Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective assessment and monitoring of physical performance in soccer players are mandated features of practice in English soccer academies. Based on these approaches, our interest was to investigate and compare the longitudinal physical performance profiles of those players that had eventually been successful and unsuccessful at the two highest levels, becoming male professional English Premier League and Championship level soccer players. The specific research objective was to investigate the between player variability and predictive validity of physical assessment measures against eventual playing outcome. A total of 297 male youth participants (born between 1999 to 2006) affiliated to three category one academies were tracked for eight years across six objective physical tests. Data were analysed by a series of mixed method ANOVAs, comparing outcome with age. Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients and the TRIPOD Statement were applied for transparent reporting of prediction efficacy. Results suggest that physical characteristics offer little or no discriminatory power. We conclude by offering guidance for academies’ interpretation and usage of physical data.

Keywords

Association football countermovement jump fitness sprint running talent development

Introduction

Across sports, talent development is well acknowledged to be a multifaceted and complex phenomenon, requiring integrated, holistic and systematic development.^1,2 Supportive of these developmental needs, research interest in the notion of the Talent Development Environments (TDEs)³ has grown in recent years, yet there remains little evidence that informs the design of tracking and monitoring measures in talent systems. Research in male soccer has previously suggested key characteristics such as skill,⁴ sprinting and agility⁵ and psychological resilience.⁶ Work in other Olympic sports (e.g., skiing, wrestling, swimming, ice hockey, speed skating, track and field) have highlighted mental toughness (7) and within other talent development systems, creativity, spontaneity, flexibility and commitment (8) for performers selected into TDEs. These suggested characteristics potentially offering early discrimination between performers^7,8 and informing measures and processes in talent systems.⁹

Within male youth soccer, the Lewis¹⁰ review into player development in English professional soccer led the English Premier League (EPL) to invest £1.94 billion in youth academies and implement the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP). A key aspect included the creation of a measurement system designed to track and monitor players progress,¹¹ thus operationalising the profiling and tracking of player development. Most recently, research has highlighted various elements across technical, tactical, physiological and psychological factors that influence this complex and multidimensional talent development process.^12–14 Yet, despite studies considering these multidimensional factors being focussed during shorter time periods,^8,15,16 there appears to be limited data that captures youth players’ longitudinal progression or offers potential discrimination and prediction of ultimate outcome.^4,17,18 This begs the question; in male youth academy soccer, what factors are discriminatory and hence potentially most predictive of future progress.¹⁹

Although viewed as a mostly reliable tool for assessing and profiling soccer players’ current physical competency,^20–22 there is limited evidence that physical measures mandated by EPPP offer validity in discriminating between the future potential of youth players. This raises questions as to the real-world utility or potential pitfalls of implementing such methods for elite youth football.²³

Reflecting these ideas, previous research across sporting domains has considered approaches to physical profiling, measuring, benchmarking and integration within player development structures.^24–27 Despite research showing field-based fitness tests to be reliable measures of physical performance monitoring in youth soccer players,^22,28 research suggests the limitations of isolated assessment measures in discriminating between male youth players.^25,29

In practice, seeking means of conceptualising differences between factors that are genuinely discriminatory of future performance, Hoyes and Collins³⁰ distinguished between two categories of characteristics. The first; ‘hygiene factors’ were identified as protecting athlete wellbeing and the amelioration of developmental risk factors but only being required to reach a set standard after which further development had no positive impact. The second category, ‘performance factors’, were conceptualised as being directly related to the performer's ability to perform. In other words, more ‘performance factor’ skills were better.

Physical data collected by academies are clearly important, directly impacting players’ careers (retain, release or professional contract).²⁴ If the highly promoted and operationalised collection of physical data are used for the purpose of discriminating between male youth players and predicting future long-term potential, however, there is a need to understand the validity of these measures for this purpose. Consequently, the aim of this study was to critically consider data from mandated physical testing measures¹¹ that assess and track the progression of a group of male youth academy players. Specifically, we were interested in the cross-sectional and longitudinal profiles of those that had eventually been successful and unsuccessful in becoming professional players at EPL and Championship level. The specific research objective was to investigate the between player variability and predictive validity of physical measures. The objective was considered on the basis of what factors were most predictive and discriminatory across the eventual playing outcomes for the sample. To specifically examine the predictive validity of these measures, we employed the TRIPOD (2015) methodology across the study.

