interactions with biological, psychological and social conditions may account for the presence of early and delayed trajectories in professional RL players.

115

Chapter 6: Assessing the Ecological-Context Strengths of School-

Based Talent Development Programs in Rugby League

6.1 Introduction

The desire to accurately identify and systematically nurture talented players continues to be a priority in research and practice. The dynamic, non-linear and highly variable nature of talent development (TD) in sport is now widely recognised (Cobley, 2016). Such inherent complexity and the possible importance of environmental and contextual factors in TD have been widely acknowledged (Gledhill et al., 2017; Henriksen et al., 2010b). In recognition of such importance, talent development environments (TDEs) have been specifically examined to better understand what factors contribute to achievement within a specific context

(Coutinho, Mesquita, & Fonseca, 2016). Despite an emerging body of TDE literature, sport- and cultural-specific explorations of TDEs remain relatively limited. Therefore, the present study aimed to further uncover the strengths of effective TDEs by examining environmental processes from stakeholder perspectives related to three successful school-based Rugby

League (RL) TDEs.

Previous findings analysing TD pathways have highlighted significant variations in progression patterns and activities both within and between team sports (Cupples et al., 2018;

Güllich, 2014b). The application of ecological approaches has also been recommended as a sound theoretical framework (Araújo & Davids, 2009). For instance, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979,

2005) interdisciplinary bioecological model provides a framework to understand how environmental structures and factors can (in)directly influence individual developmental outcomes. The bioecological model’s key assumption is that development takes place over time through progressively more complex reciprocal interactions between an active, evolving individual and the social objects and symbols of their environment (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).

The model has previously been utilised to explore TD in sport, including how variations in

116

tasks and environmental constraints in practice structure promote performance abilities

(Cobley, Hanratty, et al., 2014; Davids et al., 2017); the impact of coaches, peers and family in influencing training environment culture (Henriksen et al., 2010b); and the processes leading to athlete dropout from RL academies (Rothwell, Rumbold, & Stone, 2018).

A holistic understanding of TDEs and their potential influences on individuals is also at the foundation of Martindale et al.’s (2005) assertions for effective TDEs. Drawing on relevant developmental literature, Martindale et al. (2005) aimed to explore all aspects of the coaching situation in suggesting a number of premises to critically reflect upon TDEs. Similar to the bioecological framework, Martindale et al. (2005) acknowledged the context-specific nature of TDEs and the various levels of influence beyond the microenvironment that impact development. For example, the quality of support and coherence in messages for developing athletes is determined by both governing body policy and people (e.g. family and friends) external to TDEs. Integration of these influences to promote effective development are subsequently suggested as part of promoting ideals linked to long-term aims, age-appropriate development and flexibility in promoting individual development.

Henriksen et al.’s (2010a, 2010b, 2011) examination of multiple individual sport TDE case studies (e.g. sailing, athletics and kayaking) also furthered the frameworks and themes for TDE exploration. Moving beyond the retrospective individual accounts of TDEs,

Henriksen et al.’s (2010a, 2010b, 2011) works utilising data records, environment observation and athlete interviews in identifying successful TDEs within the same culture share a number of key features. These have been expanded upon in team sport settings as consistent perspectives on the positive features of TDEs have emerged. For instance, soccer-based TDEs and associated pathways have been explored across multiple cultures (UK, Denmark,

Germany) and have incorporated various stakeholder perspectives (managers, coaches, players). Larsen et al. (2012) identified a strong ‘family feel’, a strong cohesive organisational

117

culture of connection and cooperation between schools and clubs and a holistic approach as important to successful TDEs. Similarly, Mills et al. (2014b) identified that coaches perceived key TDE factors within UK elite soccer academies as being associated with well-developed support systems for coach, parent and individual interactions as well as having explicit pathways and training access to senior team progression. The significance of psychosocial competencies and skills in relation to player wellbeing, transition and managing multiple life demands have also been identified as valuable success factors within soccer-based TDEs

(Gledhill & Harwood, 2019; Ivarsson et al., 2015).

Rugby code–specific studies have also generated complementary insights into factors that may positively or negatively affect the TD process. Incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives (coaches, trainers, players, welfare staff), R. A. Jones et al. (2014) identified that having a balanced lifestyle, individual resources to cope with challenges and an environment fostering self-determination were most valuable for sub-elite RL players’ transitions into senior playing levels. Former UK-based RL academy participants (who have since left the sport) suggested similar themes to limit participants being lost to the game (Rothwell,

Rumbold, & Stone, 2018). Increased coach resources to better manage players’ realistic expectations as well as enhance the quality of athlete and coach interpersonal relations were promoted (Rothwell, Rumbold, & Stone, 2018). Despite the desirability of enhanced psychosocial skills, few skills such as goal-setting, handling pressure and dealing with setbacks were explicitly discussed and practised within TDEs, promoting further evaluation of specific environments (Larsen et al., 2014).

The growing recognition of environmental psychosocial factors has also led to the development of several validated instruments to gauge stakeholder perceptions of TDEs.

Martindale et al.’s (2010) Talent Development Environment Questionnaire (TDEQ) and

Á MacNamara and Collins’s (2011) Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence

118

Questionnaire (PCDEQ) are two examples developed to evaluate TDEs. While instrument implementation is growing, the integration of validated instruments with qualitative approaches (i.e. mixed methods) to ascertain a more comprehensive understanding of TDEs is limited (Gledhill & Harwood, 2019; Mills et al., 2014b). This is more pertinent within the rugby codes, where TD literature has primarily focused on the physiological characteristics involved in athlete development (Till, Morley, et al., 2017).

In terms of developing RL players in Australia, school-based TDEs have emerged as being consistently connected to highly contested national school competition titles and successful athlete transition into elite levels. Here, youth players can enter school-based programs from the age of 12 and continue through to 17–18 years of age. School RL participation coincides with other age-specific development pathway structures, such as recreational club and junior representative team competitions (see Cupples et al., 2018). Upon completion of school TDE programs, players can be either signed by a professional club to play in their national U20s representative teams or may continue to play recreationally or at the amateur level. Anecdotally, particular schools have received widespread recognition, becoming socially renowned for their unique ability to help develop young athletes towards a transition into adult elite sport. However, exploration of their environmental features and what can be learned from these TDEs has not occurred.

6.2 Aims

Adopting an ecological framework, the overall aim of the study was to determine the environmental strengths of three successful school-based RL TDEs. The aim was achieved via triangulation of multiple stakeholder perspectives, who rated, evaluated and described the effective features and processes within their respective school-based TDEs. The identification of such strengths would further our understanding of effective RL athlete development

119

environments and hypothetically help inform and enable improved practices in broader school-based TDEs.

6.3 Methods

6.3.1 Mixed methods approach

Utilising a mixed methods approach, the study included the implementation of validated psychometric questionnaires—the PCDEQ (Á MacNamara & Collins, 2011) and the

TDEQ (Martindale et al., 2010)—to identify environmental strengths associated with athlete development. The results from the questionnaires were then aligned and compared to suggested environmental strength features from various stakeholders (i.e. current/past students and coaches). A semi-structured interview guide examined the perceived strengths of such environments. Both quantitative and qualitative data were triangulated to identify rated and perceived strengths of three athlete developmental environments from the varied perspectives.

The triangulation, comparison and corroboration of different evidence sources is an advantage of mixed methodology and was intentionally utilised to provide more comprehensive insights into TDEs and help determine interpretive consistency for identification of environmental strength features.

6.3.2 Participants

Three school-based TDEs were identified based upon their reputation and results- based history of success. Inclusion criteria were developed to define TDE success, which included a minimum of five team appearances in national schoolboy finals since competition inception, a minimum of 15 players achieving national schoolboy representation and a minimum of 12 players who had graduated to the NRL youth competition in the previous

5 years. At the time of data collection, the three TDEs identified combined had over 10 national schoolboys titles, > 55 national schoolboy representatives and helped develop > 50

120

players to the NRL youth competition in the last three seasons. Participants were recruited based on their current and/or previous association with the three TDEs.

Following institutional ethics approval, participants in the first quantitative stage consisted of current students (N = 118 total; n = 36+ per school) across the three TDEs, aged

13–18.3 years. In the second qualitative research stage, purposive sampling was used to recruit 30 stakeholders. These consisted of current students (N = 12), including two senior students (aged 16.9–18.2 years) and two junior students (aged 15.5–16.4 years) from each respective TDE, and current staff (N = 9), including the head, assistant and developmental coaches from each respective TDE. In terms of past students (N = 9), former students of differing ages who had participated in the TDEs at three different time points (i.e. 1, 3 and

5 years ago) were identified for contribution. These coincided with three participants being between 18.2–19.2 years old, 20.8–21.6 years old and 23.2–24.5 years old. All past students were involved at an NRL club, either playing in the elite youth, semi-professional open-age second tier and/or professionally in the NRL competition at the time of data collection.

6.3.3 Data collection

The TDEQ (Martindale et al., 2010) was used to assess the key holistic and generic features and processes of TD. The TDEQ was developed as a monitoring tool of generic features of effective TDEs to enhance the ability of practitioners to better facilitate the development of sporting potential. The TDEQ consists of 59 items on a 6-point Likert scale

(ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree). Items combine to contribute towards seven subscales, including ‘Long-term development focus’ (24 items), ‘Quality preparation’

(five items), ‘Communication’ (seven items), ‘Understanding the athlete’ (four items),

‘Support network’ (eight items), ‘Challenging and supportive environment’ (four items) and

‘Long-term development fundamentals’ (seven items). Previous studies have indicated strong

121

internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha for factor’s 1–7 ranging between 0.97–0.61

(Martindale et al., 2010).

The PCDEQ (Á MacNamara & Collins, 2011) was administered to assess the possession and deployment of research-informed psychological characteristics of developing excellence. The PCDEQ was specifically designed to formatively assess aspiring youth athletes within their ecological developmental settings. The PCDEQ comprises 59 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from very unlike me to very like me. The PCDEQ has a six- subscale structure measuring categories of psychobehavioural characteristics, including

‘Support for long-term success’ (17 items), ‘Imagery use during practice and competition’ (12 items), ‘Coping with performance and developmental pressure’ (11 items), ‘Ability to organise and engage in quality practice’ (seven items), ‘Evaluating performances and working on weaknesses’ (five items) and ‘Support from others to compete to my potential’ (seven items). The six factors reflect both the possession and deployment of key psychological characteristics in relation to both self-direction and encouragement from others

(Á MacNamara & Collins, 2011). Previously, internal consistency of factors 1–6 have been shown to range from 0.87 to 0.70 (Á MacNamara & Collins, 2011).

The content, purpose and instructions for completion related to the two questionnaires were explained face to face with coaches at participating schools. The two questionnaires were administered by the nominated TDE coach and required approximately 30 minutes to complete (N = 121).

The primary researcher then conducted 30 individual interviews, ranging between 30 and 40 minutes, using a semi-structured interview guide to better understand the local athlete development environment. Open-ended questions were used to facilitate broad reflection and discussion on the varying environmental facets and to identify aspects deemed personally important (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The interview guide was themed according to

122

Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) ecological perspective as well as Henriksen et al.’s (2010a, 2010b) previous explorations into sport TDEs. Modified from Henriksen et al.’s (2010a, 2010b) applications, interviews explored participants’ backgrounds, roles and perspectives on the factors considered to contribute to the success of school-based TDEs. Examples in relation to processes (e.g. What are some of the features of [insert school] that you feel makes it different to other school-based Rugby League programs?), interpersonal relationships (e.g. Please provide some insights into the types of interactions you have with coaching staff away from actual training in Rugby League) and the social roles expected (e.g. What is a story or episode you can recall that you believe reflects the programs culture?) were sought. All interviews were recorded for subsequent data analysis.

6.3.4 Data analysis

6.3.4.1 Quantitative questionnaire ratings

Prior to analysis, all data were screened and checked for entry errors. As per recent applications, item scoring for the TDEQ was reversed, with higher Likert scale scores (closer to 6) representing positive perceptions (Gledhill & Harwood, 2019; Ivarsson et al., 2015;

Mills et al., 2014b). Internal reliability of subscales was also assessed using Cronbach’s alpha.

One TDEQ subscale did not meet sufficient reliability (i.e. ‘Challenging and supportive environment’,  = 0.28) (see Tables 6.1 and 6.2). Thus, similar to previous studies (Ivarsson et al., 2015; Mills et al., 2014b), data related to this subscale were not examined.

To evaluate individual strengths of the three TDEs, descriptive analysis of questionnaire subscale scores was conducted for both instruments. Mean (SD) subscale score ratings for each questionnaire and TDE, alongside a combined rating across TDEs (M and

SD), were compared to benchmark subscale scores from other contexts using independent t- test comparisons and effect size calculations. The analysis thus helped determine individual and collective strengths (or areas of weakness) relative to existing TDE benchmarks in other

123

sporting contexts (Á MacNamara & Collins, 2013; Martindale et al., 2012). More specifically,

TDEQ subscale ratings were contrasted with Martindale et al.’s (2012) ‘High-quality environments’ in rugby and swimming, while PCDEQ subscale ratings were compared with

Á MacNamara and Collins’s (2013) ‘good developers’ in team sports, including rugby, soccer and hockey.

6.3.4.2 Qualitative interview data

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and initially analysed inductively to derive, but not force, meaning units from the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The initial analysis involved identifying raw data themes. Next, meaning units were deductively reconstructed in relation to the conceptual frameworks of questionnaire instruments and Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) bioecological model of development (e.g. coaches understanding of life demands outside of

RL > program philosophies > context of bioecological model). Specific language and subscales within TDEQ and PCDEQ instruments informed the categorising and naming of subthemes and identification of higher-order themes to facilitate data alignment and comparison. This inductive/deductive approach helped systematically and cohesively collate stakeholder opinions and perspectives grounded in TDE and developmental theory (Mills et al., 2012). The stakeholder groups (staff and current and former students) were initially analysed as three separate groups to examine key perspectives of each unique population.

However, for the purpose of study reporting here, stakeholder group analyses were combined and triangulated to identify commonalties and differences in the key components of successful athlete development environments.

Qualitative research standards were assessed on criteria relevant to the inherent complexities of the research context and philosophical assumptions (Burke, 2016). To help ensure validity and address reflexivity concerns of the qualitative process, the following methods were adopted in seeking subjective experiences and opinions of RL school-based

124

TDEs. First, pilot testing interviews were conducted with two former students in other school- based TDEs to enable small modifications of the interview guide and reflection on the interview approach. Second, the second and third authors acted as ‘critical friends’ (Tracey,

2010) to ensure the interview approach and questioning were appropriate to the study context, participants and research aims. Co-authors were also cognisant of the first author’s professional background in RL, thus challenged interpretations to ensure interpretive rigour within the adopted theoretical frameworks. This process of regular debriefing, triangulation and establishing of consensus by the research team assisted in establishing the trustworthiness of data interpretation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). However, the first author’s background and familiarity with the context, its development processes, culture and associated jargon was also a strength, assisting verbatim analysis and perspective evaluation (Rothwell, Rumbold, &

Stone, 2018).

6.4 Results

6.4.1 Part 1: Quantitative questionnaire ratings

Descriptive and comparative results for the TDEQ subscales are shown in Table 6.1.

TDEQ subscale scores for the collective school-based RL TDEs attained similar scores to the established ‘high quality’ benchmarks for the subscales of ‘Long-term development focus’,

‘Communication’, ‘Understanding the athlete’ and ‘Long-term development fundamentals’.

However, significantly higher and lower scores for the combined school-based TDEs rating were apparent for ‘Support network’ (Mdifference = 0.55, p < 0.001, d = 0.71) and ‘Quality preparation’ (Mdifference = −.42, p = 0.002, d = 0.48), respectively. Individual school-based

TDE comparison to TDEQ benchmarks revealed significantly higher scores for all three

TDEs when compared with the ‘Support network’ benchmark. However, TDE 1 alone reported significantly lower ratings for both ‘Quality preparation’ (Mdifference = −0.93,

125

p < 0.001, d = 0.78) and ‘Understanding the athlete’ (Mdifference = −0.5, p = 0.026, d = 0.5) versus benchmark scores.

Analysis of PCDEQ ratings revealed that five of the six subscale scores aligned and/or rated significantly higher than Á MacNamara and Collins’s (2013) benchmark for ‘good developers’ (see Table 5.2). Combined school ratings identified that ‘Support for long-term success’ (Mdifference = 0.26, p = 0.001, d = 0.43), which relates to assisted planning and encouragement to seek advice, and ‘Support from others to compete to my potential’

(Mdifference = 0.17, p = 0.028, d = 0.27) were significantly higher than comparison benchmarks.

Likewise, ‘Imagery use during practice and competition’ (Mdifference = 0.57, p < 0.001, d = 0.69) was also significantly higher. However, ‘Coping with performance and developmental pressure’ (Mdifference = −1.06, p < 0.001, d = 1.28) was rated significantly lower relative to benchmarks, with the subscale assessing feelings and actions in overcoming mistakes and difficulties associated with development. Ratings for ‘Ability to organise and engage in quality practice’ and ‘Evaluating performance and working on weakness’ did not differ from benchmark scores. Individual school-based TDE comparison to PCDEQ benchmarks found shared significant higher and lower differences from benchmark data for

‘Imagery use during practice and competition’ and ‘Coping with performance and developmental pressure’ factors, respectively. However, TDE 1 (Mdifference = 0.36, p = 0.008, d = 0.56) and TDE 2 (Mdifference = 0.29, p = 0.01, d = 0.48) only reported significantly higher scores for the ‘Support for long-term success’ subscale.

126

Table 6.1

School-Based Rugby League Talent Development Environment Player TDEQ Subscale Analysis v. Higher-Quality Environments a

Mean (SD) No. of TDEQ subscale p  items RL TDE 1 RL TDE 2 RL TDE 3 All RL TDE Benchmark (n = 36) (n = 42) (n = 40) (n = 118) TDE a Long-term development focus 24 4.70 (0.51) 4.93 (0.33) 4.67 (0.5) 4.77 (0.46) 4.77 (0.44) 0.97 0.86 Quality preparation 5 3.45** (1.14) 4.29 (0.77) 4.07 (0.99) 3.96 (1.02) 4.38 (0.66) 0.002* 0.81 Communication 7 4.27 (0.75) 4.61 (0.51) 4.32 (0.68) 4.41 (0.66) 4.43 (0.74) 0.87 0.81 Understanding the athlete 4 3.56* (1.07) 4.17 (0.74) 4.01 (0.91) 3.93 (0.94) 4.06 (0.89) 0.4 0.68 Support network 8 4.37* (0.74) 4.73** (0.46) 4.49* (0.54) 4.54 (0.60) 3.99 (0.94) < 0.001** 0.71 Long-term development fundamentals 7 4.37 (0.69) 4.53 (0.39) 4.45 (0.48) 4.45 (0.52) 4.34 (0.7) 0.33 0.54

Note. RL: Rugby League; TDE: talent development environment; TDEQ: Talent Development Environment Questionnaire; Cronbach’s alpha (): unacceptable internal reliability ≤ 0.5. a Based on Martindale et al.’s (2012) instrument validation. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01.

127

Table 6.2

School-Based Rugby League Talent Development Environment Player PCDEQ Subscale Analysis v. ‘Good Developers’ a

Mean (SD) No. of RL TDE 1 RL TDE 2 RL TDE 3 All RL TDEs Benchmark p  PCDEQ subscale items (n = 36) (n = 42) (n = 40) (n = 118) TDE a Support for long-term success 17 4.61** (0.69) 4.54* (0.6) 4.4 (0.51) 4.51 (0.61) 4.25 (0.60) <0.001** 0.89 Imagery use during practice and competition 12 4.53** (0.73) 4.43** (0.53) 4.40** (0.55) 4.46 (0.6) 3.89 (0.99) <0.001** 0.80 Coping with performance and developmental pressure 11 3.37** (1.09) 3.05** (0.76) 3.23** (0.78) 3.21 (0.88) 4.27 (0.77) <0.001** 0.84 Ability to organise and engage in quality practice 7 4.83 (0.65) 4.93 (0.43) 4.78 (0.58) 4.85 (0.55) 4.9 (0.61) 0.6 0.73 Evaluating performance and working on weaknesses 5 4.79 (0.66) 5.08 (0.52) 4.9 (0.59) 4.93 (0.60) 4.99 (0.72) 0.47 0.69 Support from others to compete to my potential 7 4.77 (0.72) 4.84 (0.55) 4.74 (0.5) 4.79 (0.59) 4.62 (0.63) 0.028* 0.79

Note. RL: Rugby League; TDE: talent development environment; PCDEQ: Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence Questionnaire. a Based on Á MacNamara and Collins’s (2012) instrument validation * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01.

128

6.4.2 Part 2: Qualitative interview data

The conceptualisation of interview data progressed from an initial inductive analysis of raw data (N = 701) and inductive sub-meaning units (N = 199) into 10 deductive meaning units and three higher-order themes. Higher-order themes consisted of ‘organisational context’, perceived ‘processes’ and ‘outcomes’. The coding methods identified that stakeholders often utilised a number of terms interchangeably to describe their respective environments. Therefore, the terms differentiated within the higher-order themes should be acknowledged as a collection of descriptions congregated to define TDE success rather than separate terms. In identifying the strengths of RL school-based TDEs (see Table 6.3), participants also sometimes discussed opportunities for improvement (see Table 6.4).

6.4.2.1 Talent development environment organisational context

The theme ‘organisational context’ includes the subthemes of program values and philosophies. Key values emphasised by all participants highlighted that their TDEs were strong in the provision of multiple types of support (e.g. personal, informational, esteem, social). Descriptions (as reflected by meaning units) included the need to develop togetherness, family and a whole-school TDE approach. There was general appreciation across both current and past students of their experiences of a supportive environment and extra time afforded to aid their development (e.g. extra supervised sessions and time to chat to coaches):

It’s just, like, a big family sort of thing, it’s part of the school history; as I said,

everyone supports you when you play, and everyone loves footy up there. Even other

teachers, coaches and players from the other codes and subjects, they would come

down and watch. (Former Student 2/TDE 3)

Stakeholders highlighted the dominance of a long-term development philosophy and how life skills such as hard work, effort and dedication were consistently referenced in

129

association with program operational structure: ‘It’s designed to, like, push you. People are really pushing me to work harder. Like waking up early to train, catching trains before 6 am, it just creates discipline in my training and games’ (Current Student 2/TDE 2).

Aligned to the long-term development philosophy was the notion of being challenged.

Emphasised by many stakeholders, the philosophy of challenge encompassed the high expectations and accompanying behaviours within the environment to help instil discipline and perseverance. The maintenance of behaviours (e.g. being respectful, maintaining high effort in academic subjects), standards (e.g. early morning additional training sessions, physical levels of training) and dedication to time commitments involved in RL and the wider school environment was also prioritised above game performance. Its importance was highlighted by one coach:

The core value is definitely based around the discipline. I kicked probably the best 16-

year-old in Australia out of the program for life at the end of last year for repeated

behaviour issues. It’s never been just about Rugby League success. (Coach 1/TDE 2)

Interestingly, despite coherence in long-term focused philosophies, including ideals of holistic development beyond RL, a former student stakeholder group did offer some conflicting insights, as captured in a comment related to the emphasis on winning. Competing to succeed and individual performance success rather than just development was raised when reflecting on their time in the TDE:

I think winning was also valued. I think they sort of just left the player development to

the outside junior reps (external competitions and coaches); they sort of just wanted us

to come together, be a team and win a competition. (Former Student 2/TDE 3)

6.4.2.2 Talent development environment processes

Process refers to the interactions between people and/or objects within the environment. This theme consisted of actions occurring in sport-specific formal coaching

130

practices and informal interactions between and within coaches and students. Key features of the coaching environment included a focus on understanding the students, building relationships and being available for student interaction away from formal coaching sessions:

‘He just . . . took extra time with me. Like, even out of school time, at lunch and after school, just to help me out. He just took care of me’ (Former Student 3/TDE 2).

The time spent in building coach–athlete relationships also extended to the promotion of student accountability over their own development:

He [the coach] really puts things in perspective in and out of footy, but he also relates

to us really well; he lets us know our strong points, our weak points but expects us to

really work hard at that on our own too. (Current Student 1/TDE 1)

Student contribution to the coaching environment was also identified, with coaches leading skills-focused teaching and promoting high student input into the tactical side of the game: ‘He just let us do our thing, he did not make it complicated, especially in my senior years or... I think I almost coached the team as much as he did’ (Former Student 2/TDE 1).

Strong communication and collaboration between coaches was identified as significant features of the coaching team. Explicit coaching roles and expertise-based focus areas targeting different stages of RL development was a shared stakeholder perspective of coaching processes. Further, age and ability level appropriate to training content and goals were also highlighted.

Another aspect identified within the ‘processes’ theme included the various stakeholder roles involved in creating a strong support network for students. The adoption and actioning of senior team students as role models for the rest of the program participants, the formal integration of ‘old boys’ and the use of external expertise such as NRL club staff were all noted as key aspects of support processes. As explained by a current student, the nature of a school-based setting requiring compulsory attendance and the associated time influence of

131

informal interaction were described as TDE strengths: ‘Both on and off the field, we were together, so most of the boys at lunchtime and recess, we sit together; on the train home we talk about footy... It gave you confidence on the field’ (Current Student 2/TDE 2).

Opportunities for TDE improvement also emerged from the ‘processes’ theme. As seen in Table 6.4, beyond the total quantity of practice hours, former students cited teammate competition and early access to training with higher-ability teammates as key drivers of improved performance. A perceived lack of technical coaching ability was noted by former students. However, this was also noted by TDE coaches themselves, who perceived environmental relationships and culture as the key drivers of individual improvement rather than coach technical knowledge. Current and former students also identified limited integration of psychological skill development. This included the process of goal-setting and having the resources to overcome challenges such as pressure, non-selection and injury. As evidenced by the following current student’s comment, the development and use of psychosocial skills were primarily left to experiential learning of the students: ‘I don’t remember doing that type of thing [goal-setting] with any help, but personally I have done it. I have put down goals that I want to do better in the game’ (Current Student 2/TDE 2).

Further, the frequency and quality of communication in overcoming conflicting schedules, balancing life demands and being torn in prioritising specific team involvement was also raised as a challenge for students: ‘Communication was just really through me, you know, just word of mouth. There wasn’t much communication between school and club. It was tough’ (Former Student 2/TDE 1).

Associated with the perceived difficulties of communication and the self-confidence required between the students, coaches and external TDE stakeholders, the level of monitoring and awareness of student physical, mental and general life load was identified as a challenge. The issue was unanimously cited across all stakeholder groups; however, as

132

exemplified in the former student’s comment below, collaborative practical solutions were limited: ‘It’s demanding, the amount of training, especially if you’re doing club footy and rep footy as well, plus homework. You just deal with it’ (Former Student 1/TDE 2).

6.4.2.3 Talent development environment outcomes

As summarised in Table 6.3, the highlighted outcomes of TDE participation go beyond notions of improved performance or becoming a better player individually.

Interviewees rather more strongly and emotively emphasised that a mindset or set of attributes and values centred around the person are required to develop the individual and/or athlete.

These included the elements of social connection, respect and discipline achieved via TDE engagement and participation. Such outcomes were exemplified in comments from a current student: ‘The culture has helped me mature and become a better person outside of school, like respecting others, having good manners and strong morals, along with becoming a better player at my sport’ (Current Student 2/TDE 3).

These more holistic values—about the kind of person to be developed—were upheld collectively by stakeholders and were viewed as part of the rationale (not the whole rationale) to determine the school-based TDE as being successful. Nevertheless, ‘getting results

[winning] and having player progression through to NRL clubs’ (Staff 2/TDE 2) alongside pre-existing abilities of students and being able to ‘attract athletic talent’ were also highlighted by coaches and former students as reasons for continued TDE success.

133

Table 6.3

Strengths of School-Based Rugby League Talent Development Environments

High-order themes Subthemes Stakeholders—shared Stakeholders—unique Organisational Supportive: family, cultural mix, whole school Successful past reinforced in culture (S) context Program values Pride/appreciation of opportunity Respect history: artefacts, symbols (songs, jerseys) Long-term development focus: hard work, effort, team first Win focus (FS) Create challenges: time, meet standards, discipline, perseverance Reinforce past success (CS) Program philosophies Context: life outside football Maintain survival and stakeholder support (S) Future growth Processes Player ownership of development High player input: limited game structure (FS) Coaching staff always available Staff demand: dual role (S) Coach environment Understand athletes: trust, respect, team first Skills-focused teaching Team coaching (roles) and focus areas Limited technical ability (FS) Coach roles Age and ability level appropriate to roles and goals Hierarchal system with open and explicit collaboration High informal player interaction: proximal training, social, transport Support network Role models (senior players), teammate feedback External expertise: old boys, NRL club Effective training time in the program Teammate competition (FS) Practice On-field hard work and effort-based culture Early access (FS) Outcomes Improved on-field performance Results, player progression (S) Performance Better players Attracts talent (FS) Whole-person priority: better person, connected Holistic Discipline and value of hard work

Note. S = staff; FS = former student; CS = current student; NRL = National Rugby League.

134

Table 6.4

Opportunities for Improvement for School-Based Rugby League Talent Development Environments

High-order themes Subthemes Stakeholders—shared Stakeholders—unique Processes Game-specific skills Fundamental skills focus Limited technical coaching skill set (S, FS) Limited goal-setting: player led Holistic: athlete-centred (S) Pressure of being torn between club, school and rep team Psychological skills Difficulty leading communication between stakeholders Coping with multiple life demands Difficult to manage time, study, training High physical training loads (FS) All aware and aim to be supportive Load management Minimal practical options to assist acknowledged Mindful of increased physical training loads

Note. S = staff; FS = former student; CS = current student.

135

6.5 Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the ecological strengths of school-based

TDEs in RL. While acknowledging the growing area of TDE research, this study is unique in its examination of Australian school-based TDEs associated with RL athlete development.

The study employed a mixed methods approach to achieve its purposes. First, quantitative validated instruments specifically designed to assess TDE effectiveness were utilised, with results benchmarked to determine the strength features of the school-based TDEs. Second, qualitative interviews with multiple stakeholders examined strength perspectives and accounts of success. Integrating data from multiple perspectives alongside questionnaire ratings permitted data triangulation, providing rounded insights as well as a depth of understanding.

General findings identified a strong coherence with suggested effectiveness characteristics in the TDE literature (Henriksen et al., 2011). However, unique opportunities to build and improve TDE functioning in line with holistic development philosophies also emerged.

6.5.1 Organisational context

The values and philosophies of the organisational contexts examined featured several aligned yet interchangeable terms and phrases. Despite individuals being unable to exactly define what they knew of the culture, the congregation of philosophies and shared behaviours both defined and promoted particular values, which were adherent to the current effective

TDE literature. The priority of creating a highly supportive environment illustrated by feelings of togetherness, family and commitment to each other was a shared environmental strength. The consistent interactions of informational and emotional support cited from individual stakeholders within the TDEs were identified as conducive to positive personal development (Mills et al., 2012). In general, this heightened provision of support and consistency in values complements the findings in soccer academies in assisting the continuation of sport participation, empowering individuals, nurturing intrinsic motivation

136

(Mills et al., 2014b) and enhancing wellbeing (Ivarsson et al., 2015). However, in contrast to current findings, a recent ethnographical approach to examining the impact of organisational culture within a soccer academy found that it was dominated by non-conducive factors to development, including authority, isolation and control (Champ et al., 2018). The overwhelming student consensus of a heightened sense of belonging and general appreciation of the school-based TDEs highlights the facilitative identity formation and personal development nature of the respective programs. Individual development of goal-directed attributes and perceived competence was facilitated through the high standards expected within the TDEs. The benefits of athletes facing numerous challenges within the RL program included hard work, discipline and perseverance, possibly assisting the development of self- confidence, resilience and perceived competence for future transitions within RL on and off the field (Morgan et al., 2019). Overall, an explicit cultural TDE identity was acknowledged within the programs, with shared perspectives across stakeholder groups emphasising the coherence and power of the programs’ core values.

6.5.2 Processes

Key processes of the coaching environment within the TDEs were typified by quality coach–athlete interactions and the promotion of student ownership over their development.

Positive coach–athlete relations were reflected in the quality and frequency of interactions through significant findings for the support-based subscales of both the TDEQ (‘Support network’) and the PCDEQ (‘Support for long-term success’) instruments. Widely recognised as optimal for athlete development, the TDE coaches’ approachability to open dialogue, understanding of individual circumstances and awareness of the provision of constructive feedback to create meaningful relationships is another identified environmental strength

(Rothwell, Rumbold, & Stone, 2018). The creation and facilitation of autonomy-supportive learning climates, where students were afforded opportunities to take the lead (e.g. senior

137

student contribution to tactical coaching), may have enhanced planning and self-regulation skills, which are predictive of future success (Á MacNamara & Collins, 2011). The highly organised coaching structure involved complementary coaching in relation to content collaboration, ability-level progressions and the coherence of coaching values across age groups. This structure may create familiarity for individuals who enter professional club settings where similar coaching systems exist (Drew et al., 2019).

A final process strength was the reciprocal interactions of the support network within the respective student groups. Highlighted by significant findings in the ‘Support from others to fulfil my potential’ PCDEQ subscale, the enduring nature and perceived value of peer relationships and support are evident within the TDEs (Holt et al., 2017). The action of consistent communication leads to TDE values of family and a team-first mentality, where playing non-favoured positions, losing a starting team position and enforcing or accepting behavioural consequences of the group are accepted on the basis of ‘doing it for the team’

(Morris et al., 2017). The value of proximal role models associated with access to senior players primarily through in situ structures (lunch, transport, transition between classes) were an integral component of the support network (Henriksen & Stambulova, 2017). These organic interactions may assist in the development of TDE values, the readiness of younger students for senior team expectations and the social competence of the student group. Unique to each of the three TDEs, the benefits of role models also extended to involvement of old boys and access to professional club networks in further strengthening perceived student support networks (Martindale et al., 2005).

6.5.3 Outcomes

School-based TDEs fundamentally exist within compulsory education institutions; therefore, outcomes existed beyond just having individuals progress within elite RL. The dual better person and stronger performer development outcome goals reflecting the holistic ideals

138

of TDEs are another strength of the schools. Building readiness for higher playing levels and performance progression from a physical and technical perspective through training and coaching was noted. However, the rationale for improved RL performance outcomes was also acknowledged as being due to preconditions of perceived talented students attending the school, the internal competition between players for positions and the process of having early access to training with older-aged players (Henriksen et al., 2010b). The primary outcomes- based TDE strength was the perceived value of the unique culture combining connection, hard work and discipline in shaping life skills for the whole person. Complementing other youth development literature, the RL-specific TDEs did not explicitly discuss how these values were taught and then transferred into other life areas outside of RL (Holt et al., 2017). Rather, the implicit transfer of values in the lessons learned from self-organisation, high expectations and being a part of a group with shared team goals may explain the implied TDE ‘better person’ outcome often cited by former students.

6.5.4 Conflicting perspectives

Despite agreement between stakeholder groups in highlighting general TDE effectiveness, nuances were found between groups. Former students highlighted an outcome- focused mentality in TDEs, with a ‘winning mentality’ promoted. Balancing holistic ideals and reinforcing the winning mentality as playing levels progressed was both seen as a challenge and facilitator of effective development (Mills et al., 2012). The value of winning was also cited by coaches as a potential driver of continued TDE perceived success. As the former student group had all progressed to professional club settings, it is hypothesised when they reflected back to their TDE participation, they may have recalled feeling a higher responsibility for team results based on their senior positions in the playing group. This increased focus on competing to win, a promoted mastery approach and perceived pressure without a win-at-all-costs emphasis in their final years of TDE participation may have been a

139

facilitator in increasing preparedness for a results-based climate at higher playing levels

(Dowling et al., 2018). The winning mentality collectively invoked in TDEs may also have broader implications to athlete pathways. The values, messages and subsequent behaviours associated with the notions of ‘keep persisting’, ‘striving to get better’, ‘not accepting current performance’ and ‘keep moving forward after defeat’ may instil attributes such as confidence, self-reflection and self-regulation that assist in overcoming the common challenges in TD.

