McCalman 2022 SkillAssessmentsInYouthSoccer AScopingReview Final

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/357443097
Skill assessments in youth soccer: A scoping review
Article in Journal of Sports Sciences · December 2021

DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2021.2013617
CITATIONS READS
12 2,784
4 authors:
William McCalman Zachary Crowley-McHattan

Southern Cross University Southern Cross University
2 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 442 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Job Fransen Kyle Bennett

Charles Sturt University Southern Cross University
123 PUBLICATIONS 2,906 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 779 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Kyle Bennett on 20 March 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 Skill Assessments in Youth Soccer: A Scoping Review
2 William McCalman1, Zachary J Crowley-McHattan1, Job Fransen2, Kyle J M Bennett1

1
3 Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University, Australia
2
4 Human Performance Research Centre, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation,
5 Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
7 Corresponding author contact details
8 William McCalman
9 Email: w.mccalman.11@student.scu.edu.au
10 Phone: (+61 401 589 860)
11 ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9620-9022
12 Twitter: @WilliamMcCalman
13
14 Published version
15 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2021.2013617
1
16 Abstract
17 Talent identification in youth soccer is a complex decision-making process that requires
18 selectors to judge an individual’s future playing ability. While there has been considerable
19 research into the performance characteristics of talented players, investigators have limited
20 consensus on the best approach to assess soccer skills. Most of the research explains why we
21 should measure skill instead of how we go about assessing skill. Therefore, the current
22 scoping review aimed to synthesize and analyse skill assessments in youth soccer. Four
23 electronic databases (EBSCO, ProQuest, PubMed, and Scopus) were searched for relevant
24 studies. Information regarding the sample characteristics and methodological design of the
25 skill assessments were extracted, synthesised, and presented in a qualitative analysis. Overall,
26 226 skill assessments were used across the 93 included studies. Male players from different
27 ages (U/7-U/23) and playing levels comprised most (89%) of the collective sample. The
28 majority of assessments were performed in settings not representative of football match-play
29 (68%), focused on offensive skills (99%), and included skill outcome measures (95%). The
30 variability of assessments highlights some confusion about the best way to assess soccer skill,
31 potentially limiting selectors ability to identify skilful players. Ultimately, this will impact the
32 number of quality players within the talent pool.
33
34 Keywords: Football, Skill Assessments, Talent Identification, Youth Soccer
35
36
37
38
39
40
2
41 1.0 Introduction
42 Sporting organisations in association football invest considerable financial and logistical
43 resources to identify and develop talented youth athletes [1-3]. For example, the estimated
44 2018 running costs of high-level youth academies in England were between £2.3 and £4.9
45 million per club [4, 5]. Following such an investment, the expectation that the next generation
46 of future stars will emerge from these academy programs and subsequently transition into
47 top-level professional players is understandable [3, 6]. Marcus Rashford (Manchester United)
48 and Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool) are two relevant examples of young English
49 footballers who have successfully transitioned from their respective youth academies into the
50 club’s first teams. Rashford entered Manchester United’s youth academy at eleven years of
51 age, and Alexander-Arnold began playing at Liverpool when he was only six years old [7, 8].
52 In 2020, their market values were £80 million and £99 million, respectively [9, 10], offering a
53 significant return on investment. Both players are regular starters for their club’s senior team
54 but are also emerging as crucial players for England. These players epitomise the benchmark
55 of success for aspiring young footballers and signify a massive achievement for the clubs
56 who identified and developed them and the national football federation (i.e., the English FA),
57 who created the talent pathway for these players to follow.
58 The big business of football is undoubtedly a significant motivator for football clubs
59 and federations to optimise talent identification and development processes [5, 11]. Vast
60 resources are allocated to trading soccer players each year, and the ensuing effects of hefty
61 transfer fees can be substantial [11]. Before profiting from a player’s performance or the
62 money that their transfers may bring, football clubs must employ a group of professionals
63 (coaches, scouts, researchers, and administrators) to identify and develop talented players
64 within youth academies [12]. As part of identifying and recruiting players into these systems,
65 selectors (i.e., coaches and scouts) choose between many potentially talented players from an
3
66 early developmental age. In practice, these players can be selected into youth systems as
67 young as eight years old [12, 13]. While the primary goal is to develop these individuals into
68 future sporting stars, it is difficult for coaches to ensure they are making the most effective
69 decisions when choosing between players [3, 13, 14]. This challenge exists because reliable
70 indicators of future playing ability often lack with younger age groups in particular [13].
71 There are also only a few available positions for a small group of ‘talented’ players, and there
72 is an expectation from the football club’s business owners (e.g., investors and major
73 shareholders) that the players chosen will bring success to the club [3, 15, 16]. As such, many
74 researchers have sought to understand the variables (or characteristics) that encompass talent
75 to support selectors during the decision-making process [3, 6, 17].
76 There is considerable emphasis on the anthropometry (e.g., stature, mass, body
77 composition) and physiology (e.g., aerobic capacity, anaerobic endurance, anaerobic power)
78 of talented soccer players within the football research. The emphasis is likely because of their
79 practicality, as they are considered relatively straightforward to administer and interpret [18-
80 21]. While player’s anthropometry and physiology distinguish between different playing
81 levels and may inform talent identification [22-27], assessing anthropometric and
82 physiological variables in isolation from other characteristics can be problematic during
83 adolescence. First, the timing and tempo of the adolescent growth spurt can lead to variability
84 in physical development [28-30]. Second, evidence highlights that physiological variables
85 continue to develop well into the later stages of youth, indicating that capturing a snapshot of
86 performance in an assessment battery might not be the most valid approach because it may
87 over or underestimate potential [31]. Finally, the anthropometry and physiology of players
88 represent a small part of their talent and do not convey a full picture of a player's long-term
89 potential [3, 14]. Other critical variables like psychological and psychosocial traits/skills
90 (e.g., self-confidence, motivation, and commitment) and perceptual-motor skills (e.g.,
4
91 technique, skilfulness, and decision-making) may complete the picture, with selectors ranking
92 these characteristics highly relative to a player’s physiology or anthropometry [12, 32].
93 Indeed, the psychological skills/traits are crucial characteristics for selectors to
94 consider. They distinguish high and low playing levels [33-35] and predict future success
95 [36]. For example, longitudinal studies examining players in adolescence (who eventually
96 became professionals) found that they remained highly motivated [37], were goal committed,
97 and engaged in positive coping behaviours when compared to their less successful peers [36].
98 Psychological tests, such as the 16-personality factor, the Eysenck personality test, and task
99 and ego orientation assessments, show good reliability and validity when distinguishing
100 between players [38, 39]. However, previous reviews examining psychological
101 characteristics for talent identification [38] and the psychosocial factors within talent
102 development in football [35] advise that psychological skills training may be better suited to
103 talent development programs [35, 38]. This suggestion is because it is unclear whether
104 psychological skills/traits have more mediating or causal effects for talent identification and
105 development (i.e., cause players to be talented, or result in them being talented) [35, 39]. It
106 may be more appropriate to collect information on players' psychological traits and focus on
107 developing these skills over time. Given this uncertainty, selectors may need to compliment
108 such measures with other characteristics like perceptual-motor skills.
109 Selectors recognize the importance of perceptual-motor skills because they can
110 directly facilitate its development during training and games (i.e., skill acquisition). Indeed,
111 qualitative and quantitative studies demonstrate the weight that selectors place on player's
112 skills during talent identification (i.e., first-touch, one-verse-one ability, striking the ball, and
113 technique under pressure) [13, 32, 40]. Larkin & O’Connor (2017) [32] clarify the reason for
114 this emphasis, suggesting that a player's first touch is a foundational skill and the beginning
115 of all other actions on the ball. For example, offensive skills (e.g., dribbling, passing, and
5
116 shooting) create goal-scoring opportunities, while defensive skills (e.g., tackling and
117 intercepting) minimise scoring chances for the opposing team. A player’s skilfulness also
118 determines the role (or roles) they play within a team. For example, a proficient and creative
119 passer might become a midfielder or defender, whereas an accurate shooter may become a
120 striker or winger. While researchers and selectors shouldn’t assess anthropometric,
121 physiological, or psychological variables in isolation [28, 30, 35, 38], these characteristics
122 can complement a player’s skill. For example, a winger needs speed, agility, and confidence
123 to beat player’s one-on-one. A striker needs to focus and quickly react when allowed to score.
124 The ability of these players to shoot while sprinting can also be a crucial factor to achieving
125 success in these positions. In essence, these are the skills (or skilful actions) that can play a
126 significant role in determining the outcome of a soccer match [41]. Therefore, it seems
127 appropriate to assess perceptual-motor skills as selectors view them favourably, and they can
128 provide a strong indication of a player’s ability [12, 14, 37, 42, 43].
129 Previous reviews investigated soccer skill performance [41, 44], and one systematic
130 review examined technical skill assessments for talent identification across a range of sports
131 (albeit mostly in youth soccer) [43]. These studies report reliability/validity and
132 discriminatory/explanatory/predictive benefits for many skill assessments across a range of
133 age-group cohorts and playing levels. Other reviews also investigated the relationship
134 between maturity status/physical fitness and technical skills or characteristics in female/male
135 players [45, 46]. Collectively, these investigations provide valuable insights by explaining
136 why researchers, selectors, and practitioners should assess soccer skills for talent
137 identification. Skill assessments directly correlate with physical fitness qualities, discriminate
138 between playing levels, and predict future playing ability. However, these studies haven’t
139 looked in close enough detail at how selectors should assess soccer skills. Therefore, the
140 current research is a scoping review, providing an overview of the existing body of literature
6
141 and identifying knowledge gaps and an indication of the volume of works [47]. The primary
142 aim is to synthesise and analyse the sampling characteristics and methodological design of
143 each included study. Then, identify critical knowledge gaps, and imply practical
144 recommendations for future researchers in youth soccer talent identification.
145
146 2.0 Method
147 2.1 Searches
148 The review was registered with Open Sciences Framework (June 6, 2020); however, the
149 research team deviated from the initial registration by conducting a scoping review instead of
150 a systematic review (registration link: https://osf.io/pwtyb). It was decided that a scoping
151 review was more appropriate to answer the research question because it allowed for a more
152 comprehensive overview of the current ‘state of play’ for skill assessments in youth soccer.
153 The scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
154 Meta-Analyses – Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [48]. The Population,
155 Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) framework was adapted and employed to
156 develop the search strategy. The population of interest was youth soccer players. The
157 intervention was skill assessments in youth soccer. No comparison or outcome was used
158 because the review sought to investigate what assessments were available rather than
159 comparing their effectiveness for youth soccer talent identification.
160 An initial scoping search established the intended direction and tested specific
161 terminology that would be used in the search process (April 28, 2020). A final systematic
162 search of ten databases in EBSCO (SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier,
163 MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, Psychology, Behavioral Sciences Collection, APA PsychInfo,
164 Education Research Complete, MasterFILE Premier) and additional databases in ProQuest,
165 PubMed, and Scopus were completed using the same search string (June 29, 2020). These
7
166 databases were selected because the talent identification topic falls in psychology, motor
167 control, motor learning, and education domains. While comprehensive, the approach
168 maximised the search results and ensured minimal publications were missed, limiting the
169 introduction of subjective bias in the scoping review.
170 Keywords in the search string used multiple combinations of AND/OR phrases,
171 including (Association football OR Football OR Soccer) AND (Youth OR Child* OR
172 Adolescen* OR Teen* OR Boy* OR Male OR Girl* OR Female OR Junior*) AND (Skill*
173 Assess* OR Skill* Measur* OR skill* Evaluat* OR Talent Identification OR Identification
174 OR Technique OR Technical OR Decision OR Soccer-specific Skill) AND (Talent OR
175 Talented OR Expertise OR Expert OR Gift OR Gifted*) AND (Develop* OR Improv* OR
176 Progress* OR Mature OR Maturing OR Growth OR Excellence OR Performance OR
177 Accuracy OR Completion OR Results OR Outcome OR Soccer-specific skill* OR
178 Perceptual-cognitive skill* OR Perceptual-motor skill* OR Decision-making OR Technical
179 OR Tactical OR Selection OR Dropout OR Academy OR High-level OR Elite). These
180 keywords were chosen based on the initial scoping review and followed similar methods used
181 in other sports-science and talent-identification systematic reviews [43, 45, 49].
182
183 2.2 Study Inclusion Criteria
184 Only peer-reviewed sources were considered for the current scoping review. Articles were
185 included if they were published in English (or could be translated into English), included skill
186 assessments in youth soccer, and investigated youth (≤ 18 years) players. Studies with mixed
187 samples of youth and senior athletes (i.e., > 18 years) were included if they met the other
188 criteria. The inclusion of this criterion was considered necessary given the age-group
189 categories differ for what’s considered ‘youth’ in talent identification and development
190 systems worldwide.
8
191 2.3 Data Extraction Strategy
192 Information regarding the searches was stored in a customised Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft
193 Excel 2019, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA), and publications in
194 Endnote (EndNote X9, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA). Two
195 reviewers (WM and ZCM) screened the titles and abstracts to ensure eligibility against the
196 inclusion criteria. Further articles were assessed and included following examinations of
197 citations within collected studies. One reviewer (WM) extracted data on the sample
198 characteristics, including the country of data collection (represented as an ISO code), the
199 number of participants, and the participant’s sex, age, and playing level. The same reviewer
200 extracted data on the methodological characteristics of the skill assessments, including the
201 assessment settings (competitive match-play1, field-based simulated2, field-based isolated3, or
202 lab-based4), measurement type (skill outcome [the outcome of skill performance], skill
203 production [the processes that lead to the performance outcome], or both), skill category
204 (offensive [skill performance while in possession of the ball] or defensive [skill performance
205 without possession of the ball]), and the skills assessed. The assessment settings were
206 developed according to similar categories used in a study by McGukian, relating to the
207 representativeness of the environment (i.e., whether the experiment was in a lab or open
208 setting, or whether the participants could or couldn’t move freely) [50]. However, the present
209 scoping review developed terminology that may allow researchers, coaches, and practitioners
210 to use the language for ease of interpretation into talent identification settings.
211
212
1
Competitive match-play = Assessment using real-match-play footage or gameplay.
2
Field-based simulated = Assessments measuring a combination of skills in an environment that resembles
competitive match-play (e.g., small-sided games).
3
Field-based isolated = Assessments that measure skill components separate from other contextual factors.
4
Lab-based = Assessments in a lab environment.
9
213 2.4 Data synthesis and presentation
214 The information collected from each included publication was synthesised and analysed
215 using narrative analysis. This approach involved the grouping of studies according to the
216 sample characteristics and skill assessment methodological design. Common themes were
217 identified by calculating a percentage value of each descriptive category, and inferences were
218 made about the data. Lastly, there was a qualitative assessment of the strengths and
219 weaknesses of the research.
220
221 3.0 Results
222 After systematically searching the databases, 2,090 studies were identified. Duplicates were
223 removed from each database and between databases that found the same studies (n = 878). A
224 total of 1,212 studies were assessed for inclusion based on titles and abstracts, after which a
225 further 1,127 were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Seventeen additional
226 studies were identified from reference list scanning, leaving a total of 102 full-text articles to
227 be assessed for eligibility. After full-text reading, nine further articles were excluded as they
228 examined futsal or indoor soccer (n = 3), used a review format (n = 1), were from the grey
229 literature area (n = 2), was a tactical skills assessment (n = 2), or had no full-text available (n
230 = 1). A total of 93 studies were retained for data synthesis and analysis.
231
232 3.1 Sample Characteristics
233 The included studies were completed between the years 2000 and 2020, with most research
234 appearing between 2015 and 2020 (n = 55, 59%). The studies contained players from 25
235 countries across five continents (Table 1). Germany and Portugal held the equal largest
236 proportion of studies (n = 10 each, 11%), followed by England (n = 9, 10%), Spain (n = 8,
237 9%), Brazil, and Italy (n = 7 each, 8%), Australia, and the Netherlands (n = 5 each, 5%),
10
238 Belgium, Switzerland, and Finland (n = 4 each, 4%), and Greece, Tunisia, and Croatia (n = 3
239 each, 3%). Germany also had the largest collective sample size with 120,523 (93%)
240 participants, followed by Finland (n = 1,759, 1%), Belgium (n = 1,317, 1%), Netherlands (n =
241 800, 1%), Portugal (n = 696, 1%) and Australia (n = 648, 1%). The total sample size was
242 129,232 participants, of which 115,389 (89%) were male, and 1,674 (1%) were female. A
243 total of 12,169 (9%) study participants had no reported sex. The median sample size was 62
244 participants, with the smallest sample consisting of five participants and the largest sample
245 consisting of 68,158 participants. The age cohorts ranged from U/7 to U/23. The U/14 and
246 U/15 age groups were equally the most commonly reported (15% each), followed by U/13
247 (13%), U/12 and U/16 (12% each), U/17 (10%), U/18 (6%), U/11 and, U/10 (5%), U/19
248 (3%), and U/9 (3%). There was considerable inconsistency in the terminology that
249 researchers used to group playing levels. Most studies included players from youth soccer
250 academies or development programs and levels divided into low and high categories.
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
11
260 Table 1.
261 The sample characteristics of the included studies

