Article

Shoulda, Coulda, Didnae – Why don’t high potential

players make it?

Taylor, J., and Collins, David John

Available at http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/24864/

Taylor, J., and Collins, David John ORCID: 0000­0002­7601­0454 (2019) Shoulda, Coulda,
Didnae – Why don’t high potential players make it? The Sport Psychologist, 33 (2). pp. 85­96.
ISSN 0888­4781

It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2017-0153

For more information about UCLan’s research in this area go to

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/researchgroups/ and search for <name of research Group>.

For information about Research generally at UCLan please go to

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/

All outputs in CLoK are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including
Copyright law. Copyright, IPR and Moral Rights for the works on this site are retained
by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Terms and conditions for use
of this material are defined in the http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/policies/

CLoK
Central Lancashire online Knowledge
www.clok.uclan.ac.uk
 Shoulda, Coulda, Didnae – Why don’t high potential players make it?

Jamie Taylor¹ & Dave Collins²

1: (Corresponding author) Leicester Tigers, Oval Park Training Ground, Wigston Road,

Oadby LE2 5QG. Email: [email protected]. M: 07854148505.

2: Institute of Coaching and Performance, University of Central Lancashire, Preston,

Lancashire PR1 2HE.

Key words: Talent Development, Pathway, Elite Performance

Suggested Running Head: Why high potential don’t make it

 Abstract

Given the non-linear nature of talent development, there is a lack of research

investigating those who don’t make it. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to

explore the reasons why performers of high potential didn’t meet their expected

performance level. Participants, who were experienced talent developers in high level

academies from football and rugby, identified five broad reasons for these failures:

namely, lacking mental skills, serendipity, pathway based failures, maladaptive family

input and lacking physical skills. Using a three-part focus derived from the data, we

suggest ways in which talent pathways can optimize their output and prevent these

failures.
Sport is littered with examples of the gifted youngster who fails to realize what many

perceived to be their ultimate potential. Much research supports the conceptualization of

talent development (TD) as a non-linear process and many young ‘superstars’ can attest

that early success may not necessarily translate into eventual elite status (Abbott &

Collins, 2004; Collins, MacNamara & McCarthy, 2016a; Vaeyens, Güllich, Warr &

Philippaerts, 2009; Gulbin, Weissensteiner, Oldenziel & Gagne, 2013). Indeed, talent

pathways across both Olympic and professional team sport have been shown to have a

significant turnover of athletes that are selected and later deselected in their pathway

(Gullich, 2014; Gullich & Emrich, 2014).

Importantly, however, this rise and fall might sometimes be something to be

exploited rather than avoided (Collins & MacNamara, 2017; McCarthy, Collins & Court,

2016) as it can contribute positively to subsequent progress. It would appear that

challenge factors play a significant role in the development and refinement of talent.

Indeed, it has been proposed that ‘talent needs trauma’ (Collins & MacNamara, 2012).

Consequently, those athletes who do make it will have experienced and successfully

overcome a significant number of more or less traumatic challenges, whether pathway-

related or naturally occurring (cf. Collins, Macnamara & McCarthy, 2016b). These may

include issues such as acute or chronic failure (real or perceived), injury, or non-

selection. Equally importantly, those performers who almost ‘made it’ may not arrive at

the key roadblocks with the skills to overcome the challenge (Collins et al., 2016a)

leading to potentially career-ending derailment. Against this backdrop, researchers have

started to examine the potential positives of failure and challenge for athletes as they

prepare for and hopefully progress along the pathway (e.g. Rees et al., 2016). There is
Why high potentials don’t make it 4

clearly a need for a subtle balance, however, as too much challenge may well risk

derailment.

Unfortunately, only very limited research has considered those who have failed on

a pathway (Holt & Mitchell, 2006). The vast majority of research to date has focused on

those who have succeeded, or on identifying contrasting strengths in individuals (e.g.

Van Yperen, 2009) or environments (e.g. Bean, Harlow, Mosher, Fraser-Thomas &

Forneris, 2018), ignoring the considerable learning opportunities (not to mention the

ethical imperative) from explicitly considering failure and perhaps leading to a

survivorship bias in the extant literature (Smith, 2014). In this regard, Bailey and Collins

(2013) claim that signs of success within a system are often an illusion rather than signs

that the system is working effectively. In fact, they continue to state that “there are no

ways of knowing who might have succeeded through different systems, and who… (if)

selected from the system… might have (under different circumstances) gone on to

achieve high performance” (Bailey & Collins, 2013; p. 249). Therefore, to truly

understand why performers do and don’t ‘make it’, there is a need for greater

‘granularity’ in our understanding of how athletes progress (Gulbin et al., 2013).

The importance of this focus has been stressed in several parallel environments,

such as organisational psychology (e.g. Denrell & Fang, 2010; Denrell & Le Mens,

2011), an idea more broadly applied by other authors (e.g. Edmondson, 2011). Indeed,

several authors are now stressing the importance of considering null findings as an

important source of data, not least because of the reinforcement or challenge they may

offer to established ideas built on studies of success (e.g., Landis & Rogelberg, 2013).

With specific regard to talent development, current ideas on what it takes to be successful
Why high potentials don’t make it 5

would surely be enhanced if these same factors were shown to be the weaknesses in those

who didn’t! Furthermore, an enhanced understanding of why those identified as prime

talent underachieved or failed to finish would be of considerable utility to practitioners.

Crucially therefore, and given that the vast majority of talent research has

investigated those athletes who were able to realize their talent (cf. Gledhill, Harwood &

Forsdyke, 2017), there is a pressing need to examine the factors involved when a

performer could have, or even should have made it, but didn’t. Accordingly, and

reflecting this gap in the literature, our purpose was to conduct an investigation of the

‘talent graveyard’; examining those who did not make it and the reasons why performers

perceived as being of both high potential and high performance (cf. Baker, Schorer &

Wattie, 2018), later failed. We thus sought to qualitatively investigate the factors

identified by experienced talent developers who had seen highly gifted performers fall

away, despite the very high potential and performance that they originally demonstrated,

in order to provide recommendations for practitioners to maximise the effectiveness of

TD pathways.

As such, our specific aims were to (a) understand the causes of athletes’ demise

across two professional team sports (b) to identify any causes perceived to have occurred

more frequently than others and thus (c) to understand what the coach or talent system

could have done to prevent this.

Methodology

Research Philosophy, Design and Methods

Given the aims of the study and our wish to produce practically meaningful knowledge,

we employed a pragmatic research philosophy. Under this approach, methods are

Why high potentials don’t make it 6

selected with the aim of answering questions and providing solutions, without being

driven by a distinct epistemological approach (Giacobbi, Poczwardowski & Hager,

2005). Rather, Pragmatism prioritizes questions and methodologies that are practically

meaningful. The examination of why apparently gifted players fail to realise their

apparent potential was seen as highly relevant, most especially to those practising in TD

environments.

The adoption of qualitative methods allowed for the rich exploration of the issues

faced during the TD process (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Qualitative research is

characterized by the use of an explorative approach and the collection of rich descriptive

data (Silverman, 2006) with the aim of producing a useful map of the world, rather than a

correct one (Strean, 1998). To this extent and in line with the pragmatic research

philosophy, which considers that researcher biases and preferences can be used to support

novel insights, the study was aided by our experience as leaders and active practitioners

in elite sports talent development pathways (cf. Giacobbi et al., 2005; Morgan, 2007;

Bryant, 2009).

