This article was downloaded by: [University of Leicester]

On: 14 May 2014, At: 09:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Multidimensional performance characteristics and

standard of performance in talented youth field
hockey players: A longitudinal study
a a a a
Marije T. Elferink-Gemser , Chris Visscher , Koen A. P. M. Lemmink & Theo Mulder
a
Centre for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen , Groningen, The
Netherlands
Published online: 20 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Marije T. Elferink-Gemser , Chris Visscher , Koen A. P. M. Lemmink & Theo Mulder (2007)
Multidimensional performance characteristics and standard of performance in talented youth field hockey players: A
longitudinal study, Journal of Sports Sciences, 25:4, 481-489, DOI: 10.1080/02640410600719945

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410600719945

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Sports Sciences, February 15th 2007; 25(4): 481 – 489

Multidimensional performance characteristics and standard of

performance in talented youth field hockey players: A longitudinal study

MARIJE T. ELFERINK-GEMSER, CHRIS VISSCHER, KOEN A. P. M. LEMMINK, &

THEO MULDER

Centre for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

(Accepted 14 March 2006)

Downloaded by [University of Leicester] at 09:48 14 May 2014

Abstract
To identify performance characteristics that could help predict future elite field hockey players, we measured the
anthropometric, physiological, technical, tactical, and psychological characteristics of 30 elite and 35 sub-elite youth players
at the end of three consecutive seasons. The mean age of the players at the end of the first season was 14.2 years (s ¼ 1.1).
Repeated-measures analyses of covariance, with standard of performance and measurement occasion as factors and age as a
covariate, showed that the elite players fared better than the sub-elite players on technical and tactical variables. Female elite
youth players also scored better on interval endurance capacity, motivation, and confidence. Future elite players appear to
have excellent tactical skills by the age of 14. They also have good specific technical skills and develop these together with
interval endurance capacity better than sub-elite youth players in the subsequent 2 years. To verify our conclusions, we will
be tracking these players into adulthood.

Keywords: Talent, field hockey, multidimensional performance characteristics, standard of performance, longitudinal study

nationals respectively. Since then, the physiological

Introduction
The high standard of Dutch field hockey players is
recognized worldwide. To play at an elite standard,
players need to begin intensive and time-consuming
training at an early age (Alabin, Nischt, & Jefimov,
1980; Hahn, 1990). However, only a few will achieve
their aims. What is it that characterizes those who
succeed? This is the question we address in this
paper.
Several studies have focused on performance-
related characteristics of elite field hockey players.
The unique requirements of the game include
dribbling the ball and moving quickly in a semi-
crouched posture (Reilly & Seaton, 1990). Studies of
the physiological costs and energy expenditure of
playing hockey have reported it to be ‘‘heavy
exercise’’ (e.g. Aziz, Chia, & The, 2000; Boyle,
Mahoney, & Wallace, 1994; Ghosh, Goswami,
Maxumdar, & Mathur, 1991; Lothian & Farrally,
1994; Reilly & Borrie, 1992). More than 20 years
ago, Hargreaves (1984) and Withers, Roberts and
Davies (1977) reported high maximal oxygen up-
takes (V_ O2max) by British Olympians and Australian
demands of the game have increased due both to
changes in the rules and playing surface. Further-
more, the intermittent running, accelerations, and
decelerations required ensure a high overall effort in
field hockey (Patel, Stier, & Luckstead, 2002).
Researchers who focus on talent development in
sports often acknowledge that a world-class perfor-
mance is the result of several factors (e.g. Pienaar,
Spamer, & Steyn, 1998; Régnier, Salmela, & Russell,
1993; Reilly, Williams, Nevill, & Franks, 2000).
According to Williams and Reilly (2000), research
should adopt a multidisciplinary approach to talent
identification. Burwitz, Moore and Wilkinson (1994)
also recommended interdisciplinary performance-
related sports science research. Moreover, Atkinson
and Nevill (2001) have argued that more research
should involve sports-specific dependent variables.
By applying a multidisciplinary design in a recent
study on talented Dutch field hockey players,
we found that a combination of technical, tactical,
and psychological characteristics distinguished best
between elite and sub-elite youth players. The multi-
dimensional performance characteristics measured

