Annals of Human Biology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iahb20

Growth, maturation and youth sports: issues and

practical solutions

Joey C. Eisenmann , Kevin Till & James Baker

To cite this article: Joey C. Eisenmann , Kevin Till & James Baker (2020) Growth, maturation
and youth sports: issues and practical solutions, Annals of Human Biology, 47:4, 324-327, DOI:
10.1080/03014460.2020.1764099

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2020.1764099

Published online: 30 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iahb20
ANNALS OF HUMAN BIOLOGY
2020, VOL. 47, NO. 4, 324–327
https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2020.1764099
COMMENTARY
Growth, maturation and youth sports: issues and practical solutions
Joey C. Eisenmanna, Kevin Tilla and James Bakerb
a
Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK; bDepartment of Sport Science and Coaching, Aspire Academy, Doha, Qatar
As highlighted in this special issue, physical activity during
childhood and adolescence is influenced by several factors
including body size and composition, biological maturity,
and motor skill development (Sherar et al. 2010). As such,
the assessment and consideration of growth and maturation
are common recommendations within youth athletic devel-
opment guidelines (Bergeron et al. 2015; Lloyd et al. 2016).
Organised youth sport provides an important outlet for
both physical activity and motor skill development (Malina
et al. 2016), and can play a vital role in overall physical, psy-
chological, and social development. However, variance in
growth and maturation has been shown to impact opportu-
nities to 1) participate in sport, 2) be selected into sporting
teams, and 3) be identified into talent development pro-
grammes due to its effect on motor performance, body size,
and physiological development. This highlights the import-
ance of key stakeholders (e.g. policy, administrators, coaches,
parents and children) to understand growth and maturation
in order to ensure a positive experience in youth sports.
Maturation and athlete performance
Growth and maturation are related to the four main domains
of sports performance (i.e. technical, tactical, physical, psy-
chological). However, performance is confounded by the vari-
ability in the timing and tempo of growth and maturation
within and across age groups. In particular, growth and mat-
uration are closely related to physical qualities such as
strength, power, and speed (Malina et al. 2004, 2015; Till
et al. 2017), which are highly desirable characteristics in
many sports. In addition, growth and maturation are related
to technical ability such as rugby or American Football ball
carrying, tackling, and kicking, and throwing distance and
striking ability in baseball and cricket (Malina et al. 2015).
Furthermore, individual differences in biological maturation
have been shown to impact psychological constructs that
are important drivers of motivated behaviour and resiliency
in sport, such as self-perceptions of physical competence
(Cumming et al. 2018).
CONTACT Joey C. Eisenmann joeeisenmann@gmail.com Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
(Dis)advantages with youth sport participation and
talent identification
Growth and maturation influences performance which is the
main parameter in selection into a sports team or talent identi-
fication and development system, which in turn influences par-
ticipation, development and retention in sport (Baxter-Jones
et al. 2020). The relative age effect (Cobley et al. 2009) and
maturity selection bias (Sherar et al. 2007) are two key phe-
nomena that can result in (dis)advantages for youth sports
based around growth and maturation. Whilst these findings are
common across most sports, and have been apparent for at
least two decades (Baxter-Jones 1995), the translation of these
concepts and implementation of solutions to these biases are
currently lacking. In addition, there has been confusion that the
relative age effect is equated to biological maturity. It should
be clarified and understood that these are two entirely separate
constructs. Relative age is best described in terms of birthdate
relative to age group cut-off dates. Biological maturity relates
biological age to chronological age, and the variance in matur-
ation is largely the result of genotypic and environmental fac-
tors. A child can be born within the first quarter of the
selection period and can be an early, average or late maturer,
and this also holds for being born in the last quarter as well.
The biggest potential advantage is when one benefits from
both relative age and biological age (i.e. first quarter relative
age and early maturer for size and power-based sports; unless
genetically small; Sherar et al. 2007).
There are challenges for both early and late maturers in
sport including: 1) identifying talented late developers and try-
ing to keep them in the pathway, and 2) ensuring that early
developers are optimally challenged and developing technical
and tactical skills given their dependence on physical domin-
ance (i.e. size, speed, strength) will fade during late adoles-
cence. One approach is to provide a realistic view of current
performance by sharing data relative to maturity group and
educating stakeholders on maturation (see below).
Youth sport: practitioner decision-making
Both coaches and administrators are key decision-makers in
youth sports but coaches play a more consistent role (e.g.
tryouts, practice, training, competition). Recently, coaching

