Terms like “talent ID” “pathways” and “academy system” have become part of everyday language in junior sport.

Taking promising young athletes into their own 'elite' training programmes is a really, really bad idea. But many parents still refuse to accept it. National Correspondent DANA JOHANNSEN reports in the first of a two-part series.

In the hall of an Auckland football club, a heated debate is playing out.

Parents and administrators have convened at the behest of one of the dads, who has concerns he wants to raise. The man believes his son, by all accounts a talented player, is being held back by the team environment. In particular, he has identified four players that just aren't up to scratch and therefore preventing his boy from reaching his potential.

The father proposes that these players should be swapped out for four players he has scouted from the grade below. He can no longer stand by and watch as his son's development is curtailed by poorly skilled players who are never going to make it, he argues.

David Joseph / Phototek.nz The politics of youth football are difficult to navigate.

The most troubling aspect of this story is not that a father was trying to involve himself in selection discussions. Nor that there was a cohort of parents that actually supported him, or even that the club entertained a serious discussion on the matter.

It is that his son is 9 years old.

This father was so convinced his child was not only destined to be a professional footballer, but that his career was being placed in immediate jeopardy by the apparent lack of pedigree of these nine year-old hacks, that he was willing to ruin the football experience of four kids, potentially souring their view of sport for life.

Simon Walters hears stories like this all the time.

For more than a decade Walters, who heads the coaching, health and physical education department at Auckland University of Technology, has been researching youth sports, and he's come to a pretty firm conclusion – we've been getting it all wrong.

AUT Simon Walters, AUT's head of department for coaching, health and physical education, has spent more than a decade researching youth sport.

Walters' interest in junior sport was initially sparked by research into sideline behaviour after a spate of concerning incidents hit the headlines around 10 years ago. He found there was indeed a problem. It was not so much the extreme incidents that occur - the ones we see in the media every few months like a parent goes over the top or a referee gets abused, but rather the "undercurrent of behaviour" that surrounded youth sports .

"It is quite intense, it is hyper-competitive, and whilst it was not extreme behaviour, it does not create a positive environment for young people," says Walters.

He observed a toxic ecosystem whereby, rather than focusing on the positive physical and social outcomes, junior sport is simply seen as a "production line" to the elite end.

An obsession among parents of ensuring their children were getting on the "pathway" coupled with the rise of sports academies was putting kids under pressure to specialise early in a chosen sport, where they are subjected to heavy training loads.

Those that aren't identified as "talented" fall off the conveyor belt, believing sport isn't for them.

The net result is a marked decline in participation rates, overuse injuries increasingly occurring in younger age-groups, and teen athletes experiencing depression and burnout.

For many years, Walters says he was "banging my head against a brick wall" trying to make sports leaders listen to the evidence.

But over the course of the past year, Walters has witnessed a seismic shift in the youth sport space. He says the confluence of factors have led us to this point where meaningful structural change, driven by Sport NZ, is beginning to happen in the junior sport ranks.

As far as the attitudes of the general public go? Well, that's going to take a little longer.

STUFF North Harbour prop Hayden McKay charges forward during a Roller Mills game against Waikato. The province made international headlines this year after making the decision not to enter a team in the under-13s tournament.

HARBOURING THE BACKLASH

As the 2019 Super Rugby season kicked off, it was under-13s representative rugby that was the biggest story in town.

North Harbour Rugby made international headlines when it announced it was axing its team for the annual provincial youth rugby tournament, Roller Mills, in favour of a development programme open to any kid who wants to take part.

It was hailed as a bold and progressive move by the union's leaders, with several high profile former players, including Buck Shelford and Jeff Wilson coming out in support of the decision to implement a more experience-led programme.

But some parents and rugby traditionalists saw it as a backwards step. They argued it was further evidence of the "dumbing down" of sport, and kids need to be exposed to the tough realities of selection and competition from an early age to build character and resilience.

Dave Gibson bristles at the sight at my pen hovering over my notepad.

"What are you writing?" he asks suspiciously.

Photosport Former Blues halfback Dave Gibson now heads North Harbour Rugby.

Gibson, the former Blues halfback and chief executive of North Harbour Rugby, is happy to share the rationale behind the province's move, but he is reluctant to once again be cast as the frontman for the emotive debate, which is playing out in sporting organisations around the country.

The pushback from some of the administrators, coaches and parents was expected; the backlash from the wider public, fuelled by inflammatory opinion pieces and social media posts, less so.

