434 DELIBERATE PRACTICE AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE: DEFINING THE PATH TO EXCELLENCE Paul Ward, Nicola J. Hodges, A. Mark Williams and Janet L. Starkes Like their sporting heroes many young athletes aspire to ‘greatness’. The lure of an exciting lifestyle and an exponential increase in wealth is, for some, sufficient to warrant pursuing this dream. For others, motivation to endure the rigor and commitment of elite- level sport is provided by the ‘love of the game’. However, few individuals reach the required level of performance to be deemed an expert, whilst an even smaller minority achieve greatness. The obvious question is ‘why’? Is greatness, or even expertise, reserved for the select few who are born with the credentials that ensure that they stand out from their less ‘gifted’ counterparts or are only a handful of individuals able to
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
434
DELIBERATE PRACTICE AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE: DEFINING THE
PATH TO EXCELLENCE
Paul Ward, Nicola J. Hodges, A. Mark Williams and Janet L. Starkes
Like their sporting heroes many young athletes aspire to ‘greatness’. The lure of an
exciting lifestyle and an exponential increase in wealth is, for some, sufficient to warrant
pursuing this dream. For others, motivation to endure the rigor and commitment of elite-
level sport is provided by the ‘love of the game’. However, few individuals reach the
required level of performance to be deemed an expert, whilst an even smaller minority
achieve greatness. The obvious question is ‘why’? Is greatness, or even expertise,
reserved for the select few who are born with the credentials that ensure that they stand
out from their less ‘gifted’ counterparts or are only a handful of individuals able to
435
withstand the challenges that they are confronted with along the road to excellence?
Scientists have been trying to map out the route to excellence for many centuries and,
perhaps not surprisingly, the notion that some performers are ‘born to be great’ has
carried with it an almost mystical context (for a discussion, see Sternberg & Wagner,
1999). More recently, however, Ericsson and colleagues (Ericsson 1996; Ericsson &
Charness, 1994; Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996) have espoused the importance of practice in
the development of elite performers. They have advocated that commitment to practice
and practice itself are more important than ‘natural ability’ in defining the road to
excellence. According to their deliberate practice theory, expertise results from the
development of domain-specific knowledge structures and skills acquired through the
process of adaptation to practice.
In this chapter we review current knowledge regarding the importance of deliberate
practice in developing elite performers. A critical review of the methods employed to
examine the importance of deliberate practice is provided and recent work that has
addressed some of these concerns presented. In particular, we focus on the role of
chronological age in mediating the capability to predict performance from accumulated
practice hours and examine other factors, such as the time spent in general fitness
activities and match play, which may help account for the variance in performance
between individuals.
The Theory of Deliberate Practice
There has been considerable debate in recent years regarding the identification of those
acquirable and/or pre-dispositional factors that can guide an individual through this
adaptive process towards skilled levels of performance, and ultimately to attaining
expertise (e.g., Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda, 1998). The most prevalent theory to address
these issues was presented by Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer (1993). The theory of
deliberate practice offers a somewhat controversial, environmentally driven explanation
for the development of expertise. This account was built on two main propositions. First,
436
extensive involvement within a domain is necessary before expert levels of performance
can be achieved (i.e., the 10 year rule; Simon & Chase, 1973). The view that long and
intensive periods of training are a precursor to the attainment of expertise has received
considerable support across various domains (e.g., see Bloom, 1985; Charness, Krampe,
& Mayr, 1996; Starkes, Deakin, Allard, Hodges, & Hayes, 1996). Second, Ericsson et al.
(1993) proposed that the defining characteristics of expertise are acquired through
engagement in relevant activities. Ericsson and colleagues rejected the need to include
talent as an explanatory mechanism for attaining excellence. Although these authors
conceded that individuals differ in their predisposition to engage in hard work or that
these differences may influence motivational processes, they highlighted a general lack of
support for fixed innate characteristics directly contributing to the development of
expertise. For those of us who have engaged in activities for numerous years, observation
of personal performance indicates that an elite level or status is not automatically
achieved after the critical ‘10-year’ marker has been surpassed. The implication is that
attained levels of performance are not limited by those factors associated with innate
talent but are acquired through sustained investment in practice and deliberate efforts to
improve (Ericsson et al., 1993).
