Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Talent identification and development in soccer

since the millennium

A. Mark Williams , Paul R. Ford & Barry Drust

To cite this article: A. Mark Williams , Paul R. Ford & Barry Drust (2020): Talent identification
and development in soccer since the millennium, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI:
10.1080/02640414.2020.1766647

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1766647

View supplementary material

Published online: 22 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 113

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1766647

Talent identification and development in soccer since the millennium

A. Mark Williamsa, Paul R. Fordb and Barry Drustc
a
Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA; bSchool of Sport and Service Management, University of
Brighton, Brighton, UK; cSchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

At the turn of the millennium, a review paper was published in this journal on talent identification and Accepted 30 April 2020
development in soccer (Williams & Reilly, 2000). In the current paper, we assess progress made in this field
KEYWORDS
over the last twenty years relative to the areas for future research highlighted in the original review. We Selection; multidisciplinary;
evaluate developments in light of the calls made by Williams and Reilly to: a) undertake more multi­ longitudinal; scouting;
disciplinary rather than mono-disciplinary research; b) embrace longitudinal rather than cross-sectional expertise
research designs; c) expand the research base on female football; and, d) better identify the subjective
criteria used by scouts when selecting one player over another for entry into a formalised training
environment. The body of mono-disciplinary research on this topic continues to expand, and progress
has been made in publishing multidisciplinary, prospective, longitudinal data sets, along with advanced
statistical modelling procedures, as well as in identifying the experiential criteria used by scouts. We found
some variables in these studies have predictive value from adolescence to adult performance level in soccer.
We present suggestions for future research to enhance knowledge and understanding of the best practices
underpinning the identification and development of future generations of professional players.

Introduction
At the turn of the last millennium, the lead author of this article
wrote a review paper for this journal on talent identification
and development in soccer with arguably the founding father
of science and soccer, the late Professor Thomas Reilly. The
paper was part of a special issue focusing on the same theme,
which subsequently became one of the most cited issues in the
history of the journal. Williams and Reilly (2000) has been cited
over 1,000 times across the intervening 20 years, with several
other articles in the special issue attracting similar citation rates.
These high citation rates illustrate the substantive growth in
sports science research over the last two decades and the
increased popularity of research related to talent identification
and development, as well as the fact that soccer remains by far
the most popular sport globally.
Two decades on it appears an appropriate time to revisit
these topics in an effort to ascertain the extent of any progress
that has been made in scientific understanding. Our search of
the literature for this article indicated that the broad topics of
talent identification and development have been vibrant
research areas, judging by the vast number of books (e.g.,
Baker et al., 2017; Baker & Farrow, 2015; Baker et al., 2012;
Collins & MacNamara, 2017a; Nesti & Sulley, 2014), systematic
reviews (e.g., Johnston et al., 2018; Murr, Feichtinger et al., 2018;
Murr, Raabe et al., 2018; Sarmento et al., 2018), narrative
reviews (e.g., Baker et al., 2019; Bergkamp et al., 2019; Phillips
et al., 2010; Rees et al., 2016; Vaeyens et al., 2008), and empirical
papers that have been published over the last 20 years.
Moreover, soccer continues to flourish in terms of participation
rates and its commercial growth, as judged by the magnitude
of recent television deals and the increase in player salaries and
transfer fees, including expansion of the women’s game since
the millennium (e.g., Deloitte, Sports Business Group, 2019;
Fédération Internationale de Football Association [FIFA],
2007). The identification and development processes have
become professionalised within the game involving
a significant investment of resources (e.g., financial, personnel,
time) by national associations, clubs, coaches, sports scientists,
players, and their families. Thousands of youth players partici­
pate in systematic training programmes in professional clubs
across the globe (e.g., Ford et al., 2020). Moreover, sports
science practitioners and support teams typically exist at pro­
fessional clubs and national associations, particularly in coun­
tries were the game is financially well-supported; a distinct
change from the emerging landscape evident in the late
1990’s (Drust, 2019; Drust & Green, 2013). Therefore, it is not
difficult to argue a case that the question of how best to
identify those players that should be recruited into systematic
training programmes or academies, and how they should be
developed, remain questions of significant interest to scientists,
practitioners, and coaches.
The identification and development processes in modern-
day soccer are illustrated in Figure 1. Identification involves
recognising players participating in the sport who have the
potential to progress into a high performance development
programme consisting of a relatively systematic combination
of coaching, support, training, and match play designed to
progress players (development is also known as talent

CONTACT A. Mark Williams mark.williams@health.utah.edu Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation, University of Utah, 250 S. 1850 E. RM 200, Salt
Lake City, UT 84112, USA
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A.M. WILLIAMS ET AL.
Figure 1. Key parts of the identification, selection and development process in soccer. The arrows indicate possible player pathways; with heavy dashed lines indicating
interlinked concepts and light dashed lines indicating exit or entry routes.
promotion, Vaeyens et al., 2009). Moreover, detection involves
identifying players from outside the game who have the poten­
tial to progress into development programmes in soccer
(Williams & Reilly, 2000). Participation involves playing soccer
at a recreational level and/or informal, playful settings. Selection
refers to the on-going process of choosing players within the
development programme who demonstrate attributes suitable
for progression to a future squad or team, such as next age
group team in a youth academy or nation (Williams & Reilly,
2000). Deselection is the process of removing players from the
development programme who no longer demonstrate the
attributes to participate in, or to be selected for, future squads
or teams. Identification, selection, and deselection decisions
occur relatively frequently in professional youth academies
(e.g., Ford et al., 2020; Güllich, 2014).
In light of the large amount of research that now exists on
these themes, as well as the multitude of potential directions
that a review of these areas could take, we delimit the scope of
this paper. We focus on the recommendations for future
research presented in the original paper by Williams and
Reilly (2000) and evaluate progress made in addressing these
suggestions over the last two decades. Moreover, we remain
true to the aim of the original paper by considering the role of
sports science in helping to identify and develop future profes­
sional soccer players.
Williams and Reilly (2000) proposed several specific areas for
future research. First, a call was made to explore the added
value of embracing a multidisciplinary approach (rather than
mono-disciplinary) to identifying youth players by measuring
a number of predictor variables across key aspects of perfor­
mance. The idea was that such an approach would help explain
a higher proportion of the variance in performance between
players who progressed to different levels of attainment within
the sport. Second, the added benefits of longitudinal studies
over descriptive or cross-sectional research were outlined in the
1
See supplementary material for full list of references.
hope that a better understanding could be provided of the
prospective value of various predictors and how these may
fluctuate over time as a function of player age and exposure
to systematic training. Third, a call was made for more research
to be conducted with female players because at the turn of the
millennium insufficient published research existed examining
gender-related differences in identification and development
processes in soccer. Finally, it was argued that scientists and
those involved in player recruitment (e.g., scouts, coaches,
academy directors) should work together to better identify
the experiential, often implicit/subjective, criteria that are
used to select one player over another for entry into
a formalised training environment.
We start by reviewing published reports that have
addressed the calls made by Williams and Reilly (2000). We
review research that has assessed multiple predictor variables
using longitudinal and prospective/predictive designs, as well
as studies that have used interviews to investigate the variables
underlying the selection decisions made by scouts and
coaches.
Multidisciplinary predictors and the long-term selection of
youth players
We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines (Moher
et al., 2009) to search for literature. Our search protocol is
detailed in the supplementary material, but in sum we used
the Web of Science and SportsDiscus search engines into which
we entered the key search terms “talent identification” and
“soccer” with time limits set between 2000 and 2019. In
November 2019, we used this process to locate 27 published
reports that had incorporated a multidisciplinary approach
using longitudinal and prospective/predictive designs in
soccer1. Qualitative analyses confirmed these published studies
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 3

contained more than one category of predictor variable

> SBJ; faster 5-m sprint; but no diff A, Ph (30-m sprint, CMJ) and Sk (non-soccer