262
Reference ISO Sample Size Sex Age Group Reported Playing Level
Abdullah et al. (2016) [51] MYS 184 M U/14-U/18 Youth academy
Almeida et al. (2013) [52] PRT 28 M U/13-U/14 Physical education class (Non-experienced) = 14
Regional level (Experienced) = 14
Beavan et al. (2019) [31] DEU 152 M U/12 = 18 Professional club
U/13 = 20
U/14 = 18
U/15 = 20
U/16 = 20
U/17 = 8
U/19 = 25
U/23 = 23
Bekris et al. (2018) [53] GRC 48 - U/17 Regional (novice) = 24
National (expert) = 24
Bennett et al. (2018) [54] AUS 73 M U/13-U/15 Low-level academy = 37
High-level academy = 36
Benounis et al. (2013) [55] TUN 42 M U/15-U/16 Championship
Clemente et al. (2018) [56] PRT 12 M U/8 Youth academy of the first division team
Clemente et al. (2019) [57] PRT 16 - U/10-U/11 -
Coelho et al. (2010) [58] PRT 114 M U/14-U/15 Local (non-selected) = 69
Regional (selected) = 45
da Silva et al. (2011) [59] BRA 16 M U/13-U/15 Youth academy
Dardouri et al. (2014) [60] TUN 92 M U/13-U/17 Regional = 49
National = 43
De Giorgio et al. (2018) [60] HRV 34 - U/7 Youth soccer school
Deprez et al. (2015) [42] BEL 388 M U/9-U/17 Professional club
Dropout = 141
Club = 247
Fenner et al. (2016) [61] GBR 16 - U/10 Youth academy
Notes: F = female, ISO = International Organisation for Standardisation (country code), M = male, Sex and age group sample size were included when the study reported
them, U/ = under
12
Table 1.
(continued)
Fernandez-Gonzalo et al. (2010) ESP 30 M U/10 = 15 Regional soccer school
[62] U/12 = 15 Younger = 15
Older = 15
Figueiredo et al. (2011) [63] PRT 143 M U/11-U/13 = 75 Regional elite/national elite
U/14-U/16 = 68 Younger = 75
Older = 68
Figueiredo et al. (2009b) [64] PRT 159 M U/11-U/13 = 87 Local club
U/14-U/15 = 72 Infantiles = 87
Initiates = 72
Fiorilli et al. (2017) [65] ITA 92 - U/16 Elite youth academy
Forsman et al. (2016a) [37] FIN 114 M U/16 National youth
Sub-elite (second division or lower) = 91
Elite = (first division or higher) = 23
Forsman et al. (2016b) [66] FIN 1,321 M = 1,060 U/12-U/15 Player development program
F = 261
Forsman et al. (2016c) [67] FIN 288 M U/13-U/14 Player development program
Least talented = 194
Most talented = 94
Francioni et al. (2018) [68] ITA 33 M U/14 Youth academy
Francioni et al. (2016) [69] ITA 103 M U/8 = 27 Youth academy
U/9 = 27
U/10 = 18
U/11 = 19
U/12 = 12
Garcia et al. (2014) [70] ESP 54 M U/9/U/14 Grassroots
González-Víllora et al. (2015) ESP 57 M U/8 = 14 Youth academy
[71] U/10 = 13
U/12 = 14
U/14 = 16
Goto et al. (2020) [72] JPN 110 - U/13-U/18 Professional academy
them, U/ = under
13
Table 1.
(continued)
Guilherme et al. (2015) [73] PRT 71 M U/13 = 24 Youth academy
U/15 = 23
U/17 = 24
Hakman et al. (2018) [74] UKR 41 - U/9-U/10 Youth sports school
Hicheur et al. (2020) [75] CHE 27 M U/14-U/15 Swiss-national youth academy
Hicheur et al. (2017) [76] CHE 46 M = 44 U/12 = 14 Elite youth academy
F=2 U/13 = 7
U/14 = 10
U/15 = 13
U/16 = 2
Holt et al. (2012) [77] GBR 5 M U/10-U/12 Youth academy
Höner & Feichtinger (2016) [78] DEU 2,677 M Initial: U/12 Talent development program level
Follow up: U/16 Not selected
Selected
Höner et al. (2017) [79] DEU 14,178 M Initial: U/12 Talent development program
Follow up: U/19 Non-professional = 13,176
Semi-professional = 913
Professional = 89
Höner et al. (2019) [80] DEU 499 F Initial: U/12 Talent development program
Follow up: U/17 Not selected = 333
Regional association team = 93
Youth national team = 73
Höner & Votteler (2016) [33] DEU 22,843 M Initial: U/12 Elite youth academy (top 4% age group)
Follow up: Not selected = 20,892
U/16-U/19 Regional association = 731
Youth academies = 1,025
Youth national team =195
Höner et al. (2015) [81] DEU 68,158 M U/12-U/15 Highly selected players (top 4% age group)
Competence centre players
Youth Academy players
them, U/ = under
14
Table 1.
(continued)
Huijgen et al. (2013) [82] NLD 270 - U/12-U/19 Professional development program (top 1% age group)
De-selected = 50
Selected = 269
Huijgen et al. (2009) [83] NLD 131 - U/12-U/19 Talent development program (top 0.5% age group)
Amateur = 77
Professional = 54
Huijgen et al. (2014) [84] NLD 113 - U/16-U/18 Talent development program
De-selected = 37
Selected = 76
Huijgen et al. (2010) [85] NLD 267 - U/12-U/19 Talent development program (top 0.5% age group)
Juárez et al. (2011) [86] ESP 21 - U/17 First division club
Katis & Kellis (2009) [87] GRC 34 - U/13-U/15 Amateur youth players
Keller et al. (2016) [88] AUS 62 M U/16-U/18 State league competition
Sub-elite = 22
State-elite = 22
National elite = 18
Köklü et al. (2015) [89] TUR 12 - U/15-U/16 Elite academy
Kokstejn et al. (2019) [90] CZE 40 M U/12 Highest Czech youth league level
Krolo et al. (2020) [91] HRV 59 M U/13 = 29 Youth academy
U/15 = 30
Le Moal et al. (2014) [92] FRA 87 M U/16 Seventh division (non-elite) = 21
Second/third divisions (sub-elite) =22
National training squad (elite) = 44
Leiper et al. (2008) [93] TUN 87 - U/18 Youth academy squads
Leyhr et al. (2018) [94] DEU 1,134 M Initial: U/12 Talent development program level
Follow up: U/15 Non-elite = 989
Elite = 145
them, U/ = under
15
Table 1.
(continued)
Leyhr et al. (2020) [95] DEU 737 F Initial: U/12 Talent development program level
Follow up: U/15 Non-professional = 691
Professional = 46
Lovell et al. (2018) [27] AUS 214 M U/13 = 56 School-based program
U/14 = 44 Recreational to regional
U/15 = 43
U/16 = 48
U/18 = 23
Machado et al. (2019) [96] BRA 48 M U/15 = 24 Sports initiation program (non-elite)
U/17 = 24 Tactical skill levels:
Low
Intermediate
High
Malina et al. (2005) [97] PRT 69 - U/13-U/15 National youth division
Matta et al. (2014) [98] BRA 119 M U/15 = 74 State soccer league
U/17 = 45
McDermott et al. (2015) [99] HKG 77 - U/13 = 52 School/club
U/19 = 25 U/13
Recreational = 26
Competitive = 26
U/19
Competitive = 25
Miranda et al. (2013) [100] BRA 13 - U/15-U/18 Youth
O’Brien-Smith et al. (2020) [49] AUS 259 M = 182 U/9-U/11 = 98 High-level academy
F = 77 U/12-U/14 = 114 Sampling stage (U/9-U/11 y) = 97
U/15-U/17 = 48 Specialisation stage (U/12-U/14 y) = 114
Investment stage (U/15-U/17 y) = 48
Padrón-Cabo et al. (2019) [101] ESP 52 M U/14 -
Pastor-Vicedo et al. (2020) [102] PRT 18 M U/10-U/14 Professional youth academy
Perroni et al. (2018) [103] ITA 48 M = 32 U/16 Amateur level players
F = 16
them, U/ = under
16
Table 1.
(continued)
Práxedes et al. (2018) [104] ESP 19 - U/12 Youth academy
Low skill-level = 9
Average skill-level = 10
Rađa et al. (2019) [105] HRV 119 M U/15 = 32 Youth soccer first/second division leagues
U/17 = 51 Pioneers (U/15) = 32
U/19 = 36 Cadets (U/17) = 51
Juniors (U/19) = 36
Rebelo-Gonçalves et al. (2016) PRT 66 M U/12-U/18 Regional level (non-elite) = 22
[106] National level (elite) = 18
Other = 26
Reilly et al. (2000) [34] GBR 31 M U/16-U/17 Local school teams (sub-elite) = 15
Professional club (elite) = 16
Roberts et al. (2020) [107] GBR 22 - U/16-U/17 Youth academy of professional English league club
Rommers et al. (2019) [108] BEL 619 M U/10 = 91 Elite youth academy
U/11 = 114
U/12 = 117
U/13 = 103
U/14 = 104
U/15 = 90
Rowat et al. (2017) [109] GBR 25 M U/18 Amateur county
Rubajczyk et al. (2015) [110] POL 60 M U/12 = 30 Sporting school
U/15 = 30 Lower secondary school (12 y) = 30
Upper secondary school (15 y) = 30
Sáez de Villarreal et al. (2015) ESP 26 - U/14-U/15 Youth academy
[111]
Saward et al. (2019) [112] GBR 126 M U/12-U/18 Professional academy
Retained = 66
Released = 60
Scharfen et al. (2019) [113] DEU 15 M U/11-U/13 The talent development program of a professional club
Sekulic et al. (2019) [114] BIH 60 M U/13 = 30 State competition level
U/14 = 30
them, U/ = under
17
Table 1.
(continued)
Serra-Olivares et al. (2019) [115] ESP 21 - U/10 Second division club
First year = 9
Second year = 12
Sinclair et al. (2014) [116] GBR 22 M U/17-U/18 Youth academy level of a top-division club
Song et al. (2019) [117] KOR 78 M U/9-U/11 Youth academy
Teunissen et al. (2018) [118] ZAF 263 M = 202 U/10-U/12 = 84 Community school
F = 63 U/13-U/14 = 108
U/15-U/16 =71
Trecroci et al. (2019) [119] ITA 40 - U/16 Regional youth (sub-elite) = 20
National youth (elite) = 20
Trecroci et al. (2018) [120] ITA 44 - U/14-U/15 Regional youth (sub-elite) = 22
National youth (elite) = 22
Vaeyens et al. (2006) [15] BEL 232 - U/13 = 117 Regional division (non-elite)
U/14 = 136 Third and fourth division (sub-elite)
U/15 = 138 First and second division (elite)
U/16 = 99
Van Maarseveen et al. (2017) NLD 19 F U/17 National talent team
[121]
Vandendriessche et al. (2012) BEL 78 - U/16 = 44 National youth team
[122] U/17 = 36 U/16 = 22
U/16 futures = 20
U/17 = 21
U/17 futures = 15
Vänttinen et al. (2010) [123] FIN 36 M U/10 = 12 Local club level
U/12 = 12 Recreational to international levels
U/14 = 12
Vieira et al. (2018) [124] BRA 366 M U/9 = 11 Non-professional soccer players
U/11 = 73
U/13 = 80
U/15 = 105
U/17 = 78
U/20 = 19
them, U/ = under
18
Table 1.
(continued)
Votteler et al. (2014) [125] DEU 10,130 - U/12 = 3,606 Talent development program
U/13 = 3,064
U/14 = 2,138
U/15 = 2,138
Waldron et al. (2013) [126] GBR 31 - U/14 Centre of excellence (sub-elite) = 16
Youth academy level (elite) = 15
Waldron et al. (2010) [127] GBR 71 M U/14 Seven school groups: pre-determined subgroups
Sub-elite = 53
Elite = 18
Wilson et al. (2020) [128] BRA 35 - U/7-U/13 Elite youth academy
Wilson et al. (2016) [129] AUS 40 - U/14 = 13 Youth academy
U/16 = 11
U/18 = 16
Wilson et al. (2019) [130] BRA 25 M U/16-U/18 Youth academy
Zago et al. (2016) [131] ITA 10 M U/13 Sub-elite playing
Zibung et al. (2016) [132] CHE 104 M U/13-U/16 Regional playing
Zisi et al. (2003) [133] GRC 45 M U/11-U/13 Soccer club playing
Zuber et al. (2016) [134] CHE 119 M U/13-U/16 Regional playing
No talent = 68
Regional = 39
National = 12
them, U/ = under
263
19
264 3.2 Methodological Characteristics
265 Overall, there were 226 skill assessments used across the studies (Table 2). The most
266 frequent method was field-based isolated assessments (n = 67, 68%). Making up the field-
267 based isolated assessments were dribbling tasks (n = 53, 80%), such as the U-Gent dribbling
268 tests (n = 5, 7%), and Shuttle Dribbling Tests (n = 3, 4%), passing tasks (n = 40, 60%), such
269 as the Loughborough Soccer Passing Test (LSPT) (n = 6, 9%) and shooting tasks (n = 25,
270 37%). Field-based simulated assessments (n = 19, 19%) were less common across the
271 included studies than isolated tasks. The most reported simulated assessment was small-sided
272 games (n = 18, 95%), with variability observed in the field dimensions, playing numbers,
273 game durations, and rest periods. No researcher employed the exact same small-sided games
274 variant. The Footbonaut was the only other simulated approach but was reported only once.
275 A collection of skill assessments used similar competitive match-play settings (n = 6, 6%),
276 recording and analysing match-play. Lastly, a small number of studies used lab-based
277 assessments to investigate and quantify various skills (n = 7, 7%). A specific lab-based
278 assessment included the COGNIFOOT (n = 2, 2%). Several studies used a combination of
279 these assessment settings (n = 6, 6%), with field-based isolated and field-based simulated
280 assessments being the most regularly combined approaches (n = 4, 4%). Most dribbling,
281 passing, and shooting assessments (from all assessment settings) were part of testing batteries
282 (n = 46, 49%), with the only specific example being the F-MARC (n = 3, 7%).
283
284
20
285 Table 2.
286 The methodological characteristics of the included studies