Correspondence: M. T. Elferink-Gemser, Centre for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, PO Box 196, 9700 AD Groningen,
The Netherlands. E-mail: m.t.elferink-gemser@rug.nl
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02640410600719945
 482 M. T. Elferink-Gemser et al.
were based on a limited number of determin-
ing factors for elite field hockey. These included
anthropometric, physiological, technical, tactical,
and psychological characteristics (Elferink-Gemser,
Visscher, Lemmink, & Mulder, 2004).
In most previous research, a cross-sectional rather
than longitudinal approach was taken. However, to
improve our understanding of the factors that
contribute to expert performance, players should be
monitored over a prolonged period (Williams &
Reilly, 2000).
The aim of this study was to identify performance
characteristics that could help to predict future
elite field hockey players. We measured the anthro-
pometric, physiological, technical, tactical, and
psychological characteristics of 30 elite and 35 sub-
elite youth players on three occasions, separated by
Downloaded by [University of Leicester] at 09:48 14 May 2014
intervals of one year. We addressed the following
questions: On which performance characteristics do
elite youth players score better than their sub-elite
counterparts? How do elite and sub-elite youth players
develop their performance characteristics over a
period of 2 years, and is there a difference between
them?
Methods
Participants
In total, 126 talented field hockey players aged 12 –
16 years (mean ¼ 13.9, s ¼ 1.3) participated in a
cross-sectional study on the relationship between
multidimensional performance characteristics and
standard of performance (Elferink-Gemser et al.,
2004). All players were participants in a talent deve-
lopment programme of a prestigious field hockey
club and were playing at the highest standard for
their age category. Within this group, a distinction
was made between 38 elite and 88 sub-elite youth
players. Unlike the sub-elite players, the elite players
train and play for a youth selection team of the Dutch
Field Hockey Association.
Of the initial 126 field hockey players (mea-
surement 1), 85 were tested again one year later
(measurement 2), and 65 a third time (measurement
3). Table I shows the participants for measurements
Table I. Number of participants at the end of three competitive seasons: 2000 – 2001 (t1), 2001 – 2002 (t2), and 2002 – 2003 (t3), by standard
of performance, sex, and number of players who left the study.
Female players
Elite Sub-elite
t1 (n ¼ 126) 17 46
t2 (n ¼ 85) 17 25
t3 (n ¼ 65) 15 18
1, 2, and 3 based on standard of performance and
sex. Thirty players left the study because they were
no longer part of the talent development program;
they continued playing field hockey but only at club
level. Youth selection team players who left the study
did so because they were unable to attend the
measurement sessions because of illness, injury or
school examinations.
The proportion of female and male participants at
each of the three measurement sessions was similar.
Of the final 65 players, two females and three males
were considered elite players at measurement 1 but
sub-elite players at measurement 3. One sub-elite
female player at measurement 1 was considered to
have become an elite athlete by measurement 3. The
other 59 players were consistently elite or sub-elite at
measurements 1, 2, and 3. Table II lists the age, field
hockey experience, training hours, and frequency of
matches for the players.
Procedure
All players were informed of the procedure of the
study before providing their informed consent to
participate. The clubs and trainers also gave their
permission for this study. The procedures were in
accordance with the standards of the local medical
ethics committee of the University of Groningen.
The players completed the tests at the end of the
competitive 2000 – 2001 field hockey season (mea-
surement 1), at the end of the 2001 – 2002 season
(measurement 2), and at the end of the 2002 – 2003
season (measurement 3). Ambient temperature,
humidity, and wind conditions were recorded. The
following performance characteristics were measured
for each participant: anthropometric, physiological,
technical, tactical, and psychological. The field tests
were conducted on synthetic field hockey playing
surfaces (water-based pitches). The test procedures
are described in detail elsewhere (Elferink-Gemser
et al., 2004).
Anthropometric characteristics. Anthropometry in-
cluded the recording of stature and body mass.
Percent body fat was estimated using leg-to-leg
bioelectrical impedance analysis (Valhalla BIA,
Male players Players who left the study
Elite Sub-elite Elite Sub-elite Club level
21 42
20 23 1 18 22
15 17 7 5 8
 Performance of talented youth field hockey players 483

Table II. Characteristics of talented youth field hockey players at ICC ¼ 0.81 and 95% CI for d ¼ 70.141 to 0.162;
the end of the third season by sex and standard of performance repeated shuttle sprint performance: ICC ¼ 0.80 and
(mean+s).
95% CI for d ¼ 70.520 to 0.434).
Female youth players Male youth players Slalom sprint performance was measured using
the Slalom Sprint and Dribble Test (SlalomSDT;
Elite Sub-elite Elite Sub-elite
players players players players
Lemmink et al., 2004a), in which players have to
(n ¼ 15) (n ¼ 18) (n ¼ 15) (n ¼ 17) sprint 30 m in a zigzag fashion with twelve 1208 turns
around cones placed 2 m apart. Relative test – retest
Age (years) 15.7+1.0 16.4+1.3 16.0+1.0 16.5+1.1 reliability was shown for the sprinting part of the
Field 8.4+2.2 9.1+1.7 8.9+1.5 8.8+2.3 SlalomSDT (ICC ¼ 0.91), while absolute reliability
hockey
experience
was close to being supported (95% CI for d ¼
(years) 70.398 to 70.016).
Field 5.1+1.7 4.3+1.7 5.2+0.6 4.7+0.3 Interval endurance capacity was measured with
hockey the Interval Shuttle Run Test (ISRT; Lemmink &
training
Visscher, 2003). The ISRT field test includes
(hours
per week) intervals at an exercise – rest ratio of 2:1, turning
Total 8.4+3.91 5.6+2.3 8.2+3.6 7.9+3.9 points at 20 m, and an increasing running speed.
Downloaded by [University of Leicester] at 09:48 14 May 2014

training The number of fully completed 20-m runs is

(hours recorded as the test score. In previous research, this
per week) test has been shown to be reliable and sensitive for
Matches 1.1+0.3 1.0+0.0 1.2+0.4 1.0+0.0
per week differences in standard of performance (Lemmink,
Verheijen, & Visccher, 2004b; Lemmink, Visccher,
Lambert, & Lamberts, 2004c).