Ericsson et al. (1993) suggested that effective learning occurs when activities are well
defined, are pitched at an appropriate level of difficulty, when useful feedback is
presented, and the opportunity for repetition, error detection and correction is provided.
When these conditions are met, the term ‘deliberate’ is used to characterise practice.
Ericsson and colleagues highlighted three different constraints that are inherent to
attaining expert performance. First, there is no immediate financial reward from early
investment in deliberate practice and frequently, a substantial number of resources (e.g.,
equipment, facilities) are required, often at significant expense to the performer and/or
parent. Second, deliberate practice places considerable demand on physical and mental
resources, both of which are typically assumed to be limited to some degree (e.g.,
Kahneman, 1973; Powers & Howley, 2001). The high degree of effort necessary for
participation in these activities determines the amount to which an individual can sustain
engagement and adapt to increased task demands over time. Finally, deliberate practice is
437
assumed not to be inherently enjoyable and consequently, the motivation to sustain
participation is largely determined by ones intent to improve. Without the goal of
improving performance, the motivation to engage in such practice is likely to diminish
(Ericsson et al., 1993).
Ericsson and colleagues differentiated deliberate practice from work/competition and
play. In work or competitive environments, individuals are under pressure to perform
rather than learn and therefore are likely to use current effective, yet potentially sub-
optimal, strategies as opposed to investing time in learning new, or refining old, methods.
Playful activities are primarily engaged in for enjoyment, not necessarily skill
development. Ericsson et al’s (1993) principal hypothesis is that deliberate practice is
monotonically related to the attainment of expertise. According to the monotonic benefits
assumption, and in accordance with the power law of practice (Anderson, 1983; Newell
& Rosenbloom, 1981), the amount of accumulated practice is directly related to current
levels of performance. The greatest improvements in performance should occur with the
largest weekly amounts of deliberate practice. Those performers who have accumulated
the largest number of practice hours throughout their career and consistently and
deliberately engaged in high levels of practice for sustainable periods are more likely to
attain expert status.
Evidence From the Original Performance Domain: Music
When the deliberate practice framework was first presented, Ericsson and colleagues
supported their claims with empirical data from musicians (both violinists & pianists).
Practice alone was the only variable to sufficiently meet the criteria laid out for deliberate
practice. Although music lessons with an instructor were also rated highly relevant for
improving performance, practice alone was the only activity where its duration was
directly under the control of the individual. The tasks in which individuals engaged
during this activity and the respective practice goals are typically supervised by a teacher
and consequently, meet the criteria for deliberate practice.
438
Predominantly through questionnaire and diary methods, Ericsson et al. (1993) showed
how hours spent in deliberate practice (i.e., practice alone) consistently differentiated
performers of varying skill levels. The two best groups of skilled violinists (best and
good students) reported spending an average of 24.3 hours per week in practice alone,
compared to 9.3 hours for music teachers. The similarity in length of practice sessions
across groups (i.e., 80 minutes) suggested that the skill-based differences were a
reflection of the number of practice sessions in which participants engaged. Moreover,
the limited duration of each session and the rating of practice alone as effortful provide
support for the original definition of deliberate practice with respect to the effort
constraint. Retrospective estimates of accumulated practice hours suggested that after 10
years of practice the best violinists had accrued a significantly greater amount of practice
(i.e., 7410 hours) than the good violinists (i.e., 5301 hours), and the music teachers (i.e.,
3420 hours). After 10 years, the level of practice reported by the best students was
comparable to that of professional middle-aged violinists who were members of the
internationally reputed Berlin Philharmonic and Radio Symphony Orchestras. Expert and
amateur pianists reported similar practice history profiles to the violinists. Experts spent
26.7 hours in solo practice per week and had accrued 7606 hours of practice by the age of
18 (14 years into their career), 6000 more hours than their amateur counterparts. Both
expert violinists and pianists conformed to the 10 year, 10,000 hour approximation for
attaining excellence within their domain of expertise (see Simon & Chase, 1973; Ericsson
et al., 1993).
Evidence From the Domain of Sport
Researchers in the sports domain have been keen to examine the validity of deliberate
practice theory. The question of whether high levels of good quality practice in sport are
sufficient to bring about expert performance is of vital importance to practitioners and
athletes. The answer to this question has major implications for training and selection.