has been proposed as a professional judgement and deci-
sion-making process with a framework presented based on
the premise that coaches make decisions and shape their
strategies for interventions based on six broad domains of
knowledge (Table 1; Abraham et al. 2014; Till et al. 2019).
Although this framework was designed for coaches, it
applies to stakeholders across the micro- (e.g. teachers,
parents and children), meso- (e.g. clubs, management) and
macro- (e.g. policy, national governing bodies) levels of the
youth sport system. Growth and maturation are central to
this framework and apply to understanding the “WHO” (the
youth athlete), which may have significant implications for a
positive experience within sport related to the “WHAT” and
“HOW” and the “COACHING PROCESS”. Examples of this pro-
cess include:
 Micro level – coaches working with youth athletes may
adapt their training focus (WHAT) or coaching behaviours
(HOW) of the training plan and delivery of the training
session with a greater understanding of the maturity of
their athletes. For example, for the WHAT, coaches may
use plyometric training activities with pre-PHV (Peak
Height Velocity) and combination of strength, plyometric
and speed activities post-PHV. In relation to the HOW,
coaches may provide greater challenge for earlier matur-
ing players and more support for later maturing players
to aid their development.
 Meso level – organisations may employ strategies of
grouping individuals within training and competition
based upon their maturity status (e.g. bio-banding)
 Macro level – national governing bodies could implement
policies and strategies around competition rules (e.g.
modified playing surface dimensions), talent identification
(e.g. number of players selected and at what age within a
pathway) and/or athlete development pathways. For
example, some sports (e.g. rugby) have delayed the age
when talent identification into academy programmes
occurs to post-maturation to reduce maturity selec-
tion biases.
Solutions
Without an understanding of growth and maturation, youth
sport stakeholders are unable to make informed decisions in
relation to a youth’s participation and performance
(Gonçalves et al. 2012). In turn, performance may be misrep-
resented resulting in negative consequences and
Table 1. The six broad domains of understanding in coaching youth sports.
Domain Example
The “WHO” Their participant
The “WHAT” The demands of the sport/activity
The “HOW” Principles of learning and skill acquisition
The “CONTEXT” The context, culture and politics
within which they operate
Their “SELF” Their own existing knowledge,
beliefs, values and behaviours
The “COACHING PROCESS” Their planning, delivering
and reflecting [P-D-R] practices
ANNALS OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 325
inappropriate practices within youth sport (e.g. non-selection,
dropout, lack of enjoyment), which can have potential long-
term implications to physical activity.
Although there is ample research related to growth, matur-
ation, and youth athletic development, the translation, dissem-
ination, and implementation of knowledge within youth sport
programmes are generally limited (Eisenmann 2017; Jones et al.
2019). However, there are best practice cases available including
the Football Association who include growth and maturation
education within the advanced youth award qualification
(Football Association 2018), and have also implemented a
nationwide growth and maturity monitoring programme as
part of the Elite Player Performance Plan (Ryan et al. 2018).
Whilst increasing education is vital, the implementation of con-
sistent assessment of growth and maturity (Lloyd et al. 2014;
Malina et al. 2015) may inform practitioners of their “WHO” and
allow them to make decisions related to the “WHAT” and
“HOW”. Such strategies are recommended across all
youth sports.
The reality of monitoring growth and maturity in a youth
sport setting is that it can be challenging based on the con-
tact time available and the number of young athletes within
an age group and across an entire club or school. A robust
programme requires the following four key principles to be
applied to data collection and result in actionable implemen-
tation into the coaching practice.
1. Commitment of an individual(s) to direct the process,
select appropriate measures and educate stakeholders.
2. Consistent collection of the relevant data on a quar-
terly basis.
3. Communication of data along with training recommen-
dations for athletes that highlights:
a. Maturity status – pre-, circa or post-pubescence;
Early, Average, or Late maturer
b. Percentage of predicted adult height
c. Height velocity – red flagging growth rates that
may place athletes at increased risk of injury and/or
“adolescent awkwardness” or deviation from their
normal growth trajectory
d. Weight velocity – aligns more closely with gains in
strength and power
e. Predicted adult height (with confidence intervals) as
this is an attribute of particular concern for specific
sports and positions (e.g. second row in rugby, goal-
keeper in soccer)
f. The presence of growth-related injuries (e.g. Severs,
Osgood-Schlatters, apophysitis at the hip)
g. Technical competence – this will drive programme
selection, even in bio-banding
4. Collaboration between the coaching, strength and con-
ditioning, sport science and medical practitioners (if
available) to develop appropriate training strategies.
Once assessed, the young athletes’ training can be differ-
entiated by maturity status for goals, exercise prescription,
and training load that may be important for talent identifica-
tion (perhaps including sport/discipline focus), athlete
326 J. C. EISENMANN ET AL.
10m
2
1 tion and planning, measurement and evaluation of matur-
Yo-Yo 20m
0
-1
-2
Squat Agility
