Talent Identification and Development in Badmintonbwfeducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/...in-Badminton.pdf · Talent Identification and Development in Badminton A brief history

Talent Identification and Development in Badminton

Johan Pion, PhDHAN University of Applied Sciences Nijmegen (NED)Ghent University (BEL)

6th World Congress of Racket Sport Science



A brief history of sports talent research

"The Big Bang TID"

German Democratic Republic 'State Plan 14-25'

1968

1988

2004

2008

1972

1976

1980

1984

2000

1992

1996

2012

2016

2020

1964

Wolkow (1974) 'Coach Opinion'

1974

Bar-Or (1975) 'Statistics - Regression'

1975

Gimbel(1975) 'Deslected towards recreational sports'

1975

Gabler & Ruoff (1979) 'Performance Predictors'

1979

Bloom (1985) 'Retrospective Study'

1985

1968

1988

2004

2008

1972

1976

1980

1984

2000

1992

1996

2012

2016

2020

1964

Australia 'AIS'

1993

Règnier et al (1993) 'Sliding Population'

Csikszentmihalyi (1993) 'Prospective Study'

1993

Coté (1999) 'Specialising and Sampling'

1999

2008

2012

2016

2020

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1964

2004

2000

1992

1996

1988

China 'Project 111'

2004

Abbott & Collins (2004) 'Multidimensional concept'

2004

Gagné (2004) 'Giftedness and Talent'

2004

Balyi & Hamilton (2004) 'LTAD'

2004

Bailey & Morley (2004) 'Potential in PE'

2008

2012

2016

2020

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1964

2004

2000

1992

1996

1988

Great Britain 'UK Sport'

2007

Coté (2007) 'Sports Participation'

2009

Hohmann (2009) 'High Ability'

Gulbin (2013) 'Performance Development'

2013

2013

Elferink-Gemser & Visscher (2013) 'TID and TDE'

Weissensteiner et al (2016) 'FTEM'

2016

2020

Tokyo 2020 'Pathways to Tokyo'


Lessons learned

Starting up a sustainable system for badminton



B. Vandorpe J. Fransen J. Pion

Detecting (Generic) Sports Potential



▪ Click to edit Master text styles

Detecting Sports Potential









Online input Internet (WiFi or 4G)

Start new testSelect participant

ManualClock

Data inputList of tested participants


Developing (Generic) Sports Potential


J. Pion


Developing (generic) Sports Potential

Rodrigues, Stodden and LopesDevelopmental pathways of change in fitness and motor competence are related to

overweight and obesity status at the end of primary school Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport (2015)








Orienting Sports Potential

J. Pion




Sports orientation toolfor children between8 and 10 years old.

at primary schools and localcommunities

Sports specific talent identification tool

for childrenat sports clubs

2


> 20.000

children in primary schools

> 2.000

elite sports schools

> 30.000

participants in clubs





“What do you like?”

“What are you good at?”

“Why do you play sports?”






Physical characteristics = Actual performance



Motor coordination = Sports potential





Badminton

Basketball

Gymnastics

Judo

Fencing

Taekwondo

Tennis

Triathlon

Volleyball

Cycling

Small Tall

Soccer

Handball

Table tennis

Ski

Quotiënt

Stature



Low High Quotiënt

Counter movement jump

BadmintonBasketball

Gymnastics

Judo

Fencing

Taekwondo

TennisTriathlonVolleyball

Cycling

Soccer

Handball

Table tennis

Ski



D.A. correctly classified

Badminton 96% - 83%

Basketball 91% - 80%

Gymnastics 98% - 92%

Handball 84% - 46%

Judo 98% - 71%

Soccer 93% - 86%

Table tennis 96% - 81%

Triathlon 90% - 82%

Volleyball 94% - 92%

Stat

ure

Sitt

ing

Hei

ght

Wei

ght

Fat%

BM

I

Sho

uld

erro

tati

on

Sit

and

reac

h

Co

un

ter

mo

vem

ent

jup

Shu

ttle

ru

n 1

0 x

5m

Spri

nt

5m

Spri

nt

30

m

Sit

up

s

Kn

eeP

ush

up

s

Stan

din

g b

road

jum

p

End

ura

nce

shu

ttle

ru

n

KTK

BB

KTK

JS

KTK

MS

Dri

bb

leru

n

Dri

bb

leH

and

s

Dri

bb

leFe

et

Thro

win

gsh

utt

les

Generic anthropometric and performance characteristics among elite adolescent boys in nine different sports Johan Pion, Veerle Segers, Job Fransen, Gijs Debuyck, Dieter Deprez, Leen Haerens, Roel Vaeyens,

Renaat Philippaerts and Matthieu Lenoir European Journal of Sports Sciences (2014)