Ericsson has argued that a high quantity and quality of deliberate practice is sufficient to
439
account for sporting excellence. In the absence of unequivocal evidence in favour of
differences in innate capacities, the limitations in attaining exceptional levels of
performance are attributed to a lack of appropriate training. There is no question that
practice is a necessary vehicle for attaining exceptional levels of performance in sports.
Individuals who appear ‘talented’ at a young age still need to invest considerable practice
hours to compete at an adult level. If the propensity for expertise is predominantly
biologically-based, the relevant genes would still require some environmental interaction
(e.g., practice) in order to be appropriately expressed. The question of importance to
performers and practitioners is whether practice alone is enough to attain expertise, and
more specifically, to produce improvements in performance?
Starkes and colleagues (e.g., Starkes et al., 1996) were the first to undertake work on
deliberate practice in sport. Athletes who participated in individual sports reported
spending on average more than 10 years in practice before reaching an international level.
At the age of 25, wrestlers reported reaching their peak, some 12 years into their career.
Whilst commencing in practice activities at a relatively late age (i.e., 13/14 years of age)
compared to Ericsson’s musicians, differences began to emerge in the amount of time
that international-level wrestlers (M = 38.7 hours/week) estimated spending in practice
compared to club level wrestlers (M = 20.9 hours/week) after 6 years of practice.
Interestingly, however, these athletes spent less time in practice than the 10,000-hour
benchmark proposed by Ericsson and colleagues. The international group had
accumulated 5881.9 hours compared to 3571.1 hours by the club level wrestlers.
Importantly, skill groups were not differentiated on practice alone but on time spent
practicing with others (see also Hodges & Starkes, 1996). Figure skaters on the other
hand, began participating in this activity much earlier at the age of 5 years, and were
performing at an international-level by the age of 21 years. The weighted average number
of hours per week for national and junior national team members spent practicing alone
was similar to that reported by Ericsson et al. for the best and good violinists (M = 21.2
hours) (see also, Starkes et al., 1996).
440
Helsen et al. (1998) extended this initial work to team sport athletes by examining the
practice histories of international, national, and provincial level soccer players from
Belgium. Typically, soccer players began participating within the domain at
approximately 5 years of age and commenced regular systematic practice 2 years later.
After 15 years into their career, the two elite groups (i.e., national and international)
reached their peak and on the average spent 13.3 and 9.9 hours per week, respectively, in
combined individual and team practice, compared to 6.9 hours for the lower skilled
players (i.e., provincial). In the period between the 6th and 12th year of their career, the
players in the international group engaged in more weekly individual practice than
provincial level players. However, from the end of this period onwards, all players
reduced the amount of individual practice, to a point where no differences could be
observed between skill groups. After 10-12 years into their career, the international group
could be differentiated from the national and provincial level players in both weekly team
practice and accumulated practice (individual and team practice combined) suggesting
that deliberate ‘team’ practice rather than practice alone may be more discriminating in
team-oriented sports, particularly where the content of training is fixed by a coach.
In a second team-sport domain, Helsen et al. examined the practice habits of players at
similar levels of skill in field hockey. Players started practicing regularly in the sport at a
relatively early age (M = 8.9 years). After 12 years into their career however, both
international (M = 8.2 hours/week) and national (M = 7.9 hours/week) level players
engaged in significantly more team practice than provincial level players (M = 3.7
hours/week). Statistically significant differences in the amount of accumulated practice
did not emerge until 16 years into their career where provincial level players had accrued
5341 hours compared to the international players who had accrued 8541. Furthermore,
these players did not reach their peak until around 18 to 20 years into their career. Whilst
each of the individual and team sport examples generally conform to the 10 year rule for
attaining expert levels of performance, the number of hours in which athletes engaged, as
well as the number of accumulated practice hours, and the specific practice activities
undertaken indicates that there may be far greater task dependence with respect to
attaining expertise than originally presumed.
441
Sports-related Revisions to the Original Theory: Some Outstanding Issues
As a result of some of the discrepancies with the original findings highlighted above, a
number of qualifications have been made to Ericsson et al.’s theory of deliberate practice.