Participants

We recruited two purposeful samples of experienced TD coaches from high level,

professional academies or holding positions in national UK pathways. These were 10

rugby coaches drawn from 8 academies, aged between 28 and 48 years (M= 37.8 years;

SD = 6.36) with between 5 and 18 years coaching (M=11.2 years; SD = 5.15) and 10

football coaches drawn from 4 academies aged between 27 and 62 years (M= 37 years;

SD = 7.9) with between 9 and 32 years coaching (M=21 years; SD = 8.2). The samples

were chosen as a result of the roles played by the authors in the respective sports, and the
Why high potentials don’t make it 7

need for highly experienced TD coaches who would have the requisite experience to have

worked with players that fitted the sampling criteria. Our request for their views on three

players was based on pilot work, which suggested this as a suitable number for clarity of

recall. Finally, the two sports selected and our focus on male players represented the best

resourced and largest academy systems currently in the UK.

The players for whom data was gathered were all male and perceived by these

experienced talent developer participants to be a ‘dead cert’ for future success, their

potential being obvious for an extended period of time; yet falling away later. All coach

participants were invited to take part through personal contact and, following the protocol

approval by the University Ethics Committee, completed informed consent.

Data Collection

Contact was made with each participant at least one week prior to interview. Each was

asked to consider 3 players who had, on first observation, been perceived to possess very

high potential but who subsequently did not make it to the top of their sport; the standard

originally expected of them. The first author conducted interviews with rugby coaches

and the second with football coaches to facilitate the purposeful sampling of participants

and enhance the trustworthiness of data. Guided by the exploratory nature of the study

and based on the pragmatic approach (Giacobbi et al., 2005) a semi-structured interview

guide was developed and refined through pilot work with two coaches in each sport of

similar qualification and experience. It consisted of open-ended questions that elicited

responses informed by literature and our applied experience; in addition, follow-up

probes and prompts were developed to allow elaboration on key points and promote

consistency across participants (Patton, 2002). The guide is available on request from the
Why high potentials don’t make it 8

first author.

Interviews were arranged at a quiet location to suit the participant: a pre-briefing

allowed them to reflect on the players that were to be discussed. Interviews, after initial

briefing and warm up questions, lasted between 45 and 75 minutes and were taped for

subsequent analysis.

Design and Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and, given the lack of prior research in the area, an

inductive content analysis was conducted to identify the factors implicated in the failure

of players ‘making it’. The procedure used by Côté, Salmela, Baria & Russell (1993) was

followed, starting with each transcript being read several times to ensure familiarity and

understanding. Qualitative analysis software (QSR NVIVO 9) was then used to take raw

data units and build thematic hierarchies by creating tags (e.g. “Unwilling to spend time

training”; “Inability to cope with performance errors”; “Poor interaction with coaches”),

similar tags were then grouped into sub-themes and then a framework of higher order

themes.

Trustworthiness of the Data

Given that the process and outcomes of interviews are shaped by trust and rapport with

participants (Sparkes & Smith, 2009), these features were enhanced by both author’s a)

role in the sport in which the participants were coaching and therefore the knowledge of

their career to date; and b) awareness of the issues being discussed as experienced

practitioners. The conduct of qualitative data analysis was enhanced by the use of

qualitative software (QSR NVIVO 9) and conceptual memos were kept to log both

authors’ interpretation of the data and stimulate later discussion. Both author’s
Why high potentials don’t make it 9

interpretation of data was challenged through the presentation of meaning units and the

themes to which they had been coded with both acting as critical friends (Faulkner &

Sparkes, 1999). Where alternative coding was suggested, discussion occurred until

agreement was reached.

Following completion of data analysis, to enhance the trustworthiness of the data

and reflecting best practice recommendations (Smith & McGannon, 2017), all coaches

were contacted to garner their reflections on the results of data collection, having been

sent a copy of the tabularised summaries (see Figures 1 and 2) in advance. Of the twenty,

eighteen responded and took part in a follow up interview. All perceived the results to be

highly representative of their experiences in TD, actually acknowledging and endorsing

ideas presented by other participants; both within and outwith their own sport.

For example, one rugby coach commented, “hindsight is always 20:20, but there

appear to be a lot of factors here that are highly influenceable (sic) by the coach and

academy”. Another stated “it’s knowing the player inside out that really counts”. A

football coach observed, “suppose it’s not surprising that the egg chasers [rugby coaches]

have the same issues as us…same country, almost the same kids!” Furthermore, given

the resources and status involved, several coaches from both sports also expressed

surprise at the clear systemic failures that took place.

Importantly however, none expressed any disagreement with the content or nature

of the coding, nor reported any additional factors that would explain why highly gifted

players might be derailed. Encouragingly, all coaches expressed how practically useful

they found this work to be and there was significant interest in how it could be

operationalized to further enhance talent development systems.

Why high potentials don’t make it 10

Results

The purpose of the present study was an exploration of the reasons why high

potential/apparently gifted football and rugby players failed to realize their potential.

Accordingly, and reflective of the high order themes identified, data are presented under

five categories which emerged from the data; lacking mental skills, serendipity, pathway-

based failures, maladaptive family input and lacking physical skills). The derivation of

these themes are shown in Figures 1 and 2, with the two sports presented separately so

that readers can evaluate the degree of overlap in the data. In all cases, quotes are

marked R or F, depending on the sport pertaining.

Insert Figures 1 and 2 here

Constellation of Mental Skills

Participants repeatedly identified players who failed to reach their potential as lacking

a variety of psychological skills. Players frequently lacked the commitment necessary to

succeed, as demonstrated in a number of ways, including a lack of application in training:

“I would have to work to gee him up all the time…otherwise he really wouldn’t try” (F).

They made poor lifestyle choices “He’d had a year out to focus on rugby but just ended

up going out on the piss two or three times a week” (R) or were unwilling to spend the

requisite volume of time practicing “some of his work that would be quite methodical and

time consuming as a hooker, the throwing in, he didn’t find it as appealing”. (R) Others

players were unable to properly apply themselves in training and overly focused on

games rather than training: for example, “as H got older, he was only interested in

playing”. (F)

Of interest, and in line with literature highlighting the potential role played by dual-
Why high potentials don’t make it 11

effect characteristics (cf. Hill, MacNamara & Collins, 2015), one athlete was identified as

struggling with repeated injuries as a result of over commitment:

He was so obsessed to be the best that he would be out doing a lot of extra skill work.

