Podium finishes start with data!

    How we calculate age in youth sports can have benefits and consequences

    There are several ways to calculate an athlete's age in sport. How this is done is important because of the relative age effect (RAE) and being able to maintain accuracy in historical performance data. Knowing how old someone is carries important meaning in sport and while determining someone's age seems like a no-brainer it's a bit more complicated than many assume.

    Not all cultures treat age the same way. In the West we are used to celebrating birthdays on the actual day we were born. Our age officially increases on that day. In some Eastern cultures age changes when the year changes. On 1 January many Chinese, for example, will consider themselves a year older even though their actual birth day may be different.

    And, believe it or not, it is still possible that in some developing countries youngsters may not know their birthday or even the year of their birth.

    These factors all have to be considered when determining the age of young athletes. But knowing one's actual chronological age is only one kind of age that is important in sport. Other ages can affect training, competition, and the historical records of a sport:

    Chronological age - is a person's actual age in years, calculated from the day one is born. For most sports and in most parts of the world this age is treated as the most important and usually is the only one considered when discussing age in sport. However, we now know that considering only an athlete's chronological age is not the best way to encourage participation or retention within sport programs.

    Developmental age - is a combination of one's biological maturity coupled with an evaluation of mental, psychological, and emotional development. Determining biological maturity in youth sport is fairly easy (using maturity offset calculations) but mental, psychological, and emotional development is more complicated and, given the resources available in youth sport, is often just a guess. (Note: Bio-banding is an attempt to use developmental age to improve the youth sport experience.)

    Relative age - refers to the apparent differences in children who share the same chronological age but various developmental ages. Evidence of these differences exist in any cohort of children. Earlier this year USSA Malaysia published a study which demonstrated the relative age effect for several performance tests in 8-, 9-, 10-, 15-, and 16-year-olds.

    Training age - represents the number of years that an athlete has been involved in training. There are two types of training age. The first calculates how long a youngster has been involved in sports overall. Since many training components are similar and transferable between sports, endurance, speed, and agility, for example, it's possible to determine a general training age based on the length of time a child has been involved in sport.

    Specific training age refers to the time an athlete has been training in a particular sport and is especially important in skill intensive activities like gymnastics or figure skating.

    Chronological age is the one most often used for grouping athletes in sport primarily because it is easy to do and is the most widely accepted. Other methods, though they may provide a more suitable result, are difficult to assess and require a certain knowledge to use effectively. Their lack of widespread use and understanding also make them impractical for large youth sport organizations.

    Setting age cutoff dates

    Cutoff dates typically used to calculate age for competition usually use either some arbitrary annual date that begins a new sport season or school year, or some other date that may have internal significance to the sport involved.

    We have written before that using the first day of a competition as the age determination date helps to mediate the relative age effects permanently present when an arbitrary annual date is used. However, determining age this way merely shifts the relative age effect, it doesn't eliminate it. The main benefit of using the 'day of' method is that the relative age of athletes will change throughout the year, thus no one is perpetually disadvantaged simply due to their birthdate.

    This also helps maintain accurate historical performance data; all athletes competing in this system will either be the age they are assumed to be or only a day or so older if they 'age up' on the second or subsequent days of a competition.

    Another strategy would be to use narrower age groups for competition. For example, using single year age groups rather than the typical two years can significantly reduce the RAE.

    Thinking outside the box: Eliminate age groups!

    In sports measured by time, weight, or speed, one possible innovation that can both reduce the RAE and introduce bio-banding elements into a competition is to combine several age groups for competition and then compile results after the fact in single year increments. In this kind of competition athletes can be divided into groups for 12 years and under and then 13 years and over. The wider age spread for competition allows athletes of similar ability to compete together regardless of age and the separation into single year groupings for result purposes helps reduce the RAE.

    Coaches can probably see the simplicity and effectiveness of such a competitive/results system but since it could have 9-year-olds competing against 12-year-olds it would be a hard sell to parents of youngsters.

    By manipulating age in youth sport it may be possible not only to provide better opportunities for late maturing youngsters but to encourage early maturers to focus on training and skills. Introducing elements of bio-banding and narrowing age groups helps improve development efforts across the board. Rather than simply carry on as we always have, it's worth the effort to look for ways to enhance our youth sport programs.

    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