Despite evident differences between approaches to talent development, many share a set of common characteristics and presumptions. We call this the Standard Model of Talent Development (SMTD). This model is articulated and the relevant literature drawn out to highlight the model's strengths and weaknesses. The SMTD has been enormously influential, in terms of both policy documentation and practice, and it retains an obvious common sense appeal. However, we will argue that not only is its attractiveness illusionary and inconsistent to the emerging evidence base from research, but it is also undesirable from a variety of perspectives and desired outcomes. In short, we suggest that the most common system for identifying talent is unsubstantiated from both a process and an outcome perspective.
Richard Bailey and David Collins
Ole Winthereik Mathorne, Natalia Stambulova, and Kristoffer Henriksen
guidelines are proposed and tested when approaching the macrolevel. However, in our former studies on successful interorganizational collaboration ( Mathorne et al., 2020 ; 2021 ), we paved a path to study the organizational triangles and proposed an applied framework termed the pyramid model for
B. Christine Green
Sport development has become a leading issue for sport policymakers and sport managers worldwide. Sport development systems have two main objectives: to increase the number of participants actively engaged in sport and to enhance the quality of performances in sport. This is the foundation of the much used, but rarely examined, pyramid analogy in sport development. In this article, the pyramid model of sport development is explored, and its underlying assumptions are critiqued. Three tasks necessary for an effective pyramid model are identified: athlete recruitment, athlete retention, and athlete transitions. Recruitment requires the assistance of significant others, as well as the proliferation of many smaller, local-level sport programs. Retention requires a focus on motivation, socialization, and commitment. Advancement requires that programs be linked vertically and that athletes be aided in processes of locating and socializing into new levels of involvement. Although specific strategies for enhancing recruitment, retention, and transition of athletes can be identified from the literature, further research is needed.
Evgeny B. Myakinchenko, Andrey S. Kriuchkov, Nikita V. Adodin, and Victor Feofilaktov
Purpose: To compare the training-volume (TrV) distribution of Russian international-level male biathletes, female biathletes, and cross-country skiers (XC) during an annual cycle. Methods: Day-to-day TrVs were recorded and averaged for a 5-year period for male biathletes (n = 6), female biathletes (n = 8), and XC (n = 14) with VO2max values of 77.7 (3.8), 64.6 (1.9), and 79.4 (3.5) mL·min−1·kg−1, respectively. Results: The volumes of low- and moderate-intensity endurance training and all types of nonspecific endurance and strength training gradually decreased toward the competition period. However, the volumes and proportions of high-intensity endurance training and specific exercises (roller skiing, skiing, and shooting during high-intensity endurance training) increased by the time of the competition period. The total volume of training, volumes of low- and moderate-intensity endurance training, moderate- and high-load strength training (70%–95% 1RM), and power/speed loads did not increase gradually but reached their maximum immediately after a short stage of initial training. All teams employed the “pyramid” model of intensity distribution. Compared with the biathletes, XC demonstrated a larger (P < .01) annual volume of endurance training (~190 h), low-intensity endurance training (~183 h), and strength training (~818 sets). They also engaged in more upper-body and core-strength exercises (~769 sets), and they reached their maximum aerobic TrVs in June, while the biathletes reached theirs in July. Conclusions: In recent decades, the traditional model of periodization has been altered. The Russian XC and biathletes had significant differences in TrVs.
Jan G. Bourgois, Gil Bourgois, and Jan Boone
LIT (Z1: >75%), with sequentially increasing proportions of ThT and HIT 8 ; (2) the threshold model (THR) emphasizing ThT (Z2: >40%) 8 ; and (3) the pyramidal model (PYR) emphasizing a large volume of LIT (Z1: >70%), with sequentially decreasing proportions of ThT and HIT. 7 , 12 Figure 1 —Models of
Arturo Casado, Fernando González-Mohíno, José María González-Ravé, and Carl Foster
these zones, different TID models have been described. 1. The pyramidal model is characterized by a decreasing training volume from z1 to z2, and z3, respectively. Approximately 80% of volume is conducted in z1 with the remaining 20% in z2 and z3. 12 2. The polarized model is characterized by
José María González-Ravé, Francisco Hermosilla, Fernando González-Mohíno, Arturo Casado, and David B. Pyne
periodization, which usually involves different TID approaches across sequential periods. 23 For example, coaches planning for a season might involve a preparatory period using a pyramidal model, while, in a competitive period, the training could incorporate both polarized and threshold models. 27 TID
Ulrik Wagner, Rasmus K. Storm, and Kenneth Cortsen
live with, for, and through football—have their say? It is important that we extend our vision of football democracy beyond a single club. Of course, democracy starts at the bottom if we stay loyal to the pyramid model of sport, but we need to consider how we can enhance democratic influence once we
Alba Reguant-Closa, Margaret M. Harris, Tim G. Lohman, and Nanna L. Meyer
Sports & Exercise, 47 ( 3 ), 547 – 555 . doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000447 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000447 Ruini , L.F. , Ciati , R. , Pratesi , C.A. , Marino , M. , Principato , L. , & Vannuzzi , E. ( 2015 ). Working toward healthy and sustainable diets: The “double pyramid model” developed
Vitor Sobral, Sheranne Fairley, and Danny O’Brien
& Misener, 2015 ; Kelly & Fairley, 2018 ). Structurally, Getz ( 1997 ) proposed a pyramid model for event portfolios to achieve tourism benefits. At the top of the pyramid were less frequent mega events, below that hallmark events, followed by regional events, and small-scale local events at the bottom. An