Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 11 January 2016
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009
Edited by:
Nicola Jane Hodges,
The University of British Columbia,
Canada
Reviewed by:
David Sherwood,
University of Colorado Boulder, USA
John J. Buchanan,
Tex as A& M Un iversity, US A
*Correspondence:
Dave Collins
djcollins@uclan.ac.uk
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Movement Science and Sport
Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 06 October 2015
Accepted: 16 December 2015
Published: 11 January 2016
Citation:
Collins D, MacNamara Á
and McCarthy N (2016) Super
Champions, Champions,
and Almosts: Important Differences
and Commonalities on the Rocky
Road. Front. Psychol. 6:2009.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009
Super Champions, Champions, and
Almosts: Important Differences and
Commonalities on the Rocky Road
Dave Collins1*, Áine MacNamara1and Neil McCarthy2
1Institute of Coaching and Performance, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK, 2Gloucester Rugby Club,
Gloucester, UK
The real-world experiences of young athletes follow a non-linear and dynamic trajectory
and there is growing recognition that facing and overcoming a degree of challenge is
desirable for aspiring elites and as such, should be recognized and employed. However,
there are some misunderstandings of this “talent needs trauma” perspective with some
research focusing excessively or incorrectly on the incidence of life and sport challenge
as a feature of effective talent development. The objective of the study was to examine
what factors associated with such “trauma” experiences may or may not discriminate
between high, medium, and low achievers in sport, classified as super-champions,
champions or almosts. A series of retrospective interviews were used with matched
triads (i.e., super-champions, champions, or almosts) of performers (N=54) from
different sports. Data collection was organized in three phases. In the first phase, a
graphic time line of each performer’s career was developed. The second phase explored
the specific issues highlighted by each participant in a chronological sequence. The third
phase was a retrospective reflection on “traumatic” motivators, coach/significant other
inputs and psychological challenges experienced and skills employed. Data suggested
qualitative differences between categories of performers, relating to several perceptual
and experiential features of their development. No evidence was found for the necessity
of major trauma as a feature of development. There was a lack of discrimination across
categories of performers associated with the incidence of trauma and, more particularly,
life or non-sport trauma. These findings suggest that differences between levels of adult
achievement relate more to what performers bring to the challenges than what they
experience. A periodized and progressive set of challenge, preceded and associated
with specific skill development, would seem to offer the best pathway to success for the
majority.
Keywords: psychological characteristics, developmental growth, coping, non-linearity, challenge
INTRODUCTION
There is considerable evidence that the real-world experiences of young athletes follow a non-linear
and dynamic trajectory (Abbott et al., 2005;Ollis et al., 2006;MacNamara et al., 2010a,b;Bridge and
Toms, 2012). In contrast to the deliberate practice framework (Ericsson et al., 1993) that suggests
expertise is a linear function of time spent in practice, successful athletes typically report a non-
linear, complex, and individualized route to the top of their sport and must adapt to (anticipated
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Collins et al. Super-Champs, Champs, and Almosts
and non-anticipated) developmental opportunities, set-backs and
a range of transitions as they progress in their sport. In an effort to
understand, and support, the development of young athletes it is
therefore important to understand the nature of this pathway and
the range of factors that may positively, or negatively, impact on
development and distinguish between those athletes who achieve
the greatest success and their less successful counterparts.
A common feature of many talent development (TD)
pathways is to minimize the number and certainly the impact
of developmental challenges on young athletes. For example,
providing young athletes with financial, coaching, and sport
science support in a supportive environment is a common
feature of TD pathways. This approach is undertaken in an
effort to minimize challenge and allow young athletes focus
on their sporting commitments. Indeed, many TD pathways
purposefully try to smooth the pathway for their most talented
performers. The problem is further exacerbated since, due to
their early ability, many young athletes may often not encounter
many challenges until late in their career. Increasingly, however,
experiencing a degree of challenge during development is
recognized as an essential characteristic of those athletes who
make it to the very highest level in their sport. As such, there
has been calls for the inclusion of structured trauma, designed
and implemented as part of the pathway, as an essential feature
of any TD system (Collins and MacNamara, 2012). There seems
to be growing recognition that facing and overcoming a degree
of challenge is desirable for aspiring elites and as such, should
be recognized and employed, rather than avoided. Of course,
addressing terminology in this area is important. In fact, the
use of the term ‘trauma’ often seems to raise some concerns
due perhaps to the emotive nature of the word. An Oxford
English Dictionary definition of trauma would generate the
following “from Greek, literally wound”; in short, anything from
a small cut to losing a limb! We would contest that the use of
trauma in the TD context is certainly more toward the band
aid than the amputation end of the continuum, albeit that, at
the time, the emotional upheaval from the trauma can be very
real for individuals. For young athletes on the TD pathway,
this structured trauma might include challenges such as playing
up an age-group, out of position, de-selection or selection for
particular competitions, or increases in training load (Collins and
MacNamara, 2012).
It is also important to consider the skills required to
negotiate this “challenge-filled” pathway. Considerable research
has highlighted the importance of psychological characteristics
and competencies as central to the development process. For
example, our recent work in TD has identified a set of skills
which can both facilitate the process and optimize the outcome
of the talent pathway. Termed the Psychological Characteristics
of Developing Excellence (PCDEs: MacNamara et al., 2010a,b),
anddescribedasthoseskillsandcharacteristicsthatenableyoung
athletes cope with the inevitable “up and downs” of development,
maximize growth opportunities, and learn from setbacks, we see
these characteristics as an implicit element for development and
exploitation throughout the pathway. Having identified them,
the next logical step was to look at how these characteristics
were optimally developed and deployed (cf. Gould et al., 2010).
Based on our studies and the wider literature, there seemed to
be two important sources of PCDE-like characteristics, apart
from specific interventions focused on their development (e.g.,
MacNamara, 2011).
