Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 4 (2024) 1–6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajsep

The feudal glove of talent-selection decisions in sport –Strengthening the

link between subjective and objective assessments☆,☆☆
Michael Bar-Eli a, *, Ronnie Lidor a, Franziska Lath b, Jörg Schorer b
a
Levinsky-Wingate Academic College, Israel
b
Institute of Sport Science, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: When making talent-selection decisions in sport, coaches, scouts, program directors, and policymakers typically
Talent selection adopt two approaches: The subjective approach, also known as the coach’s eye, where these professionals select or
Talent development de-select athletes based on their personal observations and impressions; and the objective approach, where they
Judgment and decision making
apply a multi-faceted formula for awarding scores to the athletes’ motor skills (such as agility and coordination)
Sport analytics
Coaches
and psychological capabilities (such as leadership and motivation) – as a mean for predicting their future success.
Scouts These two approaches are often perceived as complementary in the strive to reach optimal selection decisions in
sport. In this conceptualized article, we examine challenges associated with such talent-selection decisions, and
address the coach’s eye as an example of a subjective assessment approach. We also address the concept of fast
and frugal heuristics for making selection decisions in sport, while elaborating on bounded rationality and the
human machine paradigm. Finally, in addition to discussing certain "built-in" limitations in sport-selection de­
cisions, based on judgment and decision-making models, we provide a rationale for adding the big-data
approach, as a mean for enhancing links between the subjective and objective assessments currently used in
talent-selection decisions in sport.

Introduction
Predicting the future of young athletes in years to come poses a main
challenge for professionals who are involved in decision-making (DM)
relating to talent selection in sport, including coaches, scouts, program
directors, and policymakers. Unfortunately, not all potential athletes
can be provided with the environmental and instructional conditions
that are required for achieving high-level performance in sport. As such,
selection decisions must be made carefully – in order to determine who
will be given the privilege of becoming a part of a highly nurtured
competitive sport program (Baker, Schorer & Wattie, 2017; Lath,
Koopmann, Faber, Baker & Schorer, 2021; Rees et al., 2016).
Selection decisions are regularly made in processes that are associ­
ated with early talent development in sport, including talent detection,
talent identification, and talent selection. According to Williams and
Reilly (2000), the term talent detection refers to the discovery of potential
performers who are not currently involved in any sport program. The
term talent identification refers to the process of recognizing individuals
who are currently involved in sport and have the potential to become
elite performers. Finally, the term talent selection refers to the ongoing
process of identifying athletes at various stages of their training
program.
Such DM processes typically entail a subjective assessment approach,
an objective assessment approach, or a combination of the two. The
subjective approach is mainly based on the assessment of coaches who are
considered to be key figures in the given sport program (Lath et al.,
2021; see also Calvin, 2013, and Malloy, 2011, for anecdotal perspec­
tives). This approach, which is also referred to as the coach’s eye, reflects
the multi-year professional experience of coaches who work with ath­
letes in both early and advanced phases of their career development. In
practice, these coaches typically decide who will be selected or
de-selected for the sport development program, based on their obser­
vations and impressions (Roberts et al., 2019), "making them a key
’gatekeeper’ to further developmental opportunities" (Lath et al., 2021,
p. 2).
The objective approach, on the other hand, which emerged from early
research conducted in the field of sport sciences, strives to explore the
so-called holy talent-selection formula (Baker, 2022; Koopmann, Faber,

☆
You, scientists, can only tell me what was, but never what will be.☆☆ Attributed to David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s "Father of the Nation"
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mbareli@bgu.ac.il (M. Bar-Eli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsep.2023.09.003
Received 17 August 2023; Accepted 18 September 2023
Available online 22 September 2023
2667-2391/Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Bar-Eli et al.
Baker & Schorer, 2020; Lidor, Côté & Hackfort, 2009). This formula is
composed of objective predictors – mainly scores of tests that assess
motor skills, such as agility, coordination, and speed, and psychological
abilities, such as attention, leadership, and motivation (Lath, den Har­
tigh, Wattie & Schorer, 2021). With this multi-component formula, it is
assumed that the higher the athletes’ total score, the better their chances
of achieving success in the future. The subjective approach and the
objective one have been perceived as complementary of one another; it
is, therefore, assumed that combining the two has the potential to pro­
vide decision makers with the most relevant information needed for
accurately predicting the future success of the athlete.
In this conceptualized article, we re-examine the use of these two
approaches, in light of a number of judgment and DM models (JDM),
including the bounded rationality, the fast and frugal heuristics, and the
human machine paradigm. We argue that in order to strengthen the link
between the subjective and objective approaches, a third approach
should also be applied – the big-data approach (i.e., sport analytics), that
can offer innovative tools and knowledge that were not previously
available. Such maximization models, that address multi-faceted
objective data, should be taken into account in the early phases of the
athlete’s development. More specifically, in this article we (a) examine a
number of challenges associated with talent-selection decisions in sport;
(b) discuss the term coach’s eye as a unique case of the use of the sub­
jective assessment approach; (c) address the use of fast and frugal heu­
ristics, which is conceived as a new and upcoming approach for making
selection decisions in sport; (d) elaborate on the concepts of bounded
rationality and the human machine paradigm; (e) discuss a number of
"built-in" limitations in sport-selection decisions from a JDM perspec­
tive; and (f) provide the rationale for adopting a third approach – the
big-data approach – for strengthening the link between the subjective
and objective assessments currently used in talent-selection decisions.
