The 10,000 Hour Debate | The Benefits of Early Diversification

As an avid podcast listener I find one of my favourite listens is EPSN Daily hosted by Pablo Torre. There is a great variety of topics, focus and interviews which allows for a diverse listen, with each day providing a new experience and learning opportunity. The episode from January 4^th had David Epstein guest on the show, discussing the 10,000 hour rule. Asking the question, a myth we need to bust?  It’s a great listen and debate. And while I don’t wish to necessarily to discuss the 10,000 hour rule, I wanted to touch on early specialisation the issues which this approach may lead to for young athletes. 

So the 10,000 hour rule has been found to be almost without evidence of being true. A convenient number which allowed Malcolm Gladwell to extrapolate a theory that if anyone works on something for 10,000 hours then they can become an expert. This was based on Anders Ericsson’s research on violinists, where he found those who had amassed 10,000 hours would become world class performers, and those who fell shorter of these numbers simply didn’t make the grade. They were good, but not great. Of course this was research comparing masters in chess and music, which have very clear parameters in terms of environmental factors. Compared to a team sport which has many more factors which could affect performance – especially for young athletes developing and maturing at different rates. It’s not as easy to say that the simple aspect of hours will translate. 

 

This discussion led was based around the aspect of ‘deliberate practice’. The element of purposeful practice, focused attention, often with the support and guidance of an expert teacher. So if the numbers aren’t necessarily true, it is fair to say that if an athlete - for this article I will use football as the sport - amasses a vast amount of hours with expert support with deliberate practice, then they have a greater chance of reaching their potential, of becoming great and an expert in their field. Makes sense right?

 

Individual differences lead to mixed progress

But here is the argument that Epstein makes, and one which is very important. It is not as easy to say that any two people who are at the same level will progress at the same amount with the next hour of deliberate practice. Each individual even within the same session will develop at a different rate. People progress at very different rates – even when they are doing the exact same thing. 

Now in football we believe that our session as a coach allows for all players to develop, but it is very hard to make it so that every player experiences the exact same experience within the session. It may be down to position, their teammates/opposition will be different, and the focus the coaches gives will be different for each player. We cannot get away from the importance of the coach’s bias – either conscious or unconscious. The practice will feel different for every player. 

It may be how the player perceives the session, some may find it easy, some hard, some frustrating, some enjoyable. The level of challenge may be too great for some and too easy for others. The competition may lead to success and failure, to how they react to it. And of course each players day has been different; demands at school, issues with peers or parents. So the deliberate practice within these sessions will feel different – meaning the individuals progress within this is affected greatly. 

Epstein makes the point - which is a limiting factor for players ‘signed’ with Academies and a good consideration for parents looking for a club/academy – “find the environment and places where they get a good response to the things they are trying.” It sounds simple. But each environment which a coach creates will benefit some and negatively affect others. For me personally I love players with personality and energy, hard working players who play with intensity and determination. As well as those who express themselves, use skill and are brave. So if a player wasn’t like this it would be hard to make that level of connection to get the best out of them. It may lead to more conflict and feelings of frustration from both sides. Not ideal for a players development. However another coach or environment may be perfect for an individual, where they are valued and supported for what they bring. Therefore where is this player best suited to develop?  

 

Now as mentioned above, the element of team sports and training can be a limiting factor for some individuals. So consider 1-on-1 personal sessions – a place to benefit from deliberate practice – for increased repetition, challenge and focused attention. It makes sense for young athletes to use this opportunity to hone their techniques and skills. To provide greater focus to refine skills and to add more hours to their skill-set. I find these of major value and perhaps a key consideration when looking at accumulating more hours of deliberate practice. And yet, importantly can these individuals translate the individual work into a team game? Because that is the key for an athlete – to thrive in the heat of competition. 

 

Specialising early - the benefits and pitfalls

Now let us consider the most important discussion which came out from this podcast. And that is the detrimental element of early specialisation. If a parent or coach creates a tunnel vision on 10,000 hours, that they focus on hitting that number for football related practice, even if deliberate practice – this has found to actually limit development for an athletes long term physical literacy. 

By specialising really early an athlete may well see success between the ages of 10-12 year old. This success may well justify the importance of getting your son/daughter into football at a very young age. Makes sense right? More hours accrued at a young age will put these individuals ahead of their peers, they will be more skilful, gain more recognition and praise, grow their self-worth and confidence. They will be scouted, be provided greater opportunity, coaching and increased coaching hours. They benefit from early opportunity due to their 'talent'. But it has been found this early specialisation which may bring success, will inversely have an impact proportionally on their long term success. 