He would…go into the gym and not follow what he was meant to follow and generate

a load his body couldn’t handle. (R)

A lack of coping skills was also seen as a critical factor in maximising potential. Key

issues identified were the inability to cope with performance errors. “He just couldn’t

handle making mistakes. Either blamed others or refused to see that he was wrong” (F),

or the inability to cope with performance pressure. As one coach stated:

it was his ability to perform under pressure, he had all of the skillset and the physical

attributes to play in the academy level competition. But when it came down to it,

when the pressure was really on, he shrank. (R)

Others demonstrated an excessive need for recognition and praise “W just needed

constant praise and attention. When he didn’t get it he sulked!”. (F) Also identified was

coping with the pressure of competition from others as time in the pathway progressed:

for example,

He preferred to come and train with the younger group, than be challenged with

that pretty challenging great group that we had coming through at the time, with

the players that were in it. (R)

Coaches also highlighted a lack of self-regulatory capacity, with players having

difficulty managing freedom “Moving into digs was an issue…moving to his own place

even more so. He just couldn’t resist the ‘distractions’” (F), demonstrating poor learning

skills “I think his tactical problems were down to poor learning skills…he was a bit
Why high potentials don’t make it 12

thick!” (F), Poor training behaviours were also seen as a problem, with one coach stating:

“we had to force him to do extra 1 on 1 tackling stuff. That would always be coach

driven, not player driven” (R) as was lacking a focus on individual weaknesses “he had a

particular strategy that brushed over any weaknesses or any areas that he just wouldn’t

confront” (R).

Other athletes lacked the motivation to support a journey to high performance,

being selective with their training “He is the sort of guy, if he sees you looking, he will

bust a gut. If you are not looking, he will just stay in that same pace.” (R), being over

confident “F was just too cocky – he thought everything was easy and he lost interest

when it wasn’t” (F), or burning out “he is a kid who played at five, he played all the way

through prep, he went to [rugby playing school]. I actually think he was rugby burned

out.” (R).

Of interest, there was one distinct difference between the themes identified by

football and rugby coaches underlying motivation, particularly related to the impact of

external rewards. Football coaches identified the impact of being distracted by money

“The problem was that he got too comfy too quickly. After that he seemed to lose

interest” (F) or getting too much attention “G had everyone round him…agents, family,

fellow players…all telling him how great he was going to be” (F). In contrast, rugby

coaches identified the role played by a wealthy personal background as reducing levels

of motivation “Did he have the desire to push on? I questioned that at times because he

had a very comfortable upbringing.” (R) or having other career priorities “he didn’t

necessarily have the…. desire to take on a full time career in rugby”. (R)

A number of players also lacked the social skills to cope in team sport
Why high potentials don’t make it 13

environments; such as demonstrating narcissistic tendencies:

If we had played a game, if it was a chance to pass the ball to a person in a similar

position to him or score a try, he would not pass the ball. That’s the focus that he

would have…he would rather throw it on the floor than pass it to someone else that

may score, his read was they may look better than him. (R)

Other players were identified as having difficulty fitting in with team mates, “Never

really part of the group…always a bit of a loner” (F), with one lacking the cognitive

maturity to progress “I think he was just far too young as a person, even though he was

massive, he was in a man’s body, but he was just a 14/15-year-old in his head” (R) or

another the emotional maturity “He just couldn’t talk to people…see their point of view,

use their opinions. He didn’t notice even when people were pissed with him” (F). Others

demonstrated an inability to interact with coaches in a productive way “he had a fall out

with us and because of that he decided to go to the other franchise. He went to the other

franchise and he had exactly the same problem” (R).

Finally, some players lacked the ability to adapt to the demands they faced “A very

fragile confidence. So, I think he bluffed his way through a lot of things (R). Others

lacked focus on the pitch and made numerous unforced tactical errors “As he got older, J

just didn’t read the game well enough. As things got more tactically complicated, he

stayed still”. (F)

Serendipity

Serendipity was also identified as a factor in the downfall of high potential players,

with others of similar potential preventing selection opportunities: for example,

I think in any other club, in any other moment he would have been taken on. It was
Why high potentials don’t make it 14

between him and T to support as a third choice inside back, so we had D, J and we

went for T. (R)

Or similarly in football “Just unlucky really. Lots of good players in his position so

by the time he got to the Youth Team, he just wasn’t getting time on the pitch”. (F)

Another significant serendipitous factor was injury, with players who suffered injuries

consequently lacking the time to develop or grasp opportunities, “Very unlucky with

injuries…eventually he just couldn’t get back”. (F)

Failures of the Talent Development System

Systemic failures were also identified as factors in a player’s lack of progress.

Examples cited were a lack of challenge, either through early maturation “He was a very

mature 16-year-old; very physical hence why he was able to play up in age group so

quickly. That might have caught up with him in the end” (R), early dominance through

physical characteristics “He was one of the biggest and just used size and aggression to

win. Unfortunately, he never went beyond that” (F) or a lack of challenge preventing

appropriate technical/tactical development. As identified by a rugby coach:

…in hindsight collectively I don’t think we developed other aspects of his game. It

was very much ball in hand, play what you see. Well I think he then struggled when

he was in environments where it was more tactical, where it was more strategic and

he was actually asked to do things not based on the pictures in front of him, just based

upon building pressure and territory. (R)

Just as too little challenge was seen as a factor that derailed progress, so also was

too much, leading to players’ avoidance of challenge. In one example, a rugby coach

reflected that “Maybe playing him up all of the time was a mistake and if we had pushed
Why high potentials don’t make it 15

him back down into his age group, he may have been able to develop some of those skills

that he was lacking.” (R)

A similar issue arose from or a steep step change in demands proving too much for

the player “I think the jump in demands and pressure was just too sudden. One minute he

looked really good, the next he was under pressure”. (F)

TDE’s were also identified as not supporting players enough, with some being

guilty of not being lacking understanding when young players were given opportunities

“I am not sure that the Club gave him the support he needed. He got the breaks but just

didn’t step up”, (F) or by failing to prepare players for transitions “the preparation

coming into senior rugby, or coming into a senior academy position was poor… I don’t

hold them fully responsible, I hold the job of the academy is to prepare them…but this

was poor” (R). Poor use of, or action by coaches was also mentioned. Either players

failing to match coaches to their needs as individuals “This was another one who just

didn’t use us. His sources outside always seemed to know better, so J didn’t make the

changes he needed to” (F) or coaches failing to engage with players well enough “I never

met his Mum, but again probably someone we should have engaged with them early” (R)

Maladaptive family input

Players’ families were also seen as being a significant factor in the derailing of

performance potential; whether through wider family input “Family from Hell! Brother

saying what he could and couldn’t do. Uncle putting his oar in. Mother like a frightened

rabbit” (F), or by the family preventing the engagement of the player with challenge “He

was the golden child at times and could do no wrong. If he wasn’t selected for England,

then whose fault was that and those sorts of conversations? It was never R’s fault” (R).
Why high potentials don’t make it 16

Coaches also identified players being set up to fail by families who spoiled them “God,

they thought the sun shone out of his arse. He got everything he wanted…sometimes

even without asking for it.” (F). Although no evidence was found of this in the rugby

sample, footballers were also seen to be derailed by the business involvement of family

members “It was Team [player’s name] – everyone was involved, advising on clubs,

playing styles, tactics but most of all, business!” (F). Other parents were simply seen as

excessively driving their child’s development “he said ‘look, I will never touch a rugby

ball again……too much pressure from my Dad’” (R).

Lacking physical skills

Finally, coaches highlighted a lack of physical ability as being a factor in the failure

of some player’s progression. Some didn’t grow as expected “H just fell away. Fantastic

prospect at 11, just way too small at 17” (F), whilst others didn’t enjoy physical

confrontation “What a talent …could do anything with the ball. But didn’t like the

physical challenge” (F). Amongst the rugby sample, coaches pointed to a lack of physical

size preventing the ability to compete, for example:

A couple of times in the collision situation he just folded like a deck chair

unfortunately. He just got brutally outmuscled and he just couldn’t stop people in his

channel. He either made a clean line break or he got folded up like a piece of paper.