Valhalla, Inc., San Diego, CA). Bioelectrical im-
pedance analysis is often used to estimate fat-free
mass and fat components (Lukaski, 1990). This
method has been shown to be reliable for measuring
percent body fat, and results have correlated strongly
with those for percent body fat percentage measured
with underwater weighing and dual-energy X-ray
absorptiometry (Nunez et al., 1997).
Physiological characteristics. All players performed
three field tests to determine four physiological char-
acteristics: peak shuttle sprint performance, repeated
shuttle sprint performance, slalom sprint perfor-
mance, and interval endurance capacity. In all
tests, the players had to carry their hockey stick.
Peak shuttle sprint and repeated shuttle sprint
performance were measured using the Shuttle Sprint
and Dribble Test (ShuttleSDT; Lemmink, Elferink-
Gemser, & Visccher, 2004a), in which players have
to run three 30-m sprints with 1808 turns. Each 30-m
sprint consists of 5 m to-and-fro, directly followed by
10 m to-and-fro. Peak shuttle sprint performance is
indicated by the time covered in the fastest of three
30-m sprints, whereas repeated shuttle sprint per-
formance is the total time covered by all three 30-m
sprints. In a previous study, relative and absolute
test – retest reliability was shown for the sprinting
part of the ShuttleSDT (Lemmink et al., 2004a). If
the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) exceeded
0.80 and if zero lay within the 95% confidence
interval (CI) of the mean difference, it was con-
cluded that no bias existed between the two
measurements (peak shuttle sprint performance:
Technical characteristics. All players performed two
field tests to assess three technical characteristics:
peak shuttle dribble performance, dribble perfor-
mance in a repeated shuttle run, and performance in
a slalom dribble. Peak shuttle dribble performance
and dribble performance in a repeated shuttle run
were measured using the ShuttleSDT; performance
in a slalom dribble was measured using the
SlalomSDT. Players had to maintain control of the
ball while performing the tests. In a previous study,
relative and absolute test – retest reliability was
shown for the dribbling part of the ShuttleSDT
(peak shuttle dribble performance: ICC ¼ 0.91 and
95% CI for d ¼ 70.305 to 0.035; dribble perfor-
mance in a repeated shuttle run: ICC ¼ 0.89 and
95% CI for d ¼ 70.840 to 0.494). Absolute test –
retest reliability was shown for the dribbling part of
the SlalomSDT (95% CI for d ¼ 70.988 to 0.256),
while relative reliability was almost supported
(ICC ¼ 0.78) (Lemmink et al., 2004a).
Tactical characteristics. Each of the 12 trainers com-
pleted the Tactics in Field Hockey questionnaire to
express their opinion about three tactical character-
istics of each player: general tactics, tactics when in
possession of the ball, and tactics when not in
possession of the ball. The trainers were instructed
to compare each player with the top players in the
same age category. In a previous study, test – retest
reliability was shown for the Tactics in Sports
questionnaire (general tactics: Z ¼ 0.84, P50.01;
tactics when in possession of the ball: Z ¼ 0.85;
P50.01; tactics when not in possession of the ball:
 484 M. T. Elferink-Gemser et al.
Z ¼ 0.88, P50.01; Pearson correlation coefficient).
Scores on tactical qualities differed significantly for
different standards of performance (general tactics:
Z ¼ 73.954, P50.01; tactics when in possession of
the ball: Z ¼ 75.084, P50.01; tactics when not in
possession of the ball: Z ¼ 76.622, P50.01), in-
dicating that the elite youth players were judged to be
better than the sub-elite players (Elferink-Gemser
et al., 2004).
Psychological characteristics. All players completed a
sports-specific questionnaire, the Dutch version of
Mahoney, Gabriel and Perkins’ (1987) Psycholo-
gical Skills Inventory for Sports (PSIS) (Elferink-
Gemser et al., 2004). The PSIS was developed for
direct assessment of an athlete’s psychological skills
relevant to athletic training and exceptional perfor-
Downloaded by [University of Leicester] at 09:48 14 May 2014
mance. It assesses motivation, confidence, anxiety
control, mental preparation, team emphasis, and
concentration. In a previous study, the question-
naire was shown to be reliable (see Companjen &
Bakker, 2003). The correlations between scales
did not exceed 0.42, supporting the PSIS-Youth
as a measure of six relatively independent con-
structs. Internal consistency estimates for each
scale were acceptable, ranging from 0.68 on the
Team Emphasis scale to 0.81 on the Confidence
scale.
Data analysis
All data were analysed for male and female play-
ers separately using SPSS 10. Based on the five
categories of performance characteristics (anthropo-
metric, physiological, technical, tactical, and psy-
chological), mean scores and standard deviations
were calculated for measurements 1, 2, and 3 for the
four subgroups according to standard of performance
(elite and sub-elite youth players) and sex.
Repeated-measures analyses of covariance were
used to examine group differences based on standard
of performance together with differences in perfor-
mance characteristics over time. Age was included as
the covariate. The statistical techniques provide
comparisons of the subgroups over time, taking into
account the possible influence of age.
In the between-participants analysis, an effect of
standard of performance revealed differences in
average scores for measurements 1, 2, and 3 between
elite and sub-elite players. In the within-participants
analysis, an effect of measurement revealed differ-
ences in scores between years. An interaction
effect between standard of performance and mea-
surement revealed differences between elite and
sub-elite players that change as a function of time.
An alpha of 0.05 was adopted for all tests of
significance.
Results
Table III shows mean scores and standard deviations
of the multidimensional performance characteri-
stics of talented youth female field hockey players
for measurements 1, 2, and 3 classified by standard
of performance. Table IV provides the same in-
formation for talented youth male field hockey
players.
Talented youth female field hockey players
There was a main effect of standard of performance.
Elite players performed better than sub-elite players
on physiological, technical, tactical, and psychologi-
cal characteristics. Elite players performed more runs
on the interval shuttle run test (F1,30 ¼ 12.538,
P50.01). They were also faster in the peak shuttle
dribble (F1,30 ¼ 3.146, P50.05), repeated shuttle
dribble (F1,30 ¼ 4.536, P50.05), and slalom dribble
(F1,30 ¼ 4.064, P50.05), and had higher scores on
general tactics (F1,30 ¼ 8.133, P50.01) and tactics
for possession of the ball (F1,30 ¼ 4.719, P50.05).
Finally, elite players were more motivated (F1,30 ¼
6.840, P50.01) and had more confidence (F1,30 ¼
4.509, P50.05) than sub-elite players.
Regarding the development of performance char-
acteristics in 2 years, there was a significant main
effect of measurement on anthropometric, physiolo-
gical, technical, and tactical characteristics. For
measurements 1 to 3, players became taller (F1,29 ¼
13.481, P50.01) and heavier (F1,29 ¼ 7.864,
P50.01). They improved their repeated shuttle
sprint performance (F1,29 ¼ 4.248, P50.05) and
interval endurance capacity (F1,29 ¼ 6.546, P5
0.01), become faster in the peak shuttle dribble
(F1,29 ¼ 5.626, P50.01) and attained higher scores
on general tactics (F1,29 ¼ 7.941, P50.01).
We found three interaction effects between stan-
dard of performance and measurement occasion,
indicating that, over time, standards of performance
diverge. In the field tests, this was the case for
interval endurance capacity (F1,29 ¼ 2.600, P50.05)
and slalom dribble performance (F1,29 ¼ 3.178,
P50.05). In contrast to sub-elite players, elite
players increased the number of runs on the interval
shuttle run test, especially from the second to the
third measurement occasion (Figure 1A). In the
dribbling part of the SlalomSDT, elite players
improved more than sub-elite players over time
(Figure 1D). Finally, there was an interaction effect
for confidence (F1,29 ¼ 3.065, P50.05). Scores for
confidence on the second measurement occasion
were lower than on the first measurement occasion
for both elite and sub-elite players. In contrast to the
sub-elite players, whose scores remained relatively
stable from the second to the third measurement
 Performance of talented youth field hockey players 485