287
Reference Skill Assessment Summary Assessment Setting Skill Category Skills Measurement Type Measurements
Abdullah et al. Modified F-MARC test: Field-based isolated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Speed of dribbling, passing
(2016) [51] Dribbling accuracy, shooting
Speed dribbling: Slalom around Passing accuracy
markers, dribble around blocks and Shooting
through gates (20 m)
Long passing: From 36 m to target
Short passing: From 11 m into a 0.9

x 0.6 m goal
Shooting from dead ball: 16 m from

goal, 6 segments to aim at.
Shooting from a pass: 20 m ground

pass and shot at goal
Almeida et al. SSGs: Field-based simulated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Coach subjective
(2013) [52] 3 vs. 3 + GK Shooting assessment of technical
6x2 m goals Passing skills with offensive
46 x 31 m field characterisation system
2 x 5 min (5 min rest) (OSCS), duration of ball
possession, number of
6 vs. 6 + GK players involved, ball
6x2 m goals touches, passes, shots
62 x 40.4 m field
2 x 5 min (5 min rest)
Beavan et al. The Footbonaut: Field-based simulated Offensive Passing Skill outcome Speed and accuracy of
(2019) [31] Passing or shooting at 4 walls with Shooting passing/shooting to targets
72 square panels (64 target gates, 8 when reacting to signal
ball dispenser gates) + light barriers
Notes: GK = goalkeeper, SSGs = small-sided games
21
Table 2.
(continued)
Bekris et al. Test A: Dribbling Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Straight dribbling speed,
(2018) [53] Test B: Slalom Dribbling Slalom dribbling speed
4 subcategories for each skill
assessment, 8 tests in total
Bennett et al. SSGs: Field-based simulated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Notational analysis of
(2018) [54] 4 vs. 4 + no GK Passing Attempted/completed
1.2x2.4 m goals Shooting dribbles, passing, shooting,
30 x 20 m field Ball control touches, and total number
5 x 3 min (3 min rest) of actions
4 vs. 4 + no GK
1.2x2.4 m goals
30 x 20 m field
Benounis et al. Modified Loughborough Soccer Field-based isolated Offensive Passing Skill outcome Speed of passing, accuracy
(2013) [55] Passing Test (LSPT): Examiner calls Dribbling and reaction to auditory
out passes by colour. 8 long (4 m) signal, speed of dribbling
and 8 short (3.5 m) passes.
15 m dribbling test: Slalom through

cones with pass into goals
Clemente et al. SSGs: Field-based simulated Offensive Tackling Skill outcome Recorded games,
(2018) [56] 3 vs. 3 + no GK Passing notational analysis of
1 x 2 m goal Shooting conquered balls, received
15 x 20 m field Dribbling balls, lost balls, attacking
3 x 3 min (2 min rest) Ball control balls, neutral balls, not-
succeeded shots,
6 vs. 6 + no GK succeeded shots
1 x 2 m goal
22 x 30 m field
22
Table 2.
(continued)
Clemente et al. SSGs: Field-based simulated Both Passing Skill outcome Notational analysis of
(2019) [57] 3 vs. 3 + no GK Shooting attacking balls/passes,
1 x 2 m goals Ball control shots, received balls, lost
15 x 20 m field Tackling balls, conquered balls
6 vs. 6 + no GK
1 x 2 m goals
30 x 22 m field
Coelho et al. Ball control: Juggling in 9 x 9 m Field-based isolated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Speed and control of
(2010) [58] square Dribbling dribbling, passing speed,
Shooting shooting accuracy and
Dribbling: slalom around 5 cones Passing points scored, consecutive
shaped in a 9 x 9 m square juggling score
Wall pass: 1.22 m high x 2.44 m

wide target on a wall. Maximum
passes in 20 seconds.
Shooting accuracy: at 6 targets in 2

x 3 m goal. End line of 9 x 9 m
square.
23
Table 2.
(continued)
da Silva et al. SSGs: Field-based simulated Both Passing Skill Outcome Notational analysis of
(2011) [59] 3 vs. 3 + no GK Dribbling number of involvements
1.2 x 0.8 m goals Shooting with the ball, passes, target
Free touches Tackling passes, crosses, dribbles,
30 x 30 m field Heading shots on goal, tackles,
3 x 4 min (3 min rest) headers
4 vs. 4 + no GK
1.2 x 0.8 m goals
Free touches
30 x 30 m field
5 vs. 5 + no GK
1.2 x 0.8 m goals
Free touches
30 x 30 m field
Dardouri et al. Slalom dribbling test (SDT): Dribble Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling and
(2014) [60] between 7 cones placed in a zigzag ability to change direction
path over 15 m. between cones
When player loses control of ball or Skill index (SI) measured

is more than 2 m away from the as the time from the zigzag
cones the trial begins again. tests with and without the
ball. Higher index
3 test trials interpreted as higher skill
3 mins rest between trials. for controlling the ball
24
Table 2.
(continued)
De Giorgio et al. Reception test: Field-based isolated Offensive Passing Both 1 point is scored if the skill
(2018) [135] 25 x 42 m field Ball control task is performed
12 balls Dribbling correctly, and 0 points
12 cones placed 1.5 m from wall to Shooting scored if performed
allow player to pass and receive the incorrectly.
ball between
Coloured boots group:
Passing test: performance incorrect
25 x 42 m field when the ball was hit with
12 balls the wrong colour of the
12 cones placed 1.5 m from wall to boot.
allow player to pass between
Black boots group:
Management test: performance incorrect
25 x 42 m field when the player performed
12 balls the skill and didn’t follow
6 cones 6 m apart to allow player to the coach’s instructions.
dribble through
For the shooting test, 1
Shooting test: point is given if ball is hit
25 x 42 m field with the correct part of the
12 balls foot and also if the ball
6 pairs of cones set-up as goals for passes between the cones.
player to shoot from 4 x 4 m square
Deprez et al. Ghent University dribbling test (U- Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling, agility,
(2015) [42] Gent): Players performed with and Ball control and ball control
without the ball
Fenner et al. SSG: Field-based simulated Both Shooting Skill outcome Coach rating of technical
(2016) [61] 4 vs. 4 + no GK Passing skills with game technical
2 x 1 m goals Ball control scoring chart (GTSC) and
18.3 x 23 m field total points
25
Table 2.
(continued)
Fernandez- Four competition matches were Competitive match- Both Shooting Skill outcome Coach subjective rating of
Gonzalo et al. video recorded play Passing technical skill based on
(2010) [62] Dribbling scoring sheet
Tackling
Heading
Figueiredo et al. Ball control: Juggling in 9 x 9 m Field-based isolated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Speed and control of
(2011) [63] square Dribbling dribbling, passing speed,


square.
26
Table 2.
(continued)
Figueiredo et al. Ball control: Juggling in 9 x 9 m Field-based isolated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Speed and control of
(2009b) [64] square Dribbling dribbling, passing speed,


square.
Fiorilli et al. Illinois Change of Direction test: Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling
(2017) [65] Players slalom dribble around 4
markers forming 9.3 x 7.2 m area
Forsman et al. Wall pass and dribble around cones Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Passing accuracy, speed of
(2016a) [37] Passing dribbling, crossing
Wall pass and cross ball accuracy
Forsman et al. Straight/slalom dribbling around Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling, speed
(2016b) [66] cones Passing of passing
10 x wall passes
Forsman et al. Straight/slalom dribbling around Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling, speed
(2016c) [67] cones Passing of passing
10 x wall passes
27
Table 2.
(continued)
Francioni et al. Ball control body Field-based isolated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Consecutive touches
(2018) [68] and head: Juggling in 9 x 9 m square Passing juggling, consecutive
Shooting touches heading, passing
Dribbling with a pass Dribbling accuracy score, shooting
accuracy score, dribbling
Dribbling: slalom around 5 cones speed
shaped in a square
Passing: 5 targets 2.5 m apart at end

of 9 x 9 m square

x 3 m goal.
Francioni et al. Ball control body and head: Field-based isolated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Consecutive touches
(2016) [69] Juggling in 9 x 9 m square Passing juggling, consecutive
Dribbling with a pass Dribbling accuracy score, shooting
accuracy score, dribbling
Dribbling: slalom around 5 cones speed
shaped in a square
Passing: 5 targets 2.5 m apart at end

of 9 x 9 m square

x 3 m goal.
28
Table 2.
(continued)
Garcia et al. SSGs: Field-based simulated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Notational analysis of
(2014) [70] 5 vs. 5 + GK Shooting touches per game, attempts
Modified goals* Dribbling at goal, goals scored, ball
20 x 30 m field Passing entering penalty area,
1 x 20 min (no rest) attempted dribbles
7 vs. 7 + GK GK: saves, kicks, throws,

Modified goals* goal kicks
30 x 45 m field
1 x 20 min (no rest)
9 vs. 9 + GK
Modified goals*
45 x 60 m field
1 x 20 min (no rest)
Notes: GK = goalkeeper, * = limited detail within study, SSGs = small-sided games
29
Table 2.
(continued)
Gonzalez-Villora SSGs: Field-based simulated Both Ball control Skill Outcome Coach rating of technical
et al. (2015) [71] 2 vs. 2 + no GK Passing skills with Game
3 x 4 m goals Dribbling performance evaluation
20 x 10 m field Shooting tool (G-PET)
2 x 4 min games Tackling
3 min rest Blocking
Heading
3 vs. 3 + no GK
5 x 9 m goals
32 x 22 m field
2 x 4 min games
3 min rest
5 vs. 5 + no GK
9 x 19 m goals
52 x 40 m field
2 x 4 min games
3 min rest
7 vs. 7 + GK
11 x 24 m goals,
64 x 44 m field
2 x 4 min games
3 min rest
Goto & Saward Match analysis of technical skills Competitive match- Both Dribbling Skill outcome Coach subjective rating of
(2020) [72] across age groups. 152 recorded play Heading technical performance
match files. Passing variables based on set
Shooting criteria
Tackling
30
Table 2.
(continued)
Guilherme et al. SSG: Field-based simulated Both Interception Skill Outcome Measured foot preference
(2015) [73] 5 vs. 5 Ball control and the respective
Game style * Passing functional asymmetry
Field size * Driving index (SAFALL-FOOT).
20 min game Dribbling Games recorded and
Rest * Shooting procedure allowed the
analysis of the frequency
and effectiveness of all
technical actions
performed (value 0-10).
Hakman et al. Passing: * Field-based isolated Both Passing Skill production Performance quality of
(2018) [74] Kicking with the inside of the foot Ball control skills were assessed by
Kicking with the middle of the foot Heading measuring against pre-
determined reference
Trapping: * points/technical
Ball trapping with the sole competencies guide for
Trapping a rolling ball with the performing the correct
inside of the foot technique. Scores between
1 and 2 were given for
Heading: * each reference point.
Kicking with the middle of the
forehead
Hicheur et al. COGNIFOOT v1: player anticipates Lab-based Offensive Passing Skill outcome Passing spatial error,
(2020) [75] movement of target and performs assessment speed, response time,
6m pass as accurately and quickly as coach rating
possible towards estimated targets
position on a large screen.
32 passes/trials.
Hicheur et al. COGNIFOOT v1: player completes Lab-based Offensive Passing Skill outcome Passing spatial error,
(2017) [76] 108 passes to randomly appearing assessment speed, response time,
white targets on a large screen. coach rating
Notes: * = limited detail within study, SSGs = small-sided games
31
Table 2.
(continued)
Holt et al. (2012) Passing square: Field-based isolated Offensive Awareness Skill Outcome Retrospective video
[77] 9 x 9m Passing analysis of pre-determined
20 passes right foot Ball control skill requirements/task
20 passes left foot analysis. Players received
1 point for successful
6 or more players pass 2 soccer balls completion of skill, 0
at pace between opposite cones on points for unsuccessful, or
passing square, following their pass X if the player had no
to the next corner. Swap directions. opportunity to respond
during the skill assessment
Höner & Slalom dribbling course: 13 m Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Coach rated precision and
Feichtinger course with 2 sets of 3 poles. Passing speed for shooting, speed
(2016) [78] Shooting of dribbling, speed of
Ball control with six passes against Ball control passing
two opposing walls
Shooting: 8 shots from top of box at

two targets within left and right side
of goals (14 m from goal)
Höner et al. Slalom dribbling course: 13 m Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Coach rated precision and
(2017) [79] course with 2 sets of 3 poles. Passing speed for shooting, speed
Shooting of dribbling, speed of
two opposing walls

32
Table 2.
(continued)
Höner et al. Slalom dribbling course: 13 m Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Coach rated precision and
two opposing walls

Höner & Votteler Slalom dribbling course: 13 m Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Coach rated precision and
two opposing walls

Höner et al. Slalom dribbling course: 13 m Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling, speed
(2015) [81] course with 2 sets of 3 poles. Passing of passing, accuracy and
Shooting speed of shooting, juggling
Ball control with six passes against Ball control time
two opposing walls