> coach assessment in game; > ball juggling; > achievement goal orientation; >
3 cm taller; 3 kg heavier; 1 mth younger; 1 ml/kg higher VO2; but no diff other

< 1 sec faster dribbling, ball control, agility, sprint and > shooting and motor
(anthropometrical, physiological fitness, psychological, skill, or

Psy, Sk, So > coach rated initial performance level; > goal commitment, coping, seeking
motivation and concentration; > acting in changing situations on TACSIS
~2cm taller; ~2 kg heavier; relatively older; <1 sec faster sprint, agility, ball

Slightly taller; heavier; > max anaerobic power; < 1 sec faster 40-m sprint
sociological). All the published reports assessed talent selection

2 sec faster passing + dribbling; <1 sec faster 30-m sprint and agility; >

Slightly taller and heavier; > interval shuttle run; > hrs per wk practice
as opposed to identification (see Figure 1). A majority of these
papers (n = 17) tracked players from an earlier youth age group
to a later one, while the minority (n = 10) tracked players from

Professionals were on average (p <.05):

< 1 sec faster agility, dribbling, ball control and > shooting

social support; > siblings, ethnicity and divorced parents

adolescence to adult professional level. We provide details of
the 10 studies that have measured multiple predictor variables
and tracked players from adolescence to adult level in Table 1.
All 10 studies were conducted in Europe, with nine studies

A or Ph (sprint, vert jump, quad strength)

control, and dribbling, > shooting points

containing male participants. Prognostic periods varied from
approximately 4 years to 15 years. The general conclusions

Key: A = anthropometrical; Ph = physiological fitness; Ps = psychological; Sk = skill; So = sociological; < less than; > greater; * measured at multiple time points across adolescence
were that players who became professionals were in adoles­
cence slightly taller, heavier, leaner, fitter, faster and slightly

family and sport importance

more agile, more skilled and motivated and practiced more

motor score, dribbling)

when compared to their peers in the development programme
who did not become professionals in adulthood. The super­
iority of future professional players over non-professionals in
already selected adolescents extends to almost all measures
and time points, with the significant effects highlighted in

score
Table 1. In the studies that contained multiple measurement
time points across adolescence (e.g., Le Gall et al., 2010; Leyhr
Table 1. Overview of studies measuring multiple predictor variables in adolescence and tracking players to their adulthood performance level.

Predictor
variables

Ph, Ps, Sk

53 Pro vs. 77 Not-pro at 20 A, Ph, Ps,

et al., 2018), the measured variables generally “improve” as

Ps, Sk,
A, Ph, Sk

A, Ph, Sk
Results

20 Pro vs. 97 Not-pro at 19 Ant, Ph,

A, Ph

A, Ph
a function of age for all participants. However, those who

So

So
S, Ph

S, Ph
eventually turned professional were slightly superior at the

23 Pro vs. 91 Not-pro at 19

start of the prognostic period and maintained this superiority

16 International vs. 26 Pro

(matched) at 19 yrs of

145 Pro vs. 989 Not-pro

Attained adult level

to the end when compared to non-professionals.

46 Pro vs. 691 Not-pro

89 Pro vs. 913 Sem vs.
68 Pro vs. 90 Not-pro

29 Pro vs. 29 Not-pro

18 Pro vs. 47 Not-pro

The 17 studies that measured multiple predictor variables

13,167 Not-pro
and tracked players from an earlier youth age group to a later

vs. 89 Rec
yrs of age

yrs of age

yrs of age
one demonstrate similar findings to those listed in Table 1.
However, a single study from Brazil (Aquino et al., 2017)
age

reported that anthropometrical measures were predictive, in

contrast to the studies from Europe. A few scientists have used
Prognostic

statistical methods containing classification algorithms to

9-10 yrs
1-4 yrs

6-8 yrs
~7 yrs

~6 yrs
10 yrs

15 yrs
~4yrs
4 yrs

5 yrs
assess the combined contribution of the measured predictor
variables to later performance level. For example, Forsman et al.
(2016) measured technical, tactical, physical, and psychological
organisation
Federation +

Federation +

Federation +
Federation

Federation

Federation

Switzerland Federation
predictors at 15 years of age, with several of these measures
Pro

club

club

club

differentiating already selected players who turned profes­

Club

Netherlands Club

Netherlands Club
sional from those that did not reach that level at age 19 years.
Logistic regression analyses demonstrated passing and cross­
Country

Germany

Germany

Germany

ing skills, agility, and motivation at age 15 years explained 43%

Belgium

Finland
France

France
Sample characteristics

of the variance in performance level at age 19 years and cor­

rectly classified 86% of players at the younger age that turned
Gender

professional at 19 years. Others (e.g., Huijgen et al., 2014; Zuber

et al., 2016) have shown that various combinations of technical
M

M
F

(e.g., dribbling, passing), tactical (i.e., positioning and deciding),

Measured
U13 to U16*

U14 to U16*

U12 to U15*

U12 to U16*

and motivational (e.g., motivation, net hope) predictors differ­

U14-U18 to
U14-U18

entiate adolescent players who progress to a higher perfor­

U18*

mance level later in development. Measures of speed may

U15

U12

U14

U14

have similar predictive utility (i.e., Gonaus & Müller, 2012;

Huijgen et al., 2014).
14,178

1,134
158

114

161

737

130

117
58

65
N

These classification algorithms, including regression, discri­

minant function analysis, principal component analysis and
neural network modelling (Mann et al., 2017) provide unique
Sieghartsleitner
Roescher et al.
Forsman et al.
Carling et al.

Deprez et al.

insights into the non-linear interaction between various com­

Le Gall et al.

et al. (2019)
Höner et al.

Van Yperen
Leyhr et al.

Leyhr et al.
Reference

ponents of performance (e.g., Forsman et al., 2016; Huijgen

(2012)

(2015)

(2016)

(2017)

(2010)

(2018)

(2019)

(2010)

(2009)

et al., 2014; Sieghartsleitner et al., 2019; Zuber et al., 2016).