D.A. correctly classified

Badminton 96% - 83%

Stat

ure

Sitt

ing

Hei

ght

Wei

ght

Fat%

BM

I

Sho

uld

erro

tati

on

Sit

and

reac

h

Co

un

ter

mo

vem

ent

jup

Shu

ttle

ru

n 1

0 x

5m

Spri

nt

5m

Spri

nt

30

m

Sit

up

s

Kn

eeP

ush

up

s

Stan

din

g b

road

jum

p

End

ura

nce

shu

ttle

ru

n

KTK

BB

KTK

JS

KTK

MS

Dri

bb

leru

n

Dri

bb

leH

and

s

Dri

bb

leFe

et

Thro

win

gsh

utt

les

Generic anthropometric and performance characteristics among elite adolescent boys in nine different sports Johan Pion, Veerle Segers, Job Fransen, Gijs Debuyck, Dieter Deprez, Leen Haerens, Roel Vaeyens,

Renaat Philippaerts and Matthieu Lenoir European Journal of Sports Sciences (2014)

Knee push-ups (F = 6.041 and P = 0.015),Sprint 5m (F = 5.535 and P = 0.005)Counter movement jump (F = 5.262 and P = 0.002)Throwing distance (F = 31.536 and P < 0.001)


Normalized scores

P5 P10 P25 P50 P75 P95P90

Z +1Z -1 Z +2 Z +3 Z +4 Z +5X

Outlyersor

Specific Population

Benchmarks


Development Lines for Stature (Boys - Flanders)

110 120 170 Stature (cm)190130 140 150 180 200160

Reference sample Primary Schools (6y. – 11y.) Elite Sport Schools (12y. – 17y.)

17 y

16 y

15 y

14 y

13 y

12 y

11 y

10 y

9 y

8 y

7 y

6 y

Age (y.)


Counter Movement Jump (Badminton Boys)

(cm)

17 y

16 y

15 y

14 y

13 y

12 y

5 10 35 45

11 y

10 y

9 y

8 y

7 y

6 y

Age (y.)

15 20 25 40 5030

Primary schools (6y – 11y)) elite sport schools (12y – 17y)

Sample badminton


Shuttle Run 10x5m (Badminton Boys)


Sample badminton

Time (s)17 18 23 2519 20 21 24 2622

17 y

16 y

15 y

14 y

13 y

12 y

11 y

10 y

9 y

8 y

7 y

6 y

Age (y.)


KTK Jumping Sideways (Badminton Boys)


Sample badminton

17 y

16 y

15 y

14 y

13 y

12 y

11 y

10 y

9 y

8 y

7 y

6 y

Age (y.)

2x (n/15s.) 20 30 80 10040 50 60 90 11070


KTK Moving Sideways (Badminton Boys)


Sample badminton

17 y

16 y

15 y

14 y

13 y

12 y

11 y

10 y

9 y

8 y

7 y

6 y

Age (y.)

25 30 55 6535 40 45 60 7050 2x (n/20s.)


KTK Moving Sideways (Badminton Boys)


Sample badminton

17 y

16 y

15 y

14 y

13 y

12 y

11 y

10 y

9 y

8 y

7 y

6 y

Age (y.)

Score 18 24 54 6630 36 42 60 7248


Profiling (Individual Scores)

50"

PHASE 5: STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES AND BENCHMARKS

Test scores

What is the meaning of a raw score of 1.76 m? When interpreting test results, raw scores do not mean much,

unless they can be compared to other scores. 1.76m might be the stature of a 12y old girl or a 16y old boy and

it can even be the distance measured with a standing broad jump from a 17y old girl or a 9 year old boy. The

interpretation of test result 1.76m becomes even more complex when interpreting the stature from a late and

or an early mature badminton player for a standing broad jump. Gifted athletes are often indicated by excellent

(unusual) test scores. Therefore, it is important that the normal scores are benchmarks for talent detection.

Matsudo (1996) implemented the Z-score strategy to detect exceptional scores for volleyball and basketball

players. His system was based on the Z-profile of a talented sportsman compared to the Z-profile of elite

players in the natonal team in a certain sport. The Z-strategy from Matsudo (1996) was adapted and

recalculated into motor quotient scores (MQ) by Kiphard and Schilling (2007) and later by Ahnert (2009) who

aimed positioning children for motor coordination. The main difference between Z-score and motor quotient

scores is that the scores are expressed in positive scores compared to the positive and negative Z-scores.

The motor quotient equals 100 + ((score - mean score) / standard deviation) x15). This shows that the motor

quotient is a conversion of the Z-score to a scale in which the average is equal to 100 (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Positioning with Z-scores and MQ scores

From 2007 to 2009, 5.613 children (6-12y) and 1.411 adolescents (12-18y) from 16 different Flemish elite

sports academies performed the Flemish Sports Compass test battery. Parallel to the study of the Flemish

Sports Compass data were collected for talent identification in different sports with a mix of generic and sport

specific tests, which serve as benchmarks for different populations, and different sports.