Juggling with both feet

consecutively around figure-eight
course of cones.
33
Table 2.
(continued)
Huijgen et al. Loughborough soccer passing test Field-based isolated Offensive Passing Skill outcome Speed and accuracy of
(2013) [82] (LSPT): 16 passes against coloured passing (execution time),
targets and skill performance time
(execution time + penalty
time – bonus time).
Huijgen et al. Shuttle dribble test (ShuttleDT): Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling: peak
(2009) [83] 3 x 30 m dribbles and dribbling performance is
3 x 180 degree turns then the best time of the 3
Short rest between successive dribbles
dribbles.
Repeated dribbling
Next dribble begins 20s after the performance is the total
start of the previous dribble. time of all 3 dribbles
Huijgen et al. Shuttle sprint and Dribble Test Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling: peak
(2014) [84] (ShuttleSDT): shuttle dribble, repeated
3 x 30 m dribbles and shuttle dribble,
3 x 180 degree turns then
Short rest between successive
dribbles.
Next dribble begins 20s after the

start of the previous dribble.
Slalom Sprint and Dribble Test

(SlalomSDT): 30 m course with 12
cones placed in a zigzag pattern.
34
Table 2.
(continued)
Huijgen et al. Shuttle Sprint and Dribble Test: Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling: peak
(2010) [85] 3 x 30 m dribbles and shuttle dribble, repeated
3 x 180 degree turns then shuttle dribble,
Short rest between successive
dribbles.
Slalom Sprint and Dribble Test: 30

m course with 12 cones placed in a
zigzag pattern.
Juárez et al. Maximal instep soccer kick towards Lab-based Offensive Shooting Skill production Linear joint markers,
(2011) [86] goal from a distance of 5 m assessment velocity of the leg kick and
3D motion capture system (VICON) the segments angular
captured movement position.
Katis & Kellis SSGs: Field-based simulated Both Passing Skill Outcome SSGs were video recorded
(2009) [87] 3 vs. 3 + GK Dribbling and notational analysis of
Free touches Field-based isolated Shooting each skill was completed
15 x 25 m Heading for each game. Also
10 x 4 min (3 min active recovery) Tackling categorised between short
15 min rest between 5th and 6th sets Throw-in passing, long passing, and
goals scores. Speed of
6 vs. 6 + GK dribbling, distance of
Free touches soccer throw.
30m x 40 m
10 x 4min (3min active recovery) 15
15 min rest between 5th and 6th sets
Dribbling test: slalom between 6

cones 3 m apart in straight line.
Throw-in test: long throw without

jumping or moving feet
35
Table 2.
(continued)
Keller et al. LSPT: short passing to 16 coloured Field-based isolated Offensive Passing Skill outcome Speed and accuracy of
(2016) [88] targets located at the centre of four Shooting passing, accuracy of
benches arranged in a 9.5 m x 12 m Dribbling shooting, speed of
rectangle Ball control dribbling and ball control
long passing test (LPT): 36 m to 2 m

radius target located in 10 m x 10 m
square
Shooting test: shoot at standard goal

from 16 m, aim at left/right corners
Speed-dribbling test: around 8 poles

and two obstacles boxes.
Köklü et al. SSG: Field-based simulated Both Passing Skill outcome Coach subjective rating of
(2015) [89] 3 vs. 3 Ball control technical skills with hand
ball possession Tackling notation system
18 x 30 m field
4 x 4 min games,
1-4 mins rest
Kokstejn et al. Short dribbling test (SDT): dribbling Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling, ball
(2019) [90] ball with changes in direction Ball control control
around a defined track
Notes: SSGs = small-sided games
36
Table 2.
(continued)
Krolo et al. Reactive agility test (FS_RAG): Field-based isolated Offensive Passing Skill outcome Accuracy of passing
(2020) [91] Player runs at speed through gate (attempt had to be repeated
and reacts to light on a cone 3.5m if the ball did not pass the
away, kick the ball 4m with the goal line)
inside of the foot at goal 1.5m in
size, and turn back through gate.
Change of direction test

(FS_CODS): same test without the
reactive stimulus
Le Moal et al. LSPT: short passing to 16 coloured Field-based isolated Offensive Passing Skill outcome Speed and accuracy of
(2014) [92] targets passing, execution, skill
performance time
Leiper et al. Loughborough Dribbling test * Field-based isolated Offensive Passing Skill Outcome Speed and accuracy of
(2008) [93] Dribbling passing, execution time,
LSPT: short passing to 16 coloured skill performance time,
targets speed of dribbling
Leyhr et al. Slalom dribbling course: 13 m Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Coach rated precision and
two opposing walls

37
Table 2.
(continued)
Leyhr et al. Slalom dribbling course: 13 m Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Coach rated precision and
two opposing walls

Lovell et al. Coach rating: using 100-point visual Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Coach rating of technical
(2018) [27] analogue scale Ball control ability, speed of dribbling,
agility and ball control
U-Gent: slalom dribbling test with
and without the ball
Machado et al. SSGs: Field-based simulated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Coach subjective
(2019) [96] 4 vs. 4 + GK Passing assessment with offensive
Goals * Shooting sequences characterisation
47.72 x 29.54 m field system (OSCS), duration
10:10 min work: rest of ball possession, number
of players involved, ball
3 vs. 3 + GK + 3 offensive floaters touches, passes, shots
Goals *
47.72 x 29.54 m field
10:10 min work: rest
Notes: GK = goalkeeper, * = limited detail within study, SSGs = small-sided games
38
Table 2.
(continued)
Malina et al. Ball control body and head: Field-based isolated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Consecutive touches
(2005) [97] Juggling in 9x9 m square Passing juggling, consecutive
Dribbling with a pass: 4 cones Dribbling accuracy score, shooting
placed in a line 2.25 m apart within accuracy score, dribbling
9 x 9 m square. Flat surface placed speed
at end of square for pass.
Dribbling: slalom around 5 cones

shaped in a square
Passing: 5 targets 2.5 m apart at the

end of 9 x 9 m square

x 3 m goal. End of 9 x 9 m square.
Matta et al. Ball control test: juggling 9 x 9 m Field-based isolated Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Consecutive juggling
(2014) [98] square. 2 trials. Dribbling number, speed of
Shooting dribbling, shooting
Dribbling test: slalom around 9 accuracy with points
cones placed 2 m apart.
Shooting test: 3 shots at 2.44 x 7.32

m goal from 16.5 m, divided into 9
targets.
McDermott et al. LSPT: short passing to 16 coloured Field-based isolated Offensive Passing Skill outcome Speed and accuracy of
(2015) [99] targets passing, execution time,
skill performance time
39
Table 2.
(continued)
Miranda et al. Slalom dribble: zigzag around 9 Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill Outcome Speed of dribbling,
(2013) [100] cones 1.5m apart. 2 practice trials, Passing accuracy of passing
then 2 maximum efforts with 2 min Ball control (maximum of 30 points),
passive recovery. consecutive juggling
ability (maximum of 200
Lob pass: kick ball from 20 m points across 2 attempts).
distance into area with 3 circles (3, 6
and 9.15 m). 10 attempts, with 5 on
each foot allowed.
Juggling test: consecutive juggling

before the ball hits the ground. 2
attempts allowed.
O’Brien-Smith et U-Gent: slalom dribbling test with Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling, ball
al. (2020) [49] and without the ball Ball control control
Padrón-Cabo et The F-MARC battery: 8 tests of Field-based isolated Both Ball control Skill outcome Consecutive juggling,
al. (2019) [101] soccer skills * Dribbling speed of dribbling, passing
Passing accuracy, shooting
Juggling (Foot) Shooting accuracy
Juggling (Body) Heading
Speed Dribbling
Long Passing
Short Passing
Shooting (dead ball)
Shooting from a pass
Heading
Pastor-Vicedo et Match analysis of technical skills Competitive match- Offensive Ball control Skill outcome Coach subjective
al. (2020) [102] across 6 games play Dribbling assessment of technical
Shooting skills with game
Passing performance evaluation
tool.
Notes: * = limited detail within study
40
Table 2.
(continued)
Perroni et al. The F-MARC battery: 8 tests of Field-based isolated Both Ball control Skill outcome Consecutive juggling,
(2018) [103] soccer skills * Dribbling speed of dribbling, passing
Passing accuracy, shooting
Juggling (Foot) Shooting accuracy
Juggling (Body) Heading
Speed Dribbling
Long Passing
Short Passing
Shooting (dead ball)
Shooting from a pass
Heading
41
Table 2.
(continued)
Práxedes et al. SSGs: Field-based simulated Offensive Passing Skill Outcome The execution and
(2018) [104] Numerical superiority decision-making in the
3 vs. 2 + GK pass actions were
30x15m evaluated across all
48 min matches from video
Rest * recordings.
4 vs. 3 + GK A score of 1 was given for

35x20m appropriate decision, and 1
48 min for successful execution. A
Rest * score of 0 was given if
neither was achieved.
5 vs. 4 + GK
40x25m Assessments were based
48 min on indirect and external
Rest * systematic observation
with the GPET instrument.
Numerical equality
3 vs. 3 + GK
30x15m
48 min
Rest *
4 vs. 4 + GK
35x20m
48 min
Rest *
5 vs. 5 + GK
40x25m
48 min
Rest *
Notes: GK = goalkeeper, * = limited detail within study, SSGs = small-sided games,
42
Table 2.
(continued)
Rađa et al. Instep kick and side-foot kick: Field-based isolated Offensive Shooting Skill outcome Speed and accuracy of
(2019) [105] Dominant and non-dominant legs shooting
(4-tests) from penalty spot to goal
Rebelo- Sprint-Keeper Test: examine diving Field-based isolated Defensive Diving Both Examine and assess diving
Gonçalves et al. technique, moving as fast as Catching technique: electronic
(2016) [106] possible at stationary ball Handling timing gates used to time
keeper performance for
Lateral Shuffle Keeper Test: assess right and left sides
diving technique, three changes of
direction and two forms of
displacement then dive
Two trials were completed for each

side
Reilly et al. Shooting test: from 8.23 m towards Field-based isolated Offensive Shooting Skill outcome Shooting accuracy with
(2000) [34] 9 targets in a goal Dribbling score (maximum score of
27 points), speed of
Slalom dribble test: zigzag around dribbling
cones to end line and back to the
start *
Roberts et al. Loughborough shooting skill test: Field-based isolated Offensive Shooting Skill Outcome Accuracy of shooting, 1
(2020) [107] Shooting zone measures 8.5 x 8.5 m vs. 1 proficiency (if
and 16.5 m from the goal line. player-maintained
possession, beat the
Goal measures 2.44 m x 7.32 m and defender and executed a
is divided into various scoring shot at goal), decision-
zones. High visibility fluorescent making (scored as 1 for
yellow mannequin placed into goal. appropriate or 0 for
inappropriate), speed of
test completion
43
Table 2.
(continued)
Rommers et al. U-Gent dribble test Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling, ball
(2019) [108] Ball control control
Rowat et al. Dribbling with a pass: 4 cones Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Passing accuracy score,
(2017) [109] placed in a line 2.25 m apart within Ball control shooting accuracy score,
9 x 9 m square. Flat surface placed Field-based simulated Passing dribbling speed
at end of square for pass. Turning
Shooting Subjective evaluation of
Dribbling: slalom around 5 cones players in SSG with game
shaped in a square technical scoring chart,
skills scored 1-5
Passing: 5 targets 2.5 m apart at the
end of 9 x 9 m square

x 3 m goal. End of 9 x 9 m square.
SSG:
5 vs. 5
2.4 x 1.2 m goal
30 x 25 m
Rubajczyk et al. Slalom dribble test: players zig zag Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling,
(2015) [110] across 2 lines 9 m apart, and turn Passing accuracy of passing and
quickly 4 times (twice on each line) Field-based simulated Shooting shooting
Ball control
Turning test: 10 180 degree turns on Turning Coach subjective
marked route with ball evaluations of technical
skills in SSG
SSG:
5 vs. 5 + GK
5 x 2 m goals
30 x 30 m
1 x 15 min (rest*)
44
Table 2.
(continued)
Sáez de Slalom dribbling: 10 m agility test Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill Outcome Speed of dribbling, speed
Villarreal et al. with the ball, 4 poles to dribble Shooting of shooting
(2015) [111] between.
Ball shooting speed: Players shoot

ball as fast as possible towards goal
from penalty spot (5 attempts each
leg).
Saward et al. 1-10 competitive inter academy Competitive match- Both Passing Skill outcome Coach objective
(2019) [112] matches recorded and assessed play Dribbling assessment with notation
Tackling system, frequencies of
Blocking successful technical
Intercepting actions
Scharfen et al. Slalom dribbling test: dribbling Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling,
(2019) [113] around 3 parkours (fixed positioning Passing accuracy and speed of
of bars). Ball control passing, speed of juggling
through course
Control/pass ball in small square 1.5
x 1.5 m with bounce-wall.
Juggling course: juggling in pre-set

parkour (2 3 x 3 m adjacent circles).
Sekulic et al. A sprint test of 30 meters with a 10- Field-based isolated Offensive Passing Skill outcome Speed of passing
(2019) [114] meter pass *
Serra-Olivares et SSG: Field-based simulated Offensive Shooting Skill outcome Coach evaluation of
al. (2017) [115] 3 vs. 3 Ball control technical skill level with
8 x 104 x 105 cm goals Passing the game performance
22 x 32 m evaluation tool
45
Table 2.
(continued)
Sinclair et al. Maximal instep soccer kick (right Lab-based Offensive Shooting Skill production Calibrated anatomical
(2014) [116] foot) * assessment systems technique
(CAST), 3D kinematic
10-camera motion analysis system measures calculated ball
velocity
Song et al. Dribbling test: over 10m Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill Outcome Speed of dribbling,
(2019) [117] Passing coordination of dribbling
2 test trials (drill performed twice and
average recorded),
Passing test: to a 0.5m target 10 m accuracy of passing,
away consistency of passing
(number of successful
10 test trials passes out of 10 attempts).
Teunissen et al. Slalom dribble: between 11 cones Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling,
(2018) [118] placed 2 m apart and back. Passing accuracy of passing with
points, accuracy of
Passing: through cone goals (2 m, chipping with points
1.5 m, 1 m, 0.50 m, 0.30 m) or hit
the target 8.5 m away.
Chipping: 10 m from targets 3.5 m

wide x 1 m high
Trecroci et al. Six 90° turns around markers, Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of turning and
(2019) [119] within a 15 m course Turning dribbling
Slalom dribbling course around 6

cones.
46
Table 2.
(continued)
Trecroci et al. Modified T-drill: Field-based isolated Offensive Shooting Skill outcome Accuracy of shooting, with
(2018) [120] Change of direction test with total time reduced from
shooting from 10 m. Players begin scoring
with right foot, kicking the ball at
goal, then shuffle to the left and use
the left foot. Players use both feet
twice in the same drill.
2 tests, with 2 min rest between each

trial.
Vaeyens et al. Slalom dribble: around 9 cones Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling,
(2006) [15] placed 2 m apart. Shooting accuracy of lob passing,
Passing accuracy of shooting,
Lob pass test: from 20 m away into Ball control consecutive juggling
3 marked areas
Shooting: from 20 m to marked 16

m wide goal
Juggling test *
Van Maarseveen SSG: Field-based simulated Both Shooting Skill outcome Coach objective
et al. (2017) 3 vs. 2 + GK Passing assessment of technical
[121] Official size goals Dribbling skills with notation system,
40 x 25 m Ball control points for actions and
Duration/rest* Intercepting outcomes
Blocking
15 attacking, and 10 defending trials
Vandendriessche U-Gent dribble test Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome speed of dribbling, ball
et al. (2012) Ball control control
[122]
Notes: GK = goalkeeper, * = limited detail within study, SSGs = small-sided games,
47
Table 2.
(continued)
Vänttinen et al. Slalom dribbling: straight run with Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Anticipation time, speed of
(2010) [123] the ball along 8 poles 20 m in Passing dribbling, reaction time,
distance, turn around and slalom Lab-based Ball control aiming time, speed of
back through course. assessment passing and receiving
course, accuracy of
Passing and receiving course: pass passing
and receive off wall, figure 8 around
2 poles, while passing and receiving
off opposite wall.
Soccer-specific laboratory test:

dribbling/responding to light cues
Vieira et al. Penalty kicks: 11 m between ball Field-based isolated Offensive Shooting Both Ball velocity, foot velocity
(2018) [124] position and goal, with 1 x 1 m ratio, last stride length,
target. distance between foot and
ball
Votteler et al. Slalom dribbling course * Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling, speed
(2014) [125] Ball control of passing, shooting
Ball control and passing (6 passes) * Passing accuracy and speed
Shooting
Shooting: 8 shots at goal *
Waldron et al. Competitive match: Competitive match- Both Ball control Skill outcome Notational analysis of
(2013) [126] 52 matches play Passing successful, unsuccessful
Dribbling frequencies of technical
Slalom speed dribbling through 9 Field-based isolated Tackling skills, speed of dribbling,
cones 2 m apart. accuracy of passing
Cone passing test: players aim for