Challenges in talent selection in sport
The challenges entailed in selecting athletes and predicting their
future success have been impressively illustrated by Koz, Fraser-Thomas
and Baker (2012), in their analysis of the prediction accuracy of the
future performances of athletes as part of a draft.1 These researchers
found that this accuracy ranged between 3 and 17% of the explained
variance – figures that are presumably considered to be poor. It is
important to note that athletes who are selected in the draft are rela­
tively older, leading to potentially better decisions, based on more
available data regarding the athlete’s past performance, and in turn,
requiring shorter predictions for the following years. However, in most
sports, athletes are selected much earlier, and therefore coaches and
scouts have to predict a much longer period with less information.
The question that arises following the findings of Koz et al. (2012),
therefore, is why is the accuracy of the athletes’ selection decisions this
low? Till and Baker (2020) discuss three major challenges for optimizing
talent selection in sport: (a) unclear definition of the term talent and the
difficulty to predict how a given field of sport will evolve over time and
what its future demands will be; (b) lack of consensus regarding the most
effective means for identifying, selecting, and developing talented ath­
letes, while also considering their bio-psycho-social environment.
Moreover, a large range of views (and the lack of related research) exists
regarding how the resourcing of talent identification development sys­
tems affects the optimal allocation of the systems’ total expenditure
(Johnston & Baker, 2020). For example, academies for young talented
soccer players are considered essential in many European countries (e.
g., France, Spain, and the UK). However, former top-soccer player and
legendary goalkeeper Oliver Kahn has accused these academies of
harming talented players; this minority opinion could possibly have
1
A process used in some countries (especially North America) and sports
(especially in closed leagues) for allocating players for certain teams.
2
Asia Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 4 (2024) 1–6
been overlooked had Kahn not been nominated to the highly influential
position of Chief Executive Officer of the Bayern Munich Football Club
during 2021–2023 (Kahn, 2008); and (c) if health considerations for the
athletes would have been involved in talent-identification development
systems, such as appropriateness of the method and aspects of the ath­
letes’ well-being that are associated with early training specialization.
In their review of the existing literature on soccer talent identifica­
tion, Bergkamp, Niessen, Den Hartigh, Frencken and Meijer (2019)
address a number of major methodological issues – especially the ad­
vantages and limitations of the design, validity, and utility of the
methods applied in such research. Drawing on principles from selection
psychology that can be practiced in relation to selection decisions across
domains (e.g., Robertson & Smith, 2001; Vinchur & Brian, 2012), the
authors identified four methodological issues associated with selection
decisions in soccer: (a) the operationalization of criterion variables (i.e.,
the actual performance that needs to be predicted) as performance
levels; (b) the focus on isolated performance indicators as predictors of
soccer performance; (c) the effect of range restriction regarding the
validity of predictors used in talent selection; and (d) the effect of the
base rate on the implementation of talent-selection procedures. In light
of their review, these authors propose that future research should
consider the use of individual soccer criterion measures, adopt repre­
sentative and high-fidelity predictors of soccer performance, and take
the restriction of range and base rate into account.
When conducting talent selection, professionals must seek effective
means for overcoming these challenges detailed above. To do so, they
must collect the most important and relevant data about those in­
dividuals who could potentially meet the requirements of the specific
sport program, and about those who have the potential to achieve high
levels of performance in the future. As such, the focus should be on how
these professionals make decisions regarding the selection or de-
selection of the athletes in the early phases of talent development.
The coach’s eye
The term coach’s eye is used in the literature as a metaphor for the
DM process of coaches. In an attempt to define this term, Lath et al.
(2021) reviewed nine studies that offered definitions for this term, and
then devised the following definition: “[…] the coach’s eye, […], reflects
the coach’s internal process of assessing and evaluating athletes, resulting in a
decision to select or de-select the athlete. This process is based on the coach’s
intuition and subjective experience and has the potential to provide a more
holistic profile of athletes” (p. 4). A number of observations were made in
this article. First, the studies on coaches’ DM processes in early phases of
talent selection tended to be based on qualitative interviews, where the
coaches talked of their DM processes retrospectively, often long after
they had made their selection decisions – thereby possibly inducing
cognitive bias (Ericsson & Simon, 1980). Moreover, no clear selection
criteria were reported to have been used during the selection process,
and the coaches’ focus was solely on the decision outcome, namely
whether the athletes had been selected or de-selected to the program (e.
g. Johnston, Wattie, Schorer & Baker, 2018; Siemon & Wessels, 2022).