6.5.5 Opportunities for talent development environment improvement: Questionnaire ratings and fourth higher-order theme

Areas of improvement to further enhance school-based TDE effectiveness were also identified from subscale ratings and stakeholder perspectives. The ‘Coping’ subscale of the

PCDEQ, associated with maintaining confidence, reacting appropriately to mistakes and overcoming challenges, was significantly lower compared with previous findings

(Á MacNamara & Collins, 2012). Interviewees also explicitly reported that psychological skills development, such as coping with setbacks, self-reflection when challenged and assisted goal-setting, was limited, often ‘being left to the player’. Consequently, if these skills remain less developed, then the challenges of pathway transition may result in heightened negative consequences such as dropout or non-selection (Gledhill & Harwood, 2019). Therefore, the recognition and provision of coping skills to increase perceived readiness of developing players for current and future challenges would be recommended in school-based TDEs

(Larsen et al., 2014). The early temporal position of school-based TDEs in the RL talent pathway may present an opportunity to start early, with player education targeting basic stress appraisal and coping strategies to assist with unfolding situations and challenges associated with player development and transition. The value of these skills continues to emerge in sport expertise findings, suggesting that the ability to overcome adversity is an indicator of

140

positively navigating career transitions and, ultimately, future success at the elite level

(Cupples & O’Connor, 2011).

The challenge of balancing life demands and managing intra-RL pathway training loads in school-based TDEs was also identified as an improvement area. The lower perceived ratings of the TDEQ relating to the ‘Quality preparation’ subscale alongside former student perspectives highlight challenges in managing the balance. Individual subscale items describing feelings of pressure to do things differently, not being taught to balance training, competing and recovery and not having clarity in understanding sport guidelines to progress highlight potential physical (injury, performance declines), social (time available) and psychological (lack of motivation, burnout) barriers to development. This improvement area is further emphasised by the ‘Understanding the athlete’ TDEQ subscale being rated the weakest across the TDEs. Containing items describing coach–athlete communication around wellbeing and coach interest in player life outside of sport, the subscale highlights that despite the school-based TDE promotion of holistic development philosophies, a disparity exists in practice. Emerging teenage RL players have difficulty balancing training times, prioritising certain training sessions and games, managing travel and logistics, processing multiple coaching and stakeholder perspectives and consistently performing on the field between environments (school versus club), reflecting recent findings from UK-based soccer academies (Rees et al., 2016). Such challenges highlight the need for better communication, collaboration, management and initiatives to better integrate practices between organisations as part of optimising long-term development (Drew et al., 2019).

6.5.6 Limitations

The current study provides novel insights into effective TDEs, furthering the knowledge of how specific contexts and environments may facilitate athlete development.

Although incorporating a mixed methods approach, limitations also exist. For instance, the

141

sensitivities of both questionnaires to capture the intricacies in both sport- and culture-specific environments have been previously questioned (Gledhill & Harwood, 2019; Ivarsson et al.,

2015). Both questionnaires have also been modified since the study implementation. The

TDEQ subscales ‘Challenging and supportive environment’ and ‘Long-term development fundamentals’ have been reduced and combined to improve internal reliability (Li et al.,

2015). The PCDEQ has also been expanded recently to incorporate further psychological skills, including those maladaptive to development, including ‘adverse response to failure’ and ‘perfectionist tendencies’ (Hill et al., 2019). A final limitation relates to the potential bias of perspectives provided by stakeholders. For example, former student participants were more likely to have experienced positive outcomes from TDE participation; therefore, their standpoints, views and descriptions may differ from other TDE participants, whose outcomes may have been less positive. We tried to consider this limitation by triangulating multiple insights from multiple perspectives across school-based TDEs.

Acknowledging the limitations, the mixed methods approach and the utilisation of multiple validated instruments of this study may provide a framework for assessing TDEs.

This may support other future research suggestions, including taking a more longitudinal approach to TDE analysis (Hall et al., 2019) as well as developing and evaluating interventions to enhance TDE functioning (Larsen et al., 2014).

6.6 Conclusion

This study examined the ecological strengths of successful school-based RL TDEs.

Utilising validated instruments to evaluate TDE efficacy alongside multiple stakeholder perspectives to triangulate findings, several characteristic TDE strengths were identified as supporting effective TD. Successful school-based RL TDEs were defined as highly supportive cultures based on strong interpersonal relationships, a family feel and high expectations of athletes’ roles and behaviour. These features complemented an organised, progressive and

142

valued RL coaching and training program set within broader whole-school support.

Opportunities to enhance TDEs were also identified, including the need for individual psychosocial skills development (e.g. coping skill and abilities) to assist preparation for future challenges. The need for increased communication between RL-associated organisations in the player pathway was recommended to better manage player psychological and physical loads (i.e. competition and training volumes). Findings provide further evidence and understanding of effective TDEs across sport cultural contexts.

6.6.1 What does this article add?

The study adds to the literature on how factors in TDEs and the processes within them may better facilitate athlete development. Through a unique mixed method approach combining validated psychometric instruments with stakeholder perspectives, the study identified perceived ecological strengths in three school-based TDEs. Findings provide practical and novel information as to how school organisations and their practitioners can facilitate individual athlete development and, likewise, identified perceived specific areas for improvement.

143

Chapter 7: Features of School-Based Rugby League Talent

Environments Facilitating Psychobehavioural Development

Outcomes: A Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Study

7.1 Introduction

Research examining the development of athletic sporting talent has identified the process as requiring multidisciplinary expertise and resources to optimally help develop a multitude of factors over time (Baker et al., 2019). Expertise and resources may include coaching knowledge, social support (e.g. from coaches and family) and stable environments

(e.g. schools and sport systems) for continued engagement and facilitative development.

Individual factors underlying development include biophysical capacities (e.g. aerobic and anaerobic) and psychobehavioural competencies (e.g. self-efficacy, self-regulation, task persistence and behavioural control) and underpin the optimisation of technical (movement) skills and performance in competitive contexts (Collins et al., 2016b; Gledhill et al., 2017;

Till, Morley, et al., 2017). Adding to this complexity is the notion that the development of these competencies and skills may be dynamic and non-linear over time (Coutinho, Mesquita,

Davids, et al., 2016; Davids et al., 2017), with both individual variability and athlete environments potentially influencing developmental trajectories (positively or negatively).

With such a milieu of factors acknowledged and potentially involved, research and practice have progressively turned their attention to better understanding the environmental characteristics and processes involved in facilitative, more optimal athletic development.

To better understand how environmental structures and multiple factors can

(in)directly influence individual developmental outcomes, ecological theoretical approaches have been more carefully considered. For instance, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 2005) interdisciplinary bioecological systems theory identifies how different layers of an

144

individual’s ecological system (i.e. micro-, meso- and macrosystems) interact with the characteristics of the active individual over time (i.e. chronosystem) to determine development; thus, it is an appropriate framework for examining athlete development.

Bioecological systems theory proposes that functional development occurs over time via evolving reciprocal interactions between individuals and their ecological characteristics, such as homes, schools or clubs (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). It is proposed that the positive alignment of individual and environmental characteristics and conditions leads to a more facilitative and productive development process (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). Alongside athlete enthusiasm and desire to learn and improve, facilitative environments thought to accelerate development are those that include organisational features, symbols and people (including their values, communication, language and behaviours) within microsystem environments

(e.g. schools, teachers and coaches). The strength, stability and consistency of these microsystem interactions (i.e. proximal processes)—if aligned with the individual—have been described as ‘the engines of development’, potentially facilitating enduring engagement in learning activities (e.g. training) (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).

Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) recent consolidation of the bioecological systems approach into the PPCT framework suggests that analysing the features of TDEs may help with the understanding of the occurrence of potential bidirectional developmental outcomes on athletes. In the PPCT framework, emphasis is placed on understanding (i) the process, which refers to the recurrent features and nature of interactions between athletes and others in the

TDE environment; (ii) the person, which refers to the biological, psychological, social and behavioural characteristics of the athlete; (iii) the context, which refers to the stable or changing social and physical environments in which the athlete is located; and (iv) time, referring to the time course of specific athlete-related activities, which may be considered micro-time (e.g. duration of a training session), meso-time (weekly/monthly TDE

145

programme) or macro-time (e.g. the stable features of TDE training or programs and how they may affect the individual over time).

An integration of bioecological frameworks has recently been utilised to better understand the components and processes of effective TDEs. For example, Henriksen et al.

(2010a, 2010b, 2011) conducted a series of qualitative investigations examining multiple stakeholder perspectives on three successful Scandinavian TDEs, identifying a number of key environmental features. The features of inclusive training, a strong organisational culture, a long-term development approach and a holistic (multifactorial) understanding of development were identified as most important to development in team sports. Collective stakeholder perspectives of youth soccer also identified that strong support systems, cooperation between schools and clubs and having explicit pathways to progression were important TDE qualities benefiting youth athletes (Gledhill & Harwood, 2019; Larsen et al., 2013; Mills et al., 2014a).

Alternatively, based on empirical findings for effective TDEs, quantitative instruments such as Martindale et al.’s (2010) TDEQ have been developed and applied to evaluate key holistic and generic processes of TD (Hall et al., 2019; Mills et al., 2014a). Founded on previous works from Martindale and colleagues (Martindale et al., 2007; Martindale et al.,

2005), TDEQ-attained perspectives have revealed key features in team sport TDEs, including a long-term focus, evidenced by sound coaching with a focus on improvement and self- responsibility; strong levels of social support and communication; and an emphasis on individual and ongoing development (Hall et al., 2019; Ivarsson et al., 2015; Mills et al.,

2014b). These features highlight the recognition and ideals of holistic approaches to development. Grounded in a biopsychosocial perspective of development, the holistic approach promotes an extension beyond the physical, tactical and technical development of players to examining psychobehavioural factors and their influence on TD (Coutinho,

Mesquita, Davids, et al., 2016). A range of psychobehavioural factors associated with

146

overcoming challenges, assisting pathway transitions and making the most of afforded opportunities have been identified as highly valuable (Gledhill et al., 2017). Specifically, the perceived positive influence and overall quality of TDEs and their associated coaching practices have been associated with heightened wellbeing, autonomy, competence and relatedness outcomes of participants (Adie et al., 2012; Ivarsson et al., 2015; Rongen et al.,

2020). Despite the emergence of such findings, balancing psychobehavioural and athlete- centred positive health outcomes with quantitative returns on investment in youth progression to professional levels continues to be questioned in practice and research (Gledhill &

Harwood, 2019; Rongen et al., 2018).

The importance of more specific psychobehavioural components, including the value of self-regulation and coping skills to both individual engagement in sport practice settings and overall long-term athlete development, has also been identified (McCardle et al., 2019).

Self-regulated individuals are motivationally and behaviourally proactive in their learning process and are subsequently able to adapt their learning strategies to the environment to maximise their progress (Toering et al., 2009; Zimmerman, 2006). Findings on youth soccer suggest that strong self-regulation skills may lead to a higher likelihood of representative selection (Erikstad, Høigaard, et al., 2018), enhance pathway progression through taking initiatives (Gledhill & Harwood, 2014), improve the efficacy of practice in approaching the coach (Toering et al., 2011) and assist in the pursuit of long-term goals and the capacity to overcome situational impulses that may derail the extensive amount of practice required to attain expertise in sport (Farrow et al., 2018). Similarly, coping, which refers to the cognitive and behavioural efforts to manage stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), has also been widely found to be critical in navigating the transitions and associated life and sport demands of TD

(Drew et al., 2019; Stambulova, 2009). Further, the ability to cope with performance and

147

developmental pressures has also been found to distinguish career progression outcomes in predicting future success in youth soccer (Mills et al., 2012; Saward et al., 2020).

From a TD stakeholder perspective, an emphasis on psychobehavioural skills is found in rugby codes, with coaches’ perspectives of the positive attributes of potentially successful players including being proactive, detailed in preparation, maintaining routines and realistic in self-evaluation (Cupples & O’Connor, 2011; Hill et al., 2015). Insufficient psychological resources such as the ability to maintain commitment and motivation were also highlighted by rugby coaches in rationalising why a number of high-potential players did not progress

(Taylor & Collins, 2019). The variety of influencing psychological factors has also led to the development of multiple evaluation instruments with both individual elements, such as

Toering et al.’s (2012) Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-SRS).

School-based RL TDEs fulfil a key role in the RL TD pathway in Australia. School- based competitions have a strong cultural history, complementing governing body competitions and professional club–led development programs. A recent cross-sectional study of three successful TDEs found a strong coherence with effectiveness characteristics cited in the TDE literature, including strong interpersonal relationships, a family feel and high expectations of athletes’ roles and behaviours (Cupples et al., 2020). Corroborating other school sport evidence in relation to environmental support and positive development

(Knowles et al., 2017), general findings support the anecdotal value and recognition of these programs in their ability to develop players who can successfully transition to the next pathway step. However, to gain a more granular understanding of context-specific interactions between the developing player and the environment, a prospective longitudinal analysis approach would be beneficial.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the context-specific longitudinal impact of school-based RL TDE processes on player psychobehavioural developmental outcomes.

148

Utilising a mixed methods approach, including a cross-lagged analysis of validated psychometric questionnaires supplemented by player focus group interviews, the study specifically attempted to identify the TDE processes associated with developing specific psychobehavioural outcomes (i.e. coping and self-regulation). We contend that the identification of such TDE processes and their associations is important to better understand how athlete development environments may be optimised and help identify how TDE processes and developmental outcomes may relate to a better transition to higher-level RL performance environments.

7.2 Methods

7.2.1 Participants

Following institutional ethics approval (application no. 15418) as well as parent and participant consent, baseline participants included 53 male RL players (M age = 15.3 years,

SD = 0.8 years) attending one of three secondary schools in New South Wales and

Queensland, Australia, that included recognised RL player development programs. All players participated in school-based affiliated RL competitions, attended school training obligations of up to four times per week alongside academic study requirements and also fulfilled potential external RL club and/or representative teams. The three school TDEs were intentionally sampled based on meeting individual (e.g. athlete progression and representative team selection) and team-based achievement success (team-based success in national secondary school competitions) inclusion criteria (Cupples et al., 2020). The TDEs were all secondary schools that fulfilled the final compulsory education step in Australia, with students ranging in age from 12 to 18 years. The schools all had successful RL programs; however, academic achievement was the primary focus. The schools varied geographically but all were located in two dominant Australian states (New South Wales and Queensland) for

RL participation and cultural integration. Over the course of longitudinal tracking and

149

measurement (i.e. 20 months), 10 participants dropped out. Reasons for dropout included not being available during one or more data collection points, family relocation, changing schools and/or ceasing participation in school RL programs. Following participant dropout and full completion of measures by the remaining participants (N = 43; M age = 15.1 years,

SD = 1.1 years), an 80% retention rate was apparent. During data collection at time points

TP2 and TP3, most participants progressed into senior school training squads in their respective TDEs. This step entailed an increased training commitment (up to four times per week) and exposure to senior school-based TDE coaching staff.

7.2.2 Research design and procedures

This study deployed a longitudinal mixed method design, which included four standardised data collection time points (TP1–TP4) across a 20-month period (see Figure 7.1).

At each time point, subscales from three validated psychometric questionnaires were utilised to examine whether hypothetically beneficial environmental processes, as rated by RL player participants, were associated with changes in psychobehavioural development. Across each time point, environmental processes were assessed using Martindale et al.’s (2010) TDEQ, while psychobehavioural development was assessed using Toering et al.’s (2012) SRL-SRS and the ‘coping’ subscale of Á MacNamara and Collins’s (2011) PCDEQ. In conjunction with a nominated TDE coach at each school, the lead researcher introduced the questionnaires and facilitated their completion at baseline (TP1). Thereafter, the school TDE coaches implemented and facilitated follow-up measures (TP2–TP4) with instruction and assistance.

All questionnaires were completed at the respective schools in private classroom settings and during RL program time. As shown in Figure 7.1, psychobehavioural quantitative measures were complemented by focus group interviews, deployed 2 months after TP4. Focus groups aimed to provide contextual participant perspectives and accounts with respect to whether and

150

how school-based TDEs facilitated facets of psychobehavioural development. These data supplemented the quantitative data and were facilitated by the lead researcher.

7.2.3 Mixed methods approach (quantitative measures and qualitative interviews)

7.2.3.1 Athlete environment processes: Talent Development Environment Questionnaire

The TDEQ (Martindale et al., 2010) was used to assess the key generic features and processes of the respective TDEs. The TDEQ has been applied across multiple team sport contexts to determine how player perceptions of TDEs can improve TDE functioning (Mills et al., 2014a), evaluate the perceived value of TDEs in relation to wellbeing (Ivarsson et al.,

2015) and, more recently, as a diagnostic and evaluation tool for an intervention program in youth rugby (Hall et al., 2019). Developed to evaluate TDEs in relation to literature-informed features of effective practice, the TDEQ consists of the following seven subscales (Martindale et al., 2012): ‘Long-term development focus’ (24 items), ‘Quality preparation’ (five items),

‘Communication’ (seven items), ‘Understanding the athlete’ (four items), ‘Support networks’

(eight items), ‘Challenging and supportive environments’ (four items) and ‘Long-term development fundamentals’ (seven items). The 59 items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree). Previous studies have indicated strong internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha for subscales ranging between 0.61 and 0.97

(Martindale et al., 2010). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha values ranged between 0.33 and 0.90.

151

Figure 7.1

Schematic Overview of the Study Design, Timeline of Measurements and When Focus Groups Occurred

School-based RL School-based RL TDE focus group TDE (n = 1) (n = 1) Questionnaire Instruments (n = 3)

a) Athlete environmental processes: • Talent Development Environment Questionnaire a School-based RL School-based RL TDE focus group TDE (n = 1) b) Athlete psychobehavioural outcomes: (n = 1) • Coping subscale of the Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence Questionnaire b • Self-regulation subscale of the Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale c School-based RL School-based RL TDE focus group TDE (n = 1) (n = 1)

Time TP1 (Month 0) TP2 (Month 6) TP3 (Month 12) TP4 (Month 18) TP5 (Month 20)

Data Collection Time Points

Note. RL = Rugby League; TDE = talent development environment; TP = time point. a Martindale et al. (2012). b Á MacNamara and Collins (2011). c Toering et al. (2012).

152

7.2.3.2 Athlete psychobehavioural outcomes: Coping

The PCDEQ (Á MacNamara & Collins, 2011) assesses the possession and deployment of research-informed psychological characteristics associated with developing performance excellence. These characteristics are thought to enable aspiring athletes to optimally benefit from the frequent developmental challenges faced by athletes during trajectories to higher performance (Á MacNamara & Collins, 2013). Designed to be administered in the ecological developmental setting, the PCDEQ has six subscales; however, for the purposes of this study, only the ‘Coping with performance and developmental pressure’ (‘coping’) subscale was utilised. Based on previous findings for school-based RL TDEs (Cupples et al., 2020) and other TDE literature (Larsen et al., 2014), coping skills have been identified as necessary yet lacking in practice. Therefore, the 11-item coping subscale, examining, for instance, the ability to react appropriately to mistakes, show confidence to thrive under pressure and regulate one’s efforts when challenged, was utilised. Rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from very unlike me to very like me, the coping subscale contains negatively worded items such as ‘I often stop trying when I find the task difficult’. On this basis, lower scores and/or a decline in scores over time suggest a positive change in player coping capability. Previous findings show that the subscale has an internal consistency of 0.85 (Á MacNamara & Collins,

2011), while in this study, based on mean score across the four time points, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90.

7.2.3.3 Athlete psychobehavioural outcomes: Self-regulation

Given that the development of self-regulation skills has consistently been associated with successful performance transition (Gledhill & Harwood, 2014) and higher performance levels (McCardle et al., 2019), improvements in facets of self-regulation are considered a positive developmental outcome. Aspects of self-regulation were assessed using the SRL-SRS

(Toering et al., 2012). The SRL-SRS consists of the following six subscales: psychosocial

153

behavioural skills relating to ‘Planning’ (nine items), ‘Self-monitoring’ (eight items), ‘Effort’

(10 items) and ‘Self-efficacy’ (10 items), measured on 4-point Likert scales ranging from almost never to almost always, as well as ‘Evaluation’ (eight items) and ‘Reflection’ (five items), assessed on 5-point Likert scales ranging from never to always and strongly agree to strongly disagree, respectively. As per instrument instructions, ‘Reflection’ scores were reversed for analysis purposes. Cronbach’s coefficients of internal consistency have been shown to range from 0.85 to 0.73 across the six subscales (Toering et al., 2012). In this study,

Cronbach’s alphas ranged between 0.69 and 0.85.

7.2.3.4 Focus group interviews

To supplement the questionnaires, three qualitative focus group interviews comprising three to four players (M age = 16.8 years, SD = 0.4 years) per group were conducted 2 months after TP4 using a semi-structured interview guide. The interview guide was developed to facilitate discussion of themes and expansion on the responses to the TDE questionnaire and explore participant perspectives of TDE effectiveness (Henriksen et al., 2010a; Larsen et al.,

2013; Mills et al., 2014b). Open-ended questions helped facilitate broad reflection, promoting conversation according to the players’ personal experiences (Guest et al., 2012). General perspectives were sorted according to perceived skill increases in learning, motivation and preparation on and off the field. The influence of school TDE features and processes on perceived performance improvement and overall TDE value in promoting long-term development were the focus of focus group questioning. Example questions included, ‘How has the RL program changed the way you approach challenges? and ‘What are some features of the program that promote long-term success for individual players on and off the field?’

(see Appendix I).

154

7.2.4 Data analysis

7.2.4.1 Quantitative questionnaire measures

To determine whether changes over time aligned with the results from the two questionnaires and coping subscale, descriptive statistics were initially calculated according to each data collection time point. Each subscale was then analysed using independent one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) with post-hoc tests. Prior to analysis, initial data assumption checks were conducted, including outlier detection, distribution and sphericity. Analyses showed linear relationships, no outliers and a normal distribution of variables according to the Shapiro–Wilk test (p > 0.05). In the second step, correlation matrix analyses were conducted between all independent process and outcome variables at all time points (TP1–TP4) to determine (i) associations (i.e. direction and magnitude) between variables; (ii) multicollinearity between process and outcome variables; (iii) multicollinearity of predictor variables over time; and (iv) whether variables should be removed for subsequent analysis. Five highly correlated variables (r > 0.60) were identified and subsequently removed

(Cohen, 1988). These included all communication change variables (TP1–TP2, TP2–TP3 and

TP3–TP4), support network (TP2–TP3) and long-term development fundamentals (TP2–

TP3). Following correlations, cross-sectional stepwise regressions of time point–matched data were conducted to examine associations at given time points. Because age and school were considered potential influences on associations between TDE processes and outcome ratings, these were added as independent factors. Age and school were also included as covariates in subsequent analysis steps.

In the third analysis step, to determine whether school-based RL TDE processes beneficially affected individual athlete psychobehavioural outcomes, a cross-lagged stepwise hierarchal regression analysis was conducted. Prior to the analysis, changes over time (i.e.

TP1–TP2, TP2–TP3 and TP3–TP4) on subscale ratings were calculated for each of the seven

155

TDE processes and each psychobehavioural outcome variable (i.e. coping and self-regulation subscales). Changes in TDE process scores were then regressed to the change in each psychobehavioural outcome in a cross-lagged temporal manner. According to

Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT framework (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), developmental change needs time; thus, a temporal delay may occur between the presence and recognition of proximal processes and their expected influence on individual outcomes (e.g. learning). A cross-lagged analysis (analysis of multiple variables across time points) examines the presence and (in)stability of relationships between variables to understand both their direction and how they influence each other over time (Selig & Little, 2012). Therefore, this approach aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical propositions and the present study’s aim to understand the association between TDEs and developmental outcomes.

To determine whether TDE processes are associated with psychobehavioural outcomes, two predictive regression models were applied. Model A was used to examine generic development trends by regressing the changes in TDE process scores for each TDEQ subscale between TP1 and TP3 onto the changes in outcome subscale scores (n = 7) from TP2 to TP4. Then, Model B explored associations more specifically with reference to earlier or later data collection time points by expanding the number of process variables to include both

TP1–TP2 and TP2–TP3 (i.e. 14), while changes in ratings for the seven outcome variables from TP2–TP4 were retained. Prior to all stepwise regression analyses (i.e. Models A and B), data analysis assumptions were checked by inspecting independent studentised residuals to confirm linearity, and tolerance values (> 0.01) were assessed to determine the presence of multicollinearity. Standardised coefficients (B), coefficient of determination (r²), 95% CI and p-values were scrutinised in the regression models, with significance set at p = 0.05, and r² indices of < 0.04–0.25, 0.25–0.63 and > 0.64 indicating small, moderate and large effects, respectively (Ferguson, 2009). All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 25.0.

156

7.2.4.2 Qualitative interviews

Deductive thematic analysis was applied to explore the presence of TDE processes and their perceived influence on participant actions and thoughts throughout their time in

TDEs. Focus group qualitative data were initially transcribed verbatim and analysed using deductive techniques (Braun & Clarke, 2012). The organisation of quotes was aligned with the focus group aims and questionnaire subscales to complement the quantitative findings.

For example, participant descriptions of TDE processes such as ‘pursuing coach interactions post-training session’ were analysed in relation to how behaviours (e.g. participant-led and environment-facilitated) were indicative of perceived psychobehavioural development.

Rigour in data analysis was ensured using co-authors as ‘critical friends’ during the interpretation process (Smith & McGannon, 2018). Regular debriefing, querying of interpretation and triangulation to establish consensus in the research team also assisted in establishing data trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

7.3 Results

7.3.1 Quantitative questionnaires

Combined (across-school) participant mean (SD) subscale score ratings for the TDEQ according to each data collection time point (TP1–TP4) are summarised in Table 7.1a.

Significant improvements were identified for several TDE processes across the 20-month period. Specifically, time effects for the subscales ‘Communication’ (F(3, 126) = 11.23, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.21), ‘Support networks’ (F(3, 126) = 8.29, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.16) and ‘Long- term development fundamentals’ (F(3, 126) = 10.67, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.20) were apparent as participants spent time in TDEs. Interestingly, ratings for perceived ‘Quality preparation’ related to competition–training load balance and pathway progression decreased across the four time points (F(3, 126) = 4.19, p = 0.007, η2 = 0.09). Follow-up post-hoc pairwise comparisons identified significant increases in TDE process variables from the initial time

157

point. Significant TP1–TP2 increases in ratings were identified for ‘Communication’

(Mdiff = 0.47, p = 0.001), ‘Support network’ (Mdiff = 0.39, p = 0.009) and ‘Long-term development fundamentals’ (Mdiff = 0.36, p = 0.004). This was followed by gradual increases across time points TP2–TP3 and TP3–TP4. A decrease in ‘Quality preparation’ became apparent for TP1–TP3 (Mdiff = −5.17, p = 0.01), remaining stable to TP4.

Significant time effects were also identified for psychobehavioural outcome variables

(see Table 7.1b). Significant increases were apparent in the ‘Coping’ subscale (F(2.6,

110.2) = 7.235, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.14), equating to a lower perceived coping capability. In contrast, four of the six self-regulation subscales ratings increased in a positive direction:

‘Planning’ (F(3, 126) = 8.34, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.16), ‘Self-monitoring’ (F(2.3, 97.6) = 7.12, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.14), ‘Evaluation’ (F(3, 126) = 6.29, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.13) and ‘Self-efficacy’

(F(3, 126) = 3.10, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.07). No significant time effects were identified for

‘Understanding the athlete’ and ‘Challenging and supportive environments’. Follow-up post- hoc pairwise comparisons identified that changes in outcome variables were delayed. This indicates both time point and gradual changes. Significant differences from TP1 (baseline) to

TP4 were apparent for ‘Coping’ (Mdiff = 0.71, p < 0.001), ‘Self-monitoring’ (Mdiff = 0.44, p < 0.001), ‘Evaluation’ (Mdiff = 0.41, p < 0.001) and ‘Self-efficacy’ (Mdiff = 0.19, p = 0.03), while ratings for ‘Planning’ increased from TP1 to TP3 (Mdiff = 0.28, p = 0.003). Figure 7.2 illustrates an example of rating changes for a TDE process and a psychobehavioural outcome variable across longitudinal tracking.

158

Table 7.1a

Descriptive and Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Results: Talent Development Environment Process Variables

TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TDEQ a process variables Scale range α p η2 M SD M SD M SD M SD Long-term development focus 1–6 4.70 0.46 4.87 0.55 4.82 0.49 4.92 0.39 0.90 0.093 0.05 Quality preparation 1–6 4.05 0.96 3.77 1.12 3.53 0.93 3.61 0.92 0.83 0.007* 0.09 Communication 1–6 4.23 0.77 4.69 0.77 4.80 0.55 4.84 0.53 0.82 < 0.001** 0.21 Understanding the athlete 1–6 3.91 1.03 4.00 1.11 3.80 1.01 3.99 0.90 0.81 0.449 0.02 Support networks 1–6 4.33 0.66 4.72 0.69 4.73 0.65 4.86 0.46 0.78 < 0.001** 0.37 Challenging and supportive 1–6 4.21 0.85 4.19 0.87 4.24 0.70 4.35 0.57 0.33 0.441 0.21 environment Long-term development 1–6 4.35 0.58 4.71 0.74 4.79 0.50 4.95 0.45 0.75 < 0.001** 0.20 fundamentals

Note. TDEQ = Talent Development Environment Questionnaire; TP = time point. a Martindale et al. (2012). * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.001.

159

Table 7.1b

Descriptive and Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Results: Talent Development Environment Psychobehavioural Outcome Variables

TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 Outcome variables Scale range α p η2 M SD M SD M SD M SD Planning a 1–4 2.98 0.43 3.19 0.43 3.26 0.40 3.30 0.41 0.85 < 0.001** 0.17 Self-monitoring a 1–4 2.96 0.49 3.12 0.49 3.13 0.42 3.31 0.37 0.83 < 0.001** 0.14 Evaluation a 1–5 3.55 0.58 3.70 0.60 3.80 0.44 3.96 0.51 0.85 < 0.001** 0.13 Reflection a 1–5 3.98 0.58 3.99 0.59 4.11 0.55 4.12 0.56 0.83 0.496 0.02 Effort a 1–4 3.33 0.47 3.40 0.42 3.38 0.42 3.45 0.38 0.69 0.457 0.02 Self-efficacy a 1–4 3.13 0.39 3.26 0.41 3.30 0.38 3.33 0.36 0.82 0.029** 0.07 Coping b 1–6 3.13 0.88 3.06 1.15 3.64 1.17 3.83 1.05 0.90 < 0.001** 0.15

Note: TP = time point a From the Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (Toering et al., 2012). b Coping with performance and developmental pressures from the Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence Questionnaire (Á MacNamara & Collins, 2012). * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.001.

160

Figure 7.2

Descriptive Longitudinal RM-ANOVA Mean Score Changes for Talent Development Environment Process and Psychobehavioural Outcomes

5.0 4.2

4.8 4.0 * *

4.6 3.8

SRS -

4.4 3.6 SRL

Communication

4.2 Evaluation 3.4 Outcome: Mean Score 'Evaluation' Score Mean Outcome:

Processes: Mean Score 'Communication' TDEQ 'Communication' Score Mean Processes: 4.0 3.2 TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 Data Collection Timepoint

Note. RM-ANOVA = repeated measures analysis of variance; TDEQ = Talent Development Environment Questionnaire (Martindale et al., 2010); SRL-SRS = Self-Regulated Learning Self-Report Scale (Toering et al., 2012); TP = time point. * Significant change in M score at p < 0.001.

161

Results from regression Model A in the main analysis are summarised in Table 5.2a.

When including age and school of participants as covariates, three significant overall associations with small to moderate effect sizes (r² = 0.14–0.37) were identified in rating changes, in particular the TDE processes from TP1 to TP3 and psychobehavioural outcomes from TP2 to TP4. Specifically, the subscales ‘Challenging and supportive environment’

(B = −1.33, p < 0.001) and ‘Understanding the athlete’ (B = −0.18, p = 0.04) were negatively associated with ‘Coping’ (F(6, 36) = 5.17, p < 0.001, r² = 0.37). The negative score for the

‘Coping’ subscale suggests that changes in ratings of TDE processes from TP1 to TP3 were associated with subsequent (TP2–TP4) improvements in perceived coping capabilities. By contrast, TP1–TP3 changes in ‘Quality preparation’ (B = 0.73, p = 0.01) and ‘Long-term development focus’ (B = 0.63, p = 0.05) were positively associated with subsequent changes in ‘Coping’ ratings (TP2–TP4), suggesting that higher ratings for TDE processes challenged players, lowering their perceived ability to cope at subsequent time points. Changes in ratings for ‘Challenging and supportive environment’ from TP1 to TP3 (B = 0.40, p < 0.001) were positively associated with subsequent TP2–TP4 changes in ‘Effort’ ratings. However, TP1–

TP3 changes in ‘Support network’ (B = −0.23, p = 0.03) ratings were negatively associated with subsequent TP2–TP4 changes in ‘Effort’ (F(4, 38) = 4.63, p = 0.004, r² = 0.26). In addition, TP1–TP3 changes in ‘Challenging and supportive environment’ (B = 0.30, p < 0.001) were positively associated with TP2–TP4 changes in ‘Self-efficacy’ ratings. By contrast, TP1–TP3 changes in ‘Quality preparation’ (B = −0.16, p = 0.04) were negatively associated with TP2–TP4 changes in ‘Self-efficacy’ (F(4, 38) = 2.66, p = 0.04, r² = 0.14), suggesting that with pathway progression in the respective TDE programs, which involves greater management of training and competition loads and more intense preparation and learning, self-efficacy was challenged (lowering the change in values). No other significant

162

associations were evident for TDE process variables and psychobehavioural outcomes. Age and school were also not associated with changes in any development outcomes.

A summary of Model B regression results is provided in Table 5.2b. An increased number of significant associations with small to moderate effect sizes (r² = 0.15–0.43) were identified in rating changes, particularly for TDE processes at TP1–TP2 and TP2–TP and psychobehavioural outcomes at TP2–TP4. Specifically, in the initial period (TP1–TP2), a change in ‘Quality preparation’ (B = 0.74, p < 0.001) was positively associated with TP2–TP4 changes in ‘Coping’. Given the negative scoring, this suggests a subsequent decline in perceived coping capabilities. By contrast, rating changes in the ‘Challenging and supportive environment’ subscale at both TP1–TP2 (B = −1.02, p < 0.001) and TP2–TP3 (B = −1.15, p < 0.001) were negatively associated with ‘Coping’ (F(5, 37) = 7.41, p < 0.001, r² = 0.43), suggesting improved player coping capabilities at following time points. TP2–TP3 changes in ratings for ‘Challenging and supportive environment’ (B = 0.27, p < 0.001; B = 0.31, p = 0.01) were also positively associated with both ‘Effort’ (F(3, 39) = 3.38, p = 0.02, r² = 0.16) and ‘Reflection’ (F(4, 38) = 3.69, p = 0.01, r² = 0.20). In addition, TP1–TP2 rating changes for ‘Understanding the athlete’ (B = −0.14, p = 0.04) were negatively associated with player self-monitoring, suggesting that positive changes in coach–player interactions associated with a greater concern for holistic development (e.g. wellbeing and life outside sport) were associated with reduced changes in self-monitoring behaviours at subsequent time points. However, TP2–TP3 changes in ‘Long-term development fundamentals’ (B = 0.22, p < 0.001) were positively associated with changes in ‘Self-monitoring’ (F(4, 38) = 2.89, p = 0.03, r² = 0.15) at TP2–TP4. Again, age and school were not associated with any changes in psychobehavioural outcomes at any time point. In sum, Model B provides greater temporal specificity for when TDE processes may influence assessed outcomes and, importantly, validates Model A via predominantly complementary findings.

163

Table 7.2a

Model A Multiple Regression Results: Talent Development Environment Processes and Psychobehavioural Outcomes

Outcome variables (TP2–TP4) Process variables (TP1–TP3) Effort Self-efficacy Coping B 95% CI p B 95% CI p B 95% CI p Challenging and supportive environment 0.40 [0.20, 0.60] <.001** 0.30 [0.11, 0.50] <.001** −1.33 [−1.90, −0.75] < 0.001** Support networks −0.23 [−0.42, −0.03] 0.026* Quality preparation −0.16 [−0.32, −0.01] 0.04* 0.73 [0.22, 1.23] 0.006* Long-term development focus 0.63 [0.01, 1.25] 0.046* Understanding the athlete −0.33 [−0.64, −0.01] 0.043* Age −0.02 [−0.28, 0.25] 0.91 0.00 [−0.24, 0.24] 1.00 −0.18 [−0.86, 0.50] 0.59 School 0.04 [−0.13, 0.22] 0.63 −0.05 [−0.20, 0.11] 0.53 0.16 [−0.28, 0.61] 0.46

Note. TP = time point. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.001.

