1 FB799 Dissertation Checklist and Declaration I acknowledge that my dissertation will only be considered as submitted when the following checklist is complete: I have uploaded my dissertation via Turnitin to the FB799 Dissertation and Research Methods module on the Online Hub; I have included evidence of ethical approval to collect data – reference number of the ethical approval and a screenshot of the first page of the ethics form which includes the supervisor’s signature i n an Appendix of the dissertation Consent to Share Dissertation – (please tick if you agree) I give permission for print or electronic copies of my dissertation / research project to be housed at UCFB or Bucks New University library. I understand that my dissertation/research project will be accessible to registered students and staff of UCFB and Bucks New University. All retained dissertations will be reviewed every three years to as sess their continuing value and disposed of, if no longer required. I understand that I will retain full copyright over my work. I confirm that my work does not contain any confidential or libellous material. Declaration I declare that this dissertation is my own original work, that all sources of information used have been correctly referenced and acknowledged, and that no element has been previously presented to another university or institution. Print name : ADAM COLE Sign name : Adam J Cole Student ID : 21514588 Date 26/10/2020 2 UCFB study in collaboration with Preston North End to investigate: A m ixed method approach to identify the attributes scouts prioritise for as well as process es used when recruiting football players in a professional context By Adam Cole Student ID 21514588 A Research project submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for award of the degree of MSc Football Coaching and Analysis Submitted – October 2020 3 Abstract A two - part study approach to investigate the attributes prioritised by scouts in the process of talent identification with process differences considered to discover the effect on attributes identified. Study 1 consisted of a questionnaire with respondent s asked to answer questions around the attributes they value as well as give explanations around the process they apply within their particular role. Study 2 consisted of a case study approach, with scouts tasked with identifyi ng six players from a video, with three players from each identified and explained using a process style of their choice. This was followed by a semi - structured interview to investigate the process used by each scout. Th e study confirmed a preference for psychological attributes in decision making with character being ranked highly among the respondents and participants of both studies. T he processes of each scout were also seen to differ depending on the amount of analysis utilised with their employers al so having an influence in their decision making when identifying talent. Future research is recommended to look into education of player profiling within club s and how the application of such profiles comes from a club ’ s playing philosophy developed throug h data and video processes Acknowledgements The researcher would like to acknowledge the help of his academic supervisor Danielle Prescott for her guidance and support through this study. The researcher would also like to thank the responders for the qu estionnaire as well as the help and support from Preston North End from Andy Livingstone and Alan Smith and all the participants for the case study stage. 4 Contents 1.0 – Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 7 1.1 – Aims and Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8 2.0 – Li terature review ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 2.1 – The Scouting Industry ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 9 2.2 – The Processes in Talent Identification ................................ ................................ .............. 10 2.3 – Player attributes highlighted in literature ................................ ................................ ........... 12 2.4 – The need for clarity and balance ................................ ................................ ....................... 15 3.0 – Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 18 3.1 - Study 1 – Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18 3.2 - Study 2 – Case Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 20 4.0 – Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 23 4.1 Quantitative Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 23 4.1.1 - Openness and Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 23 4.1.2 – Attributes ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 24 4.1.3 - Bias ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 25 4.2 Qualitative Interviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 26 5.0 – Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 28 5.1 – Attributes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 28 5.1.1 - Psycholo gical Attributes ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 28 5.1.2 - Physical attributes ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 30 5.1.3 - Factors affecting attributes ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 33 5.2 – Processes ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 35 5.2.1 - Current processes ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 35 5.2.2 - Changing/developing the process ................................ ................................ .......................... 36 5.2.3 - Philosophy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 38 6.0 - Limitati ons ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 41 7.0 – Conclusion and future research ................................ ................................ ............................ 