5 target cones set 2.5 m apart, from
9 m away
48
Table 2.
(continued)
Waldron et al. Competitive matches over two Competitive match- Both Passing Skill outcome Coach objective
(2010) [127] rounds of school games play Tackling assessment of technical
Intercepting skills with hand notation
Dribbling system
Heading
Wilson et al. Dribbling inside 3 curved 30 m Field-based isolated Both Dribbling Skill outcome Speed and control of
(2020) [128] paths Passing dribbling inside curved
Field-based simulated Turning path, accuracy and speed
Slalom dribbling between cones Ball control of passing
placed 1 m apart along a 15 m path. Intercepting
Tackling Assessment of players
Passing with rebound boards (four ability to maintain
tests): passing ball between 2 boards possession in SSGs
at 90 degrees to each other. Each 1
of the 4 tests simulated a different
game situation with pressure from
an opponent or touches allowed to
control and pass the ball.
Passing accuracy: passing with

inside of foot to target 20 m away.
Left and right feet. Target is
tarpaulin 1 m high x 7.5 m wide.
SSG:
3 vs. 1
Possession game
7 x 7 m field
1 x 2 min game
1-5 min rest
Notes: SSGs = small-sided games
49
Table 2.
(continued)
Wilson et al. Passing accuracy over 20 m: 28 Field-based isolated Offensive Passing Skill outcome Accuracy of passing and
(2016) [129] attempts to target 1.5 m wide x 4.5 Shooting lofted passing, shooting
m high (series of scoring zones). 2 Dribbling accuracy over speed and
attempts, 7 trials right and left feet. Ball control accuracy of wall passing
and short passing with
Lofted passing 35 m: 5 concentric different rebound boards,
ring targets. Players have 2 attempts, speed of dribbling,
7 trials right and left feet to make a consecutive juggling
lofted pass off their boot laces. ability
Wall-pass: using correct techniques

players pass the ball to rebound
boards at a distance greater than 5 m
away then receive the ball back.
Then, play a first time pass towards
a target. Swap left and right feet.
Shooting accuracy over 20 m:

outside the penalty box with in-step
of foot. Same setup as passing task.
Dribbling: 61.2 m course. 3 attempts

with 2.5 min rest In between.
Juggling: 1.5 x 1.5 m square for 60

seconds alternating left/right feet.
Short passing tests: two rebound

boards at 90 and 135 degrees to each
other. Players have two techniques
to try. 2 attempts for each with 2
min rest.
50
Table 2.
(continued)
Wilson et al. Dribbling performance: Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed and control of
(2019) [130] 5 x 30 m long curved paths with dribbling
inner and outer channels
Zago et al. Dribbling test: figure 8-shaped path Lab-based Offensive Dribbling Both Speed of dribbling, foot-
(2016) [131] around cones, two right-to-left and assessment Turning ball contacts cadence,
two left-to-right change of direction, centre of mass, velocity,
and one 180° turn. 3 aligned cones acceleration, stride length,
spaced 2.15m. hip/knee joint range of
motion
Zibung et al. Dribbling test: around 3 poles (right, Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling and
(2016) [132] left, right), then back to finish (left, Passing turning, speed of passing,
right, left). Ball control juggling ability along
marked course with points
Passing test: pass/receive off 4 walls
(9 passes total)
Juggling around marked figure-8

alternating left/right feet.
Zisi et al. (2003) Instep kicking test: Landing on force Lab-based Offensive Shooting Skill production Force platform records
[133] platform with supporting foot, and assessment force output, ground-
kicking/ shooting ball towards goal reaction forces, impulse in
with maximum effort anterior/posterior
directions of support foot
Zuber et al. Slalom dribbling * Field-based isolated Offensive Dribbling Skill outcome Speed of dribbling, speed,
(2016) [134] Passing and accuracy of passing,
Ball control test: * Ball control juggling time
Passing against walls
Juggling: alternate feet *

