FTEM framework

From the discussed talent development models, it can be noticed that the focus of each model is only on one aspect of talent development rather than a holistic approach (Gublin et al., 2013). A talent development framework with a more holistic approach was established by Australian practitioners. This framework consisted of four macro stages and ten micro stages of sport participation: Foundation (F1, F2 and F3), Talent, (T1, T2, T3 and T4), Elite, (E1 and E2) and Mastery (M) (Gublin et al., 2013). The model does not solely focus on expert athletes as the outcome of talent development but also focuses on sport participation in general (see Figure 2.4). In the Foundation stage, the focus is on attaining foundational movement skills through an early exposure to a wide range of movement activities and when children are competent movers, through the use of informal play and games. The next step in the development of skills is a more sport-specific environment where children make a commitment to a specific sport. The majority of athletes will spend their lifetime in this phase of development and perform their sport on a recreational level. Other athletes will be identified as talented based on sport-specific characteristics and move on to the Talent phase of development (T1). The key aspect for these talented athletes is to confirm their talent during a talent pathway or training program where expert coaches and facilities become more accessible. The athletes are now committed to more sport-specific training which relates back to more deliberate practice and is somewhat analogous to Côté’s investment years. The last phase of the Talent stage is

being awarded or drafted into a professional team or national squad that will greatly accelerate development (T4). By this time, most athletes are considered as professional and expert athletes in their sport and the last stages of development are attributable to the achievements they make during world-class tournaments (E2 and M). Although the FTEM framework represents a linear model, it is emphasised that talent development is non-linear and athletes can skip different stages or return to a previous stage based on their own performance or the performance of other athletes (Gublin et al., 2013). Altogether it can be concluded that the FTEM framework provides a talent development framework that emphasises the dynamic character of talent development. Secondly, the framework

focuses more on performance related stages instead of age related stages as this is different per sport and individual.

Figure 2.4. The Foundation, Talent, Elite and Mastery (FTEM) framework of Gublin et al., (2013).

2.3.7 Comparison of the described talent development models

Comparing the different talent development models, it is evident that there are clear

differences between the models but that there are also similarities. Although it is described in different ways, according to all models, talented athletes possess natural abilities and have to develop these natural abilities in a systematic way to be able to compete at an expert level. It is this development

process where the models differ most. According to Bloom (1985) and Côté (1999) this process consists of three different stages that are chronologically based while Gublin et al. (2013)

distinguishes a total of 10 different stages that are performance based. Also, the development process is presented as linear in the models of Bloom (1985), Côté (1999) and Ericsson et al. (1993) where skills are developed in a systematic way through a great amount of training. A more dynamic nature of talent development is presented by Gagné (2004) where personal and environmental factors influence the development process. This dynamic nature of talent development is also highlighted by Gublin et al. (2013) and in a recent review of Rees et al. (2016). In this review paper, evidence is presented about factors influencing the development of expert performance and three key components are distinguished: the performer, the environment and practice and training. These key components are divided into many smaller components that are of influence on the development of expert

performance. This idea of talent development shares a lot of commonalities with the model of Gagné.

The key component ‘the performer’ corresponds with the natural abilities and intrapersonal catalyst

from the DMGT model. The key component ‘the environment’ corresponds with the environmental catalyst from the DMGT and finally, the key component ‘practice and training’ mainly corresponds

with the development process of the DMGT model. The models of Gagné and Rees et al. mainly discuss potential factors that can influence the developmental process of a talented athlete, while Bloom, Côté and Ericsson et al. predominately focus on the amount and type of practice that influences the developmental process of an athlete, which corresponds with the key component

‘practice and training’ of Rees et al. One major difference between the model of Gublin et al. and the

other talent development models is that the model of Gublin and colleagues is led by the performance of athletes while the other models focus on the developmental process that eventually lead to certain performances. Thus, in the FTEM framework performances are leading while in the other models, performance is the result of the interaction between practice and certain natural abilities.

Some of these differences and similarities are of influence on talent identification and talent

development policies of sport governing bodies and their idea of what a ‘talented athlete’ is and

should do. The developmental process of an athlete is obviously very sport-specific and therefore, different models fit better for specific sports. For example, some believe that when the peak of

performance is at a younger age, an early diversification model might not be as suitable as for a sport where the peak of performance is at a later age. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the opposite could also lead to expert performance and the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Indeed, this and more influential factors will be discussed in relation to the identification and development of talent in the sport of field hockey in the next section.