42 8.0 – References ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 43 9.0 – Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 56 9.1 – Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 56 9.1.1 – Questionnaire – Question 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 60 9.1.2 - Questionnaire – Question 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 60 9.1.3 - Questionnaire – Question 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 61 9.1.4 - Questionnaire – Question 5 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 61 9.1.5 - Questionnaire – Question 6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 62 9.1.6 - Questionnaire – Question 8 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 62 9.1.7 - Questionnaire – Question 7 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 63 5 9.1.8 - Questionnaire – Question 10 ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 63 9.1.9 - Questionnaire – Question 11 ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 64 9.1.10 - Questionnaire – Question 12 ................................ ................................ ................................ 64 9.1.11 - Questionnaire – Question 16 ................................ ................................ ................................ 65 9.1.12 - Questionnaire – Question 13 ................................ ................................ ................................ 65 9.1.13 - Questionnaire – Question 14 ................................ ................................ ................................ 66 9.1.14 - Questionnaire – Question 15 ................................ ................................ ................................ 66 9.1.15 - Questionnaire – Question 17 ................................ ................................ ................................ 67 9.1.16 - Questionnaire – Question 19 ................................ ................................ ................................ 67 9.1.17 - Questionnaire – Question 20 ................................ ................................ ................................ 68 9.1.18 - Questionnaire – Question 23 ................................ ................................ ................................ 68 9.1.19 - Questionnaire – Question 18 ................................ ................................ ................................ 69 9.1.20 - Questionnaire – Question 21 ................................ ................................ ................................ 69 9.1.21 - Questionnaire – Question 22 ................................ ................................ ................................ 70 9.1.22 - Questionnaire – Question 24 ................................ ................................ ................................ 70 9.1.23 - Questionnaire – Question 27 ................................ ................................ ................................ 71 9.1.24 - Questionnaire – Question 28 ................................ ................................ ................................ 71 9.1.25 - Questionnaire – Question 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 72 9.1.26 - Questionnaire – Question 26 ................................ ................................ ................................ 72 9.1.27 - Questionnaire – Question 30 ................................ ................................ ................................ 73 9.1.28 - Questionnaire – Question 31 ................................ ................................ ................................ 73 9.1.29 - Questionnaire – Question 32 ................................ ................................ ................................ 74 9.1.30 - Questionnaire – Question 33 ................................ ................................ ................................ 75 9.1.31 - Questionnaire – Question 25 ................................ ................................ ................................ 76 9.1.32 - Questionnaire – Question 34 ................................ ................................ ................................ 77 9.1.33 - Questionnaire – Question 36 ................................ ................................ ................................ 79 9.1.34 - Questionnaire – Question 37 ................................ ................................ ................................ 80 9.1.35 - Questionnaire – Question 38 ................................ ................................ ................................ 81 9.1.37 - Questionnaire – Question 30 Years Scouting Slice ................................ .......................... 84 9.1.38 - Questionnaire – Question 24 Age Slice ................................ ................................ .............. 86 9.1.39 - Questionnaire – Question 24 Years Scouting Slice ................................ .......................... 88 9.1.40 - Questionnaire – Question 26 Age Slice ................................ ................................ .............. 90 9.1.41 - Questionnaire – Que stion 34 Age Slice ................................ ................................ .............. 91 9.1.42 - Questionnaire – Question 25 Age Slice ................................ ................................ .............. 94 9.1.43 - Questionnaire – Question 25 Years Scouting Slice ................................ .......................... 94 9.1.44 - Questionnaire – Question 23 Age Slice ................................ ................................ .............. 95 9.1.45 - Questionnaire – Question 17 Age Slice ................................ ................................ .............. 95 6 9.1.46 - Questionnaire – Question 20 Age Slice ................................ ................................ .............. 96 9.1.47 - Questionnaire – Question 20 Analysis types Slice ................................ ............................ 96 9.1.48 - Questionnaire – Question 19 Years Scouting Slice ................................ .......................... 97 9.1.49 - Questionnaire – Question 21 Analysis types Slice ................................ ............................ 