Finally, studies on the coach’s eye tend to overlook how the decision was
made, with no information about the decision process being discussed
(Baker, Wattie & Schorer, 2019; Lath et al., 2021).
With the aim of gathering insights into how coaches actually select or
de-select athletes, Lath, Koopmann and Schorer (2022) conducted an
online experiment using a theoretical JDM framework: the iCodes model
(Jekel, Glöckner & Bröder, 2018). This model focuses on the actual DM
process, with an emphasis on the necessary information for reaching a
decision. The model assumes that decisions are based on positive or
negative criteria and cues in relation to the specific option. Due to the
probabilistic nature of the model, the iCodes model fits the dynamic and
probabilistic features that exist in talent-selection processes in sport.
However, Lath et al. (2022) claim that this computer-based research
method lacks ecological validity – as consensus is still missing among
M. Bar-Eli et al.
coaches regarding the criteria that they apply during the DM process.
The use of fast and frugal heuristics in selection decisions in
sport
The concept of bounded rationality (e.g., Simon, 1987, 1990), as
interpreted by Gigerenzer (2000, 2004), has been characterized via the
fast and frugal heuristics notion (Raab, 2012, 2021) for making decisions
that have good enough ("satisficing") outcomes. This notion is not new,
with its roots planted in the bounded rationality concept that was origi­
nally addressed in the 1940s by 1978 Nobel Laureate, Herbert Simon.
According to this concept, human rationality – unlike normative ideal
models, is bounded by a limited cognitive ability to process information,
due to factors such as imperfect data, time constraints, and even emo­
tions. As explained by Simon (1990), the rationality of human
decision-makers is bounded "by a scissors whose two blades are the
structure of the task environments and the computational capabilities of
the actor" (p. 7). In other words, humans tend to construct simplified
interpretations of complex realities, thereby producing easy-to-handle
models regarding complex DM issues (Simon, 1987). According to this
concept, only a limited number of decision alternatives and outcomes
can be considered, leading decision makers to choose the first alternative
that appears to provide an acceptable or good enough solution, rather
than seeking an optimal one, as per the Maximization through Optimi­
zation Principle (Bar-Eli et al., 2006).
Bounded rationality provides the major theoretical underpinnings for
the fast and frugal heuristics concept, with related work deeply rooted in
ecological approaches, such as that of Egon Brunswick and its extension
into DM science by Kenneth Hammond. According to Gigerenzer (2004),
"The basic tenet of ecological rationality is that the rationality or irra­
tionality of a judgment can only be decided by an analysis of the
structure of the environment" (p. 336), since in the real world, intuitive
thought processes are considered to be adaptive – as they provide the
best match for the environment in which they are applied. The fast and
frugal heuristics concept offers a tool in which bounded rationality enables
quick and effective decisions, that are ecologically (rather than opti­
mally) rational.
It should be noted that interpretations of both bounded rationality
(Simon, 1987, 1990) and fast and frugal heuristics (Gigerenzer, 2000,
2004) are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, while the
traditional normative understanding of rationality optimally focuses on
the prescriptive production of benchmark models for maximizing utility,
bounded rationality and fast and frugal heuristics focus on descriptively
reasonable guiding concepts (e.g., Gigerenzer, Czerlinski & Martignon,
2002). These may include concepts of simplicity and frugality, with
individuals aspiring to make satisfactory (i.e., good enough) decisions.
Gigerenzer et al. (2002) maintain that fast and frugal heuristics "violate
two maxims of rational reasoning: They do not search for all available
information and do not integrate information […] but at what price?
How much more accurate are benchmark models that use and integrate
all information when predicting unknown aspects of real environ­
ments?" (p. 565).
The sport domain lacks a clear set of variables that consistently
predicts future success; moreover, a high degree of variability can be
seen in those factors that discriminate between skilled and less-skilled
individuals (Johnston et al., 2018), which is reasonable due to the na­
ture and needs of the different types of sports (Bergkamp, Niessen, den
Hartigh, Frencken & Meijer, 2018). However, there exists a degree of
variability for the predictive value of different factors for later success
within a sport. For example Cripps, Banyard, Woods, Joyce and Hopper
(2020) couldn’t find a significant predictive value of any physical and
anthropometric characteristics for career attainment in soccer, whereas
(Höner, Murr, Larkin, Schreiner & Leyhr, 2021) reported a high pre­
dictive value for sprint, tactical skills, and dribbling. In addition, the
term talent seems to be "a complex and largely misunderstood phe­
nomenon lacking robust research evidence" (Till & Baker, 2020, p. 1).
3
Asia Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 4 (2024) 1–6
An athlete’s future performance is determined by a large number of
so-called objective variables (as well as the interaction between these
variables) that can be measured, more or less reliably, in the present. Yet
while these determinants are necessary, they are insufficient in fully
explaining or accurately predicting future athletic performance.