164

Table 7.2b

Model B Multiple Regression Results: Talent Development Environment Processes and Psychobehavioural Outcomes

Outcome variables (TP2–TP4) Process variables Effort Coping Self-monitoring Reflection B 95% CI p B 95% CI p B 95% CI p B 95% CI p Quality preparation 0.74 [0.37, 1.11] < 0.001** (TP1–TP2) CSE (TP1–TP2) −1.02 [−1.70, −0.33] 0.005* Understanding the −0.14 [−0.27, −0.01] 0.041* athlete (TP1–TP2) LTD fundamentals < .001* 0.22 [0.06, 0.37] (TP2–TP3) * CSE (TP2–TP3) 0.27 [0.10, 0.44] <0.001** −1.15 [−1.63, −0.66] < 0.001 0.31 [0.06, 0.56] 0.018* Age 0.01 [−0.27, 0.30] 0.93 −0.58 [−1.24, 0.07] 0.08 0.02 [−0.21, 0.25] 0.85 −0.23 [−0.66, 0.20] 0.29 School 0.04 [−0.14, 0.23] 0.66 0.30 [−0.12, 0.73] 0.16 −0.01 [−0.16, 0.14] 0.89 −0.04 [−0.31, 0.22] 0.74

Note. TP = time point; CSE: challenging and supportive environment; LTD: long-term development. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.001.

165

7.3.2 Qualitative focus group interviews

Deductive analysis of focus group participant reflections revealed three higher-order themes: ‘Culture of support’, ‘Individual challenge’ and ‘Autonomy’. Across the focus groups, the culture of support within TDEs was consistently highlighted as an ongoing process, which was perceived to lead to both individual player success and wider school RL program success. The steps involved and time required to establish effective coach–athlete relationships were highly valued by players because they were perceived to influence their development. Member 2 (Focus Group 1) identified a strong connection with coaches in and outside of RL:

He [the head coach] just teaches us all the little things . . . around showing up on time

[behaviour strategy] or preparation, like, what to eat right before the games and

hydrate [behaviour strategy]. We trust him [psychological strategy], go to him about

other things outside of football, also, such as family, contracts and outside trainings . .

. He is just the right person to talk to . . . He always is available.

The strong social connection between players, helping them maintain their effort and dedication to the TDE was also highlighted. Member 3 (Focus Group 1) stated,

The travel is challenging… early morning wake ups and long days on the bus and

training [coping strategy]. But other players do it too, we support each other, do it

together [behaviour strategy]. It’s something you just have to do to be a part of the

team. You just remind yourself why you are doing it [self-regulation psychological

strategy], why you stick to the routines [behaviour strategy] to get better and

remember you want to give yourself the best chance to play NRL.

The theme ‘Individual challenge’ related to how players perceived TDE processes as assisting their motivations and efforts to continually strive towards enhancing performance.

The role of the coach, the cultural standards established and the transparency of behavioural

166

expectations in the TDE were repeatedly highlighted. As articulated by Member 1 (Focus

Group 2), training levels, team selection and maintaining one’s team position in a highly competitive environment present explicit challenges:

The coaches always talk about the lessons of hard work; they are honest with you . . .

they challenge everyone to compete for the positions in the team. Even if you are in

the team you must do extras and keep working [self-regulation psychological

strategy]—competition for spots pushes you.

The notion of challenge in school TDEs, mentioned across focus groups, was noted by

Member 3 (Focus Group 3):

Effort is rewarded on the field and off it [self-regulation behaviour strategy]. Everyone

is challenged, no matter what position you play, if you’re on the bench or if you are on

scholarship for an NRL club, you need to do the fundamentals (e.g. practice basic

individual skills, listening at training, doing your recovery [self-regulated behaviours])

right.

Challenge was also considered more broadly by interviewees, reflected in the consistent comments on the need to balance RL demands, education and social peer expectations. As described by Member 2 (Focus Group 2), ‘It is challenging in terms of your own development and schedule . . . how hard training is, fitting around schoolwork and fitting around club training, you can be planned [coping strategy], but it is pretty tough’.

In relation to the demand and need for balance both in and outside of the TDE, the heightened challenges and perceived inadequate support were identified. For instance,

Member 1 (Focus Group 2) explained the struggles of managing multiple perspectives from different RL pathway stakeholders in determining the ideal development pathway decisions:

167

The coaches [TDE] empathise with you, but you still need to make the decisions on

what to put first [self-regulated behaviour] . . . you try to talk to people outside at rep

or club, but they have different views... It stresses you out [coping strategy].

In the third theme, ‘Autonomy’, interviewees reflected their perceptions on how TDE processes promoted skills for long-term development and transition. Coaching behaviours in school-based RL TDEs were described as encouraging individual ownership of development.

This was explained by Member 3 (Focus Group 1) with reference to both RL-specific training and the wider TDE microsystem:

He’ll [the coach] give you some tips [behaviour strategy], but then he also wants you

to carry much of the weight yourself in improving [psychological strategy]. He tells us

to keep practising, judge your own games and come back to him. You push yourself—

he is always asking you questions after sessions about certain plays, drills or your own

training [behaviour strategy].

Similarly, Member 3 (Focus Group 3) commented,

[The] coach is always checking in with other teachers on your attitude and grades in

class. It makes you stay on track—you learn to just keep checking yourself [self-

regulation psychological strategy] . . . and how you are going in and out of footy.

The changing roles of players as they progressed into the senior years of the TDE programs were also highlighted in the ‘Autonomy’ theme. Players reflected on expectations and a sense of pride in playing more of a hands-on role to perpetuate the RL TDE culture in games and wider interactions. With reference to the adoption of leadership responsibilities and increasing expectations, Member 1 (Focus Group 2) stated,

Next year we will be having a lot of younger boys on the team, so we have to take

responsibility [psychological strategy]. By having us on the team, we can lead the

168

young ones around the park and just help them go through everything on and off the

field [behaviour strategy].

The expectation from TDE coaches for senior players to engage in role modelling was explained as maintaining the intended developmental outcomes for younger players while enhancing autonomy and self-regulation skills of leaders (i.e. more senior players).

7.4 Discussion

7.4.1 Overview of findings

Based on Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model and PPCT framework, the primary aim of the present study was to evaluate the longitudinal effects of school-based RL TDE processes on individual player psychobehavioural development. The mixed methods approach, which included a cross-lagged analysis of psychometric questionnaire data, identified at a cross-sample level that rating changes in several TDE processes were associated with changes in specific psychobehavioural skills. Specifically, TDE processes that were stable or progressively increased—challenging environment, a culture of support, individual player understanding and autonomy (as perceived by players)—were associated with perceived improvements in coping and self-regulation skills. By contrast, progressive changes in quality preparation as part of TDE processes (i.e. increasing training/game demands and expectations in school-based TDEs and the wider RL pathway) were associated with taxing players perceived coping resources at later time points in the tracking period. The findings suggest that school-based RL TDEs—acknowledged as having a history of successfully facilitating RL player development—may simultaneously have positive and negative relationships with psychobehavioural outcomes. The findings have practical implications in terms of future school programming, practitioner interaction behaviours and player communication strategies.

169

Congruent with Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT framework, the main regression findings for both Models A and B were consistent with the proposition that proximal processes in TDE microsystems interact with the active biopsychosocial individual, possibly leading to psychobehavioural development over time. Most notable was the perceived changes in coping capability with time and TDE involvement. The ability to cope effectively with a potentially diverse range of challenges and stressors associated with TD pathway navigation has previously been recognised as a prerequisite for future success (Savage et al., 2017). It has even been postulated that ‘talent needs trauma’ (Collins & MacNamara, 2012), meaning the developmental benefits from the planned inclusion of progressively more challenging obstacles and setbacks in player trajectories, which do not necessarily induce psychological trauma per se. Such challenges have been hypothesised as requiring the learning and utilisation of cognitive, behavioural and social coping strategies, a psychobehavioural skill set that may act as an important antecedent to higher performance transition (Collins et al., 2012).

In school-based RL TDEs, the introduction and retention of challenging but socially supportive environments over time (TP1–TP3) via high-quality coach–player interactions, high relatedness and consistently high physical and psychological expectations may help invoke such positive coping responses (Gledhill et al., 2017). Progressively increasing ratings for ‘Understanding the athlete’ were associated with increased coping capabilities, suggesting that close, caring school practitioner behaviours (e.g. coach availability for social interactions) and coaches’ holistic understandings of players (e.g. life outside of RL, family and the wider school) were valuable. Such quality interactions with individuals coordinating TDE programs may provide critically important social scaffolding, supporting the adoption and repeated use of appropriate coping strategies under demanding circumstances (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014).

The tracking of school-based RL TDE involvement over time also identified processes associated with lower player-perceived coping capabilities at subsequent time points.

170

Increasing subscale ratings for ‘Quality preparation’ and ‘Long-term development focus’

(TP1–TP3) were interpreted as challenges for players’ coping abilities. These subscales are associated with components within and external to the TDE microsystem. The ‘Quality preparation’ subscale examined wider ecological factors and the coherence of stakeholder networks beyond the school TDE microsystem. It makes reference to guidance on the appropriate balance between training, competition and recovery, the clarity around progression guidelines and conflicting opinions regarding the ideal path to RL success. These are all known TDE factors that may contribute to adverse physical and psychological outcomes if inappropriately managed (DiFiori et al., 2014; Scantlebury et al., 2020).

Meanwhile, the ‘Long-term development focus’ subscale examined the intraschool RL TDE processes related to, for instance, coach feedback and planning, training design and support and the promotion of autonomy to work on weaknesses. Despite both subscales being associated with lower coping capabilities at specific time points, it is hypothesised that such relationships may vary in direction and magnitude according to player psychological characteristics such as perceived level of control and prior experience.

TDE processes characterised by autonomy-supportive coaching environments, which include guided challenges to promote autonomous behaviours, have been hypothesised as long-term facilitators of coping (Staff et al., 2017). Consistent, controlled and progressive exposures to stresses and challenges over time in a long-term TDE program may, therefore, provide valuable learning and developmental opportunities that facilitate psychobehavioural development (without consequences such as TDE deselection). Nevertheless, the stress and difficulty involved in managing wider pathway demands for individuals without the social skills or cognitive maturity to do so may also have adverse effects on individual progression

(Collins & MacNamara, 2017; Hill et al., 2016). Lower perceived player self-efficacy ratings for TP2–TP4 associated with decreasing autonomy in wider pathway demands reflected in the

171

‘Quality preparation’ subscale provide evidence of a potential negative disruption to player development. Consistent with the PPCT framework, such findings highlight the need to carefully structure optimal developmental challenges in TDE microsystems and ensure that wider sport pathway demands and involvement do not undermine individual psychobehavioural development.

The increasing ratings for the ‘Challenging and supportive environment’ subscale over time were also associated with increases in self-regulation, specifically behavioural effort and psychological self-efficacy for TP2–TP4. The PPCT framework suggests that TDEs may foster such skills via a variety of either interrelated or unique processes involving coaches and teammates. Increases in behavioural effort may be explained by the balanced and consistent challenges imposed by TDE staff over time or specific activities in programs (e.g. post- training skill or fitness extras). If these are implemented in a consistently supportive and encouraging manner, with players aware that effort is likely to result in favourable outcomes

(e.g. self-improvement and trust in the coach), it is understandable that challenges and support may lead to subsequent changes in psychobehavioural responses. Facilitating increased effort in training and practice activities may also lead to skills acquisition (e.g. skill techniques), physiological improvement (e.g. fitness) and modified performance behaviours (e.g. new tactical strategies); thus, the rewards of effort may become apparent for players, encouraging further effort investment. TDE coaches’ personal qualities, social interactional skills and established processes applied to create a challenging and supportive environment are also likely to contribute to heightened levels of psychobehavioural engagement (e.g. effort and self-reflection) and outcomes (e.g. self-efficacy). Thus, TDEs that create challenges and expectations in a socially supportive microsystem climate may heighten the opportunities for self-regulated learning and enhance the acquisition of knowledge and skills.

172

Complementing the quantitative findings related to challenging and supportive environments, the focus group interviews also identified that strong social support among teammates and players across competition levels (e.g. senior and reserve teams) may also be important because it acts as a potential regulator of TDE cultural norms and the social acquisition of psychobehavioural skills (McCardle et al., 2019). Given that self-regulated learning often occurs in social contexts, school-based RL TDE features of mandatory attendance, shared goals and consistent interactions among players across settings (e.g. training, classrooms and travel) may also promote shared self-regulation, previously highlighted in educational settings (Järvelä et al., 2013). The high task and social cohesion in

TDEs may lead to a positive pressure on individuals to demonstrate greater self-regulated psychological and behavioural strategies (e.g. meeting travel demands, engaging in extra skills development outside of training and maintaining discipline standards). Such social norms have been shown to facilitate commitment, self-worth and self-evaluation in youth environments (Bruner et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2018). That said, increased ratings for support networks (TP1–TP3) were also negatively associated with subsequent player effort

(TP2–TP4), aligning with recent findings on youth soccer (Erikstad, Martin, et al., 2018). To account for this finding, it is possible that perceived reductions in behavioural effort may be attributed to a high orientation and focus on team success, which may occur at the expense of individual skill development. The counterintuitive notion that heightened support, greater coach interaction and group concern may negatively affect self-regulation is also supported by the negative association between understanding the athlete and subsequent self-monitoring capabilities. On this basis, it may be hypothesised that carefully monitoring social support and player autonomy in accordance with program experience and player maturity may be necessary. An inverse relationship may be required, where social support is progressively reduced over time and replaced by increased requirements for autonomy and self-regulated

173

behavioural efforts to help ensure the continuation of optimal psychobehavioural development.

7.4.2 Limitations

Despite the present findings, several study limitations also exist. First, although the study went beyond a cross-sectional design to examine potential patterns of relationships over time, it could not identify cause and effect (Adie et al., 2012). The inclusion of an age-, sex- and school-matched reference sample to enable long-term comparisons would have been preferable (e.g. Rongen et al., 2020). Such a reference group for each school would have also helped determine whether present findings were associated with features in broader school developmental environments or in RL TDEs specifically. Second, despite the strengths of applying a mixed methodical approach and integrating empirically validated instruments, the limitations of self-report assessments should be acknowledged. As highlighted in previous

TDE studies (Ivarsson et al., 2015), the accuracy of self-reporting and the possibility of social expectancy bias may have influenced questionnaire responses and cannot be discounted.

Third, the participants represented only a relatively small sample of young male RL players in the Australian school context. The potential variability across school organisations (e.g. infrastructure and social environments), their respective RL TDE programs and the knowledge and behavioural expertise of practitioners imply that findings may not necessarily apply to other contexts. That said, assuming the study schools generally reflected good practice, multiple organisational and practical implications may be extracted and developed to help increase the likelihood of positive psychobehavioural development.

7.4.3 Implications

On a practical level, the current findings provide several implications for school-based

TDEs. The findings suggest that practitioners should be patient and ‘play the long game’ because TDE processes may influence individual psychobehavioural abilities only at later

174

time points. The planning and creation of autonomy-supportive coaching environments (i.e. across staff, program content and spaces) need time for development (i.e. coach education, training design, understanding individual players and evaluation methods). The findings support the use of consistent, measurable challenges but with careful alignment to the pre- existing characteristics of individual players and the ability to maintain and regulate social support mechanisms accordingly (Savage et al., 2017). Because TDEs are vulnerable to multiple wider influences (e.g. school organisations and RL pathway program structures), there is a need to monitor and ensure that such a wider demand does not undermine psychobehavioural development. On this basis, school-based TDE coaches are in a strong advisory position to help young players navigate the ‘organised chaos’ (Scantlebury et al.,

2020) of various competition and program demands within and outside of school contexts. At the same time, RL TD policymakers at the macrosystem level have an essential role in both optimising development and protecting players from non-developmental or debilitating contexts (e.g. policies and programs related to permissible competitive/training loads) (Webb et al., 2016).

7.5 Conclusion

In the examination of school-based RL contexts, the findings show that particular preceding stable or enhancing TDE processes characterised by challenges, cultural support, individual player understanding and autonomy are associated with positive changes in some psychobehavioural outcomes, notably coping, self-efficacy and behavioural effort. Over the same tracking period, TDE processes centred around training and competition preparation and demands, both in TDEs and the broader RL pathway, were also potentially challenging, taxing players coping resources and lowering self-efficacy. Overall, the findings highlight the influence of TDE processes on individual psychobehavioural outcomes. They further highlight that practitioners in TDE settings can achieve positive psychobehavioural outcomes

175

while remaining mindful of other influential processes (e.g. RL load demands) that may simultaneously undermine development. Addressing these challenges and optimising TDE processes may prove valuable for RL players specifically and the efficacy of RL athlete development programs more broadly.

176

Chapter 8: Facilitating Transition into a High-Performance

Environment: The Effect of a Coping Intervention Program on

Elite Youth Rugby League Players

8.1 Introduction

The path to elite, high-level sport performance includes many challenges, which can either hinder or if overcome accelerate an athlete’s developmental progress (Gulbin et al.,

2010). As a component of the ‘talent needs trauma’ notion, there is growing recognition that developing athletes need to acquire psychological skills that help them positively navigate the diverse stressors and challenges encountered (Á MacNamara & Collins, 2013; Savage et al.,

2017). However, despite research recognition and the general promotion of fundamental psychosocial skills (e.g. cognitive stress appraisal, coping and resilience), there continues to be an absence of these skills being explicitly discussed and/or taught in high-performance team environments (Larsen et al., 2012). Such a disparity between research knowledge and practice is also concerning given the potential mental health outcomes and incidents, including those in the context of Australian Rugby League (RL), where youth players have reportedly experienced psychological difficulties in transitioning to or in response to exposure to high-performance environments (Barrowclough, 2015; Du Preez et al., 2017). In beginning to consider how to address these concerns, the present study aims to develop and evaluate a context-specific psychosocial and coping skills intervention in elite youth RL.

The transactional perspective of stress and coping provides an informative theoretical framework for understanding athletes in sporting contexts (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984). This perspective describes that stress involves the continuous individual appraisal of environmental demands and the individual’s resources to overcome such challenges (e.g. coping self-efficacy) in relation to personal event significance (i.e. goals and

177

values). Appraisal of environmental demands leads to general perceptions of either potential harm, threat, challenge or benefit, depending on an individual’s perceived coping resources to initiate and deploy an appropriate coping process (Lazarus, 1999). Stress is, therefore, considered the result of an imbalance between environmental stressors and associated demands and an individual’s ability to cope. Coping refers to all cognitive and behavioural efforts aimed at managing demands evaluated as stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Coping effectiveness is determined by the degree to which strategies applied reduce the stressors(s) to maintain positive outcomes.

Several coping strategy classifications have emerged in the literature. Lazarus and

Folkman’s (1984) goodness of fit model postulates that strategies can be differentiated either as problems or emotions based on the level of control an individual has over a stressful situation. Problem-focused coping involves direct efforts to change situations that can be controlled, while emotion-focused coping involves strategies to regulate an individual’s emotional responses when low levels of control exist (Nicholls et al., 2007). Coping strategies have further been differentiated into three higher-order types, including ‘task-oriented strategies’ (i.e. strategies to change the situation), ‘distraction-oriented strategies’ (i.e. redirecting one’s attention to other aspects of the situation) and ‘disengagement-oriented strategies’ (i.e. resigning to the situation) (Nicholls et al., 2016).

Coping classifications have been applied extensively in the sport literature, which has evaluated the alignment of coping strategies to stressor types (Nicholls, Levy, et al., 2009); however, the contextual and dynamic nature of coping needs to be considered. The research indicates that coping strategies may change over time, depending on historical and contextual factors (Nicholls & Polman, 2007) and the skill level of athletes (Tamminen & Holt, 2010), and between the contexts of training and competition (Nicholls, Jones et al., 2009). Findings also suggest that strategies may be constrained by dispositional factors such as cognitive and

178

social maturity (Nicholls et al., 2013), and, likewise, that coping is learned and changes across one’s life span (C. W. Reeves et al., 2011). The benefits of learned coping and psychosocial skills are also highlighted in studies specifically examining forms of athlete transition

(Stambulova et al., 2009; Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004).

Developing athletes typically contend with several demands within and outside their sporting contexts. Although not exhaustive, athletes often need to manage multiple life domains simultaneously, including personal training and performance, work and school, education and family and personal life. This may lead to the occurrence of concurrent stressors, which may affect cognitive, social, psychological and physical health (Wylleman &

Lavallee, 2004). In the sporting context, performance stressors may include fear and the consequences of errors, deselection, negative social evaluation, injury, the loss of financial contracts and rewards and relationship conflicts (Nicholls et al., 2011). Wider organisational stressors may include expected roles and behaviours as well as relationships with senior staff

(e.g. coaches) (Arnold et al., 2017). The athlete transition literature highlights the heightened challenges and uncertainty for junior (academy) athletes making the transition to elite stages, alongside meeting non-athletic demands (Drew et al., 2019). The ability to adapt to changing situations (R. A. Jones et al., 2014), manage multiple social identity roles and handle pressures from multiple stakeholders (e.g. coaches, support staff and parents) has been identified as important to transitioning well (Bennie & O’Connor, 2006; R. A. Jones et al.,

2014).

As part of recognising the broader need for collective stakeholder responsibility and more effective practices to facilitate holistic athlete development (Gledhill et al., 2017), research has also examined coach, player and stakeholder perspectives of youth and developmental sporting environments, with deficiencies in practice identified (Gledhill &

Harwood, 2019; Larsen et al., 2013). For instance, despite coping being recognised as a key

179

personal skill by numerous stakeholders (e.g. coaches and youth players), the development of coping skills was perceived as both limited and much required in a recent study examining the context strengths of school-based TD environments in Australian RL (Cupples et al., 2020).

Yet, to date, there have only been isolated studies of coping interventions in athlete development contexts that have advanced both the research knowledge and practitioner application. C. W. Reeves et al.’s (2011) coping effectiveness training and Larsen et al.’s

(2014) psychosocial skill intervention in youth soccer serve as rare examples targeting the enhancement of coping skills. Informatively, they embedded their interventions within an organisational culture (i.e. to improve context appropriateness and intervention fit) and integrated the involvement of key stakeholders (e.g. coaches and players) to improve intervention impact.

While substantive knowledge of psychological skills and strategies has been identified to facilitate performance, the premise of these skills being ‘caught’ rather than taught exists.

Further, with the continual annual occurrence of new athletes attempting to make developmental transitions with limited awareness of future demands and an unknown ability to handle associated stressors and challenges (Gould & Carson, 2008; Stambulova et al.,

2017), there is a hypothesised benefit from intentional, proactive programs that facilitate coping skills (Larsen et al., 2014; Savage et al., 2017). Therefore, the aims of the current study are to (i) identify perceived stressors and challenges from those involved in the player development pathway via a stressor audit; (ii) develop a context-specific, tailored coping intervention program targeting a sample of Under-20s (U20s) elite youth players at a National

Rugby League (NRL) club; and (iii) investigate intervention program effects utilising validated coping and wellbeing instruments and social validation methods. The study targeted the U20s level because this stage reflects the final, precursor step from developmental to senior (semi-) professional competition, thus is psychologically and physically demanding. If

180

successful, the longer-term aim is to implement the intervention into a broader high- performance player development program.

8.2 Method

8.2.1 Study design and procedure

A multimethod quasi-experimental design was deployed to examine intervention effects on the outcomes of coping strategy frequency of use, coping self-efficacy and wellbeing. Multimethod designs have been suggested as a useful research approach in addressing applied research questions (Giacobbi et al., 2005; Kegelaers et al., 2019). While a randomised controlled trial protocol was the preferred design, it could not be implemented because of the ecological constraints of intervention integration into a real-world practice setting. As shown in Figure 8.1, the design included three time points for quantitative measures (pre- and post-intervention and a 3-month follow-up) for both intervention and control groups. Quantitative measures included completion of the Coping Inventory for

Competitive Sport (CICS) (Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002), the Coping Self-Efficacy (CSE)

Scale (Chesney et al., 2006) and the Psychological Wellbeing (PWB) Scale (Ryff & Keyes,

2005). At the post-intervention stage, focus group interview methods were also deployed.

Complementary to quantitative measures, the focus groups aimed to illuminate participant responses and provide participation evaluation and perceived effectiveness of the intervention.

Focus group data helped triangulate the findings and identify malalignments with the quantitative data.

181

Figure 8.1

Schematic Overview of the Coping Intervention Development, Design and Timeline and Processes Involved in Evaluation

Target Intervention Coping Intervention Program Intervention Intervention Group Group (n = 21) Six x 1 hr group sessions Group 12 weeks post- Baseline testing Content: Defining stress and coping, identifying 1 week post-testing intervention follow-up • CICS challenges, learning coping types, linking stressors to Repeat measures: testing Stress Audit • CSE Scale coping strategy and raising awareness of future • CICS 1. Repeat measures: transitions Interviews • PWB Scale • CSE Scale • CICS (n = 8; average Format: Group lectures, small group work, content • PWB Scale • CSE Scale time 32 m) analysis and large group discussion Presenters: Lead author, elite NRL players, • PWB Scale emerging NRL players, NRL coaches and club-based 2. Focus group (n = 5; welfare staff. time = 48 mins)

Control Group Control Group Control Group (n = 20) 1-week post- 12 week post- testing intervention follow- Baseline testing Control Group Repeat measures: up testing • CICS No coping intervention program • CSE Scale • CICS Repeat measures: • PWB Scale • CSE Scale • CICS • PWB Scale • CSE Scale • PWB Scale

Development Weeks 1 and 2 Weeks 3 and 11 Weeks 23 and 24 Phase Baseline assessment Intervention phase Weeks 12 and 13 Follow-up and Early preseason Post-intervention Mid-preseason Late preseason and early competition phase evaluation

Note. CICS = Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport; CSE = Coping Self-Efficacy; PWB: Psychological Wellbeing.

182

8.2.2 Participants

Following institutional ethics approval (app no. 2014/776) and consent, participants recruited (N = 41) were developmental U20s Australian and New Zealand Rugby League players affiliated to two professional NRL clubs. Players (n = 21; M age = 18.9 years) at one club consented to participate in the intervention, while players (n = 20; M age = 19.2 years) at the other club consented to participate as controls. Of the total sample, 59% of players were in their first year of U20s competition. The NRL U20s squads (N = 16 in total) can contain up to

35 players, with ages ranging between 18 and 20 years. Teams are generally considered the leading developmental stage players in Australia and New Zealand. As per NRL governing body regulations, players are required to participate in either work, study or vocational training to supplement their club training/player and associated wages. Players can train for up to 4 hours/day and up to 5 days/week in their NRL club training environment. Based on team selection, with only 18–19 players selected each week, weekly game involvement can vary between semi-professional NRL training/competition to lower competition levels. At the time of study implementation, both intervention and control groups were transitioning from preseason training into early in-season competition.

8.2.3 Intervention development

Intervention content was underpinned by established stress (Lazarus, 1999), goodness of fit coping effectiveness (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and coping effectiveness training

(Chesney et al., 2003) frameworks. Further, study findings on athlete transition (Stambulova et al., 2009), sport organisational stressors (Arnold et al., 2017) and psychological skills development by challenge/trauma (Collins & MacNamara, 2012; Savage et al., 2017) informed the topic framing and content. Last, intervention content was adapted with consideration of the high-performance RL context and reference to existing participant knowledge and understanding. The resulting structure, design and content aligned with

183

Nicholls and Polman’s (2007) coping effectiveness training in elite and academy-level rugby as well as Larsen et al.’s (2014) psychosocial skill intervention in youth soccer.

To enhance context matching and appropriateness of the proposed intervention content, a qualitative stressor audit of current players (N = 8) was conducted at the beginning of preseason training and 6 weeks prior to the intervention. Player perceptions of stressors, examples of stressful situations and current coping strategies related to their RL development were discussed in semi-structured interviews (M duration = 32 minutes). Qualitative data were deductively analysed, with key points summarised in Table 8.1. Obtained verbatim transcripts helped identify the relevance of the proposed intervention content and the composition of educational sessions.

Table 8.1

Pre-Intervention Qualitative Stressor Audit with Elite Developing Rugby League Players

(N = 8): A Summary of Identified Stressors, Explanatory Quotes and Existing Coping

Strategy Examples

Existing coping strategy Identified stressors Explanatory quote examples examples ‘Consistent challenge to perform and maintain Individual team selection Seek coach advice position’ Injury ‘Losing opportunity to play and improve’ Maintain engagement Planning, problem- Balancing study and work ‘Hard to balance at certain times, frustrating’ solving Family contribution—time ‘Responsibility to fulfil family role’ Time management and financial ‘Nervous meeting and fitting in with new Communicate with New training environments coaches and teammates’ others Training intensity ‘Physical training challenge of higher level’ Keep working hard Body composition ‘Anxiety of losing and/or gaining weight’ Information-seeking Team performance outcomes ‘Impacts enjoyment and feel of training week’ Stay positive Transport ‘Getting to training and home each session’ Planning

The intervention was fully embedded and delivered in the NRL club training environment. Table 8.2 summarises the content of the intervention, which was delivered in

184

line with club-based training schedules and head coach timelines. The intervention consisted of six 1-hour group-based sessions delivered across an 8-week period aligned with the final preseason training phase. Intervention content was delivered by the lead researcher with support from club stakeholders (e.g. elite senior players, senior coaches and welfare managers) (N = 6). Prior to club staff and senior player inclusion, individuals discussed and planned specific content, with encouragement to include their lived experiences and explanations for how they coped or responded to specific stressors or stressful situations. This step assisted in providing authenticity and shared experiences to presented topics. Likewise, their input helped generate coping strategies and solutions with participants.

Group-based sessions were organised to initially raise awareness and understanding of key topics (e.g. stress, stress appraisal and coping types) (Folkman, 1984). Following initial education, stakeholder experiences were utilised to elaborate on stressor types and identify coping strategies, bridging the gap between theory and real life. Each session contained distinct components, including stakeholder presentation and questioning, facilitated group content analysis of stressor types, coping strategy identification and perceived effectiveness, practical applied individual or small group tasks and group collective reflection

(C. W. Reeves et al., 2011). As shown in Table 8.2, to maintain coherence from one session to the next, each session started with a review of prior content and potential applications.

185

Table 8.2

Summary of Session Topics, Structure and Content in the Rugby League Developing Player Coping Intervention

Session Topic Session content Session type Presenter

Program • Outline purpose of the program LF Lead author overview: • Raise awareness of the challenges in the alent development pathway 1 Defining

stress and • Define and identify sources of stress SG coping • Define coping GD • Discussion: What are you doing to cope now? GD Lead author Stress • Define stress appraisal: gain v. loss, associated emotions LF 2 appraisal and

response • Describe effective coping, goodness of fit, problem- and emotion-focused examples • Case studies: problem- and emotion-focused—own resources SG Emerging elite • Emerging player challenges: injury, biding time in lower grades, lifestyle change LF Emerging NRL player players: • Applied coping types: acceptance, rational thinking, support networks, communication, routines, 3 Learning to GD, CA Lead author concentration, imagery use take control of stress • Evaluation group discussion: stressor types and coping strategies applied GD • Obstacles and what you have learned. Athlete background discussion LF Elite NRL player (x 2) Elite players: Obstacles and • Challenges: early achievement, in-game focus—errors and setbacks, off-field pressures CA Lead author 4 what you have • Applied coping types: breathing, cue words, time management, seeking advice, life balance GD learned • Evaluation group discussion: stressor types, coping strategies applied and evolving skill set • Transition expectations of training demands LF NRL coach • Challenges: Increased position competition, being critiqued and dealing with constructive NRL coaches: CA Lead author Expectations criticism; learning how to be a professional; coping strategies as a coach 5 and challenges • Strategies: value of effort, using resources, routines, maintaining relationships, goal-setting, GD of transition switching off • Evaluation discussion: stressors and matching responses; seek support activity

186

Session Topic Session content Session type Presenter • NRL wellbeing staff: individual development planning LF NRL welfare staff Social support, problem- • Discussion: effective goal-setting, seeking support and common barriers CA Lead author 6 solving and • Coping problem-solving: developing action plans SG application • Program summary

Note. Each session started with a previous session reflection and discussion. Opportunities for individuals with further questions for the various presenters were provided post session. LF = lecture format; SG = small group discussion and presenting; GD = group discussion; NRL = National Rugby League; CA = content analysis.

187

8.2.4 Intervention evaluation

In the multimethod approach, to determine whether interaction effects occurred over time based on intervention involvement, three validated psychometric questionnaires—the

CSE Scale (Chesney et al., 2006), CICS (Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002) and PWB Scale (Ryff

& Keyes, 2005)—were applied at three time points.

First, to determine whether intervention led to a higher frequency of cognitive and/or behavioural coping strategy use, CICS (Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002) was applied. The 39-item instrument assesses 10 coping subscales of three higher-order coping types, namely, ‘task’

(e.g. thought control, effort expenditure and seeking support), ‘distraction’ (e.g. distancing and mental distraction) and ‘disengagement’ (e.g. venting of unpleasant emotions and resignation). With wording adaptation to make it meaningful to the RL context, participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = does not correspond at all to 5 = corresponds very strongly), reflecting what they do or think is their current coping strategy. The CICS has previously demonstrated adequate reliability, with Cronbach’s internal consistency for the 10 subscales ranging from 0.67 to 0.87 (Amiot et al., 2004) and 0.75–0.82 for the three higher- order types (Nicholls et al., 2008). In the current study, the frequency use of task, distraction and disengagement coping types were examined as means (and 95% CI) at the three data collection time points.

Second, to determine whether the intervention improved confidence in the ability to cope, the CSE Scale (Chesney et al., 2006) was utilised. The 26-item instrument asks participants how confident or certain they are in managing problems by rating their ability to perform several adaptive coping behaviours. Participants were required to respond to items on an 11-point Likert scale, from 0 = cannot do at all to 10 = certainly can do, with participants appraising their ability to, for instance, ‘Look for something good in a negative situation’,

‘Think about one part of the problem at a time’ and ‘Get emotional support from friends and

188

family’ (Chesney et al., 2006). CSE findings were reported as means (and 95% CI) for each subscale and time point: ‘Problem-focused coping’ (12 items), ‘Stop unpleasant emotions and thoughts’ (nine items) and ‘Getting support from friends and family’ (five items). The CSE

Scale has previously been applied to sporting contexts, with reliability being 0.73–0.84 across the three subscales (Nicholls et al., 2010). Rather than being used with reference to specific events, the CSE Scale was administered with general reference to RL training and competition, so that score changes over time would be attributable to coping confidence changes across contextual situations (Chesney et al., 2006).

Third, to determine whether the intervention also improved general psychological wellbeing, the PWB Scale (Ryff & Keyes, 2005) was applied. The PWB Scale and its associated model have been used extensively to assess eudaimonic wellbeing in normative

(van Dierendonck, 2004), clinical (Ryff, 2014) and developmental settings, including adolescents (Ruini et al., 2009). The shortened 18-item questionnaire includes three items for each of Ryff’s (1989) six PWB Scale components: self-acceptance, environmental mastery, positive relations with others, personal growth, purpose in life and autonomy. Each subscale consists of positive and negative items, anchored on a 6-point Likert scale. Previous PWB

Scale applications have reported moderate to good internal consistency across the six scales

(van Dierendonck, 2004).

To provide social validation and explanation of intervention effects (Hrycaiko &

Martin, 1996), two qualitative focus group semi-structured interviews were conducted

3 months post intervention. The focus groups involved open-ended conversational questions designed to invite and elicit thoughts, perspectives and feedback (positive and negative) from intervention group members (n = 7, Focus Group 1 = 4, Focus Group 2 = 3). Questions were directed towards evaluating intervention structure and content, identifying what they had

189

learned, what strategies they had developed to address particular stressors or situations and whether they were implemented on or off the field.