Methods

This study tracked the longitudinal physical progression of male youth academy players at three EPPP category one academies. As is common practice within English youth academies, physical characteristics were measured using standardised EPPP procedures.

Participants

Following ethical approval from the University of Edinburgh ethics committee, a longitudinal design was used. Written club and coach consent were gained alongside comprehensive written and oral explanation with club representatives. Data (already collected and stored by academies) were collected on 297 male youth academy players aged under 9 - under 16 (U9-U16) (physical tests) with years of birth ranging from 1999 to 2006. Participants were affiliated to three EPPP category one academies (20% of all the highest category academies at the time of data collection) and tracked across six physical tests. Players were categorised by their subsequent career progression (as confirmed by each club), with specific examination applied to the two extremes of outcome; namely, English Premier League (EPL) (n = 15) and Championship (n = 67) against Released (n = 215).

Procedures

As part of their normal club criteria, participants completed the prescribed standardised physical fitness testing battery three times per year (circa July, December, and May; age 9–16 years (U9-U16) as mandated by the EPPP. Scores were collected objectively for all players against their completion of each physical test. If a player did not undertake a test (i.e., due to illness, injury, or release), their score was not reflected in the data.

Measures

Participants completed the prescribed standardised physical tests as part of their normal club criteria. Data were collected using the EPPP standardised physical fitness testing battery¹¹ including (a) Counter movement jump (CMJ) (b) 5 m,10 m,20 m speed and (c) asymmetric agility (505L,505R). As required, and to ensure standardisation of physical testing, each academy tested in the same environment (indoor 3G surface) at the same time and administered as a one-off session. The parameters of the test used were consistent, providing a summary consistent statistic related to the same individual subject, thus enabling the potential for reliability of measures. The nationally recognised measures purport to accurately and reliably track progress at consistent time periods. Physical data for all players were listed with accompanying performance scores correlating with their completion of each test. CMJ data were collected from two clubs using Opto Jump System (Micro Gate, NY,)³¹ and one club using Bosco Ergo Jump System (Barcelona, Spain).³² Data were recorded to the nearest 0.01 m on both systems. Both tests are considered a valid and reliable method for assessing anaerobic power showing strong concurrent validity with force plates,³³ particularly for jump height and ground contact time suggesting it is a valid tool for these parameters.³⁴ However, some differences exist, especially in power and velocity measurements.^34,35 In conclusion, both systems were used alternately.^36,37 Linear speed and acceleration were measured over a 5 m/10 m/20 m distance. Data were collected via the Brower TC Timing System (Brower Timing Systems, Draper, UT) and recorded to the nearest 0.01 s. This measuring tool is considered reliable and accurate for measuring sprint times to assess youth academy level players. However, some studies have found limitations in their validity when compared to laboratory-based systems.^38,39 Starting points were standardised with participants starting in a standing start 0.3 m before the first infrared photoelectric gate.⁴⁰ Data were read and manually recorded. Change of direction (CoD) were assessed using the agility 505⁴¹ test. Data were recorded using Brower TC Timing System (Brower Timing Systems, Draper, UT) with scores collated to the nearest 0.01 s. The 5-0-5 CoD test uses one set of timing gates to assess an individual's ability to sprint 5 m, perform a 180-degree CoD and sprint 5 m back through the timing gates.⁴² Across each physical test data were read and manually recorded. Verbal encouragement was offered to players and consistent for each test and across all clubs (39).

Statistical analysis

Descriptive data from the data set were transferred into a longitudinal line chart, which tracked the estimated marginal mean scores for each test. Outcome categories presented EPL/ Championship and Released (the two extremes) for physical tests. These outcomes were selected to present a clear picture on each graph between players making it at the highest level of the game (i.e., EPL/Championship) or not (i.e., Released).