Such modelling procedures allow us to better identify the
4 A.M. WILLIAMS ET AL.
proportion of variance in performance accounted for by differ­
ent variables over time, providing a more parsimonious
approach to evaluating the costs and benefits of different
selection methods.
Physical predictors have been assessed most frequently
when compared to the other predictor categories (25/27 stu­
dies). Physical variables are clearly important due to the ele­
vated demands of physical activity (both acute within games
and more chronically across games) that are described at the
highest level within the sport (Barnes et al., 2014). Physiological
measures of speed, endurance, and agility appear useful in
differentiating players, albeit predominantly when using
a single time point of measurement. Anthropometric charac­
teristics, on the other hand, may be limited in their ability to
differentiate successful and unsuccessful players. First, these
observations may merely be reflective of differences in matura­
tion status between populations at a specific time point
(Buchheit & Mendez-Villanueva, 2013). Such differences may
be a consequence of the relative age effect that continues to
be influential in selection strategies (e.g., Brustio et al., 2018;
Helsen et al., 2012). Second, even though future professional
players have been shown to be slightly taller, heavier, and
leaner in adolescence than their non-professional peers (4/6
studies, Table 1), there are studies that show no difference in
anthropometric measures between these skill groups (2/6 stu­
dies in Table 1). Professional players have generally become
slightly taller, heavier, and leaner in the last 20 years
(A. M. Nevill et al., 2019; A. Nevill et al., 2009), while the profes­
sional game has concurrently become more physically and
technically demanding (e.g., English Premier League, Bush et
al., 2015). However, there are constraints on increasing these
anthropometric variables further, particularly height and mus­
cularity (e.g., taller individuals are not usually more advantaged
in soccer), and there are multiple shorter or medium than
average height players (e.g., Nevill et al., 2009) that have been
very successful in the modern professional game.
Skill has the potential to be the key predictor of later per­
formance level, albeit it is widely reported to improve through
engagement in relevant practice activities. Skill involves players
successfully executing actions with and without the ball during
match play that are highly relevant to their positional role, the
current situation and phase of play, and the team’s strategy and
tactics (Ford, 2016). Skill test scores in adolescence are superior
for future adult professional players when compared to non-
professional players (e.g., 6/7 studies in Table 1) with few
exceptions (e.g., 1/7 studies in Table 1, Deprez et al., 2015), as
well as for adolescent players who progress within youth devel­
opment programmes when compared to those who do not. In-
game assessments of skill (Sieghartsleitner et al., 2019; Van
Yperen, 2009) and sub-scales of the Tactical Skills Inventory
for Sports (TACSIS, Forsman et al., 2016; Kannekens et al.,
2011) have been utilised less than skill tests, but have been
reported to differentiate future adult professional players from
non-professionals.
In 6/27 studies (Höner et al., 2017, 2019; Höner & Votteler,
2016; Leyhr et al., 2018, 2019; Zuber et al., 2016) researchers
combined physical evaluations with assessments of technical
skills into a total motor score that included technical and
physical performance inputs (see also, Benounis et al., 2013;
Hicheur et al., 2017; Höner & Votteler, 2016; Wilson et al., 2016).
The total motor score in all these studies was greater for U12
players who were selected to squads in adolescence and to
professional status in adulthood when compared to players not
selected. Findings highlight the usefulness of total motor score
prognostics, although there are limitations to this method
including the fact that findings are specific to the population
sample and the design of the test (Höner & Votteler, 2016).
Psychological and sociological predictors have been
assessed in multidisciplinary, longitudinal, prospective studies
least frequently when compared to the other predictor cate­
gories (e.g., 7/27 and 4/27 studies, respectively) (see Fransen &
Güllich, 2019; Gledhill et al., 2017; Murr, Feichtinger et al., 2018;
Reeves et al., 2018a). Psychological predictors have been exclu­
sively measured in these studies using validated scales. During
adolescence, future professional players have been shown to
be more motivated and concentrated (Forsman et al., 2016), to
have greater goal commitment and to use problem- more than
emotion-focused coping (Van Yperen, 2009), when compared
to those players who did not become professionals. Similarly,
players who did not progress to professional status were stated
in semi-structured interviews of 10 soccer coaches from youth
academies in England to score lower on measures of motiva­
tion, commitment, coping and self-regulation compared to
those who progressed (Taylor & Collins, 2019). While these
psychological variables appear to have prognostic value in
youth players, numerous published reports highlight that
these characteristics can be moderated by environmental influ­
ences and applied interventions (Williams & Reilly, 2000). Many
psychological variables and associated self-report scales now
exist that may have predictive value, but they have not been
assessed using longitudinal and prospective designs. These
measures include grit (e.g., Larkin et al., 2016), self-regulation
(e.g., Toering et al., 2009), mental toughness (e.g., Thelwell
et al., 2005), and perfectionism (Hill, 2013; Smith et al., 2018).
Some key psychological variables for developing athletes have
been grouped under the name Psychological Characteristics of
Developing Excellence (PCDE; MacNamara et al., 2010;
MacNamara & Collins, 2015), including commitment, focus,
and distraction control (Collins et al., 2011). Moreover,
a validated self-report questionnaire has been developed to
assess these characteristics (Hill et al., 2019; MacNamara &
Collins, 2011), eliminating the need to use multiple, individual
scales. A key concern for researchers is to remove conceptual
ambiguity between psychological variables (see Dohme et al.,
2017; also Duckworth & Gross, 2014) and to achieve content
validity when combining key variables (see Murr, Feichtinger et
al., 2018).
Sociological predictors include hours in practice, coach-
player relationships, family support, and life factors (Gledhill
et al., 2017; Reeves et al., 2018a). Life factors include the effect
of being a younger sibling (e.g., Hopwood et al., 2015), relative
age (e.g., Helsen et al., 2012), place of birth (e.g., MacDonald
et al., 2009), socio-economic status (e.g., Winn et al., 2017), and
challenging or even traumatic events, such as parental divorce
(e.g., Collins & MacNamara, 2017b; Hardy et al., 2017; for
a review see Howells et al., 2017). During adolescence, players
who eventually turn professional in adulthood have been
shown to accumulate more hours of practice (Roescher et al.,