8.2.5 Data analysis

8.2.5.1 Quantitative

With respect to the questionnaires, descriptive statistics were initially calculated, and subscale internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. To determine intervention effects, coping questionnaire data were initially subjected to two independent group

(intervention v. control) × time (three repeated measures) × subscale (three subscales per questionnaire) multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA). With the presence of three-way interactions for both measures, follow-up univariate between-within analyses of variance

(BW-ANOVA) were conducted on questionnaire subscale totals. Follow-up Bonferroni pairwise comparisons isolated the locations of significant change. For the PWB Scale, because of low–moderate internal consistency (α = 0.15–0.52) in item scoring and no initial evidence of descriptive changes in subscale scores, a BW-ANOVA analysis of total PWB

Scale scores (i.e. sum of subscales, single dependent variable) was conducted, similar to Ruini et al. (2009).

Prior to all analyses, outliers were assessed via inspection of box plots, with five outliers identified (i.e. > 1.5 box lengths). Analyses were conducted with and without outliers, and given that there was no impact on results, outlier data were retained. Preliminary assumption checks, including tests of normality (Shapiro–Wilk: p < 0.05), homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test of equality: p < 0.05), covariance matrices (Box’s M test: p < 0.001) and Mauchly’s sphericity tests were conducted, without problems. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05, and partial eta squared (η2) indicated effect sizes using Cohen’s (1988) criteria (i.e.

0.01–0.05 = small, 0.06–0.13 = medium and ≥ 0.14 = large). All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 25.0.

190

8.2.5.2 Qualitative

Focus group data were initially transcribed verbatim and analysed using deductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012). All focus group responses were organised according to question themes. To compare them with quantitative findings, responses were also categorised in alignment with coping questionnaire subscale themes. Helping attain trustworthiness and rigour in the data analysis steps, the first author’s familiarity of the study context and associated jargon helped strengthen interpretation accuracy and meaning from responses (Rothwell, Rumbold, & Stone, 2018). Meanwhile, the author team was mindful of familiarity, querying the interpretation to ensure accuracy. They served as ‘critical friends’ to ensure focus group responses were appropriately coded and deductively reasoned in alignment with study and methodological aims (Smith & McGannon, 2018).

8.3 Results

8.3.1 Quantitative results

8.3.1.1 Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport

The initial group × time × subscale MANOVA identified a significant overall three- way interaction (Wilks’s  = 0.60, F(4, 36) = 3.20, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.40). Significant main effects with strong effect sizes were apparent for the subscale factor (Wilks’s  = 0.16,

F(2, 38) = 102.9, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.84). Thus, in the following step, analyses were conducted and reported according to subscale.

8.3.1.1.1 Task-oriented coping

BW-ANOVA identified a significant group × time interaction effect on task-oriented coping (F(2, 78) = 3.96, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.92). While there was no significant main group effect, a main time effect was apparent (F(2, 40) = 9.96, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.33), with significant increases over time observable for the intervention group. Findings are visually summarised in Figure 8.2a. The frequency of task-based strategy use increased for the intervention group

191

from pre- to post-intervention (Mdiff = 0.26, SE = 0.90, p = 0.02), with continuation at the 12- week follow-up (Mdiff = 0.35, SE = 0.90, p = 0.002).

8.3.1.1.2 Distraction-oriented coping

BW-ANOVA identified no significant group × time interaction effects (F(2, 78) = .76, p = 0.46) (see Figure 5.2b for a summary). A significant time main effect was apparent, with distraction-oriented coping use marginally increasing for both groups (F(2, 78) = 6.23, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.13). Pairwise comparisons identified significant changes pre- to post- intervention (Mdiff = 0.24, SE = 0.78, p = 0.009) and from pre- to post-12-week follow-up

(Mdiff = .27, SE = 0.92, p = 0.01). There was no main group effect.

8.3.1.1.3 Disengagement-oriented coping

A significant group × time interaction effect was apparent for disengagement-oriented coping (F(2, 78) = 7.29, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.16) (also see Figure 5.2c). Significant main effects for group (F(1, 39) = 6.75, p = 0.013, η2 = 0.15) and time (F(2, 38) = 5.47, p = 0.008,

η2 = 0.22) were also apparent. Pairwise comparisons identified the control group as reporting significant frequency increases in coping disengagement from pre- to post-intervention follow-up (Mdiff = 0.39, SE = 0.10, p = 0.004), while the intervention group demonstrated progressively reduced frequencies of use over a similar period (Mdiff = −0.08, SE = 1.67, p = 0.90).

192

Figure 8.2

Mean (95% CI) Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport Subscale Scores According to

Intervention Time Point and Group

193

8.3.1.2 Coping Self-Efficacy Scale

The initial group × time × subscale MANOVA identified an overall significant three- way interaction (Wilks’s  = 0.73, F(4, 34) = 3.20, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.27). A significant main effect with a strong effect size was apparent for the subscale factor (Wilks’s  = 0.33,

F(2, 36) = 5.97, p = 0.006, η2 = 0.96); thus, onward analyses were delineated according to subscale.

8.3.1.2.1 Problem-focused coping efficacy

BW-ANOVA identified a significant group × time interaction effect on problem- focused coping efficacy (F(2, 74) = 5.94, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.14). While there was no main group effect, a significant time effect was apparent, with intervention group increases observable (F(2, 38) = 12.96, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.40; see Figure 5.3a). Increases were apparent from pre- to post-intervention (Mdiff = 5.05, SE = 1.62, p = 0.017) and from pre- to post- follow-up (Mdiff = 9.00, SE = 2.17, p = 0.001).

8.3.1.2.2 Emotion-focused coping efficacy

A significant group × time interaction effect was apparent for emotion-focused coping efficacy (F(2, 74) = 4.51, p = 0.014, η2 = 0.11). While there was no significant main group effect, a time main effect was apparent, with efficacy increases more discernible in the intervention group (F(2, 38) = 12.96, p < .001, η2 = 0.40) (see Figure 5.3b). Intervention group emotion-focused coping efficacy increased from pre- to post-intervention (Mdiff = 5.3,

SE = 1.35, p = 0.003) and continued at the 12-week follow-up (Mdiff = −7.35, SE = 1.73 p = 0.001).

8.3.1.2.3 Support-focused coping efficacy

BW-ANOVA identified no group × time interaction on support-based coping efficacy

(F(2, 74) = 1.25, p = 0.29, η2 = 0.03). Likewise, there was no main effect for group

(F(2, 37) = 1.32, p = 0.25) or time (F(2, 74) = 0.42, p = 0.65) (see Figure 8.3c).

194

Figure 8.3

Mean (95% CI) Coping Self Efficacy Scale Subscale Scores According to Intervention Time

Point and Group

195

8.3.1.3 Psychological Wellbeing Scale

BW-ANOVA analysis of PWB Scale total scores revealed no group × time interaction effects (F(2, 72) = 1.48, p = 0.23, η2 = 0.04). Further, there was no main effect for group

(F(1, 36) = 2.40, p = 0.13, η2 = 0.06) or time across the three time points (F(2, 72) = 1.75, p = 0.18, η2 = 0.04). Thus, based on the analysis, there was no evidence of an intervention effect in the PWB Scale.

8.3.2 Qualitative results

Deductive analysis of focus group interviews revealed three higher-order themes:

‘expanded coping strategies’, ‘enhanced confidence’ and ‘multiple staff delivery effectiveness’. The ‘expanded coping strategies’ theme dominated the discussions, with descriptions of how the intervention led to new or renewed responses to rugby-related stressors. Related to the CICS and the coping strategies applied, changes in task-based coping were apparent, resonating with quantitative findings. For instance, when discussing a perceived poor training or game performance, Member 2 (Focus Group 1) articulated,

When it feels like things are overwhelming... I used to get angry at training... I now

remind myself, based on the program, that I’ve played this game since I was 5, just

grown up with it. So, doing this is kind of like a privilege and trying not to forget that

this is what I love to do.

Regarding disengagement-based coping, Member 4 (Focus Group 2) described a change in his approach to returning to team training from injury rehabilitation:

I was just coming out of rehab training unmotivated and thinking, I won’t get picked,

been out for so long, and I am now just coming to fill the numbers. From the sessions,

I got that there’s always a bigger picture at the end of the road or the tunnel. So, I

changed my attitude to keep turning up, work harder, and you never know what

happens. I talked more at training and tried to compete more in drills.

196

The second higher-order theme, ‘enhanced confidence’, often related to changes in perceptions towards future development and transition. Overall, focus group members felt psychologically more efficacious and comfortable with the start of a new competition season.

Member 2 (Focus Group 1) stated, ‘I feel a lot more comfortable now with the upcoming challenges’. Such statements closely aligned with quantitative improvements in CSE subscale scores. To illustrate, efficacy in problem-based coping was highlighted by Member 1 (Focus

Group 1), who explained in relation to managing conflicting time demands, ‘I know I can stick to my routines now and involve more people in it, like my family and coaches, to help keep me on track when it gets tough’. Emotion-based coping self-efficacy was also cited as being beneficial. For instance, Member 2 (Focus Group 2) explained the benefits of being able to recognise multiple stressors and the subsequent perceived level of control at follow-up to help maintain life balance inside and outside of the game and to assist performance:

I’ve realised all the factors that come into play in creating stress in my rugby. Like,

relationships or study timetables and exams. All are connected, so just managing my

time, knowing when and how to focus and spend time here or there and the value of

switching off is important.

Finally, contributions from focus group members generated a ‘multiple staff delivery effectiveness’ theme. There was strong consensus on the benefit of including current club staff (e.g. assistant coaches or welfare staff) and professional players (e.g. emerging and senior) as part of intervention delivery. Member 3 (Focus Group 2) explained:

It showed they [current players] went through the same things, and they learnt from

their experience and sometimes the hard way. I think the program reassures you,

makes you more aware in knowing some of the hurdles ahead to play NRL.

There were also positive general evaluations related to the intervention format. For instance, Member 1 (Focus Group 1) stated, ‘The group work made it more interactive,

197

different presenters helped you focus, and the tips were easy to remember. Importantly, you also actually put it into practice’. Member 3 added, ‘Yeah, it [intervention program] was good to follow. Put things in a new light for me. I had never really thought about how I handle stress and the impact it had on me personally and my game’. Finally, suggestions for intervention improvement were provided, including incorporating take-home summary cards and provision of follow-up sessions across the competition season period.

8.4 Discussion

The core purpose of this study was to determine the effect of a coping intervention program on elite youth RL players transitioning into a high-performance environment.

Findings identified that a stage-specific, stakeholder-integrated and organisationally supported

RL intervention program is likely to have several benefits. Based on changes from pre- to post-intervention follow-up and relative to a control group, analyses identified significantly enhanced frequency of task-based coping strategy use, a reduction in disengagement-based coping strategy use as well as an increased efficacy of problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies for stressors/challenges present (or perceived) in high-performance RL. However, there was no intervention effect on distraction-oriented coping, obtaining social support or psychological wellbeing. Focus group interviews corroborated the quantitative findings, validating intervention effectiveness, reflected by themes of expanded coping strategies as well as enhanced confidence in dealing with specific stressors/challenges. Interviewees also highlighted real-life examples of coping behaviour changes resulting from intervention participation.

Designed to raise player awareness of stressor identification and appraisal and the potential range of coping responses, the intervention achieved benefits in particular contrasting ways. Previously, task-based coping strategies have been identified as involving effort to master and take control of challenging situations and have been linked to perceived

198

control, positive emotions (Britton et al., 2019), higher subjective performance satisfaction and better future performance (Ivarsson et al., 2020). Thus, identification of the increased frequency of task-based coping strategies, such as problem-solving in adjusting routines to new lifestyle demands and seeking coach feedback on non-selection or training errors, was interpreted as positive, showing efficacy of the intervention. In support, there was also simultaneous inverse changes over time for disengagement-oriented coping strategies.

Typified by avoidance, resignation and acceptance of stress, disengagement-oriented coping

(as observed in the control group) has been associated with maladaptation to goal attainment

(Schellenberg et al., 2013) and performance outcomes (Gaudreau et al., 2010).

Disengagement strategies have also been associated with negative emotions (Britton et al.,

2019). Thus, the intervention group reduction in disengagement coping was deemed generally beneficial. That said, we acknowledge that avoidance coping may have been beneficial in perceived situations of low control. For example, disengagement-based coping of the stress of not being involved in training may have assisted one participant (Member 4, Focus Group 2) during injury rehabilitation. Thus, situational applicability remains important.

Providing support to interventions grounded in group-based CET (Chesney et al.,

2003; C. W. Reeves et al., 2011), the findings also identified a positive effect for implementing both problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies. These findings were also verified by players’ qualitative responses, with heightened efficacy following the intervention suggested in terms of both proactively finding solutions to challenging situations (e.g. seeking family support) and managing emotional responses to stressors (e.g. putting thoughts in perspective). Such efficacy enhancement may benefit perceived readiness and control for handling future stressors in the high-performance context.

With respect to findings from both questionnaires, we also note the lag effect from intervention involvement to the time point, where group differences became more discernible.

199

We consider that this effect may be associated with intervention timing. Intentionally, the intervention coincided with the U20s preseason, which was a new transition experience, while follow-up measures occurred during the competitive season. Thus, we hypothesise that acquired knowledge (via the intervention) and potential cognitive and behavioural strategies may only be utilised over time in response to unfolding situations and events coinciding with the transition into the competition season. The experiential aspect of being exposed to new challenges during or shortly after intervention delivery was likely necessary for the deployment of new or modified coping strategies. If this is true, the transactions between educational content, training and genuine experience (or exposure) following intervention delivery may be considered important to assisting coping skills development.

Social support is considered a key moderator of stress and its potential impact on personal health and wellbeing (John et al., 2019; Savage et al., 2017). However, our findings suggest that the intervention did not necessarily affect players’ support-based coping confidence, which may be accounted for in several ways. For instance, players may have genuinely perceived a lack of social support in the high-performance context. High- performance environments are by nature highly competitive. With selection and career outcomes (e.g. contracts) at stake, internal competition may counter against social support provision. Second, the frequency of changes in support personnel and coaching staff may also counteract against the merits of establishing stable and socially supportive relationships

(Savage et al., 2017). Third, the intervention content may not have explicitly increased perceived social support because it was of greater benefit to individual management responses and strategies to stressors. Therefore, either independently or interactively, these processes may explain no intervention effects on social support.

Despite increased confidence in coping being previously associated with positive emotions and enhanced wellbeing (Nicholls et al., 2008), the study findings did not identify

200

between-group differences or changes in general psychological wellbeing. Again, the intervention may not have been beneficial for several reasons. For instance, the intervention did not explicitly remove or mitigate performance environment stressors, which were likely apparent at the start of a new competition season. With participant immersion into a new performance environment and competition season, it is possible that current demands were challenging to psychological wellbeing. In terms of the lag effect, it is also possible that benefits to perceived psychological wellbeing may only become apparent following completion of a challenging experience, resonating with notions of development via challenge/trauma. Further, it is possible the intervention did not benefit key psychological wellbeing components (e.g. positive relations with others) or that the PWB Scale did not adequately capture benefits to wellbeing. These findings warrant further investigation of the relationship between coping and psychological wellbeing in sporting and non-sporting contexts (Sarkar et al., 2015; Savage et al., 2017).

8.4.1 Implications

From a practical perspective, the integration of several club stakeholders, including staff and current professional players, was identified as a strength of the intervention.

Providing direct access to experiential knowledge from role models was perceived to be beneficial in several ways. These included the learning and adoption of appropriate coping behaviours (Larsen et al., 2014), the utilisation of elite player career narrative maps to raise awareness of future challenges on the developmental path, greater knowledge of the psychological and social resources required for success (Champ et al., 2018) and fostering better staff–player communication and relationships to enhance psychological relatedness

(R. A. Jones et al., 2014). The ecological approach of the intervention may also have achieved organisation-wide benefits. The shared awareness of psychosocial skills by all stakeholders may lead to communal coping strategies in the U20s team environment. The intervention may

201

help participants more openly discuss and share stressful experiences. If team and coaching staff are integrated, this may potentially help minimise individual isolation in overcoming stressors or setbacks (Leprince et al., 2018). Finally, intervention program implementation in a high-performance environment may heighten perceived caring, improving athlete mental health and potential wellbeing and helping with broad athlete transition and development and athlete recruitment. Program implementation may also prove valuable in terms of reputation within the RL community (Ivarsson et al., 2015; R. A. Jones et al., 2014).

8.4.2 Limitations

Integrating research into real-world practice presents challenges; thus, the related limitations are highlighted. First, caution should be applied to findings from a quasi- experimental design. The present design cannot guarantee that observed effects were solely due to the intervention. For instance, intervention responses may reflect social desirability or placebo responses. For instance, the lead researcher, who facilitated the intervention, was also a known practitioner at the two participating clubs, which may have inadvertently led to desirability responding. While steps were taken to avoid such responses in the questionnaires

(e.g. absence of researcher in data collection and reminders of confidentiality in responding), they cannot be discounted (Pummell & Lavallee, 2019). Finally, given the lag between intervention and follow-up, it may have been beneficial to assess player coping strategy use and efficacy more intermittently to determine short- and longer-term responses. The validity of the present findings may be improved if these limitations are considered in future studies.

8.5 Conclusion

Grounded in the transactional framework of stress and coping (Chesney et al., 2003;

Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), the study findings provide initial evidence on the coping benefits of a context-embedded intervention program facilitating developing athlete transition into a high-performance environment. The findings add to the current literature on

202

the mental health and wellbeing of developing athletes and the need for better on-field practices associated with holistic athlete development and support. The design, content and timing of the intervention in normative practice provide valuable information for a potentially effective and broader application to other sporting organisations, where athletes may be better prepared for crucial transition time points during their development.

203

Chapter 9: Discussion of key findings, practical implications,

strengths, limitations, and recommendations

This chapter summarises the main findings of all studies of the research within the context of literature, the main theoretical framework and supporting models. It also provides recommendations for individuals, organisations and policymakers within TD, and future research. The chapter also discusses the strengths and limitations of the thesis.

9.1 Overview of the evolved thesis

The present thesis’s overall objective was to further understand TDEs and their role in athlete development by examining a range of factors that influence TD in RL. The broader intention was to assist and inform efficiency of TD process, allocation of resources, and provide broad implications that may assist effectiveness of TD practice for individuals and sports (Till & Baker, 2020). The RL TD pathway in Australia continues to have success in sustaining the elite level game. However, based upon the significant body of TD research, the original research aims were set based on concerns of potential limitations within the TD pathway including lack of coherence between TD stakeholders, a traditional pyramidal pathway regulated by a select few, the underestimated value of psychological characteristics, and a delay in integrating holistic development ideals into practice. This broad initial rationale to explore and examine opportunities for RL TD improvement significantly narrowed in focus and changed over the time course of thesis development. The series of sequential studies which ultimately integrated multiple key stakeholder perspectives (e.g. professional players, clubs, teachers, junior players and elite youth players) impacted how the thesis evolved ; moving from an overall exploration of elite level players behavioural trajectories to the development of a RL specific psycho-social and coping skill intervention. The studies which now reside within the thesis (Chapters 5-8) have effectively added to present knowledge and

204

understanding in terms of how micro-system and broader developmental environments can support or undermine RL player development, and how many players may be confronted and thereby require psycho-social assistance and support) with the RL demands and challenges within the RL developmental system. The key findings from these studies are now summarised in alignment with the overall research questions stated in the introduction below.

1. What are the trajectories to becoming an elite level rugby league player in relation to a multitude of factors (e.g. key milestones, influences and participation patterns) known to influence athlete development?

When examining the developmental patterns including type, amount and timing of key activities (i.e. practice, play and competition), of Australian professional RL players, Chapter

5 identified two contrasting trajectories, namely that of an ‘early’ and ‘later’ aged entry into

RL system representative pathways. The emergence and size (i.e. 40.1% of sample) of the

‘later’ delayed investment player development trajectory is important as it highlights a key pathway to success beyond the sport system dictated path. Characterised by comparatively prolonged involvement in other sports, lower practice volumes, lower initial levels of deliberate play and lower increments of competition per year, and concluding in greater efficacy of later age (i.e. 17-20 years) TD engagement, the ‘later’ trajectory suggests non- traditional pathways need be acknowledged. Finding suggested that for a substantial - although not a majority - of RL professional senior elite players, success was not attained via early intensified specialised investment and accelerated youth success, but rather by a decelerated, less cost-intensive (i.e. hours, training, effort, workload) participation pattern.

These findings are important as they promote junior RL players to ‘keep playing’ as opportunities exist further down the path. This suggests RL TD decision-makers and coaches need to acknowledge multiple paths to success, and beyond performance outcomes, ensure

205

continued positive and motivated engagement in the sport at junior and youth levels to develop talent at later timepoints.

2. What are key stakeholder perceptions of the ecological characteristics, processes and features of successful school-based RL TDEs?

Utilising validated instruments and multiple stakeholder perspectives to triangulate findings, Chapter 6 revealed how school-based RL TDEs showed strong coherence to effective factors of ‘successful’ TDE literature such as long term aims, coherence in messages, and holistic development. Supported by practical and novel qualitative descriptions, the collective TDEs were characterised by highly supportive cultures (i.e. strong coach-athlete relationships, high peer connections, access to senior players), a strong ‘family’ feel, and high expectations of athlete roles and behaviours. Further ecological strengths of a long-term focus on development over immediate results, values of hard work, and promotion of autonomy in development were identified. Opportunities to enhance TDE effectiveness with psychological skill development (i.e. self-reflection, coping) to address player stress in overcoming barriers (i.e. missed selection), and balancing of intra-RL pathway demands (i.e. schedules, training loads) to address identified physical and psychological workload concerns were also highlighted.

3. What features of successful school-based RL TDEs are impacting the development of key psycho-behavioural skill and abilities overtime to assist transition to high-performance environments?

In Chapter 7, the psycho-social process features of three school-based TDEs were examined longitudinally over a 20-month period. The influence of how preceding stable or enhancing TDE processes (i.e. consistency of behavioural expectations, frequency of coach- athlete interactions) from the first timepoint of data collection were statistically associated with player psycho-behavioural developmental outcomes was then identified. The mixed-

206

method longitudinal (i.e. 20 month) tracking design of repeatedly applied psychometric questionnaires identified that TDE processes characterised by challenge, cultural support, individual player understanding, and autonomy may have subsequently led to coping and self- regulation facets of effort and self-efficacy improvement. Over the same tracking period, findings also highlighted how TDE processes centred around training/competition preparation

(and demands) both within TDE and the broader wider RL pathway, were potentially leading to player challenges; taxing players coping resources and highlighting detrimental associations with specific outcomes of self-efficacy and self-monitoring. The evaluation of the longitudinal impact of school-based TDEs suggests that they may have a simultaneous facilitative and challenging relationship with delayed psycho-behavioural outcomes for players. This has implications for RL TD practitioners as findings support the need to ‘play the long game’ as the influence of environmental processes and measured challenges are seen at later timepoints. The recognition that TDEs are vulnerable to the multi-factorial wider influences of the RL pathway (i.e. program structures, competitions, demands) suggests both

TDE coaches and RL policy makers have an important role to play in optimising and protecting players.

4. How can we help facilitate psychological transitions of developing RL players to elite senior NRL programs? What is the effect of a sport-context tailored coping intervention in elite youth rugby league players?

In Chapter 8, the development and evaluation of a RL-context tailored coping intervention designed to assist elite youth player transitions into high-performance environments is presented. Applying a quasi-experimental intervention and control group design, the ecologically informed education program was associated with specific delayed benefits (i.e. 3-month post follow up) for participants. Based upon changes pre-post intervention and relative to the control group, BW-MANOVA’s analyses identified enhanced

207

frequency of task-based coping strategies, a reduction in dis-engagement coping, and an increase in efficacy for both problem and emotion focussed coping related to stressors and challenges within RL professional club transition programs. No intervention effect was found for efficacy in requesting social support and influence on psychological well-being (PWB).

This suggests social support in high performance settings which are often associated with frequent turnover of staff and support personnel, and internal competition for high stake outcomes may interact to reduce perceived support provision. Similarly, a lack of intervention benefits to PWB, may suggest that immersion in new environments and new competitions continues to challenge PWB, and therefore further investigation between PWB and coping within sport contexts may be required. The success of the context-embedded intervention design, implementation and effects may provide a useful strategy for practitioners and professional clubs to better support and enable player transition. The junior to senior transition is recognised as the most difficult therefore NRL club embedded (i.e. as part of usual training involving club- based staff) education programs tailored to demands and stressors of RL may further assist TD efficacy in the sport.

9.2 Theoretical Frameworks

The research questions driving this thesis have all been informed and addressed within the theoretical framework of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 2005) theoretical bioecological model of development, together with the developmental model of sport participation (DMSP) (Côté et al., 2003, 2007), and athlete career transition (Stambulova, 2003; Wylleman & Lavallee,

2004; Wylleman & Rosier, 2016). The bioecological model provides a framework from which to systematically examine, and analyse a wide range of factors (i.e. coach, peers, training activities), considering how their interactions across multiple levels (i.e. training, home, community) may help explain the occurrence of facilitative or detrimental development within TD contexts. The theoretical perspective also takes into account individual differences

208

(i.e. maturity, experiences, abilities) and the development changes that may occur over time due to pre-existing characteristics and the interactions with the broader ecological systems.

The model can help explain complexity, and how context and the player mutually influence each other in determining developmental outcomes.

The PPCT (Process-Person-Context-Time) model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) provides an organisational structure to discuss and evaluate the dynamic inter-relations and complexity of development. The model frames human development as a series of progressively more complex interactions (i.e. proximal processes), between an evolving individual (i.e. person) and their environment (i.e. context) over a consistent and extended period (i.e. time). The PPCT model in conjunction with features of DMSP and the athlete career models were utilised to guide, summarise, and interpret the thesis’s main findings.

9.2.1 Processes

Proximal processes are the direct and recurrent interactions between an individual and their surroundings (Bronfenbrenner, 2006). These processes include the bi-directional social and psychological relationships as well as the regular developmental activities undertaken from initial involvement through to senior levels of RL participation. These activities are aligned to the time spent in types of activities in the pathway stages (i.e. sampling, specialising, investment) of the DMSP model and complimenting career transition frameworks (i.e. initiation, development, mastery) associated with changing of processes between player and the environment at each stage.

One of the key findings of Chapter five was the variation in pathways that exist within elite RL player development trajectories. Although all players followed the sampling- specialising-investment – pathway aligned with postulates from the DMSP (Côté, 2007) to senior status, their trajectory was differentiated based upon the timing of a ‘delayed’ or

‘earlier’ entry into representative pathways. Adhering to the sport system path, the majority of

209

examined players experienced a linear ascent from early age groups typified by high levels of participation, reductions in play and accelerated levels of deliberate practice within mid teenage years (i.e. 13-16 years). However, contradicting the tenants of deliberate practice and partially the DMSP to a degree, the ‘delayed trajectory’ of comparatively lower practice and competition volume (i.e. until age 17 years), provides evidence to suggest that senior performance can be attained with considerably less investment and practice volumes. The many reciprocal interactions of ‘proximal process’ may account for these differences, where trade-offs between an player’s characteristics (i.e. naturally motivated, physical status), and their environment (i.e. coaches, training, peers, sport system) may have inhibited or accelerated progressions at variable timepoints across their development. For example, initial acceleration of development within the ‘early investment path’ may have occurred due to increased coaching time and higher training loads. However, this progression may gradually decelerate as potential accumulated fatigue and a decline in motivation associated with increased time in the sport; and inexperience in navigating challenges due to early selection into pathways may impact higher age group success attainment. By contrast the ‘delayed pathway’ players within RL, may have been more suited to take advantage of ‘proximal processes’ in their senior teenage years, due to longer experiences in diverse environments

(Güllich 2017), experience in overcoming barriers in early years, and greater physical potential (i.e. less risk of overuse training injuries) for development.

The power of ‘proximal processes’ – reflecting consistent, positive, interactions between coaches, players and peers, within RL TDEs could indirectly be highlighted from

Chapter 5. While players without the necessary ‘system preferred attributes or characteristics’ at particular timepoints (i.e, based on limited subjective opinions) (Cobley & Till, 2015), the delayed development group may still have benefitted, and maintained involvement from the provision of heightened social support, frequency of communication and strong interpersonal

210

relationships that facilitate positive developmental outcomes. Congruently findings from

Chapters 6 and 7 of coach behaviours such as being ‘available’, taking an explicit interest in the whole person and promoting a ‘family feel’ organisational culture within TDE, interacted with the bio-psycho-social individual to create psycho-behavioural development. Similarly, the positive social impact of peer relations in driving competition, overcoming challenge, maintaining ‘shared effort’, offering feedback and enjoyment over time was also identified within the school-based TDEs. These interactions were highlighted across developmental stages in RL from early deliberate play with friends at entry to the sport through to potential

‘communal coping’ at the junior to senior transition period of the pathway and reflect the potential importance peers may have on RL development. The changing roles of coaches and peers in relation to support provided to players (i.e, competitor, facilitator, supporter) compliments the state-based models of DMSP and career transition. For example, as player motivations change (i.e. from development to mastery) the ‘proximal processes’ involving coaches and peers evolve to facilitate or regulate development.

The direct and recurrent interaction with senior players and/or role models was also identified in the present thesis as a beneficial proximal process to RL development. This was evidenced in Chapter 6, by informal in-situ interactions (i.e. at lunchtime and travelling), proximal training sessions, and adopted roles of sharing cultural expectations within school- based TDEs. Senior professional players and coaches sharing ‘lived experience’ stories of development to assist preparation for transitions in Chapter 8 is also an example of interactions impacting outcomes. The integration of senior stakeholders within the intervention provided direct access to experiential knowledge of learnt coping behaviors, future challenges specific to the sport, and types of resources (i.e. psychological, social) required to succeed. Along with fostering better whole club staff-senior player-youth player

211

communication and relationships, the integration of ‘role models’ illustrates the impact these variable interactions can have across of timeline of RL development.

In summary, the identified ‘proximal processes’ of RL development suggest interactions between an active player and their environment can vary with a multitude of influences (i.e. peers, coach, time) determining the direction and magnitude of developmental outcomes. For example, the variation in type and frequency of training activities leading to senior success, the consistency of positive and authentic interactions between players and support providers such as coaches and peers, and the integration of proximal role models within development highlight enduring processes that impact RL player outcomes overtime.

Despite this variation, findings suggest that it is the accumulation of these unique and dynamic processes assist RL development.

9.2.2 Person

The unique characteristics of RL players in this study function as both a producer and product of development (Araújo & Davids, 2009). Three types of ‘personal’ characteristics

(i.e. force, resource and demand) are defined to affect the direction and power of ‘proximal processes’ within development (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Force characteristics are player dispositions (e.g. temperaments, motivation, player perceptions) which can promote engagement in proximal processes and the activities associated with psychological, social, and biological (physical) development. These individual characteristics connecting a RL player’s desires to be involved or associated with RL or TDEs are what might be considered baseline pre-requisites for optimal responses and taking advantage of opportunities afforded in developmental environments. Across chapters in this thesis, players provide evidence of a range of ‘force’ characteristics promoting emotional and behavioural control that assists developing RL players. These powerful characteristics maintain engagement in proximal processes (e.g., motivation, discipline, self-regulation) to sustain

212

success (Araújo & Davids, 2009). The trajectory types identified in Chapter 5 highlight high levels of motivation to either maintain performance pathway positions or strive to join at later time points. This drive and persistence to achieve successes may occur at different stages, ages, and time, however both trajectories are evidence of effort and high motivation dispositions. The TDE settings in Chapter 6 and 7, promote and expect high level player responsibility and autonomy to self-direct actions. The ability to maintain routines, be disciplined and navigate the multiple demands within the TDE and wider RL pathway settings are identified key ‘force’ qualities of RL players. Further the player’s explicit desire to learn and prepare for challenge during transition was identified. The motivation to seek support, self-evaluate performances and learn from experiences (i.e. coping strategies) are suggested to create higher selection readymade players that are adaptable and able to deal with the repeat setbacks and variations of TD (Güllich et al., 2014).

Resource characteristics are bio-psycho-social attributes (e.g., ability, experience) that when interacting with physical environments can be a barrier (i.e. limited training age, injury) and/or facilitator (i.e, experience overcoming challenge, self-regulation skills) of player development (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). For example, in Chapter 6 TDE coaches acknowledged preconditions of players (i.e. playing experience, training background, time in quality coaching programs) in rationalising current TDE levels of success. These preconditions are examples of ‘resource’ characteristics that coaches acknowledged in selecting a junior RL player. Resource characteristics also include the availability of social resources within the developmental contexts of school TDEs (Chapters 6-7), and elite youth settings of NRL clubs in Chapter 8. It was evident in Chapters 6 through to 8 that resource characteristics influenced

RL pathways. The ‘training’ age and physical variations in players may have played a role in determining the trajectories of RL development. The ability of players to handle training loads during early investment trajectories and across multiple settings (i.e. school, club, rep)

213

during adolescence was identified as key ‘resource’ characteristics in RL players (Bjørndal &

Gjesdal, 2020). Further, the psycho-social and coping skills which are influenced by maturity and past experiences were illustrated as important in managing pressures and conflicting stakeholder perspectives as players progress. The self-belief and awareness gained through past experiences of overcoming challenge (i.e. missed selection, demanding schedules, injury) was identified by coaches and players within the thesis. This is aligned to career transition models (Wylleman et al., 2016) suggesting internal resource (i.e. coping skills, problem solving) and the use external resources (i.e. social support) are enhanced based upon previous positive experiences. Current findings suggest RL pathway environments and stakeholders can enhance ‘resource’ characteristics through tailored programs and resources to raise awareness of the challenges of RL development.

Demand characteristics refer to the information immediately available to others (i.e. physical size, psychological skills) that either invite or discourage reactions that can foster or disrupt developmental outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). RL player demand characteristics influence the reaction from the environment (i.e. coach perception). This was demonstrated in

Chapters 6 and 7 with RL players reactions (i.e, maintain routines, work together, take ownership on improvement areas) to the hard working and disciplined culture of the school- based TDEs. These cultures of holistic development ideals seek to establish these demanding settings to promote abilities to handle pressure and structured routines. A player’s ability to psychologically manage these environments, determines their current and potential future success. Balancing this approach with high levels of support and a task-based motivational climate, TDEs indirectly facilitate ‘demand’ resources (Chapter 6-7). However, current findings suggest some of the adversity experienced beyond TDE settings require further support levels. For example, difficulties in communication between RL pathway settings, and

214

the lack of monitoring and general awareness of player overall physical, mental, and life loads was associated with high stress and taxing of self-confidence levels for RL players.

In summary, thesis findings confirm that personal characteristics of players are dynamic forces within TD. As highlighted some force, resource, and demand characteristics are evident and can be established at developmental baselines (early stages) of athlete development. However, many are not established, and need to be developed (nurtured) and optimised in appropriate micro-system environments for athletes to be able to respond to sport-system demands and self-regulate their cognitions and behaviours in challenging and changing circumstances. If personal characteristics are facilitated via long term engagement in developmental activities (i.e. training) and ‘proximal process’ in developmental environmental cultures, then optimised athletic development may be achieved.

9.2.3 Context

The environmental context refers to the physical and social attributes of the multiple nested settings (i.e. micro, meso, exo, macro) where the player spends a significant proportion of time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). These stable or changing settings define the role of the player as proximal processes directly and indirectly interact with people, features and time to influence development. Within this section connections with influential people and the influence of multiple contextual levels and their interactional reciprocal relationships associated with RL player outcomes will be discussed.

The microsystems associated with both development trajectories of Chapter five highlight different settings (i.e. representative versus recreational) consisting of differing aims, resources, and structures can make a valuable contribution to facilitating long-term aims of RL players at different ages and stages of development. The significance of the microsystem on player development was a key finding within Chapters 6-7 with school-based

TDE impact on the bio-psycho-social outcomes of RL players was emphasised by

215

stakeholders. TDE cultures of balancing challenge (i.e. competition, routines, high behavioural standards) and supportive (i.e. high relatedness, strong coach-athlete relationships) processes were associated with both enhancing and taxing individual player resources. For example, the creation of autonomy-supportive coaching environments, promoting autonomous behaviours (i.e. asking questions, seeking feedback and being responsible for their own development) both on the field (i.e. within training sessions) and off

(i.e. being on ‘time’, meeting schedule demands), facilitated coping and self-regulation skill development. The frequency and duration of TDE microsystem processes also determined their ‘power’ of influence. For example, the high training demands and behavioural standards expected were repetitively emphasised regardless of time of season (e.g., player missed significant games based on not adhering to academic and/or behavioural expectations). The introduction and the sustained use of planned obstacles and setbacks associated with the high physical and psychological expectations of TDE involvement necessitates the time required to attain individual outcomes. Balancing these outcomes may act as antecedents for effective future transitions. Overall, the co-ordination of microsystem processes provides the social and physical scaffolding that supports the adoption and repeated use of appropriate psychobehavioural strategies required for the demands of RL TD.