288
51
289 3.3 Skill Categories
290 Offensive skills appeared in all but one of the included studies (n = 92, 99%). Typical
291 offensive skills were dribbling (n = 61, 66%), and passing (n = 56, 61%). Passing
292 assessments included sub-categories of long (n = 7, 13%), and short (n = 53, 95%). Shooting
293 (n = 50, 54%) was measured with both dynamic and static assessments from inside the
294 box/close to goal (n = 16, 32%), at the top of/outside the box or far away from goal (n = 10,
295 20%), and penalties (n = 3, 6%). Ball control (n = 52, 57%) was assessed in a variety of tasks
296 such as juggling (n = 16, 31%), receiving a pass (n = 9, 17%), and as a product of dribbling
297 (n = 10, 19%). Some studies used both offensive and defensive skills (n = 17, 18%), but
298 defensive skills were less reported as a whole. The defensive skills reported were tackling (n
299 = 12, 67%), intercepting (n = 5, 28%), and blocking (n = 3, 17%). Goalkeeper skills (diving,
300 catching, and handling) were only documented in one study. Heading was an additional skill
301 that was considered in both categories, as players perform this skill towards the opposition
302 goal or away from their own (n = 9, 10%).
303
304 3.4 Measurement Type
305 Skill outcome measures were the most reported measurement type (n = 88, 95%). Standard
306 measures were the time taken to complete a set task (this includes the duration to complete a
307 task or part thereof) (n = 64, 73%) or the accuracy of player’s passing, kicking, shooting,
308 crossing, and heading using a point-based system (n = 37, 42%). Frequency counts were
309 often used for juggling-based ball control assessments (n = 16, 18%). Researchers used
310 notational systems incorporating criterion measures (n = 11, 13%), observation sheets,
311 checklists, scoring charts (e.g., offensive sequences characterisation system, game technical
312 scoring chart, and game performance evaluation tool) (n = 14, 16%) to measure skill outcome
313 in field-based simulated and competitive match-play settings. One study assessed two
52
314 goalkeeper-specific diving assessments, and electronic timing gates were used to measure the
315 speed at which elite and non-elite players could complete the tests.
316 Skill production measures were under-reported when compared with skill outcome
317 measures (n = 7, 7%). Four of the studies used production measures alone (n = 4, 4%), with
318 three of these studies performing analyses of the maximal instep soccer kick (n = 3, 3%). The
319 primary production measure was kinematic analysis using three-dimensional motion capture
320 systems/software (n = 4, 4%). Measures included the maximal linear velocities of different
321 joints (i.e., hip, knee, ankle, toe) and the angular positions of these segments. One study
322 evaluated player’s technical competencies by using pre-determined reference points to
323 produce each technique's ‘correct’ performance (n = 1, 1%). Four studies utilised a
324 combination of skill outcomes and production measures (n = 4, 4%).
325
326 4.0 Discussion
327 The current scoping review sought to provide a comprehensive overview of youth soccer
328 research on skill assessments. Overall, it appears a substantial volume of skill assessments
329 can identify talented player’s between U/7 and U/23 years of age. However, researchers and
330 selectors must be aware that many skill assessments are performed in isolated environments,
331 prioritise offensive skills, and focus on skill outcomes. The current state of the literature will
332 likely create confusion for sporting practitioners looking to optimise talent identification
333 practices because there was no standard method to assess skill. The present review can
334 provide detailed information about each skill assessment's sample characteristics and
335 methodological design despite such issues. Such information can support investigators when
336 they are developing skill assessments in future studies. It also aids coaches and other sporting
337 practitioners in evaluating their practices by providing detail around assessment settings, skill
338 categories, and measurement types used in existing research studies. This approach may
53
339 challenge current thinking towards assessment design, which is envisioned to help talent
340 identification practices in the future.
341
342 4.1 Sample characteristics
343 Female youth soccer players were vastly underrepresented in the collective sample, posing a
344 problem for talent identification practice. It is difficult to determine if assessments developed
345 to measure male player’s skills will provide the same information to selectors looking to
346 identify female players. For example, two of the included studies compared sex differences
347 between players for soccer skill and found that males outperformed females for the
348 assessments across all age groups at a matched chronological age [49, 103]. Interestingly,
349 O’Brien-Smith et al. (2020) [49] found that male and female player’s generic performance-
350 related characteristics were similar at young ages (< 12 yrs.), but the soccer-specific
351 assessment scores varied distinctly. More specifically, female footballers have markedly
352 different developmental profiles to males due to hormonal differences that promote puberty
353 (i.e., growth- spurts and developmental patterns) at an earlier age [136, 137]. Indeed, greater
354 exposure to training (albeit at a high or low level) may also be a confounding factor in studies
355 investigating the differences between sexes. For instance, Perroni et al. (2018) [103] found
356 the cut-off scores used for the male skill assessments (i.e., dribbling and shooting) could not
357 be used for females despite having the same training loads [49]. So, it remains unclear if
358 these physiological differences affect the skill construct (i.e., can coaches use the same skill
359 assessments to measure both sexes) or if the development of particular perceptual-motor
360 skills occurs at the same time or rate across sexes.
361 Various playing levels were reported, with many of these described as professional
362 club-supported youth academies or development programs. For example, ‘youth soccer
363 school,' ‘local club,' and ‘regional youth’ were some of the terminologies used. While this
54
364 variety is expected and similar to a previous review exploring talent identification [138], it is
365 challenging to compare playing samples across studies and determine the effectiveness of
366 skill assessments. There needs to be more consistency in the reporting of playing samples to
367 assess whether skill assessments have appropriate discriminative power across a range of
368 age-group cohorts and playing levels. This problem is perhaps because there is no widely
369 known framework to guide classifications [139, 140]. Previously, Baker et al. (2015)
370 proposed a taxonomy for classifying sports skills based on player’s training level, skill level,
371 and level of competition [139]. Likewise, Swann et al. (2015) proposed a method for
372 grouping players based on their eliteness (i.e., semi, competitive, successful, and world-class
373 elite) [140]. But neither of these classifications has gained much traction in talent
374 identification research. Too many studies focus on comparisons between high- and low-level
375 player’s when, during talent identification, specific player’s skills could be relatively narrow.
376 In essence, the goal is to distinguish those with the potential to succeed in the future versus
377 those who narrowly lack this potential. Only a few studies compared samples with less
378 expected differences [54, 88, 126, 127], but no studies appear to have examined more closely
379 matched samples. Many skill assessments may lack true discriminative power, despite
380 reporting construct validity [139, 140].
381 A range of age-group cohorts (from U/7’s through to U/23’s) was found in the
382 reviewed literature, of which the most commonly reported were U/14 and U/15-year-olds.
383 However, the fact that not many younger age-group cohorts were used is potentially a reason
384 for concern. Most football nations and their associated federations’ talent identification and
385 development practices commence much earlier (regardless of whether early entry into these
386 talent development programs is beneficial or not, see Güllich 2014) [141]. For example, a
387 recent study surveyed the processes of professional youth academies, breaking down three
388 ‘age stages’ where talent identification can occur [12]. The first main category was U/8-U/11
55
389 (childhood), then U/12-U/16 (adolescence), and lastly, U/17-U/21 (senior) [12]. Though
390 these age categories may not reflect the exact talent identification stages along each football
391 nation’s talent pathway, they highlight that professional youth academies begin identifying
392 player’s earlier than demonstrated in the research (from U/8 onwards). For instance, Football
393 Australia’s male and female talent identification and development pathways begin with the
394 U/9-U/12-year-olds with a skill acquisition program [142, 143]. Researchers need to consider
395 what happens in practice and the implication of these approaches within their investigations.
396
397
398 4.2 Methodological characteristics
399 Most assessments were performed in field-based isolated settings. This approach may be
400 problematic for talent identification as it removes the contextual factors (e.g., teammates and
401 the opposition) that provide an accurate measure of skilled behaviour [144-146]. Isolated
402 assessments often lack a task representative design, meaning they remove typical elements of
403 a player's normal competitive environment (i.e., match-play) [147, 148]. For example, a field-
404 based isolated assessment might require the player to pass the ball to a target with no
405 surrounding defenders. The player can produce a generic response (e.g., side-foot pass along
406 the ground to the target). In contrast, a player in a field-based simulated assessment might be
407 under pressure and need to deliver a pass to a marked teammate. Such a situation would
408 require a specific passing response whereby the player passes the ball so their teammate can
409 use it without losing possession (e.g., passing the ball into space or to their teammate’s
410 preferred foot). When the context is removed, the perceptual elements that dictate skilful
411 behaviour are detached from the technical action being performed, compromising the
412 perception-action coupling [149, 150]. While both assessments aim to measure passing skill,
413 the field-based isolated type primarily emphasises technique, assuming that it will translate to
56
414 what players can do in a real game. This idea does not imply that selectors should purely base
415 their assessments of skill on competitive match-play. Instead, modified tasks that retain task
416 representative designs (such as small-sided games) offer researchers and sporting
417 practitioners interesting avenues to measure soccer skills in future research [54, 151].
418 A large proportion of skill assessments also focused on offensive skills. No studies
419 looked at specific outfield defensive skills, and only one study used a goalkeeper evaluation
420 [106]. These findings are perhaps unsurprising considering the game’s central objective and
421 empirical evidence suggesting that goal opportunities and goals scored are indicators of
422 effective soccer match-play and analysis [144, 152-154]. Nonetheless, modern footballers
423 have well-rounded skill sets that can be tapped into when in or out of possession. Player’s
424 often draw on this skill-set with the idea they need to transition from defence to attack
425 quickly, or vice versa [155]. For example, previous studies have demonstrated that quick ball
426 recovery is a key performance indicator in soccer [156-158]. Arguably, a team’s ability (and
427 the ability of each player) to quickly recover possession of the ball and transition to attack or
428 defence is crucial to achieving success. A study by Vogelbein et al. (2014) [158] found that
429 the best Bundesliga (i.e., German football) teams throughout the 2010/11 season were much
430 quicker recovering the ball in defensive transition (i.e., approximately 1 second less in each
431 match status) in comparison to lower-level teams. After all, players will perform skills to
432 open an opportunity for their teammates or position themselves to receive the ball. Therefore,
433 assessments in talent identification should allow for players to demonstrate their defensive
434 skills specifically. But also allow for the ‘collective’ nature of soccer skill (i.e., offensive and
435 defensive play) as multiple players are working together to achieve the same goal [159].
436 Lastly, there was a substantial focus on skill outcomes (e.g., speed of dribbling, the
437 accuracy of passing, etc.). Indeed, the result of an assessment is vital because it provides
438 researchers and selectors with an indication of a player’s skill. But it is difficult for
57
439 investigators to understand skill if only a limited number of studies focused on production
440 measures [43, 160, 161]. For instance, a collection of lab-based assessments examined the
441 kinetics and kinematics of an instep soccer kick [86, 116, 133]. Collectively, these studies
442 can better inform researchers and practitioners about the production of a soccer skill. While
443 these assessments may not directly benefit selectors, they provide a deeper understanding of
444 the mechanisms involved in executing specific actions. Limited studies have sought to
445 investigate these types of skill production processes. There is room for further research with
446 advances in biomechanics (i.e., data analysis and collection tools) [43]. Such information
447 would provide valuable knowledge to the skill acquisition field (i.e., motor learning and
448 motor control) and, indirectly, researchers, selectors, and sporting practitioners working in
449 talent identification. For example, future investigators could manipulate a particular skill
450 production process (e.g., a player executing a pass to a target at varying distances) to observe
451 the changes to the skill outcomes (e.g., passing accuracy). Lower-level players will perform
452 this skill differently from high-level players, and exceptional-level performers may also
453 complete this task differently. The findings may provide more significant insights into how
454 youth soccer player’s produce different skills.
455
456 4.3 Strengths and Limitations
457 This scoping review was undertaken to provide an informed and notable addition to the youth
458 soccer skill assessment and talent identification literature. The key strengths of the study lie
459 in the methodological design. First, the extensive range of databases searched ensured
460 minimal publications were missed. Second, the data and narrative analysis of the extracted
461 information offers crucial insights to researchers, coaches, and sporting practitioners in the
462 talent identification field about the methodological design of skill assessments. However, it is
463 acknowledged that this approach may also be limiting as the review could have compared
58
464 skill assessments through a meta-analysis. A future study allowing for the direct comparison
465 between different skill assessments may be helpful for talent identification practice but was
466 not possible given the variability in the tasks observed in the literature. If there are more
467 similar assessments in the future, a systematic review and meta-analysis may be useful to
468 indicate the effectiveness of a skill assessment. Third, the skill assessment settings were
469 crucial to allow the authors to make inferences about the assessment's context in talent
470 identification. However, the authors did not assess whether the assessment was reliable and
471 valid, which may provide additional information to researchers and practitioners. Finally,
472 despite a comprehensive database search, some studies may still have been missed. This
473 limitation is due to such broad inclusion criteria. Therefore, the reviewers likely could have
474 included further studies not initially identified by the search or during reference list scanning.
475
476 4.4 Future Directions
477 While the current scoping review has uncovered various future research avenues, some
478 pertinent issues should be addressed. First, research on female youth soccer players is
479 strongly encouraged as they were vastly underrepresented in the collective sample. It is
480 currently unclear if assessments developed with the male player’s also function in identifying
481 talented female players, especially given their different developmental profiles. Second,
482 future research should expand on the current study's findings and determine the actual
483 discriminant validity of a skill assessment for talent identification. For example, it would be
484 beneficial if future skill assessment studies could compare closely matched samples of high-
485 level and exceptional performers. It will allow for better evaluations of the appropriateness
486 and effectiveness (i.e., discriminative power) of skill assessments for talent identification.
487 Finally, it is recommended that researchers shift away from isolated assessments and use
488 more field-based simulated approaches such as small-sided games. It is well established in
59
489 the literature that different variants of small-sided games impact skilled behaviours [56, 151]
490 and that these games can be used as tools to identify talented player’s [54]. However,
491 adopting this approach will require researchers and selectors to agree on the most suitable
492 procedure and the parameters that selectors can work within to identify the most talented
493 players (i.e., number of players, pitch dimensions, game duration, and frequency).
494
495 5.0 Conclusion
496 To conclude, the scoping review findings suggest that we (as researchers) have not agreed on
497 the best way to measure skill. It is challenging to propose guiding principles that can support
498 selectors during talent identification. First, there was limited research into youth female
499 player’s skill assessments, and a minimal number of studies compared more closely matched
500 playing samples. Second, there was no consensus about the best approach to capture skill in
501 context, and there was a substantial focus on the outcomes of skill assessments. These
502 findings have crucial implications for selectors working in youth soccer talent identification,
503 as there is currently a plethora of skill assessments available for them. Still, there is no
504 consensus on the most appropriate measure. Selectors are less likely to use evaluations in the
505 research if there is limited agreement on the most suitable approach to identify soccer skills.
506 There is also not enough evidence to support the use of many skill assessments for talent
507 identification. The samples are inconsistent, and the disparity between playing levels is
508 already quite pronounced. Finally, most skill assessments are not appropriate for talent
509 identification. Many are performed in isolated settings not reflective of football match-play
510 and fail to capture soccer skills in context. Future researchers should develop assessments
511 that can provide an accurate measure of skill (e.g., small-sided games) and determine the
512 discriminatory power across sexes and a range of age-groups and playing levels.
513
60
514 Declaration of Interest
515 Each author confirms this manuscript has not been previously published and is not considered
516 by any other journal. Furthermore, each author has approved the contents of this paper and
517 has agreed to the Journal of Sports Sciences submission policies. Each named author has
518 substantially contributed to conducting the underlying research and drafting this manuscript.
519 Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, the named authors have no conflict of interest,
520 financial or otherwise.
521
522 Funding: Not applicable
523 Conflicts of interest/Competing interests: Not applicable
524 Availability of data and material: Not applicable
525 Code availability: Not applicable
526 Authors’ contributions: Not applicable
527 Acknowledgements: Not applicable
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
61
539 References
540 1. Baker J, Schorer J, Wattie N. Compromising Talent: Issues in Identifying and
541 Selecting Talent in Sport. Quest. 2018;70(1):48-63.
542 https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2017.1333438
543 2. Bergkamp T, Niessen A, den Hartigh R, Frencken W, Meijer R. Methodological
544 Issues in Soccer Talent Identification Research. Sports Med. 2019;49:1317-35.
545 https://doi.org/101007/s40279-019-01113-w
546 3. Williams A, Reilly T. Talent identification and development in soccer. J Sports Sci.
547 2000;18(9):657-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410050120041
548 4. Larkin P, Reeves M. Junior-elite football: time to re-position talent identification?
549 Soccer Soc. 2018;19(8):1183-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2018.1432389
550 5. Till K, Baker J. Challenges and [Possible] Solutions to Optimizing Talent
551 Identification and Development in Sport. Front Psychol. 2020;11.
552 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00664
553 6. Vaeyens R, Lenoir M, Williams A, Philippaerts R. Talent identification and
554 development programmes in sport: Current models and future directions. Sports Med.
555 2008;38(9):703-14. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200838090-00001
556 7. Byrom D. Marcus Rashford explains how joining Manchester United a year early
557 helped his whole family. 2020 [cited 2020 16/9/20]; Available from:
558 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/marcus-
559 rashford-manchester-united-academy-1842356
560 8. Liverpool. Trent Alexander-Arnold. 2020 [cited 2020 16/9/20]; Available from:
561 https://www.liverpoolfc.com/team/first-team/player/trent-alexander-arnold
562
62
563 9. Transfermarkt. Marcus Rashford. Market Value 2020 [cited 6/9/20]; Available from:
564 https://www.transfermarkt.com/marcus-rashford/marktwertverlauf/spieler/258923
565 10. Transfermarkt. Trent Alexander-Arnold. 2020 [cited 6/9/20]; Available from:
566 https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/trent-alexander-
567 arnold/marktwertverlauf/spieler/314353
568 11. Mourao P. Soccer transfers, team efficiency and the sports cycle in the most valued
569 European soccer leagues – have European soccer teams been efficient in trading
570 players? Appl Econ. 2016;48(56):5513-24.
571 https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1178851
572 12. Ford P, Bordonau J, Bonanno D, Tavares J, Groenendijk C, Fink C, Gualtieri D,
573 Gregson W, Varley M, Weston M, Lolli L, Platt D, Di Salvo V. A survey of talent
574 identification and development processes in the youth academies of professional
575 soccer clubs from around the world. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(11-12):1269-78.
576 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1752440
577 13. Bergkamp T, Frencken W, Niessen A, Meijer R, den Hartigh R. How soccer scouts
578 identify talented players. Eur J Sport Sci. 2021:1-12.
579 https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.1916081
580 14. Williams A, Ford P, Drust B. Talent identification and development in soccer since
581 the millennium. J Sports Sci. 2020:1-12.
582 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1766647
583 15. Vaeyens R, Malina R, Janssens M, Van Renterghem B, Bourgois J, Vrijens J,
584 Philippaerts R. A multidisciplinary selection model for youth soccer: the Ghent Youth
585 Soccer Project. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(11):928-34.
586 https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2006.029652
63
587 16. Bennett K, Vaeyens R, Fransen J. Creating a framework for talent identification and
588 development in emerging football nations. Sci Med Football. 2019;3(1):36-42.
589 https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2018.1489141
590 17. Sarmento H, Anguera M, Pereira A, Araújo D. Talent Identification and Development
591 in Male Football: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):907-31.
592 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0851-7
593 18. Dodd K, Newans T. Talent identification for soccer: Physiological aspects. J Sci Med
594 Sport. 2018;21(10):1073-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.01.009
595 19. Dugdale J, Arthur C, Sanders D, Hunter A. Reliability and validity of field-based
596 fitness tests in youth soccer players. Eur J Sport Sci. 2019;19(6):745-56.
597 https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1556739
598 20. Murr D, Raabe J, Honer O. The prognostic value of physiological and physical
599 characteristics in youth soccer: A systematic review. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018;18(1):62-
600 74. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2017.1386719
601 21. Svensson M, Drust B. Testing soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2005;23(6):601-18.
602 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410400021294
603 22. Gil S, Zabala-Lili J, Bidaurrazaga-Letona I, Aduna B, Lekue J, Santos-Concejero J,
604 Granados C. Talent identification and selection process of outfield players and
605 goalkeepers in a professional soccer club. J Sports Sci. 2014;32(20):1931-9.
606 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.964290
607 23. Helsen W, Starkes J, Van Winckel J. The Influence of Relative Age on Success and
608 Dropout in Male Soccer Players. Am J Hum Biol. 1998;10(6):791-8. https://doi-
609 org.ezproxy.scu.edu.au/10.1002
610
64
611 24. Helsen WF, van Winckel J, Williams AM. The relative age effect in youth soccer
612 across Europe. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2005;23(6):629-36.
613 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410400021310
614 25. Kelly A, Williams C. Physical Characteristics and the Talent Identification and
615 Development Processes in Male Youth Soccer: A Narrative Review. Strength Cond J.
616 2020;Publish Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.1519/ssc.0000000000000576
617 26. Helsen W, Van Winckel J, Williams A. The relative age effect in youth soccer across
618 Europe. J Sports Sci. 2005;23(6):629-36.
619 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410400021310
620 27. Lovell T, Bocking C, Fransen J, Coutts A. A multidimensional approach to factors
621 influencing playing level and position in a school-based soccer programme. Sci Med
622 Football. 2018;2(3):237-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2017.1420208
623 28. Gil S, Bidaurrazaga-Letona I, Martin-Garetxana I, Lekue J, Larruskain J. Does birth
624 date influence career attainment in professional soccer? Sci Med Football.
625 2020;4(2):119-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2019.1696471
626 29. McCarthy N, Collins D. Initial identification & selection bias versus the eventual
627 confirmation of talent: evidence for the benefits of a rocky road? J Sports Sci.
628 2014;32(17):1604-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.908322
629 30. Towlson C, Cope E, Perry J, Court D, Levett N. Practitioners’ multi-disciplinary
630 perspectives of soccer talent according to phase of development and playing position.
631 Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2019;14(4):528-40.
632 https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954119845061
633
634
65
635 31. Beavan A, Fransen J, Spielmann J, Mayer J, Skorski S, Meyer T. The Footbonaut as a
636 new football-specific skills test: reproducibility and age-related differences in highly
637 trained youth players. Sci Med Football. 2019;3(3):177-82.
638 https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2018.1548772
639 32. Larkin P, O’Connor D. Talent identification and recruitment in youth soccer:
640 Recruiter’s perceptions of the key attributes for player recruitment. PloS ONE.
641 2017;12(4):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175716
642 33. Höner O, Votteler A. Prognostic relevance of motor talent predictors in early
643 adolescence: A group- and individual-based evaluation considering different levels of
644 achievement in youth football. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(24):2269-78.
645 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1177658
646 34. Reilly T, Williams AM, Nevill A, Franks A. A multidisciplinary approach to talent
647 identification in soccer. J Sports Sci. 2000;18(9):695-702.
648 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410050120078
649 35. Gledhill A, Harwood C, Forsdyke D. Psychosocial factors associated with talent
650 development in football: A systematic review. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2017;31:93-112.
651 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.04.002
652 36. Van Yperen N. Why Some Make It and Others Do Not: Identifying Psychological
653 Factors That Predict Career Success in Professional Adult Soccer. Sport Psychol.
654 2009;23(3):317-29. https://doi.org/10.1123/TSP.23.3.317
655 37. Forsman H, Blomqvist M, Davids K, Liukkonen J, Konttinen N. Identifying technical,
656 physiological, tactical and psychological characteristics that contribute to career
657 progression in soccer. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2016;11(4):505-13.
658 https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954116655051
66
659 38. Morris T. Psychological characteristics and talent identification in soccer. J Sports
660 Sci. 2000;18(9):715-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410050120096
661 39. Bennett K, Novak A, Pluss M, Coutts A, Fransen J. A multifactorial comparison of
662 Australian youth soccer players’ performance characteristics. Int J Sports Sci Coach.
663 2020;15(1):17-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954119893174
664 40. Roberts A, Greenwood D, Stanley M, Humberstone C, Iredale F, Raynor A. Coach
665 knowledge in talent identification: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. J Sci Med
667 41. Ali A. Measuring soccer skill performance: a review. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
668 2011;21:170-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01256.x
669 42. Deprez D, Fransen J, Lenoir M, Philippaerts R, Vaeyens R. A retrospective study on
670 anthropometrical, physical fitness, and motor coordination characteristics that
671 influence dropout, contract status, and first-team playing time in high-level soccer
672 players aged eight to eighteen years. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(6):1692-704.
673 https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000806
674 43. Koopmann T, Faber I, Baker J, Schorer J. Assessing Technical Skills in Talented
675 Youth Athletes: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2020:1-19.
676 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01299-4
677 44. Aquino R, Puggina E, Alves I, Garganta J. Skill-related performance in soccer: A
678 systematic review. Hum. 2017;18(5):3-24. https://doi.org/10.1515/humo-2017-0042
679 45. Farley J, Stein J, Keogh J, Woods C, Milne N. The Relationship Between Physical