Research in non-sporting domains, specifically music, has indicated that practice alone is
the activity most likely to reflect deliberate mastery attempts and improve performance
(see Ericsson et al., 1993; Howe et al., 1998; Sloboda 2000). Yet, the sports research
illustrates that time spent in team and/or group practice might be a more appropriate
predictor of expert-novice differences (e.g., Helsen et al., 1998; Hodges & Stakes, 1996).
Moreover, the nature of the activities undertaken, specifically with respect to the effort
and motivational constraints, suggests that definitions of deliberate practice may need to
be re-examined. For instance, in Ericsson et al.’s (1993) original outline, participation in
deliberate practice activities was described as particularly effortful. However, some
physically effortful activities do not require the high levels of concentration that has since
been shown to be a primary constituent of deliberate practice (see Starkes et al., 1996;
Hodges & Starkes, 1996). While these issues have received much attention in recent
years and have been reviewed elsewhere (see Starkes, 2000), several questions remain
unanswered.
Although hours of deliberate practice have differentiated across skill levels, there is a
need to evaluate the sensitivity of deliberate practice estimates. There has been little
empirical verification as to whether deliberate practice differentiates between performers
in the same skill class (cf., Ericsson et al., 1993). Objective performance measures are
needed so that comprehensive analyses can be performed to determine how much
variance can be accounted for by deliberate practice hours alone. It is not understood
whether the processes responsible for attaining high levels of performance are equivalent
to those for attaining the best or elite-levels of performance in the same sport.
Clarification of the nature of the activities that are considered deliberate practice would
help researchers measure this construct in a consistent manner and have implications for
442
best coaching practice. Although Ericsson’s operational definition of deliberate practice
is not tied to specific activities, but rather by its intent to improve certain aspects of
performance, difficulties arise when assessing practice amounts. In sports, many
activities are performed to maintain a certain level of fitness, rather than to improve
performance per se. These activities have typically not been differentiated in current
sport-specific studies of deliberate practice, although issues of performance maintenance
have been considered with Master level athletes (e.g., Weir, Kerr, Hodges, McKay, &
Starkes, 2002).
Contrary to Ericsson et al.’s proposal that practice is not inherently enjoyable, the typical
finding in the sports' literature is that deliberate practice activities are perceived to be
enjoyable. Subtle differences in how this rating of practice is obtained might be at least
partly responsible for these discrepancies. While Ericsson et al. requested that musicians
rate their perceptions of practice enjoyment irrespective of final outcome, researchers in
sport have typically asked for a general rating of enjoyment from each activity, such that
it is not possible to determine whether enjoyment ratings are based upon participation per
se or from the appraisal of the activity’s outcome.
Singer and Janelle (1999) recently suggested that, given the prevalence of sporting
performance under competitive and/or stressful conditions, experience in match play, or
practice-like match play may be an appropriate predictor of performance and an
important constituent of optimal practice environments. However, Ward, Hodges,
Starkes, and Williams (2003) found that time in this activity, while important, is not as
crucial for the development of expertise as time in practice activities designed to improve
performance (e.g., technical and tactical/strategic skills training and the receipt of
coaching in general). Many of the above characteristics have not always been given due
consideration when deliberate practice has been measured. Unless there is some
consensus as to which hours are included when determining accumulated practice, the
prefix ‘deliberate’ to describe practice may become somewhat redundant.
443
Objective Measures of Performance and Testing the Sensitivity of Deliberate
Practice
Typically, expert and novice performers across a variety of domains have been
differentiated with respect to the amount of practice hours accumulated. While
differences as a function of skill are informative, objective measures of expertise are
required to determine the extent to which deliberate practice is able to predict
performance. In their original investigation, Ericsson et al. (1993) were able to predict
performance on domain-specific tests through hours practising alone with the violin.
However, when Ericsson’s theory was initially tested in sport with Olympic-style
wrestlers (unpublished data, Hodges, 1996), it was not possible to predict individual
performance rankings based on practice for the International wrestlers. Although these
were subjective ratings of individual’s perceived ability or talent, it does raise the
question as to what makes someone the best in a sport, and whether deliberate practice is
enough to account for variance within a skill class?