The first was the background and life experiences of the
performer; for example, issues such as aspects of upbringing
(e.g., status as an ethnic minority) seem to be associated with
eventual sporting success (e.g., Van Yperen, 2009). The second
were experiences in the pathway itself (cf. Nicholls et al.,
2006;MacNamara et al., 2008). For example, there appears to
be considerable merit in the teaching of PCDEs and offering
opportunities to test and refine these skills against real-life
challenges. As such, the explicit teaching of PCDEs, exercised and
supported against developmental challenges along the pathway
has been shown to equip athletes with the generalizable skills,
and how to deploy them appropriately, to cope with ‘trauma’
(Collins and MacNamara, 2012). Both these sources pointed
toward a non-linear (cf. Abbott et al., 2005) and challenge
filled progression along the talent pathway as a common
characteristic of high-level participants (e.g., MacNamara et al.,
2010b). Accordingly, and building on these earlier data, we
proposed the Rocky Road to Success (Collins and MacNamara,
2012), highlighting the incidence of challenging events as key
defining moments in elite performers’ autobiographical accounts
of development and in addition, the increasing recognition of
psychological factors as central to all aspects of performance
(e.g., Duckworth et al., 2007, 2010). In summary, we proposed
that talent needs some degree of challenge to develop optimally
and thus, talent pathways had to optimize challenge rather than
merely providing unremitting support. Importantly, ‘challenge’
episodes should be preceded by skills training, and fully
supported and debriefed, if the benefits of this approach are to
accrue (Collins and MacNamara, 2012).
Notably, however, although such “bumpy,” challenge-filled
pathways were a feature of every high level performer we
examined, independent of domain (MacNamara et al., 2010b),
there were several aspects of this pathway experience and
its antecedents which needed exploration. Specifically, and
reflecting the terminological confusion highlighted previously;
trauma, challenge, and “rocky road” have all been used to
describe the growth episodes described in this research field
(e.g., Collins and MacNamara, 2012;Howells and Fletcher,
2015) and there was a clear need, from both a research and
applied perspective, to provide clarity. Furthermore, several
authors have pursued research lines which appeared to suggest
that it is such trauma itself which is the causative factor in
high sporting achievement. Typical approaches examined athlete
biographies and autobiographies, highlighting the number and
nature of occurrences which had occurred in the lives of top
performers (e.g., Oakley, 2014;Howells and Fletcher, 2015).
There are even some sources suggesting the juxtaposition of
trauma and early sporting achievement as a consistent or
even exclusive precursor of later elite multiple success (Rees
et al., 2013). This seems to us as practitioners to be unlikely
and, as a proposed evidence base for TD policy in sport,
offers little for the development of pre-elites. Instead, carefully
structured, well-supported and individualized challenge as an
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Collins et al. Super-Champs, Champs, and Almosts
essential feature of the TDE would seem more developmentally
appropriate.
Accordingly, we were interested to see what factors associated
with “challenge” experiences may or may not discriminate
between high, medium and low achievers in sport. Therefore,
we conducted interviews with matched triads in an attempt to
tease out differences and similarities within their developmental
experiences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
Given the aims of the study, and with particular reference to the
groupings identified in the title, we purposefully sampled triads
of performers from different sports. Each triad was matched
as closely as possible on basic background characteristics (i.e.,
sex, years in sport, sport/event/position played, nationality,
educational level) to facilitate comparison.
We targeted and recruited from four groups of sports to
offer a range of experience. Accordingly, 54 performers were
selected and interviewed as follows; six triads from team sports
(18 participants from soccer and rugby), six triads from CGS
(centimeter, gram, second) sports (cf. Moesch et al., 2011 –18
participants drawn from athletics and rowing/sculling), three
triads from individual sports (curling, shooting, and skiing) and
three from combat sports (karate, judo, and boxing). Participant
confidentiality was clearly a paramount concern, so demographic
details are not reported or approximated. Furthermore, in order
to secure a sufficiently “super”, super champion category, we
recruited from several Western European nations rather than just
one. Control for differences in national experience was achieved
by recruiting each triad from a single country and, where possible,
ethnic group.
Participants were classified on the following criteria. In team
sports, super champions (SCs; see Tab le 1) had all played/were
playing premiership level (i.e., English Premiership – Rugby
Union; English premier league, Bundesliga, or La Liga – Soccer)
and had achieved, at the time of interview, more than 50
appearances for their national team. Champions (Cs; see Tab le 1)
had also played/were playing at the same league level but had
achieved less than five international caps. Almosts (As) were
defined as players who had achieved well at youth level (including
age-group representative honors) but had then played/were
playing at Championship (second national league) as their
highest achievement.
TABLE 1 | Participant achievement information.
Super champs Champs
Team 73.4 caps
22.5 years
Four still playing
4.2 caps
12 years
Three still playing
Individual Sports 8.25 Medals
13.2 years
Four still competing
1 Medal
12.3 years
Two still competing
In all the other sports, we used a combination of time
at high levels of world ranking in combination with major
(world, Olympic) medals won as the classifier for SCs (see
Tab le 1). This facilitated balance of achievement across differing
sports and avoided issues of those sports with multiple rather
than single/double medal opportunities at single events (e.g.,
cycling/swimming versus athletics, respectively). Accordingly,
SCs had achieved ranking/were currently ranked in the top 3
in the world for their event for at least four years and had
won at least five world/Olympic medals (or the equivalent
in professional/non-Olympic sports, e.g., World-Cup), with no
more than two achieved at the same event (to ensure that
the SC status had some longevity). Cs (see Tab le 1) had been
ranked/were ranked in the world top 40, achieving no more than
one medal at world or Olympic level. Finally, As were classified by
their achievement of world/European youth/junior medals, but
no medaling performances at this level as seniors. In all cases,
across all sports, performers were either still active or had retired
within the last 3 years when interviewed.
Procedure
Participants meeting the criteria outlined above were invited to
participate through personal contact, either directly or through
gatekeepers. Fifty-six participants agreed to take part and
completed informed consent, the study having been approved
through the University Ethics Committee.
Data collection was organized in three phases using a semi-
structured interview method. To ensure an optimum personal
contexttothedata,itwascrucialthateachparticipantwas
able to relate his or her experiences clearly to the key stages
that applied to their own careers (cf. Ollis et al., 2006). This
approach has been previously shown to increase the accuracy
and veracity of recall (Drasch and Matthes, 2013)andwas
an important step to help overcome some of the limitations
of retrospective recall inherent in this type of data collection
by ensuring participants anchored their recall of incidents to
particular times and events. Accordingly, in the first phase and
in collaboration with each participant, a trajectory chart of each
performer’s career was developed on a standardized grid (see
Figure 1). Guided questioning, using a standardized interview
guide including probes and prompts, enabled an exploration of
the different stages encountered along the pathway to excellence
which included both sport and non-sport related events.