The practice of combining a series of tests (with a primarily focus on
the physical, physiological, and psychological attributes of an athlete),
combined with the coach’s observations, for the purpose of selecting and
de-selecting athletes for sport programs, is not new (see Johnston &
Baker, 2020; Leyhr et al., 2021). However, the idea of using fast and
frugal heuristics (Gigerenzer, 2004; Raab, 2012) for capturing coaches’
talent-selection decisions is indeed an innovative approach. In one
study, Schorer, Rienhoff, Fischer and Baker (2017) examined prediction
accuracy in team handball, comparing between decisions made by
coaches (regional and national), players (novice and advanced), and
laypersons. The researchers only found small differences between
regional and national coaches, between novice and advanced players,
and among laypersons in their predictions of future athletic perfor­
mance. Schorer et al. (2017) interpreted some of these findings as
possibly being based on simple heuristics.
To improve the quality of forecasts made by coaches, DM processes
should also include subjective expertise (provided, for example, through
fast and frugal heuristics), based on the counterintuitive less is more
principle, whereby better decisions are made based on less information
(Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996). Doing so could reduce possible decision
errors caused by cognitive overload that stems from the environmental
complexity. In fact, this interaction between unboundedly/economi­
cally rational tests and boundedly rational coaches is viewed as the most
promising means for improving efficacy in selection decisions in sport
(Sieghartsleitner, Zuber, Zibung & Conzelmann, 2019).
Bounded rationality and the human machine paradigm
Selection decisions in sport are rooted in traditional personnel
testing and industrial psychology (e.g., Ghiselli & Brown, 1955; Guion,
1965). This reflects the human machine paradigm that is highly pervasive,
as seen in numerous domains of Western society, including sport
(Remmele, 2003). Indeed, the sport domain is currently viewed as a
product of scientific thinking and rationale fabrication (see, for example,
Bar-Eli, 2018). In his classic work, Hoberman (1992) perceives athletes
as mortal engines, who attempt to exceed the normal limits of speed and
strength. Hoberman demonstrates how human science and industrial
technology have transformed and de-humanized sport. In line with
Hoberman, Bar-Eli et al. (2006) labelled the underlying maximization
through optimization principle, arguing that since the ultimate goal of elite
sport is performance maximization, the pursuit of success and excellence
requires athletes to optimize everything – be it movement techniques,
arousal levels during competitions, or decisions regarding recovery. This
argument is evident in the context of sport talent selection through the
use of terms such as waste reduction strategies in relation to talent, in the
strive to decrease the efficacy of entire talent identification development
systems (Johnston & Baker, 2020).
Are optimization models really out?
Many traditional approaches that are based on the maximization
through optimization principle attempt to cope with the significant limi­
tation of human JDM, namely mis-aggregation. More specifically, it
seems that due to cognitive overload, people confronted with JDM-tasks
often encounter substantial difficulties in aggregating (i.e., weighting
and combining) information. Therefore, many of the decision aids that
have been traditionally proposed reflect the ancient Roman concept of
divide et impera (i.e., divide and rule). According to this concept, larger
concentrations of power are divided into less-powerful chunks that are
easier to conquer and control. Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichtenstein
((1977)) named this strategy decomposition, implying that a decision aid
M. Bar-Eli et al. Asia Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 4 (2024) 1–6

breaks down an entire problem into smaller, structurally related ele­ or no regard for how time-consuming or informationally greedy these
ments. The decision maker is then requested to provide estimates models may be […]. In contrast, bounded rationality suggests designing
regarding only a smaller (if possible, the smallest) number of compo­ models specifically to reflect the peculiar properties and limits of the mind
nents that are simpler to handle, compared to the original much larger and the environment. The decision maker is bounded in time, knowledge
problem. Later, these estimations are combined, in order to make the and computational power. In addition, each environment has a variety of
overall decision, often with the help of computer models (Bar-Eli & irregular informational structures, such as departures from normality (p.
Tenenbaum, 2012). 560).
In their classic article, Slovic and Lichtenstein (1971) present two
However, what if by increasing computational power and sophisti­
approaches to the operationalization of the decomposition strategy,
cation, computers will be able to appropriately address such "greediness"
namely multiple linear regression (e.g., bootstrapping) and Bayesian
in terms of time and information? Like any other new technology (such
models. When comparing the performance of these approaches to that of
as smartphones or cars), it may be expensive to utilize at first, yet as it
fast and frugal heuristics in JDM, linear regression did not present better
becomes more widely available to the public, its cost could greatly
outcomes (even worse, in some cases); the Bayesian models were found
decrease. It should be noted that about 50 years ago, Slovic and Lich­
to be slightly more accurate (e.g., Gigerenzer et al., 2002). Accordingly,
tenstein (1971) showed that if experts are provided with the opportunity
the following argument may arise: in the strive to maximize utilities,
to express their expertise in the right way, as per the decomposition
why attempt to optimize decisions by investing great effort and re­
principle (through bootstrapping, for example), forecasts may become
sources in complex expensive JDM models, when a relatively simple
substantially better – especially if the said decision makers undergo
"cheap" heuristic can deliver reasonably close results?