680 Fitness Qualities and Sport-Specific Technical Skills in Female, Team-Based Ball
681 Players: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2020;6(1).
682 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00245-y
67
683 46. Meylan C, Cronin J, Oliver J, Hughes M. Talent identification in soccer: The role of
684 maturity status on physical, physiological and technical characteristics. Int J Sports
685 Sci Coach. 2010;5(4):571-92. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.5.4.571
686 47. Munn Z, Peters M, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic
687 review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic
688 or scoping review approach. Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(143):1-7.
689 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
690 48. Tricco A, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien K, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters M,
691 Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl E, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L,
692 Aldcroft A, Wilson M, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey C, Macdonald M, Langlois E,
693 Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tunçalp O, Straus S. PRISMA Extension for
694 Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med.
695 2018;169(7):467-73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
696 49. O'Brien-Smith J, Bennett K, Fransen J, Smith M. Same or different? A comparison of
697 anthropometry, physical fitness and perceptual motor characteristics in male and
698 female youth soccer players. Sci Med Football. 2020;4(1):37-44.
699 https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2019.1650197
700 50. McGuckian T, Cole M, Pepping G. A systematic review of the technology-based
701 assessment of visual perception and exploration behaviour in association football. J
702 Sports Sci. 2018;36(8):861-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1344780
703 51. Abdullah M, Maliki A, Musa R, Kosni N, Juahir H. Intelligent Prediction of Soccer
704 Technical Skill on Youth Soccer Player’s Relative Performance Using Multivariate
705 Analysis and Artificial Neural Network Techniques. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol.
706 2016;6(5):668-74. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.6.5.975
68
707 52. Almeida C, Ferreira A, Volossovitch A. Offensive sequences in youth soccer: Effects
708 of experience and small-sided games. J Hum Kinet. 2013;36(1):97-106.
709 https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2013-0010
710 53. Bekris E, Gissis I, Ispyrlidis I, Mylonis E, Axeti G. Combined visual and dribbling
711 performance in young soccer players of different expertise. Res Sports Med.
712 2018;26(1):43-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2017.1393751
713 54. Bennett K, Novak A, Pluss M, Stevens C, Coutts A, Fransen J. The use of small-sided
714 games to assess skill proficiency in youth soccer players: a talent identification tool.
715 Sci Med Football. 2018;2(3):231-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2017.1413246
716 55. Benounis O, Benabderrahman A, Chamari K, Ajmol A, Benbrahim M, Hammouda A,
717 Hammami M, Zouhal H. Association of short-passing ability with athletic
718 performances in youth soccer players. Asian J Sports Med. 2013;4(1):41-8.
719 https://doi.org/10.5812/asjsm.34529
720 56. Clemente F, Chen Y, Bezerra J, Guiomar J, Lima R. Between-format differences and
721 variability of technical actions during small-sided soccer games played by young
722 players. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018;19(5):114-20. https://doi.org/10.5114/hm.2018.83103
723 57. Clemente F, Sarmento H, Costa I, Enes A, Lima R. Variability of Technical Actions
724 During Small‐Sided Games in Young Soccer Players. J Hum Kinet. 2019;69(1):201-
725 12. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2019-0013
726 58. Coelho e Silva M, Figueiredo A, Simões F, Seabra A, Natal A, Vaeyens R,
727 Philippaerts R, Cumming S, Malina R. Discrimination of u-14 soccer players by level
728 and position. Int J Sports Med. 2010;31(11):790-6. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-
729 1263139
730
69
731 59. da Silva C, Impellizzeri F, Natali A, de Lima J, Bara-Filho M, Silami-Garçia E,
732 Marins J. Exercise Intensity and Technical Demands of Small-Sided Games in Young
733 Brazilian Soccer Players: Effect of Number of Players, Maturation, and Reliability. J
734 Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(10):2746-51.
735 https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31820da061
736 60. Dardouri W, Amin Selmi M, Haj Sassi R, Gharbi Z, Rebhi A, Moalla W. Reliability
737 and discriminative power of soccer-specific field tests and skill index in young soccer
738 players. Sci Sports. 2014;29(2):88-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2013.06.004
739 61. Fenner J, Iga J, Unnithan V. The evaluation of small-sided games as a talent
740 identification tool in highly trained prepubertal soccer players. J Sports Sci.
741 2016;34(20):1983-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1149602
742 62. Fernandez-Gonzalo R, De Souza-Teixeira F, Bresciani G, García-López D,
743 Hernández-Murúa J, Jiménez-Jiménez R, De Paz J. Comparison of Technical and
744 Physiological Characteristics of Prepubescent Soccer Players of Different Ages. J
745 Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(7):1790-8.
746 https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181def871
747 63. Figueiredo A, Coelho E Silva M, Malina R. Predictors of functional capacity and skill
748 in youth soccer players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(3):446-54.
749 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01056.x
750 64. Figueiredo A, Goncalves C, Coelho E Silva M, Malina R. Youth soccer players, 11-
751 14 years: maturity, size, function, skill and goal orientation. Ann Hum Biol.
752 2009;36(1):60-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460802570584
753
754
70
755 65. Fiorilli G, Iuliano E, Mitrotasios M, Pistone E, Aquino G, Di Costanzo A, Calcagno
756 G, Di Cagno A. Are change of direction speed and reactive agility useful for
757 determining the optimal field position for young soccer players? J Sports Sci Med.
758 2017;16(2):247-53.
759 66. Forsman H, Gråstén A, Blomqvist M, Davids K, Liukkonen J, Konttinen N.
760 Development of perceived competence, tactical skills, motivation, technical skills,
761 and speed and agility in young soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(14):1311-8.
762 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1127401
763 67. Forsman H, Gråstén A, Blomqvist M, Davids K, Liukkonen J, Konttinen N.
764 Development and validation of the Perceived Game-Specific Soccer Competence
765 Scale. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(14):1319-27.
766 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1125518
767 68. Francioni F, Figueiredo A, Lupo C, Terribili M, Condello G, Tessitore A. Intra-
768 seasonal variation of anthropometrical, conditional, and technical tests in U14 soccer
769 players. Rev Int de Cienc del deporte. 2018;14(53):219-32.
770 https://doi.org/10.5232/ricyde2018.05303
771 69. Francioni F, Figueiredo A, Terribili M, Tessitore A. Analysis of the intraseasonal
772 stability of field test performances in young academy soccer players. J Sports Sci.
773 2016;34(10):966-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1082612
774 70. Diaz-Cidoncha J, Refoyo Román I, Calleja-González J, Dellal A. Quantification and
775 Analysis of Offensive Situations in Different Formats of Sided Games In Soccer. J
776 Hum Kinet. 2014;44(1):193. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2014-0125
777 71. González-Víllora S, García-López L, Contreras-Jordán O. Decision making and skill
778 development in youth football players. Rev Int Med Cienc Ac. 2015;15(59):467-87.
71
779 72. Goto H, Saward C. The Running and Technical Performance of U13 to U18 Elite
780 Japanese Soccer Players During Match Play. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(6):1564-
781 73. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003300
782 73. Guilherme J, Garganta J, Graça A, Seabra A. Influence of non-preferred foot
783 technical training in reducing lower limbs functional asymmetry among young
784 football players. J Sports Sci. 2015;33(17):1790-8.
785 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1012100
786 74. Hakman A, Vaskan I, Kljus O, Liasota T, Palichuk Y, Yachniuk M. Analysis of the
787 acquisition of expertise and mastery of physical skills for performing techniques by
788 young footballers. J Phys Educ Sport. 2018;18:1237-42.
789 https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2018.s2184
790 75. Hicheur H, Chauvin A, Cavin V, Fuchslocher J, Tschopp M, Taube W. Augmented-
791 feedback training improves cognitive motor performance of soccer players. Med Sci
792 Sports Exerc. 2020;52(1):141-52. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002118
793 76. Hicheur H, Chauvin A, Chassot S, Chenevière X, Taube W. Effects of age on the
794 soccer-specific cognitive-motor performance of elite young soccer players:
795 Comparison between objective measurements and coaches' evaluation. PLoS One.
796 2017;12(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185460
797 77. Holt J, Kinchin G, Clarke G. Effects of peer-assessed feedback, goal setting and a
798 group contingency on performance and learning by 10–12-year-old academy soccer
799 players. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2012;17(3):231-50.
800 https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.690568
801 78. Höner O, Feichtinger P. Psychological talent predictors in early adolescence and their
802 empirical relationship with current and future performance in soccer. Psychol Sport
803 Exerc. 2016;25:17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.03.004
72
804 79. Höner O, Leyhr D, Kelava A. The influence of speed abilities and technical skills in
805 early adolescence on adult success in soccer: A long-term prospective analysis using
806 ANOVA and SEM approaches. PloS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0182211.
807 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182211
808 80. Höner O, Raabe J, Murr D, Leyhr D. Prognostic relevance of motor tests in elite girls’
809 soccer: a five-year prospective cohort study within the German talent promotion
810 program. Sci Med Football. 2019;3(4):287-96.
811 https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2019.1609069
812 81. Höner O, Votteler A, Schmid M, Schultz F, Roth K. Psychometric properties of the
813 motor diagnostics in the German football talent identification and development
814 programme. J Sports Sci. 2015;33(2):145-59.
815 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.928416
816 82. Huijgen B, Elferink-Gemser M, Ali A, Visscher C. Soccer Skill Development in
817 Talented Players. Int J Sports Med. 2013;34. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1323781
818 83. Huijgen B, Elferink-Gemser M, Post W, Visscher C. Soccer Skill Development in
819 Professionals. Int J Sports Med. 2009;30:585-91. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-
820 1202354
821 84. Huijgen B, Elferink-Gemser M, Lemmink K, Visscher C. Multidimensional
822 performance characteristics in selected and deselected talented soccer players. Eur J
823 Sport Sci. 2014;14(1):2-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.725102
824 85. Huijgen B, Elferink-Gemser M, Post W, Visscher C. Development of dribbling in
825 talented youth soccer players aged 12-19 years: A longitudinal study. J Sports Sci.
826 2010;28(7):689-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640411003645679
827 86. Juárez D, Mallo J, López de Subijana C, Navarro E. Kinematic analysis of kicking in
828 young top-class soccer players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2011;51:366-73.
73
829 87. Katis A, Kellis E. Effects of small-sided games on physical conditioning and
830 performance in young soccer players. J Sports Sci Med. 2009;8(3):374-80.
831 88. Keller B, Raynor A, Bruce L, Iredale F. Technical attributes of Australian youth
832 soccer players: Implications for talent identification. Int J Sports Sci Coach.
833 2016;11(6):819-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954116676108
834 89. Köklü Y, Alemdaroğlu U, Dellal A, Wong D. Effect of different recovery durations
835 between bouts in 3-a-side games on youth soccer players' physiological responses and
836 technical activities. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2015;55(5):430-8.
837 90. Kokstejn J, Musalek M, Wolanski P, Murawska-Cialowicz E, Stastny P. Fundamental
838 Motor Skills Mediate the Relationship Between Physical Fitness and Soccer-Specific
839 Motor Skills in Young Soccer Players. Front Physiol. 2019;10:596.
840 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00596
841 91. Krolo A, Gilic B, Foretic N, Pojskic H, Hammami R, Spasic M, Uljevic O, Versic S,
842 Sekulic D. Agility testing in youth football (Soccer)players; evaluating reliability,
843 validity, and correlates of newly developed testing protocols. Int J Environ Res Public
844 Health. 2020;17(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010294
845 92. Le Moal E, Rué O, Ajmol A, Abderrahman A, Hammami M, Ounis O, Kebsi W,
846 Zouhal H. Validation of the Loughborough Soccer Passing Test in young soccer
847 players. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(5):1418-26.
848 https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000000296
849 93. Leiper J, Maughan R, Kirkendall D, Bartagi Z, Zerguini Y, Junge A, Dvorak J. The F-
850 MARC study on Ramadan and football: Research design, population, and
851 environmental conditions. J Sports Sci. 2008;26:7-S13.
852 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410802392723
74
853 94. Leyhr D, Kelava A, Raabe J, Höner O. Longitudinal motor performance development
854 in early adolescence and its relationship to adult success: An 8-year prospective study
855 of highly talented soccer players. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(5):1-16.
857 95. Leyhr D, Raabe J, Schultz F, Kelava A, Höner O. The adolescent motor performance
858 development of elite female soccer players: A study of prognostic relevance for future
859 success in adulthood using multilevel modelling. J Sports Sci. 2020:1-10.
860 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1686940
861 96. Machado J, Barreira D, Teoldo I, Travassos B, Junior J, Santos J, Scaglia A. How
862 Does the Adjustment of Training Task Difficulty Level Influence Tactical Behavior in
863 Soccer? Res Q Exerc Sport. 2019;90(3):403-16.
864 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2019.1612511
865 97. Malina R, Cumming S, Kontos A, Eisenmann J, Ribeiro B, Aroso J. Maturity-
866 associated variation in sport-specific skills of youth soccer players aged 13 – 15 years.
867 J Sports Sci. 2005;23(5):515-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410410001729928
868 98. Matta M, Figueiredo A, Garcia E, Werneck F, Seabra A. Morphological and
869 maturational predictors of technical performance in young soccer players. Mot Rev de
870 Educ Fis. 2014;20:280-5. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-65742014000300006
871 99. McDermott G, Burnett A, Robertson S. Reliability and validity of the Loughborough
872 Soccer Passing Test in adolescent males: Implications for talent identification. Int J
873 Sports Sci Coach. 2015;10(2-3):515-27. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.10.2-
874 3.515
875
876
75
877 100. Miranda R, Antunes H, Pauli J, Puggina E, da Silva A. Effects of 10-week soccer
878 training program on anthropometric, psychological, technical skills and specific
879 performance parameters in youth soccer players. Sci Sports. 2013;28(2):81-7.
880 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2012.02.005
881 101. Padrón-Cabo A, Rey E, Pérez-Ferreirós A, Kalén A. Test-Retest Reliability of Skill
882 Tests in the F-MARC Battery for Youth Soccer Players. Percept Mot Ski.
883 2019;126(5):1006-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512519866038
884 102. Pastor-Vicedo J, Prieto-Ayuso A, Contreras-Jordán O, Clemente F, Nikolaidis P,
885 Rosemann T, Knechtle B. Teaching and Learning Process of Decision-Making Units
886 in Talented Young Players From U-10 to U-14. Front Psychol. 2020;11:600.
888 103. Perroni F, Gallotta MC, Pisano S, Reis VM, Emerenziani GP, Guidetti L, Baldari C.
889 Gender differences in anthropometric parameters and technical performance of youth
890 soccer players. Sport Sci Health. 2018;14(2):399-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-
891 018-0456-z
892 104. Práxedes A, Moreno A, Gil-Arias A, Claver F, Del Villar F. The effect of small-sided
893 games with different levels of opposition on the tactical behaviour of young
894 footballers with different levels of sport expertise. PloS ONE. 2018;13(1).
896 105. Rađa A, Kuvačić G, De Giorgio A, Sellami M, Ardigò L, Bragazzi N, Padulo J. The
897 ball kicking speed: A new, efficient performance indicator in youth soccer. Plos One.
898 2019;14(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217101
899 106. Rebelo-Gonçalves R, Figueiredo A, Coelho-E-Silva M, Tessitore A. Assessment of
900 Technical Skills in Young Soccer Goalkeepers: Reliability and Validity of Two
901 Goalkeeper-Specific Tests. J Sports Sci Med. 2016;15(3):516-23.
76
902 107. Roberts S, Rudd J, Reeves M. Efficacy of using non-linear pedagogy to support
903 attacking players' individual learning objectives in elite-youth football: A randomised
904 cross-over trial. J Sports Sci. 2020:1-11.
905 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1609894
906 108. Rommers N, Mostaert M, Goossens L, Vaeyens R, Witvrouw E, Lenoir M, D'Hondt
907 E. Age and maturity related differences in motor coordination among male elite youth
908 soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(2):196-203.
909 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1488454
910 109. Rowat O, Fenner J, Unnithan V. Technical and physical determinants of soccer
911 match-play performance in elite youth soccer players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
912 2017;57(4):369-79. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06093-X
913 110. Rubajczyk K, Rokita A. Relationships between results of soccer-specific skill tests
914 and game-related soccer skill assessment in young players aged 12 and 15 years.
915 Trends Sport Sci. 2015;22(4):197-206.
916 111. Sáez de Villarreal E, Suarez-Arrones L, Requena B, Haff G, Ferrete C. Effects of
917 Plyometric and Sprint Training on Physical and Technical Skill Performance in
918 Adolescent Soccer Players. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(7):1894-903.
919 https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000000838
920 112. Saward C, Morris J, Nevill M, Sunderland C. The effect of playing status, maturity
921 status, and playing position on the development of match skills in elite youth football
922 players aged 11-18 years: A mixed-longitudinal study. Eur J Sport Sci.
923 2019;19(3):315-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1508502
924 113. Scharfen H, Memmert D. The Relationship Between Cognitive Functions and Sport-
925 Specific Motor Skills in Elite Youth Soccer Players. Front Psychol. 2019;10:817.
77
927 114. Sekulić Ž, Kokanović N, Marković S. Relative age and anaerobic capacities of young
928 soccer players. SportLogia. 2019;15(1):48-59.
929 115. Serra-Olivares J, Garcia-Lopez L, Calderon A. Learning and Talent in Soccer. Apunt
930 Educ Fis y Deportes. 2017(129):64-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.5672/apunts.2014-
931 0983.cat.(2017/3).129.05
932 116. Sinclair J, Fewtrell D, Taylor P, Bottoms L, Atkins S, Hobbs S. Three-dimensional
933 kinematic correlates of ball velocity during maximal instep soccer kicking in males.
934 Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(8):799-805. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.908956
935 117. Song Y, Ha S, Yook J, Ha M. Interactive Improvements of Visual and Auditory
936 Function for Enhancing Performance in Youth Soccer Players. Int J Environ Res
937 Public Health. 2019;16(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16244909
938 118. Teunissen A, Kamp J, Wels H, Savelsbergh G. Is balance performance associated
939 with basic soccer tasks? An explorative study. J Phys Educ Sport. 2018;18(4):2319-
940 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2018.04350
941 119. Trecroci A, Longo S, Perri E, Iaia F, Alberti G. Field-based physical performance of
942 elite and sub-elite middle-adolescent soccer players. Res Sports Med. 2019;27(1):60-
943 71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2018.1504217
944 120. Trecroci A, Milanović Z, Frontini M, Iaia F, Alberti G. Physical Performance
945 Comparison between Under 15 Elite and Sub-Elite Soccer Players. J Hum Kinet.
946 2018;61:209-16. https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2017-0126
947 121. Van Maarseveen M, Oudejans R, Savelsbergh G. System for notational analysis in
948 small-sided soccer games. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2017;12(2):194-206.
949 https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117694922
950
78
951 122. Vandendriessche J, Vaeyens R, Vandorpe B, Lenoir M, Lefevre J, Philippaerts R.
952 Biological maturation, morphology, fitness, and motor coordination as part of a
953 selection strategy in the search for international youth soccer players (age 15-16
954 years). J Sports Sci. 2012;30(15):1695-703.
955 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.652654
956 123. Vänttinen T, Blomqvist M, Häkkinen K. Development of body composition, hormone
957 profile, physical fitness, general perceptual motor skills, soccer skills and on-the-ball
958 performance in soccerspecific laboratory test among adolescent soccer players. J
959 Sports Sci Med. 2010;9(4):547-56.
960 124. Vieira L, Cunha S, Moraes R, Barbieri F, Aquino R, Oliveira L, Navarro M, Bedo B,
961 Santiago P. Kicking Performance in Young U9 to U20 Soccer Players: Assessment of
962 Velocity and Accuracy Simultaneously. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2018;89(2):210-20.
963 https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2018.1439569
964 125. Votteler A, Höner O. The relative age effect in the German Football TID Programme:
965 biases in motor performance diagnostics and effects on single motor abilities and
966 skills in groups of selected players. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(5):433-42.
967 https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2013.837510
968 126. Waldron M, Murphy A. A comparison of physical abilities and match performance
969 characteristics among elite and subelite under-14 soccer players. Pediatr Exerc Sci.
970 2013;25(3):423-34. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.25.3.423
971 127. Waldron M, Worsfold P. Differences in the Game Specific Skills of Elite and Sub-
972 Elite Youth Football Players: Implications for Talent Identification. Int J Perform
973 Anal Sport. 2010;10(1):9-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2010.11868497
79
974 128. Wilson R, Souza A, Santiago P, Ignacio D, Smith N. Individual performance in
975 passing tests predicts age‐independent success in small‐sided soccer possession
976 games. Transl Sports Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tsm2.142
977 129. Wilson R, James R, David G, Hermann E, Morgan O, Niehaus A, Hunter A, Thake D,
978 Smith M. Multivariate analyses of individual variation in soccer skill as a tool for
979 talent identification and development: utilising evolutionary theory in sports science. J
980 Sports Sci. 2016;34(21):2074-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1151544
981 130. Wilson R, Smith N, Ramos S, Giuliano Caetano F, Aparecido Rinaldo M, Santiago P,
982 Cunha S, Moura F. Dribbling speed along curved paths predicts attacking
983 performance in match-realistic one vs. one soccer games. J Sports Sci.
984 2019;37(9):1072-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1544110
985 131. Zago M, Piovan A, Annoni I, Ciprandi D, Iaia F, Sforza C. Dribbling determinants in
986 sub-elite youth soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(5):411-9.
987 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1057210
988 132. Zibung M, Zuber C, Conzelmann A. The Motor Subsystem as a Predictor of Success
989 in Young Football Talents: A Person-Oriented Study. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8).
991 133. Zisi V, Derri V, Hatzitaki V. Role of perceptual and motor abilities in instep-kicking
992 performance of young soccer players. Percept Mot Ski. 2003;96(2):625-36.
993 https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2003.96.2.625
994 134. Zuber C, Zibung M, Conzelmann A. Holistic Patterns as an Instrument for Predicting
995 the Performance of Promising Young Soccer Players – A 3-Years Longitudinal Study.
996 Front Psychol. 2016;7(1088). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01088
997
80
998 135. De Giorgio A, Sellami M, Kuvacic G, Lawrence G, Padulo J, Mingardi M, Mainolfi
999 L. Enhancing motor learning of young soccer players through preventing an internal
1000 focus of attention: The effect of shoes colour. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8).
1002 136. Julian R, Hecksteden A, Fullagar H, Meyer T. The effects of menstrual cycle phase
1003 on physical performance in female soccer players. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3).
1005 137. Martínez-Lagunas V, Niessen M, Hartmann U. Women's football: Player
1006 characteristics and demands of the game. J Sport Health Sci. 2014;3(4):258-72.
1007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.10.001
1008 138. Johnston K, Wattie N, Schorer J, Baker J. Talent Identification in Sport: A Systematic
1009 Review. Sports Med. 2018;48(1):97-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0803-2
1010 139. Baker J, Wattie N, Schorer J. Defining expertise: a taxonomy for researchers in skill
1011 acquisition and expertise. In: Baker J, Farrow, D., editor. Routledge Handbook of
1012 Sport Expertise. London: Routledge; 2015. p. 69–79.
1013 140. Swann C, Moran A, Piggott D. Defining elite athletes: Issues in the study of expert
1014 performance in sport psychology. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2015;16:3-14.
1015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.004
1016 141. Güllich A. Selection, de-selection and progression in German football talent
1017 promotion. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(6):530-7.
1018 https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2013.858371
1019 142. Australia F. FFA Player Pathways - Boys. In: Australia F, editor. Play Football: Play
1020 Football; 2019.
1021 143. Australia F. FFA Player Pathways - Girls. In: Australia F, editor. Play Football: Play
1022 Football; 2019.
81
1023 144. Ali A, Williams C, Hulse M, Strudwick A, Reddin J, Howarth L, Eldred J, Hirst M,
1024 McGregor S. Reliability and validity of two tests of soccer skill. J Sports Sci.
1025 2007;25(13):1461-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410601150470
1026 145. O'Reilly J, Wong S. The development of aerobic and skill assessment in soccer.
1027 Sports Med. 2012;42(12):1029-40. https://doi.org/10.2165/11635120-000000000-
1028 00000
1029 146. E. B. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. 2nd ed.
1030 Berkeley: University of California Press; 1956.
1031 147. Pinder R, Davids K, Renshaw I, Araújo D. Representative Learning Design and
1032 Functionality of Research and Practice in Sport. J Sport Exerc Psychol.
1033 2011;33(1):146-55. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.146
1034 148. Travassos B, Duarte R, Vilar L, Davids K, Araújo D. Practice task design in team
1035 sports: Representativeness enhanced by increasing opportunities for action. J Sports
1036 Sci. 2012;30(13):1447-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.712716
1037 149. Broadbent D, Causer J, Williams A, Ford P. Perceptual-cognitive skill training and its
1038 transfer to expert performance in the field: Future research directions. Eur J Sport Sci.
1039 2015;15(4):322-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.957727
1040 150. Davids K AD. The concept of ‘Organismic Asymmetry’ in sport science. J Sci Med
1042 151. Sarmento H, Clemente F, Harper L, da Costa I, Owen A, Figueiredo A. Small sided
1043 games in soccer - a systematic review. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2018;18(5).
1044 https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2018.1517288
1045 152. Tenga A, Ronglan L, Bahr R. Measuring the effectiveness of offensive matchplay in
1046 professional soccer. Eur J Sport Sci. 2010;10(4).
1047 https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390903515170
82
1048 153. Van Calster B, Smits T, S. VH. The Curse of Scoreless Draws in Soccer: The
1049 Relationship with a Team’s Offensive, Defensive, and Overall Performance. J Quant
1050 Anal Sports. 2008;4(1):1-24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2202/1559-0410.1089
1051 154. Lago-Peñas C, Rey E, Casáis L, Gómez-López M. Relationship Between
1052 Performance Characteristics and the Selection Process in Youth Soccer Players J Hum
1053 Kinet. 2014;40(1):189-99. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2014-0021
1054 155. Ouellete J. A Message from NASPE Sport Structures: Principles of Play for Soccer.
1055 Strat. 2004;17(3):26 - https://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2004.10591082
1056 156. Barreira D, Garganta J, Guimaraes P, Machado J, Anguera M. Ball recovery patterns
1057 as a performance indicator in elite soccer. J Sport Eng Technol. 2014;228(1):61-72.
1058 https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337113493083
1059 157. Fernandes T, Camerino O, Garganta J, Hileno R, Barreira D. How do Elite Soccer
1060 Teams Perform to Ball Recovery? Effects of Tactical Modelling and Contextual
1061 Variables on the Defensive Patterns of Play. J Hum Kinet. 2020;73:165-79.
1062 https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2019-0141
1063 158. Vogelbein M, Nopp S, Hökelmann A. Defensive transition in soccer – are prompt
1064 possession regains a measure of success? A quantitative analysis of German Fußball-
1065 Bundesliga 2010/2011. J Sports Sci. 2014;32(11):1076-7083.
1066 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.879671
1067 159. O'Brien-Smith J, Fransen J, Sheehan W, Lenoir M, Bennett K, Smith M. Collective
1068 Behaviour in high and low-level youth soccer. Sci Med Football. 2021.
1069 https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2021.1917774
1070
1071
83
1072 160. Glazier P. Could sports biomechanics provide the missing pieces to the talent
1073 identification and development puzzle? In: Cobley S, Schorer, J., Wattie, N., Baker,
1074 J., editor. The Routledge handbook of talent identification and development in sport.
1075 New York: Taylor & Francis; 2017.
1076 161. Glazier P, Robins M. Self-organisation and constraints in sports performance. In:
1077 McGarry OD, P., Sampaio, J., editor. Routledge Handbook of Sports Performance
1078 Analysis: Routledge; 2013. p. 42
84
1079
85
View publication stats