2010, although see Sieghartsleitner et al., 2019) and peer-led
play (Hendry & Hodges, 2018), received greater support from
the family (Sieghartsleitner et al., 2019), had more siblings (M
= 2.2 vs. 1.3 siblings), more divorced parents (M = 29% vs. 9%),
and sought greater social support (Van Yperen, 2009).
Sociologists have often addressed the complex, messy, multi­
dimensional, multifaceted, non-linear and ethical or moral nat­
ure of the identification, selection and development process
(Bailey, 2018). Multiple published reports exist focusing on
sociological factors that influence the identification and devel­
opment of youth players, for example, recently taking up an
entire special issue of a journal (e.g., Soccer & Society, 2018),
but few of these factors have been assessed within multidisci­
plinary, longitudinal, prospective designs.
Altogether, 2/27 studies (7%) contained female players as
participants (Höner et al., 2019; Leyhr et al., 2019). Prognostic
validity of measures in these two studies was generalisable
between the sexes with few, if any, gender-based differences.
Höner et al. (2019) reported that scores on the dribbling test at
U12 were more predictive of attained performance level in
females compared to males. Leyhr et al. (2019) showed that
20 m sprint times in adolescence were predictive of perfor­
mance in female players, whereas this measure was not pre­
dictive in an earlier report by the same group using male
players (Leyhr et al., 2018). Lower competition levels or greater
performance heterogeneity may have led to these differences
in female compared to male soccer players (Leyhr et al., 2019).
There remains a need for more research on female players,
particularly in countries outside of Europe.
The identification and selection of youth players by scouts
and coaches
The most common approach when attempting to identify and
select youth soccer players into development programmes is
observation of current match performance by scouts and coa­
ches. Our systematic literature search located nine published
research studies1 assessing the variables scouts and coaches
use to identify soccer players for entry into development pro­
grammes and selection into future squads (e.g., Christensen,
2009; Jokuschies et al., 2017; Larkin & O’Connor, 2017; Lund &
Söderström, 2017; Reeves et al., 2018b; for a review, see Roberts
et al., 2019). Qualitative analyses showed all studies contained
male participants and included clubs or national federations in
Europe or Australia. The use of semi-structured interviews
revealed that the decision to select a player (or not) is largely
an intuitive one, based on an “overall impression”, factoring in
subjective evaluations of technical skills, game understanding,
speed, and a variety of psychological characteristics, such as
attitude, motivation, drive to succeed, and “coachability” or
a willingness to learn. A number of the variables shown in
these studies to be used by scouts and coaches have also
been identified by researchers using multidisciplinary, longitu­
dinal, prospective designs to be superior in adolescent players
who subsequently become professional in adulthood, espe­
cially skill and speed predictors. In contrast, the psychological
characteristics deemed important by scouts and coaches in
these studies have not often been assessed by researchers
using multidisciplinary, longitudinal, prospective designs. On
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 5
the other hand, anthropometrical predictors, which are most
often assessed by researchers in multidisciplinary, longitudinal,
prospective studies (e.g., Table 1), have not been identified by
coaches and scouts as predictors in published studies. Coaches
report being very aware that physical size is confounded by
maturation in youth players (Lund & Söderström, 2017; Reeves
et al., 2018b).
In two recent studies, researchers have directly compared
the subjective assessments of scouts and coaches with the
objective measures typically used in multidisciplinary, longitu­
dinal, prospective studies (Dugdale et al., in press;
Sieghartsleitner et al., 2019). Dugdale et al. had 80 male U11-
17 players at a professional club in Scotland complete standard
physical and anthropometrical tests (e.g., Yo-Yo Intermittent
Recovery Test Level 1) while simultaneously asking their
coach to subjectively rate each player for the corresponding
physical quality (e.g., endurance). Test performance and coach
ratings were highly related for the best and worst performers,
but less so across the entire group, suggesting that coaches
may have difficulty discriminating between players that are
relatively close together on these attributes. Sieghartsleitner
et al. (2019) compared assessment scores on various multidis­
ciplinary, objective tests (e.g., psychological scales) with coach
subjective ratings of these same characteristics taken during
match play using a sample of 117 male U14 players in
Switzerland. Players were awarded a professional contract
(n = 20) or not (n = 97) five years after data collection (U19).
The assessments of the coaches did not differ compared with
the objective measures of performance, although combining
both forms of assessment produced the most accurate predic­
tions. However, a simpler combination of coach assessment
and motor performance tests was most accurate. These studies
demonstrate the importance of combining subjective coach/
scout assessments with objective multidisciplinary measures.
A well-documented, unintended consequence of the identi­
fication and selection of youth players by scouts and coaches is
the relative age effect (RAE). The relative age effect is an over­
representation of players whose birth dates are close to the
start date used to categorise youth age group teams when
compared to those with birth dates later in that selection year
(see Cobley et al., 2009). The most recent studies show that this
effect continues to persist in professional and youth players
(e.g., Brustio et al., 2018; Doyle et al., 2018). However, there is
some evidence that the relative age effect does not exist in
players that achieve the highest level of recognition in the
professional game, such as individual awards (Ford & Williams,
2013) or transfer value (e.g., Ashworth & Heyndels, 2007). Other
researchers have assessed methods seeking to prevent the RAE
from occurring when scouts select young players by observing
current performance in youth matches. Promising methods
include the clearer identification of player age using shirt num­
bering (Mann & van Ginneken, 2017) and the use of bio-
banding to categorise players into groups using maturational
factors rather than chronological age (e.g., Abbott et al., 2019;
Cumming et al., 2018). In future, researchers should examine
the value of these and other methods in reducing this initial
selection bias and the likelihood of prematurely de-selecting
players who are chronologically and/or biologically disadvan­
taged during development (see Webdale et al., 2019).
6 A.M. WILLIAMS ET AL.
Figure 2. Potential predictors of adult high performance in youth soccer players from each sports science discipline, with mediating factors. Bold predictors denote
those with at least some empirical evidence of predictive value from adolescence to adult performance level in soccer.
Overview and implications
Multidisciplinary, longitudinal, prospective or qualitative stu­
dies are extremely time-consuming with several pragmatic
difficulties, particularly relating to gaining access to players
and minimising participant drop out over prolonged periods.
However, those who have persisted with these approaches
have provided new insights into the multiple factors and
variables that predict later performance levels. As
a consequence of research conducted since the millennial,
some predictors now have prognostic validity for selection
from adolescence to adult performance levels. A combination
of skill, physical, and psychological variables have emerged as
key predictors from interviews with coaches and scouts, as
well as in multidisciplinary, longitudinal, prospective studies.
Predictors of adult high performance from each sports science
discipline are shown in Figure 2. The figure highlights how
these predictors may interact with one another, with some
evidence supporting their prognostic validity for selection
from adolescence to adult performance levels, while at the
same time illustrating how there are mediating factors that
affect the predictive utility of these measures, including
chance and life events, maturation, the socio-cultural context,
and the external environment. As with any body of research,
there continue to be limitations in current understanding,
which on a more positive note, presents avenues for future
research.
Prevailing limitations in the literature
A recent review paper by Bergkamp et al. (2019) focused on
four methodological issues in multidisciplinary, longitudinal,
prospective studies. The four limitations were: i) the use of
performance levels to differentiate groups; ii) the fidelity, repre­
sentativeness or specificity of predictor measures; iii) range
restriction effects on prognostic validity; and iv) the utility of
the measures. First, performance levels based on the selection
decisions of coaches and scouts are used to differentiate
groups in longitudinal, prospective studies, such as profes­
sional or not professional status in adulthood. Bergkamp et al.
(2019) argue that this method does not address the important
individual differences in performance level that exist between
players who are selected, implying that alternative methods are
required. Second, the measures taken in multidisciplinary, long­
itudinal, prospective studies are usually relatively easy to
administer to large groups of players, with good reliability.
Some examples include the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test
(physical, Krustrup et al., 2003), Loughborough Passing Test
(technical skill, Wen et al., 2018), Tactical Skills Inventory for
Sports (TACSIS, tactical skill, Kannekens et al., 2011), and Sport
Motivation Scale (SMS, psychological, Pelletier et al., 1995).
However, Bergkamp et al. (2019) question the validity of such
instruments, arguing that many lack fidelity and validity. They
suggest that this lack of fidelity reduces the effectiveness and
sensitivity of such measures as predictors, particularly when