training, just as weather forecasters do (Slovic et al., 1977; Tetlock &
We are by no means against the notion of implementing fast and
Gardner, 2015). In addition, due to the swift development of computer
frugal heuristics in the context of talent-selection decisions in sport.
technologies, Bayesian methods can be better used to dynamically up­
Paradoxically, this would mean using this descriptive approach in a
date the (evaluated) probability of a talented athlete’s success (Bar-Eli &
rather normative/prescriptive way (as it leads to good enough decisions
Tenenbaum, 2012).
that are the best a person can make). The question is whether sport
Such improvements in human forecasting processes could also help
scientists are already at the stage where the notion of maximization
overcome certain cognitive biases, illusions, and twisted perceptions
through optimization should be abandoned in favor of prediction and
that influence JDM regarding the athlete’s potential. According to
selection models that are based on bounded rationality. In our opinion,
Johnston and Baker (2020), talent "wastage" may increase due to per­
there are at least two aspects that should be taken into consideration
sonal preferences, beliefs, intuition, framing, endowment, illusive con­
before we turn to fast and frugal heuristics:
fidence, time for making predictions, and primacy – which constitute
First, existing models should be improved and optimized by
many of the biases that are investigated by heuristics and biases traditions
including more and more data – a goal that can be greatly promoted
(Kahneman, 2013). One means for overcoming such cognitive biases in
using the continuously increasing computer capabilities. An example of
selection decisions in sport could be the de-biasing of the experts who
this direction can be seen in the work of Elitzur (2020) on the effect of
are involved in the process (Fischhoff, 1982). Eliminating the legitimacy
data analytics in Major League Baseball. This researcher maintains that
of optimal models as benchmarks (Gigerenzer et al., 2002) and replacing
data analytics has seen resurgence over the past two decades, following
them with concepts such as fast and frugal heuristics and adaptive ratio­
movies such as Moneyball (Lewis, 2003), which exposed the public to
nality (Gigerenzer, 2000, 2004; Raab, 2012, 2021) could also offer a
how advanced baseball analytics were used by the Oakland Athletics
positive alternative. However, if we do recognize that talent-selection
baseball team to successfully improve player selection and game man­
decisions may legitimately use unbounded rationality that is operation­
agement. Using rather complex econometric models, the researcher was
alized through optimal decomposition models (e.g., regression/boot­
able to examine whether the organizational knowledge of baseball data
strapping or Bayesian models), then the door is open for utilizing
analytics provides advantages in the competitive Major League Baseball
big-data analyses (e.g., Elitzur, 2020; Morgulev, Azar & Lidor, 2018) –
marketplace, in terms of pay and performance over time (yes, it did),
as a means for maximizing the accuracy of talent-selection decisions
and whether this strategic advantage was sustained once this pro­
regarding the athletes’ professional future. In this regard, and to support
prietary organizational knowledge became public (no, it was not).
JDM processes, implementing machine-based approaches using big-data
Talent-selection decisions could also benefit from such developments (as
analyses could be beneficial (Johnston & Baker, 2020).
demonstrated later in this article). It should be emphasized, however,
that such a multivariate approach to talent selection should be used
"Built-in" limitations in sport-selection decisions from a JDM
wisely and with caution (see Baker et al., 2017, Proposition 5).
perspective
Furthermore, it would also require a major revision in coaches’ and
managers’ education, in order to effectively expose them to rich and
Even if we were to insist on introducing an optimal-maximal JDM
complex databases, after having taught them how to use such data in a
approach (see Bar-Eli et al., 2006) to talent-selection decisions in sport,
case where they already feel somewhat overloaded by much simpler and
we would have to recognize a number of major inherent limitations,
"easy-to-digest" scientific knowledge (as noted, for example, in Ferguson
some of which are related to the three major challenges for optimizing
& Moritz, 2015).
talent selection in sport, addressed by Till and Baker (2020) and dis­
Moreover, human forecasting processes should be improved (Tetlock
cussed above. Human experts – as well as equations – use common
& Gardner, 2015). While human experts may be specialists in their
models relating to skills, such as shared mental models (Gentner &
respective subject matter, they may not necessarily be specialists in
Stevens, 1983; Rouse & Morris, 1986). To illustrate the problematics of
forecasting. Moreover, they may also be subject to bias. Yet such biases
such models, Baker et al. (2017, 2019) introduce the example of Usain
are not recognized by Gigerenzer et al. (2002), who as per their inter­
Bolt: in the pre-Bolt era, talent selection in sprinting largely focused on
pretation of the bounded rationality concept (Simon, 1987, 1990) believe
step frequency, while above-average height was considered a drawback.
that benchmark models of the optimality and rationality traditions, that
Today, however, evidence shows that both step frequency and step length
strive for maximization, are not necessarily better than models that are
explain elite performance in the 100-m sprint, and as such – both vari­
based on principles of simplicity and frugality:
ables now play a role in selection procedures. Similarly, in the 1960s,
The fundamental distinction in approaches to reasonableness is between Valeriy Brumel dominated the high jump, and his perfect performance of
unbounded rationality and bounded rationality […]. Unbounded ratio­ the Straddle technique was considered the benchmark or gold standard.
nality suggests building models that perform as well as possible with little Dick Fosbury, however, was unable to perform this technique (mainly

4
M. Bar-Eli et al.
since he was too tall); instead, he developed the Fosbury Flop, that led
him to eternal fame and glory in the 1968 Olympics, while revolution­
izing the track-and-field establishment at that time (Bar-Eli, 2018;
Welch & Fosbury, 2018).