McCalman 2022 SkillAssessmentsInYouthSoccer AScopingReview Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

McCalman 2022 SkillAssessmentsInYouthSoccer AScopingReview Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McCalman 2022 SkillAssessmentsInYouthSoccer AScopingReview Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Skill assessments in youth soccer: A scoping review

Article in Journal of Sports Sciences · December 2021

William McCalman Zachary Crowley-McHattan

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Job Fransen Kyle Bennett

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2 William McCalman1, Zachary J Crowley-McHattan1, Job Fransen2, Kyle J M Bennett1

5 Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

7 Corresponding author contact details

10 Phone: (+61 401 589 860)

17 Talent identification in youth soccer is a complex decision-making process that requires

28 majority of assessments were performed in settings not representative of football match-play

32 number of quality players within the talent pool.

34 Keywords: Football, Skill Assessments, Talent Identification, Youth Soccer

42 Sporting organisations in association football invest considerable financial and logistical

57 who created the talent pathway for these players to follow.

75 to support selectors during the decision-making process [3, 6, 17].

76 There is considerable emphasis on the anthropometry (e.g., stature, mass, body

82 physiological variables in isolation from other characteristics can be problematic during

84 in physical development [28-30]. Second, evidence highlights that physiological variables

90 (e.g., self-confidence, motivation, and commitment) and perceptual-motor skills (e.g.,

92 these characteristics highly relative to a player’s physiology or anthropometry [12, 32].

93 Indeed, the psychological skills/traits are crucial characteristics for selectors to

108 such measures with other characteristics like perceptual-motor skills.

132 discriminatory/explanatory/predictive benefits for many skill assessments across a range of

144 recommendations for future researchers in youth soccer talent identification.

146 2.0 Method

147 2.1 Searches

154 Meta-Analyses – Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [48]. The Population,

159 comparing their effectiveness for youth soccer talent identification.

169 introduction of subjective bias in the scoping review.

171 including (Association football OR Football OR Soccer) AND (Youth OR Child* OR

173 Assess* OR Skill* Measur* OR skill* Evaluat* OR Talent Identification OR Identification

174 OR Technique OR Technical OR Decision OR Soccer-specific Skill) AND (Talent OR

175 Talented OR Expertise OR Expert OR Gift OR Gifted*) AND (Develop* OR Improv* OR

176 Progress* OR Mature OR Maturing OR Growth OR Excellence OR Performance OR

177 Accuracy OR Completion OR Results OR Outcome OR Soccer-specific skill* OR

178 Perceptual-cognitive skill* OR Perceptual-motor skill* OR Decision-making OR Technical

179 OR Tactical OR Selection OR Dropout OR Academy OR High-level OR Elite). These

183 2.2 Study Inclusion Criteria

190 systems worldwide.

201 assessment settings (competitive match-play1, field-based simulated2, field-based isolated3, or

219 weaknesses of the research.

221 3.0 Results

232 3.1 Sample Characteristics

236 proportion of studies (n = 10 each, 11%), followed by England (n = 9, 10%), Spain (n = 8,

261 The sample characteristics of the included studies

286 The methodological characteristics of the included studies

Long passing: From 36 m to target

Short passing: From 11 m into a 0.9

Shooting from dead ball: 16 m from

Shooting from a pass: 20 m ground

15 m dribbling test: Slalom through

Wall pass: 1.22 m high x 2.44 m

Shooting accuracy: at 6 targets in 2

Notes: GK = goalkeeper, SSGs = small-sided games

175 Talented OR Expertise OR Expert OR Gift OR Gifted) AND (Develop OR Improv* OR