Table III. Anthropometric, physiological, technical, tactical, and psychological characteristics of talented female youth field hockey players at
the end of seasons 1, 2, and 3 (t1, t2, t3) by standard of performance (mean+s).

Female elite players (n ¼ 15) Female sub-elite players (n ¼ 18)

t1 t2 t3 t1 t2 t3

Anthropometric characteristics
Stature (m) 1.61+0.08 1.64+0.07 1.66+0.05 1.67+0.05 1.68+0.05 1.69+0.04
Body mass (kg) 50.0+7.8 53.7+7.2 57.1+6.4 56.3+7.1 58.8+7.3 60.9+6.7
Percent body fat 18.8+6.1 19.6+5.7 20.9+5.9 22.9+7.1 24.2+5.9 21.8+6.2
Physiological characteristics
Peak shuttle sprint performance, 30 m (s) 9.00+0.30 8.64+0.33 8.63+0.26 9.08+0.45 8.78+0.40 8.72+0.44
Repeated shuttle sprint performance, 3630 m (s) 27.6+0.9 26.7+0.9 26.6+0.8 28.1+1.5 27.2+1.4 26.9+1.4
Slalom sprint performance, 30 m (s) 15.2+0.9 14.9+0.6 14.8+0.7 15.4+1.2 15.0+1.0 15.0+1.0
Interval endurance capacity (runs620 m) 55.3+12.1 61.2+15.0 75.3+17.2 49.3+17.3 48.7+12.5 53.9+16.5
Technical characteristics
Peak shuttle dribble performance, 30 m (s) 10.4+0.6 10.0+0.5 9.7+0.5 10.6+0.7 10.2+0.8 10.0+0.9
Dribble performance in repeat shuttle runs, 3630 m (s) 32.9+1.8 31.8+1.6 30.9+2.3 33.9+2.6 32.6+3.5 31.7+2.9
Performance in a slalom dribble, 30 m (s) 19.7+1.8 19.0+2.0 17.6+1.2 20.1+2.7 18.8+1.6 18.7+2.1
Downloaded by [University of Leicester] at 09:48 14 May 2014

