Athlete perceptions of playing-up in youth soccer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common practice in sport is to play-up youth athletes who are highly skilled against chronologically older peers. However, the potential effects of playing-up on youth’s athletic and personal development have not been explored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate athletes’ perceptions of how playing-up may have influenced their sport-specific skill and psychosocial development. Seventeen athletes from four soccer clubs in Ontario, Canada, participated in semi-structured interviews where they described their playing-up experiences. An inductive thematic analysis was performed to capture athletes’ perceptions of playing-up and the ways in which it may have affected their development. Results showed that athletes perceived playing-up to involve a balance between two high-order themes: (a) challenge and (b) progress. Regarding challenge, athletes struggled most to cope with the intensity of practices and games and to fit in socially with older peers. Regarding progress, athletes felt most rewarded when they received recognition for their talent, experienced success, and had opportunities to develop expertise. Athletes also commented that their teammates and coaches played a pivotal role in facilitating their sport-specific skill and psychosocial development. Practical applications for sport practitioners are proposed and avenues for further research are identified.Lay Summary: This study explored athletes’ perceptions of playing-up at higher age levels. Playing-up was challenging because it required athletes to cope with high-intensity competition and fit in with older peers. Playing-up was also rewarding for athletes who received recognition for their skill, succeeded against older peers, and developed expertise.IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEAthletes were more likely to integrate socially within an older team when teammates introduced themselves and included them in sport and social activities.Constructive feedback from coaches that included clear strategies for improvement facilitated mutual trust and respect with athletes who played-up.Athletes who had opportunities to demonstrate their skill and share tactical knowledge with teammates perceived less challenge in proving themselves within an older team.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".