Building on this stage of questioning, the second phase
explored the specific issues identified in the first phase of
questioning, following a chronological sequence from pre-
pathway, then during the macro and micro stages and
transitions identified in the first part of the interview. Again,
a standardized interview guide including probes and prompts
was employed with each participant and all interviews were
conducted independently. Finally, the third phase addressed a
retrospective reflection on “traumatic” motivators and derailers,
coach/significant other inputs, methods employed (including
PCDEs) and psychological challenges experienced. Each question
in the interview guide was open-ended, thus yielding a variety
of responses that were pertinent to each performer. Specific
probes and prompts were used for clarification and elaboration
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Collins et al. Super-Champs, Champs, and Almosts
FIGURE 1 | Exemplar participant drawn timeline (Team Sport Almost) of development pathway.
of key points and to obtain consistency in the depth of responses
(Patton, 2002).
Design and Analysis
All interviews were transcribed verbatim with each interview
lasting between 90 and 130 min. Following this, and using
the self-drawn trajectory charts, participants’ experiences
were tracked across the pathway process. Drawing on these
retrospectives, plus participants’ post hoc viewpoints, inductive
content analyses were conducted. Specifically, after reading and
re-reading the transcription, qualitative analysis software (QSR
NVIVO 9) was used to transform raw data units into thematic
hierarchies by recursively engaging in tag creation, category
creation, and category organization (Côté et al., 1993). As the
first step, a line-by-line analysis was undertaken to identify
and label raw data units (i.e., raw quotation that exemplified
a meaningful point or piece of information). Following this,
the raw data units were compared for similarities and grouped
into higher order themes. To revise identified concepts based
upon emerging analysis, the constant comparative method
was employed and conceptual memos recorded detailing
evolving ideas and key notes (Davis and Meyer, 2009). This
process allowed for the constant refinement of the results until
theoretical saturation was met (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
Reflecting the focus on common themes in experience, data were
then amalgamated to produce a set of perceptions indicative of
the group as a whole.
Addressing Trustworthiness
Several approaches were employed to optimize data
trustworthiness (cf. Sparkes, 1998;Sparkes and Smith, 2009). All
interviews were conducted by the first author who enhanced trust
and rapport with interviewees via appreciation of their history
and current situation and the demands of the general/specific
elite performance and development experiences. In addition,
interview transcripts were returned to each participant to
allow member checks with participants, involving a 10–15 min
meeting/skype conversation to discuss the emerging results and
the accuracy and fairness of quotes considered for inclusion in
the paper from that individual. Importantly, feedback was sought
on what the researchers had considered these quotes to signify
and the context of the results subsection in which they would
appear. From this process, no thematic categories were changed
and four of 60 exemplar quotes were slightly adjusted without
altering their meaning.
Trustworthiness of the analytical process was also addressed.
Facilitated by QSR NVIVO’s optimization of transparency (cf.
Bringer et al., 2004), the constant comparison method and
creation of conceptual memos (Davis and Meyer, 2009)aswell
as challenging data interpretation ensured that evolving meaning
was continually re-evaluated and re-asserted. To further limit
interpretative bias and verify rigor, a reflexive journal was also
maintained (Patton, 2002). Additionally, the third author (an
experienced qualitative researcher) read the full transcripts of
nine interviews and assessed aprioriinterpretations of meaning
units against the labels created by the first author and their
fit with the overall thematic structure. In the few cases of
alternative explanation and questions over accuracy or potential
bias, reflective discussion took place until all themes and their
location in the thematic hierarchy were agreed (Stake, 2008).
Furthermore, and also ensuring that the first and third authors’
remained cognizant of their assumptions and presumptions,
the second author acted as a “critical friend” throughout by
supporting in-depth critique and investigation of the emerging
interpretation, discoveries, and explanations (Faulkner and
Sparkes, 1999).
RESULTS
Reflecting the stated aim of the investigation, we highlight those
factors which did, and then did not, discriminate between the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Collins et al. Super-Champs, Champs, and Almosts
different categories of performer. We should highlight that only
rarely were these differences objective, depending rather on
qualitative factors such as reported experience, perceptions, etc.
To offer a rich picture of the data, exemplar quotes are presented
in each section, which represent the clearest themes to emerge
from the data.
Discriminating Factors
Commitment
Interest in and commitment to their eventual sport characterized
all the SCs, even though they did maintain other activities during
their development years. This was a consistent factor for the SCs
across all the sporting categories, as highlighted by the following
examples:
To be honest the only other sport that I really did was
basketball. And that was round about the age of 13. I wasn’t
very good at it though so I lost interest quite quickly. I loved
doing athletics, I really enjoyed it, and I did sports at school
through PE lessons but there nothing that really kind of
interested me outside of athletics. [CGS-SC]
I did athletics, handball and skiing but football was always
king... like skiing for example I didn’t do competitions I
practiced and trained. Also I was doing really well in high jump
as a youngster, at 13 I competed at like nationally but I never
really trained. [Team-SC]
The only differences apparent in the SC category were where
participants were focused initially on another sport.
I love [team sport]! I did everything at primary school, my PE
teacher introduced [team sport] to us. She didn’t really know
it very well, she was teaching us out of a book! So she was
standing and reading ∗laughs∗but I just loved it. I don’t know
why, I think it was just a very new sport, a very novel sport
compared to the other sports I played. And yeah, I was just
hooked on it from then. [CGS-SC]
A similar early profile was apparent in the majority of Cs. For
example, one of the team sport Cs described how from a young
age:
...all I wanted to do was play all the time and I knew that was
what I wanted to do when I was older from a very young age.
I was always kind of the most committed, I would miss out on
going to parties on Friday or Saturday nights because I knew
I would be playing...yeah I was pretty disciplined as a young
lad. [Team-C]
There were some notable differences, however, which
extended toward the transitional period.
I played every sport but I smoked when I was younger from
the age of 14 to 18 and I mean everything was blasé and laid
back and a quite immature approach to it and nothing really
mattered because it didn’t need to. [CGS-C]
In contrast, As were often less committed: whilst all reported
loving their sport, playing was often more important than
training. Typifying this, a number of the team As described
how:
I was probably up to that point coasting. Because you were
playing every week you sort of take it for granted that
you will be in the team because you were top of the pile.