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v26) was used to analyse the data. Mauchly's Test of Sphericity was used to test for assumptions of sphericity and, if significant, Greenhouse-Geisser adjustments were applied to degrees of freedom within subject effects. Data sets were analysed by a series of mixed method ANOVAs, comparing Outcome as a between subject factor with Age as a repeated measure. The number of levels varied depending on the data available. However, against the objectives of the study, we focused on comparing the two extremes; namely, players who made appearances in the EPL and Championship and those who were released from the academy process. Where necessary, post-hoc tests were conducted using Tukey tests.

Finally, to offer a test of the predictive validity, we applied the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of studies on prediction models for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis – 2015) guidelines. Developed for use in clinical settings, this offers a checklist of procedures which should be followed and reported. All aspects of these recommendations were applied. As per the statistical recommendations, we completed a Canonical Discriminant Function analysis on the physical performance scores of the two groups (EPL/Champ versus released) at the U16 stage. This is the age group at which players are identified for subsequent contracts (known as scholar status) or released.

Results

Table 1 shows the outcomes of the mixed model ANOVAs on specific groupings of physical tests.

Table 1.

Outcomes of physical tests.

Test	Age	Age * Outcome	Outcome
CMJ	F(7364) = 40.6***	F(7364) = 0.89 ns	F(1,52) = 0.01 ns
5m	F(7378) = 15.9***	F(7378) = 0.55 ns	F(1,54) = 0.36 ns
10m	F(7, 364) = 62.2***	F(7, 364) = 0.61 ns	F(1,52) = 0.14 ns
20m	F(7378) = 91.7***	F(7378) = 0.78 ns	F(1,54) = 0.35 ns
505L	F(7350) = 42.2 ***	F(7350) = 1.06 ns	F(1,50) = 0.37 ns
505R	F(7, 371) = 38.0***	F(7371) = 1.1 ns	F(1,53) = 0.09 ns

*signifies p < .05

**signifies p < .01

***signifies p < .001

Figures 1(a) to 1(f) show estimated marginal mean scores for the two outcome groups across ages for each test.

Figure 1.

(a) countermovement jumps (CMJ), (b) 5m, (c) 10m, (d) 20m, (e) 505L, (f) 505R.

The results of the prescribed physical tests show that unsurprisingly all physical tests demonstrate significant improvement with age (see table 1). Relevant to our purpose, however, all Age * outcome interactions and main effects of outcome were non-significant. There were no significant differences between EPL and Championship against Released players based upon the physical parameters at each age group (please refer to Figure 1(a) – 1(f)). Put simply, the predictive potential of the physical tests is negligible, as no differences are apparent relating to eventual outcome.

Finally, the discriminant function analysis showed an eigen value of .023 and a weak canonical correlation of .15. The Wilks Lamda of .978 (Chi square (4) = 3.292) was non-significant at .51. The results suggest that the physical tests do not significantly predict eventual outcome in this sample.

Discussion

Based upon the differential approaches to player assessment in place within English youth academies, the aim of this study was to critically consider data from prescribed (physical) measures¹¹ that assess and track the progression of a group of male youth academy players. Specifically, we were interested in the cross-sectional and longitudinal profiles of those that had eventually been successful and unsuccessful in becoming professional players at EPL and Championship level. The specific research objective was to investigate the between player variability and predictive validity of physical measures. The objective was considered on the basis of what factors were most predictive and discriminatory across the eventual playing outcomes for the sample.

Our results (age*outcome on ANOVA and discriminant function analysis) suggest that the battery of physical measures promoted by the EPPP, lack validity in discriminating between later career outcomes. These findings mirroring research on progression at the youth level.¹⁹ It may be the case that physical factors are better considered as hygiene factors, essential thresholds that players must meet either to avoid deselection, or as baseline requirements to reach a certain performance level.³⁰

Of course, this is not to suggest that objective measures of all factors cannot be developed within an academy setting, nor that this wouldn’t be a worthy aim. This is especially the case given that many of the attempts to develop more objective measures of technical and tactical competence seem to lack ecological validity.⁴³ At a minimum, our results should lead us to consider the epistemological basis for what we seek to measure and by what means we build our assessment framework.

