Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Sports Medicine
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Sports Medicine (2023) 53:1201–1217
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01840-1
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Quantifying theExtent toWhich Successful Juniors andSuccessful
Seniors are Two Disparate Populations: ASystematic Review
andSynthesis ofFindings
ArneGüllich1 · MichaelBarth2,3 · BrookeN.Macnamara4 · DavidZ.Hambrick5
Accepted: 12 March 2023 / Published online: 6 April 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
Background To what extent does the pathway to senior elite success build on junior elite success? Evidence from longitu-
dinal studies investigating athletes’ junior-to-senior performance development is mixed; prospective studies have reported
percentages of juniors who achieved an equivalent competition level at senior age (e.g., international championships at both
times) ranging from 0 to 68%. Likewise, retrospective studies have reported percentages of senior athletes who had achieved
an equivalent competition level at junior age ranging from 2 to 100%. However, samples have been heterogeneous in terms
of junior age categories, competition levels, sex, sports, and sample sizes.
Objective This study aimed to establish more robust and generalizable findings via a systematic review and synthesis of
findings. We considered three competition levels—competing at a national championship level, competing at an international
championship level, and winning international medals—and addressed three questions: (1) How many junior athletes reach
an equivalent competition level when they are senior athletes? (2) How many senior athletes reached an equivalent competi-
tion level when they were junior athletes? The answers to these questions provide an answer to Question (3): To what extent
are successful juniors and successful seniors one identical population or two disparate populations?
Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in SPORTDiscus, ERIC, ProQuest, PsychInfo, PubMed, Scopus,
WorldCat, and Google Scholar until 15 March 2022. Percentages of juniors who achieved an equivalent competition level at
senior age (prospective studies) and of senior athletes who had achieved an equivalent competition level at junior age (ret-
rospective studies) were aggregated across studies to establish these percentages for all athletes, separately for prospective
and retrospective studies, junior age categories, and competition levels. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Mixed
Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version for descriptive quantitative studies.
Results Prospective studies included 110 samples with 38,383 junior athletes. Retrospective studies included 79 samples
with 22,961 senior athletes. The following findings emerged: (1) Few elite juniors later achieved an equivalent competition
level at senior age, and few elite seniors had previously achieved an equivalent competition level at junior age. For example,
89.2% of international-level U17/18 juniors failed to reach international level as seniors and 82.0% of international-level
seniors had not reached international level as U17/18 juniors. (2) Successful juniors and successful seniors are largely two
disparate populations. For example, international-level U17/18 juniors and international-level seniors were 7.2% identical
and 92.8% disparate. (3) Percentages of athletes achieving equivalent junior and senior competition levels were the smallest
among the highest competition levels and the youngest junior age categories. (4) The quality of evidence was generally high.
Discussion The findings question the tenets of traditional theories of giftedness and expertise as well as current practices of
talent selection and talent promotion.
A PRISMA-P protocol was registered at https:// osf. io/ gck4a/.
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1202 A.Güllich et al.
Key Points
Successful junior athletes and successful senior athletes
are largely two disparate populations.
Most successful junior athletes do not achieve an equiva-
lent competition level when they are senior athletes (e.g.,
international competition level as a junior and a senior).
Most successful senior athletes did not achieve an
equivalent competition level when they were junior
athletes (e.g., international competition level as a junior
and a senior).
1 Introduction
To what extent does the pathway to senior elite success build
on junior elite success? This question is a subject of debate
in sports science, medicine, and psychology. A range of
views have been advanced in the scientific literature, with
two views at opposite extremes. One view emphasizes the
importance of a high level of youth performance (e.g.,
national level and above) for later achievement of a high
level of senior performance, while the other view suggests
limited importance of a high level of youth performance for
later senior high performance.
The first view assumes that a high level of performance in
the early years of one’s career is an important precondition
for the long-term development of adult elite performance
and implies that successful juniors and successful seniors
are largely one identical population. This is a critical prem-
ise of both giftedness and expertise theories (e.g. [1–4]).
For example, giftedness has been operationally defined as
outperforming 90% or more of one’s peers at a young age
(e.g. [2, 4]). Relatedly, according to the deliberate practice
view of expertise, “a high level of performance […] will
always be the best predictor of future performance” [1, p.
393]. Furthermore, according to this view, “the best training
environments with master teachers and coaches carefully
select the individuals with the best performance in late ado-
lescence” [1, p. 393].
Likewise, several applied researchers and practitioners
in sports have postulated that junior elite performance is
critically important in an athlete’s pathway towards senior
elite performance (i.e., in the highest, open-age category
[5–12]). For example, Hollings and Hume [8] claimed that
“an athlete has to be very good as a junior in order to be
very good as a senior athlete” [p. 132]. Hollings and Hume
[8] recommended that to produce successful senior athletes,
sport systems should concentrate their resources on junior
athletes who have reached finals and medals at junior world
championships.
This view corresponds with international sport policies
and practices. In the 1970s–1980s, major sports began intro-
ducing continental and world junior championships in the
oldest junior age category in each sport, ages 16–17, 17–18,
or 18–19years, respectively [13]. Today, the websites of
international sport federations show that many sports have
established continental and world championships, festivals,
and circuits at ages as young as 11–15years. Relatedly,
national sport systems funnel resources into talent promotion
programs, which typically select the most advanced young
athletes and, once selected, seek to further accelerate their
adolescent performance development (for reviews, see [14,
15]).
In contrast to this view, the second view holds that junior
performance has limited importance for the development of
later, senior performance and implies that successful juniors
and successful seniors are largely two disparate populations.
This view is based on four lines of argument.
1. Predictors of junior performance are not necessarily
the same as—and indeed are partly opposite of—pre-
dictors of senior performance. This has been demon-
strated in recent meta-analyses [16, 17]. In particular,
compared with lower-performing junior athletes, higher-
performing juniors started playing their main sport at a
younger age, engaged in greater amounts of coach-led
specialized practice in their main sport, and engaged
in less other-sports practice [16, 17]. By contrast, the
opposite pattern predicted the greatest senior elite ath-
letes. Compared with national-class senior athletes,
world-class senior athletes started playing their main
sport at a later age, engaged in less coach-led practice
in their main sport during childhood and adolescence,
and engaged in greater amounts of other-sports practice
during childhood and adolescence [16, 17]. Relatedly,
higher-performing junior athletes reached develop-
mental performance-related ‘milestones’ (first national
championships, first international championships) at a
younger age than lower-performing juniors, whereas
senior world-class athletes had reached those develop-
mental ‘milestones’ at later ages than their less-accom-
plished national-class counterparts [16, 17].
In addition, youth athletes who have an accelerated
biological maturation, especially a younger onset of
puberty and the growth spurt [18], and those born ear-
lier within their age year (relative age effect, RAE [19,
20]) have a performance advantage during adolescence
in many sports. However, this performance advantage
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1203
Junior and Senior Performance
diminishes or is even reversed by adulthood (e.g., [21–
23]).
2. Furthermore, athletes differ individually regarding fur-
ther potential factors, within both junior and senior age
groups, including coaches and coaching, teammates,
parental support, achievement motivation, their sports
club, high school, or college, facilities, equipment, and
demands external to sport, especially academics and
vocation. These factors may all change over time and
those changes over time may, again, differ individually
in terms of occurrence, timing, speed, and magnitude of
changes [24–30].
3. It is mathematically impossible for all successful jun-
iors to become equally successful seniors. For example,
world and continental junior championships are held
biennially or annually in two to three junior age-groups
in each sport (e.g., U19, U17, U15). The ages of partici-
pants at a senior international championship typically
range across ten or more years (often from late teens
to late 30s). Therefore, a generation of senior athletes
competing at the same international championships may
include former finalists and medalists from up to ~ 30
previous international junior championships who are
now all competing for the same senior international
finals and medals.