More recently, Hodges, Kerr, Weir, and Starkes (2003) have examined practice in
activities that have objective performance measures. International and Varsity swimmers
and triathletes who engaged in three sports: swimming, cycling and running were the
participants. Although the primary issues concerned how much variation could be
accounted for by deliberate practice hours, the sport-specific nature of practice and how
much additional variation in performance times could be captured by time in related
activities (e.g., fitness, active leisure) was also determined. Using performance and
practice data from triathletes pertaining to each event, the issue of how well generic
practice across all three sports could predict performance times beyond sport-specific
practice was examined. For example, do hours spent in swimming and cycling practice
contribute to predictions of running times based only on running practice?
444
In general, the most important type of practice (i.e., predictor of performance times) was
sport-specific. Sport-specific practice accounted for between 30% and 50% of the
variance in performance times. Very little additional variation in performance was
explained by the inclusion of non sport-specific practice although, some transfer benefits
were observed (i.e., predominately for the male rather than the female athletes). A similar
lack of predictability was found for time spent in other fitness-related activities and active
leisure pursuits, although only weekly estimates were available. As before, fitness
activities had more predictive validity for the male rather than female athletes. For
triathletes, approximately 10% of the variance in triathlon performance times and the
individual events of swimming and cycling could be accounted for by hours in
fitness/active leisure pursuits. For the male swimmers, approximately 20% of additional
variance was explained by fitness activities, rising to 50% for the butterfly event.
This information has both descriptive and predictive value. Whereas typically, hours in
deliberate practice have successfully differentiated across skill groups (see Hodges &
Starkes, 1996; Helsen et al., 1998), the analyses reported above show how deliberate
practice hours are able to account for a significant proportion of the variance in
performance times across individuals (rather than groups), in addition to highlighting the
sport-specific nature of practice in predicting performance. Although there is some
transfer benefit across non-sport specific practice, particularly for male athletes, perhaps
unsurprisingly, the greatest amount of variance is accounted for by practice in the event
most related to performance (i.e., swim hours for swim times). This type of analysis has
important implications for the sport's practitioner who might use this information to guide
his or her athletes to activities where maximum performance benefits are to be gained.
Due to the predictive nature of regression analyses, it is also possible to calculate the
number of hours of practice that are necessary to improve by one second, or one minute
(as a function of event) and as such use this as a guide for practice.
In a similar vein, albeit at a group level of analysis, Ward et al. (2003) used a series of
discriminant analyses to determine the amount of team practice a player would need to
participate in order to reach an age-specific skill level. Based upon the most recent year
445
of participation, practice estimates of elite and sub-elite soccer players increasing in age
from 9 to 18 years of age were analysed and their data fitted to a model that could predict
skill-group membership for between 72.9 and 100% of the players. These types of
predictive models might prove to be important tools for coaches and talent development
officers responsible for charting or predicting the future development of existing
‘talented’ players.
DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
One of the underlying assumptions of the deliberate practice framework is that practice is
equivalent across all ages and therefore independent of chronological age. However,
recently a number of researchers have questioned the validity of this assumption.
Although Ericsson et al’s (1993) original thesis was primarily used to understand the
factors (i.e., the type of practice) that led to the development of skilled performance, an
important extension of this research is to determine how, once a high level of skill is
reached, continued investment in deliberate practice can potentially delay any age-related
decline in performance (see Ericsson & Charness, 1994). The fact that individuals
generally become slower with age necessitates an extension to the deliberate practice
theory to account for the fact that more hours accumulated within an activity do not
necessarily result in performance improvement.
Pre-peak Practice: Practice, Play, Diversity and Specialisation
In Ericsson et al.'s (1993) theory of deliberate practice, age is not explicitly considered an
important factor mediating the effects of practice on performance. Although Ericsson et
al. note that in order to acquire the requisite number of hours of practice participants
typically begin at an early age, practice estimates at a young age are not weighted
differentially to those accrued as the performer develops. However, when Starkes et al.
(1996) compared the accumulated practice hours across individual and team activities,
both in music and sport, they found that practice increased in a monotonic fashion,
irrespective of the type of domain and starting age in the sport. Despite this consistency, a
446
qualitative analysis of practice as a function of age has pointed to considerable,
developmental differences. For example, Côté and Hay (2002) showed that if an
individual is to become skilful in a particular domain, engagement in playful pursuits and
practice in non domain-specific activities may be valuable in the early stages of an
individual’s career. Through a process of semi-structured interviews, Baker, Côté, and
Abernethy (in press; see also Côté, Baker, & Abernethy, 2001) retrospectively examined
the participation histories of elite players who held an international or world-class
ranking in a variety of different team sports. Rather than domain-specific, deliberate
practice, these authors found that expert and world-class athletes engaged in considerably
more ‘deliberate play’ during the sampling years (i.e., 7 to 12 years) than non-experts.
