Two Articles Worth Reading

Both of these papers are well worth reading. They both challelge conventional wisdom. They should get you thinking.

The
Rocky Road to the Top: Why Talent Needs Trauma

Collins,
Dave; MacNamara, Áine

Sports Medicine. 42(11):907-914, November 1,
2012.

 The increasingly well funded and
high-tech world of talent development (TD) represents an important investment
for most sports. Reflecting traditional concepts of challenge and focus, the
vast majority of such systems expend a great deal of effort maximizing support
to the young athletes and trying to counter the impact of naturally occurring
life stressors. In this article, we suggest that much of this effort is
misdirected; that, in fact, talented potential can often benefit from, or even
need, a variety of challenges to facilitate eventual adult performance. Our
argument is built on evidence that such challenges are more common in athletes
who reach the top, together with a critical consideration of the modus operandi
and impact of psychological/character-focused interventions such as mental
toughness and resilience. In conclusion, we explore some implications for the
design and conduct of optimum academies and TD environments.

Periodization
Paradigms in the 21st Century: Evidence-Led or Tradition-Driven? John
Kiely

IJSPP Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2012, 7, 242 – 250 

The planning and organization of athletic training have
historically been much discussed and debated in the coaching and sports science
literature. Various influential periodization theorists have devised, promoted,
and substantiated particular training-planning models based on interpretation
of the scientific evidence and individual beliefs and experiences.
Superficially, these proposed planning models appear to differ substantially.
However, at a deeper level, it can be suggested that such models share a
deep-rooted cultural heritage underpinned by a common set of historically
pervasive planning beliefs and assumptions. A concern with certain of these formative
assumptions is that, although no longer scientifically justifiable, their
shaping influence remains deeply embedded. In recent years substantial evidence
has emerged demonstrating that training responses vary extensively, depending
upon multiple underlying factors. Such findings challenge the appropriateness
of applying generic methodologies, founded in overly simplistic rule-based
decision making, to the planning problems posed by inherently complex
biological systems. The purpose of this review is not to suggest a whole-scale
rejection of periodization theories but to promote a refined awareness of their
various strengths and weaknesses. Eminent periodization theorists—and their
variously proposed periodization models—have contributed substantially to the
evolution of training-planning practice. However, there is a logical line of
reasoning suggesting an urgent need for periodization theories to be realigned
with contemporary elite practice and modern scientific conceptual models. In
concluding, it is recommended that increased emphasis be placed on the design
and implementation of sensitive and responsive training systems that facilitate
the guided emergence of customized context-specific training-planning
solutions.