At earlier stages of physical assessment, it could be that these players are benefiting from early biological maturation,^44,45 or other early advantages⁴⁶ and thus stand out more, perhaps distorting the accuracy of physical efficacy. Future research should consider the relative long-term advantage or disadvantage presented by earlier biological maturation, something evident in research from ice hockey⁴⁷ and rugby league.⁴⁸ These studies suggest that populations initially advantaged by advanced biological maturation may experience a later reversal of this advantage, similar to the distinct concept of relative age advantage.^49,50 Whilst further research is necessary, it would seem that the essence of physical advantage seems unlikely when comparing between players, because more mature players would benefit from enhanced physical capacities at the same age.⁵¹ These concerns notwithstanding, there appears to be a perception that adult driven physical fitness assessments are overly utilised for the purpose of benchmarking and if used incorrectly, might provide an invalid benchmark for effective developmental comparison,⁹ potentially due to a greater weighting of objectivity. Despite academies spending significant time testing, measuring, and discussing these elements, our results suggest that physical factors seem to lack discriminatory capability thus can be considered hygiene factors. In this regard, there is a need for clubs to be clear on the purpose of testing physical characteristics. In addition, that academies account for the limitations of physical testing⁵² by contextualising longitudinal changes resulting from confounding factors such as maturation, injury and detraining.²⁶

In practice, this is not to disregard the role of physical factors which will interact with a player's capacity to develop across other factors. However, we suggest that the framing of hygiene and indeed, potential performance factors present an appropriate developmental weighting for soccer academies, coaches, and players. To achieve this, key performance indicators and individual development planning appear to form the framework from which objective and subjective assessment of performance is interpreted. Using individual player case review, we suggest that physical data is interpreted with formative rather than summative intent, thus enabling appropriate deployment.

Of course, we understand that some would take a contrary position, for example, EPPP promotes physicality as a component, which seems to be face valid whether grounded on an opinion or evidence based or not that these factors are important. Furthermore, the work of Dugdale, Sanders²⁹ shows that the physical metrics do seem to be associated with who makes it, albeit towards the end of the academy player's career. Clearly this merits further investigation. It would thus be important for any future studies trying to isolate the physical metrics to do these epidemiologically. In other words, to look back on players who made it and where they scored due to any self-fulfilling prophecy or Pygmalion effect. In effect, the players who coaches think are good will be scored higher. Of course, however in this study it is the player's second or final chance,⁴ therefore they may well be trying harder! Additionally, the study is a new trial and does show some variation. Similar contentions have been made by Kelly, Wilson⁵³ and contrary to our data, highlighting physical discriminatory function. Likewise, Kelly and Williams⁵ point to physical characteristics seeming to be more favourable predictors at youth academy level for achieving future senior professional status. From a holistic perspective, Höner, Murr⁵⁴ highlighted players who progressed had faster sprint times, better agility, superior ball skills, as well as higher coach ratings in technical, tactical, and psychosocial domains. Once again, there is a necessity to consider.

Clearly this work merits more attention. We would have to say from our experience and reflecting the findings of Fuhre, Øygard,⁵⁵ coaches tend to prefer other performance characteristics over physical in terms of making judgements on players.

Limitations

Clearly, the present study is not without limitations. Outcome categories presented EPL/Championship and Released categories for physical tests reflecting the detail provided by each club. Other outcome categories such as League 1/2 and semi-professional were omitted due to a lack of sufficient data availability across all clubs.

Differences in equipment used across clubs may question the standardisation of physical testing scores.⁵⁶ Poor data collection practice is difficult to account for, whilst some data may not be represented due to player injury or illness at the time of physical testing.⁵⁷ Similarly, we need to distinguish between cross sectional⁵⁸ and longitudinal assessment.⁵⁹ If a range of heuristics are in operation across academy soccer related to the timing of development, this will clearly impact on coach decision making, selection and development processes. For instance, players released due to later biological maturation may distort the data, as they are denied the chance to progress and are consequently excluded from the dataset. Data do not consider the players biological maturity status which could provide some meaning when comparing test data. Importantly, however, this dataset does not support this explanation as systematic advantage or disadvantage in physical performance would surely add to the discriminant impact of the tests. In other words, better performance of early maturers (or weaker of later developers) would add to rather than lower between outcome groups effects. Furthermore, these should be apparent around the Peak Height Velocity (PHV) stages where such effects would be assumed to be most marked.