Benchmarks

Stature 166 cm

BadmintonFencing Gymnastics Triathlon Volleyball

Mindergoed UitstekendMindergoed Uitstekend Mindergoed Uitstekend Mindergoed Uitstekend Mindergoed Uitstekend

Mindergoed UitstekendMindergoed Uitstekend Mindergoed Uitstekend Mindergoed Uitstekend Mindergoed Uitstekend

BadmintonFencing Gymnastics Triathlon Volleyball

8993 94 78

8779 109 90 70

Boy 15y

CMJ 33cm

Boy 15y

112



LUCAS

JOSEPH

ANNA

Better Movers



Anna

Joseph

Lucas

Triathlon Triathlon

TriathlonAthletics Fond

Swimming

Swimming

Athletics Fond

Swimming

Athletics Fond

GymnasticsFencing

Gymnastics

Fencing

Gymnastics

Fencing

Taekwondo

Judo

Taekwondo

Judo

TaekwondoJudo

Tennis

Badminton

TennisBadminton

TennisBadminton

Basketball

Volleyball

Basketball

Volleyball

Basketball

Volleyball

Cycling

Soccer

CyclingSoccer

CyclingSoccer

All children





















I like App clip.mov


Specialising or Sampling




Specialising or SamplingSportKompas I NEED (coaches' survey)

Specialising

Sampling






Velocity (Speed)

Endurance

Jumping

Agility Run

Throwing

Kicking

Swimming

Indoor / Outdoor

Contact / No Contact

Flexibility

Core Stability

Climbing

Pull Strength

Catching

Rythm

Hitting

Individual / Team

Small / Tall

Balance

100



Velocity (Speed)

Endurance

Jumping

Agility Run

Throwing

Kicking

Swimming

Indoor / Outdoor


Flexibility

Core Stability

Climbing

Pull Strength

Catching

Rythm

Hitting

Individual / Team

Small / Tall

Balance

100 9393



Velocity (Speed)

Endurance

Jumping

Agility Run

Throwing

Kicking

Swimming

Indoor / Outdoor


Flexibility

Core Stability

Climbing

Pull Strength

Catching

Rythm

Hitting

Individual / Team

Small / Tall

Balance

100 939382 85



Velocity (Speed)

Endurance

Jumping

Agility Run

Throwing

Kicking

Swimming

Indoor / Outdoor


Flexibility

Core Stability

Climbing

Pull Strength

Catching

Rythm

Hitting

Individual / Team

Small / Tall

Balance

100 93938281 85 82



Velocity (Speed)

Endurance

Jumping

Agility Run

Throwing

Kicking

Swimming

Indoor / Outdoor


Flexibility

Core Stability

Climbing

Pull Strength

Catching

Rythm

Hitting

Individual / Team

Small / Tall

Balance

100 9393828163 85 82 59



Specialising

Broader Specialisation

Directed Sampling

Sampling


Identifying Sports Potential

Sports orientation toolfor children between8 and 10 years old.

at primary schools and localcommunities

Sports specific talent identification tool

for childrenat sports clubs

2


Identifying Sports Potential


R. Vaeyens H. Mohammed B. Vandorpe S. Matthys J. Vandendriessche J. Fransen D. Deprez J. Pion


Predicting Sporting Elite


Generic tests

Sport specific tests

Gymnastics








3j

4j

5j

6j

Baseline 5y later

Talent in female gymnastics: a survival analysis based upon performance characteristics Pion J, Lenoir M, Vandorpe B, Segers V

International Journal of Sports Medicine 2015; 36(11): 935-940

243 35

Talent Development

Talent Selection

Talent Identification

Gymnastics (WAG)



Talent in female gymnastics: a survival analysis based upon performance characteristics Pion J, Lenoir M, Vandorpe B, Segers V

International Journal of Sports Medicine 2015; 36(11): 935-940

243 35

Talent Development

Talent Selection

Talent Identification

Gymnastics (WAG)

< 3.90 s.> 4.28 s.

Sprint 20mDrop Out Ratio

67.6%









Shuttle Throw Sprint 5m / 30m CM Jump


Growth and Maturation




Stature (APHV 6 months earlier)

17y

16y

15y

14y

13y

12y

140 cm 150 cm 160 cm 170 cm 180 cm



Stature (APHV 6 months later)

17y

16y

15y

14y

13y

12y

140 cm 150 cm 160 cm 170 cm 180 cm



Sprint 30m (APHV 6 months later)

17y

16y

15y

14y

13y

12y

140 cm 4,100 s. 4,500 s. 4,900 s. 5,300 s.



Counter movement jump (APHV 6 months later)

17y

16y

15y

14y

13y

12y

14 cm 20 cm 26 cm 32 cm 38 cm



KTK Moving Sideways (APHV 6 months later)

17y

16y

15y

14y

13y

12y

50x / 2x20 sec 60x / 2x20 sec 70x / 2x20 sec 80x / 2x20 sec



Dribble feet (APHV 6 months later)

17y

16y

15y

14y

13y

12y

16,00 sec 18,00 sec 20,00 sec 22,00 sec




Bio-bands of maturity for an individual male based on cumulative growth and percentage of adult height (Cumming et al 2017).



Bio-bands of maturity for an individual male based on cumulative growth and percentage of adult height (Cumming et al 2017).







Future Projects


eTALENT Lab



Thank you

Talent Identification and Development in Badmintonbwfeducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/...in-Badminton.pdf · Talent Identification and Development in Badminton A brief history

Documents