98 9.1.50 - Questionnaire – Question 13 Analysis ty pes Slice ................................ .......................... 100 9.1.51 - Questionnaire – Question 13 Age Slice ................................ ................................ ............ 100 9.1.52 - Questionnaire – Question 22 Years Scouting Slice ................................ ........................ 101 9.1.53 - Questionnaire – Question 15 Age Slice ................................ ................................ ............ 103 9.1.54 - Questionnaire – Question 21 Age Slice ................................ ................................ ............ 104 9.1.55 - Questionnaire – Question 21 Years Scouting Slice ................................ ........................ 106 9.1.56 - Questionnaire – Question 21 Scouting Process Slice ................................ .................... 108 9.1.57 - Questionnaire – Question 5 Age Slice ................................ ................................ .............. 110 9.2 – Data clean of questionnaire ................................ ................................ ............................ 111 9.3 – Semi - structured interview transcriptions ................................ ................................ ......... 118 9.3.1 – Participant A ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 118 9.3.2 – Participant C ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 121 9.3.3 – Pa rticipant D ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 122 9.4 – Gatekeepers permission ................................ ................................ ................................ 125 9.5 – Questionnaire advert ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 126 9.6 – Participant reports ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 127 9.6.1 – Participant A ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 127 9.6.2 – Participant C ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 132 9.6.2 – Participant D ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 133 9.7 – Ethi cs form ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 135 7 1.0 – Introduction The recruitment strategies of professional football clubs have always been open for debate, with scouts and coaches constantly looking to identify the most effective process of identifying and developing talent. The value of an effective scouting system is seen as vital given the performance advantage over potential rivals gained through the process of scouting the most talented young player, with the potential financial rewards on offer ( Grant , 2002). Clubs in Europe’s top five leagues alone completed 1,932 transfer deals, totalling a cost of approximately £5.3bn, with those responsible for the early stages of identifying targets both underpaid and undervalued (Reddy, M , 2020). The concept of talent id entification (TID) is widely conteste d with Williams and Reilly ( 2000) stating T ID refers to the process of recognizing current participants with the potential to become elite players. The role of scouts often indulges within TID, h owever , little is known about ‘what’ scouts do or ‘think’ when identifying talent and selecting player s for either long - term development or short - term performance ( Reeves, McRobert, Lewis and Roberts , 2019). This can arguably come down to a number of previous studies sampling players ( Christense n and Sørensen, 2009) , coaches ( Christensen , 2009) , parents ( Clarke and Harwood, 2014) or a combination of these groups rather than including recruitment staff. T he difficulty in identifying the attributes for success and the scouting process to follow is further compound ed by the lack of a consensus that defines talent ( Vaeyens, Lenoir, Williams and Philippaerts. 2008; Baker, Schorer and Wattie, 2018; Baker, Coble y, Schorer and Wattie , 2017). The technical and tactical proficiency and physical prowess of a player is often used as a means of distinguishing the elite from their lesser skilled counterparts ( Farrow and Raab , 2008 ). However , as Christensen found in her study of Danish youth coaches, very few of those involved could clearly express which criteria they used to identify the most talented players ( S aether . 2014; Christensen , 2009) In more recent studies though there has been a g reater emphasis on uncover ing the objective nature of recruitment, stepping away from the thoughts of coaches, given that they have greater responsibility for development rather than identification ( Reeves, Littlewood, McRobert and Roberts 2018 ; Reeves, R oberts, McRobert and Littlewood , 2018). To date, however, there has been little interest in recruitment staff as a participant group for TID research, many previous studies have, as already mentioned, tended to utilise coaches ( Mil ler, Cronin and Baker 20 15 ; Christensen , 2009). T his study will look to move towards a more objective view on identifying talent from the point of view of those scouts involved . The recent influx of data and statistics has focused on the coaches or scouts preconceived image of the ideal player ( Hertzog, Paul, Nassis and S ilva 2018 ; Williams and Reilly, 2000) resulting in repetitive misjudgements in the TID processes ( Meylan, Cronin, Oliver and Hughes , 2010). With the identification process having not received further empirical attention ( Nicholls and Worsfold , 2016) , the 8 speed of player movements and the number of player in terventions will continue to be used as subjective visual observations ( Meylan, Cronin, Oliver and Hughes 2010 ; Webb, Wagstaff, Rayne r and Thelwell , 2016) rather than build towards an objective outlook This study will therefore look to investigate the decision making of professional scouts by highlighting the attributes prioritised within the talent identification process. Building on the work of Reev es, et al 2019, by questioning a larger audience , this study will look to identify not only high valued attributes but also the process behind such decisions through a questionnaire format However t his study will differ from past research by using semi - st ructured interview techniques to elicit the factors affecting TID fro m an organisational ( Reeves, Littlewood, McRobert and Roberts , 2018 ) and philosophical perspective ( Larkin and O’Connor , 2017). This study will look to use a mixed method approach to first question a sample of scouts and then examin e verbal reports written through a focus group experiment. 