If you can measure it, you can improve it!

    Can bio-banding help reduce the relative age effect in sport?

    Anyone who has coached young athletes for any length of time knows about the relative age effect (RAE). Even if you've never heard the term before you've seen early maturing youngsters outperform their later maturing comrades even though both groups are technically the same age. Over time this leads to an accrued selection bias that is all but hardwired into sport development systems worldwide. This bias sees relatively older athletes receiving the benefits of selection, coaching, and competitive opportunities not available to their relatively younger counterparts primarily due to a perception of higher abilities. A USSA Malaysia analysis illustrates this effect with fitness testing data.

    The RAE occurs as a result of the relationship between chronological age and administrative cut-off dates for age determination. Early attempts at mitigating the RAE centered on adjusting age cut-offs to something that allowed for more accurate age calculation and smaller age cohorts in competition. For individual sports this is an easy fix: Simply calculate ages of competitors based on the first day of a competition and reduce competitive divisions to single year groupings. But for team sports, and for general training in all sports, calculating ages on 'the day of…' is not really practical.

    But even the 'day of...' method of calculating age is not always the best way of grouping children for competition; additionally it has no real use in grouping for training.

    Grouping young athletes by their biological rather than chronological age

    Bio-banding is a more sophisticated attempt to mediate the relative age effect in youth sport. It takes a more sport specific approach to grouping athletes than simply relying on age cohorts, though age is still a factor. Size, weight, skill, experience, and other factors peculiar to certain sports are all considered when bio-banding athletes but determining a maturity category for each athlete is the key to the bio-banding method. (You can download a tool that helps calculate this from the Science for Sport website. The tool is a spreadsheet that uses a few simple measurements like height, weight, and parent height to calculate a maturity category.)

    The categories are pre-, early-, mid-, and late-pubertal and knowing which category a youngster is in helps assign them to training groups and competitive divisions. But while the categories may offer more accurate or specific groupings than age they are only guides. Real bio-banding has to consider experience (training age) and sport specific skills, as well as psychological attributes for strategy, tactics, and leadership.

    Another way to describe bio-banding is grouping young athletes by their biological rather than chronological age. This takes a certain amount of know-how on the part of coaches and club administrators.

    Is bio-banding practical?

    As a coach I read the details about bio-banding and think that this is the way it could or should be done but then I have to get back to reality. The kind of science and support required to administer a real bio-banding system rarely exists at the youth sport level. Youth sport clubs and teams will have to come up with their own bio-banding methods which may vary depending on the number of athletes they are dealing with and with the knowledge and experience of their coaching staffs. Larger numbers of athletes make it more practical to assign training groups by maturity category but knowing each athlete's maturity level can aid experienced coaches even with small training groups.

    As a former swimming coach I know that most clubs already assign swimmers to training groups based on a combination of age and ability.

    There are practical concerns though. Older athletes just joining a competitive swimming program won't have the same level of skill as others their age who have already been involved in the sport for a number of years and already possess well developed skills. Assigning a new athlete to a group with a much higher level of skill development is not really a good idea if we are concerned with him having a good sport experience. On the other hand assigning him to a group equal to his beginning level of ability would mean training with much younger athletes. Following the science in this example would create an uncomfortable social situation, one the new athlete is unlikely to enjoy.

    Depending on the technical expertise of club administrators some form of bio-banding may help keep late maturing athletes involved in sports longer and encourage early maturers to focus more on their skills and technique rather than rely on their physical advantage. Both of these outcomes would be good for youth sport overall; not only would more youngsters stay in sport longer but their level of performance would be higher as a result.

    It's not yet clear if bio-banding is a practical solution to the relative age effect. It certainly looks good on paper but real-life implementation will tell the tale. It's also not clear exactly how bio-banding ideas will be implemented in various sports and it will be interesting to see if some sports have the will to reject the 'easy' age categories and try something that is new and maybe better.

    Bill Price (price@sportkid.asia) is the owner and Chief Data Scientist at Sportkid Metrics.


    Don't miss any content
    Subscribe Now!