[Team-A]
Regularly playing A league and playing against those guys and
training on a regular basis and just the odd session with the
first team training on a regular basis. I felt comfortable doing
that, it was not like it was a shock. [Team-A]
This approach and attitude to competing, rather than training,
was further highlighted by one of the combat As:
I loved fighting, but the training was just a chore. I would
miss it if I could and always avoided the bits I was shit at.
[Combat – A]
Reaction to Challenge
Super champions were characterized by an almost fanatical
reaction to challenge, both proactively and in reaction to
mishaps (i.e., trauma) which typically occurred due to injury or
sport related setbacks such as non-selection/being dropped. For
example, one of the team sport SCs described how:
I always felt that there’s no chance, nobody or anybody could
train more than I did. I always had that confidence. Even
though I was a shy person I had that confidence in knowing
that I must have been training at least as much as those who
are training in a bigger club. [Team-SC]
In a similar vein, another team sport SC explained how
his reaction to challenging events was in fact a positive
developmental experience:
IthinkIwasquitecriticaltomyselfandIfeltum...,Iwastoo
critical sometimes. But um... when you look back at it, it just
did me good because I continued to develop but I felt like I
could play one or two bad match then the third I was playing
really well, this is how I felt it was going. [Team-SC]
This positive reaction to challenge was typified by a “never
satisfied” attitude as described by both of these SCs:
I was never kind of satisfied, I was never like ‘Oh I’ve done
it now’ I was always like ‘This is the first step of my journey’
and there’s worlds, there’s Europeans and that brings with it
tougher competition. [CGS-SC]
My mum said I was never satisfied; I always wanted to do
something else, always planning. [Combat-SC]
In fact, this internal drive was apparent across sports, with SC
performers driven from an early age.
I started a lot further back than a lot of other girls. So I was
always really proud of that, how I’d manage to drag myself
up to be a good enough person to be selected. I knew I wasn’t
as good as everyone else but the fact that they saw so much
potential. [CGS-SC]
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Collins et al. Super-Champs, Champs, and Almosts
I am very much the sort of person that if I am not progressing
or not improving in an area I will get frustrated. So whatever
the activity, I was always wanting that next step...once I felt
that I had taken a step and that kind of renewed my energy and
my passion for it, and again at the bottom of another ladder.
[Individual-SC]
Most significant, however, was the super champs’ reaction to
setback. They spoke about how setbacks, injury or deselection
for example, were catalysts for their development rather than
roadblocks:
That injury was pretty crucial I think...I was going well before
it but the disappointment...the pain...it just kicked me where
it hurt and I was determined to get back. [Combat –SC]
Not making that selection, especially after all that work. Several
others just said fuck it, but I was never ever going to let them
beat me. I just did double everything! [Individual-SC]
The formative nature of these challenges is particularly
apparent in this quote from a SC who suffered a potentially career
ending injury.
No never, never ever thought about giving up. There was
days when I was like ‘Why is this happening to me? I’m so
frustrated, what am I going to do? How long is it going to take
me to get back?’ But then the other days were like, ‘right what
do I need to do? I’m going to do this, do this and get back’.
But I never ever thought I wanted to quit. I think I still would
have worked hard and still trained and done everything I could
have done. But I think it gave me a different mental capacity.
Because I’d never had to deal with anything like that before, so
I definitely did think it changed me and made me achieve what
I then went onto achieve. [CGS-SC]
By contrast, Cs displayed a much less consistent drive.
Rather than staying at training and thinking ‘right I’m going to
work hard, I’m going to really focus on my crossing, or really
focus on that’, I did no extra work. I didn’t go in the gym, I
didn’t eat the best foods. [Team-C]
Skill gaps were often ignored, with the performer making
up this deficiency through effort rather than working at it as a
significant weakness.
I played hooker in the three-man scrums so was one of the
smallest but I was probably one of the hardest working in
terms of the mental side of it. Skill-wise I would not say
I was that great, I was just quite tough. [Team-C]
Reaction to specific incidents was also less consistent and often
less positive.
Well the sort of 10 to sort of 17, 18 years should be a natural
yearly progression. But because I, because I broke my arm, I
wouldn’t say I didn’t improve but I just stood still. Well I’d say
I didn’t improve, I just sort of stood still for well, 18 months.
And it was an issue because when my arm got fixed I hadn’t
grown, and everyone else seemed to have grown. [Team-C]
Once again in contrast, As’ early careers appeared “blessed”
(participant’s term) due to the lack of challenge and the perceived
easiness of progression.
I just went from year to year, stage to stage and everything was
great. So many people interested in me, talking to me about
what it would be like to play premiership. The dream seemed
really real. [Team-A]
Things came so easily to me...the skills, techniques, tactics...I
felt no pressure and really agreed with when everyone told me
‘you’re a natural.’ [Individual-A]
Unfortunately, for all of the As, there came a moment of
reckoning, which usually seemed unexpected. For example, one
of the individual sport As described how:
The previous year had gone so well...national squad selection,
lots of support, then the Winter of 2006 everything just blew
up. I was suddenly lost...I didn’t know where to turn and the
support just seemed to evaporate. [Individual-A]
Some of these derailments occurred because of injury and
perceived insufficient or overly slow recovery. Notably, and in
contrast to their more successful counterparts, As seemed to
attribute externally in relation to the challenge and how they
failed to cope.
By the time I got back, everyone seemed to have kicked on. I
tried for a bit but I just couldn’t get back. I seemed to have lost
my mojo. [Combat- A]
I sort of lost enthusiasm for it because I did not feel like itwas –
I almost felt let down that I had, especially before the second
operation... why was my injury different from anyone else’s,
how come mine had to be 14 months for the same surgery that
someone else had done for 3 months. [Team-A]
Reflection and Reward
Clear differences were apparent in how different categories of
participant thought about their sport and also in how they
perceived progress and, consequently, administered self-reward.
