4.6 Article

Selection into youth cricket academies: The influence of relative age and maturity status

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 272-279

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2023.2208924

关键词

Boys; peak-height-velocity; maturation; birth-quartile

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to examine the distribution of birth quartile and maturity status among male academy cricketers. A total of 213 junior cricket players aged 9 to 18 years participated in the study. The players were separated into birth quartiles and categorized as early, average, or late maturers. The findings revealed a bias towards early maturers in the birth quartile 4 group and among U10 and U11 age groups, indicating the presence of selection biases and relative age effects in academy cricket pathways.
The aim of the study was to examine the birth quartile and maturity status distributions of male academy cricketers. Participants included 213 junior cricket players, aged between 9 and 18 years. Players were separated into birth quartiles and also grouped as early, average or late maturers. For the whole cohort, there was a medium effect bias towards players born in BQ1, but the number of early, average and late maturers was as expected. However, there were significantly more early maturers in the U10 and U11 groups than expected, and maturity distributions of the BQ groups showed that there was a small effect size bias towards early maturers in BQ4. Selection biases towards cricketers who are born earlier in the competitive year are consistent from U9 to U16, but more prevalent in the U12 and U14 age groups. There is a bias towards early maturers at U10 and U11, but this reduces as age increases. Practitioners working in academy pathways should be encouraged to assess the maturity status of players to assist in the retention and progression of players. Relative age effects should also be considered, and strategies may be required to identify players born later in the year.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据