4. Finally, a related difficulty in studying precursors of sen-
ior success is that many youth athletes, including even
highly successful juniors, withdraw from sports before
adulthood, whether involuntarily (e.g., as a result of
injury [31]) or voluntarily. It is difficult to quantify this
phenomenon because studies have typically considered
sport-specific dropout [31], though many dropouts from
one sport continue on in another sport or begin a new
sport [32–34].
Which view is supported empirically? Studies in the
literature have investigated athletes’ longitudinal junior-
to-senior performance development in terms of their jun-
ior and senior competition levels in their respective main
sport. Prospective studies typically involved a junior sam-
ple at a defined junior competition level (e.g., competing at
international junior championships) and determined how
many of them later achieved an equivalent competition
level at senior age (e.g., international senior champion-
ships). Retrospective studies typically involved a senior
sample at a defined senior competition level (e.g., compet-
ing at international senior championships) and determined
how many of them had competed at an equivalent competi-
tion level when they were juniors (e.g., international junior
championships).
The evidence in the literature is mixed. Individual
prospective studies have reported percentages of juniors
who went on to achieve an equivalent competition level
at senior age ranging from 0 to 68% [35, 36]. Similarly,
individual retrospective studies have reported percentages
of seniors who had achieved an equivalent competition
level when they were juniors ranging from 2 to 100% [37,
38]. However, the studies varied in terms of junior age
categories, junior and senior competition levels, sex, types
of sports, and sample sizes (9 < n < 4456).
1.1 Present Study
The present study aimed to establish more robust and gen-
eralizable findings via a systematic review and synthesis
of findings. We considered three competition levels—com-
peting at a national championship level, competing at an
international championship level, and winning interna-
tional medals—and addressed the following questions:
Question 1: How many junior athletes reach an
equivalent competition level when they are senior
athletes?
Question 2: How many senior athletes reached an
equivalent competition level when they were junior
athletes?
The proportion of athletes with equivalent junior and sen-
ior competition level for both prospective (Question 1) and
retrospective studies (Question 2) is expressed as a percent-
age (number of athletes with equivalent junior and senior
competition level within a sample/total number of athletes
inthe sample) and is hereafter labelled the ‘percentage with
equivalent competition level’ (PECL). Together, the answers
to Questions 1 and 2 provide an answer to our third question:
Question 3: To what extent are successful juniors and
successful seniors one identical population or two dis-
parate populations?
If they are largely one identical population, this suggests
that junior success is indicative of senior success and, there-
fore, a high level of junior success is typically a prerequisite
for a high level of senior success. Such a result would sup-
port theories of giftedness and the deliberate practice view,
as well as the current system of talent promotion. By con-
trast, if successful juniors and successful seniors are largely
two disparate populations, this suggests that junior success
has limited relevance to senior success. Such a result would
correspond to recent findings indicating that predictors of
junior and senior success are different and partly opposite
[16, 17, 39]. Further, such a result would counter theories
of giftedness and the deliberate practice view, and call into
question the current system of talent promotion.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1204 A.Güllich et al.
2 Methods
The study search and selection procedures were guided by
the PRISMA 2020 statement (Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [40]; a PRISMA-
P protocol was registered at https:// osf. io/ gck4a/). Figure1
shows the flowchart of the major steps of the search and
screening, which was conducted from January 27 through
March 15, 2022.1
There were two complementary types of eligible studies.
Prospective studies began with junior records, then found
those athletes’ performance records when they were seniors.
Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the literature search and study coding
1 This study search was independent from [16, 17] and established a
separate data set.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1205
Junior and Senior Performance
This approach could be biased by dropout. For junior ath-
letes who withdrew from sports before senior age, we do
not know how many would have been equally successful
seniors had they continued competing. Retrospective studies
are not subject to this limitation, because they begin with
senior athlete records and then find those athletes’ perfor-
mance records from when they were juniors. This approach
captures those who became senior athletes, but likely yields
higher PECL estimates due to possible survivorship bias.
Thus, these two approaches offer complementary method-
ologies accounting for the type of potential bias imposed
by the other.
2.1 Sample
The search yielded a total of 189 study samples included in
40 study reports from 1995 to 2021. Each study was coded
for (1) descriptive data, (2) publication status, (3) sample
characteristics (age, sex, sport, country, competition level,
junior age categories involved), (4) the total number of par-
ticipants, and (5) the number of participants who had an
equivalent competition level at junior and senior ages (i.e.,
competing at junior and senior national championships, at
junior and senior international championships, or winning
international junior and senior medals) (see TableS1 in the
electronic supplementary material [ESM]).
Across studies, all sports of the Olympic Games, as well
as Australian football, were represented. Many primary stud-
ies used comprehensive sampling such as including all par-
ticipants at defined Olympic Games, all medalists at defined
world championships, or all national team members over a
defined number of seasons (see ESM, TableS1). Other stud-
ies involved samples of the members of a subset of youth
sport academies or respondents to an athlete survey (includ-
ing self-report of their competition level; for the high reli-
ability of these self-reports, see [39, 41]). Tables1 and 2
show characteristics of the total sample.
2.1.1 Junior Age Categories
Junior age categories are defined by the international sport
federation for each sport (e.g., U19, U17, U15). In most
sports, the junior age limit is 18 or 19years, but there are a
few exceptions (e.g., female artistic and rhythmic gymnas-
tics = 15years, female swimming and male artistic gymnas-
tics = 17years, fencing and judo = 20years). We used the
official age groups of each sport.2
Labels for the different junior age groups differ by sport
and country: e.g., U19, U17, U15, etc., ‘juniors,’ ‘youth,’
‘cadets,’ ‘espoirs,’ ‘schoolboys,’ ‘schoolgirls,’ ‘cubs,’
‘futures’. Throughout this report, we label the junior age
categories as ‘Junior A’, ‘Junior B’, ‘Junior C’, and ‘Jun-
ior D’, with ‘Junior A’ being the oldest junior age group
within each sport (in most sports, 17–18 or 18–19years),
‘Junior B’ being the age category one younger than Junior
A, ‘Junior C’ being two age categories below Junior A, and
‘Junior D’ being the youngest age group (mostly 11–12 or
12–13years).
2.1.2 Performance Levels
Performance levels were defined by athletes’ competition
levels, that is, athletes’ championship level (Olympic Games,
senior or junior world, continental, or national champion-
ships) and placing (medalists, finalists, participants), or their
placing in official international or national rankings. This
approach allows us to include athletes’ performances across
all types of sports.
We distinguished three competition levels at junior and
senior age: national level: participants at national cham-
pionships or top 20 in national rankings; international
championship level: participants at the major international
championships (Olympic Games, junior and senior world
and continental championships) or top 20 in international
rankings; and international medalists: medalists at Olympic
Games or at junior or senior world or continental champi-
onships. Two slightly wider samples, the top 50 in World
Athletics (formerly IAAF) ranking [42] and the top 25 in
the European swimming (LEN) ranking [35], were con-
sidered international-level, rather than national-level sam-
ples, because their season-best jump heights or lengths and
swim times corresponded to international championship
participants.
Several studies additionally considered numbers of ath-
letes achieving either the same level or up to one level below
(e.g., junior international medalists → senior international
medalists or finalists; junior international participants →
senior international participants or national finalists). We
considered whether additionally analyzing equivalent levels
or one level below would yield supplementary information.
However, differences between approaches were negligible
(1.038 < odds ratio [OR] < 1.053; see Sect. 2.2 for the set
significance criterion): prospective analyses 23.1% (95%
confidence interval [CI] 22.6–23.5) versus 23.7% (95% CI
23.3–24.2, OR 1.039); retrospective analyses 30.6% (95%
CI 30.0–31.2) vs 31.7% (95% CI 31.1–32.3, OR 1.053).