The ‘sampling years’ were proposed to be a period where deliberate play and diversity
were both encouraged and beneficial to the development of skilled performance (Côté,
1999; Côté & Hay, 2002). Following Piaget’s description of play development,
‘deliberate play’ was defined by Côté as rule-based play that is primarily engaged in for
fun, and is largely determined by the age at which participation occurs (i.e., after 7 years
of age).
Whilst Côté and colleagues’ description of athletes’ initial participation is consistent with
Bloom’s (1985) delineation of the ‘early years’, Ericsson and colleagues (Ericsson et al.,
1993; Ericsson, 1996; Ericsson, 1998) have contested whether engagement in playful
activities, where there is no explicit goal to improve, is productive in developing expert
levels of performance. As detailed earlier, within the deliberate practice framework,
playful activities have been differentiated from practice activities, where only a deliberate
investment in the latter would lead to increases in performance. While arguments might
arise as to the predictive ability of play and non-sport specific practice early in a person's
career, there is agreement that as a foundation to skilled performance, playful activities
may be fundamental for learning initial cognitive and movement skills which enable the
development of preliminary mental representations necessary for expert performance
(Beamer, Côté, & Ericsson, 1999; Ericsson, 1998). Moreover, both agree that the
engagement in intrinsically motivating behaviours, early in an individual’s career is likely
447
to increase a performer's eagerness to pursue more externally controlled activities such as
deliberate practice (Deci & Ryan; 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Although there is potential for reconciliation of the research findings, conflict arises as to
the practical implications of the two models for sport development with respect to the
most effective type of participation during early skill development. On the one hand,
Ericsson and colleagues’ monotonic benefits assumption suggests that engaging in
deliberate domain-specific practice from an early age leads to associated increases in
performance, and ultimately the attainment of expertise. On the other hand, Côté and
colleagues’ recommend later specialization (i.e., specialization years; age 13 to 16/17
years) within a specific domain, preceded by deliberate play and sporting diversity in the
early years. Not only do Côté and colleagues claim that early specialization in a sport is
not necessary for the development of expertise, but they also claim that the decision to
specialize late (e.g., 13-15 years of age) is an important predictor of later skill level (see
Côté, et al., 2002).
Baker et al. (in press) have shown that, in addition to more substantive engagement in
deliberate play, world-class team players that demonstrated greater diversity across
several domains had also accrued less practice hours within the specialist domain prior to
national selection compared to those who exhibited a less diverse participation profile
and were not of world class standing. The implication is that individuals can benefit via
some mechanism of transfer from engaging in non-domain activities that require similar
skills, or at least possess relevant attributes to those in their domain of expertise.
Research in the domain of problem solving suggests that early specialisation and lack of
diversity may result in functional fixedness, where individuals may struggle to find an
appropriate solution to a problem (Seifert, Meyer, Davidson, Patalano, & Yaniv, 1995).
Greater diversity across sports at an earlier age may, therefore, manifest itself in more
flexible perceptual-motor and perceptual-cognitive solutions to a broader range of
existing, as well as novel problems and ultimately, to the attainment of adaptive expertise
(Hatano, & Inagaki, 1986); a likely constituent of elite level sport.
448
Whilst the idea of transfer from one domain to another is conceptually appealing, the
research evidence tends to suggest that expertise is typically domain-specific (see Allard
& Starkes, 1991; Ericsson & Smith, 1991; Hodges et al., 2003). The conflicting nature of
the findings might be somewhat linked to the methods involved in collecting this data.
While detailed profiles of elite athletes collected through interview techniques might
elucidate on early diversity and qualitative differences in early practice experiences,
cross-skill comparisons of practice estimates only inform as to quantitative differences in
the area of specialization.
To address these methodological problems Ward et al. (2003) compared the domain-
specific and non-domain specific participation histories (hours per week and accumulated
hours) of nine age-matched groups of elite and sub-elite soccer players from 9 to 18 years
of age. More specifically, the relative contributions of deliberate practice, play, and
diversity throughout development were ascertained through questionnaires administered
under high levels of supervision.