Of course, future investigations should check this contention through more detailed data sets. For the moment, however, our findings suggest a negligible impact of fitness data across ages with respect to outcome, excepting the hygiene related ideas supporting injury-free progression mentioned earlier.

The present sample size dataset aims to detect clinically relevant differences⁶⁰ between male youth players across three academy settings. Even though the number of players is satisfactory, not too small or excessive⁶⁰ (n = 297), given different approaches to selection, the clubs contributing to the study may not represent the full academy picture. Therefore, the findings cannot be taken as wholly representative of every domestic or international academy setting. In addition, the data presented represent male soccer academies and cannot be considered to be representative of female soccer.⁶¹ To this end, we ask the reader to judge methodological validity indicators including the assessment of objective scores (i.e., reliable, and valid measurements) and their transferability within the context of male youth players within the youth academy system.

Conclusion

Using a high-level sample of male youth academy soccer players, this study critically considered data from prescribed (physical) measures¹¹ that assess and track the progression of a group of male youth academy players. Specifically, we were interested in the cross-sectional and longitudinal profiles of those that had eventually been successful and unsuccessful in becoming professional players at EPL and Championship level. The specific research objective was to investigate the between player variability and predictive validity of physical measures. The objective was considered on the basis of what factors were most predictive and discriminatory across the eventual playing outcomes for the sample.

Physical tests did not appear to predict or discriminate later performance trajectory, holding little predictive and discriminatory validity. Physical factors do not appear to be the most valid discriminators and predictors of future ability at the highest level of the game. Therefore, we recommend that academies adjust their weighting based on the apparent distinction between hygiene and potential performance factors.

Supplemental Material

sj-xlsx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251405477 - Supplemental material for Discriminating capacities of physical performance testing in male youth soccer academy programmes

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251405477 for Discriminating capacities of physical performance testing in male youth soccer academy programmes by Matthew Layton, Dave Collins and Jamie Taylor in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Matthew Layton

Jamie Taylor

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Edinburgh ethics committee.

Consent to participate

Written club and coach consent were gained alongside comprehensive written and oral explanation with club representatives.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within its .

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Henriksen

Stambulova

Roessler

. Holistic approach to athletic talent development environments: a successful sailing milieu. Psychol Sport Exerc 2010; 11: 212–222.

Abbott

Collins

. Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice in talent identification and development: considering the role of psychology. J Sports Sci 2004; 22: 395–408.

Martindale

Collins

Abraham

. Effective talent development: the elite coach perspective in UK sport. J Appl Sport Psychol 2007; 19: 187–206.

Dugdale McRobert Unnithan . Selected, deselected, and reselected: a case study analysis of attributes associated with player reselection following closure of a youth soccer academy. Front Sports Act Living 2021; 3: 633124. 2021/04/10.

Kelly

Williams

. Physical characteristics and the talent identification and development processes in male youth soccer: a narrative review. Strength Cond J 2020; 42: 15–34.

Sarkar

Fletcher

. Psychological resilience in sport performers: a review of stressors and protective factors. J Sports Sci 2014; 32: 1419–1434.

Durand-Bush

Salmela

. The development and maintenance of expert athletic performance: perceptions of world and Olympic champions. J Appl Sport Psychol 2002; 14: 154–171.

Huijgen

Elferink-Gemser

Lemmink

KAPM

, et al. Multidimensional performance characteristics in selected and deselected talented soccer players. Eur J Sport Sci 2014; 14: 2–10.

Layton

Taylor

Collins

. The measurement, tracking and development practices of English professional football academies. J Sports Sci 2023; 41: 1655–1666.

10.

Lewis

. A review of young player development in professional football. The FA 2007.

11.

The Premier League Elite Player Performance Plan. EPPP. 2011. The Premier League

12.

Sarmento

Anguera

Pereira

, et al. Talent identification and development in male football: a systematic review. SM 2018; 48: 907–931.

13.

Mills, Butt

Maynard

, et al. Identifying factors perceived to influence the development of elite youth football academy players. J Sports Sci 2012; 30: 1593–1604.

14.

Till

Cobley

O'Hara

, et al. Retrospective analysis of anthropometric and fitness characteristics associated with long-term career progression in rugby league. J Sci Med Sport 2015; 18: 310–314. 2014/06/17.

15.

