Understanding the Pyramid Model

Pyramid models presume that successful progression from one level to the next is indicative of later or emergent ability, while in most cases this is not accurate. Abbott, et al. (2002) present a wide range of evidence that effectively undermines confidence in the notion of ‘talent spotting’, especially during childhood.

They presume that selection for progressively higher levels within the system are based on merit, while in practice participation is mediated by a host of psycho-social and environmental factors, such as the ability to take part in the first place.

Consider, for example, the role of the family in high level sports performance. Some family-based variables associated with participation in sporting (and other) domains at high levels include: 

• Parents having achieved high standards
• Relatively high socio-economic status
• Ability and willingness to financially support participation and specialist support
• Ability and willingness to invest high amounts of time to support the child’s engagement in the activity
• Parents as car owners
• Relatively small family size
• Two-parent family
• Attendance at independent school.

Alongside the family as a key variable on participation, we might also add factors like availability and quality of coaching, availability and quality of facilities, access to funding and choice of sport.

Since young players can hardly be held responsible for the families they have, the schools they attend or the cities they live in, it seems fair to say that, to some extent, their sporting achievement (or simply engagement) is mediated by ‘blind luck’, irrespective of their ability in a sport.

It is worth noting that many of the variables associated with participant development in all its forms (which directly affect an individual’s ability to play sport) have been identified for many years.

These models take it for granted that current performance in a domain represents a players’ ability, while there are numerous reasons to doubt that this is the case. 

Some have highlighted the subjective nature of talent assessment procedures, whereby players find themselves removed from a system for rather arbitrary reasons. 

A striking example of such arbitrariness is the effect of relative age on performance. Numerous studies have shown that players born early within a selection year have a considerable advantage over those born later. This seems in part because of the relative physical size and strength and further matured coordination of players who can be up to one year older than their peers. 

Those with the benefit of extra months of development are more likely to be identified as talented and progress to the next level of the pyramid, where they would be expected to receive better coaching, play with a higher standard of team-mates and opposition and compete and train more frequently.

These problems with pyramid thinking might explain two perplexing findings that seem to raise doubts about its efficacy: the majority of young people identified as talented do not go on to elite, or even sub-elite, careers and, conversely, many adult elite performers were not identified through the standard talent pathways, nor were they precociously gifted as young children.