For example, the SCs seemed intrinsically driven, with their
reflection sometimes at an almost spiritual level. The following
quotations typify this:
Iwasathinkerafteragame,oracompetition.SoIcould
analyze, I was good at analyzing myself. Both when I won and
whenIlost,Iwouldthink.[Team-SC]
I err, have had an inside commentator all my life. I could see
myself doing things before I went to sleep...Iwouldseemyself
scoring a goal. I daydreamed a lot, but always in situations
where I succeeded. I lifted a lot of World Cup trophies in my
imagination! [Team-SC]
The SCs described how this intrinsically focused attention to
detail was a key part of their preparation:
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Collins et al. Super-Champs, Champs, and Almosts
After every event and training session, every [participant’s
emphasis), I would complete my diary, highlighting areas for
development and setting goals. Man was I anal! But I had to
do it or I was pissed with myself all day. [Individual-SC]
For me it was all about getting better; about perfecting this
combination, then this one. Building my armory so that I
felt...so I would be impregnable. [Combat –SC]
Cs also described how they engaged in reflection, but this
seemed more focused externally, dominated by comparisons with
close rivals and competition results.
I was always scanning [sport magazine] for ranking lists, who
had done what over the weekend. If I was ahead I was happy; if
someone passed my SB I would fume all day. [CGS-C]
The Cs were very focused on external factors and this
tended to drive their preparation as articulated by the following
quotations:
Scores at the national ranking events were my focus...how
am I doing against X or Y. If they seemed to be scoring
better than me, I would consider doing what they did, even
changing coaches. In fact, I did that twice on the way up.
[Individual-C]
My whole focus was competition. I would beat most people in
randori [free practice training fights] but it meant nothing...it
had to be in the event. Looking back, I recognize how
foolish I was in not trying to transfer from one to the
other. At the time, they were just completely separate entities.
[Combat-C]
As also displayed this external, results focus, but to a
significantly higher degree astheir careers neared the clutch point
of final decisions on progression.
Early doors I just played...I would score every game,
sometimes two or three but it didn’t really matter. As I got
toward the final stages of the Youth Team, before they decided
who to sign, I got a lot more interested in how I was doing
against the others in the team. [Team-A]
I didn’t really think about my performance...others did it for
me. My coach, agent, girlfriends, Mum and Dad, they would
all tell me how well I had played. [Team-A]
I was like that black guy in the Bruce Lee film...Iwastoobusy
looking good! Then it seemed like, all of a sudden, things got
serious and difficult. [Combat-A]
The implications of this approach were particularly apparent
for the As during key transitional challenges such as moving into
the senior ranks of competition, as reported by this participant:
My thinking definitely changed when I became a senior. All
of a sudden I wasn’t winning, not even placing really. I
changed my thinking but also my new coach seemed a lot
less supportive and positive and a lot more demanding. I was
struggling to find the answers. [Individual-A]
The Role of Coaches and Significant Others in this
Process
All categories of participants referred to the role of significant
others in their progression. Once again, however, there were
clear qualitative differences apparent between categories. SCs
were mostly characterized by positive facilitation and gentle
encouragement; interestingly, siblings played a significant role for
many as exemplified in the following quotations:
It was when my older brother became professional and that
opened the door in my mind that it was possible. [Team-SC]
The drive...it’s not from my parents. They were supportive,
but they didn’t drive me, they didn’t push at all. But
the brothers, we were really competitive to each other.
[Team-SC]
All through my development from 13 to 18 being encouraged
to compete with them I remember my older brothers kicking
high balls and we would see who could catch them. [Team-SC]
Interestingly, the SCs described how parents took a back seat,
and though interested, were not a significant driver of their
development. One of the CGS SCs described how:
[my parents were] not really pushy, it was kind of just gentle
encouragement. They didn’t get, you know some parents get
really involved? They were never really involved,they’djust
come and watch me, support me. But they never wanted to
know what I was doing training wise and they never really got
involved in that way, and that helped. [CGS-SC]
The SCs reported that this behavior on the part of significant
others have important implications on their development. For
example, participants described how:
I learnt how to be very self-sufficient at the time. It’s not that
they [my parents] didn’t want to do it, they just didn’t need to
do it, I could do it myself. [Individual-SC]
As such, although parents were described as being a supportive
influence, the SCs reported that they did not have a significant
coaching role:
He was always there on a Sunday morning. He would go to
some County games and pretty much I think even now he
comes across country to watch me play, so he has probably
been to 95% of the games I’ve played, so he’s clearly big
in support but he has never played the game or been on
the coaching side of things, but he has given huge support.
[Team-SC]
Interestingly, SC’s coaches also mostly seemed to take a chilled,
longer term perspective, often in contrast to the performer’s
immediate ambitions.
I think [coaches name] was great in the fact that he never
wanted to rush anything where as I always did. I wanted to
be better, and I wanted to start winning things straight away.
He always had in his mind that it was a long journey. And
that’s the sort of thing that worked so well, he developed me as
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Collins et al. Super-Champs, Champs, and Almosts
an athlete really slowly so I would always achieve the things I
wanted to achieve later on in my career. [CGS-SC]
X was just what I needed. Always offering me a dose of
realism...building me up after disasters, drawing my attention
to weaknesses after big wins. Always friendly but always
honest. [Combat –SC]
For Cs, involvement from parents seemed to be a bit more
hands on.
My Dad managed the Sunday league team so he was
supportive. I wouldn’t say I got any special treatment, but I
wouldn’t say he went the other way and kind of subbed me
anymore than normal players. [Team-C]
He would come and coach me every Sunday, so he had a big
impact and he still does now. He is still the first person I speak
to after every single game and it’s kind of like a bit of a personal
coach for me. [Team-C]
Several Cs highlighted how new relationships seemed to offer
useful impetus for change.
When I met my wife it put me back on track a bit... it
coincided with me doing well. [Team-C]
Meeting and moving in with X was the making of me. She
encouraged me to re-evaluate my life, what part [sport] could
play in my life and ours. [Individual-C]
Coach relationships seemedslightly more pushy for the Cs but
also changed more frequently.
X was always wanting to dissect my performance. He was very
intense and, as I got older, it really started to antagonize me.
[Individual-C]
I became increasingly aware in that middle stage that coaches
wanted to ride me to the top. I spent a lot of time chopping
and changing, trying to find someone who would look after me
instead of the other way around. [CGS-C]
For the A category, significant others appeared to play a big
(sometimes perceived as too big) part in their sport.