Therefore, subsequent analyses refer to percentages of ath-
letes achieving the same competition level (national, inter-
national, or international medalist) at junior and senior age.
2 When primary studies included junior athletes who competed at
senior championships while still within junior age and achieved the
same competition level in the senior as in the junior championships,
these were registered as having achieved an equivalent junior and sen-
ior competition level.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1206 A.Güllich et al.
It may be that a study examining how many athletes com-
peting at a national junior championship went on to com-
pete at a national senior championship might have included
national championship athletes who qualified for an inter-
national championship. Similarly, participants at an interna-
tional championship might have included medalists. Thus,
when we report proportions of national- or international-
level junior athletes who achieved the same competition
level at senior age, these values may include a few athletes
who achieved the same level and also one level higher. Like-
wise, reported proportions of national- or international-level
senior athletes who had achieved an equivalent competition
level when they were juniors may include a few athletes who
had achieved the same level and one level higher. Given the
number of participant places at the different levels, less than
approximately 10% could have achieved one level higher.
In summary, we analyzed prospectively and retrospec-
tively how many athletes reached an equivalent competition
level at both junior and senior age.
2.1.3 Prospective Studies
One hundred ten independent samples, with a total of 38,383
athletes, 61.4% male and 38.6% female, were included in the
prospective studies. Of these athletes, 21,495 competed at
junior world and continental championships and 1935 were
junior international medalists (see Table1).
Since many studies considered multiple junior age cat-
egories, the 110 independent samples included a total of 151
PECL values: 93 for Junior A to senior, 36 for Junior B to
senior, and 22 for Junior C to senior.
Table 1 Sample characteristics
and subsample sizes of the
prospective studies
a Analytical categorization of sports following [39]
b Cgs sports: sports where the performance is measured in centimetres, grams, or seconds
c Junior A: oldest junior age category within each sport, in most sports 17–18 or 18–19years; Junior B:
one age category below; Junior C: two age categories below; Junior D: three age categories below, in most
sports 11–12 or 12–13years. There were no available prospective studies for Junior D age
Subsample N
Year of study report
Until 2009 3860
2010–2014 7766
2015–2021 26,757
Sex
Male 23,570
Female 14,813
Individual vs team sports
Individual sports (e.g., athletics, race cycling, swimming, tennis) 34,500
Team sports (e.g., basketball, handball, rugby, soccer) 3883
Types of sports by the task in competitiona
Cgs sportsb: alpine skiing (72), athletics (10,896), race cycling (2840), swimming (16,170) 29,978
Game sports: basketball (61), handball (937), rugby (1325), soccer (1560), tennis (3898) 7781
Combat sport: taekwondo (624) 624
Region
International samples (e.g., participants at junior world or continental championships) 32,188
National samples
Western European countries 4664
Oceanian countries 1531
Junior competition level
National level (national junior championships, national ranking top 20) 14,953
International level (junior world or continental championships, international ranking top 20) 21,495
International medal (medalists at junior world or continental championships) 1935
Junior age categoryc
Junior A 25,656
Junior B 21,764
Junior C 5420
Junior D 0
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1207
Junior and Senior Performance
The primary studies either reported athletes’ ages as the
sample mean and standard deviation or the minimum to
maximum ages. Across studies, the sample-weighted mean
age as a senior was 26.2years, the sample-weighted mean
minimum age as a senior was 20.0years and the sample-
weighted mean maximum age was 35.1years.
Most athletes (83.9%) were from international samples
(from multiple countries,e.g., the participants at interna-
tional junior championships or the athletes listed in interna-
tional junior rankings); the remaining athletes (16.1%) were
from national samples from Western European or Oceanian
countries (see Table1). Data were collected from publicly
available records (official championship results, ranking
lists) for 38,373 athletes and in one study by interviews with
10 athletes.
2.1.4 Retrospective Studies
Seventy-nine independent samples, with a total of 22,961
athletes, 57.2% male and 42.8% female, were included in
Table 2 Sample characteristics and subsample sizes of the retrospective studies
a Analytical categorization of sports following [39]
b Cgs sports: sports where the performance is measured in centimetres, grams, or seconds
c Other types of sports: sports that meet none or various of the criteria of the aforementioned types of sports
d Junior A: oldest junior age category within each sport, in most sports 17–18 or 18–19years; Junior B: one age category below; Junior C: two
age categories below; Junior D: three age categories below, in most sports 11–12 or 12–13years
Subsample N
Year of study report
Until 2009 7355
2010–2014 2145
2015–2021 13,461
Sex
Male 13,144
Female 9817
Individual vs team sports
Individual sports (e.g., athletics, judo, race cycling, swimming, tennis) 15,587
Team sports (e.g., basketball, hockey, rugby, soccer, volleyball) 2383
Multi-sport samples (e.g., participants or medalists at Olympic Games) 4991
Types of sports by the task in competitiona
Cgs sportsb: athletics (8444), bob/luge (29), canoe/kayak (192), ice speed skating (23), race cycling (2676), rowing (420), skiing
(alpine, Nordic: 91), swimming (5042), triathlon (104), weightlifting (69)
17,090
Game sports: Australian rules football (911), badminton (102), baseball/softball (143), basketball (402), curling (11), field hockey
(261), handball (235), ice hockey (17), rugby (388), soccer (588), table tennis (87), tennis (266), volleyball (238), water polo (168)
3817
Combat sports: boxing (97), fencing (109), judo (152), taekwondo (39), wrestling (330) 727
Artistic composition sports: gymnastics (artistic, rhythmic, trampoline: 306), figure skating (9), platform diving (102), synchronized
swimming (57)
474
Other types of sportsc: equestrian (133), modern pentathlon (55), sailing/windsurfing (277), shooting/archery (388) 853
Region
International samples (e.g., participants at Olympic Games, world or continental championships) 18,587
National samples
Western European countries 3196
Oceanian countries 1178
Senior competition level
National level (national championships, national ranking top 20) 2600
International level (participants at Olympic Games, senior world or continental championships) 18,921
International medal (medalists at Olympic Games, senior world or continental championships) 1440
Junior age categoryd
Junior A 22,462
Junior B 9025
Junior C 2930
Junior D 1005
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1208 A.Güllich et al.
the retrospective studies. Of these athletes, 18,921 competed
at Olympic Games and senior world or continental champi-
onships and 1440 were senior international medalists (see
Table2).
Since many studies considered multiple junior age catego-
ries, the 79 independent samples included a total of 188 PECL
values: 76 for Junior A to senior, 46 for Junior B to senior, 57
for Junior C to senior, and 9 for Junior D to senior.
Across studies, the senior athletes’ sample-weighted mean
age was 26.0years, the sample-weighted mean minimum age
was 20.9years and the sample-weighted mean maximum age
was 35.7years. Most athletes (81.0%) were from interna-
tional samples (from multiple countries,e.g., the participants
at Olympic Games or world championships); the remaining
athletes (19.0%) were from national samples from Western
European and Oceanian countries (see Table2). Data were
collected from publicly available records (official champion-
ship results or ranking lists) for 21,580 athletes and by athlete
surveys for 1381 athletes.
2.2 Data Analysis
We used the PECL from each study to compute prevalence
in the same manner as epidemiological prevalence: x ‘posi-
tive’ cases per a total of n cases, where ‘positive’ was defined
here as achieving an equivalent competition level at junior and
senior age.
We obtained the total number of participants, n, and the
number of athletes who achieved an equivalent competition
level at junior and senior age, x, from each study sample.
Those numbers were then aggregated across study samples
to establish X/N, separately for prospective and retrospective
studies, for competition levels, and for junior age categories.