Chapter 8 findings supporting the integration of an NRL club embedded education program within the elite youth U20’s microsystem further asserts the impact the immediate environment can have on individual players. The collective influence of several stakeholders within a single microsystem (i.e. coaches, senior players, welfare staff), in providing direct access for junior players, and raising awareness of psycho-social skills demonstrates how integration of efforts can initiate meaningful developmental change. As effective learning is bound to the context in which it is facilitated, the suggested benefits of ‘proximal’ role models

(i.e. player from the playing level above) and ecological approaches of organisation wide

216

integrated programs is supported in current findings (Henriksen et al., 2010; Larsen, et. al.,

2014). Coach and player perspectives acknowledged the role of RL TD microsystems in recognising holistic development ideals and player outcomes beyond the game. However, effectively achieving these optimal outcomes in practice was strongly influenced by wider sport pathway demands (e.g., conflicting schedules, increased social and life demands, prioritising time allocation) which can undermine individual development.

The mesosystem level associated with TD in RL was identified to strongly influence developmental outcomes of players. As the RL TD pathway in Australia consists of multiple environments (i.e school, clubs, representative, home) the interactions between them can facilitate or hinder outcomes. Reported in Chapters 6-7, limitations in the current system structures include players perceived high levels of stress, and anxiety when attempting to balance participation demands across settings which contributed to overall workload concerns and potential negative player outcomes (i.e. injury, burnout). Improved communication between environments and associated stakeholders to ensure alignment of philosophies and processes is suggested (e.g. school and club formally discussing individual player schedules).

Further, a lack of clarity in relation to the ‘ideal’ pathway to success for players due to a disconnect between RL pathway settings was evident (Chapter 6-7). Coaches acknowledged an awareness of this issue, however ideas of practical solutions were limited as constraints of time and workload impacted desired coach and/teacher integration with other settings.

In contrast other chapters identified positive mesosystem influences of development within RL. Chapter 5 findings revealed the explicit integration of NRL club staff, former students and the wider community within school TDE programs was associated with perceived positive outcomes from players. Further, the majority of elite youth U20’s players in NRL club settings are not ‘active’ participants in NRL senior squad programs (i.e. do not participate in NRL level training programs). Therefore, connections established between

217

senior coaches, NRL players and U20’s players suggest potential positive interactions between microsystems. The promoted interactions utilised in the education program provided clarity of senior level expectations and demands which assisted both youth players and the wider club in increasing readiness for junior to senior transition.

The macrosystem level of development pertains to the influence of sporting culture at local through to national levels (Baker & Horton, 2004). RL is a contact sport founded in working class philosophies where ideals of masculinity, toughness, physicality and competition have influenced the values of the sport (Rothwell & Stone, 2019). These macrosystem perpetuated values subsequently influence socio-cultural practices at all levels of the sport. Findings from Chapters 7 and 8 suggests these values may be starting to shift as macrosystem influences reinforcing the importance of mental health of athletes, and value of holistic development has been embraced. For example, the support and care shown by TDE coaches in Chapter 7 suggest players do not have to navigate situations on their own and it is acceptable to seek help. Similarly, a professional club embracing an intervention with aims of explicitly seeking to assist pathway transition through psycho-social skill development and a collective effort (Chapter 8) indicates potential implicit biases of toughness and players’ handling transition on their own have changed. Furthermore, the macrosystem pressure created at the youth level of the sport in relation to the increased media exposure of a national

U20’S competition played before the NRL games each weekend was associated with significant negative health impacts for players. The competition was subsequently reallocated lower within the development path (i.e. youth to semi-professional open age to NRL) to reduce youth player stress and pressure, the structural change provides an explicit example of macrosystem influence in RL.

218

9.2.4 Time

The time component refers to the stability of activities and interactions over time.

Highly relevant to all aspects of the PPCT model, time and temporal change directly impacts the person (i.e. age, experience), proximal processes (i.e, type and continuity of training activities), and the evolving nature of microsystems. Time is also classified based upon the amount of time required to participate in trainings sessions (i.e. micro-time), accumulated practice of months or a season in progressing through stages of development (i.e. meso-time), and also in relation to individual (i.e. bio-psycho-social) and context (i.e. wider social and cultural change) change over a number of years (i.e. macro-time). The length and importance of sport specific career transitions and their impact on developmental outcomes are also understood in relation to time (Stambulova et al., 2020). These classifications of time are discussed below in influencing RL TD outcomes for players.

Micro-time is identified as the regularity of day to day training and interactions within

TD environments (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). The frequency of activity types differentiating trajectories within Chapter 5 is evidence of micro-time influencing the individual at specific stages of development. The extra time taken by coaches to listen to players, oversee ‘extras’(i.e. skill, physical additional training) and follow up behaviour standards in other subject areas, beyond their expected role within TDE’s (i.e. Chapters six and seven), reflect how recurrent micro-time interactions can influence developing RL players. These interactions lead to the perceived high support culture and ‘family feel’ identified as an effective characteristic of successful TDEs (Henriksen, 2017). Micro-time also includes single occurrences of development such as an injury, missed-selection or coach- athlete communication break downs which immediately challenges individual coping resources. The associated stress appraisal process can have immediate and long-lasting impacts on pathway progression. Therefore, the perceived improvements in coping self-

219

efficacy and higher frequency of problem and emotion coping strategy use associated with intervention participation (Chapter 8) can strongly influence TD micro-time interactions.

Meso-time is critical to ‘proximal processes’ as they must occur over an extended time period to be developmentally effective (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Supporting this postulate is the temporal delay identified in TDE processes impacting individual psychobehavioural outcomes of players (Chapter 7). For example, processes reflecting an enhanced coach understanding of the athlete within and out of sport led to improvements in perceived coping abilities of players. In congruence, the identified delayed impact of improved coping self-efficiency in Chapter 8 suggest the information and experiences gained required time (i.e. weeks, months) to implement and integrate into practice. The planned use of minor disruption, setbacks and barriers within highly supportive environments to promote optimisation of psycho-social and coping skill learning which is currently promoted (Collins

& MacNamara, 2012) supports the meso-time influence on the strength of ‘proximal processes’.

Macro-time refers to the change or stability of interactions between an individual player and their context over several years. The macro-time influence in relation to individual characteristics (i.e, bio-psycho/cognitive-social individual features) is highlighted across

Chapters five to eight. The maturation related changes to physical (i.e. size, strength), psychological/cognitive (i.e. problem solving, coping strategies) and social (i.e. communication, social awareness) across development played a significant role in determining trajectory type to the senior level (Chapter five). For example, subjective coach opinions based on physical characteristics may have influenced a player’s initial identification; the experience of overcoming multiple barriers at greater age groups within the

‘delayed’ pathway may have assisted coping and self-regulation skill; and the ability to ‘speak up’ and lead discussions regarding the increased RL load demands of adolescence is

220

influenced by the cognitive maturity and social competence of a player. Aligned to the transition period of growth of adolescence, the development of these characteristics varies in timing and tempo for players, as changes may take years to emerge and subsequently influence player outcomes. This macro-time individual variation needs to be acknowledged and considered when coaches are making decisions that may impact long term player outcomes. Current thesis findings suggest the macro-time duration of school-based RL TDE involvement, and the temporal position they occupy in the RL pathway in Australia provides a significant opportunity to schedule psychosocial skill development earlier within player trajectories which may assist players when they face future challenges.

9.3 Practical Implications

Considered altogether, findings from this thesis highlight key environmental features and influencing factors of TD within an Australian RL context. These findings may not be directly generalisable to other sports and cultures, however, connections may be made as practitioners are able to selectively transfer applicable findings to their unique contexts

(Smith, 2018). The complimentary theoretical frameworks of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of development and career transition models highlight the range of multiplicative influences on development. As such, the current thesis implications extend to several stakeholders, organisations and systems within the Australia RL context. Aiming to assist holistic outcomes of emerging RL players and enhance the efficacy of current TD structures, this section provides some valuable information to those who directly and indirectly facilitate pathway progression.

9.3.1 Coaches

The results from this thesis highlight the significance of a broad coaching skillset required in TD. Key findings were the importance placed on psycho-social skill development, awareness of psychological factors, maintaining player motivation, and balancing training and

221

recovering, whilst recognising the numerous conflicting demands of TD for players. This has significant practical implications for coaches in prioritising the development of an open and honest coach-athlete relationship, facilitating autonomy/supportive practice sessions, and creating cohesive cultures balancing challenge and support. Findings also assert the value of strong inter-personal skills for coaches required to manage multiple stakeholder (i.e. parents, other coaches) expectations, critically debate the ideal ways to manage individual player progression and collaborate with several parties to achieve coherence in development. Thesis findings suggest RL coaches should focus on improving the quality and frequency of their use of the ‘softer’ skills of coaching (i.e. empathy, communication) through increased self- awareness, reflection and potential education opportunities.

The coaches’ role in developing player ‘goal directed’ attributes (i.e. motivation, persistence), perceived competence and self confidence in their preparation for future transitions through ‘challenge’ was identified. The consistent implementation of planned and measured challenge by coaches including demanding schedules, physical strain of training, high behavioural and academic expectations, creating strong peer competition, and facilitating leadership positions for senior players in school-based TDE’s were utlilised to build player’s psycho-social skills which may be drawn upon to manage future barriers on and off the field. However, coaches implementation of these strategies to create challenges need to be balanced with providing high levels of support to players to ensure the experiential knowledge and skills gained are reflected upon and channelled into positive influences on the next barrier of TD that awaits along the path. Contributing to this support is the coach’s knowledge of athlete stressors, coping strategies, and how their own personal qualities (i.e. leadership, personality type, disposition) and the environment they facilitate contributes to minimising (“not eliminating”) or amplifying the impact of such challenges. Integration and

222

use of support staff or senior coach mentors to assist TD coaches in this process is also recommended.

Another important practical implication for coaches was the need to understand and be cognisant of their own and their players position on the RL development path. The variability in trajectories and identification of the ‘delayed’ path of success suggests the need for an inclusive long-term approach to coaching players. Players may have different aims and needs

(i.e. physical, psych, social) at different stages of development. Therefore, coaches (i.e. club, school, representative) need to be realistic in their expectations. In line with this, findings suggest coaches also need to be mindful of how they define ‘success’ with holistic (i.e. better person, better athlete) development valued over results within the current thesis.

9.3.2 Parents

Parental influence has been recognised as a key contributor to youth sporting development (Harwood & Knight, 2015). Thesis findings have important implications for parents as their supporting role varies across development. RL development trajectory findings suggests parents should encourage multi-sport participation and play with no evidence of early specialisation within RL being identified as an advantage. Furthermore, beyond promoting initial engagement in the sport, the value of parental support roles in facilitating persistence with the RL performance pathway and assisting with the multifactorial demands of TD was identified. For example, balancing frequent communication with facilitating levels of independence for players to gain experience and skills in overcoming their own barriers (i.e. non-selection, training loads) may assist on the RL TD pathway. Further parents occupy an ideal position to reinforce a long-term development approach displayed in the ‘delayed investment’ trajectory (Chapter 5). Parents focussing on player enjoyment, improvement and work ethic regardless of current stage and playing level may be beneficial as there are plenty of opportunities for players down the path. The creation

223

of RL parent forums to share experiences and narratives of the benefits of a long-term approach and overcoming challenges may be valuable.

9.3.3 TDEs

This study highlighted the general positive influence school-based TDEs can have on developing RL players. The school-wide cultures providing routines, discipline and high levels of support whilst integrating sport and education enhanced both performance and holistic outcomes for the players. Extended engagement within these environments produce positive psych-behavioural outcomes (i.e. coping, self-regulation) for players that assist readiness for future transitions. However, TDE stakeholders, (i.e. coaches, teachers, executive staff) need to continually maintain and reinforce these cultural values and standards as the positive impact on players is not immediate with delayed benefits attained. Findings suggest TDE coaches and support staff move beyond instructional roles to become ‘cultural leaders’ in their behaviours and interactions with players (Storm, 2020). Furthermore, the integration of explicit psychological skill development opportunities (i.e. goal setting, problem solving, stress appraisal, and coping skills) within the TDE setting may enhance preparedness for sport and outside of sport opportunities for teenage RL players.

Additional study implications for TDE practitioners assert improved awareness, collaboration, and communication is required beyond TDE microsystems. To effectively manage the physical, psychological and social demands of TD, formal and informal communication networks need to be pursued. This could involve the use of collaborative scheduling between schools, clubs and parents to plan, and prioritise a coordinated approach to time management and evaluate the overall workloads of the players (i.e. daily travel, RL, and education-based commitments). Further, providing effective psycho-social skill development (i.e. encouraging communication, autonomy, player input, role modelling) and facilitating explicit opportunities for individual players to become involved in managing their

224

loads and conflicting demands is also suggested (Bjørndal & Gjesdal, 2020). As a strength of

TDEs, current findings within this study suggest connections to external expertise (i.e. NRL

Clubs, past players, wider support staff) may already be established, however these may need to be extended in relation to frequency of interaction and breadth of content (i.e. beyond technical and tactical coaching) explored to include transition, workload balance, and use of psychosocial skills.

9.3.4 NRL clubs

The thesis results have important implications for NRL clubs who predominately determine their own approach to TD. The primary findings in relation to trajectories would suggest delaying recruitment decisions and aim to keep as many ‘potential’ players within club-based programs for longer (Till & Baker, 2020). As talent conversion rates (i.e. from junior representative teams to senior level professional) are limited and decline exponentially at younger age groups, increasing elite squad sizes at younger age groups to ensure maintained opportunities for more players is suggested. Current findings suggest more focused resources (i.e. people, programs, financial, holistic) should be targeted at later age

(i.e. after U18’s) programs within NRL Clubs compared to current programs junior representative (i.e. U16’s) and early age (i.e. from U13’s) scholarship programs. This realignment of resources may also involve an increase in provision of NRL club led coach education to clubs (recreational) and school-based TDEs. This would promote the sharing of

TD responsibility at younger age levels (i.e. schools, junior clubs), improve pathway coherence and enhance overall quality experience of potential players not yet in the representative programs.

The study also demonstrated the benefits of role models to RL pathway success. For example, the leadership experience and skills attained acting as role models in senior years of school TDE participation may have influenced preparedness for transition. The recognised

225

value of higher-level player role models (e.g. senior players) sharing experiences within the coping and psychosocial skill intervention also highlighted the potential significance. Intra

NRL club mentoring programs across playing levels and age groups would benefit developing players. Specifically, formalising connections between youth and senior players within the

NRL club would have strong implications in initiating conversations daily, and long term in assisting transition. Mentoring and formal ‘role model’ connecting programs would also compliment the identified need for increased resources and educational programs to assist player transition within the final stages of RL TD.

Findings suggest effective coping and psychosocial educational programs can be successfully integrated within NRL club settings, however planned follow up and re-visiting of key messages would be required. It is suggested building a more structured process to improve emerging RL player psychosocial skills to enhance readiness for the increased stressors of professional sport. It is pertinent to allocate time to such a program such as integrating education session within the weekly schedule of players. This is a clear opportunity for NRL Clubs to assist both players, youth coaches and broader club staff in raising holistic development awareness through such programs. More broadly, NRL clubs may be able to adopt such programs to also educate parents of talented youth players, further integrate outside of sport resources (e.g. academic, business, financial resources), and in turn, enhance their TD reputation against other competing NRL clubs.

Further implications for NRL clubs also relate to potential recruitment processes.

Current findings promote recognition of several sources of information that may assist in holistic profiling of players and club TD environments. The use of empirical instruments (i.e.

TDEQ, PCDE, CSE), to supplement current ‘gut feel’ subjective performance assessments of players, coaches and programs (Roberts, 2019). A more detailed examination of a player’s previous environments, such as school-based TDEs and their coaches, may also assist RL

226

player profiling. This information may provide a greater knowledge of the ‘whole’ player (i.e. leadership abilities, response under stress, social integration) to reinforce or challenge current views. The strength of school-based TDE coach-athlete relationships suggest these coaches may be a valuable resource to NRL clubs beyond initial talent selection discussions. These coaches may assist further down the path to enhance player transitions and overall player holistic management at the elite level.

9.3.5 RL Governing Bodies

RL Governing bodies in Australia develop the competition structures (e.g., representative, age group levels, length of competitions), provide coach education programs and develop resources (i.e. coaching manuals, well-being programs) to assist NRL clubs and wider organisations (i.e. schools, clubs) enhance TD processes. Current thesis findings can inform policy in that delaying the start age of junior representative programs (i.e. U16s to

U17s) may assist in widening the pyramid of potential players and improve efficacy of TD program elite player progression outcomes. The design and delivery of resources in relation to psychosocial skill development, demands of transition and delaying decision-making regarding selection is also suggested for players, TD coaches and clubs. This may include the promotion of more narratives of players entering pathways later and overcoming barriers to achieve success (Jeffery, 2019).

9.4 Strengths & limitations

9.4.1 Strengths

This thesis had several strengths in relation to its research question, findings and methodology. The series of studies within the thesis although sitting within an Australian context are unique when considered on a global scale. The further understanding gained in relation to TD environments and the individual player challenges associated with RL in

Australia, make a valuable contribution to sport expertise literature. Findings provide strong

227

evidence to inform aspiring players, their parents, rugby league coaches across all levels, and policy makers to help guide and develop future elite level RL players. At the practical level current findings may also assist, reinforce or supplement TD understanding across other sports and cultural settings. More specifically the role of the environment , the value of psychological skill development, the importance of a range of stakeholders (i.e. coaches, support staff, peers, parents), benefits of challenge, and highlighted complexity of athlete development may assist practitioner TD understanding in other high performance sport settings.

The integration of multiple participant groups of TD stakeholders from a large sample of elite players over 50% of current NRL players, to school-based TDE students, ex-students and coaches (i.e. teachers), and a number of staff and elite youth players at multiple NRL

Clubs, highlights the depth and broad range of perspectives explored during this ecological approach. Accompanying the extensive participant groups of the thesis a mixed method design was utilised to attain a range of perspectives. Different research designs were applied to ‘best’ address key research questions. The designs utilised a range of robust qualitative and quantitative research methods, approaches and analyses in providing a relevant and deeper understanding of the TD phenomenon in RL.

The sequential design of the mixed method approach was also a strength of this thesis as findings influenced subsequent study research direction. The thesis evolution progressed from an increased understanding of TD influential factors and environments of elite player trajectories and school-based RL TDEs, to examining practical initiatives of the coping and psycho-social intervention (i.e, Chapter 8) to promote change and to assist individual outcomes. This sequenced design may promote stronger application in addressing the research information practice divide currently acknowledged in the TD field.

228

The increased understanding of the psychosocial development processes and skills required in TD in specific context is a noteworthy strength. Broader TD research has consistently promoted psychological characteristics (e.g., motivation, coping, self-regulation) as vital to success in reaching one’s potential (Collins et al., 2016b; Savage et al., 2017), however the integration and recognition of these fundamental skills remains limited in TD practice (Larsen et al., 2012). Therefore, the evidence of current RL TD practice reinforcing the value of psychological skill development, and the potential impacts (i.e. facilitative and debilitative) these constructs can have supported the suggestions for further attention. The preliminary findings of support (i.e. increases coping self-efficacy, coping strategy use) for the embedded intervention program within a professional youth RL context strongly adds to current literature.

9.4.2 Limitations

Notwithstanding the strengths of the present thesis, several limitations also exist. As

TD is highly context specific (Suppiah et al., 2015) the findings within this thesis may not necessarily be a representation of all youth RL experiences in Australia. As a relatively small sample of RL players and stakeholders participated across school based TDE’s and NRL

U20’s programs, potential variability between organisations (i.e. staff numbers, infrastructure, social environments) within the sport suggests findings may not necessarily apply to other RL contexts. Likewise, when considering findings in relation to broader social and cultural contexts careful consideration needs to be applied. Nonetheless present findings could easily be extracted and developed to assist positive player developmental outcomes across a range of sports.

Despite the strengths of mixed methodological approaches and integrating empirically validated instruments the limitations of self-reporting within research are recognised (Baker &

Young, 2014; Sosniak, 2006). The accuracy of self-reporting measures and the possibility of

229

bias may have influenced questionnaire responses. For example, recall bias of retrospective information may have impacted reliability of the extensive NRLAQ findings within Chapter

5. However various methods (i.e. test-re-test, questionnaire sequence of content informed by prior retrospective designs) were applied to mitigate this risk. Furthermore, within chapter 6 and 7 social expectancy bias of players within TDE’s may have influenced responses and needs to be acknowledged. The questionnaire instruments integrated into the current thesis have also been questioned based upon their ability to capture the intricacies of development within unique sport and cultural contexts (Gledhill & Harwood, 2019; Ivarsson et al., 2015).

Supplementing questionnaire findings, the triangulation of multiple stakeholder qualitative perspectives (Chapters 6-8) assisted in reducing this suggested contextual insensitivity of instruments. Furthermore, it should also be noted that over the time course of this thesis that specific instruments, (i.e. PCDEQ; TDEQ) were extended and/or modified to further improve internal reliability and integrate current empirical evidence from respective authors (Li et al.,

2015; Hill et al., 2018).

Qualitative methodology utilised in the current thesis also presented limitations associated with the lead researcher facilitating all interviews, focus group and education sessions (Chapters 6-8). Potential participant social desirability bias was considered with several steps taken [i.e. reminders of confidentiality in response, external (i.e. not known to schools and clubs) member of the supervisory team being used in data collection and participant recruitment] to minimise the potential effects on findings. Additionally, due to the lead researcher’s primary role in research design and extensive background within RL, potential subjective bias was also likely. Integrating supervisors as ‘critical friends’ within the interpretation phases of the research (Smith & McGannon, 2018), regular debriefing and triangulation and establishing consensus of the research team (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), and detailed process driven diarising of data coding were integrated to limit bias influence. In

230

contrast, the lead researchers background and familiarity within the RL context and its associated process and culture may have also been a strength in assisting the validity and authenticity of findings.

9.5 Recommendations for future research

In order to address limitations, and recognising overall findings of the thesis, there are several recommendations for future research. Theoretically, due to the complexity in TD practice a more detailed description of the unique Australian RL contexts and cultures may further substantiate Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 2005) premises of nested and interacting contexts impacting development. Utilising ethnographic methods such as environment observation and participant interviews across multiple contexts (i.e. school, junior club, NRL club) would provide an enhanced understanding of the unique environments, and participant perception of them. Furthermore, as Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 2005) interdisciplinary bioecological systems theory promotes relationships and interactions as the basis of development, further investigation of how different contexts interact with each other and the individual in RL is also suggested. Future studies may explore how these relationships evolve and emerge overtime within and between contexts. In doing so, future research may uncover opportunities for more coordinated efforts between contexts in exploring how player development is facilitated (or inhibited) by broader cultural, societal and systemic norms, along with the structure of context specific coaching and training processes. To enhance understanding of the delayed investment’ trajectory highlighted in Chapter 5, a more detailed qualitative examination of individual experiences and perspectives during their final years pre performance pathway selection (i.e. 17-18 years) would be beneficial. Capturing details of their socio-environmental microsystem, training practices and their opinions on obstacles

231

overcome and influencing factors would strengthen our knowledge to raise further awareness of this important yet not fully understood pathway to elite RL performance.

Identified as ‘opportunities’ to further enhance current practice within school-based

TDE’s the role of psychological skills development requires further attention. School TDE processes are impacting psycho-behavioural outcomes for individuals (i.e. Chapter 7) however, the explicit integration of education programs for coaches (Nicholls, 2014) or players (Larsen et al., 2014) targeting these skills (i.e. goal setting, coping strategies, time management, and self-reflection) may assist in reducing player uncertainty and stress levels evident within the current thesis. Furthermore, an individual case study approach integrating multiple stakeholders’ perspectives across organisations regarding balancing workloads and demands of RL TD in adolescence may also further understanding of the complexities and conflicting perspectives of TD. This suggested case study approach may inform an evidence- based intervention where player and stakeholders are documented working together to implement a plan and evaluate its performance and holistic outcomes for the player (Hall, et at, 2019).

Ex-player and current coach perspectives of why individuals did not attain successful sporting outcomes through rugby code TDE participation have recently been examined

(Rothwell et al., 2018; Taylor & Collins, 2019). Considering the general positive findings in relation to school based RL TDE in Australia surrounding holistic development (i.e. ‘family feel’, high support) exploring ex-student (i.e. players who did not attain desired outcomes) perceptions to determine if TDE experiences and skills attained impacted (i.e. positively/negatively) both RL and wider life post participation would further understanding of the perceived significance of effective TDE involvement.

Increasing longitudinal follow ups in relation to the coping and psycho-social skill intervention (i.e Chapter 8) would extend current findings. Given the lag effect of findings

232

from intervention to follow up (i.e. 12 weeks), intermittent follow ups over an extended period such as a full RL year cycle (i.e. 11 months) inclusive of unique training year stages and their specific stressors (i.e. preseason-high training demands, in season-game performance, team selection, changing coach – athlete relationship) would enhance reliability of results and inform future intervention content. Recommended reassessments may also involve coach and support staff (i.e. welfare, performance, senior coach) perspectives to detail any noticed changes and/or examples of psycho-social skill integration within the wider player group.

9.6 Summary

In this chapter, the thesis findings have been examined and synthesised in relation to the bioecological model of development. Supporting the theoretical concepts of the model, it provided a valuable framework to explore the complexities of TD in RL utilising the concepts of process (i.e. training, coach-athlete relations, peer interactions), person ( i.e. motivation

,discipline, self-regulation), context (i.e. school-based have TDEs, NRL clubs) and time

(coach-athlete player interactions, duration of TDE involvement, maturation processes).

Integrating the supporting DMSP model (Côté et al., 2003, 2007), and athlete career transition models (Stambulova, 2003; Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004; Wylleman & Rosier, 2016), in thesis supports the complementary use of talent development and career transition models in providing a comprehensive framework to further understand and critically examine current

TD in RL (Coutinho et al., 2016). The DMSP’s generic stage-based model (i.e. sampling, specialisation, investment) examining activity types contribution to development was partially supported, whilst the career transition models which outline key resources and influences (i.e. psychological, psycho-social, outside of sport) associated with overcoming normative (i.e. age group progression) and non-normative (i.e. injury, missed contract, relationship breakdown) transitions of athlete development were supported (Wylleman & Rosier, 2016).

233

The thesis sought to further our understanding of TD environments and their role in

RL athlete development. Reciprocal interactions between a player and their environment to accelerate, regulate and/or inhibit progress toward outcomes were identified in all four studies. The individualised and unique benefits of player characteristics (i.e motivation, perceived ability, maturity) aligning with the ideal environment (i.e. training level, coach philosophy, peers involved) at key stages of development were identified within the two dominant trajectories to senior level success. Furthermore, the microsystem was instrumental in assisting (or challenging) the realisation of positive holistic development for players. The school-based TDE’s and youth programs of NRL Clubs occupy the ideal temporal position within the RL TD pathway to positively impact overall health of players. In striving to achieve these outcomes, the benefits of consistent challenge accompanied by high levels of social support were identified. Important psycho-behavioural skills (e.g. coping, self- regulation, support seeking) were facilitated and challenged within these environments.

Opportunities to enhance current practices through club and/or school formal education programs, enhancing coaches awareness of player stressors associated with pathway challenges, and explicit teaching (i.e. and facilitation of) of psycho-social skills within day to day coach-athlete interactions may assist player preparation for future transitions.

234

References

Abbott, A., & Collins, D. (2004). Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice in

talent identification and development: Considering the role of psychology. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 22(5), 395–408.

Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2005). Contextual factors influencing the development of

expertise in Australian athletes [Paper presentation]. International Society of Sports

Psychology Eleventh World Congress of Sport Psychology, Sydney, Australia.

Abernethy, B. (2008). Introduction: Developing expertise in sport – how research can inform

practice. In D. Farrow, Baker, J., & MacMahon, C. (Ed.), Developing sport expertise

(pp. 1–14). Routledge.

Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Perceived coach–autonomy support, basic

need satisfaction and the well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: A

longitudinal investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(1), 51–59.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.008

Amiot, C. E., Gaudreau, P., & Blanchard, C. M. (2004). Self-determination, coping, and goal

attainment in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26(3), 396–411.

https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.3.396

Araújo, D. (2007). Promoting ecologies where performers exhibit expert interactions.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38(1), 73–77.

Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2009). Ecological approaches to cognition and action in sport and

exercise: Ask not only what you do, but where you do it. International Journal of

Sport Psychology, 40(1), 5–37.

Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2011). Talent development: From possessing gifts, to functional

environmental interactions. Talent Development and Excellence 3(1), 23–25.

235

Araújo, D., Fonseca, C., Davids, K., Garganta, J., Volossovitch, A., Brandao, R., & Krebs, R.

(2010). The role of ecological constraints on expertise development. Talent

Development and Excellence, 2(2), 165–179.

Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2017). Organisational stressors, coping, and

outcomes in competitive sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(7), 694–703.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1184299

Bailey, R., Collins, D., Ford, P., MacNamara, Á., Toms, M., & Pearce, G. (2010). Participant

development in sport: An academic review. Sports Coach UK & Sport Northern

Ireland. http://www.sportni.net/sportni/wp-

content/uploads/2014/06/ParticipantDevelopmentinSport.pdf

Baker, J. (2012). Do genes predict potential? Genetic factors and athlete success. In J. Baker,

S. Cobley, J. & Schorer (Eds.), Talent identification and development in sport (pp. 13–

24). Routledge.

Baker, J., & Cobley, S. (2008). Does practice make perfect: The role of training in developing

the expert athlete. In D. Farrow, J. Baker, & MacMahon, C. (Eds.), Developing sports

expertise: Researchers and coaches put theory into practice (pp. 29–40). Routledge.

Baker, J., Cobley, S., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2009). What do we know about early sport

specialization? Not much! High Ability Studies, 20(1), 77–89.

Baker, J., Cobley, S., Schorer, J., & Wattie, N. (Eds.). (2017). Routledge handbook of talent

identification and development in sport. Routledge.

Baker, J., & Côté, J. (2005). Shifting training requirements during athlete development: The

relationship among deliberate practice, deliberate play, and other sport involvement in

the acquisition of sport expertise. In D. Hackfort & G. Tenebaum (Eds.), Essential

processes for attaining peak performance (pp. 93–110). Meyer & Meyer Sport.

236

Baker, J., Côté, J., & Abernethy, B. (2003). Sport-specific practice and the development of

expert decision-making in team ball sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

15(1), 12–25.

Baker, J., & Horton, S. (2004). A review of primary and secondary influences on sport

expertise. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 212–228.

Baker, J., & Schorer, J. (2010). Identification and Development of Talent in Sport –

Introduction to the Special Issue. Talent Development & Excellence, 2(2), 119-121.

Baker, J., Schorer, J., Cobley, S., Schimmer, G., & Wattie, N. (2009). Circumstantial

development and athletic excellence: The role of date of birth and birthplace.

European Journal of Sport Science, 9(6), 329–339.

Baker, J., Schorer, J., & Wattie, N. (2018). Compromising talent: Issues in identifying and

selecting talent in sport. Quest, 70(1), 48–63.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2017.1333438

Baker, J., & Wattie, N. (2018). Innate talent in sport: Separating myth from reality. Current

Issues in Sport Science, 3: Article 006. https://doi.org/10.15203/CISS_2018.006

Baker, J., Wattie, N., & Schorer, J. (2019). A proposed conceptualization of talent in sport:

The first step in a long and winding road. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 43, 27–

33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.016

Baker, J., & Young, B. (2014). 20 years later: Deliberate practice and the development of

expertise in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 135–

157. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2014.896024

Balyi, I. (2002). Long-term athlete development: The system and solutions. Faster, Higher,

Stronger, 14, 6–9.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

237

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology. Concepts and methods for studying the

environment of human behaviour. Stanford University Press.

Barreiros, A., Côté, J., & Fonseca, A. M. (2013). Training and psychosocial patterns during

the early development of Portuguese national team athletes. High Ability Studies,

24(1), 49–61.

Barrowclough, A. (2015, 30 May). Rugby league suicides: Is the NRL doing enough for its

young players? Weekend Australian Magazine.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/weekend-australian-magazine/rugby-league-

suicides-is-the-nrl-doing-enough-for-its-young-players/news-

story/681810f42bb5274a30751a9fa9cacaf1

Bartulovic, D., Young, B. W., & Baker, J. (2017). Self-regulated learning predicts skill group

differences in developing athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 31, 61–69.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.04.006

Baxter-Jones, A. D. G., Barbour-Tuck, E. N., Dale, D., Sherar, L. B., Knight, C. J., Cumming,

S. P., Ferguson, L. J., Kowalski, K. C., & Humbert, M. L. (2020). The role of growth

and maturation during adolescence on team-selection and short-term sports

participation. Annals of Human Biology, 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2019.1707870

Bengoechea, E. G., & Johnson, G. M. (2001). Ecological systems theory and children’s

development in sport: Toward a process–person–context–time research paradigm.

Avante, 7, 20–31.

Bennett, K. J. M., Novak, A. R., Pluss, M. A., Stevens, C. J., Coutts, A. J., & Fransen, J.

(2018). The use of small-sided games to assess skill proficiency in youth soccer

players: A talent identification tool. Science and Medicine in Football, 2(3), 231–236.

https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2017.1413246

238

Bennie, A., & O’Connor, D. (2006). Athletic transition: An investigation of elite track and

field participation in the post-high school years. Change: Transformations in

Education, 9(1), 59–68.

Bergeron, M. F., Mountjoy, M., Armstrong, N., Chia, M., Côté, J., Emery, C. A.,

Faigenbaum, A., Hall, G., Kriemler, S., Léglise, M., Malina, R. M., Pensgaard, A. M.,

Sanchez, A., Soligard, T., Sundgot-Borgen, J., van Mechelen, W., Weissensteiner, J.

R., Engebretsen, L. (2015). International Olympic Committee consensus statement on

youth athletic development. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(13), 843–851.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094962

Berry, J., Abernethy, B., & Côté, J. (2008). The contribution of structured activity and

deliberate play to the development of expert perceptual and decision-making skill.

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(6), 685–708.

Bishop, F. L. (2015). Using mixed methods research designs in health psychology: An

illustrated discussion from a pragmatist perspective. British Journal of Health

Psychology, 20(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12122

Bjørndal, C. T., Andersen, S. S., & Ronglan, L. T. (2017). Successful and unsuccessful

transitions to the elite level: The youth national team pathways in Norwegian

handball. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13(4), 533–544.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117740014

Bjørndal, C. T., & Ronglan, L. T. (2018). Orchestrating talent development: youth players’

developmental experiences in Scandinavian team sports. Sports Coaching Review,

7(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2017.1317172

239

Bjørndal, C. T., & Gjesdal, S. (2020). The role of sport school programmes in athlete

development in Norwegian handball and football. European Journal for Sport and

Society, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2020.1792131

Bloom, B. S., & Sosniak, L. A. (Eds.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. Ballentine.

Booth, M., Cobley, S., Halaki, M., & Orr, R. (2020). Is training age predictive of

physiological performance changes in developmental rugby league players? A

prospective longitudinal study. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,

15(3), 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954120919909

Booth, M., Cobley, S., & Orr, R. (2017). The effect of training loads on performance

measures and injury characteristics in rugby league players: A systematic review.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13(10), 1259–1272.

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0329

Bradley, B., Johnson, D., Hill, M., McGee, D., Kana-ah, A., Sharpin, C., Sharp, P., Kelly, A.,

Cumming, S. P., & Malina, R. M. (2019). Bio-banding in academy football: Player’s

perceptions of a maturity matched tournament. Annals of Human Biology, 46(5), 400–

408. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2019.1640284

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long,

A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods

in psychology: Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative,

neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.