Additional athletes who excelled in sport, despite performing
differently than as per the existing models, include Dirk Nowitzki and
his unorthodox coach, Holger Geschwindner, who not only changed the
role of the power forwards in basketball, but also the science and practice of
coaching in general; and finally, Sergei Bubka, the legendary Ukrainian
pole vaulter, who dominated this sport for many years, after revolu­
tionizing this field and being perceived as a role model who was fol­
lowed by generations of pole vaulters.
Coaches often share mental models regarding how things should be
performed (and are confident that they are correct; see Johnston &
Baker, 2020). In other words, they are taught to produce more Brumels in
high jumping and more Bubkas in pole vaulting (i.e., athletes who
optimize in order to maximize). However, who would have predicted black
swans (Taleb, 2010), such as Fosbury in the high jump or Nowitzki in
basketball? It seems that some athletes excel precisely because they do
not perform in line with these optimizing models that everybody else
uses; for example, by being creative and inventing a "moneyball" that
outdoes the existing system (Elitzur, 2020).
To develop talent, you must give room to creativity (Bar-Eli et al.,
2006); however, how can you – as a teacher or a coach – give room to
something that you are not even aware of? By definition, talent-selection
decisions will always include a certain degree of uncertainty, i.e., as­
pects that we are unaware of. Dean Benson, Fosbury’s coach, is reported
to have forgone certain traditional training methods that were prevalent
at the time (Welch & Fosbury, 2018); pleased by Fosbury’s success,
Benson encouraged him to continue and succeed – even though he "was
not sure exactly what Fosbury was doing" (Bar-Eli, 2018, p. 203).
Situational factors and developmental systems
Talent-selection decisions – in all domains – are strongly impacted by
situational factors (Johnston & Baker, 2020), such as the conditions
where the selection process takes place. Take for example the
pilot-training system in the Israeli Air Force, where the selection strategy
of potential pilots is: If you have doubts, then there is no doubt (i.e., the
answer is “no”). In other words, as a "selector" or instructor, you must
avoid false positives – where selected individuals do not succeed – at all
costs (Bar-Eli, 2018). Regarding the quality of decisions made via the
selection system, weak correlations have been found between the time of
the initial selection and future performance (as well as the infinite se­
lection space – the available manpower) (Bar-Eli, 2018). The only way to
decrease false positives is to broaden the acceptance criteria, which will
also increase false negatives – where de-selected individuals could have
succeeded had they been given the chance. The price of a false negative,
however, is zero – as long as all the pilots who complete their training
are the best that Israel could have produced at that point in time –
positive hits. The price of a false positive, on the other hand, could be fatal.
In contrast, as the selection space within the Armored Corps in the
Israel Defense Force is not infinite, and as such, candidates cannot be de-
selected following (small) doubts. This is because each tank needs to
house four soldiers, and the selection space (i.e., the available
manpower) is limited. In this case, the system must strive to exhaust
every possible option of candidates, which can only be achieved by
increasing the above-mentioned correlations, through the expanding of
the selection process, rather than simply relying on the initial accep­
tance criteria.
From some perspectives, the selection system in the Israeli Air Force
is similar to those seen in sport selection in countries with large pop­
ulations, such as China or the USA. In these countries, top athletes can be
identified and selected with greater ease – thanks to the very large
number of prospective athletes. In smaller countries, selection must be
conducted with much greater caution – to prevent dropouts (i.e., false
5
Asia Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 4 (2024) 1–6
negatives) or loss (or waste) of potentially talented athletes (Johnston &
Baker, 2020), who may have been selected and succeeded had they been
a part of a relatively small selection space.
When addressing talent-selection processes, a country’s judgment
and DM strategy may simply depend on its size and on the prioritizing of
the ruling authorities. For example, in the small former German Dem­
ocratic Republic, athletes were selected like pilots are in Israel. In this
respect, Johnston and Baker (2020) also address the political and
policy-related issues that the selection systems operate in (also see our
above discussion on resource allocation and the necessity of soccer
academies).