players are close together on the skill continuum or in differ­
entiating aspects that may be more important at higher levels
of play (e.g., Bonney et al., 2019; Nortje et al., 2014; Unnithan
et al., 2012; Vaeyens et al., 2008). Moreover, these measures are
seen as being objective and, therefore, can receive greater
focus when compared to other key components of perfor­
mance that may be less easily measured (Carling & Collins,
2014).
Third, the samples assessed are highly selected youth
players and, as such, this sample is likely to be relatively homo­
genous on measured predictors when compared to the general
population of players. Bergkamp et al. (2019) argue that the use
of such limited or restricted samples creates range restriction;
the fact that a measure does not discriminate within this nar­
row range of players should not imply that the measure does
not have predictive utility when using broader samples of
players. We concur that range restriction exists in all of the 27
multidisciplinary, longitudinal, prospective studies reviewed,
which assess selection and not identification. In 2/27 studies,
researchers employed very large samples (22,843 players in
Höner & Votteler, 2016; 14,178 players in Höner et al., 2017).
The majority of researchers have not included all the pre­
dictor categories (e.g., sociological factors are rarely consid­
ered) or measured all variables within a category (e.g.,
multiple psychological factors exist), leading to issues with
content/face validity in regards to whether the battery of
tests is representative of all elements of performance. While
the question of what, and how many, variables to include can
and should be addressed empirically (i.e., does each measure
account for any additional variance?), there remain both philo­
sophical (akin to the search for the “holy grail” – does it really
exist?) and pragmatic issues (how much resource should be
invested and what are the associated costs and benefits?).
When a player scores poorly on certain aspects of performance
(e.g., speed and agility), this problem is amplified because they
can potentially compensate by developing strengths in other
areas (e.g., game intelligence, technical skill) that may not have
been measured. This so-called compensation phenomenon
(Williams & Ericsson, 2005) is modulated by position-specific
differences that exist across the sport (e.g., Deprez et al., 2015;
Gil et al., 2014) and the variation between positions in aspects
of performance required to be successful. This problem is com­
pounded by the fact that researchers continue to reveal multi­
ple variables that may have prognostic validity in youth soccer
players, yet such measures have not been integrated into multi­
disciplinary, longitudinal, prospective studies.
Altogether, 17/27 studies used a longitudinal, prospective
approach to track players from one youth age group to a later
age group or defined professional status as the first full-time
contract in late adolescence. The limitation of this approach is
that aspects of performance required to progress from an ear­
lier to a later youth age group could be different compared to
those required to progress to a successful career at the adult,
professional level. A player may be de-selected based on factors
that may rather ironically, be less important at a later stage of
development. We found 10 studies that tracked players from an
adolescent age group to adult performance levels (see Table 1),
albeit half of them used late adolescence contracts as the
criterion. However, the use of longer prognostic periods (e.g.,
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 7
5–10 years) presents different problems, particularly the poten­
tial for dropout and deselection, necessitating the use of very
large initial samples. In addition, longitudinal research can
become dated because scientists are continually developing
new and more refined measures that have more practical utility
than preceding measures. One should equally acknowledge
that the game itself changes over extended periods of time
due to enhanced training practices, new tactics, and manipula­
tions to rules, therefore affecting the relative importance of
selection criteria.
Very few researchers have assessed female participants
(Höner et al., 2019; Leyhr et al., 2019) or non-European players
(Aquino et al., 2017). Similarly, no studies exist in these popula­
tions to examine how coaches and scouts select players. The
female game has grown markedly since the millennium, as
demonstrated by the creation of relatively new professional
leagues (e.g., The FA Women’s Super League; National
Women’s Soccer League in the US) and youth academies, as
well as by attendance and viewing figures at the recent World
Cup in France (FIFA, 2014, 2019). The sport is popular in many
countries outside of Europe at all levels from recreational to
professional and national teams (FIFA, 2007). While the relative
lack of research in countries outside Europe may reflect histor­
ical biases, scientists are encouraged to explore whether con­
clusions drawn from samples of elite players in Europe
generalise across other countries and to the female game.
A broader perspective that accounts for variances in develop­
ment across gender and culture would likely greatly improve
the predictive utility of existing models.
Future research directions
While we have offered several implicit suggestions for future
research throughout this review, we conclude with some more
specific directions for scientists. First, researchers should prior­
itise the validation of standard methods/tools that best mea­
sure general player performance and its components in
matches and small-sided games. A standardised tool could be
used as a high-fidelity predictor measure and for the criterion
measure (Bergkamp et al., 2019), as well as to track the devel­
opment of performance across time. Some researchers have
started this process using match analysis (e.g., Van Maarseveen
et al., 2017; Waldron & Murphy, 2013; Waldron & Worsfold,
2010; Wilson et al., 2017) and evaluations of performance in
small-sided games (e.g., Bennett et al., 2018; Rowat et al., 2017).
A few issues remain unresolved when attempting to measure
performance during matches and small-sided games either
concurrently or using post-match performance analysis meth­
ods. The first issue is the lack of consensus on how best to
measure overall performance in these games and, as a conse­
quence, no standard, validated tool is currently available. The
second issue is that the analysis of individual player perfor­
mance in matches or small sided games can be time consum­
ing. A few published reports have attempted to solve these two
issues by using coach ratings of individual player performance
in games or scoring systems based on wins/losses across multi­
ple rotating games (e.g., Fenner et al., 2016; Unnithan et al.,
2012). However, there remain challenges in evaluating the
validity, reliability, and objectivity of coach ratings, rating
8 A.M. WILLIAMS ET AL.
tools, and scoring systems. In addition, researchers must take
into account the relative age and maturity of participating
players (e.g., Cumming et al., 2018; Mann & van Ginneken,
2017), as well differences between positions and the variation
that occurs between matches through changing environmental
conditions, tactical approaches, opponents and teammates.
Second, and related, given the continued growth of sports
science within the game, researchers should seek to validate or
re-validate the standard method/tools used to measure key
predictors that cannot readily be assessed in match-play or
small-sided games. These measures should be easily and
quickly administered in the field, have strong predictive
power and validity to supplement the decisions of scouts and
coaches, and measure a few predictors in one test to reduce the
load on players and coaches. They should incorporate methods
to account for the relative age and maturity of players (e.g.,
Cumming et al., 2018), as well as chronological age.
Third, the 27 multidisciplinary, longitudinal, prospective stu­
dies we reviewed assessed talent selection and not identifica­
tion (see Figure 1), whereas a few of the studies in which
coaches are interviewed addressed talent identification
(Larkin & O’Connor, 2017; Lund & Söderström, 2017; Reeves
et al., 2018b). There is a need for researchers to further inves­
tigate processes around the initial identification of players into
academies (Faude, 2018) and, not least, to provide further
objectivity on the ethics and value of the early selection that
is common in the sport. Additionally, researchers have not
assessed whether the relative importance of predictors
changes in late versus earlier selection.
Fourth, researchers need to decide how and whether to
incorporate approaches from relatively newer scientific fields,
such as neuroscience and genetics. For example, some mono-
disciplinary, cross-sectional studies already exist where
researchers have directly attempted to understand the role
that genetics plays in underpinning the physiology of players.
Egorova et al. (2014) observed a greater incidence of four
alleles hypothesised to be associated with power/strength,
endurance, metabolic efficiency, and muscle hypotrophy in
footballers in Russia when compared to a control population.
Moreover, some anthropometrical variables such as height and
skeletal size appear to have relatively high heritability estimates
(e.g., McEvoy & Visscher, 2009). However, there are inherent
challenges in the pragmatics of carrying out this type of
research, irrespective of the improved access to the necessary
analytical approaches. Cross-sectional data do not provide
a comprehensive evaluation of the longitudinal relationship
between genetics and physical or soccer performance due to
the inherent complexity of mapping such associations. No
genes or combination of genes have yet been identified that
would offer any substantive predictive utility in the context of
identification or performance in soccer (Pitsiladis & Wang,
2017), although this statement does not imply that genes and
how they are expressed in and by a particular environment do
not contribute to performance.
Fifth, while there has been a significant growth in empirical
work on identification and development in soccer over the
prevailing two decades, the typical approach remains largely