Brenner, J. S. (2007). Overuse injuries, overtraining, and burnout in child and adolescent

athletes. Pediatrics, 119(6), 1242–1245. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-0887

Breslin, G., Shannon, S., Haughey, T., Donnelly, P., & Leavey, G. (2017). A systematic

review of interventions to increase awareness of mental health and well-being in

240

athletes, coaches and officials. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 177.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0568-6

Britton, D. M., Kavanagh, E. J., & Polman, R. C. J. (2019). A path analysis of adolescent

athletes’ perceived stress reactivity, competition appraisals, emotions, coping, and

performance satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1151.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01151

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and

design. Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child

development: A research annual: Vol 6. Six theories of child development: Revised

formulations and current issues (pp. 187–249). JAI Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future

perspective. In G. H. Elder, Jr., K. Lüscher, K., & P. Moen (Eds.), Examining lives in

context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development. (pp. 619–647). American

Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10176-018

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and

operational models. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment

across the life span (pp. 3–28). American Psychological Association.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Bioecological theory of human development. In U.

Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on

human development (pp. 3–15). Sage.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W.

Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical

models of human development (pp. 993–1028). Wiley.

241

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development.

In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.

Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Wiley.

Brown, D. J., Arnold, R., Reid, T., & Roberts, G. (2018). A qualitative exploration of thriving

in elite sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30(2), 129–149.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2017.1354339

Brown, S. (2015). Learning to be a ‘goody-goody’: Ethics and performativity in high school

elite athlete programmes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 51(8), 957–

974. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690215571145

Bruner, M. W., Erickson, K., McFadden, K., & Côté, J. (2009). Tracing the origins of athlete

development models in sport: A citation path analysis. International Review of Sport

and Exercise Psychology, 2(1), 23–37.

Bruner, M. W., Erickson, K., Wilson, B., & Côté, J. (2010). An appraisal of athlete

development models through citation network analysis. Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 11(2), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.05.008

Bruner, M. W., Eys, M. A., Wilson, K. S., & Côté, J. (2014). Group cohesion and positive

youth development in team sport athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance

Psychology, 3(4), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000017

Bruner, M. W., Macdonald, D. J., Pickett, W., & Côté, J. (2011). Examination of birthplace

and birthdate in world junior ice hockey players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(12),

1337–1344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.597419

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?

Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877

242

Bullock, N., Gulbin, J., Martin, D., Ross, A., Holland, T., & Marino, F. (2009). Talent

identification and deliberate programming in skeleton: Ice novice to winter Olympian

in 14 months. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(4), 397–404.

Burgess, D. J., & Naughton, G. A. (2010). Talent development in adolescent team sports: A

review. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 5(1), 103–116.

Burke, S. (2016). Rethinking ‘validity’ and ‘trustworthiness’ in qualitative inquiry: How

might we judge the quality of qualitative research in sport and exercise sciences? In B.

Smith & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport

and exercise (330–339). Routledge.

Capranica, L., & Millard-Stafford, M. L. (2011). Youth sport specialization: How to manage

competition and training? International Journal of Sports Physiology and

Performance, 6(4), 572–579.

Champ, F. M., Nesti, M. S., Ronkainen, N. J., Tod, D. A., & Littlewood, M. A. (2018). An

exploration of the experiences of elite youth footballers: The impact of organizational

culture. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 32(2), 1–22.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2018.1514429

Chesney, M. A., Chambers, D. B., Taylor, J. M., Johnson, L. M., & Folkman, S. (2003).

Coping effectiveness training for men living with HIV: Results from a randomised

clinical trial testing a group-based intervention. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(6),

1038–1046.

Chesney, M. A., Neilands, T. B., Chambers, D. B., Taylor, J. M., & Folkman, S. (2006). A

validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of

Health Psychology, 11(3), 421–437.

Cheval, B., Chalabaev, A., Quested, E., Courvoisier, D. S., & Sarrazin, P. (2017). How

perceived autonomy support and controlling coach behaviors are related to well- and

243

ill-being in elite soccer players: A within-person changes and between-person

differences analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 28, 68–77.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.10.006

Christensen, M. K. (2009). “An eye for talent”: Talent identification and the “practical sense”

of top-level soccer coaches. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(3), 365–382.

https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.26.3.365 10.1123/ssj.26.3.365

Coakley, J. (2010). The “logic” of specialization: Using children for adult purposes. Journal

of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(8), 16–25.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2010.10598520

Cobley, S. (2016). Talent identification and development in youth sport. In K. Green & A.

Smith (Eds.), Routledge handbook of youth sport (pp. 476–491). Routledge.

Cobley, S., Baker, J., Wattie, N., & McKenna, J. (2009). Annual age-grouping and athlete

development: A meta-analytical review of relative age effects in sport. Journal of

Sports Medicine, 39(3), 235–256.

Cobley, S., Hanratty, M., O’Connor, D., & Cotton, W. (2014). First club location and relative

age as influences on being a professional Australian rugby league player. International

Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(2), 335–346.

Cobley, S., Schorer, J., & Baker, J. (2012). Identification and development of sport talent. In

J. Baker, S. Cobley, & J. Schorer (Eds.), Talent identification and development in

sport (pp. 13–25). Routledge.

Cobley, S., & Till, K. (2015). Talent identification, development, and the young rugby player.

In C. Twist & P. Worsfold (Eds.), The science of rugby. Routledge.

Cobley, S., & Till, K. (2017). Participation trends according to relative age across youth UK

Rugby League. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 12(3), 339–343.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117710506

244

Cobley, S. P., Till, K., O’Hara, J., Cooke, C., & Chapman, C. (2014). Variable and changing

trajectories in youth athlete development: Further verification in advocating a long-

term inclusive tracking approach. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,

28(7), 1959–1970.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, D., Bailey, R., Ford, P. A., MacNamara, Á., Toms, M., & Pearce, G. (2012). Three

worlds: New directions in participant development in sport and physical activity.

Sport, Education and Society, 17(2), 225–243.

Collins, D., & MacNamara, Á. (2012). The rocky road to the top: Why talent needs trauma.

Sports Medicine, 42(11), 907–914.

Collins, D., & MacNamara, Á. (2017). A smooth sea never made a skilful sailor: Optimizing

and exploiting the rocky road in talent development. In J. Baker, S. Cobley, J. Schorer,

& N. Wattie (Eds.), Routledge handbook of talent identification and development in

sport (pp. 336–346). Routledge.

Collins, D., MacNamara, Á., & Cruickshank, A. (2019). Research and practice in talent

identification and development—some thoughts on the state of play. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 31(3), 340–351.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2018.1475430

Collins, D., MacNamara, Á., & McCarthy, N. (2016a). Putting the bumps in the rocky road:

Optimizing the pathway to excellence. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 1482.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01482

Collins, D., MacNamara, Á., & McCarthy, N. (2016b). Super champions, champions, and

almosts: Important differences and commonalities on the rocky road. Frontiers in

Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009

245

Côté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. The Sport

Psychologist, 13(4), 395–417.

Côté, J. (2002). Coach and peer influence on children’s development through sport. In J. M.

Silva & D. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 520–540). Allyn

and Bacon.

Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2003). From play to practice: A developmental

framework for the acquisition of expertise in team sports. In J. Starkes & K. A.

Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sport

expertise (pp. 89–110). Human Kinetics.

Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2007). Practice and play in the development of sport

expertise. In R. Eklund & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd

ed., pp. 184–202). Wiley.

Côté, J., & Erickson, K. (2015). Diversification and deliberate play during the sampling years.

In J. Baker & D. Farrow (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sport expertise (305–316).

Routledge.

Côté, J., & Erickson, K. (2016). Athlete development. In R. J. Schinke, K. R. McGannon, &

B. Smith (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of sport psychology (pp. 128–137).

Routledge.

Côté, J., Ericsson, K. A., & Law, M. P. (2005). Tracing the development of athletes using

retrospective interview methods: A proposed interview and validation procedure for

reported information. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(1), 1–19.

Côté, J., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2008). Play, practice, and athlete development. In D. Farrow, J.

Baker, & C. MacMahon (Eds.), Developing sport expertise (pp. 17–25). Routledge.

246

Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and

expertise. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(3), 307–323.

https://doi.org/10.1260/174795409789623892

Côté, J., & Hancock, D. J. (2016). Evidence-based policies for youth sport programmes.

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 8(1), 51–65.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2014.919338

Côté, J., Lidor, R., & Hackfort, D. (2009). ISSP position stand: To sample or to specialize?

Seven postulates about youth sport activities that lead to continued participation and

elite performance. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Physiology, 7(1), 7–17.

Côté, J., MacDonald, D., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2006). When “where” is more important

than “when”: Birthplace and birthdate effects on the achievement of sporting

expertise. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(10), 1065–1073.

Côté, J., Murphy-Mills, J., & Abernethy, B. (2012). The development of skill in sport. In N. J.

Hodges & A. M. Williams (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and

practice (pp. 269–286). Routledge.

Côté, J., & Vierimaa, M. (2014). The development model of sport participation: 15 years after

its first conceptualization. Science & Sports, 29, S63–S69.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2014.08.133

Coussens, A. H., Rees, T., & Freeman, P. (2015). Applying Generalizability Theory to

Examine the Antecedents of Perceived Coach Support. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 37(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0087

Coutinho, P., Mesquita, I., Davids, K., Fonseca, A. M., & Côté, J. (2016a). How structured

and unstructured sport activities aid the development of expertise in volleyball players.

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 25, 51–59.

247

Coutinho, P., Mesquita, I., & Fonseca, A. M. (2016b). Talent development in sport: A critical

review of pathways to expert performance. International Journal of Sport Science and

Coaching, 11(2), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954116637499

Crane, J., & Temple, V. (2014). A systematic review of dropout from organized sport among

children and youth. European Physical Education Review, 21(1), 114–131.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X14555294

Crawford, B. F., Snyder, K. E., & Adelson, J. L. (2020). Exploring obstacles faced by gifted

minority students through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory. High

Ability Studies, 31(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1568231

Creswell, J. W. (2009). The selection of research design. In J. W. Creswell (Ed.), Research

Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods (3rd ed., pp. 3-21). Thousands Oak,

CA: Sage Publications

Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research

(2nd ed.). SAGE.

Creswell, J. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. In. SAGE.

Crotty, M. (1989). The foundations of social research. In. Sage.

Cumming, S. P., Brown, D. J., Mitchell, S., Bunce, J., Hunt, D., Hedges, C., Crane, G., Gross,

A., Scott, S., Franklin, E., Breakspear, D., Dennison, L., White, P., Cain, A.,

Eisenmann, J. C., & Malina, R. M. (2018). Premier League academy soccer players’

experiences of competing in a tournament bio-banded for biological maturation.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(7), 1–9.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1340656

Cumming, S. P., Sherar, L., Pindus, D., Coelho-e-Silva, M., Malina, R., & Jardine, P. (2012).

A biocultural model of maturity-associated variance in adolescent physical activity.

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(1), 23–43.

248

Cupples, B., & O’Connor, D. (2011). The development of position-specific performance

indicators in elite youth rugby league: A coach’s perspective. International Journal of

Sports Science & Coaching, 6(1), 125–141.

Cupples, B., O’Connor, D., & Cobley, S. (2018). Distinct trajectories of athlete development:

A retrospective analysis of professional rugby league players. Journal of Sports

Sciences, 36(22), 2558–2566.

Cupples, B., O’Connor, D., & Cobley, S. (2020). Assessing the ecological-context strengths

of school-based talent development programs in rugby league. Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2020.1769010

Curran, T., Hill, A., Hall, H. K., & Jowett, G. E. (2015). Relationships between the coach-

created motivational climate and athlete engagement in youth sport. Journal of Sport

and Exercise Physiology, 37(2), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0203

Curry, L., & Nunez-Smith, M. (2015). Definition and overview of mixed methods designs. In

L. Curry & M. Nunez-Smith (Eds.), Mixed Methods in Health Sciences Research: A

Practical Primer. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483390659

Davids, K., & Baker, J. (2007). Genes, environment and sport performance: Why the nature–

nurture dualism is no longer relevant. Sports Medicine, 37(11), 961–980.

Davids, K., Güllich, A., Shuttleworth, R., & Araújo, D. (2017). Understanding environmental

and task constraints on talent development: Analysis of micro-structure of practice and

macro-structure of developmental histories. In J. Baker, S. Cobley, J. Schorer, & N.

Wattie (Eds.), Routledge handbook of talent identification and development in sport

(pp. 192–206). Routledge.

De Bosscher, V. (2018). A mixed methods approach to compare elite sport policies of

nations: A critical reflection on the use of composite indicators in the SPLISS study.

Sport in Society, 21(2), 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2016.1179729

249

Devaney, D. J., Nesti, M. S., Ronkainen, N. J., Littlewood, M., & Richardson, D. (2018).

Athlete lifestyle support of elite youth cricketers: An ethnography of player concerns

within a national talent development program. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

30(3), 300–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2017.1386247

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research.

DiFiori, J. P., Benjamin, H. J., Brenner, J. S., Gregory, A., Jayanthi, N., Landry, G. L., &

Luke, A. (2014). Overuse injuries and burnout in youth sports: A position statement

from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine. British Journal of Sports

Medicine, 48(4), 287–288. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-093299

Dowling, C., Reeves, M. J., Littlewood, M. A., Nesti, M., & Richardson, D. (2018).

Developing individuals whilst managing teams: Perspectives of under 21 coaches

within English Premier League football. Soccer & Society, 19(8), 1135–1150.

Doyle, L., Brady, A.-M., & Byrne, G. (2016). An overview of mixed methods research –

revisited. Journal of Research in Nursing, 21(8), 623-635.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987116674257

Doyle, L., Brady, A.-M., & Byrne, G. (2009). An overview of mixed methods research.

Journal of Research in Nursing, 14(2), 175-185.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987108093962

Drew, K., Morris, R., Tod, D., & Eubank, M. (2019). A meta-study of qualitative research on

the junior-to-senior transition in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 45, 101556.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101556

Du Preez, E., Graham, K., Gan, T., Ball, C., Moses, B., & Kuah, D. (2017). Mental health

issues in elite rugby league players in the NRL during a competitive season—A cross

sectional epidemiological study [Paper presentation]. 2017 ASICS Sports Medicine

250

Australia Conference, Langkawi, Malaysia.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.09.338

Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Hettinga, F. J. (2017). Pacing and self-regulation: Important skills

for talent development in endurance sports. International Journal of Sports Physiology

and Performance, 12(6), 831–835. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0080

Elliott, S. K., & Drummond, M. J. N. (2017). Parents in youth sport: What happens after the

game? Sport, Education and Society, 22(3), 391–406.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1036233

Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the

development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J.

Feltovish, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert

performance (pp. 685–705). Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A. (2020). Towards a science of the acquisition of expert performance in sports:

Clarifying the differences between deliberate practice and other types of practice.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(2), 159–176.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1688618

Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition.

American Psychologist, 49(8), 725–747.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in

the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.

Erikstad, M. K., Høigaard, R., Johansen, B. T., Kandala, N.-B., & Haugen, T. (2018).

Childhood football play and practice in relation to self-regulation and national team

selection: A study of Norwegian elite youth players. Journal of Sports Sciences,

36(20), 2304–2310. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1449563

251

Erikstad, M. K., Martin, L. J., Haugen, T., & Høigaard, R. (2018). Group cohesion, needs

satisfaction, and self-regulated learning: A one-year prospective study of elite youth

soccer players’ perceptions of their club team. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39,

171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.013

Farrow, D. (2012). Identifying and developing skill expertise. In J. Baker, Cobley, S., &

Schorer, J. (Ed.), Talent Identification and development in sport (pp. 51-63).

Routledge.

Farrow, D., Reid, M., Buszard, T., & Kovalchik, S. (2018). Charting the development of sport

expertise: Challenges and opportunities. International Review of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 11(1), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1290817

Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808

Ferguson, H. L., Swann, C., Liddle, S. K., & Vella, S. A. (2018). Investigating Youth Sports

Coaches' Perceptions of Their Role in Adolescent Mental Health. Journal of Applied

Sport Psychology, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2018.1466839

Figueiredo, A. J., Gonçalves, C. E., Coelho e Silva, M. J., & Malina, R. M. (2009).

Characteristics of youth soccer players who drop out, persist or move up. Journal of

Sports Science, 27(9), 883–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410902946469

Finlay, L., & Gough, B. (Eds.). (2003). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health

and social sciences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470776094

Finn, J., & McKenna, J. (2010). Coping with academy-to-first-team transitions in elite

English male team sports: The coaches’ perspective. International Journal of Sports

Science & Coaching, 5(2), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.5.2.257

252

Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2016). Mental fortitude training: An evidence-based approach to

developing psychological resilience for sustained success. Journal of Sport

Psychology in Action, 7(3), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2016.1255496

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of

theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In Perfectionism: Theory, research, and

treatment. (pp. 5-31). American Psychological Association.

https://doi.org/10.1037/10458-001

Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 839–852.

Ford, P. R., Coughlan, E. K., Hodges, N. J., & Williams, A. M. (2015). Deliberate practice in

sport. In J. Baker & D. Farrow (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports expertise

(pp. 347–363). Routledge.

Ford, P. R., Ward, P., Hodges, N. J., & Williams, M. A. (2009). The role of deliberate

practice and play in career progression in sport: The early engagement hypothesis.

High Ability Studies, 20(1), 65–75.

Ford, P. R., & Williams, M. A. (2012). The developmental activities engaged in by elite youth

soccer players who progressed to professional status compared to those who did not.

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(3), 349–352.

Franck, A., & Stambulova, N. B. (2020). Individual pathways through the junior-to-senior

transition: Narratives of two Swedish team sport athletes. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 32(2), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2018.1525625

Franks, A., Williams, A., Reilly, T., & Nevill, A. (1999). Talent identification in elite youth

soccer players: Physical and physiological characteristics. Journal of Sports Sciences,

17(10), 812.

253

Fraser-Thomas, J., & Côté, J. (2009). Understanding adolescents’ positive and negative

developmental experiences in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 23(1), 3–23.

Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2008). Examining adolescent sport dropout and

prolonged engagement from a developmental perspective. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 20(3), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200802163549

Freeman, P., & Rees, T. (2010). Perceived social support from team-mates: Direct and stress-

buffering effects on self-confidence. European Journal of Sport Science, 10(1), 59-67.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390903049998

Gabbett, T. J. (2013). Influence of playing standard on the physical demands of professional

rugby league. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(10), 1125–1138.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.773401

Gabbett, T. J. (2014). Influence of playing standard on the physical demands of junior rugby

league tournament match-play. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 17(2), 212–

217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.03.013

Gabbett, T. J., Kelly, J., Ralph, S., & Driscoll, D. (2009). Physiological and anthropometric

characteristics of junior elite and sub-elite rugby league players, with special reference

to starters and non-starters. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(1), 215–222.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2007.06.008

Gaudreau, P., & Blondin, J. P. (2002). Development of a questionnaire for the assessment of

coping strategies employed by athletes in competitive sport settings. Psychology of

Sport and Exercise, 3(1), 1–34.

Gaudreau, P., Nicholls, A. R., & Levy, A. R. (2010). The ups and downs of coping and sport

achievement: An episodic process analysis of within-person associations. Journal of

Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32(3), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.3.298

254

Giacobbi, P. R., Poczwardowski, A., & Hager, P. (2005). A pragmatic research philosophy

for sport and exercise psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 19(1), 18–31.

https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.19.1.18

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.

Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet

assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review

of Educational Research, 42(3), 237–288.

Gledhill, A., & Harwood, C. (2014). Developmental experiences of elite female youth soccer

players. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(2), 150–165.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2014.

Gledhill, A., & Harwood, C. (2015). A holistic perspective on career development in UK

female soccer players: A negative case analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 21,

65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.04.003

Gledhill, A., & Harwood, C. (2019). Toward an understanding of players’ perceptions of

talent development environments in UK female football. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 31(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2017.1410254

Gledhill, A., Harwood, C., & Forsdyke, D. (2017). Psychosocial factors associated with talent

development in football: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 31,

93–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.04.002

Goodway, J. D., & Robinson, L. E. (2015). Developmental trajectories in early sport

specialization: A case for early sampling from a physical growth and motor

development perspective. Kinesiology Review, 4(3), 267–278.

Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport: current status and

future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 58-78.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17509840701834573

255

Gould, D., Collins, K., Lauer, L., & Chung, Y. (2007). Coaching life skills through football:

A study of award winning high school coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

19(1), 16–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200601113786

Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their

development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3),

172–204.

Gouvea, M., Cyrino, E. S., Ribeiro, A. S., da Silva, D. R. P., Ohara, D., Valente-dos-Santos,

J., & Coelho-e-Silva, M. J., & Ronque, E. (2016). Influence of skeletal maturity on

size, function and sport-specific technical skills in youth soccer players. International

Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(6), 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1569370

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual Framework for

Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

11(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In

Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 105-117). Sage Publications, Inc.

Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., Dimmock, J. A., & Mallett, C. J. (2009). Understanding the

coach's role in the development of mental toughness: Perspectives of elite Australian

football coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(13), 1483-1496.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903150475

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Sage

Publications.

Gulbin, J. (2008). Identifying and developing sporting experts. In D. Farrow, J. Baker, & C.

MacMahon (Eds.), Developing sport expertise: Researchers and coaches put theory

into practice (pp. 60–72). Routledge.

256

Gulbin, J., Croser, M., Morley, E., & Weissensteiner, J. (2013). An integrated framework for

the optimisation of sport and athlete development: A practitioner approach. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 31(12), 1319–1331.

Gulbin, J., Oldenziel, K. E., Weissensteiner, J. R., & Gagné, F. (2010). A look through the

rear view mirror: Developmental experiences and insights of high performance

athletes. Talent Development and Excellence, 2(2), 149–164.

Gulbin, J., Weissensteiner, J., Oldenzial, K., & Gagné, F. (2013). Patterns of performance

development in elite athletes. European Journal of Sport Science, 13(6), 605–613.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.756542

Güllich, A. (2014a). Many roads lead to Rome—Developmental paths to Olympic gold in

men’s field hockey. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(8), 763–771.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.905983

Güllich, A. (2014b). Selection, de-selection and progression in German football talent

promotion. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(6), 530–537.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2013.858371

Güllich, A. (2017). International medallists’ and non-medallists’ developmental sport

activities—a matched-pairs analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(23), 2281–2288.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1265662

Güllich, A., & Cobley, S. (2017). On the efficacy of talent identification and talent

development programmes. In J. Baker, S. Cobley, J. Schorer, & N. Wattie (Eds.),

Routledge handbook of talent identification and development in sport (pp. 80–98).

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315668017.ch7

Güllich, A., & Emrich, E. (2006). Evaluation of the support of young athletes in the elite

sports system. European Journal for Sport and Society, 3(2), 85–108.

https://doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2006.11687783

257

Güllich, A., & Emrich, E. (2012). Individualistic and collectivistic approach in athlete support

programmes in the German high-performance sport system. European Journal for

Sport and Society, 9(4), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2012.11687900

Güllich, A., & Emrich, E. (2014). Considering long-term sustainability in the development of

world class success. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(Suppl. 1), S383–S397.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.706320

Güllich, A., Hardy, L., Kuncheva, L., Woodman, S., Laing, S., Barlow, M., Evans, L., Rees,

T., Abernethy, B., Côté, J., Warr, C., & Wraith, L. (2019). Developmental biographies

of Olympic super-elite and elite athletes: A multidisciplinary pattern recognition

analysis. Journal of Expertise, 2(1), 1–24.

Güllich, A., Kovar, P., Zart, S., & Reimann, A. (2017). Sport activities differentiating match-

play improvement in elite youth footballers: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 35(3), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1161206

Hall, A. J. A., Jones, L. J., & Martindale, R. J. J. (2019). The Talent Development

Environment Questionnaire as a tool to drive excellence in elite sport environments.

International Sport Coaching Journal, 6(2), 187–198.

https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2018-0041

Hancock, D. J., Coutinho, P., Côté, J., & Mesquita, I. (2018). Influences of population size

and density on birthplace effects. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(1), 33–38.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1276614

Hansen, P. Ø., & Andersen, S. S. (2014). Coaching elite athletes: How coaches stimulate elite

athletes' reflection. Sports Coaching Review, 3(1), 17-32.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2014.901712

Harwood, C., Drew, A., & Knight, C. J. (2010). Parental stressors in professional youth

football academies: A qualitative investigation of specialising stage parents.

258

Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(1), 39–55.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19398440903510152

Harwood, C. G., & Knight, C. J. (2015). Parenting in youth sport: A position paper on

parenting expertise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 24–35.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.03.001

Haugaasen, M., Toering, T., & Jordet, G. (2014). From childhood to senior professional

football: A multi-level approach to elite youth football players’ engagement in

football-specific activities. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(4), 336–344.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.02.007

Helsen, W. F., Starkes, J. L., & Hodges, N. J. (1998). Team sports and the theory of deliberate

practice. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(1), 12–34.

Hendry, D. T., Crocker, P. R. E., & Hodges, N. J. (2014). Practice and play as determinants of

self-determined motivation in youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences,

32(11), 1091–1099. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.880792

Hendry, D. T., & Hodges, N. J. (2018). Early majority engagement pathway best defines

transitions from youth to adult elite men’s soccer in the UK: A three time-point

retrospective and prospective study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 36, 81–89.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.01.009

Henriksen, K., Schinke, R., Moesch, K., McCann, S., Parham, William D., Larsen, C. H., &

Terry, P. (2019). Consensus statement on improving the mental health of high

performance athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1-8.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1570473

Henriksen, K., & Stambulova, N. (2017). Creating optimal environments for talent

development. In J. Baker, S. Cobley, J. Schorer, & N. Wattie (Eds.), Routledge

handbook of talent identification and development in sport (pp. 271–284). Routledge.

259

Henriksen, K., Stambulova, N., & Roessler, K. K. (2010a). Holistic approach to athletic talent

development environments: A successful sailing milieu. Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 11(3), 212–222.

Henriksen, K., Stambulova, N., & Roessler, K. K. (2010b). Successful talent development in

track and field: Considering the role of environment. Scandinavian Journal of

Medicine and Science in Sports, 20(Suppl. 2), 122–132.

Henriksen, K., Stambulova, N., & Roessler, K. K. (2011). Riding the wave of an expert: A

successful talent development environment in kayaking. The Sport Psychologist,

25(3), 341–362.

Henriksen, K., Storm, L. K., Kuettel, A., Linnér, L., & Stambulova, N. (2020). A holistic

ecological approach to sport and study: The case of an athlete friendly university in

Denmark. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 47, 101637.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101637

Hesse-Biber, S. (2015). Mixed methods research: The “thing-ness” problem. Qualitative

Health Research, 25(6), 775-788.

Hill, A., MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2015). Psychobehaviorally based features of

effective talent development in rugby union: A coach’s perspective. The Sport

Psychologist, 29(3), 201–212.

Hill, A., MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2019). Development and initial validation of the

Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence Questionnaire version 2

(PCDEQ2). European Journal of Sport Science, 19(4), 517–528.

Hill, A., MacNamara, Á., Collins, D., & Rodgers, S. (2016). Examining the role of mental

health and clinical issues within talent development. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2042.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02042

260

Hoare, C. (2009). Models of adult development in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory and

Erikson’s biopsychosocial life stage theory: Moving to a more complete three-model

view. In M. C. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research on adult

learning and development (pp. 68–103). Routledge.

Hodges, N. J., Ford, P. R., Hendry, D. T., & Williams, A. M. (2017). Getting gritty about

practice and success: Motivational characteristics of great performers. In V. Walsh, M.

Wilson, & B. Parkin (Eds.), Progress in brain research (Vol. 232, pp. 167–173).

Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.02.003

Hodges, N. J., & Starkes, J. L. (1996). Wrestling with the nature of expertise: A sport specific

test of Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer’s (1993) theory of “deliberate practice”.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27(4), 400–424.

Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2004). Toward a grounded theory of psychosocial

competencies and environmental conditions associated with soccer success. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 16(3), 199–219.

Holt, N. L., & Mitchell, T. (2006). Talent development in English professional soccer.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 37(2/3), 77–98.

Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camiré, M., Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., MacDonald,

D., Strachan, L., & Tamminen, K. A. (2017). A grounded theory of positive youth

development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study.

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 1–49.

Hornig, M., Aust, F., & Güllich, A. (2016). Practice and play in the development of German

top-level professional football players. European Journal of Sport Science, 16(1), 96–

105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.982204

261

Horton, S. (2012). Environmental influences on early development in sports experts. In J.

Baker, S. Cobley, & J. Schorer (Eds.), Talent identification and development in sport

(pp. 39–50). Routledge.

Huxley, D. J., O’Connor, D., & Healey, P. A. (2014). An examination of the training profiles

and injuries in elite youth track and field athletes. European Journal of Sport Science,

14(2), 185–192.

Huxley, D. J., O’Connor, D., & Larkin, P. (2017). The pathway to the top: Key factors and

influences in the development of Australian Olympic and World Championship Track

and Field athletes. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 12(2), 264–

275.

Hrycaiko, D., & Martin, G. L. (1996). Applied research studies with single-subject designs:

Why so few? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8(2), 183-199.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209608406476

Issurin, V. B. (2017). Evidence-based prerequisites and precursors of athletic talent: A review.

Sports Medicine, 47(10), 1993–2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0740-0

Ivarsson, A., Kilhage-Persson, A., Martindale, R., Priestley, D., Huijgen, B., Ardern, C., &

McCall, A. (2020). Psychological factors and future performance of football players:

A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,

23(4), 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.10.021

Ivarsson, A., Stenling, A., Fallby, J., Johnson, U., Borg, E., & Johansson, G. (2015). The

predictive ability of the talent development environment on youth elite football

players’ well-being: A person-centered approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,

16, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.09.006

262

Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). Exploring socially shared

regulation in the context of collaboration. Journal of Cognitive Education and

Psychology, 12(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.267

Jeffreys, I. (2019). Rethinking long-term athlete development—A behavioral approach.

Strength and Conditioning Journal, 41(2), 46–51.

John, J. M., Gropper, H., & Thiel, A. (2019). The role of critical life events in the talent

development pathways of athletes and musicians: A systematic review. Psychology of

Sport and Exercise, 45, 101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101565

Johnson, M. B., Tenenbaum, G., & Edmonds, W. A. (2006). Adaptation to physically and

emotionally demanding conditions: The role of deliberate practice. High Ability

Studies, 17(1), 117–136.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research

Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014

Johnston, K., Wattie, N., Schorer, J., & Baker, J. (2017). Talent identification in sport: A

systematic review. Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0803-2

Johnston, K., & Baker, J. (2020). Waste reduction strategies: Factors affecting talent wastage

and the efficacy of talent selection in sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2925.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02925

Jones, B., Weaving, D., Tee, J., Darrall-Jones, J., Weakley, J., Phibbs, P., Read, D., Roe, G.,

Hendricks, S., & Till, K. (2018). Bigger, stronger, faster, fitter: The differences in

physical qualities of school and academy rugby union players. Journal of Sports

Sciences, 36(21), 2399–2404. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1458589

263

Jones, B. D., Lawrence, G. P., & Hardy, L. (2018). New evidence of relative age effects in

“super-elite” sportsmen: A case for the survival and evolution of the fittest. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 36(6), 697–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1332420

Jones, R. A., Mahoney, J. W., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2014). On the transition into elite rugby

league: Perceptions of players and coaching staff. Sport, Exercise, and Performance

Psychology, 3(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000013

Jones, S. (2018). How well are the Elite Players Performance Plan (EPPP) supporting young

players with psychological welfare? Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry,

9(3), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.15406/jpcpy.2018.09.00541

Jonker, L., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Tromp, E. J. Y., Baker, J., & Visscher, C. (2015).

Psychological characteristics and the developing athlete. In J. Baker & D. Farrow

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of sport expertise (pp. 317–328). Routledge.

Jowett, S., & Poczwardowski, A. (2007). Understanding the coach–athlete relationship. In S.

Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 3–14). Human Kinetics.

Keegan, R., Spray, C., Harwood, C., & Lavallee, D. (2010). The motivational atmosphere in

youth sport: Coach, parent, and peer influences on motivation in specializing sport

participants. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(1), 87–105.

Kegelaers, J., Wylleman, P., Bunigh, A., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2019). A mixed methods

evaluation of a pressure training intervention to develop resilience in female basketball

players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 1–22.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2019.1630864

Kegelaers, J., Wylleman, P., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2020). A coach perspective on the use of

planned disruptions in high-performance sports. Sport, Exercise, and Performance

Psychology, 9(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000167

264

Kelly, A. L., Wilson, M. R., Gough, L. A., Knapman, H., Morgan, P., Cole, M., Jackson, D.

T., & Williams, C. A. (2020). A longitudinal investigation into the relative age effect

in an English professional football club: Exploring the ‘underdog hypothesis’. Science

and Medicine in Football, 4(2), 111–118.

https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2019.1694169

Kiens, K., & Larsen, C. H. (2020). Provision of a Mental Skills Intervention Program in an

Elite Sport School for Student-Athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 1-15.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2020.1765925

Kingston, K., Wixey, D. J., & Morgan, K. (2020). Monitoring the Climate: Exploring the

Psychological Environment in an Elite Soccer Academy. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 32(3), 297-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2018.1481466

Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among

novice, non-expert, and expert volleyball players: A microanalytic study. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 14(2), 91–105.

Knight, C. J., Berrow, S. R., & Harwood, C. G. (2017). Parenting in sport. Current Opinion in

Psychology, 16, 93-97. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.011

Knowles, O., Gastin, P. B., & Kremer, P. (2017). Time use and health and wellbeing

outcomes of sport school students in Australia. Sport Sciences for Health, 13(2), 427–

435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-017-0378-1

Koz, D., Fraser-Thomas, J., & Baker, J. (2012). Accuracy of professional sports drafts in

predicting career potential. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports,

22(4), e64–e69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01408.x

Krebs, R. J. (2009a). Bronfenbrenners’s bioecological theory of human development and the

process of development of sports talent. British International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 40(1), 108–135.

265

Krebs, R. J. (2009b). Proximal processes as the primary engines of development.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40(1), 219–227.

Kreiner-Phillips, K., & Orlick, T. (1993). Winning after winning: The psychology of ongoing

excellence. The Sport Psychologist, 7(1), 31–48.

Kunst, G., & Florescu, C. (1971). The main factors for performance in wrestling. Bucharest,

Romania: National Sports Council.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research

interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage.

Larkin, P., & Reeves, M. J. (2018). Junior-elite football: Time to re-position talent

identification? Soccer & Society, 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2018.1432389

Larsen, C. H., Alfermann, D., & Christensen, M. K. (2012). Psychosocial skills in a youth

soccer academy: A holistic ecological perspective. Sport Science Review, 21(3–4), 51–

74. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10237-012-0010-x

Larsen, C. H., Alfermann, D., Henriksen, K., & Christensen, M. K. (2013). Successful talent

development in soccer: The characteristics of the environment. Sport, Exercise and

Performance Psychology, 2(3), 190–206.

Larsen, C. H., Alfermann, D., Henriksen, K., & Christensen, M. K. (2014). Preparing

footballers for the next step: An intervention program form and ecological perspective.

The Sport Psychologist, 28(1), 91–102.

Lauer, E., Lerman, M., Zakrajsek, R., & Lauer, L. (2020). The Creation of a Mental Skills

Training Program in Elite Youth Tennis: A Coach-Driven Approach to Developing

Resilient, Confident Competitors. International Sport Coaching Journal, 7(1), 74-81.

https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2019-0012

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. Springer.

266

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

Leprince, C., D’Arripe-Longueville, F., & Doron, J. (2018). Coping in teams: Exploring

athletes’ communal coping strategies to deal with shared stressors. Frontiers in

Psychology, 9, 1908. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01908

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. McGraw-Hill.

Li, C., Martindale, R., & Sun, Y. (2019). Relationships between talent development

environments and mental toughness: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(18), 2057-2065.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1620979

Li, C., Wang, C. K. J., Pyun, D. Y., & Martindale, R. (2015). Further development of the

talent development environment questionnaire for sport. Journal of Sports Sciences,

33(17), 1831–1843.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

Lloyd, R., & Oliver, J. (2012). The youth physical development model: A new approach to

long-term athletic development. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 34(3), 61–72.

Lloyd, R. S., Oliver, J. L., Faigenbaum, A. D., Howard, R., De Ste Croix, M. B., Williams, C.

A., Best, T. M., Alvar, B. A., Micheli, L. J., Thomas, D. P., Hatfield, D. L., Cronin, J.