Med Ball VJ
Figure 1. Comparison of fitness scores represented as Z-scores of a 12-year old
according to age group (solid line) and maturity status (dashed line). The 10 m
and 20 m are taken from a sprinting speed test; VJ: vertical jump ability; Med
Ball is a kneeling med ball throw for upper body power; Squat is a test of lower
body strength; and Yo-Yo is the Yo-Yo intermittent test for endurance ability.
development and injury management, especially during the
growth spurt. The applications noted here have recently
been popularised as “bio-banding” (Cumming et al. 2017;
Malina et al. 2019), whereby athletes are matched based on
size or maturity status rather than chronological age. Within
technical coaching sessions, where groups usually train with
peers of a similar chronological age, there is not likely to be
enough athletes in each maturity group to apply true bio-
banding. However, skilled coaches can create smaller matur-
ity-matched groups for small-sided games, differentiate tasks
or apply constraints for more or less mature players. For
example, an early maturing, physically dominant rugby
player could have a constraint applied to him by the coach
that states if he runs straight into contact it is an automatic
turnover. This encourages him to utilise and develop evasive
running and passing skills because he cannot use his phys-
ical prowess to run through his smaller, later maturing oppo-
nents. Recent recommendations (Cumming et al. 2018; Till
et al. 2018) have also suggested comparing performance or
fitness data according to maturity status (Figure 1).
Another practical solution includes competition groupings
to increase/decrease challenge and technical and psycho-
logical aspects of performance. As alluded to previously, bio-
banding can be applied for competition structure, and train-
ing (e.g. strength and conditioning) programming. However,
to date this has only been applied within environments
where athletes have already been identified as talented (i.e.
English Premier League soccer academies; Cumming et al.
2017; Malina et al. 2019) with application within other levels
of sport challenging due to issues with collecting, organising
and arranging athletes into bio-banded groups when data
may not be available or accurate.
Conclusion
In summary, growth and maturation are key biological proc-
esses that can influence motor skill development impacting
upon the overall bio-psycho-social development in youths.
Education throughout the youth sports system is key to
maximising opportunities for all youths. Whilst solutions are
available across these stakeholders including coach educa-
ation, and training and competition structures, further work
is required to implement and embed these best practices.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Kevin Till http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9686-0536
References
Abraham A, Saiz S, McKeown S, Morgan G, Muir B, North J, Till K. 2014.
Planning your coaching: a focus on youth participant development.
In: Nash C, editor. Practical sports coaching. Abingdon: Routledge;
p. 16–53.
Baxter-Jones A. 1995. Growth and development of young athletes.
Should competition levels be age related? Sports Med. 20:59–64.
Baxter-Jones AD, Barbour-Tuck EN, Dale D, Sherar LB, Knight CJ,
Cumming SP, Humbert LM. 2020. The role of growth and maturation
during adolescence on team-selection and short-term sports partici-
pation. Ann Hum Biol.
Bergeron MF, Mountjoy M, Armstrong N, Chia M, Co ^t
e J, Emery CA,
Engebretsen L. 2015. International Olympic Committee consensus
statement on youth athletic development. Br J Sports Med. 49:
843–851.
Cobley S, Baker J, Wattie N, McKenna J. 2009. Annual age-grouping and
athlete development: a meta-analytical review of relative age effects
in sport. Sports Med. 39:235–256.
Cumming SP, Brown DJ, Mitchell S, Bunce J, Hunt D, Hedges C, Malina
RM. 2018. Premier League academy soccer players’ experiences of
competing in a tournament bio-banded for biological maturation. J
Sports Sci. 36:757–765.
Cumming SP, Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Eisenmann JC, Malina RM. 2017. Bio-
banding in sport: applications to competition, talent identification,
and strength and conditioning of youth athletes. Strength Cond J. 39:
34–47.
Cumming SP, Searle C, Hemsley JK, Haswell F, Edwards H, Scott S,
Malina RM. 2018. Biological maturation, relative age and self-regula-
tion in male professional academy soccer players: a test of the under-
dog hypothesis. Psychol Sport Exerc. 39:147–153.
Eisenmann J. 2017. Translational gap between laboratory and playing
field: new era to solve old problems in sports science. Transl J ACSM.
2:37–43.
Football Association. 2018. Football Associations Youth Qualifications.
Gonçalves CE, Rama LM, Figueiredo AB. 2012. Talent identification and
specialization in sport: an overview of some unanswered questions.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 7:390–393.
Jones B, Till K, Emmonds S, Hendricks S, Mackreth P, Darrall-Jones J,
Rock A. 2019. Accessing off-field brains in sport; an applied research
model to develop practice. Br J Sports Med. 53:791–793.
Lloyd RS, Cronin JB, Faigenbaum AD, Haff GG, Howard R, Kraemer WJ,
Oliver JL. 2016. National Strength and Conditioning Association pos-
ition statement on long-term athletic development. J Strength Cond
Res. 30:1491–1509.
Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Faigenbaum AD, Myer GD, Croix M. 2014.
Chronological age vs. biological maturation: implications for exercise
programming in youth. J Strength Cond Res. 28:1454–1464.
Malina R, Eisenmann J, Cumming SP, Ribeiro B, Aroso J. 2004. Maturity-
associated variation in the growth and functional capacities of youth
football (soccer) players 13-15 years. Eur J Appl Physiol. 91:555–562.