Zuber

Zibung

Conzelmann

. Holistic Patterns as an Instrument for Predicting the Performance of Promising Young Soccer Players – A 3-Years Longitudinal Study. Front Psychol 2016; 7. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01088

16.

Kelly

Williams

Cook

, et al. A Multidisciplinary Investigation into the Talent Development Processes at an English Football Academy: A Machine Learning Approach. Sports 2022; 10. DOI: 10.3390/sports10100159

17.

Saward

Hulse

Morris

, et al.

Longitudinal physical development of future professional male soccer players: implications for talent identification and development?

Front Sports Act Living 2020; 2: 578203.

18.

Leyhr

Kelava

Raabe

, et al. 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 2018; 13: e0196324.

19.

Altmann

Ruf

Thiem

, et al. Prediction of talent selection in elite male youth soccer across 7 seasons: a machine-learning approach. J Sports Sci 2024: 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2024.2442850

20.

Hulse

Morris

Hawkins

, et al. A field-test battery for elite, young soccer players. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 302–311.

21.

Pyne

Spencer

Mujika

. Improving the value of fitness testing for football. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2013; 9: 511–512. DOI: 10.1123/IJSPP.2013-0453

22.

Dugdale

Arthur

Sanders

, et al. Reliability and validity of field-based fitness tests in youth soccer players. Eur J Sport Sci 2019; 19: 745–756. 2018/12/28.

23.

Carling

Collins

. Comment on “football-specific fitness testing: adding value or confirming the evidence?”. J Sports Sci 2014; 32: 1206–1208.

24.

Kite

Noon

Morris

, et al. Investigating player selection within UK academy soccer: the application of objective and subjective assessments in detecting talent. Int J Phys Educ Fit Sports 2023; 12: 69–83.

25.

Noon

Eyre

ELJ

Ellis

, et al. The influence of recruitment age and anthropometric and physical characteristics on the development pathway of English academy football players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2020: 1–9. DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0534

26.

Till

Collins

McCormack

, et al. Challenges and solutions for physical testing in sport: the profiling physical qualities tool. Strength Cond J 2023; 45: 29–39.

27.

Wild

Owen

Jones

, et al.

How does the productivity of rugby league academies relate to differences in their physical qualities and physical development?

Int J Sports Sci Coach 2025; 0: 17479541251367299. DOI: 10.1177/17479541251367299

28.

Emmonds

Till

Jones

, et al.

Anthropometric, speed and endurance characteristics of English academy soccer players: do they influence obtaining a professional contract at 18 years of age?

Int J Sports Sci Coach 2016; 11: 212–218.

29.

Dugdale

Sanders

Myers

, et al. A case study comparison of objective and subjective evaluation methods of physical qualities in youth soccer players. J Sports Sci 2020; 38: 1304–1312. 2020/06/17.

30.

Hoyes

Collins

. Fit to race: identifying the balance, type and sources of knowledge in fitness for motorsport. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2018; 13: 174795411875827.

31.

Healy

Kenny

Harrison

. Assessing reactive strength measures in jumping and hopping using the optojump™ system. J Hum Kinet 2016; 54: 23–32.

32.

Bosco

Luhtanen

Komi

. A simple method for measurement of mechanical power in jumping. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1983; 50: 273–282. 1983/01/01.

33.

Castagna

Ganzetti

Ditroilo

, et al. Concurrent validity of vertical jump performance assessment systems. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 761–768.

34.

Collings

Lima

Dutaillis

, et al. Concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of VALD ForceDecks’ strength, balance, and movement assessment tests. J Sci Med Sport 2024; 27: 572–580. 20240503.

35.

Vieira

Ribeiro

Macedo

, et al. Evidence of validity and reliability of jumpo 2 and MyJump 2 for estimating vertical jump variables. PeerJ 2023; 11: e14558. 20230125.

36.

Bjelica

Cicović

Milanović

, et al. Use a modern methods for evaluation of motor performance. Int J Phys Educ Fit Sports 2021; 10: 10–15.

37.

Pueo

Penichet-Tomas

Jimenez-Olmedo

. Reliability and validity of the chronojump open-source jump mat system. Biol Sport 2020; 37: 255.

38.