Here was our national sport pandering to the "everyone gets a participation medal generation", talkback hosts decried. Others confidently declared the removal of a weight-restricted under-13 representative programme was "ruining sport". There was even some discussion of entering a "North Harbour Cavaliers" team in the Roller Mills tournament.

So, when an innocent bullet-point is jotted down as a reminder, Gibson gets tetchy.

"It's time for other people to stand up on this," he says, off the record. Oops.

In the months since North Harbour staked its position, several other unions, including Southland, Otago, Canterbury, Tasman, Wellington, Taranaki and Auckland have followed suit in axing under-13 representative teams. The moves from the unions saw the Northern Regional Rugby Council (NRRC) scrap the Roller Mills tournament, announcing in November it will no longer have representative provincial union-based initiatives below the under-16 age-group.

SUPPLIED The Roller Mills tournament will be axed after 94 years.

While it might have been uncomfortable for those like Gibson who were caught up in the storm of public opinion, for Alex Chiet, Sport NZ's talent development manager, the response to the North Harbour Rugby story was liberating.

"Seeing how the media reacted, and hearing the conversations, I was amazed. I was expecting a bit more backlash. A lot of the articles had a balanced sort of view, and seeing role models like Buck Shelford really helped shape opinion," says Chiet.

"Don't get me wrong, online polls were still 30 per cent agree, 70 per cent don't, but actually seeing people say 'yeah this is needed' and these are iconic athletes that have followed the same journeys. Buck Shelford is as hard and as competitive as they come, and he is saying 'this is the right thing'.

"It was actually galvanising some of the people in this space that are trying to do the right thing. So there's some really positive momentum."

Chiet is part of a team at Sport NZ working to address welfare concerns in youth sport and reverse the declining participation rates, by spruiking a "balance is better" approach among sports leaders, coaches and parents. The policy discourages early specialisation and overly competitive structures being put in place too young, rather promoting the idea that youth sport should focus on creating positive experiences for kids.

ROBERT KITCHIN/STUFF Alex Chiet in Sport NZ's Wellington office.

"We need to remember why young people participate in sport - it's about fun, the challenge, being part of a team or a group, being with friends, and self-improvement. We need to focus on making sure our young people's first sporting experiences meet those needs that they want to take part and through that, develop the skills and confidence to remain in sport throughout their life," says Chiet.

If that all sounds a bit like, well, "PC, new age rubbish" – to borrow an oft-cited refrain of dissenters (usually followed by at least three exclamation points) – Chiet points out these ideas aren't particularly new.

He says over the past 30 years there have been four strategic reviews undertaken at government level, including Sport NZ's 2016-2020 talent plan.

"The three before this all said the same things. Then this came out and said the same thing," says Chiet, shaking his head in disbelief.

"So we can't keep doing what we've been doing and expecting a different result. We're trying to do things differently. It's bloody hard to influence this space, so that's the biggest challenge.

"This divides a room, these sorts of conversations."

Chiet knows the counter arguments well. In a past life, he might have even used a few of them himself.

As the former high performance manager at NZ Football, where he oversaw the All Whites, Football Ferns and national age group programmes, Chiet had a more tunnel-visioned approach to sport.

"If you interviewed me while I was there, you probably would have got a different answer from me. Now, having vested more time and energy in research and looking at different sports, I'm much more aware of the impacts and negative consequences of some of these things," he says.

The reviews suggest that a more experience-led approach, where the focus is on fun and enjoyment, is not only in the national interest – ie, fostering a lifelong interest in sport and building a happier, healthier population – but also in self interest, leading to a more competitive system and better performances on the world stage.

It's the last point that many struggle to get their heads around.

AUT's Simon Walters says that is because for years we've been sold a dangerous counter-narrative.

MIKE EHRMANN/GETTY IMAGES Tiger Woods reportedly spent hours at the driving range when he was just a toddler.

THE MYTH OF EARLY SPECIALISATION

As the popular sporting fable goes, to raise a champion, you've got to start 'em young.

The push to get children on narrowly focused training programmes stems from the idea that intense practice is what sets the elites apart from the rest. We've all heard the irresistible stories of athletes like Tiger Woods, Andre Agassi and the Williams sisters who were whacking balls as soon as they could walk.

But while child prodigies fascinate us and garner media attention, they are sporting outliers in every sense. All the international and domestic research points to allowing more time for unstructured play and a chance to try out a wide variety of sporting pursuits provides a better foundation for success.

"We know from the statistics that very, very few kids will make it to the top," says Walters.

"The ones that do are unlikely to come through this pathway that has been sold to them. They're these tough New Zealand kids who have a go at everything, they've played a lot outside and they've got these multiple skills that they can move from one sport to the other. But the parents just buy completely into this idea that you've got to get in there early."