    The nine pillars of sport development - 02 May 2021

    Using training age to gauge athlete experience - 18 April 2021

    What would you do differently if there were no such thing as talent? - 04 April 2021

    Athlete development measurements and the lingo that goes with them - 21 March 2021

    Retention and Training Age - 07 March 2021

    Fear of missing out is hurting youth sports - 23 October 2018

    Deliberate practice vs. late specialization - 24 September 2018

    Is talent identification even possible? - 17 September 2018

    Who won the Asian Games? - 10 September 2018

    Re-thinking the mission of Malaysia's sport associations - 03 September 2018

    Using maturity offsets to determine age at peak height velocity - 27 August 2018

    The youth sport talent illusion - 13 August 2018

    The tip of the iceberg - 30 July 2018

    7 things youth sport coaches should know - 25 June 2018

    Who is responsible for athlete performance - 18 June 2018

    Creating a culture of achievement in sport - 05 June 2018

    Sport development in the headlines (sort of) - 28 May 2018

    Who won the Commonwealth Games? - 23 April 2018

    Kaizen: Improving sport administration will improve performance - 02 April 2018

    What can Malaysia learn from Norway about sport development? - 05 March 2018

    Dealing with more than one email address and other communication ideas - 26 February 2018

    What can you do to work more efficiently? - 19 February 2018

    LTAD: Training to compete - 22 January 2018

    Sport clubs are the lifeblood of national sport development - 15 January 2018

    Take a chance! - 18 December 2017

    How we calculate age in youth sports can have benefits and consequences - 11 December 2017

    Can bio-banding help reduce the relative age effect in sport? - 04 December 2017

    Understanding the role that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation play in the athlete development process - 20 November 2017

    Great expectations: Expect more, get more! - 14 November 2017

    Why process is more important than outcome in a learning environment - 25 September 2017

    Sport associations are embracing physical literacy training - 18 September 2017

    Creating a true sport development system in Malaysia - 11 September 2017

    Who won the SEA Games? - 04 September 2017

    KL2017: Reporting individual sport results deserved better planning - 29 August 2017

    Can we please forget about ways to identify talent and just work on getting more athletes? - 07 August 2017

    Using the team selection process to boost motivation and increase athlete participation - 24 July 2017

    LTAD: The Train to Train stage - 10 July 2017

    LTAD: The Learn-to-Train stage - 26 June 2017

    Athletic training for youngsters - 12 June 2017

    Visualization and imagery in sports - 05 June 2017

    Young, single-sport athletes suffer more injuries and do not reach their full potential - 29 May 2017

    Transformational vs. transactional coaching - 23 May 2017

    Will they come back tomorrow? - 08 May 2017

    Advice to parents of young athletes - 01 May 2017

    Is VIP leadership of sport associations a good idea? - 22 March 2017

    What happens after an athlete's initial introduction to sport? - 27 February 2017

    "Where do athletes come from?" - 16 January 2017

    Understanding sport talent pathways - 09 January 2017

    Make 2017 the year of the growth mindset - 02 January 2017

    Teaching physical literacy skills in youth sport practices - 12 December 2016

    Developing sport from the ground up - 06 December 2016

    Pay for what you want - 21 November 2016

    The 10,000 hour rule: "Not for the faint of heart nor for the impatient" - 14 November 2016

    Parent involvement in their child's sport participation sometimes backfires - 07 November 2016

    How to do the measurements for determining peak height velocity (PHV) - 24 October 2016

    A foreign coach is not always the answer - 17 October 2016

    Tips on creating an effective coaching environment - 10 October 2016

    Peak height velocity and aerobic development - 26 September 2016

    Early sport specialization is still not a good idea - 19 September 2016

    What kind of data do we need to develop sports? - 13 September 2016

    The attrition and transformation models of sport development - 05 September 2016

    Solve for <x> - 29 August 2016

    Artificial elimination of athletes from training and competition hinders sport development in Malaysia - 15 August 2016

    Time is the most important factor in talent development - 01 August 2016

    What if opportunity never knocks? - 13 June 2016

    The long-term athlete development framework offers youngsters a chance at sport success and an active and healthy life - 06 June 2016

    Early sport specialization is not a good development strategy - 30 May 2016

    What does a declining population mean for sport? - 2 February 2016

    Coaching 'flow' - 11 November 2015

    The coach's role in creating a deliberate practice environment - 02 November 2015

    When should athletes specialize in a single sport? - 11 September 2015

    The Holy Grail of health, wellness, and sport development - 1 September 2015

    Revisiting the 10,000 hour rule - 10 August 2015

    The power of 'not yet' - 20 July 2015

    Let's stop trying to identify sport talent and start developing it - 22 June 2015