The target article describes an interesting study, which provides some challenging findings regarding athletes' pathway to excellence. The suggested links between critical life events, need for success, personal characteristics, and eventual performance level make sense from a psychodynamic perspective. This commentary will discuss some critical points related to the application of the findings in talent identification and -development programs. These are (1) the possible effect of the selection of participants on the results (including the impact of dependence on others for team sport athletes and the opportunity for multiple medal attainment), (2) a lack of detail in the description of how the athletes approached the critical life events (the perception of an event may contribute more to development than the event itself), and (3) a lack of detail in the description of the practice process throughout development. Some interesting differences were found in the motivation for and approach to practice, but little detail was given about what the athletes exactly were doing at the time. The concept of self-regulated learning may be useful in explaining how super-elite athletes action their goals through quality practice.
The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a resilience development intervention, set up around regular exposure to increased pressure. This intervention adopted a quasi-experimental design, delivered within an elite female basketball academy. The mixed methods evaluation combined individual and team resilience measures with semi-structured interviews with athletes and coaches. Quantitative results demonstrated that the intervention was effective in reducing team level vulnerabilities. Qualitative evaluations indicated that the intervention led to increased awareness, emerging leadership, stronger communication channels, and the development and execution of collective plans. Furthermore, potential avenues for intervention improvement were also addressed.
In elite sports, a case is increasingly made for the structural inclusion of what we label as planned disruptions. These are structured and deliberate training activities whereby athletes are exposed to increased and/or changing demands under controlled circumstances. Despite the growing body of evidence in support of planned disruptions (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2017), there is a lack of knowledge on which strategies coaches use in an applied context and why they use them. The present study, therefore, aimed at exploring the different types of planned disruptions high-performance coaches use and the desired outcomes of these disruptions. To this end, thematic analysis (Braun, Clarke, & Weate, 2016) was used to analyze semistructured interviews with 9 talent development and elite-level coaches (M age = 42.9, SD = 8.3; 6 male, 3 female). Results indicated that coaches use a combination of 9 types of planned disruptions (i.e., location, competition simulation, punishments and rewards, physical strain, stronger competition, distractions, unfairness, restrictions, and outside the box). These strategies were used to familiarize athletes to pressure, create awareness, develop or refine personal resources, and promote team processes. Three additional themes emerged, namely, the surprise use of planned disruptions, periodization, and the impact on personal relationships. The findings in the present study can guide further applied and theoretical explorations of the use of planned disruptions.