(R)

Discussion

Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (1995) proposed that the

process of talent development is moderated through the resources of the individual, their

environment and other serendipitous factors (Gagné, 1995). Support for all three of these
Why high potentials don’t make it 17

factors was identified in both samples and, whilst there are clear contextual differences

that highlight the importance of domain specific TD processes; there were also clear

similarities which suggest that many of the prerequisites for developing talent are

transferable across domains: at least in this UK team sports context. Accordingly, we

now consider the detail and implications of our results under three headings; namely, the

individual, serendipity and the environment.

The Individual

These results build upon previous work that focuses on the centrality of a

constellation of mental skills in facilitating a performer’s journey and across transitional

stages of development (Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004; Van Yperen, 2009; MacNamara

2001a/b; Larsen, Alfermann & Christensen, 2012). Previous work has established that

elite level performers have appropriately high levels of psychological resources and

athletes will demonstrate a constellation of mental skills on their way to the top (Orlick &

Partington, 1988; Gould, Diffenbach & Moffett, 2002; Collins et al., 2016a). Supporting

the previous work of Holt & Mitchell (2006) at a lower level of academy performance,

this investigation of the talent graveyard suggests that, albeit one of several factors, the

most common reason for failure amongst a group of 60 high potential athletes was their

individual lack of sufficient psychological resources. This despite them possessing many

other prerequisites of attaining elite performance, as shown by their selection to the

academies and identification by our experienced participants. Our data supports the

contention that ability alone may be a necessary but not sufficient to support the

development of expertise (Baker & Young, 2014; Toering, Elferink-Gemser, Jordet &

Visscher, 2009; Tucker & Collins, 2012).

Why high potentials don’t make it 18

Of significance to this examination of failure in developing performers was the

perception that many didn’t have the commitment or motivation to take them to the next

level of performance. On its own, this is hardly a revelation, yet clearly illustrative of the

nature of motivation and commitment-like resources being critical for the realization of

talent. Perhaps, in keeping with the findings of Savage, Collins and Cruickshank (2017),

motivational and commitment-based resources may be foundational characteristics for

other capacities to be fully realised.

It is also clear that some players can achieve a very high level of performance at

the academy stage without necessarily having a ‘full set’ of the appropriate psychological

resources. Support was also found for the importance of self-regulatory processes to

progression, especially at the high end of the pathway as pressures really began to bite

(Toering et al., 2009). Therefore, given that players were derailed by a variety of

psychological factors, it would seem prudent that the full set of skills are systematically

introduced and developed as a curriculum in academy settings (cf. Psychological

Characteristics of Developing Excellence (PCDEs) – MacNamara, Button & Collins,

2010a; 2010b; Larsen, Alfermann, Henriksen & Christensen, 2014). The subtle

distinctions between specific players’ issues is illustrative of the utility in providing a

range of skills, from which individuals can draw to address their particular range of

challenges. This multi-skills approach is in contrast to others, which focus on only one

element (Collins, MacNamara & Cruickshank, 2018). For example, resilience (Sarkar &

Fletcher, 2016), Grit (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews & Kelly, 2007) or Growth Mindset

(Dweck, 2006) may draw on several of the underpinning skills described within the
Why high potentials don’t make it 19

PCDE framework. The pathway is full of different challenges however, and developing

athletes should be optimally equipped to handle as many as possible, including being able

to ask for help (cf. the PCDE of ‘seeking and using social support’). These varied

demands, and the impact of an associated lack, are clear within the data.

Finally, the power of family influences on individuals stresses the importance of

interactions with parents to ensure common understanding and direction of development

(cf. Martindale, Collins & Daubney, 2005; Pankhurst, Collins & MacNamara, 2013). The

aim of this being to build understanding and harmonize development. Problems may

reach a terminal level, however, and coaches may need to have some quite ‘direct’

conversations, even to the extent of removing players from the pathway to prevent others

being affected.

Serendipity

It is also clear that, for a number of reasons, some athletes were derailed by a

constellation of serendipitous factors. These came in the form of other similarly high

potential players blocking competitive opportunities, injury preventing players engaging

with the necessary practice, or playing opportunities. In several cases, there was very

much a ‘wrong place at the wrong time’ effect. Very much in line with previous

recommendations, the prevention of this can occur if best practice would consistently

focus on planning for these instances to prevent a lack of game or training time. Such

deliberate thinking should inform and support the operationalization of an individualized

pathway with long-term aims and objectives (Henriksen, Stambulova & Roessler, 2010;

Ivarsson et a., 2015; Larsen et al., 2014; Martindale et al., 2005;). This should certainly

be the case with foreseeable issues, such as physical development, which should surely
Why high potentials don’t make it 20

be identified early as a limiting factor and, as far as possible, addressed.

The System

What is clear in the data is the role played by appropriate challenge along a talent

pathway and its’ crucial role in the development and reinforcement of mental skills. As

identified in Collins et al., (2016a) many of the performers who didn’t quite ‘make it’

were characterized by a smooth ride through the early stages of academy level

performance. Subsequently, however, this smooth ride was perceived to derail their

potential in several ways. The first being a sudden step increase in the challenge level that

they faced but which felt ill equipped to deal with. Comparatively, those performers who

do go on to become the very best are more likely to approach challenge with a ‘can do

attitude’ (Collins et al., 2016a).

The second but related factor was seen as too little challenge early in their

development. This was perceived to be a greater issue amongst rugby players than

footballers (although both sports reported it), which may be representative of the more

physical nature of the game and comparative ease with which advantage can be found at

lower levels of the sport. This, in turn, may then inhibit the development of the necessary

skills to compete at a later date. These differences may also be representative of the

structured nature of football pathways that can support the changing of training/playing

age groups at an earlier stage than rugby, with a later selection processes and limited

opportunities to manage challenge levels.

Of note, just as a lack of a bumpy path was found to derail, so was a pathway that

went beyond the bump to the crash. Those athletes who experienced too great a challenge

either went into their shell and avoided further challenge or it had such a significant
Why high potentials don’t make it 21

impact on their confidence that they were unable to recover. This in itself would suggest

that the individualization of challenge is complex and a ‘gung ho’ attitude to throwing

athletes into traumatic experience is unlikely to yield optimal benefit (Savage et al.,

2017).

Talent systems were also perceived to be at fault for failing to provide adequate

support for athletes, particularly around transitional phases; also lacking understanding

when athletes were engaging with a period of challenge. The process of supporting

challenge and the facilitating the essential reflective process is vital if traumatic

experience is to be effectively deployed throughout a pathway (Collins et al., 2016a; cf.

Fletcher & Sarkar, 2016). It would therefore seem prudent for pathways to deliberately

deploy challenge factors and plan for transitional periods (Collins et al., 2016b) but in

careful association with growth-facilitating debriefs.