B., & Myer, G. D. (2015). Long-term athletic development: Part 1: A pathway for all

youth. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(5), 1439–1450.

https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000000756

Lundqvist, C., & Raglin, J. S. (2015). The relationship of basic need satisfaction, motivational

climate and personality to well-being and stress patterns among elite athletes: An

explorative study. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 237-246.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9444-z

267

MacNamara, Á., Button, A., & Collins, D. (2010a). The role of psychological characteristics

in facilitating the pathway to elite performance Part 1: Identifying mental skills and

behaviors. The Sport Psychologist, 24(1), 52–73.

MacNamara, Á., Button, A., & Collins, D. (2010b). The role of psychological characteristics

in facilitating the pathway to elite performance Part 2: Examining environmental and

stage-related differences in skills and behaviors. The Sport Psychologist, 24(1), 74–96.

MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2011). Development and initial validation of the

Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence Questionnaire. Journal of

Sport Sciences, 29(12), 1273–1286.

MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2012). Building talent development systems on mechanistic

principles: Making them better at what makes them good. In J. Baker, S. Cobley, & J.

Schorer (Eds.), Talent identification and development in sport (pp. 25–38). Routledge.

MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2013). Do mental skills make champions? Examining the

discriminant function of the psychological characteristics of developing excellence

questionnaire. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(7), 736–744.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.747692

MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2014). More of the same? Comment on “An integrated

framework for the optimisation of sport and athlete development: A practitioner

approach”. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(8), 793–795.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.855805

Macnamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberate practice and

performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Science, 25(8), 1608–1618.

268

Macnamara, B. N., Moreau, D., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2016). The relationship between

deliberate practice and performance in sports: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 11(3), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635591

Maher, C. A., & Olds, T. S. (2011). Minutes, MET minutes, and METs: Unpacking socio-

economic gradients in physical activity in adolescents. Journal of Epidemiology and

Community Health, 65(2), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2009.099796

Mahoney, J. W., Gucciardi, D. F., Mallett, C. J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2014). Adolescent

performers’ perspectives on mental toughness and its development: The utility of the

bioecological model. The Sport Psychologist, 28(3), 233–244.

https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2013-0050

Malina, R. M., Coelho e Silva, M. J., Figueiredo, A. J., Carling, C., & Beunen, G. P. (2012).

Interrelationships among invasive and non-invasive indicators of biological maturation

in adolescent male soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(15), 1705–1717.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.639382

Malina, R. M., Eisenmann, J., Cumming, S., Ribeiro, B., & Aroso, J. (2004). Maturity-

associated variation in the growth and functional capacities of youth football (soccer)

players 13–15 years. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 91(5–6), 555–562.

Malina, R. M., Rogol, A. D., Cumming, S. P., Coelho e Silva, M. J., & Figueiredo, A. J.

(2015). Biological maturation of youth athletes: Assessment and implications. British

Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(13), 852–859. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-

094623

Mann, D. L., Dehghansai, N., & Baker, J. (2017). Searching for the elusive gift: Advances in

talent identification in sport. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 128–133.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.016

269

Martin, L. J., Balderson, D., Hawkins, M., Wilson, K., & Bruner, M. W. (2018). The

influence of social identity on self-worth, commitment, and effort in school-based

youth sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(3), 326–332.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1306091

Martindale, R. J. J., Collins, D., & Abraham, A. (2007). Effective talent development: The

elite coach perspective in UK sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(2), 187–

206.

Martindale, R. J. J., Collins, D., & Daubney, J. (2005). Talent development: A guide for

practice and research within sport. Quest, 57(4), 353–375.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2005.10491862

Martindale, R. J. J., Collins, D., Douglas, C., & Whike, A. (2012). Examining the ecological

validity of the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sports

Sciences, 31(1), 41–47.

Martindale, R. J. J., Collins, D., Wang, J., McNeil, M., Lee, K. S., Sproule, J., & Westbury, T.

(2010). Development of the talent development environment questionnaire for sport.

Journal of Sport Sciences, 28(11), 1209–1221.

Mather, B. J., & Rotheram, D. (2019). The transition to elite performance—societal contrasts

in the same sport. In D. Collins, A. Cruickshank, & G. Jordet (Eds.), Routledge

handbook of elite sport performance (pp. 310–321). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315266343

McCardle, L. (2015). Similarities and differences in self-regulated learning processes in sport

and academics: A case study. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in

Education, 9(3), 190–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/19357397.2015.1123002

McCardle, L., Young, B. W., & Baker, J. (2019). Self-regulated learning and expertise

development in sport: Current status, challenges, and future opportunities.

270

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 112–138.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1381141

McCarthy, N., Collins, D., & Court, D. (2016). Start hard, finish better: Further evidence for

the reversal of the RAE advantage. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(15), 1461–1465.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1119297

Memmert, D., Baker, J., & Bertsch, C. (2010). Play and practice in the development of sport‐

specific creativity in team ball sports. High Ability Studies, 21(1), 3–18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2010.488083

Meylan, C., Cronin, J., Oliver, J., & Hughes, M. (2010). Talent identification in soccer: The

role of maturity status on physical, physiological and technical characteristics.

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 5(4), 571–592.

Mills, A., Butt, J., Maynard, I., & Harwood, C. (2012). Identifying factors perceived to

influence the development of elite youth football academy players. Journal of Sport

Sciences, 30(15), 1593–1604.

Mills, A., Butt, J., Maynard, I., & Harwood, C. (2014a). Examining the development

environments of elite English football academies: The players’ perspective.

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(6), 1457–1472.

https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.9.6.1457

Mills, A., Butt, J., Maynard, I., & Harwood, C. (2014b). Toward an understanding of optimal

development environments within elite English soccer academies. The Sport

Psychologist, 28(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2013-0018

Moesch, K., Elbe, A., Hauge, M., & Wikman, J. (2011). Late specialization: The key to

success in centimeters, grams, or seconds (CGS) sports. Scandinavian Journal of

Medicine and Science in Sport, 21(6), e282–e290.

271

Moesch, K., Hauge, M.-L. T., Wikman, J. M., & Elbe, A.-M. (2013). Making it to the top in

team sports: Start later, intensify, and be determined! Talent Development and

Excellence, 5(2), 85–100.

Morgan, P. B. C., Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2019). Developing team resilience: A season-

long study of psychosocial enablers and strategies in a high-level sports team.

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 45, 101–543.

Morley, D., McKenna, J., Gilbert, S., French, J., Till, K., Quarmby, T., & Turner, G. (2018).

Can’t pay, can’t play? Talent lead’s perspectives on the financial constraints

experienced by athletes on the England Talent Pathway. High Ability Studies, 29(1),

51–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1341389

Morris, R., Tod, D., & Eubank, M. (2017). From youth team to first team: An investigation

into the transition experiences of young professional athletes in soccer. International

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15(5), 523–539.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2016.1152992

Morris, R., Tod, D., & Oliver, E. (2015). An analysis of organizational structure and

transition outcomes in the youth-to-senior professional soccer transition. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 27(2), 216–234.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2014.980015

Morris, R., Tod, D., & Oliver, E. (2016). An investigation into stakeholders’ perceptions of

the youth-to-senior transition in professional soccer in the United Kingdom. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 28(4), 375–391.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2016.1162222

Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design. Principles and procedures. In. Left

Coast Press, Inc.

272

National Rugby League. (2015). Annual Report 2015. https://www.nrl.com/about-us/annual-

reports/

National Rugby League. (2017). Junior League: What stage?

https://playnrl.com/media/2396/junior-league-what-stage-a3-final.pdf

National Rugby League. (2019). Annual report 2019. https://www.nrl.com/about-us/annual-

reports/

Neely, K. C., McHugh, T.-L. F., Dunn, J. G. H., & Holt, N. L. (2017). Athletes and parents

coping with deselection in competitive youth sport: A communal coping perspective.

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 30, 1-9.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.01.004

New South Wales Rugby League. (2017). Weight and age-based League returns.

https://www.nswrl.com.au/news/2017/03/31/weight-and-age-based-league-returns/

Nicholls, A. R. (2014). Coaching the Coaches: Coping Effectiveness Training for Super

League Academy Managers. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 5(2), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2014.911229

Nicholls, A. R., Jones, C. R., Polman, R. C., & Borkoles, E. (2009). Acute sport-related

stressors, coping, and emotion among professional rugby union players during training

and matches. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 19(1), 113–

120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2008.00772.x

Nicholls, A. R., Levy, A. R., Grice, A., & Polman, R. C. J. (2009). Stress appraisals, coping,

and coping effectiveness among international cross-country runners during training

and competition. European Journal of Sport Science, 9(5), 285–293.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390902836049

Nicholls, A. R., Levy, A. R., Jones, L., Rengami, M., & Polman, R. C. J. (2011). 'An

exploration of the two factor schematization of relational meaning and emotions

273

among professional rugby union players'. International Journal of Sport & Exercise

Psychology, 9, 78-91.

Nicholls, A. R., Levy, A. R., & Perry, J. L. (2015). Emotional maturity, dispositional coping,

and coping effectiveness among adolescent athletes. Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 17, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.11.004

Nicholls, A. R., Madigan, D. J., Fairs, L. R. W., & Bailey, R. (2020). Mental health and

psychological well-being among professional rugby league players from the UK. BMJ

open sport & exercise medicine, 6(1), e000711-e000711.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000711

Nicholls, A. R., Perry, J. L., Jones, L., Morley, D., & Carson, F. (2013). Dispositional coping,

coping effectiveness, and cognitive social maturity among adolescent athletes. Journal

of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35(3), 229–238.

https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.3.229

Nicholls, A. R., & Polman, R. C. J. (2007). Stressors, coping, and coping effectiveness among

players from the England under-18 rugby union team. Journal of Sport Behavior,

30(2), 199–218.

Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. C. J., Levy, A. R., & Backhouse, S. H. (2008). Mental toughness,

optimism, pessimism, and coping among athletes. Personality and Individual

Differences, 44(5), 1182–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.011

Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. C. J., Levy, A. R., & Borkoles, E. (2010). The mediating role of

coping: A cross-sectional analysis of the relationship between coping self-efficacy and

coping effectiveness among athletes. International Journal of Stress Management,

17(3), 181–192.

274

Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. C. J., Levy, A. R., Taylor, J., & Cobley, S. (2007). Stressors,

coping, and coping effectiveness: Gender, type of sport, and skill differences. Journal

of Sports Sciences, 25(13), 1521–1530. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410701230479

Nicholls, A. R., Taylor, N. J., Carroll, S., & Perry, J. L. (2016). The development of a new

sport-specific classification of coping and a meta-analysis of the relationship between

different coping strategies and moderators on sporting outcomes. Frontiers in

Psychology, 7, 1674. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01674

Nitsch, J. R. (2009). Ecological approaches to sport activity: A commentary from an action-

theoretical point of view. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40(1), 152–176.

O’Connor, D., & Larkin, P. (2015). Decision making and tactical knowledge: An Australian

perspective in the development of youth football players. In T. Favero, B. Drust, & B.

Dawson (Eds.), International research in science and soccer II. Routledge.

O’Connor, D., Larkin, P., & Williams, A. M. (2017). Observations of youth football training:

How do coaches structure training sessions for player development? Journal of Sports

Sciences, 36(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1277034

O’Connor, D., Larkin, P., & Williams, A. M. (2018). Observations of youth football training:

How do coaches structure training sessions for player development? Journal of Sports

Sciences, 36(1), 39–47.

Oliver, E. J., Hardy, J., & Markland, D. (2010). Identifying important practice behaviors for

the development of high-level youth athletes: Exploring the perspectives of elite

coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(6), 433–443.

Ostojic, S. M., Castagna, C., Calleja-González, J., Jukic, I., Idrizovic, K., & Stojanovic, M.

(2014). The biological age of 14-year-old boys and success in adult soccer: Do early

maturers predominate in the top-level game? Research in Sports Medicine, 22(4),

398–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2014.944303

275

Owen, N. (2009). Exercise psychology: Building ecological underpinnings for public-health

action. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40(1), 177–181.

Pankhurst, A., Collins, D., & MacNamara, Á. (2013). Talent development: Linking the

stakeholders to the process. Journal of Sports Science, 31(4), 370–380.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.733821

Pennell, K., Cassidy, T., & Gilbert, W. (2017). The ‘small town’ effect on youth athletic

development: Insights from New Zealand ‘touch’. Qualitative Research in Sport,

Exercise and Health, 9(3), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2017.1303789

Phillips, E., Davids, K., & Portus, M. (2010). Expert performance in sport and the dynamics

of talent development. Sports Medicine, 40(4), 271–283.

Phillips, E., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Portus, M. (2010). The development of fast bowling

experts in Australian cricket. Talent Development and Excellence, 2(2), 137–148.

Post, E. G., Trigsted, S. M., Riekena, J. W., Hetzel, S., McGuine, T. A., Brooks, M. A., &

Bell, D. R. (2017). The association of sport specialization and training volume with

injury history in youth athletes. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 45(6), 1405–

1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517690848

Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2013). Relationships among Coach Leadership, Peer

Leadership, and Adolescent Athletes’ Psychosocial and Team Outcomes: A Test of

Transformational Leadership Theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25(2),

265-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2012.725703

Pummel, B., Harwood, C., & Lavalle, D. (2008). Jumping to the next level: A qualitative

examination of within-career transition in adolescent event riders. Psychology of Sport

and Exercise, 9(4), 427–447.

Pummell, E. K. L., & Lavallee, D. (2019). Preparing UK tennis academy players for the

junior-to-senior transition: Development, implementation, and evaluation of an

276

intervention program. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 40, 156–164.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.07.007

Rees, T., Hardy, L., Güllich, A., Abernethy, B., Côté, J., Woodman, T., Montgomery, H.,

Laing, S., & Warr, C. (2016). The great British medalists project: A review of current

knowledge on the development of the world’s best sporting talent. Sports Medicine,

46(8), 1041–1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0476-2

Reeves, C. W., Nicholls, A. R., & McKenna, J. (2009). Stressors and coping strategies among

early and middle adolescent premier league academy soccer players: Differences

according to age. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(1), 31–48.

Reeves, C. W., Nicholls, A. R., & McKenna, J. (2011). The effects of a coping intervention

on coping self-efficacy, coping effectiveness, and subjective performance among

adolescent soccer players. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,

9(2), 126–142.

Reeves, M. J., Enright, K. J., Dowling, J., & Roberts, S. J. (2018). Stakeholders’

understanding and perceptions of bio-banding in junior-elite football training. Soccer

& Society, 19(8), 1166–1182. https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2018.1432384

Reeves, M. J., Littlewood, M. A., McRobert, A. P., & Roberts, S. J. (2018). The nature and

function of talent identification in junior-elite football in English category one

academies. Soccer & Society, 19(8), 1122–1134.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2018.1432385

Reeves, M. J., & Roberts, S. J. (2018). Talent identification and talent development in junior-

elite football in the UK: An introduction. Soccer & Society, 19(8), 1081–1083.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2018.1432382

277

Reeves, M. J., & Roberts, S. J. (2019). A bioecological perspective on talent identification in

junior-elite soccer: A pan-European perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(11–

12), 1259–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1702282

Rehfuess, E., & Akl, E. (2013). Current experience with applying the GRADE approach to

public health interventions: An empirical study. BMC Public Health, 13(9), 1–13.

Reilly, T., Williams, A. M., Nevill, A., & Franks, A. (2000). A multidisciplinary approach to

talent identification in soccer. Journal of Sports Science, 18(9), 695–702.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410050120078

Renshaw, I., Davids, D., Phillips, E., & Kerherve, H. D. (2012). Developing talent in athletes

as complex neurobiological systems. In J. Baker, S. Cobley, & J. Schorer (Eds.),

Talent Identification and development in sport (pp. pp.64-80). Routledge.

Rice, S. M., Purcell, R., De Silva, S., Mawren, D., McGorry, P. D., & Parker, A. G. (2016).

The Mental Health of Elite Athletes: A Narrative Systematic Review. Sports Med,

46(9), 1333-1353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0492-2

Richardson, D., Relvas, H., & Littlewood, M. (2013). Sociological and cultural influences on

player development. In A. M. Williams (Ed.), Science and soccer: Developing elite

performers (3rd ed., pp. 139–153). Routledge.

Roca, A., Williams, A. M., & Ford, P. R. (2012). Developmental activities and the acquisition

of superior anticipation and decision making in soccer players. Journal of Sports

Sciences, 30(15), 1643–1652. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.701761

Rongen, F., McKenna, J., Cobley, S., Tee, J. C., & Till, K. (2020). Psychosocial outcomes

associated with soccer academy involvement: Longitudinal comparisons against aged

matched school pupils. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(11–12), 1387–1398.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1778354

278

Rongen, F., McKenna, J., Cobley, S., & Till, K. (2018). Are youth sport talent identification

and development systems necessary and healthy? Sports Medicine—Open, 4(1), 1–4.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0135-2

Rongen, F., McKenna, J., Till, K., & Cobley, S. (2015). Talent identification and

development: The impact on athlete health? In J. Baker, P. Safai, & J. Fraser-Thomas

(Eds.), Health and elite sport: Is high performance sport a healthy pursuit? (pp. 33–

51). Routledge.

Rothwell, M., Davids, K., & Stone, J. (2018). Harnessing socio-cultural constraints on athlete

development to create a form of life. Journal of Expertise, 1(1), 94–101.

Rothwell, M., Rumbold, J. L., & Stone, J. A. (2018). Exploring British adolescent rugby

league players’ experiences of professional academies and dropout. International

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(4), 485–501.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2018.1549579

Rothwell, M., Stone, J., & Davids, K. (2019). Exploring forms of life in player development

pathways: The case of British rugby league. Journal of Motor Learning and

Development, 7(2), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2018-0020

Rothwell, M., Stone, J. A., Davids, K., & Wright, C. (2017). Development of expertise in elite

and sub-elite British rugby league players: A comparison of practice experiences.

European Journal of Sport Science, 17(10), 1252–1260.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2017.1380708

Rowley, C., Potrac, P., Knowles, Z. R., & Nelson, L. (2020). More than meets the

(rationalistic) eye: A neophyte sport psychology practitioner’s reflections on the

micropolitics of everyday life within a rugby league academy. Journal of Applied

Sport Psychology, 32(3), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2018.1491906

279

Røynesdal, Ø., Toering, T., & Gustafsson, H. (2018). Understanding players’ transition from

youth to senior professional football environments: A coach perspective. International

Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13(1), 26–37.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117746497

Ruini, C., Ottolini, F., Tomba, E., Belaise, C., Albieri, E., Visani, D., Offidani, E., Caffo, E.,

& Fava, G. A. (2009). School intervention for promoting psychological well-being in

adolescence. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40(4), 522–

532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.07.002

Ryan, D., Lewin, C., Forsythe, S., & McCall, A. (2018). Developing world-class soccer

players: An example of the academy physical development program from an English

Premier League team. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 40(3), 2–11.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-

1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice

of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28.

https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.

Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Psychological resilience in sport performers: A review of

stressors and protective factors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(15), 1419–1434.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.901551

Sarkar, M., Fletcher, D., & Brown, D. J. (2015). What doesn’t kill me: Adversity-related

experiences are vital in the development of superior Olympic performance. Journal of

280

Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(4), 475–479.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.010

Savage, J., Collins, D., & Cruickshank, A. (2017). Exploring traumas in the development of

talent: What are they, what do they do, and what do they require? Journal of Applied

Sport Psychology, 29(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2016.1194910

Saward, C., Morris, J. G., Nevill, M. E., Minniti, A. M., & Sunderland, C. (2020).

Psychological characteristics of developing excellence in elite youth football players

in English professional academies. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(11–12), 1380–1386.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1676526

Scantlebury, S., Till, K., Sawczuk, T., Phibbs, P., & Jones, B. (2020). Navigating the complex

pathway of youth athletic development: Challenges and solutions to managing the

training load of youth team sport athletes. Strength & Conditioning Journal. Advance

online publication. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000564

Schellenberg, B. I., Gaudreau, P., & Crocker, P. E. (2013). Passion and coping: Relationships

with changes in burnout and goal attainment in collegiate volleyball players. Journal

of Sport and Exercise Physiology, 35(3), 270–280.

https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.3.270

Schnell, A., Mayer, J., Diehl, K., Zipfel, S., & Thiel, A. (2014). Giving everything for athletic

success! – Sports-specific risk acceptance of elite adolescent athletes. Psychology of

Sport and Exercise, 15(2), 165-172.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.10.012

Schlossberg, N. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. The

Counseling Psychologist, 9(2), 2–18.

Schlossberg, N. (1984). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with theory.

Springer.

281

Schorer, J., Cobley, S., Büsch, D., Bräutigam, H., & Baker, J. (2009). Influences of

competition level, gender, player nationality, career stage and playing position on

relative age effects. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 19(5),

720–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2008.00838.x

Schorer, J., Rienhoff, R., Fischer, L., & Baker, J. (2017). Long-term prognostic validity of

talent selections: Comparing national and regional coaches, laypersons and novices.

Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1146. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01146

Selig, J. P., & Little, T. D. (2012). Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel analysis for

longitudinal data. In B. Laursen, T. D. Little, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Handbook of

developmental research methods. (pp. 265–278). Guilford Press.

Sherar, L. B., Cumming, S. P., Eisenmann, J. C., Baxter-Jones, A. D. G., & Malina, R. M.

(2010). Adolescent biological maturity and physical activity: Biology meets behavior.

Pediatric Exercise Science, 22(3), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.22.3.332

Simonton, D. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model.

Psychological Review, 106(3), 435–457.

Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: Problems

and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport

and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101–121.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357

Sosniak, L. A. (2006). Retrospective interviews in the study of expertise and expert

performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),

The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 287–301).

Cambridge University Press.

282

Souter, G., Lewis, R., & Serrant, L. (2018). Men, Mental Health and Elite Sport: a Narrative

Review. Sports Medicine - Open, 4(1), 57-57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-

0175-7

Sparkes, A. C. (2015). Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology:

Critical reflections on five points of controversy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,

16, 49-59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.014

Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2009). Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology

and relativism in action. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 491-497.

Sparkes, A.C., & Smith, B. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods in Sport, Exercise and

Health: From Process to Product (1st ed.).London. Routledge.

Staff, H. R., Didymus, F. F., & Backhouse, S. H. (2017). Coping rarely takes place in a social

vacuum: Exploring antecedents and outcomes of dyadic coping in coach–athlete

relationships. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 30, 91–100.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.02.009

Stambulova, N. B. (1994). Developmental sports career investigations in Russia: A post-

perestroika analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 8(3), 221–237.

Stambulova, N. B. (2003). Symptoms of a crisis-transition. A grounded theory study. In N.

Hassmen (Ed.), Svensk idrottspykologisk förening [Yearbook: Swedish Sports

Psychological Association] (pp. 97–109). Swedish Sports Psychological Association.

Stambulova, N. B. (2009). Talent development in sport: A career transitions perspective. In E.

T.-M. Hung, R. Lidor, & D. Hackfort (Eds.), Psychology of sport excellence (pp. 63–

74). Fitness Information Technology.

Stambulova, N. B. (2010). Counseling athletes in career transitions: The five-step career

planning strategy. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 1(2), 95–105.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2010.528829

283

Stambulova, N. B. (2017). Crisis-transitions in athletes: Current emphases on cognitive and

contextual factors. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 62–66.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.013

Stambulova, N. B., Alfermann, D., Statler, T., & Côté, J. (2009). ISSP position stand: Career

development and transitions of athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 7(4), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2009.9671916

Stambulova, N. B., Pehrson, S., & Olsson, K. (2017). Phases in the junior-to-senior transition

of Swedish ice hockey players: From a conceptual framework to an empirical model.

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 12(2), 231–244.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117694928

Stambulova, N. B., Ryba, T. V., & Henriksen, K. (2020). Career development and transitions

of athletes: The International Society of Sport Psychology position stand revisited.

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1–27.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2020.1737836

Stambulova, N. B., Stephan, Y., & Jäphag, U. (2007). Athletic retirement: A cross-national

comparison of elite French and Swedish athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,

8(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.05.002

Steinberg, L. (2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmental

Psychobiology, 52(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20445

Storm, L. K., Henriksen, K., Larsen, C. H., & Christensen, M. K. (2014). Influential

relationships as contexts of learning and becoming elite: Athletes’ retrospective

interpretations. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(6), 1341–1356.

https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.9.6.1341

284

Starkes, J. (2008). The past and future of applied sport expertise research. In D. Farrow,

Baker, J., & MacMahon, C. (Ed.), Developing sport expertise (pp. 193-206).

Routledge.

Storm, L. K., Christensen, M. K., & Ronglan, L. T. (2020). Successful talent development

environments in female Scandinavian Handball: Constellations of communities of

practice and its implications for role modeling and interactions between talents, senior

players and coaches. Scandinavian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 16-

25. https://doi.org/10.7146/sjsep.v2i0.115967

Storm, L. K., Henriksen, K., Larsen, C. H., & Christensen, M. K. (2014). Influential

relationships as contexts of learning and becoming elite: Athletes’ retrospective

interpretations. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(6), 1341–1356.

https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.9.6.1341

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures

for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.

Suppiah, H. T., Low, C. Y., & Chia, M. (2015). Detecting and developing youth athlete

potential: Different strokes for different folks are warranted. British Journal of Sports

Medicine, 49(13), 878–882.

Swainston, S. C., Wilson, M. R., & Jones, M. I. (2020). Player experience during the junior to

senior transition in professional football: A longitudinal case study. Frontiers in

Psychology, 11: 1672. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01672

Tamminen, K. A., & Gaudreau, P. (2014). Coping, social support, and emotion regulation in

teams. In M. Beauchamp & M. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics in exercise and sport

psychology: Contemporary themes (2nd ed., pp. 222–239). Routledge.

285

Tamminen, K. A., & Holt, N. L. (2010). A meta-study of qualitative research examining

stressor appraisals and coping among adolescents in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences,

28(14), 1563–1580. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.512642

Tamminen, K. A., & Holt, N. L. (2012). Adolescent athletes’ learning about coping and the

roles of parents and coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(1), 69–79.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.006

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral

research. . In. Sage.

Taylor, J., & Collins, D. (2019). Shoulda, coulda, didnae—Why don’t high-potential players

make it? The Sport Psychologist, 33(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2017-0153

Tears, C., Chesterton, P., & Wijnbergen, M. (2018). The elite player performance plan: The

impact of a new national youth development strategy on injury characteristics in a

premier league football academy. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(19), 2181–2188.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1443746

Till, K., & Baker, J. (2020). Challenges and (possible) solutions to optimizing talent

identification and development in sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 664.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00664

Till, K., & Bell, S. (2019). A talent development programme for later maturing players in UK

rugby league: Research to practice. Applied Coaching Research Journal, 4, 16–23.

Till, K., Cobley, S., Morley, D., O’Hara, J., Chapman, C., & Cooke, C. (2016). The influence

of age, playing position, anthropometry and fitness on career attainment outcomes in

rugby league. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(13), 1240–1245.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1105380

Till, K., Cobley, S., O’Hara, J., Brightmore, A., Cooke, C., & Chapman, C. (2011). Using

anthropometric and performance characteristics to predict selection in junior UK

286

rugby league players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14(3), 264–269.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2011.01.006

Till, K., Cobley, S., O’Hara, J., Chapman, C., & Cooke, C. (2010). Anthropometric,

physiological and selection characteristics in high performance UK junior rugby

league players. Talent Development and Excellence 2(2), 193–207.

Till, K., Cobley, S., O’ Hara, J., Cooke, C., & Chapman, C. (2014). Considering maturation

status and relative age in the longitudinal evaluation of junior rugby league players.

Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(3), 569–576.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12033

Till, K., Cobley, S., O’Hara, J., Morley, D., Chapman, C., & Cooke, C. (2015). Retrospective

analysis of anthropometric and fitness characteristics associated with long-term career

progression in rugby league. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(3), 310–

314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.05.003

Till, K., Darrall-Jones, J., Weakley, J., Roe, G., & Jones, B. (2017). The influence of training

age on the annual development of physical qualities within academy rugby league

players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(8), 2110–2118.

Till, K., Jones, B., Darrall-Jones, J., Emmonds, S., & Cooke, C. (2015). Longitudinal

development of anthropometric and physical characteristics within academy rugby

league players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(6), 1713–

1722. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000000792

Till, K., Jones, B., & Geeson-Brown, T. (2015). Do physical qualities influence the attainment

of professional status within elite 16–19 year old rugby league players? Journal of

Science and Medicine in Sport, 19(7), 585–589.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2015.07.001

287

Till, K., Morley, D., Cobley, S., Cupples, B., & O’Connor, D. (2015). Talent identification

and development. In K. Till & B. Jones (Eds.), The science of sport: Rugby (pp. 139–

150). Crowood Press.

Till, K., Morley, D., O’Hara, J., Jones, B. L., Chapman, C., Beggs, C. B., Cooke, C., &

Cobley, S. (2017). A retrospective longitudinal analysis of anthropometric and

physical qualities that associate with adult career attainment in junior rugby league

players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(11), 1029–1033.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.03.018.

Till, K., Morris, R., Emmonds, S., Jones, B., & Cobley, S. (2018). Enhancing the evaluation

and interpretation of fitness testing data within youth athletes. Strength and

Conditioning Journal, 40(5), 24–33.

Till, K., Scantlebury, S., & Jones, B. (2017). Anthropometric and physical qualities of elite

male youth rugby league players. Sports Medicine, 47(11), 2171–2186.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0745-8

Toering, T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jonker, L., van Heuvelen, M. J. G., & Visscher, C.

(2012). Measuring self-regulation in a learning context: Reliability and validity of the

Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-SRS). International Journal of

Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 24–38.

Toering, T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jordet, G. M., Jorna, C., Pepping, G. J., & Visscher, C.

(2011). Self-regulation of practice behavior among elite youth soccer players: An

exploratory observation study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(1), 110–128.

Toering, T. T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jordet, G., & Visscher, C. (2009). Self-regulation and

performance level in youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(14), 1509–

1517.

288

Toohey, K., MacMahon, C., Weissensteiner, J., Thomson, A., Auld, C., Beaton, A., Burke,

M., & Woolcock, G. (2018). Using transdisciplinary research to examine talent

identification and development in sport. Sport in Society, 21(2), 356–375.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2017.1310199

Tracey, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative

research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.

Trankle, P., & Cushion, C. (2006). Rethinking giftedness and talent in sport. Quest, 58(2),

265–282.

Tredrea, M., Dascombe, B., Sanctuary, C. E., & Scanlan, A. T. (2017). The role of

anthropometric, performance and psychological attributes in predicting selection into

an elite development programme in older adolescent rugby league players. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 35(19), 1897–1903. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1241418

Tucker, R., & Collins, M. (2012). What makes champions? A review of the relative

contribution of genes and training to sporting success. British Journal of Sports

Medicine, 46(8), 555–561.

Tudge, J. R. H. (2016). Implicit versus explicit ways of using Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological

theory: Commentary on Jaeger. Human Development, 59(4), 195–199.

https://doi.org/10.2307/26765139

Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, B. (2009). Uses and misuses of

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family

Theory and Review, 1(4), 198–210.

Ullrich-French, S., & Smith, A. L. (2009). Social and motivational predictors of continued

youth sport participation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 87–95.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.06.007

289

Vaeyens, R., Güllich, A., Warr, C. R., & Philippaerts, R. (2009). Talent identification and

promotion programmes of Olympic athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(13),

1367–1380.

Vaeyens, R., Lenoir, M., Williams, M. A., & Philippaerts, R. M. (2008). Talent identification

and development programmes in sport: Current models and future directions. Sports

Medicine, 38(9), 703–714.

Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Leonard, M.,

Gagne, M., & Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l'ame: on obsessive and

harmonious passion. J Pers Soc Psychol, 85(4), 756-767. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.85.4.756 van der Sluis, A., Brink, M. S., Pluim, B. M., Verhagen, E. A. L. M., Elferink-Gemser, M. T.,

& Visscher, C. (2019). Self-regulatory skills: Are they helpful in the prevention of

overuse injuries in talented tennis players? Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and

Science in Sports, 29(7), 1050–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13420 van Dierendonck, D. (2004). The construct validity of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-

being and its extension with spiritual well-being. Personality and Individual

Differences, 36(3), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00122-3

Van Yperen, N. W. (2009). Why some make it and others do not: Identifying psychological

factors that predict career success in professional adult soccer. The Sport Psychologist,

23(3), 317–329.

Vierimaa, M., Erickson, K., & Côté, J. (2016). The elements of talent development in youth

sport. In K. Green & A. Smith (Eds.), Routledge handbook of youth sport (pp. 464–

475). Routledge.

Vink, K., Raudsepp, L., & Kais, K. (2015). Intrinsic motivation and individual deliberate

practice are reciprocally related: Evidence from a longitudinal study of adolescent

290

team sport athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.012

Wachs, T. D., & Evans, G. W. (2010). Chaos in context. In G. W. Evans & T. D. Wachs

(Eds.), Chaos and its influence on children’s development: An ecological perspective.

(pp. 3–13). American Psychological Association.

Wagstaff, C., & Burton-Wylie, S. (2018). Organizational culture in sport: a conceptual,

definitional, and methodological review. Sport and Exercise Psychology Review,

14(2), 32-52

Wang, J. C. K., Sproule, J., McNeill, M., Martindale, R. J. J., & Lee, K. S. (2011). Impact of

the Talent Development Environment on Achievement Goals and Life Aspirations in

Singapore. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(3), 263-276.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2010.543120

Ward, P., Belling, P., Petushek, E., & Ehrlinger, J. (2017). Does talent exist? In J. Baker, S.

Cobley, J. Schorer, & N. Wattie (Eds.), Routledge handbook of talent identification

and development in sport (pp. 20–34). Routledge.

Ward, P., Hodges, N. J., Williams, A. M., & Starkes, J. L. (2004). Deliberate practice and

expert performance: Defining the path to excellence. In A. M. Williams & N. J.

Hodges (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice (pp. 231–

258). Routledge.

Ward, P., Hodges, N. J., Williams, A. M., & Starkes, J. L. (2007). The road to excellence:

Deliberate practice and the development of expertise. High Ability Studies, 18(2),

119–153.

Wattie, N., Schorer, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Seeing the forest but not the trees: Heterogeneity

in community size effects in Canadian ice hockey players. Journal of Sports Sciences,

36(4), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1313444

291

Webb, V., Collins, D., & Cruickshank, A. (2016). Aligning the talent pathway: Exploring the

role and mechanism of coherence in development. Journal of Sport Sciences, 34(19),

1799–1807. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1139162

Weissensteiner, J., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2009). Towards the development of a

conceptual model of expertise in cricket batting: A grounded theory approach. Journal

of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(3), 276–292.

Weissensteiner, J., Abernethy, B., Farrow, D., & Muller, S. (2008). The development of

anticipation: A cross-sectional examination of the practice experiences contributing to

skill in cricket batting. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(6), 663–684.

White, R. L., & Bennie, A. (2015). Resilience in Youth Sport: A Qualitative Investigation of

Gymnastics Coach and Athlete Perceptions. International Journal of Sports Science &

Coaching, 10(2-3), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.10.2-3.379

Wiersma, L. D. (2000). Risks and benefits of youth sport specialization: Perspectives and

recommendations. Pediatric Exercise Science, 12(1), 13–22.

https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.12.1.13

Wilkinson, S., & Grecic, D. (2019). Talent development for professional rugby league:

Observations and analysis from a career in rugby’s high-performance environment.

Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies, 13(1), 153–154.

Williams, A. M., & Reilly, T. (2000). Talent identification and development in soccer.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(9), 657–667.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410050120041

Williams, A. M., Ward, P., Bell-Walker, J., & Ford, P. R. (2012). Perceptual-cognitive

expertise, practice history profiles and recall performance in soccer. British Journal of

Psychology, 103(3), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02081.x

292

Winn, C. O. N., Ford, P. R., McNarry, M. A., Lewis, J., & Stratton, G. (2017). The effect of

deprivation on the developmental activities of adolescent rugby union players in

Wales. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(24), 2390–2396.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1271136

Winter, S., O’Brien, F., & Collins, D. (2019). Things ain’t what they used to be? Coaches

perceptions of commitment in developing athletes. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2019.1646839

Woods, C. T., Robertson, S., Sinclair, W. H., Till, K., Pearce, L., & Leicht, A. S. (2018). A

comparison of game-play characteristics between elite youth and senior Australian

National Rugby League competitions. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,

21(6), 626–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.10.003

Woods, C. T., Veale, J. P., Collier, N., & Robertson, S. (2017). The use of player physical and

technical skill match activity profiles to predict position in the Australian Football

League draft. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(4), 325–330.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1164334

Wylleman, P. (2019). A developmental and holistic perspective on transitioning out of elite

sport. In M. H. Anshel, T. A. Petrie, & J. A. Steinfeldt (Eds.), APA handbook of sport

and exercise psychology: Vol. 1. Sport psychology (pp. 201–216). American

Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000123-011

Wylleman, P., & Lavallee, D. (2004). A developmental perspective on transitions faced by

athletes. In M. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan

perspective (pp. 503–523). Fitness Information Technology.