Tactical characteristics
General tactics (1 – 6) 4.17+1.10 3.97+0.93 4.07+0.59 3.14+0.90 3.27+1.03 3.67+0.91
Tactics (when in possession of the ball) (1 – 6) 4.19+0.80 3.97+0.72 4.18+0.60 3.63+0.66 3.44+0.86 3.69+0.75
Tactics (when not in possession of the ball) (1 – 6) 3.87+0.65 3.59+0.52 3.91+0.37 3.75+0.71 3.55+0.66 3.73+0.64
Psychological characteristics
Motivation (1 – 5) 4.65+0.31 4.57+0.37 4.41+0.48 4.08+0.55 4.32+0.60 4.10+0.56
Confidence (1 – 5) 3.68+0.63 3.27+0.24 3.68+0.48 3.37+0.55 3.17+0.41 3.21+0.56
Anxiety control (1 – 5) 3.89+0.48 3.94+0.48 3.81+0.67 3.92+0.51 3.89+0.39 3.90+0.38
Mental preparation (1 – 5) 2.18+0.53 2.24+0.74 2.34+0.68 1.91+0.58 2.19+0.64 2.00+0.66
Team emphasis (1 – 5) 3.54+0.41 3.52+0.44 3.53+0.55 3.54+0.65 3.52+0.38 3.44+0.35
Concentration (1 – 5) 3.59+0.41 3.65+0.53 3.52+0.53 3.64+0.59 3.64+0.60 3.52+0.47

Table IV. Anthropometric, physiological, technical, tactical, and psychological characteristics of talented male youth field hockey players at
the end of seasons 1, 2, and 3 (t1, t2, t3) by standard of performance (mean+s).

Male elite players (n ¼ 15) Male sub-elite players (n ¼ 18)

t1 t2 t3 t1 t2 t3

Anthropometric characteristics
Stature (m) 1.66+0.06 1.72+0.06 1.76+0.08 1.69+0.08 1.74+0.08 1.77+0.07
Body mass (kg) 52.8+8.2 58.1+7.7 64.4+8.0 54.4+10.8 59.3+10.0 63.9+9.3
Percent body fat 9.2+2.2 7.6+2.1 7.8+1.6 9.5+4.6 8.8+5.3 8.7+4.5
Physiological characteristics
Peak shuttle sprint performance, 30 m (s) 8.63+0.40 8.61+0.41 8.18+0.29 8.58+0.35 8.61+0.41 8.18+0.36
Repeated shuttle sprint performance, 3630 m (s) 26.7+1.2 26.2+1.1 25.1+0.9 26.7+1.4 26.7+1.56 25.1+1.2
Slalom sprint performance, 30 m (s) 14.6+0.7 14.8+0.9 14.1+0.5 14.9+0.7 14.8+0.6 14.4+1.0
Interval endurance capacity (runs620 m) 68.8+27.8 79.1+18.9 101.1+19.1 70.8+22.2 82.3+28.9 82.9+26.1
Technical characteristics
Peak shuttle dribble performance, 30 m (s) 10.0+0.7 9.4+0.4 9.1+0.4 9.9+0.7 9.5+0.8 9.4+0.6
Dribble performance in repeat shuttle runs, 31.0+1.9 29.4+1.6 28.5+1.2 31.0+2.4 30.0+2.6 29.1+2.5
3630 m (s)
Performance in a slalom dribble, 30 m (s) 17.8+1.3 17.8+1.1 17.3+0.9 19.0+2.3 18.6+1.8 18.4+1.7
Tactical characteristics
General tactics (1 – 6) 4.33+0.90 4.27+0.70 4.17+0.79 3.65+0.79 2.94+0.83 3.21+0.59
Tactics (when in possession of the ball) (1 – 6) 4.64+0.83 4.13+0.62 4.09+0.65 3.71+0.61 3.16+0.75 3.22+0.82
Tactics (when not in possession of the ball) (1 – 6) 4.44+0.72 4.09+0.68 4.08+0.50 3.90+0.48 3.26+0.60 3.31+0.70
Psychological characteristics
Motivation (1 – 5) 4.52+0.24 4.28+0.50 4.20+0.47 4.30+0.46 4.20+0.61 3.88+0.64
Confidence (1 – 5) 3.94+0.70 3.51+0.43 3.70+0.79 3.93+0.61 3.35+0.35 3.71+0.72
Anxiety control (1 – 5) 4.08+0.44 3.88+0.91 3.34+1.07 4.01+0.51 3.88+0.57 3.95+0.55
Mental preparation (1 – 5) 2.34+0.68 2.56+1.24 3.07+1.28 2.13+0.60 2.46+0.58 2.45+0.42
Team emphasis (1 – 5) 3.46+0.43 3.48+0.56 3.42+0.38 3.55+0.43 3.52+0.50 3.54+0.46
Concentration (1 – 5) 3.41+0.64 3.42+0.85 3.15+1.00 3.88+0.70 3.65+0.56 3.73+0.48
 486 M. T. Elferink-Gemser et al.
Downloaded by [University of Leicester] at 09:48 14 May 2014

Figure 1. Performances of talented youth field hockey players at the end of three competitive seasons: 2000 – 2001 (t1), 2001 – 2002 (t2), and
2002 – 2003 (t3). (A) Performance on the Interval Shuttle Run Test: interval endurance capacity. Interaction between standard of
performance and measurement occasion for female and male players (P50.05). (B) Peak shuttle dribble performance. Main effect of
standard of performance for female and male players (P50.05). Main effect of measurement occasion for female players (P50.05).
(C) Dribble performance in a repeated shuttle run. Main effect of standard of performance for female and male players (P50.05).
(D) Performance in a slalom dribble. Main effect of standard of performance and measurement occasion for male players
(P50.05). Interaction between standard of performance and measurement occasion for female players (P50.05).