mono-disciplinary, descriptive, cross-sectional and a-theoreti­
cal in nature. These approaches are common across the area,
including the evaluation of potential interventions to improve
player development and/or well being. In future, researchers
should provide rigorous assessment of the causal effects on
players of any potential interventions. The research designs
employed to assess interventions in health and medicine
remain more sophisticated than those used in sports science.
There is a relative absence in the latter field of randomised
control trials or crossover designs in which control groups
later receive the intervention and vice versa or participants
receiving the intervention first act as their own controls
(Campbell et al., 2000; Craig & Petticrew, 2013; Mills et al.,
2007; Schulz et al., 2010). An example of this approach in
youth soccer was recently published in this journal (Roberts
et al., 2019), and a few other published reports exist (e.g.,
Miller et al., 2016). Sports scientists should attempt to learn
from these fields and potentially develop new robust methods
in an effort to provide stronger evidence for the causal effects
of potential interventions on player development and well-
being. The problems encountered by researchers in other
fields can potentially be avoided by sports scientists, including
researchers providing insufficient detail or control in these
types of studies, making replication difficult. Moreover, med­
ical studies conducted at single-centres have been shown to
overestimate effects when compared to multi-centre studies
(e.g., Bellomo et al., 2009), suggesting an important future
direction for sports scientists. A further approach embraced
in the medical and health sciences that might be of use in
sports science is the use of taxonomies that clearly list and
define interventions so that other researchers can easily repli­
cate that part of the method (e.g., Michie et al., 2011), as well
as having clear guidelines on reporting (e.g., Hoffmann et al.,
2014).
Finally, Williams and Reilly (2000) concluded that the pro­
cesses associated with the identification, selection, and devel­
opment of players are transcended by ethical considerations.
The overall development and well-being of young players
should be the primary concern of those involved and the
process should not occur at the expense of physical and emo­
tional health and growth. For example, despite all the excellent
work in youth development, there remain concerns over early
specialisation (e.g., DiFiori et al., 2017), the identification of
players in childhood into development environments (e.g.,
Rongen et al., 2018), the high rate of annual de-selection in
youth academies (e.g., Güllich, 2014) and the low rate of pro­
gression of young children in academies to professional status,
the potentially negative effects on players of some develop­
ment processes and being deselected (e.g., Ivarsson et al.,
2015), the relative age effect (e.g., Helsen et al., 2012), and
traditional, autocratic coaching behaviours (e.g., Partington
et al., 2014). Our hope is that the significant progress we have
highlighted since the turn of the millennium accelerates over
coming decades and that sports scientists continue to publish
scientific evidence that helps guide practitioners, coaches and
scouts in their quest to ethically identify and develop future
generations of professional soccer players.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Abbott, W., Williams, S., Brickley, G., & Smeeton, N. J. (2019). Effects of
bio-banding upon physical and technical performance during soccer
competition: A preliminary analysis. Sports, 7(8), 193. https://doi.org/10.
3390/sports7080193
Ackerman, P. L. (2014). Nonsense, common sense, and science of expert
performance: Talent and individual differences. Intelligence, 45, 6–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.009
Aquino, R., Alves, I. S., Padilha, M. B., Casanova, F., Puggina, E. F., & Maia, J.
(2017). Multivariate profiles of selected versus non-selected elite youth
Brazilian soccer players. Journal of Human Kinetics, 60(1), 113–121.
https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2017-0094
Ashworth, J., & Heyndels, B. (2007). Selection bias and peer effects in team
sports. Journal of Sports Economics, 8(4), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1527002506287695
Bailey, R. (2018). Talent identification in English junior-elite football: An
academic perspective. Soccer and Society, 19, 1084.
Baker, J., Cobley, S., Schorer, J., & Wattie, N. (2017). Routledge handbook of
talent identification and development in sport. Routledge.
Baker, J., & Farrow, D. (2015). Routledge handbook of sport expertise. Taylor &
Francis.
Baker, J., Schorer, J., & Cobley, S. (2012). Talent identification and develop­
ment in sport: International perspectives. Routledge.
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
Barnes, C., Archer, D. T., Hogg, B., Bush, M., & Bradley, P. S. (2014). The
evolution of physical and technical performance parameters in the
English Premier League. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(13),
1095–1100. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1375695
Bellomo, R., Warrillow, S. J., & Reade, M. C. (2009). Why we should be wary of
single-center trials. Critical Care Medicine, 37(12), 3114–3119. https://doi.
org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181bc7bd5
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 profi­
ciency 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
Benounis, O., Benabderrahman, A., Chamari, K., Ajmol, A., Benbrahim, M.,
Hammouda, A., Hammami, M.-A., & Zouhal, H. (2013). Association of
short-passing ability with athletic performances in youth soccer
players. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine, 4(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.
5812/asjsm.34529
Bergkamp, T. L. G., Niessen, A. S. M., den Hartigh, R. J. R., Frencken, W. G. P., &
Meijer, R. R. (2019). Methodological issues in soccer talent identification
research. Sports Medicine, 49(9), 1317–1335. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40279-019-01113-w
Bonney, N., Berry, J., Ball, K., & Larkin, P. (2019). Australian football
skill-based assessments: A proposed model for future research.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10:429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00429
Brustio, P. R., Lupo, C., Ungureanu, A. N., Frati, R., Rainoldi, A., Boccia, G., &
Ardigò, L. P. (2018). The relative age effect is larger in Italian soccer
top-level youth categories and smaller in Serie A. PloS One, 13(4),
e0196253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196253
Buchheit, M., & Mendez-Villanueva, A. (2013). Reliability and stability of
anthropometric and performance measures in highly-trained young
soccer players: Effect of age and maturation. Journal of Sports Sciences,
31(12), 1332–1343. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.781662
Bush, M., Barnes, C., Archer, D. T., Hogg, B., & Bradley, P. S. (2015). Evolution
of match performance parameters for various playing positions in the
English Premier League. Human Movement Science, 39, 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.humov.2014.10.003
Campbell, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Haines, A., Kinmonth, A. L., Sandercock, P.,
Spiegelhalter, D., & Tyrer, P. (2000). Framework for design and evaluation
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 9
of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal, 321,
694–696. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694
Carling, C., & Collins, D. (2014). Comment on “Football-specific fitness
testing: Adding value or confirming the evidence?”. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 32(13), 1206–1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.
898858
Carling, C., Le Gall, F., & Malina, R. M. (2012). Body size, skeletal maturity, and
functional characteristics of elite academy soccer players on entry
between 1992 and 2003. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(15), 1683–1693.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.637950
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
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. Sports Medicine, 39(3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.
2165/00007256-200939030-00005
Collins, D., Abbott, A., Richards, H., & Robinson, A. (2011). Performance
psychology : A practitioner’s guide. Elsevier.
Collins, D., & MacNamara, Á. (2017b). Making champs and super-champs:
Current views, contradictions, and future directions. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8:23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00823
Collins, D., & MacNamara, Á. (2017a). Talent development. Routledge.
Craig, P., & Petticrew, M. (2013). Developing and evaluating complex
interventions: Reflections on the 2008 MRC guidance. International
Journal of Nursing Studies, 50(5), 585–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijnurstu.2012.09.009
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), 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1340656
Deloitte, Sports Business Group. (2019). World in motion: Annual review of
football finance. Retrieved from: www.deloitte.co.uk/arff
Deprez, D. N., Fransen, J., Lenoir, M., Philippaerts, R. M., & Vaeyens, R. (2015).
A Retrospective study on anthropometrical, physical fitness, and motor
coordination characteristics that influence dropout, contract status, and
first-team playing time in high-level soccer players aged eight to eigh­
teen years. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(6),
1692–1704. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000806
DiFiori, J. P., Brenner, J. S., Comstock, D., Côté, J., Güllich, A., Hainline, B., &
Malina, R. (2017). Debunking early single sport specialisation and reshap­
ing the youth sport experience: An NBA perspective. British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 51(3), 142–143. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-
097170
Dohme, L.-C., Backhouse, S., Piggott, D., & Morgan, G. (2017). Categorising
and defining popular psychological terms used within the youth athlete
talent development literature: A systematic review. International Review