DOMINICO ZAPATA/STUFF Research says unstructured "free play" for children provides a strong foundation for long term athlete development.

Walters says playing a variety of sports helps young people develop different motor skills, improves their problem-solving abilities and exposes them to different coaching ideas.

There's also a strong belief that focusing on development and removing representative structures in younger age-groups is "anti-competitive". That unless 12-year-olds are trampling over one another to make their under-13 regional rep team, they're not going to develop the cut-throat instincts they need to compete at the elite end. In an athletic leap of logic, some have extrapolated that out even further to suggest kids won't develop the skills to win at life.

But Chiet points out competition in sport is innate. He says, regardless of the circumstances, if you put 20 kids on a park and throw a ball into the mix, there's going to be competition.

"I think people are getting confused that there's nothing there. If we take away reps, there is still going to be a programme in place for them, and it is going to be even more beneficial as it gets more kids to stay involved, and for those of talent to reach their potential later on."

Shifting the focus to retaining participants for as long as possible in itself fosters stronger competition, as higher participation numbers means there is the critical mass to strengthen local, regional and national competitions.

What is happening far too often, according to Chiet, is from the age of eight or nine, the sporting experience is being segregated for children through structures like streamed teams and academy programmes.

"So at that age we're telling one group of kids 'you're good' and we're telling the others that they're not.

"Those kids that are told they're not any good, they're going to think 'well maybe this sport isn't for me' and find something else. Then the ones that are singled out are going to get better coaching, more resources, more opportunities to play, so of course they're going to get better than the others, but that doesn't mean you've got your talent identification right.

AUT Simon Walters says the undercurrent of behaviour in youth sports in concerning.

"Rather than saying you can and you can't play, clubs need to manage that environment and that way all kids can still get stretch and growth with the right coaching around them."

Not only is early "talent identification" misguided, it is also counterproductive.

No two kids are going to be the same – progress is non-linear.

Some kids might have older brothers or sisters that they've grown up chasing around in the backyard, and might have a bit of a head start when it comes to the core skills of the game. Others mature at different rates.

By narrowing the field of "talented kids" too early, Chiet says sports could be closing the door on someone who has greater potential than the early developers.

"Everything that we're seeing in the research suggests the later the point of specialisation, the better decisions you'll have about athletes reaching world class status. Sports will have more accuracy around their identification process," says Chiet.

ROBERT KITCHIN/STUFF Sport NZ's national talent development manager Alex Chiet is helping drive a new approach to junior sport.

But there's a more critical reason to avoid intensely focused training programmes for youngsters.

Early specialisation has been linked to an alarming spike in the number of sports-related injuries in younger age groups.

"We're seeing significant overuse injuries caused by these types of behaviours," says Chiet.

"Parents who encourage their children to dedicate themselves to these professionalised training programmes are facilitating harm without realising. This is when they're adolescents, so much is going on in their bodies - physically, emotionally, psychologically - and some of the workloads they're doing is criminal, in my view."

ACC figures released in June last year revealed a 60 per cent surge in sports-related injuries in the 10-14 year age-group since 2008 – double the increase of any other age group.

Isaac Carlson, ACC's head of injury prevention, says there's a growing concern that too much sport may be just as harmful for kids as not getting enough exercise.

"More structured sports training and competition means kids are being exposed to higher intensity, higher-volume training from an earlier age, which can increase the risk of repetitive overuse and fatigue-related injuries," says Carlson.

"Too much high-intensity training reduces the energy available for growth and development. This can affect not only peak bone mass, and the onset of puberty, but a number of other important body systems, which can have lifelong consequences for injury and physical and mental illness."

The sharp increase prompted ACC to develop a new set of guidelines for age-appropriate levels of physical activity. The organisation is encouraging parents to follow a guideline of one hour for every year in age, where the amount of organised sport per week - both training and competition – should not exceed their child's age.

"This will encourage kids to grow a love of sport and physical activity, without sidelining them with injuries or potentially breaking them in the process," says Carlson.

Brett Phibbs/Photosport Representatives from New Zealand's five major sports after the announcement of the signing of a new statement of intent for junior sport. Back row (L-R): Mike Bignell, Hockey NZ chairman, Andrew Pragnell, chief executive of NZ Football, Sport NZ boss Peter Miskimmin. Front row (L-R): Jennie Wyllie, Netball NZ chief executive, NZ Cricket boss David White, and NZ Rugby's chief rugby officer Nigel Cass.

