Finding ‘talent that whispers’ - ‘The Talent I(D)ceberg’

I was involved in a talent assessment session last night. This was part of an elongated talent identification process—really well-run with lots of people present. Having numerous perspectives means that decisions on who is recruited into the talent academy are based on consensus rather than the views of one or two individuals.

What made it particularly effective was that it functioned as a coaching session with observers. You had people leading activities while others observed and identified abilities. This approach allowed us to build a comprehensive picture over time, as the sessions were structured with multiple rotations. The activities were designed specifically to provide a well-rounded view of each candidate's capabilities.

As talent assessment activities go, it was quite impressive. Given that any talent assessment process has inherent flaws due to constraints, this was as good as possible considering the circumstances. The challenge was the sheer number of candidates—around a hundred players within a two-hour window.

There were several stations, and candidates rotated through each station twice, spending approximately 15 minutes at each one. This format offered multiple benefits: those who might have struggled initially and lost confidence had a second opportunity to perform better. Additionally, the rotational process meant participants engaged in different types of activities, revealing how some were more suited to certain tasks than others.

This was one of the key observations made by the assessors—it became clear that some players thrived in specific activity types. For example, players experienced in games-based environments tended to perform well in game scenarios but sometimes struggled with isolated activities. Others displayed the reverse pattern. When examining the list and noting where these players came from, it became apparent that players from certain clubs performed better at certain activities, directly correlating with the training philosophy of their home club.

As Carol Dweck, notes: "The environment in which young people develop skills shapes not just what they learn, but how they approach learning itself" (Dweck, 2006).

The Biography Factor

This leads to an area where I believe we could improve: understanding more about the players' biographies. Some assessors had coached certain players at county or club level and consequently had a much richer understanding of those individuals' capabilities.

The biography matters significantly because when faced with selection decisions, it provides crucial context. When looking at the biography of players, you often see individuals who are more technically adept or able to perform specific tasks more efficiently. However, when you examine their backgrounds, you can observe clear disparities.

There's an obvious difference between those who have had an independent fee-paying education—particularly those who've attended prep schools—and others. Children at such schools typically have access to pitches and facilities, receiving focused training perhaps two or three times a week for several hours, plus competitive fixtures every week. In contrast, children involved in club activities, especially in the earlier stages, might only get an hour a week with coaches who aren't necessarily as experienced. Club environments also cater to a broader range of abilities with less focus on competitive outcomes.

Richard Bailey, a leading researcher in physical education and sport, observes that "Socioeconomic status remains one of the strongest predictors of sporting participation and success, creating what amounts to a 'sporting gap' that mirrors educational inequalities" (Bailey, 2005).

This creates significant disparities in abilities. However, biographical information helps inform decisions by revealing training age—how long they've been playing—and their training biography—what kinds of environments they've experienced. It's almost like a form of ‘bio-banding’ (a scientific approach to grouping young athletes by their biological age rather than their chronological age). I’m going to call it "sociobanding" where we are grouping and assessing players based on their social dynamics and economic circumstances.

Potential Versus Performance

When there's only a marginal difference between two players—with one appearing slightly better—it’s important to consider who has had more opportunities to develop. If one player has had, say, 100 guided learning hours while another has had 500, yet there's minimal difference between them, this should influence the assessment of their potential ceiling.

I've experienced this when speaking with academy professionals in different sports, who often refer to some as "pretty little players" - a somewhat disparaging term for young athletes who look advanced due to their privileged environments while others might appear more raw but could have greater potential once the opportunities have equalised.

These create tough selection decisions, especially with finite places available. As Jean Côté, a leading figure in youth sport development, argues: "Early specialisation pathways often favor early developers and those with greater access to resources, potentially missing late developers with high potential" (Côté et al., 2009).

Improving Inclusion in Talent Developement - a ‘Proportionate Universalism’ approach.

I believe that one of the greatest opportunities to improve talent development systems to embrace principles and ideas that foster a more inclusive experience for young athletes. talent inclusion becomes vital - as Mark O’Sullivan from the University of Oslo and the author behind the brilliant ‘Footblogball’ blog, the mantra should be: "Keep as many as possible, in as good an environment as possible, for as long as possible."

One idea that occurred to me is whether talent environments could deliberately maintain an allocation of athletes from different backgrounds, ensuring there's always space available for those who have had less access to support to gain it and benefit from enhanced experiences. Those with less time on task might be below the threshold, but there could be indicators suggesting future capability. In my mind, any talent system should aim to provide maximum opportunity to such individuals—I don't know any sport with a talent pool large enough to to be able to discard individuals prematurely.

A more radical suggestion might be to restrict access to those who already have a lot of support and create more access to those who have less opportunity.

This way of thinking is aligned to the principle of ‘Proportionate Universalism’ first espoused by Sir Michael Marmot, - which roughly translates to - ‘everybody benefits but some with greater need benefit more’.

Could we transform our talent systems by designing them according to needs rather than designing them according to immediately observed ability.

Which takes me on to observation…

Looking Beyond the Observable

In my experience, most talent identification systems have a tendency to focus on what's observable. This is what I call the “tip of the talent iceberg" - the observable elements above the water: game performance, technical skills, and physical capability. What often remains unexplored is what lies beneath the surface—the less observable aspects.

Matthew Syed, in his book "Bounce," emphasises this point: "What looks like talent is often careful preparation and inside knowledge" (Syed, 2010).

During the assessment, I was asked what I look for. While most candidates (around 80%) performed similarly, with 10-20% clearly not ready and 10% outstanding, I explained that I look for indicators of qualities that aren't immediately obvious.

For instance…

- Resilience: How individuals respond when faced with adversity

- Leadership and teamship skills: Supporting others and communicating regularly

- Curiosity: Those who ask questions or seek clarification

- Determination: Players whose immediate instinct after losing possession is to try and regain it, rather than sulking

I'm looking for personal qualities like humility, grace, curiosity, openness, combined with psychological attributes and mental capacities like attitude, resilience, determination, and adaptability.

The danger is that we invest in those who visibly present with capabilities, while neglecting others. The Matthew effect comes into play—"the rich get richer." Those with observable capabilities receive more support, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, while those with potential and the enabling qualities that are recognised as critical determinants of future success, miss out on opportunities.

If I live for anything, it's to support talent developers and system builders to create talent environments that unearth the potential in individuals who might otherwise be overlooked -and see them flourish and thrive.

I believe that the more inclusive a talent system can be - the more impactful it will be.

It’s a complete ‘win - win’ proposition.