When X/N has been established from prospective and retro-
spective analyses, we can estimate the extent to which athletes
achieving a defined competition level at junior and at senior
age are the same or different athletes. This can be computed
for each competition level and junior age category as follows:
or interchangeably:
where:
Percentage
identical
=
X∕Nprospective
1+(1−X∕N
retr ospective
)∕X∕N
retr ospective
×X∕N
prospective
,
Percentage
identical
=
X∕Nretrospective
1+(1−X∕N
prospective
)∕X∕N
prospective
×X∕N
retrospective
,
Percent agedisparat e =1− Percent ageident ical.
This formula thus estimates the extent to which success-
ful juniors and successful seniors are one identical popula-
tion or two disparate populations.
We investigated the question of whether prospective and
retrospective X/N percentages (PECL) varied by sex, junior
age category (Junior A–D), performance level (national,
international championships, international medal), indi-
vidual versus team sports, and publication status (pub-
lished studies versus unpublished studies such as unpub-
lished theses) by computing the odds ratio (OR) across the
relevant subgroups. The conventional significance crite-
rion for 2 × 2 contingency tables of χ2 > 3.841 and p < 0.05
was not appropriate for the present analyses (see [43, 44]).
Because of the large sample sizes, χ2 > 3.841 and p < 0.05
would result from ORs as small as 1.041, corresponding
to < 0.75% of the variance explained. For instance, in our
dataset, a group difference of 10.3% versus 9.7%, OR
1.069, yields χ2 = 3.849, p < 0.05. Declaring effect sizes
near zero as significant contradicts researchers’ intentions
of signifying meaningful effects [43, 44]. Therefore, for
the subgroup comparisons, we set our criterion for signifi-
cance as an OR equivalent to explaining at least 1.0% of
the variance (OR ≥ 1.437). In addition, we analyzed poten-
tial association of PECL with the time of each study by
computing Pearson’s correlation between the PECL and
the year of publication for each sample.
The 95% CI of each prospective and retrospective PECL
is reported as the Agresti-Coull interval [45], as recom-
mended for n > 40 [46].
2.3 Quality Assessment andRisk ofBias
We appraised the quality of the primary studies using
the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version for
descriptive quantitative studies [47]. The MMAT assesses
methodological quality criteria concerning sampling
strategy, representativeness, validity of measurements,
potential non-response bias, and appropriateness of sta-
tistical analyses. The assessment was performed on all
studies by the first author and a random sample of 1/3 of
the total studies (13 studies) was independently evaluated
by the second author. Inter-rater reliability was excellent
(Cohen’s κ = 0.97).
3 Results
Figure2 provides an overview of the central results. The
upper panel (a) shows the percentage of junior athletes who
achieved an equivalent competition level (black) versus
a lower level (white) at senior age. The bottom panel (b)
shows the percentage of senior athletes who had achieved
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1209
Junior and Senior Performance
an equivalent competition level (black) versus a lower level
(white) when they were juniors.
Very few successful junior athletes went on to reach an
equivalent competition level at later senior age. For example,
only 16.3% of junior international medalists at Junior A age
became senior international medalists, whereas 83.7% did
not; 6.0%, 10.8%, and 25.3% of international-level juniors at
Junior C, B, and A age, respectively, became international-
level seniors, whereas 94.0%, 89.2%, and 74.7% did not; and
7.5%, 24.2%, and 40.5% of national-level juniors at Junior
C, B, and A age, respectively, became national-level sen-
iors, whereas 92.5%, 75.8%, and 59.5% did not (see Fig.2,
Panel a).
Likewise, very few successful senior athletes had
achieved equivalent competition levels when they were
juniors. Only 2.5%, 16.0%, and 31.4% of all senior inter-
national medalists had been junior international medalists
at Junior C, B, and A age, respectively, whereas 97.5%,
84.0%, and 68.6% had not; 10.3%, 18.0%, and 32.5% of
all international-level seniors had been international-level
juniors at Junior C, B, and A age, respectively, whereas
89.7%, 82.0%, and 67.5% had not; and 6.1%, 24.6%,
37.2%, and 60.2% of all national-level seniors had been
national-level juniors at Junior D, C, B, and A age, respec-
tively, whereas 93.9%, 75,4%, 62.8%, and 39.8% had not
(see Fig.2, Panel b).
Fig. 2 Percentages of athletes who achieved an equivalent competi-
tion level at junior and senior age. Top a: prospective analyses, per-
centage of junior athletes who achieved an equivalent (black) or a
lower competition level (white) at senior age. Bottom b: retrospective
analyses, percentage of senior athletes who had achieved an equiva-
lent (black) or a lower competition level (white) when they were jun-
iors. The numbers below each bar represent the number of athletes
involved in each analysis. Junior A = oldest junior age category within
each sport, in most sports 17–18 or 18–19years; Junior B = one age
category below; Junior C = two age categories below; Junior D = three
age categories below, in most sports 11–12 or 12–13years. The pro-
spective studies included no data for international junior medalists
at Junior B and Junior C ages and no analyses at any competition
level for Junior D age. The 95% confidence intervals are presented in
Tables3 and 4
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1210 A.Güllich et al.
Findings were also consistent at the very highest per-
formance level: senior international gold medalists. In six
retrospective studies, 584 Olympic and world champion-
ship gold medalists were identified (not shown separately
in Fig.2); 2.9% had been international junior gold medal-
ists at Junior C age, whereas 97.1% had not, and 28.1% had
been international junior gold medalists at Junior A age,
whereas 71.9% had not. (There were no available data for
international junior gold medalists at Junior B age.)
Combining the prospective and retrospective analyses
enabled the calculation of an estimate quantifying the
extent to which successful juniors and successful seniors
are one identical population or two disparate populations.
The results are presented in Fig.3. Consistently across
performance levels and junior age categories, the success-
ful juniors and successful seniors are largely two disparate
populations. For instance, the groups with the smallest
overlap, international-level athletes at Junior C and inter-
national-level athletes at senior age, were 3.9% identical
and 96.1% disparate. The groups with the largest over-
lap, national-level athletes at Junior A and national-level
athletes at senior age, were 32.0% identical and 68.0%
disparate (see Fig.3).
In the subsequent Sects.3.1–3.4 and 3.6, we report com-
parisons of the PECL between defined subsamples and
whether the OR exceeded the critical value of 1.437 set for
statistical significance (see Sect.2.2).
3.1 Variation bySex
The results did not differ significantly by sex overall. In
the prospective analyses, the PECL was 18.5% (95% CI
18.0–19.1) for males and 21.9% (95% CI 21.2–22.7) for
females (OR 1.234). In the retrospective analyses, the PECL
was 29.8% (95% CI 28.8–30.8) for males and 30.3% (95%
CI 28.9–31.7) for females (OR 1.025).
3.2 Variation byCompetition Level
Whether analyzed prospectively or retrospectively, the PECL
was generally smaller at higher than lower competition lev-
els (see Table3). Though percentages varied by performance
level, they were all low, with most junior athletes achieving
lower competition levels at senior age and most senior ath-
letes having achieved lower competition levels when they
were juniors.
3.3 Variation byJunior Age Category
Whether analyzed prospectively or retrospectively, the PECL
was generally smaller among younger than older junior age
categories (see Table4). Percentages varied by junior age
category, but they were generally low.
3.4 Variation byIndividual Versus Team Sports
Differences between individual and team sports were incon-
clusive. In prospective analyses, the PECL was significantly
larger in individual than team sports for Junior A age (34.9%
vs 14.4%, OR 3.195), the difference was non-significant for
Junior B age (16.7% vs 12.9%, OR 1.354), and the PECL
was significantly smaller in individual than team sports for
Junior C age (6.2% vs 11.0%, OR 1.869). In retrospective
analyses, the PECL was significantly smaller in individual
than team sports for Junior A (30.2% vs 49.9%, OR 2.309)
and Junior B ages (20.5% vs 32.4%, OR 1.857), respectively,
the difference was non-significant for Junior C age (19.8% vs
17.1%, OR 1.195), and the PECL was significantly larger in
Fig. 3 The extent to which suc-
cessful juniors and successful
seniors are one identical popula-
tion (black) or two disparate
populations (white). Int. Med.
international medals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1211
Junior and Senior Performance
individual than team sports for Junior D age (6.4% vs 0.0%,
OR 3.378 [Haldane-corrected]).