Malina RM, Cumming SP, Rogol AD, Coelho-e-Silva MJ, Figueiredo AJ,
Konarski JM, Kozieł SM. 2019. Bio-banding in youth sports: back-
ground, concept, and application. Sports Med. 49:1671–1685.
Malina RM, Cumming SP, Silva MJ. 2016. Physical activity and movement pro-
ficiency: the need for a biocultural approach. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 28:233–239.
Malina RM, Rogol AD, Cumming SP, Coelho e Silva MJ, Figueiredo AJ.
2015. Biological maturation of youth athletes: assessment and impli-
cations. Br J Sports Med. 49:852–859.
Ryan D, Lewin C, Forsythe S, McCall A. 2018. Developing world-class soc-
cer players. Strength Cond J. 40:2–11.
Sherar LB, Baxter-Jones AD, Faulkner RA, Russell KW. 2007. Do physical
maturity and birth date predict talent in male youth ice hockey play-
ers? J Sports Sci. 25:879–886.
ANNALS OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 327
Sherar LB, Cumming SP, Eisenmann JC, Baxter-Jones AD, Malina RM.
2010. Adolescent biological maturity and physical activity: biology
meets behavior. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 22:332–349.
Till K, Morris R, Emmonds S, Jones B, Cobley S. 2018. Enhancing the
evaluation and interpretation of fitness testing data within youth ath-
letes. Strength Cond J. 40:24–33.
Till K, Muir B, Abraham A, Piggott D, Tee J. 2019. A Framework for deci-
sion-making within strength and conditioning coaching. Strength
Cond J. 41:14–26.
Till K, Scantlebury S, Jones B. 2017. Anthropometric and physical
qualities of elite male youth rugby league players. Sports Med. 47:
2171–2186.