293

Wylleman, P., & Rosier, N. (2016). Holistic perspective on the development of elite athletes.

In M. Rabb, P. Wylleman, R. Seiler, A.-M. Elbe, & A. Hatzigeorgiadis (Eds.), Sport

and exercise psychology research: From theory to practice (pp. 269–288). Elsevier.

Yardley, L. (2015). Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.),

Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 257-272). London,

UK: Sage Publications

Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-

regulatory processes and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R.

R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance

(pp. 705–722). Cambridge University Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical

background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American

Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.

294

Appendix A: National Rugby League Athlete Development

Questionnaire

National Rugby League Athlete Development Questionnaire Instrument 1

Introduction

This questionnaire aims to investigate the athlete development pathways of elite rugby league players. It will analyse a number of influencing factors on athlete development including competition, training, family, education, coaching, environment and transition. Findings are based upon the unique playing histories and developmental backgrounds of current NRL players. It is anticipated findings will influence policy and practice in athlete development in rugby league in the future.

The questionnaire is the first of a three-part research instrument analysing a number of influencing factors on athlete development. The questionnaire consists of four sections and 29 multiple choice or short-answer questions.

SECTION 1: Personal information

This section we are interested in attaining general information regarding your current status within the sport. 1. Date of birth: …………(month)………… (year) 2. Place of birth: …………………………………… 3. Junior rugby league club: …………………………………… 4. Current club: …………………………………… 5. Current number of NRL games played: …………………………………… 6. Age at the time of NRL debut: …………………………………… 7. Please outline representative playing history. Please tick the applicable boxes below.

U16’s Harold U18’s SG NSW/QLD NSW/QLD State level Matts/Cyril ball/Mal U16’s U18’s Schoolboys Connell Cups Meninga Cup National U20’s NYC Junior national NSW/QLD Cup NSW/QLD Schoolboys or (e.g. Junior or equivalent Residents equivalent Kangaroos) City/Country State of Senior Senior NRL All stars Origin National Rep. Indigenous rep. team

8. Current Playing position/s ……………………………………

295

SECTION 2: Family

In this section we are interested in your opinions of the influence your family has had on your rugby league development.

9. Number of siblings …………………………………...

10. Order in the family. For example, 2nd of five children. ……………………………………

11. Family experience in representative sport. Please tick appropriate boxes below in relation to both your parents and siblings sporting history.

Family Rep. sport International Regional level State level National level member experience level Parents

Siblings

12. Were your parents involved in any formal roles in your rugby league development? If so, please outline at what level. For example, junior coach, manager and/or club administrative roles.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

13. Outline the extent of informal parental involvement in your rugby league development. Please circle the appropriate number for each of the following behaviours below.

Characteristics Evaluation Provided emotional support 1 2 3 4 5 For example, encouragement, Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Always communication and positive advice Financial help 1 2 3 4 5 For example, equipment, travel and Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Always fees Transportation 1 2 3 4 5 E.g. For competition and training Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Always Being present at 1 2 3 4 5 competition Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Always 1 2 3 4 5 Being present at training Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Always

14. Outline how your extended family was involved in your rugby league development? For example, my extended family came to games, offered advice, played together and/or provided transport.

296

15. Outline the extent of extended family involvement in your rugby league development. Please circle the appropriate number below.

Statement Evaluation My extended family were 1 2 3 4 5 highly involved in my rugby league development Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

16. Do you think growing up where you did has been an advantage in your sport? Please circle your opinion for each of the factors below

Factors Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 Access to sporting clubs Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 Access to quality coaching Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Geographical location (e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 climate, distance to training) Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Access to 1 2 3 4 5

fields/parks/training Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree facilities Lack of other leisure time 1 2 3 4 5 activities Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 Sporting culture of area Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Other: Please specify below. 1 2 3 4 5

…………………………………………… Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree ……………………………………………

17. How may this environment have been different to someone else in a larger or smaller town?

18. Did you need to leave your ‘hometown’ to progress your rugby league development? If so at what age?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

19. Did your ‘culture’ influence your rugby league development? Please explain how ‘culture’ was significant in your development. For example, community support of sport, national history, and/or religious influence.

297

20. Do you believe any other factors from your upbringing were significant in promoting your athlete development?

SECTION 3: Education

In this section we are interested in your opinions of the influence your education has had on your rugby league development.

21. Did you represent your primary school in rugby league? ...... ………………………………………….

22. Was rugby league offered as a representative sport choice at your school? ……………………......

23. How did you select your secondary school? Please tick appropriate boxes below.

Local Based on Selected to Professional Increased Other Reason school (no academic attend club advice sporting Please specify: choice) merit (scholarship) opportunity

24. How would rate your level of secondary school academic achievement? Please circle the appropriate number below.

Statement Evaluation My level of academic 1 2 3 4 5 Among the Among bottom Among next 20% Among next 20% Among top 10% achievement at secondary middle 40% 10% of year group (below average) (above average) of year group school was (average)

25. Please nominate your highest level of education attainment. Please tick appropriate box below.

Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Yr 12 Vocational Training University Undergrad. University Post Grad. (e.g. HSC) Certificate (e.g. (e.g. Bachelor.) (e.g. Masters/PhD) TAFE)

26. Did your sport training and competition levels affect your academic grades? If so, outline how?

298

27. Did your education environment support your sport involvement? How was this shown? For example, teacher support, training time, tutoring, assessment modification and/or awards.

28. Did you attend a ‘sports school’? If so, how did this contribute to your development? For example, increased time training, coach expertise, improved facilities and/or opportunities to play higher competition.

SECTION 4: Other influence

In this section we are interested in your opinions on any ‘other’ significant influences on your rugby league development.

29. Are there any other specific people who you feel were significant in your development within rugby league?

Thank you very much for time; your information and opinions are highly appreciated and hopefully it can play a role in the development of future NRL players.

299

National Rugby League Athlete Development Questionnaire Instrument 2

Introduction

The questionnaire is the second of a three-part research instrument analysing a number of influencing factors on athlete development. The questionnaire consists of four sections and 14 multiple choice or short-answer questions.

SECTION 1

In this section we are interested in information regarding the beginning of your rugby league career.

1. At what age did you first start rugby league? …………………………………………..

2. How did you become involved in the sport? For example, parents/siblings played, school team, friends played and/or saw on television.

3. At what age did you decide to specialise in rugby league? …………………………………………..

4. What factors influenced this decision? For example, parents, peers, coach, making a team, role model, and/or enjoyment etc.

5. Can you associate an experience and/or moment in your development that led to pursuing an NRL career? If so, can you please describe it?

300

SECTION 2: Rugby League Competition History

In this section we require participants to recall their rugby league competition history for the following age group.

6. Please complete the following table in relation to your competition experience in the four specified age group.

Age Type of rugby Total no. of Total no. of How would you rate the level of competition? No. of and type Group league competition competition Significant reasons for of other sports competitions games per months per participation at that age 1: not competitive; 2: below average; 3: average; 4: played at this age played in. week year above average; 5: very competitive Example School 1 3 Enjoyment, learn new skills, 1 2 3 4 5 3- cricket, soccer, be with friends, play higher gymnastics Club 2 6 1 2 3 4 5 levels, improve performance, Rep. 1 2 and/or competition 1 2 3 4 5 5–9 School 1 2 3 4 5 years of Club 1 2 3 4 5 age Rep. 1 2 3 4 5 10–12 School 1 2 3 4 5 years of Club 1 2 3 4 5 age Rep. 1 2 3 4 5 13–16 School 1 2 3 4 5 years of Club 1 2 3 4 5 age Rep. 1 2 3 4 5 17–20 School 1 2 3 4 5 years of Club 1 2 3 4 5 age Rep. 1 2 3 4 5

301

SECTION 3: Rugby League Practice History In this section we require participants to recall their rugby league practice history for the following age groups. 7. Please complete the following table in relation to your practice experience in the four specified age groups.

Age group Amt. of hours per Amt. of What key aspects do remember about Amt. of hours per Amt. of Types of games played: rules, location, who with week in months per ‘formal’ training? week in ‘play’ months per and how many? ‘deliberate’ rugby year in rugby league year in ‘play’ league practice. ‘deliberate’ practice e.g. activities Eg individual or practice Backyard footy team practice Example 3 8 High level of drills, physical 6 10 Backyard 3 v 3, tap and run, kick on every play, with preparation, lots of games, fun, skill- brothers and older neighbours. based. 5–9 years of age

10–12 years of age

13–16 years of age

17–20 years of age

302

8. As a junior player did you play several positions? At what playing level were you considered solely in your present playing position?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

9. At what age did you begin deliberately training fitness components (such strength, speed, power, etc.) specifically for rugby league?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

10. At what age did you start to do “extras” training? How many years has this continued?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Section 4: Player progression

In this section we require participants to recall their rugby league career progression.

11. Please complete the following table in relation to your perception of your own ability in the four specified age groups.

Age group Outline/recall your strengths as a Perception of own abilities in the player for the age groups below various age groups against other players? Example Good organiser, communicator, fast, Significantly higher, somewhat higher, good catch/pass, strong defender, about the same, less than others. creative, leader, powerful etc. 5–9 years of age 10–12 years of age 13–16 years of age 17–20 years of age

12. Who first highlighted your ‘talent’ in the sport?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

13. If identified with ‘talent’ which natural abilities were used to describe your playing ability at that time?

14, At what age did you first sign a playing contract? ………………………………….

Thank you very much for time; your information and opinions are highly appreciated and hopefully it can play a role in the development of future NRL players.

303

National Rugby League Athlete Development Questionnaire Instrument 3

Introduction

The questionnaire is the final of a three-part research instrument analysing a number of influencing factors on athlete development. The questionnaire consists of four sections and 17 multiple choice or short-answer questions.

304

SECTION 1: Coach

In this section we are interested in your experiences and opinions of the significance of the coach in your rugby league development.

1. Please complete the following table in relation to the coaching you experienced in the four specified age groups.

Age Perception of coaching influence on your Coaching qualities significant at Rate the importance of your relationship Evaluate the ‘quality’ of coaching you group development each age group with your coach experienced Example 1 2 3 4 5 Teaching ability, communication, 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. knowledge Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. 5–9 years 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 of age Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig.

10–12 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 years of Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. age 13–16 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 years of Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. age 17–20 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 years of Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. Not Sig. Below Ave. Ave. Above ave. Highly Sig. age

305

SECTION 2: Athlete perception

In this section we are interested in your experiences and perceptions of what led to you becoming an NRL player.

2. Fill in statement below:

Rugby league ability is ______% natural ability and ______% effort/practice.

3. What do you think contributed to you making it as an NRL Player?

4. What was your main motivation in reaching the NRL?

5. Are there particular traits that make you more successful compared to other players who may have not reached the elite level?

6. Do you believe chance/’good or bad luck” impacted on your progression to the NRL level?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

6. Can you provide an example of a chance event in your rugby league development?

7. Do you believe you needed to make significant sacrifices in becoming an NRL player? If so, can you please outline examples?

8. Did you have significant role models in your athlete development? Yes / No

If yes, please nominate below both the role model type and specific age when most important to you;

Coach Parent Sibling NRL player Other Role model Please specify:

…………………..………………….. Age of importance

306

SECTION 3. Transition and obstacles

In this section we are interested in any challenges or obstacles you faced in your rugby league development

9. Did you overcome any significant challenges in you athlete development? If so, can you please provide a brief description?

10. Do you believe these challenges assisted you in your development as an NRL player? If so how?

11. What factors assisted you though these times?

12. Did your motivation and enjoyment of the sport decline at any stages in your development? Eg non-selection, injury, relocation. If yes, please highlight.

13. How would you rate the transition periods outlined below in your athlete development? Please circle the most suitable number below.

Transition period Evaluation Club to junior 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Somewhat Moderately Challenging Highly representative challenging challenging challenging Challenging Junior representative to 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Somewhat Moderately Challenging Highly NYC challenging challenging challenging Challenging NYC to NRL 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Somewhat Moderately Challenging Highly challenging challenging challenging Challenging

14. Do you feel there were any major obstacles in making the transition from junior (junior reps, NYC) to NRL elite level?

307

15. What was done to assist this transition?

16. Is there anything else that could be done?

Section 4 The future

In this section we are interested in future goals of your rugby league development.

17. Please rank the following current/future achievements in your national rugby league playing career. 1 is most significant to 7 least significant.

Achievement Rank 1–7 Win a premiership National team selection State of Origin selection Play 100 games Be a one club player Captain an NRL team Be in the top 10% of wage earners

308

Appendix B: Human Ethics Approval Athlete Pathways

309

Appendix C: Participant Information Statement: Athlete

Pathways

Faculty of Education and Social Work

ABN 15 211 513 464 Donna O’Connor Room 447 A35 Associate Professor The University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA Telephone: +61 2 93516343 Facsimile: +61 2 93514580 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.usyd.edu.au/

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION STATEMENT

Title: Athlete development pathways in elite rugby league

(1) What is the study about?

The study will investigate the developmental pathways undertaken by national rugby league players before successfully being signed as an elite player in the National Rugby League in Australia. It will investigate a number of possible influencing factors on athlete development such as: the type of training; amount of training; environmental and social cultural issues; and athlete transition.

(2) Who is carrying out the study?

The study is being conducted by Associate Professor Donna O’Connor. Contact details are provided below.

(3) What does the study involve?

Participants will be asked to complete a series of three short questionnaires regarding their playing history, childhood experiences and their perception of their development in the sport of rugby league. Each participant will be informed by their club regarding questionnaire participation time and dates.

(4) How much time will the study take?

The individual questionnaires will take 15–20 minutes each to complete and contains multiple choice and short-answer questions.

(5) Can I withdraw from the study?

310

Participating in this study is completely voluntary—you are not under any obligation to consent. If you consent, you may withdraw at any time without affecting your relationship with the researcher, the University of Sydney or your club. You may also request that any unprocessed data generated be destroyed.

(6) Will anyone else know the results?

All aspects of the study, including results, will be strictly confidential and only the researchers will have access to information on participants. A report of the study may be submitted for publication, but individual participants will not be identifiable in such a report. A report will also be given to each participating NRL club and the NRL.

(7) Will the study benefit me?

The study will benefit players by providing clubs and governing bodies with information which can be used to develop policies and practices in developing rugby league players in the future. The information gained will inform players, coaches and other stakeholders on a range of factors which contribute to successful player development within the sport. It is anticipated that this will lead to more effective training programs, talent identification and development structures; and a greater level of understanding as to pathways undertaken by athletes on their way to playing in the National Rugby League.

(8) Can I tell other people about the study?

Yes

(9) What if I require further information?

When you have read this information, if you would like to discuss any issues or have any questions at any stage, please feel free to contact: Donna O’Connor, Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. Contact details: Telephone, 9351 6343, Email: [email protected]

(10) What if I have a complaint or concerns?

Any person with concerns or complaints about the conduct of a research study can contact the Deputy Manager, Human Ethics Administration, University of Sydney on +61 2 8627 8176 (Telephone); +61 2 8627 8177 (Facsimile) or [email protected] (Email).

311

Appendix D: Consent Form: Athlete Pathways

Faculty of Education and Social Work

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM I, ______, give consent to my participation in the research project TITLE: Athlete development pathways in elite rugby league In giving my consent I acknowledge that: 1. The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction. 2. I have read the Participant Information Statement and have been given the opportunity to discuss the information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s. 3. I understand that I can withdraw from the study at any time, without affecting my relationship with the researcher(s), my rugby league club or the University of Sydney now or in the future. 4. I understand that my involvement is strictly confidential and no information about me will be used in any way that reveals my identity. 5. I understand that being in this study is completely voluntary – I am not under any obligation to consent. 6. I consent to: – i) Receiving Feedback YES  NO 

If you answered YES to the “Receiving Feedback Question (ii)”, please provide your details i.e. mailing address, email address. Feedback Option Address: Email:

Signed: ......

Name: ......

Date: ......

312

Appendix E: Talent Development Environment for Sport

Questionnaire (Martindale et al., 2010)

313

314

315

Appendix F: Psychological Characteristics of Developing

Excellence Questionnaire (MacNamara & Collins, 2011)

316

317

318

319

320

Appendix G: Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale

(Toering et al., 2012)

321

322

323

324

Appendix H: Talent Development Environment Stakeholder

Interview Guide

School-based talent development environment Interview guide 1: Current/past students

1. Tell me about yourself and your association with the school’s rugby league program? • How long have/had you been involved? • How did you start in the school? • How do/did you feel about being a part of the program? • What does/did a usual week in the program entail? (Training, competitions, social events) 2. Do you think the program is effective at developing talented players? • What indicates that it is successful? • What do you think are some of the reasons behind the success? 3. Who helps/ed you in making it to the next/elite level? 4. How would you describe the level of coaching?

• What was/is his roles? Game—feedback, strategies, technology/Training—methods/social • What was/is his key values? • What resources are available to help your development? • Did/do you have contact with any older or younger athletes within the program? • -What did/do you think of them? 5. Do the rugby league programs support staff and other coaches influence your daily life at the school?

• How does your school program fit into your club-based program? • How? 6. What did/do your family and friends outside of the rugby league program think of it?

• Does the rugby league program interact with other parts of the school and community? 7. How would you describe the rugby league programs ‘culture’?

• -Is there a story or episode that reflects/describes your values? • Did your role change as you continued in the program? Mentoring? • -Do you have specific symbols or traditions in the program? • Do you think the program is more about winning or performance? 8. What makes the rugby league program so different to others? 9. How has the program shaped your own values and beliefs? 10. Do you think there is anything that can make the program even more successful?

325

School-based TDE Interview guide 2: Staff and administrators 1. Tell me about yourself and your association with the school’s rugby league program? • -What are your roles in the program? • How long have/had you been involved? • How did you start in the school? • How do/did you feel about being a part of the program? 2. What is the history of the program? What is the philosophy/vision of the program? How is this reflected in your coaching? Practical example. 3. Why you think the program is effective at developing talented players?

• What indicates that it is successful? • What do you think are some of the reasons behind the success? (Skills, attitudes, values) 4. What do you think are important resources in your efforts to develop athletes? • Does the program utilise these resources? Physical/psychological methods (coping, goal- setting. Imagery, understanding the athlete) • How would you describe your learning environment? • What are the barriers? 5. In terms of the program what do you see as the key roles of; • Coaches • Senior players • Junior players • Wider school community 6. How does the program interact with the wider rugby league environment? (e.g. non-school-based competitions, NRL clubs development programs)

• Are there any rules or regulations? • Can you think of a story that describes this interaction? 7. How would you describe the rugby league programs ‘culture’?

• -Is there a story or episode that reflects/describes your values? • How do you maintain this culture? • -Do you have specific symbols or traditions in the program? 8. What makes the rugby league program so different to others? 9. Do you think there is anything that can make the program even more successful? What future challenges do you foresee?

326

Appendix I: Talent Development Environment Focus Group

Interview Guide

School-based talent development environment

Junior player focus group semi-structured interview guide

1. How has the rugby league program enhanced your skills and knowledge in the game?

2. How has the rugby league program helped you reach your potential?

3. Do you believe the program has promoted you to take more responsibility for your own learning and development? How has this occurred?

4. How has the program enhanced your motivation to succeed? Is the program challenging?

5. How does/has the rugby league program help you overcome challenges?

6. What are some features of the program that promote long-term success for individual players on and off the field?

7. Apart from on-field technique and tactical education, what other skills or values have you gained from the program?

8. What role has the coaching staff played in your development? Link to communication.

9. Has the program made you more aware of how to prepare yourself to perform on the field? What are some examples of this?

10. Has the program made you more aware of your abilities (strengths & weaknesses) as a player?

11. Do you think the relationships with teammates and other school peers have influenced your progression and/or enjoyment in the rugby league program? Why?

12. Why do you think the rugby league program is so effective at producing players that progress to the next playing level?

327

Appendix J: Human Ethics Approval School-Based Talent

Development Environment

328

329

Appendix K: Sample Participant Information Statement for

Student School-based Talent Development Environments

Faculty of Education and Social Work

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION STATEMENT: Pre-elite players An examination of school-based rugby league talent development environments

(1) What is the study about?

The study will investigate successful school-based talent development environments (TDE’s) within rugby league. It will analyse the significance of environmental and psychological factors within athlete development within three highly unique rugby league development programs.

(2) Who is carrying out the study?

The study is being conducted by PhD candidate Balin Cupples under the supervision of Associate Professor Donna O’Connor and Dr Stephen Cobley. Contact details are provided below.

(3) What does the study involve?

The overall study consists of short interviews, environment observation, analysis of documents and questionnaire completion. Due to the nature of the research the roles of different participant groups will vary. Pre-elite players will complete three questionnaires six times over a two-year period. Each participant will be informed by their school program regarding questionnaire participation time and dates. All data collection will be flexible and based upon the unique schedules of the school program.

(4) How much time will the study take?

The three questionnaires will take 30–40 minutes to complete at each sitting.

(5) Can I withdraw from the study?

330

the University of Sydney or your school. You may also request that any unprocessed data generated be destroyed.

(6) Will anyone else know the results?

(7) Will the study benefit me?

The study will benefit each school-based TDE and its players in providing relevant feedback and information on their own developmental practices in relation to the latest empirical findings in the field. The information gained will inform coaches and other stakeholders on a range of factors which contribute to successful player development within their TDE. It is anticipated that this will both reinforce current practice and promote even more effective training programs, and talent development structures in the future to enhance individual player progression. Overall, the study may further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the school-based TDE’s in developing elite rugby league players in the future.

(8) Can I tell other people about the study?

Yes

(9) What if I require further information?

When you have read this information, if you would like to discuss any issues or have any questions at any stage, please feel free to contact:

Balin Cupples, Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. Contact details: Telephone, 0411 059 449, Email: [email protected]

Donna O’Connor, Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. Contact details: Telephone, 9351 6343, Email: [email protected] Stephen Cobley, faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Sydney. Contact details: Telephone: 93519033, email: [email protected]

(10) What if I have a complaint or concerns?

This information sheet is for you to keep

331

Appendix L: Consent Form Talent Development Environments

Faculty of Education and Social Work

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

I, ______, give consent to my participation in the research project An examination of school-based rugby league talent development environments

In giving my consent I acknowledge that:

1. The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction. 2. I have read the Participant Information Statement and have been given the opportunity to discuss the information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s. 3. I understand that I can withdraw from the study at any time, without affecting my relationship with the researcher(s), my rugby league club or the University of Sydney now or in the future. 4. I understand that my involvement is strictly confidential and no information about me will be used in any way that reveals my identity. 5. I understand that being in this study is completely voluntary – I am not under any obligation to consent. 6. I consent to: – i) Completing surveys YES NO

ii) Participating in an audio-recorded interview YES NO

iii) Sessions being observed YES NO

iv) Receiving feedback YES NO

If you answered YES to the “Receiving Feedback Question (iv)”, please provide your details i.e. mailing address, email address.

Feedback Option

Address:

Email:

332

Parent Consent Signature: Signed: ...... Name: ...... Date: ......

Student Consent Signature: Signed: ...... Name: ...... Date: ......

Stakeholder Consent Signature: Signed: ...... Name: ...... Date: ......

333

Appendix M: Sample Talent Research Approval Letter

334

335

336

Appendix N: Coping Inventory Scale for Competitive Sport

(Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002)

Coping for Competitive Sport (CICS)

Name: …………………….

Instructions

This questionnaire contains 39 items. Each of the items represents things that athletes can do or think during a sports competition.

For each item, you must indicate the extent to which it corresponds to what you typically or generally do during your competitions.

Circle the answers that best correspond to what you generally do during competition. Don’t spend too much time on each item. Your answers must be spontaneous and sincere.

There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in what you generally do during rugby league competition when you participate in your sport.

1. Does not correspond at all to what I do or think

2. Corresponds a little to what I do or think

trongly

ittle

3. Corresponds moderately to what I do or think s

A A Strongly

4. Corresponds strongly to what I do or think all Not at Moderately 5. Corresponds very strongly to what I do or think Very 1) I visualize that I was in total control of the situation 1 2 3 4 5 2) I use swear-words loudly or in my head in order to expel my anger 1 2 3 4 5 3) I distanced myself from other athletes 1 2 3 4 5 4) I committed myself by giving a consistent effort 1 2 3 4 5 5) I occupied my mind in order to think about other things than the 1 2 3 4 5 competition 6) I tried not to be intimidated by other athletes 1 2 3 4 5 7) I asked someone for advice concerning my mental preparation 1 2 3 4 5 8) I tried to relax my body 1 2 3 4 5 9) I analyzed my past performances 1 2 3 4 5 10) I lost all hope of attaining my goal 1 2 3 4 5 11) I mentally rehearsed the execution of my movements 1 2 3 4 5 12) I got angry 1 2 3 4 5 13) I retreated to a place where it is easy to think 1 2 3 4 5 14) I gave a relentless effort 1 2 3 4 5

337

1. Does not correspond at all to what I do or think

2. Corresponds a little to what I do or think

trongly

ittle l

3. Corresponds moderately to what I do or think s

A A Strongly

4. Corresponds strongly to what I do or think all Not at Moderately 5. Corresponds very strongly to what I do or think Very 15) I thought about my favorite leisure in order not to think about 1 2 3 4 5 the competition 16) I tried to get rid of my doubts by thinking positively 1 2 3 4 5 17) I asked other athletes for advice 1 2 3 4 5 18) I tried to reduce the tension in my muscles 1 2 3 4 5 19) I analyzed the weaknesses of my opponents 1 2 3 4 5 20) I let myself feel hopeless and discouraged 1 2 3 4 5 21) I visualized myself doing a good performance 1 2 3 4 5 22) I expressed my discontent 1 2 3 4 5 23) I kept all people at a distance 1 2 3 4 5 24) I gave my best effort 1 2 3 4 5 25) I entertained myself in order not to think about the competition 1 2 3 4 5 26) I replaced my negative thoughts with positive ones 1 2 3 4 5 27) I talked to a trustworthy person 1 2 3 4 5 28) I did some relaxation exercises 1 2 3 4 5 29) I thought about possible solutions in order to manage the 1 2 3 4 5 situation 30) I wished that the competition would end immediately 1 2 3 4 5 31) I visualized my all-time best performance 1 2 3 4 5 32) I expressed my frustrations 1 2 3 4 5 33) I searched for calmness and quietness 1 2 3 4 5 34) I tried not to think about my mistakes 1 2 3 4 5 35) I talked to someone who is able to motivate me 1 2 3 4 5 36) I relaxed my muscles 1 2 3 4 5 37) I analyzed the demands of the competition 1 2 3 4 5 38) I stopped believing in my ability to attain my goal 1 2 3 4 5 39) I thought about my family or about my friends to distract myself 1 2 3 4 5

338

Appendix O: Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (Chesney et al., 2006)

When things aren’t going well for you, or when you’re having problems, how confident or certain are you that you can do the following:

Cannot Moderately Certain

do at certain can

all can do do

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

For each of the following items, write a number from 0—10, using the scale above.

When things aren’t going well for you, how confident are you that you can:

1. Keep from getting down in the dumps.

2. Talk positively to yourself.

3. Sort out what can be changed, and what cannot be changed.

4. Get emotional support from friends and family.

5. Find solutions to your most difficult problems.

6. Break an upsetting problem down into smaller parts.

7. Leave options open when things get stressful.

8. Make a plan of action and follow it when confronted with a problem.

9. Develop new hobbies or recreations.

10. Take your mind off unpleasant thoughts.

11. Look for something good in a negative situation.

12. Keep from feeling sad.

13. See things from the other person’s point of view during a heated argument.

14. Try other solutions to your problems if your first solutions don’t work.

15. Stop yourself from being upset by unpleasant thoughts.

339

When things aren’t going well for you, or when you’re having problems, how confident or certain are you that you can do the following:

Cannot Moderately Certain

do at certain can

all can do do

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

When things aren’t going well for you, how confident are you that you can:

16. Make new friends.

17. Get friends to help you with the things you need.

18. Do something positive for yourself when you are feeling discouraged.

19. Make unpleasant thoughts go away.

20. Think about one part of the problem at a time.

21. Visualize a pleasant activity or place.

22. Keep yourself from feeling lonely.

23. Pray or meditate.

24. Get emotional support from community organizations or resources.

25. Stand your ground and fight for what you want.

26. Resist the impulse to act hastily when under pressure.

Chesney MA, Neilands TB, Chambers DB, Taylor JM, Folkman S. A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. Br J Health Psychol 2006 Sep; 11(3): 421–37. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1602207.

We appreciate copies of manuscripts or conference presentations generated from the use of this scale to help us stay current with its use and to assess its validity and reliability in other populations.

Please address correspondence to Margaret A. Chesney, PhD, Deputy Director, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Room 2B11, MSC2182, Bethesda, MD 20892-2182, USA (email: [email protected]).

340

Appendix P: Scale of Psychological Wellbeing (Ryff & Keyes,

2005)

Scale of Wellbeing Name:

Please indicate your degree of agreement (using a score ranging from 1–6) to the following sentences:

Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly disagree disagree disagree agree agree agree 1 I tend to be influenced by people with strong opinions 1 2 3 4 5 6

In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 which I live

I think it is important to have new experiences that 3 challenge how you think about yourself and the world 1 2 3 4 5 6

Maintaining close relationships has been difficult and 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 frustrating for me I live life one day at a time and don’t really think 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 about the future When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 how things have turned out I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 contrary to the general consensus

8 The demands of everyday life often get me down 1 2 3 4 5 6 For me, life has been a continuous process of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 learning, changing and growth People would describe me as a giving person, willing 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 to share my time with others Some people wander aimlessly through life, but I am 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 not one of them I like most aspects of my personality 12 1 2 3 4 5 6

I judge myself by what I think is important, not by the 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 values of what others think is important I am quite good at managing the many responsibilities 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 of my daily life I do not enjoy being in new situations that require me 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 to change my old familiar ways of doing things I know that I can trust my friends, and they know they 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 can trust me I don’t have a good sense of what it is I’m trying to 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 accomplish in life In many ways, I feel disappointed about my 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 achievements in life

Autonomy: items 1, 7, 13 Environmental mastery: items 2, 8, 14 Personal Growth: items 3, 9, 15 Positive relations: items 4, 10, 16 Purpose in life: items 5, 11, 17 Self-acceptance: items 6, 12, 18. * Reverse score: 1, 4, 5, 8, 15, 17, 18

341

Appendix Q: U20’s Rugby League Stressor Audit Interview Guide

Coping skills and player welfare in elite youth rugby league Individual player semi-structured interview guide

1) Describe your history with the club? How did you arrive at the club? How long have you been within the NYC squad?

2) What is your current living and work/study arrangements away from football?

3) In relation to following definition/s can you list any stressful situation you have experienced?

Stress occurs when the relationship between the person and their environment is appraised ‘as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her wellbeing’ (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 21).

Or ‘A stressful situation is one where you might feel anxious or worried. It might include feelings of butterflies in your stomach or sweaty palms’ (Tamminen & Holt, 2012, p. 72)

These can be in (competition, training, coach/teammate relations) and outside of rugby league (living, job/study, relocation).

4) Can you please describe some of these stressful instances?

5) What did you do to manage these stressful events?

342

Appendix R: Coping Focus Group Interview Guide

Coping and Transition Program Focus Group

Welcome

Facilitator: Provide a quick overview of the program: Assist with challenges of talent development:

How: Defining stressors, how you interpret, deciding on coping-controllable vs uncontrollable, emotional vs problem types, examples-senior players, development players, coach, goal-setting; social support.

1. What did you like about the program? 2. Did you feel you could relate to the program content? 3. Has any of the suggested content, strategies and skills change the way you have dealt with things on the field? Can you provide any examples of this over the last 6 weeks? 4. Has any of the suggested content, strategies and skills change the way you have dealt with things off the field? Can you provide any examples of this over the last 6 weeks? 5. Did you speak to anyone around you regarding the program and its information and/or potential benefits? 6. Do you feel the program raised your awareness of how to deal with the pressures, challenges and stressors associated with transitioning to higher levels? 7. Was the format (presenters, timings, activities) effective in maintaining your interest? 8. Do you think these was any challenges or situations specific to you as elite junior players that were not discussed? 9. Would you recommend the program to other elite junior players? Why?

343

Appendix S: Human Ethics Approval Coping Intervention

344

345

Appendix T: National Rugby League Research Board Approval

346

Appendix U: Coping Intervention Participation Information

Statement

Faculty of Education and Social Work

Coping skills and player welfare in elite youth rugby league PARTICIPANT INFORMATION STATEMENT: Athletes

(1) What is the study about?

Athlete wellbeing, social support and coping skills have been identified as key factors in aiding successful navigation of the path to elite performance. This research study aims to investigate the current levels of perceived social support, athlete wellbeing and coping skills within youth rugby league players. Wellbeing, social support and coping skills will be assessed and examined through a series of questionnaires with a group of U20’s National Youth level (NYC) players from a National Rugby league club. (2) Who is carrying out the study? The study is being conducted by the PhD candidate: Balin Cupples, under the supervision of Associate Professor Donna O’Connor and Dr Stephen Cobley. Contact details are provided below. (3) What does the study involve?

The study involves your participation in the completion of 4 questionnaires on 3 occasions. The questionnaires take 20–30 minutes to complete. All data collection procedures will be completed in accordance with the unique competition schedules and the NYC training program.

(4) How much time will the study take? The questionnaire battery is likely to take between 20–30 mins on each occasion of completion. The study will be conducted in full over a 6–8-week period during the competition phase of the season. (5) Can I withdraw from the study?

Participating in this study is entirely voluntary—you are not under any obligation to consent to participate. If you consent, you may withdraw at any time without affecting your relationship with

347

the researcher, the University of Sydney or your rugby league club. You may also request that any unprocessed data generated be destroyed.

(6) Will anyone else know the results? All aspects of the study, including results, will be strictly confidential and only the researchers (mentioned above) will have access to the data collected. A summary report of the study and its findings will be submitted as part of a PhD thesis, and for research publication purposes, but in doing so individual participant names, details and data as well as the participating club will not be identifiable, and will remain anonymous. A written and verbal summary report of the study will be provided to each participant. (7) Will the study benefit me? There will be no direct immediate benefits to you in questionnaire completion. However, the intended sharing of findings and processes involved may potentially promote new skills and knowledge for you. Also, you may benefit from the findings in creating a more positive and supportive environment in the future. These skills and possible environmental changes may benefit you in enhancing your ability to cope with the transitions and challenges associated with being on the pathway to professional sport. More broadly, the study may enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of developing elite rugby league players in the future. (8) Can I tell other people about the study? Yes, but without disclosing information relating to other participants in the study, and the participating club. (9) What if I require further information? When you have read this information, if you would like to discuss any issues or have any questions at any stage, please feel free to contact: Balin Cupples, Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. Contact details: Telephone, 0411 059 449, Email: [email protected] Donna O’Connor, Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. Contact details: Telephone, 9351 6343, Email: [email protected] Stephen Cobley, Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Sydney. Contact details: Telephone: 93519033, email: [email protected] (10) What if I have a complaint or concerns? If any participant finds any questions distressing you may make contact with the club’s trained welfare staff, and/or be directed to qualified counsellors provided by the club on behalf of the National Rugby League, or alternatively you can call Relationships Australia on 1300364277.

Any person with concerns or complaints about the conduct of a research study can contact the Manager, Human Ethics Administration, University of Sydney on +61 2 8627 8176 (Telephone); +61 2 8627 8177 (Facsimile) or [email protected] (Email).

This information sheet is for you to keep

348

Appendix V: Coping Intervention Consent

Faculty of Education and Social Work

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

I, ______, give consent to my participation in the research project

Coping skills and player welfare in elite youth rugby league

In giving my consent, I acknowledge that:

If you answered YES to the “Receiving Feedback Question (iv)”, please provide your details i.e. mailing address, email address.

349

Feedback Option

Address:

Email:

Athlete Consent Signature:

Signed:

Name: ......

Date: ......

350