My parents, Dad especially was always there...shouting
instructions from the touchline, pushing me to practice at
home. Really, I just wanted to be out with my mates, even
though we would still be kicking a ball around. I felt like [sport]
stole my childhood. [Team-A]
The As described how parents were an ever-present factor that
was always facilitative of good performances:
Mum and Dad would drive me everywhere, watch with much
nail biting (I was always aware of their nerves) then drive me
home with a big inquest. I sometimes envied my younger sister
who didn’t have all this shit. [Individual-A]
Coaches also seemed to be more demanding, often seeming to
drive the bus more than the performer.
X was the driving force. When I was younger, he would collect
me from home, drive me to the club, train me then drive me
back...talking about [sport] all the way. Let me tell you it was
f∗∗∗∗∗ intense. [Combat-A]
Coach became more like a father than my father...a
domineering one sometimes but very focused on how I was
behaving, what I was eating, boyfriends, etc. [CGS-A]
Interestingly, however, the loss of such an authority figure as
progress floundered was a problem for several.
You go from a stage of having a conditioning coach that
stretches you ... you know what you are doing each week, to
going to this senior squad and you are not really sure ... some
days you are on loan to [Club] and then some days everyone’s
been pulled from [Club] and then you are training again and
it’s so wishy washy you don’t really know where you stand.
[Team-A]
The As noted how they were ill-prepared to cope with these
changes:
It was a real feeling of release to get away from [Coach/Father]
and go to University. But once there I seemed to lose my way.
No-one telling me what to do...I just lost interest. [CGS-A]
As in the previous section, an intrinsic-extrinsic difference was
apparent across the categories.
Non-Discriminating Factors
Incidence and Types of Trauma
Reflecting the stated purposes of this investigation and against the
backdrop for the recent trend for trauma-focused investigations,
we were particularly keen to examine the incidence and impact
of trauma across the different categories. These data are
summarized in Tabl e 2. This quantitative style may seem at odds
with the tone and qualitative approach of the paper but, we would
suggest, offer the clearest and most succinct way of presenting an
accurate picture.
The numbers reflect the numberofparticipants(outof18
in each category of SC, C, and A) who spontaneously reported
traumatic experiences, with the plus sign numbers in the AP
(after probing) rows representing additional participants who
reported trauma only as a result of questioning. Following
the description of the incident or occurrence, participants
were asked to rate the impact of the trauma on them
personally, using a simple high–low scale of perceived impact.
Subsequently, and as a part of the analysis process, participant
descriptions were classified into different types, using the same
classification apparent in the recent paper by Howells and
Fletcher (2015). Whether spontaneously reported, or identified
after probing, incidents or occurrences of trauma described
were dealt with in a variety of ways. Of most relevance,
both the reporting and rating of the issue was a matter
of perception, with each participant relating the impact to
how well s/he had coped with it. Thus, for example, a very
similar incident (illness with glandular fever) was spontaneously
reported and rated as a high impact by four As but rated
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Collins et al. Super-Champs, Champs, and Almosts
low by two SCs. Of course, we have no way of balancing the
severity of the incident; our point is, however, that it is the
perceived impact, determined in no small part by how well
the participant coped with the challenge, which seems to be a
factor.
The clear picture to emerge is a lack of universal trauma in the
development pathways of performers across all levels. Indeed, if
anything, there seems to be a higher incidence of such trauma in
lower rather than higher achievers. Furthermore, with the notable
exception of sport related challenges (as described in the previous
sections), these challenges seem not to be associated with either
specific growth (cf. Fletcher and Sarkar, 2012)orincidenceof
significant sporting success.
DISCUSSION
Our suggestion would be that, on first review, our discriminating
factors offer little new but rather, confirm numerous prior
studies which, in simple terms, show that super champs can
be differentiated from their less successful counterparts on a
variety of factors. On deeper examination, however, several
important distinguishing characteristics emerge. As an example,
consider the ways in which participants conceptualized, thought
about, and actioned their experiences. The importance of finding
meaning was clear, especially in the higher achievers (cf. Linley
and Joseph, 2004, 2011). With certain notable exceptions,
however, these reflections seemed to be proactively driven. In
other words, excepting specific issues, SCs and, to a lesser
extent Cs, appeared to arrive at a challenge with an established
attitude and approach whilst As seemed almost entirely reactive.
We suggest that the facilitative rather than directive styles of
parenting and coaching experienced by most SCs may have
been a contributory factor to this characteristic; such opinions
were explicitly expressed by several SCs. The point is that
high achievers seem to hold a positive proactive coping and
“learn from it” approach to challenge (cf. Rosenbaum, 1983 and,
perhaps, more recent ideas on Mental Toughness) even before
they get started on the rocky road. We would suggest the age of
13 as an important watershed in this regard. The important next
step is clearly for longitudinal study, and we currently have two
projects underway to meet this need.
Ofcourse,thisisnottosaythatparticipantsdidn’tlearn
from challenges (trauma) encountered on the pathway. Notably,
however, all of the SCs’ learning and development seemed to
be associated with sporting challenges; most commonly injury
but also de-selection or non-selection at crucial times. Once
again by contrast, lower achievers were characterized by external
attributions and often seemed almost surprised by failure. Such
findings carry significance for the provision and periodization of
challenge on the pathway, supporting the idea of speed bumps
and phases of reflection/regeneration/growth as athletes develop
(MacNamara and Collins, 2014).
In parallel to these findings and, of significance for current
research directions, we would highlight the lack of discrimination
across categories associated with the incidence of trauma and,
more particularly, life or non-sport trauma. Notably, and in
substantial contrast to some recent approaches (e.g., Sarkar
et al., 2014), Tabl e 2 shows that, in our sample at least, there
were no apparent differences in the incidence of trauma, either
TABLE 2 | Self-reported incidence of major and minor trauma (using categorization utilized by Howells and Fletcher (2015).