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 134–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1750984X.2016.1185451
Doyle, J. R., Bottomley, P. A., & Ardigò, L. P. (2018). Relative age effect in elite
soccer: More early-born players, but no better valued, and no paragon
clubs or countries. PloS One, 13(2), e0192209. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0192209
Drust, B. (2019). Applied science and soccer: A personal perspective on the
past, present and future of a discipline. Sport Performance & Science
Reports, 63(April), V1. https://sportperfsci.com/applied-science-and-
soccer-a-personal-perspective-on-the-past-present-and-future-of
-a-discipline/
Drust, B., & Green, M. (2013). Science and football: Evaluating the influence
of science on performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(13), 1377–1382.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.828544
Duckworth, A., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Self-control and grit: Related but separ­
able determinants of success. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
23(5), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414541462
Dugdale, J. H., Sanders, D., Myers, T., Williams, A. M., & Hunter, A. M. (in
press). A comparison of objective and subjective evaluation methods of
physical qualities in professional youth soccer players. Journal of Sports
Sciences.
10 A.M. WILLIAMS ET AL.
Egorova, E. S., Borisova, A. V., Mustafina, L. J., Arkhipova, A. A.,
Gabbasov, R. T., Druzhevskaya, A. M., Astratenkova, I. V., &
Ahmetov, I. I. (2014). The polygenic profile of Russian football players.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(13), 1286–1293. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02640414.2014.898853
Faude, O. (2018). Back to the roots in football science. Why it might be
smart to invest in the youngest players. Science and Medicine in Football,
2(3), 171–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2018.1493047
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (2007). FIFA Big
Count 2006: 270 million people active in football. Retrieved from: https://
www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/bcoffsurv/bigcount.statspack
age_7024.pdf
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (2014). Women’s
football member association survey report. https://www.fifa.com/
womens-football/
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (2019). FIFA
Women’s Word Cup France: Glocal broadcast and audience report.
Retrieved from: https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/rvgxekduq
peo1ptbgcng.pdf
Fenner, J. S. J., Iga, J., & Unnithan, V. (2016). The evaluation of small-sided
games as a talent identification tool in highly trained prepubertal soccer
players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(20), 1983–1990. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640414.2016.1149602
Ford, P. R. (2016). Skill acquisition through practice and other developmen­
tal activities. In T. Strudwick (Ed.), Soccer science (pp. 75–97). Human
Kinetics.
Ford, P. R., Bordonau, J. L. D., Bonanno, D., Tavares, J., Groenendijk, C.,
Fink, C., Gualtieri, D., Gregson, W., Varley, M. C., Weston, M., Lolli, L.,
Platt, D., & Di Salvo, V. (2020). A survey of talent identification and
development processes in the youth academies of professional soccer
clubs from around the world. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1–10. Article
accepted for publication on 11 Nov, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02640414.2020.1752440
Ford, P. R., & Williams, A. M. (2013). No relative age effect in the birth dates
of award-winning athletes in male professional team sports. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 570–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02701367.2011.10599790
Forsman, H., Blomqvist, M., Davids, K., Liukkonen, J., & Konttinen, N. (2016).
Identifying technical, physiological, tactical and psychological character­
istics that contribute to career progression in soccer. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(4), 505–513. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1747954116655051
Fransen, J., & Güllich, A. (2019). Talent identification and development in
game sports. In R. F. Subotnik, P. Olszewski-Kubilius, & F. C. Worrell (Eds.),
Psychology of high performance: Developing human potential into
domain-specific talent (pp. 59–92). American Psychological Association.
Gil, S. M., Zabala-Lili, J., Bidaurrazaga-Letona, I., Aduna, B., Lekue, J. A.,
Santos-Concejero, J., & Granados, C. (2014). Talent identification and
selection process of outfield players and goalkeepers in a professional
soccer club. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(20), 1931–1939. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02640414.2014.964290
Gledhill, A., Harwood, C., & Forsdyke, D. (2017). Psychosocial factors asso­
ciated 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
Gonaus, C., & Müller, E. (2012). Using physiological data to predict future
career progression in 14- to 17-year-old Austrian soccer academy
players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(15), 1673–1682. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02640414.2012.713980
Güllich, A. (2014). Selection, de-selection and progression in German foot­
ball talent promotion. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(6), 530–537.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2013.858371
Hardy, L., Barlow, M., Evans, L., Rees, T., Woodman, T., & Warr, C. (2017).
Great British medalists: Psychosocial biographies of super-elite and elite
athletes from Olympic sports. Progress in Brain Research, 232, 1–119.
Helsen, W. F., Baker, J., Michiels, S., Schorer, J., van Winckel, J., &
Williams, A. M. (2012). The relative age effect in European professional
soccer: Did ten years of research make any difference? Journal of Sports
Sciences, 30(15), 1665–1671. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.
721929
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
Hicheur, H., Chauvin, A., Chassot, S., Chenevière, X., & Taube, W. (2017).
Effects of age on the soccer-specific cognitive-motor performance of
elite young soccer players: Comparison between objective measure­
ments and coaches’ evaluation. PloS One, 12(9), e0185460. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185460
Hill, A., MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2019). Development and initial valida­
tion of the Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence
Questionnaire version 2 (PCDEQ2). European Journal of Sport Science,
19(4), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1535627
Hill, A. P. (2013). Perfectionism and burnout in junior soccer players: A test
of the 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 35(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.1.18
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D.,
Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., Lamb, S. E.,
Dixon-Woods, M., McCulloch, P., Wyatt, J. C., Chan, A.-W., & Michie, S.
(2014). Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention
description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 348
(mar07 3), g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687
Höner, O., Leyhr, D., Kelava, A., & Buekers, M. (2017). The influence of speed
abilities and technical skills in early adolescence on adult success in
soccer: A long-term prospective analysis using ANOVA and SEM
approaches. PloS One, 12(8), e0182211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0182211
Höner, O., Raabe, J., Murr, D., & Leyhr, D. (2019). Prognostic relevance of
motor tests in elite girls’ soccer: A five-year prospective cohort study
within the German talent promotion program. Science and Medicine in
Football, 3(4), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2019.1609069
Höner, O., & Votteler, A. (2016). Prognostic relevance of motor talent pre­
dictors in early adolescence: A group- and individual-based evaluation
considering different levels of achievement in youth football. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 34(24), 2269–2278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.
2016.1177658
Hopwood, M. J., Farrow, D., MacMahon, C., & Baker, J. (2015). Sibling
dynamics and sport expertise. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Science in Sports, 25(5), 724–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12387
Howells, K., Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from
difficulty?: A systematic review of growth following adversity in compe­
titive sport. Progress in Brain Research, 234, 117–159.
Huijgen, B. C. H., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Post, W. J., & Visscher, C. (2014).
Soccer skill development in professionals. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 30, 585–591. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1202354
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. In
Psychology of Sport and Exercise 16 (pp. 15–23).
Johnston, K., Wattie, N., Schorer, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Talent identification in
sport: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 48(1), 97–109. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40279-017-0803-2
Jokuschies, N., Gut, V., & Conzelmann, A. (2017). Systematizing coaches’ ‘eye
for talent”: Player assessments based on expert coaches’ subjective
talent criteria in top-level youth soccer. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 12, 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1747954117727646
Kannekens, R., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Visscher, C. (2011). Positioning and
deciding: Key factors for talent development in soccer. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21(6), 846–852. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01104.x
Krustrup, P., Mohr, M., Amstrup, T., Rysgaard, T., Johansen, J., Steensberg, A.,
et al. (2003). The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test: Physiological
response, reliability and validity. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 35, 695–705.
Larkin, P., & O’Connor, D. (2017). Talent identification and recruitment in
youth soccer: Recruiter’s perceptions of the key attributes for player
recruitment. PloS One, 12(4), e0175716. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0175716