Extending this point, the support network around an athlete is a vital dimension of

talent development and the interdisciplinary team around the player is key in their

development. Based on our data it is clear that, in many cases, the staff support network

around the athlete was insufficiently focused on, or understanding of, the nature of

challenge experiences for athletes. For example, in the case of one rugby player: “There

was one session when M came in, but the session nearly ruined the kid. He just tried

tweaking a few things and the young lad couldn’t get his head around it”. Talent systems

therefore need to carefully consider the appropriateness of the staff members that are

placed with specific performers and sufficient knowledge of the athlete or an

inappropriate coach placed with an inappropriate athlete (Webb, Collins & Cruickshank,

2016).
Why high potentials don’t make it 22

Clearly this study is not without limitations. Firstly, as with any retrospective

enquiry, there is a risk of hindsight bias in addition to recall errors. Given that we are

asking coaches, at least in part, about their own potential errors, there are significant risks

of self-presentational bias. There is also a risk that, although the players were perceived

by the coaches to be of high potential, decisions about the future potential of athletes are

deeply complex and certainly influenced/potentially biased by the coach’s overall

impression of the athlete (cf. Christensen, 2009; Den Hartigh, Niessen, Frencken &

Meijer, 2018). Furthermore, in this regard the data collected are clearly not triangulated

with other views of the player’s experience; for example, from the player himself, their

parents, or other staff members. Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that the

impressions of the coach are critical given their role in the decision-making process about

the player’s future. Therefore, whilst the viewpoints they offer cannot be seen as the

whole truth, the impressions that coaches formed of each player were critical features of

the reasons players were later excluded by the respective pathway and were highly

impactful. It is also worth noting that, with regard to personal bias, expectancy or self-

fulfilling prophecy, all the players discussed were presented by the coaches as positive

examples; players who should have made it.

Of course, albeit against the lack of previous work in this area, this exploratory

investigation was deliberately wide ranging and, consequently, can only offer limited or

tentative causative inferences based on the data. Future research directions might

consider the role played by TDEs and practitioners in preventing high potential athletes

falling away. In this sense, a longitudinal investigation of the experiences of early

identified performers and the challenges that they face along a talent pathway would
Why high potentials don’t make it 23

further the understanding of the reasons why able athletes fail to reach their potential.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the data presents a number of reasons for those performers marked out as

‘sure things’ for future elite performance, failing to reach their potential. Unsurprisingly,

these included injury, systematic failure and physical limitation. Notably, however, the

most common derailer of talent was a lack of psychological resources and the associated

lack of appropriate challenge throughout a developmental journey. Of course, in

presenting the importance of mental aspects of TD in a sport psychology journal, we are

preaching to the converted. We would stress, however, that even though the importance

of mental factors would seem well established, failure to address/cater for this element

was the major factor in the derailment of these high potential athletes. We hope that this

paper, focusing on why such high potential was lost, offers practitioners with even more

ammunition to promote the mental skills side of TDEs.

The data also demonstrate the need for a range of skill development with young

developing athletes. Although a lack of motivation or commitment was seen more

commonly than other factors, these were wide ranging and went beyond uni-factor

constructs or causative experiences. Therefore, to understand why very gifted performers

fail to realize their potential, we need to consider their individual resources, as well as the

environmental and stakeholder input to their development, against a breadth and depth of

skills.

Finally, we would like to stress the importance of the approach we employed;

namely, looking at the failures of a system as offering as many insights as a focus on

Why high potentials don’t make it 24

those who succeeded. The importance of this is stressed in both academic (e.g., Gilovich,

Griffin & Kahneman, 2002) and popular literature (e.g. Taleb, 2007). As Kiely (2011,

p.144) succinctly puts it:

Employing isolated examples to support any stance, as is frequently the

norm in performance environments, is a one-sided and ultimately irrational

argument. A valid assessment of the worth of any training scheme

necessitates that both the scheme’s successes and ‘failures’ be factored

into analysis.

We hope this perspective has usefully added to the knowledge base.

Why high potentials don’t make it 25

References

Abbott, A. & Collins, D. (2004). 'Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice

in talent identification and development: considering the role of

psychology', Journal of sports sciences, 22(5), 395-408. doi:

10.1080/02640410410001675324.

Bailey, R., and D. Collins. 2013. “The Standard Model of Talent Development and Its

Discontents.” Kinesiology Review 2: 248–259. doi:10.1123/krj.2.4.248.

Baker, J., Schorer, J. & Wattie, N. (2018). 'Compromising Talent: Issues in Identifying

and Selecting Talent in Sport', Quest, 70(1), 48-63. doi:

10.1080/00336297.2017.1333438.

Baker, J. & Young, B. (2014). '20 years later: deliberate practice and the development of

expertise in sport', International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1),

135-157. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2014.896024.

Bean, C., Harlow, M., Mosher, A., Fraser-Thomas, J. & Forneris, T. (2018). 'Assessing

Differences in Athlete-Reported Outcomes Between High and Low-Quality Youth

Sport Programs', Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30(4), 456-472. doi:

10.1080/10413200.2017.1413019.

Bryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm

Strauss. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(3): Art. 2. doi: 10.17169/fqs-

10.3.1358.
Why high potentials don’t make it 26

Christensen, M.K. (2009). '“An Eye for Talent”: Talent Identification and the “Practical

Sense” of Top-Level Soccer Coaches', Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(3), 365-382.

doi: 10.1123/ssj.26.3.365.

Collins, D. & MacNamara, Á. (2012). 'The Rocky Road to the Top', Sports

Medicine, 42(11), 907-914. doi: 10.2165/11635140-000000000-00000.

Collins, D., MacNamara, Á. & McCarthy, N. (2016a). 'Super Champions, Champions,

and Almosts: Important Differences and Commonalities on the Rocky

Road', Frontiers in Psychology, 6:2009. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009.

Collins, D.J., MacNamara, Á. & McCarthy, N. (2016b). 'Putting the Bumps in the Rocky

Road: Optimizing the Pathway to Excellence', Frontiers in Psychology, 7:1482.

Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01482.

Collins, D. & MacNamara, Á. (2017). A Smooth Sea Never Made a Skilful Sailor –

Optimizing and Exploiting the Rocky Road in Talent Development. In J. Baker, J.

Schorer, S. Cobley and Nick Wattie (Eds.), Routledge Handbook on Talent ID and

Development, (pp. 336-346) Oxon, UK: Routledge

Collins, D., MacNamara, Á. & Cruickshank, A. (2018). Research and Practice in Talent

Identification and Development – Some Thoughts on the State of Play. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2018.1475430.

Côté, J., Salmela, J.H., Baria, A. & Russell, S.J. (1993). 'Organizing and Interpreting

Unstructured Qualitative Data', The Sport Psychologist, 7(2), 127-137. doi:

10.1123/tsp.7.2.127.

Den Hartigh, Ruud J R, Niessen, A.S., Frencken, W.G.P. & Meijer, R.R. (2018).

'Selection procedures in sports: Improving predictions of athletes’ future

Why high potentials don’t make it 27

performance', European Journal of Sport Science, 1-8. doi:

10.1080/17461391.2018.1480662.

Denrell, J. & Fang, C. (2010). 'Predicting the Next Big Thing: Success as a Signal of

Poor Judgment', Management Science, 56(10), 1653-1667. doi:

10.1287/mnsc.1100.1220.

Denrell, J. & Le Mens, G. (2011). Seeking positive experiences can produce illusory

correlations, Cognition, 119(3), 313-324. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.007.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Los

Angeles: Sage.

Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D. & Kelly, D.R. (2007). 'Grit:

perseverance and passion for long-term goals.', Journal of personality and social

psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random

House.