3.5 Variation byYear ofPublication
Among prospective studies, the correlation between the
PECL and the year of publication was r = 0.05 (p = 0.526)
and among retrospective studies, the correlation was
r = – 0.18 (p = 0.013). The findings suggest that the year of
the studies did not substantially predict the PECL. If any-
thing, the percentage of successful senior athletes who had
competed at an equivalent level when they were juniors has
slightly diminished. Correspondingly, the percentage of
successful seniors who had previously competed at lower
levels when they were juniors has slightly increased across
the observation period (1995–2021).
3.6 Variation byPublication Status
Of the total 40 study reports, 29 were published (11 prospec-
tive, 8 retrospective, and 10 reporting both prospective and
retrospective accounts) and eleven unpublished (e.g., unpub-
lished theses; 2 prospective, 7 retrospective, and 2 reporting
both). Among prospective analyses, the PECL was signifi-
cantly larger in published than in unpublished studies overall
(33.8%, 95% CI 33.2–34.4 vs 23.7%, 95% CI 21.7–25.8,
OR 1.641). The finding suggests that prospective studies
reporting higher rates of successful junior-to-senior transi-
tions were more likely to be published than those reporting
lower rates. This was not the case for retrospective analy-
ses; the PECL did not significantly differ between published
and unpublished study reports (30.2%, 95% CI 29.6–30.8, vs
35.0%, 95% CI 32.8–37.3, OR 1.246).
Table 3 Comparisons of
different competition levels
within each junior age category
CI confidence interval reported as Agresti-Coull interval. Int. international, OR odds ratio, Sig. significance
*Subgroup differences are considered significant when OR ≥ 1.437 (i.e., ≥ 1% variance explained)
a Lower and higher performers refer to the competition levels defined in the pre-column
b The prospective analyses included no data for international junior medalists at Junior B and Junior C ages
Junior age categories and competition levels Percentage with equivalent junior and senior
level
OR Sig.
Lower performersaHigher performersa
Percent 95% CI Percent 95% CI
Prospective analysesb
Junior C age
National vs international 7.5 6.8–8.3 6.0 4.2–8.4 1.240
Junior B age
National vs international 24.2 23.3–25.0 10.8 10.3–11.4 2.622 *
Junior A age
National vs international 40.5 39.6–41.5 25.3 24.6–26.0 2.014 *
National vs int. medal 40.5 39.6–41.5 16.3 14.6–18.0 3.511 *
International vs int. medal 25.3 24.6–26.0 16.3 14.6–18.0 1.743 *
Retrospective analyses
Junior C age
National vs international 24.6 22.4–27.0 10.3 7.6–13.7 2.851 *
National vs int. medal 24.6 22.4–27.0 2.5 1.0–5.4 12.950 *
International vs int. medal 10.3 7.6–13.7 2.5 1.0–5.4 4.543 *
Junior B age
National vs international 37.2 35.1–39.4 18.0 17.1–19.0 2.689 *
National vs int. medal 37.2 35.1–39.4 16.0 5.8–35.3 3.109 *
International vs int. medal 18.0 17.1–19.0 16.0 5.8–35.3 1.156
Junior A age
National vs international 60.2 57.9–62.5 32.5 31.9–33.2 3.227 *
National vs int. medal 60.2 57.9–62.5 31.4 28.4–34.5 3.314 *
International vs int. medal 32.5 31.9–33.2 31.4 28.4–34.5 1.027
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1212 A.Güllich et al.
3.7 Quality Assessment andRisk ofBias
All primary studies had a high methodological quality and
the risk of bias was generally low. See the ESM, TableS2,
for details.
4 Discussion
The study investigated the percentage of junior athletes
who went on to achieve an equivalent competition level at
senior age in their respective main sport, the percentage
of senior athletes who had competed at an equivalent level
when they were juniors, and the extent to which success-
ful juniors and successful seniors are one identical or two
disparate populations. Analyses involved 189 study sam-
ples including 38,383 athletes in prospective and 22,961
athletes in retrospective studies. All athletes competed at
national championship or international championship lev-
els at junior or senior age, or both, and were from a wide
range of sports and both sexes.
Three central findings emerged:
1. Few junior athletes go on to achieve an equivalent com-
petition level when they are seniors; most elite (national-
level or higher) junior athletes achieve lower competi-
tion levels at senior age. Likewise, few senior athletes
achieved an equivalent competition level when they were
juniors; most elite senior athletes achieved lower com-
petition levels at a junior age.
2. Successful juniors and successful seniors are largely two
disparate populations.
3. The percentages of athletes achieving equivalent compe-
tition levels at junior and senior age (PECL) were gener-
Table 4 Comparisons of
different junior age categories
within each competition level
CI confidence interval reported as Agresti-Coull interval. OR odds ratio, Sig. significance
*Subgroup differences are considered significant when OR ≥ 1.437 (i.e., ≥ 1% variance explained)
a Younger and older age group refers to the junior age categories defined in the pre-column
b The prospective studies included no data for international junior medalists at Junior B and Junior C age
and no analyses at all for Junior D age
Competition levels and
junior age categories
Percentage with equivalent junior and senior level OR Sig.
Younger age groupaOlder age groupa
Percent 95% CI Percent 95% CI
Prospective analysesb
International level
Junior C vs Junior B 6.0 4.2–8.4 10.8 10.3–11.4 1.905 *
Junior C vs Junior A 6.0 4.2–8.4 25.3 24.6–26.0 5.499 *
Junior B vs Junior A 10.8 10.3–11.4 25.3 24.6–26.0 2.788 *
National level
Junior C vs Junior B 7.5 6.8–8.3 24.2 23.3–25.0 3.902 *
Junior C vs Junior A 7.5 6.8–8.3 40.5 39.6–41.5 8.356 *
Junior B vs Junior A 24.2 23.3–25.0 40.5 39.6–41.5 2.141 *
Retrospective analyses
International medals
Junior C vs Junior B 2.5 1.0–5.4 16.0 5.8–35.3 7.556 *
Junior C vs Junior A 2.5 1.0–5.4 31.4 28.4–34.5 18.114 *
Junior B vs Junior A 16.0 5.8–35.3 31.4 28.4–34.5 2.398 *
International level
Junior C vs Junior B 10.3 7.6–13.7 18.0 17.1–19.0 1.932 *
Junior C vs Junior A 10.3 7.6–13.7 32.5 31.9–33.2 4.204 *
Junior B vs Junior A 18.0 17.1–19.0 32.5 31.9–33.2 2.186 *
National level
Junior D vs Junior C 6.1 4.5–8.3 24.6 22.4–27.0 5.000 *
Junior D vs Junior B 6.1 4.5–8.3 37.2 35.1–39.4 9.071 *
Junior D vs Junior A 6.1 4.5–8.3 60.2 57.9–62.5 23.177 *
Junior C vs Junior B 24.6 22.4–27.0 37.2 35.1–39.4 1.814 *
Junior C vs Junior A 24.6 22.4–27.0 60.2 57.9–62.5 4.635 *
Junior B vs Junior A 37.2 35.1–39.4 60.2 57.9–62.5 2.555 *
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1213
Junior and Senior Performance
ally the smallest among the highest competition levels
and the youngest junior age categories.