It has been seen that those who have greater diversification at a young age will llikely be able to achieve and succeed at the top level later on. Ultimately, the things that give you a head start – hamper long term development. This is a serious consideration for parents, coaches and academies – are our young players simply playing too much football and not partaking in any other sports because of it? Are we actually doing a dis-service to our young players?

 

It has been found that diversification is better. Specialising early makes the developing athlete prone to psychological and physical burnout and injury later on. So if you want a footballer who succeeds later on, who can thrive in the senior game, then diversification is the advantage. The younger ages should be seen as a period of ‘sampling’, of letting an individual experiment with a variety of different activities, to see what they enjoy most but also for their long term development. Variety is key. These athletes will benefit from what is called a ‘wicked’ environment – more variables which can affect performance. Which provide the variables allowed these young athletes to develop a more robust physical and mental foundation. 

 

This issue appears to be mainly around the time of pre-puberty. Effectively the lack of diversification will stunt the physical literacy and all-round development of a young person. It makes sense if you are only practice certain movements which that specific sport requires. By not playing a multitude of sports and activities the all-round development is stunted. What has been found is that if you delay the process of selecting an athlete, or the athlete selecting a sport to specialise in later on, then it makes a greater fit of ‘right person/right place’. 

I have seen players who come in between 13-16 years and become scholars/pro’s, because due to puberty and maturation there is a greater knowledge of what you have. Their character and personality is clearer, as well as their physical skills. And you know what, many of these lads have come from a multi-sports background. They are more rounded than their Academy counterparts. 

It begs the question; do Academies need a greater focus around multi-sports with their younger players? A responsibility to their individual players development, as well as their Academy’s success of having players progress through the system. 

This element of early specialisation can also be focused positions and how pigeon holing players too early can have a limiting impact on their development. Have a read of this article to delve into this discussion further. 

 

The all-round athletes

Let’s look at some examples. A great visual was put out this last weekend assessing the 8 quarterbacks who played in the playoffs. These 8 players played a combined 24 sports when they were in high school.

 

These are all-rounders, capable of playing multiple sports very well. Before Kyler Murray was the first overall pick in the 2019 NFL draft, he was a multi-sport star. He was drafted by the baseball team the Oakland Athletics in the first round. At college he played both baseball and football. He has been excellent in the NFL. A multi-sports background has given him a greater skill-set to excel. 

When we look at these examples, we are talking about high school – 16-18 years of age. Not just 10-14 years. When our ‘scholars’ are in full time football. Are they doing anything other than football every day? Is this helping their long term development? Is this why we are seeing more injuries to players at these ages? A decade of specialising in one sport – leading to physical burnout? 

We see foreign players who appear to have experienced playing handball and even futsal as part of their development as young players. And although we are developing some excellent players, could we do better? Could we be developing even more talented players? By looking at a more diverse/multi-sports approach in our youth development programs?

 

Finally let us look at the Rodger Federer example. Arguably the greatest tennis player ever. A joy to watch. Makes the sport look easy, effortless. This was a young player who diversified in his younger years. He experienced a wide variety of sports in his teenage years; racketball, soccer, handball, volleyball, skiing, skateboarding. When asked by his tennis coaches to ‘move up’ and be challenged he declined, as he preferred to talk pro wrestling with his friends after practice. This isn’t the kind of story we often associate with greatness, but it is actually more like what happens. Diversification of sports, a more relaxed and enjoyable nature to competing at a young age, not fully driven early to be the greatest player ever. He slowly became great. It’s a success story. And as Epstein says, this is the more the norm for elite athletes. The key is more diverse activities, and more training methods leads to a greater all-around athlete later on. 

 

In conclusion, as a parent or coach, are we considering the short term or long term for our children or players? Is our incentive to win short term and be a great U9 success? Or are we seeking to develop for the long term? It’s not easy of course. An element of success is important to help keep people’s enjoyment high, but could we offer more diversify in our young players development? 

Could we introduce futsal more often? Could we embrace handball in our sports halls? Could we allow players to play a variety of sports like basketball? People may say this is a loss of football time but in fact it’s aiding the development of your player long term. And when your young player is seeking to thrive in a career between 17 – 35 years of age, surely it’s better to have embraced diversification before these years? Allowing for greater performance when a player is at the stage to specialise when it’s needed most. 

Matt Whitehouse @M_R_Whitehouse