Hi all
Just a quick link to share an article on how Clermont Rugby are considering differences in relative age and maturation and exploring the potential benefits of bio-banding strategies
It is a good article and what they appear to be putting in place looks great. It is important to note that relative age and biological maturation are, however, not synonymous. This is a common error that journalists and often researchers make. Whereas relative age is determined by date of birth and cut off dates and typically varies but a maximum of one year; variance in maturity timing result from a combination of genetic (approx 80%) and environmental/behavioural factors, and can vary by as much as five to six years within kids of the same age. As such it is entirely possible to be the youngest in one's age group, but also the most mature (and vice versa).
I think that much of the confusion around relative age and maturation results from the fact that age is often used in society an index of when children are capable of engaging in more mature forms of behaviours (i.e., driving, drinking, sex, marriage etc...). That is we assume children are capable of engaging in matures behaviours and roles when they achieve a specific age, and that there is a direct association between these two constructs (age and maturity).
While age and maturity are highly correlated when we consider children across a wide age range, the association between these constructs becomes much weaker when we consider them within narrower age bands (i.e., one year age group), and it would appear that the association may be even weaker in young athletes. Our own studies show little to no correlation between relative and maturity within one year age groups in athletes, and in some cases have even shown inverse relations. As such, relative age cannot be considered a proxy of maturation within a single year age group. These findings may be due to the fact that being advanced in maturity may be a more important requisite for Q4 than Q1 athlete. that is, being advanced in maturity may help mitigate some of the disadvantages associated with being almost a year younger or less experienced. That is, a disproportionate number of early maturing athletes are likely to be represented in Q4, than in Q1.
Further evidence of the independent nature of these constructs can be seen in their associated selection biases. Relative age effects can be observed from early childhood and are maintained though early to late adolescence. In contrast, maturity selection biases only emerge from the onset of puberty and typically increase with age and level of competition. These disparities demonstrate that relative age and maturation are distinct constructs that exist and operate independent of one another, and likely result from different attributes and involve difference processes and mechanisms. Relative age effects are much more likely to result from factors that are align with age, such as experience and cognitive, motor, and social development. This would explain why we can observed RAEs well in advance of puberty and in non physical domains such as academics, chess, business and politics. Some of our most recent studies also show that RAE and maturation differentially impact physical and psychological variables, with maturity typically being the most important attribute during adolescence. For example, in our work in football and rugby we have typically found maturity, but nor relative age to serve as a more important predictor of variance in fitness and psychological skills. This is perhaps not that surprising given that there is much more scope for variance in maturation than relative age doing the phase of development.
Solutions for the RAE would ideally need to focus on these attributes and implemented well in advance of puberty. Such strategies should also be considered prior to entry into the academy system and potentially at the grass roots levels. There are some exciting strategies currently being trialled such as mean age competition, visual cues to help with scouting/evaluation, late birthday projects/teams, and Q4 recruitment days.
Strategies such as bio-banding are not designed to address the RAE (though often are confused and misrepresented as being such) and, thus, will not solve such phenomena. Rather they are designed to help coaches and practitioners consider the individual differences in biological maturation. Accordingly, strategies such as bio-banding are best left until the onset of puberty when the physical and athletic advantages associated with variance in maturity timing become more salient.
Going forward, it will be important that researchers and practitioners recognise relative age and maturity as distinct and consider the potential interactions of these constructs. What is the impact of being both a late maturing athlete and a quarter 4, do they even exist in our athlete development systems? Do athletes who are Q1 and early maturing have the greatest advantages, but could these advantages serve as a disadvantage in the long term (i.e., lack of challenge)? Researchers and practitioners also need to consider and treat relative age and maturity as distinct when they look to develop strategies to help deal with them..
If anyone has any thoughts on this topic then feel free to share them in the comments below
Cheers Sean