Larkin, P., O’Connor, D., & Williams, A. M. (2016). Does grit influence
sport-specific engagement and perceptual-cognitive expertise in elite
youth soccer? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 28(2), 129–138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2015.1085922
le Gall, F., Carling, C., Williams, M., & Reilly, T. (2010). Anthropometric and
fitness characteristics of international, professional and amateur male
graduate soccer players from an elite youth academy. Journal of Science
and Medicine in Sport, 13(1), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2008.
07.004
Leyhr, D., Kelava, A., Raabe, J., Höner, O., & Barbosa, T. M. (2018).
Longitudinal motor performance development in early adolescence
and its relationship to adult success: An 8-year prospective study of
highly talented soccer players. PloS One, 13(5), e0196324. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196324
Leyhr, D., Raabe, J., Schultz, F., Kelava, A., & Höner, O. (2019). The adolescent
motor performance development of elite female soccer players: A study
of prognostic relevance for future success in adulthood using multilevel
modelling. Journal of Sports Sciences. Published online: 02 Nov 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1686940
Lund, S., & Söderström, T. (2017). To see or not to see: Talent identification
in the Swedish Football Association. Sociology of Sport Journal, 34(3),
248–258. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2016-0144
MacDonald, D. J., Cheung, M., Côté, J., & Abernethy, B. (2009). Place but not
date of birth influences the development and emergence of athletic
talent in American Football. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(1),
80–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200802541868
MacNamara, Á., Button, A., & Collins, D. (2010). 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. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.24.1.52
MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2011). Development and initial validation of
the Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence
Questionnaire. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(12), 1273–1286. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.589468
MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2015). Profiling, exploiting, and countering
psychological characteristics in talent identification and development.
The Sport Psychologist, 29(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-0021
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
Mann, D. L., & van Ginneken, P. J. M. A. (2017). Age-ordered shirt numbering
reduces the selection bias associated with the relative age effect. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 35(8), 784–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.
2016.1189588
McEvoy, B. P., & Visscher, P. M. (2009). Genetics of human height. Economics and
Human Biology, 7(3), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2009.09.005
Michie, S., Ashford, S., Sniehotta, F. F., Dombrowski, S. U., Bishop, A., &
French, D. P. (2011). A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techni­
ques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating
behaviours: The CALO-RE taxonomy. Psychology & Health, 26(11),
1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.540664
Miller, A., Harvey, S., Morley, D., Nemes, R., Janes, M., & Eather, N. (2016).
Exposing athletes to playing form activity: Outcomes of a randomised
control trial among community netball teams using a game-centred
approach. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 1846–1857. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640414.2016.1240371
Mills, E. J., Chan, A.-W., Wu, P., Vail, A., Guyatt, G. H., & Altman, D. G. (2007).
Design, analysis, and presentation of crossover trials. Trials, 10:27.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-10-27
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., et al. (2009). Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA
statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 264–269. https://doi.org/10.
7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
Murr, D., Feichtinger, P., Larkin, P., O’Connor, D., Höner, O., & Blanch, A.
(2018). Psychological talent predictors in youth soccer: A systematic
review of the prognostic relevance of psychomotor,
perceptual-cognitive and personality-related factors. PloS One, 13(10),
e0205337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205337
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 11
Murr, D., Raabe, J., & Höner, O. (2018). The prognostic value of physiological
and physical characteristics in youth soccer: A systematic review.
European Journal of Sport Science, 18(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17461391.2017.1386719
Nesti, M., & Sulley, C. (2014). Youth development in football. Routledge.
Nevill, A. M., Okojie, D. I., Smith, J., O’Donoghue, P. G., & Webb, T. (2019). Are
professional footballers becoming lighter and more ectomorphic?
Implications for talent identification and development. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 14(3), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1747954119837710
Nevill, N. A., Holder, R., & Watts, A. (2009). The changing shape of “success­
ful” professional footballers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(5), 419–426.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410802668676
Nortje, L., Dicks, M., Coopoo, Y., & Savelsbergh, G. J. P. (2014). Put your
money where your mouth is: Verbal self-reported tactical skills versus
on-line tactical performance in soccer. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 9(2), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.
9.2.321
Partington, M., Cushion, C., & Harvey, S. (2014). An investigation of the
effect of athletes’ age on the coaching behaviours of professional top-
level youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(5), 403–414.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.835063
Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Briere, N. M., &
Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrin­
sic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale
(SMS). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 35–53. https://doi.
org/10.1123/jsep.17.1.35
Phillips, E., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Portus, M. (2010). Expert performance in
sport and the dynamics of talent development. Sports Medicine, 40(4),
271–283. https://doi.org/10.2165/11319430-000000000-00000
Pitsiladis, Y. P., & Wang, G. (2017). Genomics of elite sporting performance.
In J. Baker & D. Farrow (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports expertise (pp.
295–304). Routledge.
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, M. J., McRobert, A. P., Littlewood, M. A., & Roberts, S. J. (2018a).
A scoping review of the potential sociological predictors of talent in
junior-elite football: 2000–2016. Soccer & Society, 19, 1085–1105.
Reeves, M. J., McRobert, A. P., Littlewood, M. A., & Roberts, S. J. (2018b). The
nature and function of talent identification in junior-elite football in
English category one academies. Soccer & Society, 19, 1122–1134.
Roberts, A. H., Greenwood, D. A., Stanley, M., Humberstone, C., Iredalea, F., &
Raynora, A. (2019). Coach knowledge in talent identification:
A systematic review and meta-synthesis. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 22(10), 1163–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.
2019.05.008
Roberts, S. J., Rudd, J. R., & Reeves, M. J. (2019). Efficacy of using non-linear
pedagogy to support attacking players’ individual learning objectives in
elite-youth football: A randomised cross-over trial. Journal of Sports
Sciences. Published online: 27 Apr 2019. https://doi.org/org/10.1080/
02640414.2019.1609894
Roescher, C. R., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Huijgen, B. C. H., & Visscher, C.
(2010). Soccer endurance development in professionals. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(3), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1055/
s-0029-1243254
Rongen, F., McKenna, J., Cobley, S., & Till, K. (2018). Are Youth Sport Talent
Identification and Development Systems Necessary and Healthy? Sports
Medicine - Open. 4(18). https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0135-2.
Rowat, O., Fenner, J., & Unnithan, V. (2017). Technical and physical deter-
minants of soccer match-play performance in elite youth soccer players.
The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 57, 369–379. https://
doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06093-X
Sarmento, H., Anguera, M. T., Pereira, A., & Araújo, D. (2018). Talent identi­
fication and development in male football: A systematic review. Sports
Medicine, 48, 907–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0851-7
12 A.M. WILLIAMS ET AL.
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement:
Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC
Medicine, 8(1), 18. https://doi.org/org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-18
Sieghartsleitner, R., Zuber, C., Zibung, M., & Conzelmann, A. (2019). Science
or coaches’ eye? - both! Beneficial collaboration of multidimensional
measurements and coach assessments for efficient talent selection in
elite youth football. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 18, 32–43.
Smith, E. P., Hill, A. P., & Hall, H. (2018). Perfectionism, Burnout, and Depression in
Youth Soccer Players: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Clinical Sport
Psychology, 12(2), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2017-0015
Soccer & Society. (2018). Talent identifcation and talent development in
junior-elite football in the UK: A messy affair. Soccer & Society, 19,
1079–1192.
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
Thelwell, R., Weston, N., & Greenlees, I. (2005). Defining and understanding
mental toughness within soccer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17
(4), 326–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200500313636
Toering, T. T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jordet, G., & Visscher, C. (2009). Self-
regulation and performance level of elite and non-elite youth soccer
players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(14), 1509–1517. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640410903369919
Unnithan, V., White, J., Georgiou, A., Iga, J., & Drust, B. (2012). Talent
identification in youth soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(15),
1719–1726. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.731515
Vaeyens, R., Güllich, A., Warr, C. R., & Philippaerts, R. M. (2009). Talent
identification and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 27(13), 1367–1380. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02640410903110974
Vaeyens, R., Lenoir, M., Williams, A. M., & Philippaerts, R. M. (2008). Talent
identification and development programmes in sport: Current models
and future directions. Sports Medicine, 38(9), 703–714. https://doi.org/10.
2165/00007256-200838090-00001
van Maarseveen, M. J., Oudejans, R. R., & Savelsbergh, G. J. (2017). System
for notational analysis in small-sided soccer games. International Journal
of Sports Science & Coaching, 12(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1747954117694922
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. https://doi.org/10.1123/
tsp.23.3.317
Waldron, M., & Murphy, A. (2013). A comparison of physical abilities and
match performance characteristics among elite and subelite under-14
soccer players. Pediatric Exercise Science, 25(3), 423–434. https://doi.org/
10.1123/pes.25.3.423
Waldron, M., & Worsfold, P. (2010). Differences in the game specific skills of
elite and sub-elite youth football players: Implications for talent
identification. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 10
(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2010.11868497
Webdale, K., Baker, J., Schorer, J., & Wattie, N. (2019). Solving sport’s ‘relative
age’ problem: A systematic review of proposed solutions. International
Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Published online: 15 Oct 2019.
https://doi.org/org/10.1080/1750984X.2019.1675083
Wen, D., Robertson, S., Hu, G., Song, B., & Chen, H. (2018). Measurement
properties and feasibility of the Loughborough soccer passing test:
A systematic review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(15), 1682–1694.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1409611
Williams, A. M., & Ericsson, K. A. (2005). Perceptual-cognitive expertise in
sport: Some considerations when applying the expert performance
approach. Human Movement Science, 24(3), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.humov.2005.06.002
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
Wilson, R. S., James, R. S., David, G., Hermann, E., Morgan, O. J.,
Niehaus, A. C., Hunter, A., Thake, D., & Smith, M. D. (2017). Multivariate
analyses of individual variation in soccer skill as a tool for talent identi­
fication and development: Utilising evolutionary theory in sports
science. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(21), 2074–2086. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02640414.2016.1151544
Wilson, R. S., David, G. K., Murphy, S. C., Angilletta Jr., M. J., Niehaus, A. C.,
Hunter, A. H., & Smith, M. D. (2017). Skill not athleticism predicts indivi­
dual variation in match performance of soccer players. Proceedings of the
Royal Society – B, 284, 20170953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.
0953
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
Zuber, C., Zibung, M., & Conzelmann, A. (2016). Holistic Patterns as an
Instrument for Predicting the Performance of Promising Young Soccer
Players – A 3-Years Longitudinal Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1088.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01088