The findings were robust across competition levels, jun-
ior age categories, male and female athletes, individual and
team sports, prospective and retrospective analyses, and
from the 1990s to the 2020s. There was one case, the low-
est senior competition level, national senior championships,
where 60.2% of national-level senior competitors had been
national-level juniors in the oldest junior age category, Jun-
ior A. The other 23 analyses (see Figs.2, 3) confirmed that
successful juniors and successful seniors are largely two
disparate populations.
The findings are consistent with studies in the litera-
ture reporting low rates of successful transitions from high
school sports via NCAA conferences to professional leagues
[48], as well as high rates of annual athlete turnover in sport
federations’ youth squads and selection teams and in youth
sport academies [49–51]. In addition, the present results
are consistent with the meta-analytic finding [16, 17] that
higher-performing junior athletes reach developmental
performance-related ‘milestones’ (first national champion-
ships, first international championships) at a younger age
than lower-performing juniors, whereas senior world-class
athletes had reached those developmental ‘milestones’ at
later ages than their senior national-class counterparts.
4.1 Theoretical Implications
The present findings counter traditional theories of gifted-
ness and expertise [1–4]. Both the giftedness and the delib-
erate practice hypotheses emphasize the importance of a
high level of youth performance, although peak performance
is typically achieved later in adulthood. Both hypotheses
rest on the presuppositions that (1) successful juniors and
successful seniors are largely one identical population, since
(2) youth performance itself is a predictor of later, adult per-
formance, and accordingly, (3) early youth performance and
later adult performance are predicted by the same factors.
The present findings counter all three assumptions. The
first assumption—that successful juniors and successful sen-
iors are largely one identical population—has been falsified
by the present result that successful juniors and success-
ful seniors are largely two disparate populations. Regarding
the second and third assumptions—that youth performance
itself is a predictor of later, adult performance and that early
youth performance and later adult performance are predicted
by the same factors—our finding of the minimal amount of
overlap of the populations of successful juniors and suc-
cessful seniors implies that junior performance cannot be a
strong predictor of senior performance. Accordingly, junior
and senior performance cannot be predicted by the same fac-
tors. The third assumption is also countered by the findings
that most of the highest-performing juniors do not go on
to be among the highest-performing seniors and that most
of the highest-performing seniors had performed below the
highest-performing peers at junior age. These results imply
that the highest-performing seniors had greater long-term
performance improvement from junior to senior age than the
highest performing juniors had. By inference, early junior
performance and subsequent performance improvement are
predicted by different factors.
Relatedly, recent meta-analyses have suggested that par-
ticipation patterns that facilitate early junior performance
hamper long-term senior performance, while participation
patterns that facilitate long-term senior performance are
associated with reduced junior performance ([16, 17]; see
Sect.1). Furthermore, extensive childhood/adolescent spe-
cialized practice is a predictor of early junior performance,
but also of premature dropout [31].
Other factors also likely play a role in who is success-
ful as a junior that may or may not translate to senior suc-
cess. Performance develops through the interaction of the
task, the person, and the environment during both junior
and senior age [52]. Characteristics of the task (e.g., skill
acquisition, movement solutions [52]), of the person (e.g.,
biological maturation, achievement motivation [18, 28]) and
of the environment (e.g., coaching, single- or multi-sport
engagement, parental support, demands from academics or
vocation, etc. [16, 17, 24–27, 29, 30]) may all differ between
athletes, may change over time, and the changes over time
may differ between athletes. This may all contribute to the
heterogeneity of the performance development across indi-
vidual athletes. In addition, many athletes withdraw from
a sport before adulthood [31]. However, the magnitude of
general sport dropout of high-performing athletes is widely
unknown [16, 17, 32–34].
Our finding that the PECL was smaller among higher per-
formance levels also has important theoretical implications.
There are two plausible explanatory hypotheses. Hypothesis
1 is based on the premise that the probability of achieving
a higher competition level is smaller than the probability of
achieving a lower competition level. The combination of
lower probabilities (of achieving a higher competition level)
at two time points—junior and senior age—leads to smaller
proportions of athletes achieving the same competition
level at both time points, and vice versa. Thus, according to
this hypothesis, the PECL would decrease roughly linearly
across increasing competition levels. See Fig.4, Panel a.
Hypothesis 2 is based on the finding that the differences
in predictors of junior and senior performance are more pro-
nounced for senior world-class performance (international
top ten) than for lower senior performance levels [16, 17].
According to this hypothesis, proportions of athletes achiev-
ing the national competition level at junior and senior ages
will be greater than for athletes who place in the top ten at
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1214 A.Güllich et al.
international championships at junior and senior ages. The
competition levels defined in the present study widely match
the definition of national- and world-class level in [16, 17].
There is a small deviation, in that in the present study about
20% of the international championship participants placed
below the top ten.
According to Hypothesis 2, it is plausible to expect that
the PECL will be distinctively greater for national level
than for each of the higher, international levels—interna-
tional championship participation, international medals, and
international gold medals—whereas the differences within
the latter three, international levels will be small. Since not
all international championship participants achieved inter-
national top ten placings, the PECL may be slightly larger
than among international medalists and gold medalists. In
sum, according to this hypothesis, the PECL would decrease
sharply from national to international level and then flatten.
See Fig.4, Panel a.
In summary, Hypothesis 1 suggests that smaller or larger
probabilities of higher or lower competition levels are com-
bined across two time points, whereas Hypothesis 2 suggests
varying differences in predictors of junior and senior perfor-
mance across competition levels. Figure4, Panel b, shows
the corresponding empirical data from prospective and retro-
spective analyses. Overall, the PECL was significantly larger
for national level than all higher, international competition
levels (1.816 < OR < 2.254), but did not significantly differ
among the higher, international levels (1.028 < OR < 1.241;
see Fig.4, Panel b). Thus, the results provide stronger sup-
port for the second than the first explanatory hypothesis.
4.2 Practical Implications
There are several practical and policy implications of the
results of this study.
1. Most of the highest-performing seniors had a lower per-
formance level at junior age than the highest-performing
juniors, and, by inference, had greater long-term perfor-
mance improvement through subsequent years. Thus, to
improve athletes’ long-term senior performance, youth
training strategies should primarily focus on the expan-
sion of youth athletes’ potential for future long-term per-
formance improvement through adulthood, rather than
primarily seeking to accelerate their short-term junior
performance.
2. The present findings suggest that current selection
strategies for youth talent promotion programs—where
the highest-performing youth athletes are preferably
selected—are misguided. When national sport systems
select and focus their resources on the highest junior
performers (e.g., [6–8, 12]), most of the selected youth
athletes will not become senior elite athletes, while most
of the youth athletes who will be senior elite athletes
in the future are dismissed. In addition, when selection
criteria for talent promotion programs, as well as for
sport scholarships, include youth athletes’ current jun-
ior performance, this may have a ‘radiating’ effect, in
that it stimulates all those seeking admission to these
programs—youth athletes, coaches, and parents—to
attempt to accelerate youth athletes’ adolescent perfor-
mance [50]. Instead, the goal should be to identify which
of the juniors performing below their highest-perform-
ing peers are the ones who have the greatest potential
for future multi-year performance improvement.
3. Relatedly, performance within junior age is not a sensi-
ble criterion for the evaluation of talent promotion pro-
grams or of youth coaches in general. When they are
evaluated by current junior successes, this will stimulate
attempts to select the most advanced youth athletes and
to reinforce further acceleration of their adolescent per-
Fig. 4 Proportions of athletes who achieve an equivalent competi-
tion level at junior and senior age (PECL), broken down across dif-
ferent competition levels. Panel (a) Schematic illustration of expected
PECL according to explanatory hypotheses 1 and 2 (see main text).
Panel (b) PECL revealed by the present empirical results (overall
data across Junior A to C age for each competition level). Prospective
studies included no junior and senior international gold medalists
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1215
Junior and Senior Performance
formance development. This may expand youth athletes’
costs (e.g., their time and body [14, 33]) and risks (e.g.,
injury [53]), but may hamper their long-term sustainable
development towards senior high performance [16, 17].