session, the confidence scores of the elite players in
the third session reverted to those in the first
measurement session. No other interaction effects
were found, indicating that the development in test
scores from the first to the third measurement is
similar for elite and sub-elite players.
Talented youth male field hockey players
As with female players, there was a main effect of
standard of performance for male players. Elite
players were faster than sub-elite players in the peak
shuttle dribble (F1,29 ¼ 2.914, P50.05), repeated
shuttle dribble (F1,29 ¼ 2.988, P50.05), and slalom
dribble (F1,29 ¼ 8.306, P50.01) (Figures 1B, 1C,
1D). Compared with sub-elite players, elite players
scored better on general tactics (F1,29 ¼ 38.883,
P50.01), tactics when in possession of the ball
(F1,29 ¼ 23.640, P50.01), and tactics when not in
possession of the ball (F1,29 ¼ 25.888, P50.01).
Sub-elite players scored better than elite players on
concentration (F1,28 ¼ 6.264, P50.01).
A main effect of measurement occasion was
observed for anthropometric, physiological, technical,
and psychological characteristics. For measure-
ments 1 to 3, players became taller (F1,28 ¼ 5.802,
P50.01), heavier (F1,28 ¼ 3.752, P50.05), and had
less body fat (F1,28 ¼ 3.400, P50.05). They improved
on peak shuttle sprint performance (F1,28 ¼ 3.623,
P50.05), repeated shuttle sprint performance
(F1,28 ¼ 9.693, P50.01), slalom sprint perfor-
mance (F1,28 ¼ 2.875, P50.05), interval endurance
capacity (F1,28 ¼ 5.915, P50.01), and slalom dribble
performance (F1,28 ¼ 2.635, P50.05). Scores on
anxiety control fell from the first to the third mea-
surement (F1,27 ¼ 3.678, P50.05).
Like the female players, an interaction was obser-
ved between standard of performance and mea-
surement occasion for interval endurance capacity
(F1,28 ¼ 3.699, P50.05), indicating a divergence in
development between elite and sub-elite players.
Both elite and sub-elite players improved by about 12
runs from the first to the second measurement. From
the second to the third measurement, sub-elite
players did not improve in contrast to elite players,
who ran a mean of 20 more runs (Figure 1A). We
also found an interaction for anxiety control
(F1,27 ¼ 6.647, P50.01). From the first to the third
 Performance of talented youth field hockey players
measurement elite players scored lower, whereas the
scores of the sub-elite players remained stable.
Discussion
This study focused on talented youth field hockey
players in the Netherlands. At the end of the 2000 –
2001 competitive season we measured 126 players
aged 12 – 16 years, all of whom were part of a talent
development programme of a prestigious field
hockey club. Most of today’s top performers played
in a youth selection team when they were younger.
We divided the players into elite and sub-elite youth
categories based on membership in an extra selection
team of the Dutch Field Hockey Association in the
2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002, and/or 2002 – 2003 sea-
sons. During this study, there was only one player
Downloaded by [University of Leicester] at 09:48 14 May 2014
that shifted from sub-elite to elite. Therefore, it
appears that to develop a successful field hockey
career in the Netherlands, a youth player has to be
part of an extra selection team of the Dutch Field
Hockey Association by the age of about 14 years.
This, however, is no guarantee of success, since there
were more shifts from elite to sub-elite (n ¼ 5) and
from sub-elite to club standard (n ¼ 30), indicating
that over a period of 2 years more than 25% of the
players could not meet expectations. It is hard to
predict who will ultimately reach elite status in
adulthood, especially in a team sport. Unlike
individual sports, in which there is a unidimensional
performance criterion like time, distance or height,
performance in team sports depends on a combina-
tion of many mini-performances of the player and his
team-mates (Régnier et al., 1993). Due to a lack of
objective performance measurements, players there-
fore have to convince the scout, trainer or coach of
their talent.
Researchers have tried to define the vague concept
of talent in studies of music (e.g. Krampe &
Ericsson, 1996; Sloboda, Davidson, & Howe,
1994a, 1994b) and sports (e.g. Helsen & Starkes,
1999; Starkes, 1987). However, the suggestion that
talent provides a basis for predicting excellence is not
supported by the available evidence (Helsen,
Hodges, Van Winckel, & Starkes, 2000). To ensure
the early identification and selection of talented
young athletes, it is crucial to gain more insight into
the characteristics of ‘‘tomorrow’s stars’’. One way of
doing so is to adopt a multidisciplinary, longitudinal
approach in which talented youth players are
followed over time until some of them reach elite
status in adulthood.
In the present study, 65 players who were
considered to be talented for at least three con-
secutive years were followed and measured on three
occasions. Both female and male elite youth players
scored better than their sub-elite counterparts on
487
technical and tactical variables. Among the females,
elite players also scored better on interval endurance
capacity, motivation, and confidence than sub-
elite players, whereas the sub-elite males had
higher scores on concentration than elite males.
Hence, the relevant variables to distinguish between
elite and sub-elite players do not stem from a single
domain of performance characteristics. This result
is in line with the study of Nieuwenhuis, Spamer
and van Rossum (2002), in which successful and
less successful female field hockey players were
compared.
We found interaction effects showing a different
development over time for elite and sub-elite
athletes. Both male and female elite youth players
improved more than their sub-elite counterparts on
interval endurance capacity and slalom dribble
