Measure what matters!

    The attrition and transformation models of sport development

    Recently in The Star Khairy Jamaluddin, Malaysia's Minister of Youth and Sport, wrote that more grassroots development is needed if Malaysia is to raise its level of performance at the international level. It's good to see that developing the grassroots level of sport is recognized as a way to improve high performance by one of the country's leading sport officials.

    The general principles of sport development are the same all over the world. Build the base; offer coaching and opportunities to learn, practice, and compete; and keep young athletes involved in the activity as long as possible. Somewhere during this years-long process talented athletes will emerge. No need to look for them, no need to eliminate athletes from programs. Countries that follow these principles are focused on creating talent, not just looking for it.

    However, it's one thing to know these basic components but another matter entirely to put them in action.

    Sometimes these general principles are difficult to implement because of the way sport is administered in a country. In the United States, for example, sport development is conducted in ways that are peculiar to and supported by U.S. culture. The way we develop sport in the U.S. probably wouldn't work in Malaysia since the U.S. sporting culture is different. Malaysia must find ways to create systems that follow the general principles but in ways that make sense for Malaysian culture and society. Copying practices from other countries usually doesn't work very well.

    Two terms that are becoming more common in youth sport research help illustrate models of sport participation and development schemes. Attrition and transformation describe the direction sport development programs can take.

    The attrition model starts with a large number of youngsters and predicts that eventually a much smaller number of high performers will emerge (assuming that the basics of talent development are followed). The attrition model relies on the arithmetic to succeed but largely ignores the individual athletes and focuses only on producing, or to be more precise, harvesting high level performers. Attrition can happen in two ways, either through the natural dropping out of athletes from sport participation or through forced elimination. Neither is good for sport development.

    The transformation model's raison d'etre is to transform youngsters who enter sport programs into enthusiastic participants in their sports; igniting the fire that drives them to learn, practice, compete, and most of all enjoy their sport participation. The components of talent development (opportunity to learn and practice, coaching, competition, support from those that matter) all need to be present for the transformation model to work.

    Transformational sport development is harder to implement but the results are far more gratifying than those produced in an attrition model. Athletes in transformation programs will be comprehensively trained, they will know more about their sport, their skills will be more robust, and they will perform at higher levels. Those that reach the high performance level in a transformation program are more likely to be better athletes than high performers from an attritional program. They developed a love for physical activity earlier thus their skill learning, training, and interaction with coaches and instructors has been more consistent.

    In the transformation model it doesn't really matter who rises to the level of high performance or when. We know this will eventually happen and when it does it will happen pretty much on its own. Transforming focuses on giving every athlete the skills he needs to participate successfully. No artificial elimination is done, athletes progress at their own rates, and eventually high performers emerge.

    Not all athletes can reach the high performance level. In the transformation model though we attempt to prepare every athlete as if they will reach this level. If they do then the transformation foundation will give them a rock solid platform for future performance. If they don't reach an elite level they can continue to enjoy sport throughout their lives and pass this love for physical activity on to their children. The side effect, and one may argue, the more important result of a transformation model of sport development is a healthier population.

    Transformation is not easy to implement but it's worth it in more ways than one.

    Attrition is the dominant model simply because it has been around longer and before research on talent development, growth rates, training stages, and other sport-related topics was available. Countries with large populations have used attrition successfully so it has been copied by others, especially small developing nations. What is overlooked when smaller nations copy the attrition model though is that they usually don't have enough athletes in training to make attrition work.

    Transformation though is the better model and has long lasting benefits not only to sport performance but to society overall.

    Attrition is popular because it's easy. It's what we're used to and because of that we tend to think that youth sport programs couldn't take any different form. But it isn't very effective and more athletes are lost than are found in the attrition model. Transformation is different from traditional methods so we see it as being harder to implement that the attrition model. But it is far more effective in developing youngsters as athletes and offering enjoyable experiences to youngsters even if they never move on to more advanced sport training. Transforming athletes increases the size of the athlete pool from which state and national competitors will eventually be selected. It also delivers quality and fun activity programs to youth who will never become elite athletes. These are good things.

    Bill Price ( 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