4. While the present findings do not generally speak against
international junior championships, festivals, and cir-
cuits per se, their value should be put into perspective.
Participation in international junior championships may
provide unique life experiences, learning opportunities,
practice of cross-cultural peaceful encounters, and inter-
national friendships for the youth athletes. However,
viewing the value of participation in international jun-
ior competitions as a precursor of later participation in
international senior competitions is clearly at odds with
the empirical evidence.
Finally, two ethical issues should be considered. First,
when talent promotion programs claim to select the youth
athletes with the greatest future potential, as mentioned
above, athletes’ current junior performance is neither a fair
nor a sensible selection criterion. Second, in view of the
minimal probability to become a successful senior athlete,
the increased costs and risks imposed on the participants
in talent promotion programs are difficult to reconcile with
adults’ responsibility for youth athletes’ development and
wellbeing within and outside of sports. The specialized
training is expanded and the programs impose additional
time demands on the youth athlete in terms of additional
competitions, transit times, and participation in athlete ser-
vices [15, 33]. Therefore, the youth athlete’s risks of future
overuse injuries are increased (e.g., [53]) and at the same
time, their opportunity costs (i.e., the lost benefit of foregone
other activities) are magnified by reducing time with family,
friends, other hobbies, and, most notably, educational activi-
ties and outcomes ([14], for a review). These increased costs
and risks are imposed on all the selected youth athletes, the
few who become successful senior athletes and equally so
on the many who do not.
The issue is exacerbated because the question of whether
the measures of talent promotion programs actually improve
the youth athletes’ later senior performance is widely unstud-
ied. However, what studies have shown is that—consistent
with the present findings—a particularly young involvement
in talent promotion programs—as well as excess childhood/
adolescent specialized training and an early achievement of
performance-related ‘milestones’—are all negatively cor-
related with senior world-class success (for reviews, see [14,
16, 17]).
4.3 Methodological Considerations
The study has several strengths, such as a large international
sample from a wide range of sports, considering different
competition levels and junior age categories, a high meth-
odological quality of primary studies, and the combination
of prospective and retrospective designs. But several limita-
tions should be acknowledged. First, the study is descriptive
and does not speak to causal processes underlying more or
less successful junior-to-senior transitions. Second, male
samples, national samples from Western European and Oce-
anian countries, and samples from the sports of the Olympic
Games, especially individual sports, were over-represented.
Third, all athletes competed at a national or international
level at either junior or senior age, or both age groups. It
may be that proportions of successful junior-to-senior tran-
sitions differ at lower performance levels or among more
heterogeneous samples. Finally, although we used multiple
databases, as in any systematic review, bias of availability,
country, and language is possible.
4.4 Future Directions
Researchers should seek to extend investigations to popu-
lations that are under-represented in present research,
especially females, sports other than those of the Olympic
Games, Paralympic sports, team sports, and national sam-
ples from countries outside Western Europe and Oceania.
Future investigations may complement the present approach
by synthesizing findings that quantify the extent to which
individual differences in junior performance explain indi-
vidual differences in senior performance. Furthermore, it
will be of particular interest to scrutinize indicators iden-
tifying who of the juniors performing below their highest-
performing peers are those with the greatest long-term future
potential to become senior elite athletes.
On a final note, the fact that successful juniors and suc-
cessful seniors are largely two disparate populations indi-
cates that theory development of expertise and giftedness
should not extrapolate from junior-level performers (such
as [1, 3, 54, 55]), as this leads to incorrect and misleading
conclusions.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40279- 023- 01840-1.
Declarations
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt
DEAL. The project was supported by the Tyrolean Science Fund
(TWF; Number WF-F.33326/6-2021).
Conflict of interest Arne Güllich, Michael Barth, Brooke N. Macna-
mara, and David Z. Hambrick declare no conflicting or competing in-
terests that are directly relevant to the content of this article.
Data availability The original data are freely available at https:// osf.
io/ mabvu/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1216 A.Güllich et al.
Code availability Not applicable.
Ethics approval Not applicable.
Consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Author contributions Conception of the study design: all authors; lit-
erature search and selection: Arne Güllich; study coding and prepara-
tion of the data set: Arne Güllich; data analysis: Arne Güllich, Michael
Barth; writing, reviewing, editing, and final approval of the manuscript:
all authors.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
1. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C. The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev.
1993;100:363–406. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 295X. 100.3.
363.
2. Heller KA, Perleth C, Lim TK. The Munich model of giftedness
designed to identify and promote gifted students. In: Sternberg
RJ, Davidson JE, editors. Conceptions of giftedness. 2nd ed. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 147–70.
3. Ericsson KA. Training history, deliberate practice and elite sports
performance: an analysis in response to Tucker and Collins
review—what makes champions? Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:533–
5. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bjspo rts- 2012- 091767.
4. Gagné F. De los genes al talento: la perspectiva DMGT/
CMTD [From genes to talent: the DMGT/CMTD perspective].
Revista de Educación. 2015:12–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4438/
1988- 592X- RE- 2015- 368- 289
5. Reid M, Crespo M, Santilli L, Miley D, Dimmock J. The impor-
tance of the International Tennis Federation’s junior boys’ circuit
in the development of professional tennis players. J Sports Sci.
2007;25:667–72. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02640 41060 08119 32.
6. Li P, de Bosscher V, Weissensteiner JR. The journey to elite
success: a thirty-year longitudinal study of the career trajecto-
ries of top professional tennis players. Int J Perform Anal Sport.
2018;18:961–72. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 24748 668. 2018. 15341
97.
7. Li P, de Bosscher V, Pion J, Weissensteiner JR, Vertonghen J.
Is international junior success a reliable predictor for interna-
tional senior success in elite combat sports? Eur J Sport Sci.
2018;18:550–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17461 391. 2018. 14391 04.
8. Hollings SC, Hume P. Progression of elite New Zealand and Aus-
tralian junior athletes to senior representation. New Stud Athl.
2011;26:127–35.
9. Hollings SC. World junior success is a prerequisite for world sen-
ior success. Mod Athl Coach. 2006;44:14–7.
10. Hohmann A, Seidel I. Scientific aspects of talent development. Int
J Phys Educ. 2003;40:9–20.
11. Gulbin J, Weissensteiner J, Oldenziel K, Gagné F. Patterns of
performance development in elite athletes. Eur J Sport Sci.
2013;13:605–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17461 391. 2012. 756542.
12. Fuchslocher J, Romann M, Gulbin J. Strategies to support devel-
oping talent. Schweiz Z Med Traumatol. 2013;61:10–4.
13. Kristiansen E, Parent MM, Houlihan B, editors. Elite youth sport
policy and management: a comparative analysis. London: Rout-
ledge; 2017.
14. Güllich A, Larkin P. Talent identification and talent promotion.
In: Williams AM, Ford PR, Drust B, editors. Science and Soccer.
4th ed. London: Routledge (in press).
15. Güllich A, Cobley S. On the efficacy of talent identification and
talent development programmes. In: Baker J, Cobley S, Schorer
J, Wattie N, editors. Routledge handbook of talent identification
and development in sport. London: Routledge; 2017. p. 80–98.
16. Güllich A, Macnamara BN, Hambrick DZ. What makes a cham-
pion? Early multidisciplinary practice, not early specializa-
tion, predicts world-class performance. Perspect Psychol Sci.
2022;17:6–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456 91620 974772.
17. Barth M, Güllich A, Macnamara BN, Hambrick DZ. Predictors of
junior versus senior elite performance are opposite: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of participation patterns. Sports Med.
2022;52:1399–416. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40279- 021- 01625-4.
18. Malina RM, Rogol AD, Cumming SP, Coelho e Silva MJ, Figue-
iredo AJ. Biological maturation of youth athletes: assessment and
implications. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:852–9. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1136/ bjspo rts- 2015- 094623.