Consistent with research from adult team players (Helsen et al., 1998), only deliberate
‘team’ practice from the most recent year of practice consistently discriminated across
skill groups. This variable was predictive of skill level from as early as 9 years of age.
Time spent in soccer-related match play, deliberate ‘individual’ practice and playful
activities also made some, yet non-consistent contributions to skill-based differences. In
Figure 1 the hours accumulated in these various soccer-related activities for the elite (top
panel) and subelite (bottom panel) soccer players from the age of 8 yr (U-9) to 17 yr (U-
18) has been illustrated. Where these variables played a role in predicting performance,
elite players typically spent more time in match play and individual practice and less time
in playful activities compared to sub-elite players. Although both groups spent a
substantial amount of time in playful activities (e.g., kicking a ball around for fun), these
activities did not discriminate between skill groups during the sampling years (7 to 12
years). Rather, contrary to Côté and colleagues, the data showed that those individuals
who had spent less time in playful activities by their adolescent years were more likely to
have achieved a higher skill level. Domain-specific practice (in particular, deliberate
449
‘team’ practice) from an early age accounted for 56% of the variance between skill
groups, increasing to 76% for the oldest group.
Insert Figure 1a and 1b about here
With respect to diversity, Ward et al.’s (2003) comparisons of time accumulated in non
domain specific practice, play and match play (i.e., in sports other than soccer) has been
plotted in Figure 2. Analyses of these data showed that elite (top panel) and sub-elite
(bottom panel) soccer players did not differ on the amount of time invested in each of
these activities. Even when the total time accumulated in all other sporting activities was
combined there were no significant differences between skill groups. In addition, both
elite and sub-elite players tended to participate in a similar number of sports (n = 3) and
both groups only specialized in an average of one sport upon leaving school or joining a
professional soccer club on a full-time basis (i.e., at 16 years of age).
Insert Figure 2a and 2b about here
To examine whether there were any differences between sports as a function of similarity
of the sports to soccer, a descriptive analysis of time spent in similar team (e.g., field
hockey), dissimilar team (e.g., cricket) and individual activities (e.g., swimming) was
conducted. Surprisingly, sub-elite players appeared to spend approximately three times
the amount of time in play, practice, and match play activities in similar team sports
when compared to elite players. There was no evidence that an investment in other
activities (even similar activities) was in any degree comparable to investing in similar
amounts of deliberate practice within the specialist domain itself. While these results are
clearly at odds with Côté and colleagues’ emphasis upon deliberate play and diversity
during the sampling years, it is possible that discrepancies in findings primarily reflect
the differences in the seasonal nature of the sports examined and/or cultural differences in
the talent development systems examined by the respective researchers. Ward et al.’s
research focused specifically upon English soccer where, although seasonal, the sport is
typically played and practised by children all year round. In contrast, Côté and colleagues
450
examined athletes from Canada and Australia where the sports concerned are far more
seasonally distinct, often marked by the prevalence of other major sports competing for
television ‘air time’. Subsequently, non-domain specific practice in the off-season may be
more common and relevant to performance predictions in North American and Australian
athletes.
Past Performance Peaks: Age or Practice-related Declines
Research has also been conducted into the practice habits of Master athletes and whether
qualitative differences exist in the nature of activities that predict continued success, past
peak as people age. Starkes, Weir, Singh, Hodges, and Kerr (1999) and Weir et al. (2002)
have shown that declines in practice among track athletes and swimmers, respectively,
are magnified with age as a function of distance. Longer distance events that require
higher levels of endurance appear to be more affected by ageing. Although these declines
are likely to be the result of the normal ageing process, associated with loss in
physiological capacity (i.e., VO2max), examination of practice estimates showed that
Master athletes decreased their hours of practice with age by about a quarter of the rate
reported by highly skilled, younger peers. The practice session for the Master athlete
however was defined by a relatively increased amount of time in activities designed to
improve endurance in comparison to their younger peers whose practice time was
devoted to activities related to power and strength (Weir et al., 2002). These findings
suggest that the focus of deliberate practice for the older athlete changes, such that
potential physiological declines can be somewhat delayed. Many researchers have shown
that Master athletes are far fitter than their sedentary, age-matched counterparts (e.g.,