GETTING THE BALL ROLLING

Sport NZ isn't just working with other government agencies, they've enlisted the help of the country's major sports to present a united front in the fight to address the negative influences that are driving kids out of sport.

In September, five national sports organisations - NZ Rugby, NZ Cricket, Netball NZ, NZ Football and Hockey NZ – signed a statement of intent laying out a new approach to youth sport.

The principles agreed to include: providing leadership within their respective sports to support changes to competition and player development opportunities; working with schools and sports to keep minds open when identifying talent in teen years; raising awareness of the risks of overtraining and overloading; and supporting young people to play multiple sports.

For a long time, it would have been unthinkable for these sports organisations to be working in cahoots, having essentially been pitched against one another in an arms race for talent. To now encourage its members to spread their wings and continue to play other sports may appear counterintuitive.

LAWRENCE SMITH Leigh Ashton, author of The Talent Trap, works as a Netball Development Manager at Auckland Netball.

"Part of the problem is sports don't want to share," says Leigh Ashton, author of The Talent Trap – an insight into the competition and chaos of youth sport.

"Rugby is worried about basketball, which is worried about volleyball, which is worried about waterpolo, which is worried about rowing, which is worried about cycling, so these sports want to keep other sports from stealing their best 'talent' by getting them on the pathway early. And often their way of keeping athletes involved is by making bold promises to the kids and their parents, which is not good."

Chiet admits Sport NZ hasn't always helped the situation. He says the government agency created an ecosystem where sports were in competition with one another to drive up their participation numbers. But there is growing recognition that that approach was not serving anyone's interests.

Supplied There is a strong focus on fun and development in junior netball.

The statement of intent doesn't represent a dramatic shift in strategic direction for Netball NZ.

Over the past six years the national body has been working to implement a raft of new initiatives, aimed at ensuring all young players have positive experiences in the game. The revamp came after a 2012 review of its junior programmes.

That review revealed netball had a major problem. In the previous 10 years the number of players in years 7 and 8 (that's intermediate age in old money) had dropped by 15 per cent. The stats also indicated that 10-14 year-olds were the most injured age-group.

Ruth Stanley, Netball NZ's head of community netball, says the confronting figures revealed the sport was not providing a format that was exciting and engaging to youngsters, while there needed to be a stronger emphasis on player welfare at youth level.

Netball NZ set about overhauling the junior formats, introducing a modified version of the game through its 'Future Ferns' programme. The focus, says Stanley, was ensuring kids were learning the skills of the game in an age-appropriate way.

Virginia Woolf Saturday morning netball has undergone an overhaul in the last couple of years.

The big shift came in 2017 when netball centres around the country, to decidedly less public scrutiny than their rugby counterparts two years later, began to remove under-13 rep teams. Netball Mainland was among the first to take the leap, implementing a 'Personal Development Programme' (or PDP to those in the biz). Last year, 27 of the 83 netball centres around the country opted into the programme. This year, that number increased to 42.

Stanley says the biggest advantage of the new format is that it allows the regions to capture more young players.

"So instead of 12 kids in a centre getting that opportunity to be part of a rep programme and learning all those things about motivation and confidence and developing physical skills, we've had centres that are now providing that for up to 120 kids," says Stanley.

"They're still playing the seven-aside game, they're still going to tournaments, but we're providing that opportunity to a lot more kids."

She believes the new approach will be beneficial to netball's elite playing ranks down the track.

Virginia Woolf Netball NZ made several modifications to its junior netball programmes, including cutting down the number of players on court to ensure more opportunities for youngsters to touch the ball.

"We all develop at different ages and stages, so kids that are 11 and 12, some of them might be close to six foot and some of them might only be four foot. The tall ones are gangly and uncoordinated, others might be slow developers, so you don't actually know that the 12 people you're choosing at 11 and 12 are actually going to be the ones that go on to play in the ANZ Premiership.

"There's quite a lot of evidence that highlights if kids miss selection or are de-selected, they have a mindset that they're never going to be good enough and they won't keep playing or they won't keep trying."

The "learnings" – to use popular sporting parlance – from Netball NZ's overhaul of its youth programmes is helping inform how Sport NZ and other national sporting organisations deliver programmes.

"The resources and the commitment it takes from the sports to make this happen is huge," says Chiet.

"Sports are seeing different ways they can do things, but getting buy-in from their stakeholders is the challenging part."

But Sport NZ aren't just battling the "PC gone mad brigade" to be heard.

They're also battling big business.

Part 2 is published on Sunday, January 5: How the professionalisation of junior sport spawned an entire industry.