Type Level/Reported impact Self-presented (SP) OR After
probing (AP)
SC C A
Developmental stressors (e.g., developmental disorders) High SP 0 0 2
AP 0 0 +1
Low SP 1 1 1
AP +1+1+2
External stressors (e.g., family dysfunction) High SP 1 1 2
AP +1+2+1
Low SP 0 1 1
AP +10+2
Embodied states (e.g., injury/illness) High SP 5 6 7
AP +2+1+4
Low SP 2 2 3
AP +2+1+3
Psychological states (e.g., body dissatisfaction, depression) High SP 2 1 4
AP 0 +1+2
Low SP 2 2 3
AP +100
Externalized behaviors (e.g., self-harm, substance abuse) High SP 0 0 2
AP 0 0 0
Low SP 1 2 3
AP 0 0 +2
Numbers in each category are from a total of 18 participants. Plus signs show additional participants reporting this factor after probing.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Collins et al. Super-Champs, Champs, and Almosts
self-reported or as revealed by probing, between high and
low achievers. There are several explanations for this. Based
on these data, and previous research (Tedeschi and Calhoun,
1995;Nicholls et al., 2006), we would suggest that higher level
performers are established in proactive coping habits (Greenglass
and Fiksenbaum, 2009), to the extent that they just don’t
acknowledge or experience trauma as traumatic as others; once
again, this is supportive of a qualitative/perceptual difference
instead of a quantitative “how much trauma” distinction. We
would suggest that future studies must consider comparisons
between levels of achievement, rather than just listing the self-
reported incidence of challenge for established champions. The
notable exception is sporting challenge which (perhaps relating
to its importance in their identity and self-schemata – Brewer
et al., 1993;Bianco et al., 1999;Nasco and Webb, 2006)were
particularly formative for SCs. In this regard, we should highlight
that many of the trauma studies fail to discriminate between
sporting and life challenges. For example, Sarkar et al. (2014)
report (positively in our view) mostly on sporting challenge
although other papers (e.g., Fletcher and Sarkar, 2012;Howells
and Fletcher, 2015) seem more driven toward life trauma.
Another focus relates to the quantity of traumatic experience,
with research pointing toward moderate levels of challenge being
associated with more positive outcomes (Seery et al., 2010). Once
again, we would suggest that the differences between performers
may be more qualitative, in that the positive and proactive
coping/optimism blend which characterizes high achievers makes
them frame challenges as more moderate and/or controllable
than is the case for others. This is certainly the case with the larger
populations of SCs (currently >70) which form the rest of our
sample. Matched As are the difficult ones to recruit!
Extending from this quantitative/qualitative balance, it is
noteworthy that there can often be low correlation between
perceived and actual growth following trauma (Frazier et al.,
2009;Gunty et al., 2011). Indeed, perceived growth may well be a
feature of the individual’s coping strategy (it hasn’t killed me and
Iam stronger!). As Joseph et al. (2012, p. 319) observe,
It may be that perceptions of growth are at times illusory and
a way of coping with distress. As such, researchers need to
be wary of taking reports of growth at face value, particularly
in the immediate aftermath of a crisis when people are most
distressed.
We would also like to comment on the inherent problems
of self-presentational bias (cf. Arkin et al., 1980)whichmay
combine with these considerations to call into question self-
reported, after the fact interpretations of trauma impact. It seems
to us that this could be a particular issue in autobiographies,
especially if these are ghost written in partnership with the
performer. Indeed, one of our Team SC participants made
his feelings clear on this: “F******* sports books...people
telling their stories to make themselves look good.” Another
Team SC questioned the veracity of autobiographical reports
as follows “I’ve lived through the competitions they are
writing about and I certainly didn’t see what they saw!”
In this regard, autobiographical sources offer an after the
fact interpretation rather than this happened and led to this
description: “autobiographies emphasize not facts, but personal
experiences and personal lives as cultural constructions” (Stewart
et al., 2011, p. 583). This is in no way to question the veracity
but rather to stress the need to consider such sources as
personal interpretations: very useful for certain purposes [e.g., the
meaningofinjuryasinStewart et al. (2011)]butperhapslessso
for guiding the design of TD environments!
In summary, we feel that the differences between different
levels of adult achievement relate more to what performers bring
to the challenges than what they experience. This skills-based
focus is completely in keeping with our PCDE approach and,
whilst we completely acknowledge the importance of mindset,
grit or resilience as parts of this skill set, we feel that the exclusivity
inferred by some authors (in fairness sometimes second hand
accounts rather than the researchers themselves) need further
investigation and, if appropriate, justification. For the present,
we suggest that a periodized and progressive set of challenge,
preceded and associated with specific skill development, offers
the best pathway to success for the majority.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors contribute equally to this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Abbott, A., Button, C., Pepping, G. J., and Collins, D. (2005). Unnatural selection:
talent identificati on and development in sport. Nonlinear Dyn. Psychol. Life Sci.
9, 61–88.
Arkin, R. M., Appelman, A. J., and Burger, A. M. (1980). Social anxiety, self-
presentation, and the self-serving bias in causal attribution. J. P ers. Soc. Psychol.
38, 23–35. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.23
Bianco, T., Malo, S., and Orlick, T. (1999). Sport, injury and illness: elite
skiers describe their experiences. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 70, 157–169. doi:
10.1080/02701367.1999.10608033
Brewer, W. B., Van Raalte, J. L., and Linde r, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity: hercules’
muscle or Achilles’ heel? Int. J. Sport Psychol. 24, 237–254.
Bridge, M. W., and Toms, M. (2012). The specialising or sampling debate: a
retrospective analysis of adolescent sports participation in the UK. J. Sports Sci.
31, 87–96. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.721560
Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., and Brackenridge, D. H. (2004). Maximizing
transparency in a doctoral thesis: the complexities of writing about the use
of QSR Nvivo within a grounded theory study. Qual. Res. 4, 247–265. doi:
10.1177/1468794104044434
Collins, D., and MacNamara, Á (2012). The rocky road to the top: why
talent needs trauma. Sports Med. 42, 907–914. doi: 10.1007/BF03
262302
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A., and Russell, S. J. (1993). Organizing and
interpreting unstructured qualitative data. Sport Psychol. 7, 127–137.
Davis, N. W., and Meyer, B. B. (2009). Qualitative data analysis: a
procedural comparison. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 21, 116–124. doi:
10.1080/10413200802575700
Drasch, K., and Matthes, B. (2013). Improving retrospective life course data by
combining modularized self-reports and event history calendars: experiences
from a large scale survey. Qual. Quant. 47, 817–838. doi: 10.1007/s
11135-011-9568-0
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Collins et al. Super-Champs, Champs, and Almosts
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., and Kelly, D. R. (2007).
Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92,
1087–1101. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Duckworth, A. L., Tsukayama, E., and May, H. (2010). Establishing causality
using longitudinal hierarchical linear modeling: an illustration predicting
achievement from self-control. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 1, 311–317. doi:
10.1177/1948550609359707
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol. Rev. 100, 363–406.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
Faulkner, G., and Sparkes, A. (1999). Exercise as therapy for schizophrenia: an
ethnographic study. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 21, 52–69.
Fletcher, D., and Sarkar, M. (2012). A grounded theory of psychological
resilience in Olympic champions.Psychol. Sport Exerc. 13, 669–678. doi:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.04.007
Frazier, P., Tennen, H., Gavian, M., Park, C., Tomich, P., and Tashiro, T. (2009).
Does self-reported posttraumatic growth reflect genuine positive change?
Psychol. Sci. 20, 912–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02381.x
Gould, D., Deieffenbach, K., and Moffett, A. (2010). Psychological characteristics
and their development in Olympic champions.J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 14,
172–204. doi: 10.1080/10413200290103482
Greenglass, E. R., and Fiksenbaum, L. (2009). Proactive coping, positive affect, and
well-being: testing for mediation using Path Analysis. Eur. Psychol. 14, 29–39.
doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.29
Gunty, A. L., Frazier,P. A., T ennen, H., Tomich,P., Tashiro, T., and Park, C. (2011).
Moderators of the relation between perceived and actual posttraumatic growth.
Psychol. Trauma 3, 61–66. doi:10.1037/a0020485
Howells, K., and Fletcher, D. (2015). Sink or swim: adversity- and growth-related
experiences in Olympic swimming champions. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 16, 37–48.
doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.004
Joseph, S., Murphy, D., and Regel, S. (2012). An affective–cognitive processing
model of post-traumatic growth. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 316–325. doi:
10.1002/cpp.1798
Linley, P. A., and Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and
adversity: a review. J. Traumat. Stress 17, 11–21. doi: 10.1023/B:JOTS.00000
14671.27856.7e
Linley, P. A., and Joseph, S. (2011). Meaning in life and posttraumatic
growth. J. Loss Trauma 16, 150–159. doi: 10.1080/15325024.2010.
519287
MacNamara, Á (2011). “Psychological characteristics of developing excellence,” in
Performance Psychology: A Practitioner’s Guide,edsD.Collins,A.Abbott,and
H. Richards (Brazil: Elsevier Health Sciences).
MacNamara, Á, Button, A., and Collins, D. (2010a). The role of psychological
characteristics in facilitating the pathway to elite performance. Part 1:
identifying mental skills and behaviours. Sport Psychol. 24, 52–73.
MacNamara, Á, Button, A., and Collins, D. (2010b). The role of psychological
characteristics in facilitating the pathway to elite performance. Part 2:
examining environmental and stage related differences in skills and behaviours.
Sport Psychol. 24, 74–96.
MacNamara, Á, and Collins, D. (2014). Staying with the “force” and countering the
“dark Side”: profiling, exploiting and countering psychological characteristics
in talent identification and development. Sport Psychol. 29, 73–81. doi:
10.1123/tsp.2014-0021
MacNamara, Á, Holmes, P., and Collins, D. (2008). Negotiating transitions in
development: the role of psychological characteristics of developing excellence.
Psychol. Music 36, 1–18. doi: 10.1177/0305735607086041
Moesch, K., Elbe, A. M., Hauge, M. L. T., and Wikman, J. M. (2011). Late
specialization: the key to success in centimeters, grams, or seconds (cgs) sports.
Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 21:e282–e290. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01280.x
Nasco, S., and Webb, W. (2006). Toward an expanded measure of athletic identity:
the inclusion of public and private dimensions. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 28,
434–453.
Nicholls, A. R., Holt, N. L., Polman, R. C. J., and Bloomfield, J. (2006). Stressors,
coping, and coping effectiveness among professional rugby union players. Sport
Psychol. 20, 314–329. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2008.00772.x
Oakley, B. (2014). Podium: What Shapes a Champion? London: Bloomsbury.
Ollis, S., MacPherson, A., and Collins, D. (2006). Expertise and talent development
in rugby referees: an ethnographic enquiry. J. Sports Sci. 24, 309–322. doi:
10.1080/17461390500188710
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Researchand EvaluationMethods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publication.
Rees, T., Hardy, L., Abernathy, B., Gullrich, A., Côté, J., Woodman, T., et al.
(2013). The UK Sport White Paper: A Systematic Review of Research into the
Identification and Development of the World’s Best Talent. London: UK Sport.
Rosenbaum, M. (1983). “Learned resourcefulness as a behavioral repertoire for the
self-regulation of internal events: Issues and speculations,” in Perspectives in
Behavior Therapy in the Eighties, eds M. C. M. Rosenbaum, C. M. Franks, and J.
Jaffe (New York, NY: Springer), 54–73.
Sarkar, M., Fletcher, D., and Brown, D. J. (2014). What doesn’t kill me:
adversity-related experiences are vital in the development of superior olympic
performance. J. Sci. Med. Sport 18, 475–479. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.010
Seery, M. D., Holman, E. A., and Cohen-Silver,R. (2010). Whatever does not kill us:
cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
99, 1025–1041. doi: 10.1037/a0021344
Sparkes, A., and Smith, B. (2009). Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry:
criteriology and relativism in action. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 10, 491–497. doi:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.006
Sparkes, A. C. (1998). Validity in qualitative inquiry and the problem of criteria:
implications for sport psychology. Sport Psychol. 12, 363–386.
Stake, R. E. (2008). “Case studies,” in Strategies of Qualitative Enquiry, 3rd Edn, eds
N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publisher), 119–150.
Stewart, C., Smith, B., and Sparkes, A. C. (2011). Sporting autobiographies
of illness and the role of metaphor. Sport Soc. 14, 581–597. doi:
10.1080/17430437.2011.574358
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Tedeschi, R. G., and Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and Transformation: Growing
in the Aftermath of Suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publisher.
Van Yperen, N. (2009). Why some make it and others do not: identifying
psychological factors that predict career success in professional adult soccer.
Sport Psychol. 23, 317–329.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2016 Collins, MacNamara and McCarthy. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2009
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
