Are relative age and biological ages associated with coaches’ evaluations of match performance in male academy soccer players?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Talent identification and selection in soccer has been shown to be confounded by individual differences in relative age and biological maturation. Limited research has however, investigated whether these effects are reflected in coaches’ evaluations of performance. This study investigated relative and biological age associated differences in coach perceptions of performance in a professional soccer academy across four seasons. The performances of 279 male players were evaluated on a 4-point Likert-scale. Multi-level modelling was used to examine predictive relationships between biological age, chronological age, result and opposition of game, on match grades. Result of the games was a statistically significant predictor of players perceived performance in every age-group; category of opposition was only significant in the under 13 and 14 age-groups. Biological age significantly predicted players perceived performance grades in the under 10, 14 and 15 age-groups, whereby advanced maturity predicted a higher grade. Across all age-groups, a relative age effect was observed, however age half was not a significant predictor of perceived performance grade in any age-group. Coaches evaluations of match performance appear to vary in accordance with maturity, opposition, and result of game. Academy staff should recognise and account for individual differences in biological maturation when retaining and releasing players.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".