19. Smith KL, Weir PL, Till K, Romann M, Cobley S. Relative age
effects across and within female sport contexts: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018;48:1451–78. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40279- 018- 0890-8.
20. Baker J, Schorer J, Cobley S. Relative age effects. Ger J
Exerc Sport Res. 2010;40:26–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s12662- 009- 0095-2.
21. Wrang CM, Rossing NN, Diernæs RM, Hansen CG, Dalgaard-
Hansen C, Karbing DS. Relative age effect and the re-selection
of Danish male Handball players for national teams. J Hum Kinet.
2018;63:33–41.
22. Ramos-Filho L, Ferreira MP. The reverse relative age effect in
professional soccer: an analysis of the Brazilian National League
of 2015. Eur Sport Manag Q. 2021;21:78–93. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 16184 742. 2020. 17250 89.
23. Fumarco L, Gibbs BG, Jarvis JA, Rossi G. The relative age effect
reversal among the National Hockey League elite. PLoS ONE.
2017;12: e0182827. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 01828
27.
24. Bloom B, editor. Developing talent in young people. New York:
Ballentine Books; 1985.
25. Salmela JH. Phases and transitions across sports career. In: Hack-
fort D, editor. Psycho-social issues and interventions in elite sport.
Frankfurt: Lang; 1994. p. 11–28.
26. Stambulova N. Developmental sports career investigation in Rus-
sia: a post-Perestroika analysis. Sport Psychol. 1994;8:221–37.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1123/ tsp.8. 3. 221.
27. Stambulova N. Athlete’s crisis: a developmental perspective. Int
J Sport Psychol. 2000;31:584–601.
28. Van Yperen NW, Duda JL. Goal orientations, beliefs about suc-
cess, and performance improvement among young elite Dutch
soccer players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1999;9:358–64. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1600- 0838. 1999. tb002 57.x.
29. Wylleman P, Lavallee D. A developmental perspective on transi-
tions faced by athletes. In: Weiss M, editor. Developmental sport
and exercise psychology: a lifespan perspective. Morgantown:
Fitness Information Technology; 2004. p. 507–27.
30. Henriksen K, Stambulova N, Roessler KK. Holistic approach to
athletic talent development environments: a successful sailing
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1217
Junior and Senior Performance
milieu. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2010;11:212–22. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. psych sport. 2009. 10. 005.
31. Crane J, Temple V. A systematic review of dropout from organ-
ized sport among children and youth. Eur Phys Educ Rev.
2015;21:114–31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13563 36X14 555294.
32. Butcher J, Lindner KJ, Johns DP. Withdrawal from competitive youth
sport: a retrospective ten-year study. J Sport Behav. 2002;25:145–63.
33. Güllich A, Emrich E. Evaluation of the support of young athletes
in the elite sports system. Eur J Sport Soc. 2006;3:85–108. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 16138 171. 2006. 11687 783.
34. Güllich A. Sport-specific and non-specific practice of strong and
weak responders in junior and senior elite athletics—a matched-
pairs analysis. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(19):2256–64. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 02640 414. 2018. 14490 89.
35. Brustio PR, Cardinale M, Lupo C, Varalda M, de Pasquale P, Boc-
cia G. Being a top swimmer during the early career is not a pre-
requisite for success: a study on sprinter strokes. J Sci Med Sport.
2021;24:1272–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jsams. 2021. 05. 015.
36. Latorre-Román PÁ, Pinillos FG, Robles JL. Early sport dropout:
high performance in early years in young athletes is not related
with later success. Retos. 2018;33:210–2. https:// doi. org/ 10.
47197/ retos. v0i33. 58225.
37. Vaeyens R, Güllich A, Warr CR, Philippaerts R. Talent identifica-
tion and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes. J Sports Sci.
2009;27:1367–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02640 41090 31109 74.
38. Barreiros AN, Fonseca AM. A retrospective analysis of Portu-
guese elite athletes’ involvement in international competitions.
Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2012;7:593–600. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1260/
1747- 9541.7. 3. 593.
39. Güllich A, Emrich E. Considering long-term sustainabil-
ity in the development of world class success. Eur J Sport Sci.
2014;14(Sup1):S383–97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17461 391. 2012.
706320.
40. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC,
Mulrow CD, etal. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated
guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS ONE. 2021;18:
e1003583. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pmed. 10035 83.
41. Hornig M, Aust F, Güllich A. Practice and play in the development
of German top-level professional football players. Eur J Sport Sci.
2016;16:96–105. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17461 391. 2014. 982204.
42. Boccia G, Cardinale M, Brustio PR. Performance progression of
elite jumpers: early performances do not predict later success.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021;31:132–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/
sms. 13819.
43. Lakens D, Adolfi FG, Albers CJ, Anvari F, Apps MAJ, Argamon
SE, etal. Justify your alpha. Nat. Hum Behav. 2018;2:168–71.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41562- 018- 0311-x.
44. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA statement on p-values: con-
text, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70:129–33. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 00031 305. 2016. 11541 08.
45. Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than “exact” for inter-
val estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat. 1998;52:119–26.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00031 305. 1998. 10480 550.
46. Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a bino-
mial proportion. Stat Sci. 2001;16:101–33. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1214/ ss/ 10092 13286.
47. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo
M, etal. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT): version 2018:
user Guide; 2018.
48. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Estimated
probability of competing in professional athletics; 2019.
49. Güllich A, Emrich E. Individualistic and collectivistic approach
in athlete support programmes in the German high-performance
sport system. Eur J Sport Soc. 2012;9:243–68. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 16138 171. 2012. 11687 900.
50. Güllich A. Selection, de-selection and progression in German
football talent promotion. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14:530–7. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17461 391. 2014. 905983.
51. Ford PR, Bordonau JLD, Bonanno D, Tavares J, Groenendijk C,
Fink C, etal. A survey of talent identification and development
processes in the youth academies of professional soccer clubs
from around the world. J Sports Sci. 2020;38:1269–78. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02640 414. 2020. 17524 40.
52. Araujo D, Fonseca C, Davids K, etal. The role of ecologi-
cal constraints on expertise development. Talent Dev Excell.
2010;2(2):165–79.
53. Bell DR, Post EG, Biese K, Bay C, Valovich MT. Sport specializa-
tion and risk of overuse injuries: a systematic review with meta-
analysis. Pediatrics. 2018;143(3): e20180657. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1542/ peds. 2018- 0657.
54. Ford PR, Coughlan EK, Hodges NJ, Williams AM. Deliberate
practice in sport. In: Baker J, Farrow D, editors. Routledge hand-
book of sport expertise. London: Routledge; 2015. p. 347–62.
55. Ward P, Hodges NJ, Starkes JL, Williams MA. The road to excel-
lence: deliberate practice and the development of expertise. High
Abil Stud. 2007;18:119–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13598 13070
17097 15.
Authors and Aliations
ArneGüllich1 · MichaelBarth2,3 · BrookeN.Macnamara4 · DavidZ.Hambrick5
* Arne Güllich
guellich@sowi.uni-kl.de
1 Department ofSports Science, University ofTechnology
Kaiserslautern, Erwin-Schrödinger-Straße 57,
67663Kaiserslautern, Germany
2 Department ofSport Science, Universität Innsbruck,
Fuerstenweg 185, 6020Innsbruck, Austria
3 Department ofBusiness andSociety, University ofApplied
Sciences Kufstein Tyrol, Andreas Hofer-Straße 7,
6330Kufstein, Austria
4 Department ofPsychological Sciences, Case Western
Reserve University, 11220 Bellflower Road, Cleveland,
OH44106, USA
5 Department ofPsychology, Michigan State University, 316
Physics Road, EastLansing, MI48825, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
