TPM # 287: Load management considerations in youth sport
Professionalization of youth sport is rushing through development steps with harmful consequences
Welcome to edition 287. This week we look at the impact of so many games on our young athlete from a performance perspective.
A recent common term around pro sports, especially basketball is “load management”. This is the practice of managing workload demands on the body of athletes in preserving their health long term.
It is controversial at that level, primarily because professionals are paid big bucks to play. The public pay big bucks to watch the best athletes, and to show up and not have someone play because of “load management” (as opposed to injury) is a bit of a disappointment. I especially find it contradictory when we look at the scheduling demands at the pro level. Athlete health is not the main priority at that level, no matter what anyone says. (I do find it refreshing that athletes are now getting 2nd opinions on injuries outside of the organization that employs them. This is a practice that was all but banned until recently.)
At the youth sport level, the focus should be on athlete health and development. A major difference when compared to pro. However, it seems like youth sport competition is adopting more and more of a pro model where lots of travel and high number of games are now the norm. Call it the professionalization of youth sport. The parents of 7 year olds, who have been learning “how to” in a sport for a couple of years now asking to travel so their kids can get another level of competition. This begs the question, why do you need another level of competition at 7?
As a result, it is not uncommon in youth teams ages 7-12 to play as many as 3 games in a day, and/or 6-8 games in weekend tournament. Then we factor in travel, eating out and staying in hotels. This creates a less than ideal health and performance environment on multiple levels.
From edition 175 of TPM:
The problem is the game has been stolen by travel team clubs, tournament organizers, and marketers, brainwashing players, parents, and coaches into thinking the current model of non-stop playing and entering “high exposure” tournaments is the ONLY way to go.- Coach Lee Taft
While there are other models like the one outlined in TPM #175 and the one covered here., the high game model seems to be the standard currently. From a development perspective there is no way that the high number of games can help the progress of a young athlete as much as more practice and preparation time.
There are number of examples, but let’s look at the NCAA model in hockey vs the CHL model in Canada. The Canadian Hockey League (CHL) is an elite league that mirrors the pro model for athletes as young as 16 but primarily 17-19 years old. They play approximately 68 games over the course of the season (September – March) and require much travel. It is not uncommon to see teams play 3 games in 3 day during certain stretches of the season. At a quick glance of the schedule, I found one team with 6 occasions of 3 in 3. Other teams had as little as 1 x 3 in 3. At the university level in the USA, division 1 teams will play approximately 40 games over the course of the same time period. They will not play 3 games in 3 days: ever; even in end of season tournaments. Games are primarily on the weekends, and often in the same location for back to back gamedays. The rest of the time is spent skills practice and physical development.
The differences are significant, and while there are pros and cons to each, no one can deny that the health and development of the player takes on a new priority in the college model.
If we stick strictly to in game performance, another issue is the quality of execution is not the same in game 3 in 3rd day as it is in game 1 . At the younger levels, performance will not be the same in game 3 in a day or game 7 of the weekend. Even if the young athlete could meet the physical demands of that demand (And many can not as their bodies are not developed enough), in game performance will suffer.
Recently, I tried a little experiment. I prepared my body to play 8 x 1 hour games of hockey over a period of 60 hours (Thursday evening to Sunday morning). While I am not comparing myself to a younger, stronger, fresher athlete, I was curious how my performance would hold up. I put in lots of preparation leading up to the weekend. Mostly physical. As the weekend went on, physically I felt fine. I hit a bit of a wall between games 5 and 6: my decision making got a lot worse. Moving without the puck pretty much stopped, distribution of the puck was less accurate and choices were much higher risk. While my body was getting tired, I felt fine. What deteriorated was my mental game. My ability to focus was declining rapidly.
Again, not comparing adult league to elite level hockey of athletes 35 years younger. What I am pointing out is how fatigued focus declines performance dramatically. Many who coach or schedule young athletes have forgotten, or, never have experienced how much mental energy it takes to execute at a competitive level.
The decision-making requirements in many sports have split second demands. When the body gets fatigued, the mind goes with it and mental mistakes start to happen.
The catcher who is playing his 2nd game in a row in the same day will get mentally tired in game 2, how quickly depending on the level of responsibility they have. Simple tasks like catching the ball will get harder, let alone the impact on the hitting side of the game.
The basketball player passing and shooting choices will be off as they play 2nd and 3rd game in a day. Remember play sets will be tougher as the weekend goes on and the minutes accumulate.
Hockey athletes will do things that are uncharacteristic when compared to their play when rested.
We can go on and on.
At the end of the day, if we want our athletes to perform at their best, the number of minutes in game have a major impact on their execution on the playing field.
The young CHL hockey players playing their 3rd game in 3 days, with travel and hotel stays factored in will not perform at their full capacity.
If we want our kids to be at their best, managing their workload must be a priority. Many in leadership positions seem to have lost that focus.