Edmondson, A.C. (2011). 'Strategies of learning from failure', Harvard business

review, 89(4), pp. 55, 137.

Faulkner, G. & Sparkes, A. (1999). 'Exercise as Therapy for Schizophrenia: An

Ethnographic Study', Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21(1), 52-69. doi:

10.1123/jsep.21.1.52.
Why high potentials don’t make it 28

Fletcher, D. & Sarkar, M. (2016). 'Mental fortitude training: An evidence-based approach

to developing psychological resilience for sustained success', Journal of Sport

Psychology in Action, 7(3), 135-157. doi: 10.1080/21520704.2016.1255496.

Gagné, F. (1995). 'From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on

the language of the field', Roeper Review, 18(2), 103-111. doi:

10.1080/02783199509553709.

Gagné, F. (2004). 'Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental

theory', High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147. doi: 10.1080/1359813042000314682.

Giacobbi, P.R., Poczwardowski, A. & Hager, P. (2005). 'A Pragmatic Research

Philosophy for Sport and Exercise Psychology', The Sport Psychologist, 19(1), 18-

31. doi: 10.1123/tsp.19.1.18.

Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The

psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press.

Gledhill, A., Harwood, C., & Forsdyke, D. (2017). Psychosocial factors associated with

talent development in football: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 31, 93-112. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.04.002.

Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K. & Moffett, A. (2002). 'Psychological Characteristics and

Their Development in Olympic Champions', Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 14(3), 172-204. doi: 10.1080/10413200290103482.

Gulbin, J., Weissensteiner, J., Oldenziel, K. & Gagné, F. (2013). 'Patterns of performance

development in elite athletes', European Journal of Sport Science, 13(6), 605-614.

doi: 10.1080/17461391.2012.756542.
Why high potentials don’t make it 29

Güllich, A. (2014). 'Selection, de-selection and progression in German football talent

promotion', European Journal of Sport Science, 14(6), 530-537. doi:

10.1080/17461391.2013.858371.

Güllich, A. & Emrich, E. (2014). 'Considering long-term sustainability in the

development of world class success', European Journal of Sport Science, 14 (Suppl.

1), S383–S397. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2012.706320.

Henriksen, K., Stambulova, N., & Roessler, K. K. (2010). Holistic approach to athletic

talent development environments: A successful sailing milieu. Psychology of sport

and exercise, 11(3), 212-222. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.10.005.

Hill, A., MacNamara, Á & Collins, D. (2015). 'Psychobehaviorally Based Features of

Effective Talent Development in Rugby Union: A Coach’s Perspective', The Sport

Psychologist, 29(3), 201-212. doi: 10.1123/tsp.2014-0103.

Holt, N.L. & Mitchell, T. (2006). Talent development in English professional

soccer, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 37(2), 77-98.

Ivarsson, A., Stenling, A., Fallby, J., Johnson, U., Borg, E., & Johansson, G. (2015). The

predictive ability of the talent development environment on youth elite football

players' well-being: A person-centered approach. Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 16, 15-23. doi 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.09.006.

Kiely, J. (2011). Planning for physical performance: The individual perspective. In D.

Collins, A. Button and H. Richards (Eds.), Performance Psychology: A

Practitioners’ Guide, Oxford: Elsevier, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-443-06734-1.00010-

9.
Why high potentials don’t make it 30

Landis, R. & Rogelberg, S.G. (2013). Our Scholarly Practices Are Derailing Our

Progress: The Importance of "Nothing" in the Organizational Sciences. Industrial

and Organizational Psychology 6(3), 299-302. DOI: 10.1111/iops.12054.

Larsen, C., Alfermann, D. & Christensen, M. (2012). 'Psychosocial skills in a youth

soccer academy: A holistic ecological perspective', Sport Science Review, 21(3-4),

51-74. doi: 10.2478/v10237-012-0010-x.

Larsen, C.H., Alfermann, D., Henriksen, K. & Christensen, M.K. (2013). 'Successful

talent development in soccer: The characteristics of the environment.', Sport,

Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 2(3), 190-206. doi: 10.1037/a0031958.

Larsen, C.H., Alfermann, D., Henriksen, K. & Christensen, M.K. (2014). 'Preparing

Footballers for the Next Step: An Intervention Program From an Ecological

Perspective', The Sport Psychologist, 28(1), 91-102. doi: 10.1123/tsp.2013-0015.

MacNamara, Á, Button, A. & Collins, D. (2010a). 'The Role of Psychological

Characteristics in Facilitating the Pathway to Elite Performance Part 1: Identifying

Mental Skills and Behaviors', The Sport Psychologist, 24(1), 52-73. doi:

10.1123/tsp.24.1.52.

MacNamara, Á, Button, A. & Collins, D. (2010b). 'The Role of Psychological

Characteristics in Facilitating the Pathway to Elite Performance Part 2: Examining

Environmental and Stage-Related Differences in Skills and Behaviors', The Sport

Psychologist, 24(1), 74-96. doi: 10.1123/tsp.24.1.74.

Why high potentials don’t make it 31

Martindale, R.J., Collins, D. & Abraham, A. (2007). 'Effective Talent Development: The

Elite Coach Perspective in UK Sport', Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(2),

187-206. doi: 10.1080/10413200701188944.

McCarthy, N., Collins, D. & Court, D. (2016). Start hard, finish better: further evidence

for the reversal of RAE advantage. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(15), 1461-1465,

DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1119297.

Morgan, D.L. (2007). 'Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological

Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods', Journal of

Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292462.

Orlick, T. & Partington, J. (1988). 'Mental Links to Excellence', The Sport

Psychologist, 2(2), 105-130. doi: 10.1123/tsp.2.2.105.

Pankhurst, A., Collins, D. & Macnamara, Á. (2013). 'Talent development: linking the

stakeholders to the process', Journal of sports sciences, 31(4), 370-380. doi:

10.1080/02640414.2012.733821.

Patton, M.G. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage

Rees, T., Hardy, L., Güllich, A., Abernethy, B., Côté, J., Woodman, T., Montgomery, H.,

Laing, S. & Warr, C. (2016). 'The Great British Medalists Project: A Review of

Current Knowledge on the Development of the World’s Best Sporting

Talent', Sports Medicine, 46(8), 1041-1058. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0476-2.

Why high potentials don’t make it 32

Sarkar, M., Fletcher, D., & Brown, D. J. (2015). What doesn’t kill me…: adversity-

related experiences are vital in the development of superior Olympic performance.

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(4), 475-479. doi:

10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.010.

Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2016). Developing resilience through coaching. In Thelwell,

R., Harwood, C., & Greenlees, I., (Eds.), The psychology of sports coaching:

Research and practice (pp. 235-248). London, UK: Routledge.

Savage, J., Collins, D. & Cruickshank, A. (2017). 'Exploring Traumas in the

Development of Talent: What Are They, What Do They Do, and What Do They

Require?', Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 29(1), 101-117. doi:

10.1080/10413200.2016.1194910.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text, and

interaction (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

Smith, G. (2014). Standard deviations: Flawed assumptions, tortured data, and other

ways to lie with statistics. New York: Overlook/Duckworth.

Smith, B. & McGannon, K.R. (2018). 'Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems

and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology', International Review of

Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101-121. doi:

10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357.

Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2009). Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry:

Criteriology and relativism in action. Psychology of sport and exercise, 10(5), 491-

497. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.006.

Why high potentials don’t make it 33

Strean, W.B. (1998). 'Possibilities for Qualitative Research in Sport Psychology', The

Sport Psychologist, 12(3), 333-345. doi: 10.1123/tsp.12.3.333.

Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable (Vol. 2). New

York: Random House.

Toering, T.T., Elferink-Gemser, M., Jordet, G. & Visscher, C. (2009). 'Self-regulation

and performance level of elite and non-elite youth soccer players', Journal of sports

sciences, 27(14), 1509-1517. doi: 10.1080/02640410903369919.

Tucker, R. & Collins, M. (2012). 'What makes champions? A review of the relative

contribution of genes and training to sporting success', British journal of sports

medicine, 46(8), 555-561. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090548.

Vaeyens, R., Güllich, A., Warr, C.R. & Philippaerts, R. (2009). 'Talent identification and

promotion programmes of Olympic athletes', Journal of sports sciences, 27(13),

1367-1380. doi: 10.1080/02640410903110974.

Van Yperen, N.W. (2009). 'Why Some Make It and Others Do Not: Identifying

Psychological Factors That Predict Career Success in Professional Adult

Soccer', The Sport Psychologist, 23(3), 317-329. doi: 10.1123/tsp.23.3.317.

Webb, V., Collins, D. & Cruickshank, A. (2016). 'Aligning the talent pathway: exploring

the role and mechanisms of coherence in development', Journal of sports

sciences, 34(19), 1799-1807. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1139162.

Wylleman, P., & Lavallee, D. (2004). A developmental perspective on transitions faced

by athletes. In M. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A

Why high potentials don’t make it 34

lifespan perspective (pp. 507–527). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information

Technology.
Prescribed Higher Order Lower Order Theme Raw data exemplar Mentioned
Themes Themes in relation to
Over confidence “F was just too cocky – he thought everything was easy and 9
he lost interest when it wasn’t”
Selective on training “Y would do what he wanted to do, what he was good at. 5
Lacking
But when it came to the weaknesses…”
motivation
Distracted by money “The problem was that he got too comfy too quickly. After 4
(24)
that he seemed to lose interest”
Too much attention “G had everyone round him…agents, family, fellow players. 6
All telling him how great he was going to be”
Poor lifestyle choices “He learnt bad habits from the wrong crowd and just went 4
deeper and deeper”
Unwilling to spend “He would do the team sessions but just didn’t want to 3
Lacking
time practicing know about other stuff…the stuff he really needed”
Commitment
Lack of application to “ I would have to work to gee him up all the 5
Mental (14)
training time…otherwise he really wouldn’t try”
Overly focused on “As H got older, he was only interested in playing.” 2
games
Inability to cope with “He just couldn’t handle making mistakes. Either blamed 6
performance errors others or refused to see that he was wrong”
Inability to cope with “As he got towards the top end his form just dropped away. 7
performance pressure He couldn’t handle the pressure of expectation and became a
Lacking
shadow of the player he was”
Coping Skills
Coping with “As everyone around him got better, D just dropped away. 3
(21)
competition from Seemed like he didn’t like not being the centre of attention
others anymore”
Need for “W just needed constant praise and attention. When he 5
recognition/praise didn’t get it he sulked!”
Why high potentials don’t make it 36

Poor ability to adapt to “I think he found it hard when he got to Youth 5

Lacking
demands level…varying demands, challenging opposition…just a lot
confidence/
more work”
Focus
Unforced tactical errors “As he got older, J just didn’t read the game well enough. 2
(7)
As things got more tactically complicated, he stayed still”
Difficulty managing “Moving into digs was an issue…moving to his own place 4
freedom even more so. He just couldn’t resist the ‘distractions’”
Poor learning skills “I think his tactical problems were down to poor learning 3
Lacking self-
skills…he was a bit thick!”
regulation
Poor training “J was very easily distracted…anything out of the ordinary 3
(15)
behaviours and he just lost focus”
Lack of focus on Like I said, he just wouldn’t get focused on his areas for 5
weaknesses development. IAPs just didn’t work with him”
Narcissism “What a cocky bugger! Like a bloody peacock…always 3
preening himself”
Not ‘fitting in’ with “Never really part of the group…always a bit of a loaner” 2
team mates
Lacking social
Poor interaction with “We just didn’t know what made him tick. Almost like he 4
skills
coaches didn’t want to know us even when we were evaluating him”
(16)
Cognitive maturity “Coupled with that, K was just childish” 3
Emotional maturity “He just couldn’t talk to people…see their pint of view, use 4
their opinions. He didn’t notice even when people were
pissed with him”
Other players “Eventually wrong place and wrong time. There were just 3
Lack of preventing selection two goalkeepers ahead of him in the race”
Serendipity opportunity opportunities
(5) Injury “Very unlucky with injuries…eventually he just couldn’t get 2
back”
Too little Early maturation Way ahead of his peers in skills. Playing him was a problem 3
System
challenge because of his attitude. He fell between two stools really”
Why high potentials don’t make it 37

(9) Dominance of “He was one of the biggest and just used size and aggression 4
performance at lower to win. Unfortunately, he never went beyond that”
level based on physical
Lack of “One moment he found everything simple, the next he was 2
technical/tactical confused. I wondered if he felt the challenge to improve
development early enough”
Avoiding challenge “As the pressure came on, D just hid” 3
Too much
Steep step change “I think the jump in demands and pressure was just too 6
challenge
sudden. One minute he looked really good, the next he was
(9)
under pressure”
Lack of understanding “I am not sure that the Club gave him the support he needed. 4
when given He got the breaks but just didn’t step up”
Lack of
opportunities
support
Poor use of coaches “This was another one who just didn’t use us. His sources 4
(8)
outside always seemed to know better, so J didn’t make the
changes he needed to.”
Not Lack of game time “Just unlucky really. Lots of good players in his position so 4
facilitating by the time he got to the Youth Team, he just wasn’t getting
opportunity time on the pitch”
(4)
Wider family input “Family from Hell! Brother saying what he could and 7
couldn’t do. Uncle putting his oar in. Mother like a
frightened rabbit”
Preventing engagement “I think they were so worried about him getting damaged, 2
Maladaptive
with challenge mentally or physically, that they just kept him away from it”
Family Family input
Spoiled child “God,,,they thought the sun shone out of his arse. He got 6
(24)
everything he wanted…sometimes even without asking for
it.”
Business involvement Brother saying what he could and couldn’t do. Uncle putting 2
by family members his oar in
Why high potentials don’t make it 38

Parent driving “Dad was in charge. We couldn’t make a decision without 7

development him questioning it”
Didn’t grow as “H just fell away. Fantastic prospect at 11, just way too 3
Physical
Physical expected small at 17”
Characteristic
Didn’t like the physical “What a talent …could do anything with the ball. But didn’t 2
(5)
confrontation like the physical challenge”