The rationale for adopting the big-data approach – the feudal
glove of talent-selection decisions
In the previous sections of this article, we address the advantages and
challenges of the various approaches that view talent-selection decisions
as JDM; we now strongly argue for incorporating big data in selection-
decision processes in sport, as a mean for improving prediction accu­
racy regarding talent selection. This sport analytics approach of big data
refers to (a) the management of structured historical data related to the
athlete or team; (b) the application of predictive analytic models that use
these data, and (c) the implementation of information systems in order
to provide decision makers (e.g., coaches and scouts) with relevant data,
as a mean for increasing the accuracy rate of their selection decisions (e.
g., Morgulev et al., 2018; Winston, Nestler & Pelechrinis, 2022). Such
historical data can be collected from various sources, including bio­
graphical data, videos, box-score performance, medical reports, and
scouting reports. These data – both qualitative and qualitative – can be
standardized, centralized and integrated, and analyzed using different
metrics (Alamar, 2013). Qualitative data, such as coaches’ assessments
and scouts’ reports, combined with modern statistical projections, could
lead to more accurate assessments of the athlete’s future performance.
Large databases, which are currently available in many individual and
team sports, combined with the reliable and systematic means of anal­
ysis, will provide professionals with a unique opportunity for strength­
ening the validity of their DM processes, based on a larger range of
performance variables.
This is not to say that we oppose the idea of using fast and frugal
heuristics – paradoxically, in a somewhat prescriptive way – for
capturing the coach’s eye in terms of satisfactory, bounded rational de­
cisions. Rather, combining different approaches may assist professionals
who are involved in selection decisions in sport in identifying the
"winner of the duel" that begins with the feudal glove being thrown at
one another. In this regard, we concur with Gigerenzer et al. (2002)
statement whereby optimization and fast and frugal heuristics could, in
principle, live side by side – depending on the specific circumstances
under which the actual talent-selection decision is conducted (Sie­
ghartsleitner et al., 2019). This article, therefore, aimed at contrasting
and combining these different approaches in relation to current
research, as a means for potentially contributing to the field of talent
research in sport by enhancing the multi-faceted aspects that are
entailed in the selecting, identifying, and developing of talented
athletes.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Alamar, B. C. (2013). Sport analytics – a guide for coaches, managers, and other decision
makers. Columbia University Press.
Baker, J. (2022). The tyranny of talent. Aberrant Press.
M. Bar-Eli et al.
Baker, J., Schorer, J., & Wattie, N. (2017). Compromising talent: Issues in identifying and
selecting talent in sport. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich.), 70, 48–63.
Baker, J., Wattie, N., & Schorer, J. (2019). A proposed conceptualization of talent in
sports: The first step in a long and winding road. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 43,
27–33.
Bar–Eli, M. (2018). BOOST! How the psychology of sports can enhance your performance in
management and work. Oxford University Press.
Bar-Eli, M., Lowengart, O., Master-Barak, M., Oreg, S., Goldenberg, J., Epstein, S., et al.
(2006). Developing peak performance in sports: Optimization versus creativity. D.
Hackfort & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.). Essential processes for attaining peak performance
(pp. 158–177). Meyer & Meyer Sport.
Bar-Eli, M., & Tenenbaum, G. (2012). Bayesian approach of measuring competitive crisis.
G. Tenenbaum, R.C. Eklund, & A. Kamata (Eds.). Measurement in sport and exercise
psychology (pp. 367–379). Human Kinetics.
Bergkamp, T. L. G., Niessen, A. S. M., den Hartigh, R. J. R., Frencken, W. G. P., &
Meijer, R. R. (2018). Comment on: "Talent identification in sport: A systematic
review". Sports Medicine, 48, 1517–1519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-
0868-6
Bergkamp, T. L., Niessen, A. S. M., Den Hartigh, R. J., Frencken, W. G., & Meijer, R. R.
(2019). Methodological issues in soccer talent identification research. Sports
Medicine, 49, 1317–1335.
Calvin, M. (2013). The nowhere men. Arrow Books.
Cripps, A. J., Banyard, H. G., Woods, C. T., Joyce, C., & Hopper, L. S. (2020). Does the
longitudinal development of physical and anthropometric characteristics associate
with professional career attainment in adolescent Australian footballers?
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 15, 506–511. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1747954120927117
Elitzur, R. (2020). Data analytics effects in major league baseball. Omega, 90, Article
102001.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87,
215–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215
Ferguson, A., & Moritz, M. (2015). Leading. Hachette.
Fischhoff, B. (1982). Debiasing. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.). Judgment
under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 422–444). Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. (1983). Mental models. Erlbaum.
Ghiselli, E. E., & Brown, C. W. (1955). Personnel and industrial psychology. McGraw-Hill.
Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. Oxford University
Press.
Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. D. &
J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.). Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making
(pp. 62–88). Blackwell.
Gigerenzer, G., Czerlinski, J., & Martignon, L. (2002). How good are fast and frugal
heuristics?. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.). Heuristics and biases: The
psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 559–581). Cambridge University Press.
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of
Bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669.
Guion, R. M. (1965). Personnel testing. McGraw-Hill.
Hoberman, J. M. (1992). Mortal engines: The science of performance and dehumanization of
sport. Free Press.
Höner, O., Murr, D., Larkin, P., Schreiner, R., & Leyhr, D. (2021). Nationwide subjective
and objective assessments of potential talent predictors in elite youth soccer: An
investigation of prognostic validity in a prospective study. Frontiers in Sports and
Active Living, 3, Article 638227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.638227
Jekel, M., Glöckner, A., & Bröder, A. (2018). A new and unique prediction for cue-search
in a parallel-constraint satisfaction network model: The attraction search effect.