Shalfawi

Ingebrigtsen

Rodahl

, et al. Validity and reliability of the Brower Timing System Speed Trap II. 2010.

39.

Shalfawi

Enoksen

Tønnessen

, et al. Assessing test-retest reliability of the portable brower speed trap II testing system. Kinesiol Int J Fundam Appl Kinesiol 2012; 44: 24–30.

40.

Chaabene

Negra

Capranica

, et al. Validity and reliability of a new test of planned agility in elite taekwondo athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2018; 32: 2542–2547.

41.

Ryan

Uthoff

McKenzie

, et al. Traditional and modified 5-0-5 change of direction test: normative and reliability analysis. Strength Cond J 2021: 22–37. DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000691

42.

Ryan

Uthoff

McKenzie

, et al. Sub-phase analysis of the modified 5-0-5 test for better change of direction diagnostics. J Sport Exerc sci 2022; 6: 16–21.

43.

Serpiello

Cox

Oppici

, et al. The Loughborough soccer passing test has impractical criterion validity in elite youth football. Sci Med Footb 2017; 1: 60–64.

44.

Hill

Scott

Malina

, et al. Relative age and maturation selection biases in academy football. J Sports Sci 2020; 38: 1359–1367.

45.

Sweeney

Cummin

MacNamara

, et al. The selection advantages associated with advanced biological maturation vary according to playing position in national-level youth soccer. Biol Sport 2023; 40: 715–722.

46.

Sweeney

Taylor

MacNamara

. Push and pull factors: contextualising biological maturation and relative age in talent development systems. Children (Basel) 2023; 10: 130.

47.

Niklasson

Lindholm

Rietz

, et al. Who reaches the NHL? A 20-year retrospective analysis of junior and adult ice hockey success in relation to biological maturation in male Swedish players. Sports Med 2024; 54: 1–10. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-023-01985-z

48.

Till

Cobley

Morley

, et al. The influence of age, playing position, anthropometry and fitness on career attainment outcomes in rugby league. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1240–1245.

49.

McCarthy

Collins

Court

. Start hard, finish better: further evidence for the reversal of the RAE advantage. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1461–1465.

50.

Grossmann

Lames

. Relative age effect (RAE) in football talents – the role of youth academies in transition to professional Status in Germany. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2013; 13: 120–134.

51.

Morris

Emmonds

Jones

, et al. Seasonal changes in physical qualities of elite youth soccer players according to maturity status: comparisons with aged matched controls. Sci Med Footb 2018; 2: 272–280.

52.

Paul

Nassis

. Physical fitness testing in youth soccer: issues and considerations regarding reliability, validity and sensitivity. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2015; 27: 301–313.

53.

Kelly

Wilson

Jackson

, et al. Speed of thought and speed of feet: examining perceptual-cognitive expertise and physical performance in an English football academy. J Sci Sport Exerc 2021; 3: 88–97.

54.

Höner

Murr

Larkin

, et al. Nationwide subjective and objective assessments of potential talent predictors in elite youth soccer: an investigation of prognostic validity in a prospective study. Front Sports Act Living 2021; 3: 638227. 20210528.

55.

Fuhre

Øygard

Sæther

. Coaches’ criteria for talent identification of youth male soccer players. Sports 2022; 10: 20220118.

56.

Santos-Lozano

Gascón

López

, et al. Comparison of two systems designed to measure vertical jump height. Rev Int Cienc Deporte 2014; 10: 123–130.

57.

Rommers

Rössler

Verhagen

, et al. A machine learning approach to assess injury risk in elite youth football players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2020; 52: 1745–1751.

58.

Reilly

Bangsbo

Franks

. Anthropometric and physiological predispositions for elite soccer. J Sports Sci 2000; 18: 669–683. 2000.

59.

Kelly, Wilson

Jackson

, et al. Technical testing and match analysis statistics as part of the talent development process in an English football academy. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2020; 20: 1035–1051.

60.

Faber

Fonseca

. How sample size influences research outcomes. Dental Press J Orthod 2014; 19: 27–29. 2014/10/04.

61.

Curran

MacNamara

Passmore

. What about the girls? Exploring the gender data gap in talent development. Front Sports Act Living 2019; 1: 3. 2019/07/11.