Figure 1: Issues identified as blocks to achieving potential – Football

Prescribed Higher Order Lower Order Theme Raw data exemplar Mentioned
Themes Themes in relation to
Over confidence “I don’t think he had the drive, I think it came to easily to 2
him”
Burnout “he is a kid who played at five, he played all the way through 1
prep, he went to (rugby playing school), I actually think that
he was rugby burned out.
Lacking
Other career priorities “he didn’t necessarily have the…. desire to take on a full 1
motivation
time career in rugby”
(25)
Selective on training “the extra level of physical training which weren’t 14
Mental
necessarily his perceived strengths, didn’t really inspire him
so I think he lacked motivation on that”
Wealthy Background “Did he have the desire to push on? I questioned that at times 3
because he had a very comfortable upbringing.”
Poor lifestyle choices “he’d had a year out to focus on rugby but just ended up 11
Lacking
going out on the piss two or three times a week, really loved
Commitment
that lifestyle as opposed to getting his head down and
(32)
working hard.”
Why high potentials don’t make it 39

Unwilling to spend “Fundamentally a bit lazy, so again some of his work that 5
time practicing would be quite, that needed to be quite methodical and time
consuming as a hooker, the throwing in, then he didn’t find it
as appealing.”
Lack of application to “P wanted to play the game, but I think the training was very 14
training much something secondary to that”
Over Leading to injury “He was so obsessed to be the best that he would be out 1
commitment doing a lot of extra skill work. He would…go into the gym
(1) and not follow what he was meant to follow and probably the
load on his body couldn’t handle”
Inability to cope with “you just knew that if it made one mistake that would be the 6
performance errors end of the game for him, he just couldn’t come back from it.
It was a regular pattern throughout his U16 season”
Inability to cope with “it was his ability to perform under pressure, he had all of 5
performance pressure the skillset and the physical attributes to play in the academy
Lacking level competition. But when in came down to, when the
Coping Skills pressure was really on, he shrank”
(10) Coping with “He preferred to come and train with the younger group, 3
competition from than be challenged with that pretty challenging great group
others that we had coming through at the time, with the players that
were in it.”
Need for “he was always looking for… and the chat with his Dad was 3
recognition/praise that he wanted recognition.”
Lacking Poor ability to adapt to “A very fragile confidence. So, I think he bluffed his way 5
confidence/ demands through a lot of things”
Focus Unforced tactical errors “he always had a very high work rate, sometimes it was just 3
(8) like hot air, busy doing nothing”
Lacking self- Difficulty managing “This kid was always late and there was always an excuse” 2
regulation freedom
Why high potentials don’t make it 40

(12) Poor learning skills “There’s little bits of shape and his attack and he is like, you 3
know he has done it as a 16 year old, as a 17 year old and
you are coming to the end of the academy league and you are
asking him to draw it on a whiteboard and he can’t do it. I
can remember one session in particular and it wasn’t to
embarrass the kid, but I knew he didn’t know it and I’m like,
how do you not know this?”
Poor training “we had to force him to do extra 1 on 1 tackling stuff. That 5
behaviours would always be coach driven, not player driven”
Lack of focus on “he had a particular strategy that brushed over any 2
weaknesses weaknesses or any areas that he just wouldn’t confront….so
would not want to spend time on things that weren’t good in
his game”
Narcissism If we had played a game, if it was a chance to pass the ball to 1
a person in a similar position to him to score a try, he would
not pass the ball. That’s the focus that he would have, so he
would rather throw it on the floor than pass it to someone
else that may score, his read was ‘they may look better than
me’
Not ‘fitting in’ with “he was very asocial person, he would be a massive, massive 4
Lacking social team mates loner would always be with himself. Communication skills
skills very poor, social interaction very poor. Very much a loner in
(13) an achievement environment would sit on his own at the
table, social interaction very limited.”
Poor interaction with “he had a fall out with us and because of that he decided to 3
coaches go to the other franchise. He went to the other franchise and
he had exactly the same problem”
Cognitive maturity “I think he was just far too young as a person, even though 3
he was massive, he was in a man’s body, but he was just a
14/15 year old in his head and I think that was a big factor”
Why high potentials don’t make it 41

Emotional maturity “T used to do that in training…would take himself off to the 2

side of the pitch and scream, have a minute to himself and
then come back in”
Other players “I think in any other club, in any other moment he would 3
Lack of preventing selection have been taken on. It was between him and T to support as a
Serendipity opportunity opportunities third choice inside back, so we had D, J and we went for T”
(6) Injury ‘he has missed so much time from injuries he has almost 3
lacked time to develop “
Early maturation “He was a very mature 16 year old, very physical hence why 7
he was able to play up in age group so quickly. That might
have caught up with him in the end”
Dominance of “as soon as he struggled to use his physicality to exert 17
performance at lower himself on the game, he didn’t have the psychological skills
level based on physical to cope with not being dominant and his confidence took a
Too little
characteristics real big knock”
challenge
Lack of “in hindsight collectively I don’t think we developed other 8
(32)
technical/tactical aspects of his game. It was very much ball in hand, play
development what you see, well I think he then struggled when he was in
System
environments where it was more tactical, where it was more
strategic and he was actually asked to do things not based on
the pictures in front of him, just based upon building
pressure and territory.”
Avoiding challenge “maybe playing him up all of the time was a mistake and if 3
we had pushed him back down into his age group, he may
Too much
have been able to develop some of those skills that he was
challenge
lacking”
(12)
Steep step change “I think there was probably significant challenge when he 9
moved up and didn’t necessarily cope that well.”
Why high potentials don’t make it 42

Lack of understanding “When he started his first few games he looked like a man, 1
when given but he wasn’t, he was a kid and this is where the club will
opportunities learn from it and this is my issue about pushing kids far too
quickly.”
Lack of Lack of preparation for “the preparation in to coming into senior rugby, or coming 3
support transition into a senior academy position was poor… I don’t hold them
(10) fully responsible, I hold the job of the academy to prepare
them was poor”
Poor use of coaches “There was one session when M came in, but the session 6
nearly ruined the kid. He just tried tweaking a few things and
the young lad couldn’t get his head around it”
Not Lack of game time “they are now in the senior academy with five players ahead 2
facilitating of them in their position, unless those players are badly
opportunity injured, they are not going to play”
(2)
Wider family input “I think he’s put his parents and some of his school teachers 2
and some of the people around him probably had an
influence, his parents weren’t actually rugby people at all,
which is probably a strong indicator, they were doctors, he
wanted to be a doctor, that was more important for him to go
Maladaptive down that route, than it was a rugby player”
Family Family input Preventing engagement “He was the golden child at times and could do no wrong. If 3
(8) with challenge he wasn’t selected for England, then whose fault was that
and those sorts of conversations. It was never R’s fault”
Spoiled child “He was a single kid, single son, he was very pampered at 2
home”
Parent driving “he said ‘look, I will never touch a rugby ball again’……too 1
development much pressure from my Dad’”
Didn’t grow as “Probably the most skilful player I’ve ever worked 3
Physical
expected with…unfortunately for him, size caught up with him. He
Why high potentials don’t make it 43

never grew, when he left us he finished on 1 metre 65 as a

fly half and he weighed less than 70kgs”
Didn’t like the physical “he didn’t enjoy contact, so we had to force him to do extra” 1
Physical
confrontation
Characteristic
Preventing ability to “I think a couple of times in the collision situation where he 2
s
compete just folded like a deck chair unfortunately. He just got
(6)
brutally outmuscled and he just couldn’t stop people in his
channel. He either made a clean line break or he got folded
up like a piece of paper”

Figure 2: Issues identified as blocks to achieving potential – Rugby