Psychological Review, 125. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000107
Johnston, K., & Baker, J. (2020). Waste reduction strategies: Factors affecting talent
wastage and the efficacy of talent selection in sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2925.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02925
Johnston, K., Wattie, N., Schorer, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Talent identification in sport: A
systematic review. Sports Medicine, 48, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-
017-0803-2
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Koopmann, T., Faber, I., Baker, J., & Schorer, J. (2020). Assessing technical skills in
talented youth athletes: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 50, 1593–1611.
Kahn, O. (2008). Ich: Erfolg kommt von Innen (I: Success comes from within). Riva.
Koz, D., Fraser-Thomas, J., & Baker, J. (2012). Accuracy of professional sports drafts in
predicting career potential. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 22,
e64–e69.
Lath, F., den Hartigh, R., Wattie, N., & Schorer, J. (2021). Talent selection: Making
decisions and prognoses about athletes. J. Baker, S. Cobley, & J. Schorer (Eds.).
Asia Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 4 (2024) 1–6
Talent identification and development in sport – international perspectives (2nd ed., pp.
50–65). Routledge.
Lath, F., Koopmann, T., Faber, I., Baker, J., & Schorer, J. (2021). Focusing on the coach’s
eye: Towards a working model of coach decision-making in talent selection.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychsport.2021.102011
Lath, F., Koopmann, T., & Schorer, J. (2022). Searching for the best: A first theory-driven
experimental study of the information search in talent selection. In The 16th
European Congress of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Padova.
Lewis, M. (2003). Moneyball: The art of winning an unfair game. Norton.
Leyhr, D., Bergmann, F., Schreiner, R., Mann, D., Dugandzic, D., & Höner, O. (2021).
Relative age-related biases in objective and subjective assessments of performance in
talented youth soccer players. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fspor.2021.664231
Lidor, R., Côté, J., & Hackfort, D. (2009). To test or not to test? – The use of physical skill
tests in talent detection and in early phases of sport development. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 131–146.
Malloy, S. (2011). The art of scouting. Wiley.
Morgulev, E., Azar, O., & Lidor, R. (2018). Sports analytics and the big-data era.
International Journal of Data Science and Analytics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-
017-0093-7
Raab, M. (2012). Simple heuristics in sports. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 5, 104–120.
Raab, M. (2021). Judgment, decision making and embodied choices. Elsevier.
Rees, T., Hardy, L., Güllich, A., Abernethy, B., Côté, J., Woodman, T., et al. (2016). The
Great British Medalists Project: A review of the current knowledge on the
developemnt of the world’s best sporting talent. Sports Medicine, 46, 1041–1058.
Remmele, B. (2003). Die Entstehung des Maschinen-paradigmas (the rise of the machine-
paradigm). Leske & Budrich.
Roberts, A. H., Greenwood, D. A., Stanley, M., Humberstone, C., Iredale, F., & Raynor, A.
(2019). Coach knowledge in talent identification: A systematic review and
etasynthesis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsams.2019.05.008
Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. (2001). Personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74, 441–472.
Rouse, W., & Morris, N. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the
search of mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363.
Schorer, J., Rienhoff, R., Fischer, L., & Baker, J. (2017). Long term prognostic validity of
talent selections: Comparing national and regional coaches, laypersons and novices.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1146.
Sieghartsleitner, R., Zuber, C., Zibung, M., & Conzelmann, A. (2019). Science or coaches’
eye? – both! Beneficial collaboration of multidimensional measurements and coach
assessments for efficient talent selection in elite youth football. Journal of Sports
Science & Medicine, 18, 32–43.
Siemon, D., & Wessels, J. (2022). Performance prediction of basketball players using
automated personality mining with twitter data. Sport, Business and Management.
An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/sbm-10-2021-0119
Simon, H. A. (1987). Bounded rationality. J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.).
The new palgrave: A dictionary of economics (pp. 266–268). Macmillan.
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
1–19.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Behavioral decision theory. Annual
Review of Psychology, 28, 1–39.
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches
to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 6, 649–744.
Taleb, N. N. (2010). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Random House.
Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D. (2015). Superforecasting. Random House.
Till, K., & Baker, J. (2020). Challenges and [possible] solutions to optimizing talent
identification and development in sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 664.
Vinchur, A. J., & Brian, L. L. K. (2012). A history of personnel selection and assessment.
In N. Schmitt (Ed.). Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 9–30).
Oxford University Press.
Welch, B., & Fosbury, D. (2018). The wizard of Foz – Dick Fosbury’s one-man high-jump
revolution. Skyhorse Publishing.
Williams, A. M., & Reilly, T. (2000). Talent identification and development in soccer.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 657–667.
Winston, W. L., Nestler, S., & Pelechrinis, K. (2022). Mathletics – how gamblers, managers,
and fans use mathematic in sports (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.