performance across a period of 2 years. The im-
provement in interval endurance capacity is
consistent with the TOYA study of Baxter-Jones
et al. (Baxter-Jones, Goldstein, & Helms, 1993;
Baxter-Jones, Helms, Muffulli, Baines-Preece, &
Preece, 1995). They studied the development of
aerobic power in young soccer players, swimmers,
gymnasts, and tennis players aged 8 – 16 years.
Results showed that maximal oxygen uptake in-
creased with pubertal status in males. In our study,
the male youth players increased their number of
runs on the Interval Shuttle Run Test (ISRT)
from the first to the third measurement occasion.
Although we did not take any maturity measures, we
do not anticipate marked differences in maturity
status between elite and sub-elite players based on
their similar heights, body masses, and body fat
percentags. Nevertheless, one cannot rule out that
the most mature children were performing best at
this age. Baxter-Jones et al. did not observe an
increase in maximal oxygen uptake in the latter
stages of puberty in females. In our study, the sub-
elite female players increased their score on the ISRT
(4 runs) only slightly, whereas the elite players were
able to increase their ISRT score by approximately
20 runs from the first to the third measurement
occasion.
When the youth players were approximately 14
years old, differences in interval endurance capacity
were not apparent between elite and sub-elite players
(Elferink-Gemser, Visscher, & Lemmink, 2002;
Elferink-Gemser et al., 2004). One year later, there
was a trend for elite players to outscore the sub-elite
players on their interval endurance capacity, but
again no differences were apparent. Two years later,
at approximately 16 years of age, differences had
emerged, favouring the elite players. One possible
explanation for the difference between the two
groups of girls is the greater number of hours spent
training by the elite girls. It is well known that with
 488 M. T. Elferink-Gemser et al.
training players can improve their performance by
increasing their aerobic and anaerobic energy output
during a particular movement. This is also the case in
youth players (e.g. Powers & Howley, 2001). To
unravel the relationship between interval endurance
capacity and standard of performance in talented
field hockey players, it is essential to gain a deeper
insight into the development of this performance
characteristic.
In summary, elite youth players appear either to
score better than their sub-elite counterparts on
performance characteristics by the age of 14 and
subsequently retain their status in the following
2 years, or they have similar scores to sub-elite youth
players at age 14 but develop these characteristics
better over the next 2 years. Since at the first
measurement occasion both elite and sub-elite youth
Downloaded by [University of Leicester] at 09:48 14 May 2014
players were active in field hockey for approximately
6 years, these findings are not likely to be caused by a
difference in active field hockey experience. How-
ever, elite players did train more frequently than sub-
elite players at the ages of 14 and 16. This applied
both to specific field hockey training and general
training. These findings are in line with those of
Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer (1993), who
proposed a model of expertise based on deliberate
practice. They argued that practice is the only
determinant of expertise. However, an alternative
explanation is that the elite youth players have
inherited a more favourable genetic profile for suc-
cess in field hockey. According to Howe, Davidson
and Sloboda (1998), a talent originates in genetically
transmitted structures and hence is at least partly
innate. It is likely that both nature and nurture are
essential, since today the standard of competition has
increased to the point that only those athletes who
combine their talent with intensive training have the
potential to achieve elite status.
In conclusion, in field hockey future elite players
appear to excel in tactical skills by the age of 14.
Their specific technical skills also stand out and
develop these together with their interval endurance
capacity in the subsequent 2 years, and show
high motivation and confidence. To verify these
conclusions, we will be tracking these players in
adulthood.
References
Alabin, V., Nischt, G., & Jefimov, W. (1980). Talent selection.
Modern Athlete and Coach, 18, 36 – 37.
Atkinson, G., & Nevill, A. M. (2001). Selected issues in the design
and analysis of sport Performance research. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 19, 811 – 827.
Aziz, A. R., Chia, M., & Teh, K. C. (2000). The relationship
between maximal oxygen uptake and repeated sprint perfor-
mance indices in field hockey and soccer players. Journal of
Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 40, 195 – 200.
Baxter-Jones, A., Goldstein, H., & Helms, P. (1993). The
development of aerobic power in young athletes. Journal of
Applied Physiology, 75, 1160 – 1167.
Baxter-Jones, A. D. G., Helms, P., Muffulli, N., Baines-Preece, J.,
& Preece, M. (1995). Growth and development of male
gymnasts, swimmers, soccer and tennis players: A longitudinal
study. Annals of Human Biology, 22, 381 – 395.
Boyle, P. M., Mahoney, C. A., & Wallace, W. F. (1994). The
competitive demands of elite male field hockey players. Journal
of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 34, 235 – 241.
Burwitz, L., Moore, P. M., & Wilkinson, D. M. (1994). Future
directions for performance-related sports science research: An
interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 93 –
109.
Companjen, T., & Bakker, F. (2003). Overzicht van sportpsycho-
logische vragenlijsten in Nederland en Vlaanderen. [Outline of
questionnaires for the field of sport psychology in the Nether-
lands and Belgium.] Sportpsychologie Bulletin, 14, 34 – 41.
Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Visscher, C., & Lemmink, K. A. P. M.
(2002). Relation between predictors and performance level in
talented youth field hockey players. In Proceedings of the 7th
Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science (p. 619).
Athens: Pashalidis Medical Publisher.
Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Visscher, C., Lemmink, K. A. P. M., &
Mulder, Th. (2004). Relation between multidimensional
performance characteristics and level of performance in talen-
ted youth field hockey players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22,
1053 – 1063.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The
role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert perfor-
mance. Psychological Review, 100, 363 – 406.
Ghosh, A. K., Goswami, A., Maxumdar, P., & Mathur, D. N.
(1991). Heart rate and blood lactate response in field hockey
players. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 94, 351 – 356.
Hahn, A. (1990). Identification and selection of talent in
Australian rowing. Exel, 6, 5 – 11.
Hargreaves, A. (1984). Fitness profile of the British Olympic
men’s hockey team, 1978/80. The Hockey Circle, 68.
Helsen, W. F., Hodges, N. J., Van Winckel, J., & Starkes, J. L.
(2000). The roles of talent, physical precocity and practice in
the development of soccer expertise. Journal of Sports Sciences,
18, 727 – 736.
Helsen, W. F., & Starkes, J. L. (1999). A multidimensional
approach to skilled perception and performance in sport.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 1 – 27.
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate
talents: Reality or myth. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399 –
442.
Krampe, R., & Ericsson, A. (1996). Maintaining excellence:
Deliberate practice and elite performance in young and older
pianists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 331 –
359.
Lemmink, K. A. P. M., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Visscher, C.
(2004a). Evaluation of the reliability of two field hockey-specific
sprint and dribble tests in young field hockey players. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 138 – 142.
Lemmink, K. A. P. M., Verheijen, R., & Visscher, C. (2004b). The
discriminative power of the Interval Shuttle Run Test and the
Maximal Multistage Shuttle Run Test for playing level of soccer.
Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 44, 233 – 239.
Lemmink, K. A. P. M., & Visscher, C. (2003). The relationship
between the Interval Shuttle Run Test and maximal oxygen
uptake in soccer players. Journal of Human Movement Studies,
45, 219 – 232.
Lemmink, K. A. P. M., Visscher, C., Lambert, M. I., & Lamberts, R.
(2004c). The Interval Shuttle Run Test for intermittent sport
players: Evaluation of reliability. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 18, 821 – 827.
 Performance of talented youth field hockey players
Lothian, F., & Farrally, M. (1994). A time – motion analysis of
women’s hockey. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 26, 255 –
265.
Lukaski, H. C. (1990). Applications of bioelectrical impedance
analysis: A critical review. Basic Life Science, 55, 365 – 374.
Mahoney, M. J., Gabriel, T. J., & Perkins, T. S. (1987).
Psychological skills and exceptional performance. The Sport
Psychologist, 1, 181 – 199.
Nieuwenhuis, C. F., Spamer, E. J., & van Rossum, J. H. A.
(2002). Prediction function for identifying talent in 14- to 15-
year-old female field hockey players. High Ability Studies, 13,
21 – 33.
Nunez, C., Callagher, D., Visser, M., Pi-Sunyer, F. X., Wang, Z.,
& Heymsfield, S. B. (1997). Bioimpedance analysis: Evaluation
of leg-to-leg system based on pressure contact footpad elec-
trodes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29, 524 –
531.
Patel, D. R., Stier, B., & Luckstead, E. F. (2002). Major
international sport profiles. Pediatric Clinics of North America,
49, 769 – 792.
Pienaar, A. E., Spamer, M. J., & Steyn, H. S. (1998). Identifying
Downloaded by [University of Leicester] at 09:48 14 May 2014
and developing rugby talent among 10-year-old boys: A prac-
tical model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16, 691 – 699.
Powers, S. K., & Howley, E. T. (2001). Exercise physiology: Theory
and application to fitness and performance (4th edn.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
489
Régnier, G., Salmela, J. H., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Talent
detection and development in sport. In R. Singer, M. Murphey,
& L. K. Tennant (Eds.), A handbook of research on sports
psychology (pp. 290 – 313). New York: Macmillan.
Reilly, T., & Borrie, A. (1992). Physiology applied to field hockey.
Sports Medicine, 14, 10 – 26.
Reilly, T., & Seaton, A. (1990). Physiological strain unique to field
hockey. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 30, 142 –
146.
Reilly, T., Williams, A. M., Nevill, A., & Franks, A. (2000). A
multidisciplinary approach to talent identification in soccer.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 695 – 702.
Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Howe, M. J. A. (1994a). Is
everyone musical? The Psychologist, 7, 349 – 354.
Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Howe, M. J. A. (1994b).
Musicians: Experts not geniuses. The Psychologist, 7, 363 – 364.
Starkes, J. L. (1987). Skill in field hockey: The nature of the
cognitive advantage. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 2,
146 – 160.
Williams, A. M., & Reilly, T. (2000). Talent identification and
development in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 657 – 667.
Withers, R. T., Roberts, G. D., & Davies, G. J. (1977). The
maximum aerobic power, anaerobic power and body composi-
tion of South Australian male representatives in athletics,
basketball, field hockey and soccer. Journal of Sports Medicine
and Physical Fitness, 17, 391 – 400.