1. 1 – Aims and Objectives Aim To identify the attributes of football players that scouts prioritise and the process they apply in the recruitmen t process at a professional football club within the Youth D evelopment P hase (YDP), the Foundation P hase (FP) and the Professional D evelopment P hase (PDP). Objectives Objective 1 - To identify which attributes scouts hold in highest regard when sourcing professional talent to recruit for their employer across the three applicable age phases. Objective 2 - To understand the analytical process scouts use to interpret the attributes t hey have identified in line with of their clubs playing philosophy. Objective 3 - To understand how a scout’s prior experience and /or age might influence their identification of player attributes 9 2.0 – Literature review 2.1 – The s couting i ndustry In order to understand what attributes and process es to prioritise, this thesis must consider the complexity of TI D , which fulfils the role of those involved in the scouting industry. TI D is seen as a necessary road to find elite perform ers (Baker, Wattie and Schorer, 2019) , widely reported as a non - linear, dynamic and complex process (Abbott and Collins, 2004; Bailey an d Morley, 2006; Baker and Schorer, 2010). W hat must be considered is the quick - fix environment of football (Bevan, 2015) . T ID is considered an important task in football, as a consequence, top - level European clubs seem to identify soccer talent at an incre asingly earlier age (Roderick, 2006). One reason for clubs wish ing to identify soccer talent at a young age relate s to their fear of identifying these players too “late”, both in terms of development opportunities and the risk of losing the players to comp eting clubs ( Sæther, 2014). With the pressures of large sums of money now involved in football transfers, identifying and developing indigenous talent is now considered a necessity (Carling, L e Gall, Reilly and Williams, 2009; Williams and Reilly, 2000) with the most common reason clubs citing for undertaking TI D is to provide players for the first team (Williams and Reilly, 2000). With in th e industry there is therefore a need to provide scouts with a skillset to manage expectations and provide clarity and realistic outcomes. What must be considered is that talent needs to be detected, identified and developed in more sophisticated ways, meaning the state of the knowledge surrounding TI D is cons tantly changing ( Reeves, Littlewood, McRobert and Roberts, 2018). This highlights the important role talent scouts play in the decision - making process to recruit, observe and capture data to employ a subjective judgement based on on - field actions ( Radicchi and Mozzachiodi, 2016). With the subjective nature of scouting, scouts historically have been responsible for much of the TI D within their respective clubs, searching for players that suit the ir ideal player image (Williams and Reilly, 2000). Howe ver, unlike coaches, talent scouts are not required to possess any formal qualification to undertake the work that they do ( League, 2011). Those who undertake scouting roles are, typically, individuals who have spent some considerable time either playing or coaching football ( Levett, 2018), considered fountains of knowledge within their ‘patch’ connected to local youth team managers, other scouts, and parents (Hassan, 2013). Although this may currently qualify such people to scout, without educatio n, scouts working in isolation can result in repetitive misjudgements ( Meylan, Cronin, Oliver and Hughes, 2010). Which points to the fact that if those currently in these roles are seen as qualified, why ha s little attention been paid to the criteria that scouts use to identify football talent (Pankhurst and Collins, 2013). 10 2.2 – The p rocesses in t alent i dentification The process for TI D has been much debated , a range of scout’s opinions based o n qualitative and quantitative data which is loosely positioned around their respect ive club’s recruitment and playing philosophy ( Reeves, Roberts, McRobert and Littlewood, 2018 ; Levett, 2018). Within this, the practice of TI D is based upon extensive knowledge, years of experience, memories and reflection on previous identification processes with scouts tend ing to rely on their own tactical knowledge and instinct s (Nash and Collins, 2006). With scouts developing their understan ding and values, through discussions, experiences and a shared purpose of identifying the most talented players in each district (Lund and Söderström, 2017). Traditionally scouts compile reports on player weaknesses and opposing team strategies (Match anal ysis), as well as more advanced scouting entailing seeking out and evaluating new pools of talent (talent scouting) ( Radicchi and Mozzachiodi, 2016). However, t he process of TI D has traditionally been informed by non - scientific practices of viewing athlete s in tr ia l games, with a scout ’ s preconceived notion of the ideal player, which used in isolation may result in repetitive misjudgements and limited consistency ( Meylan, Cronin, Oliver and Hughes, 2010; Williams and Reilly, 2000) This process is arguably wrongly applied, as identifying talent for field game s i s far from a mechanic al process, made even more complex in group sports such as football ( Reilly, Williams, Nevill and Franks, 2000). There have been moves towards an added objective analytical process to improve recruitment polices from elite clubs in England through the advantage of new technology for video analysis and database systems for player reports ( Barron, Ball, Robins and Sunderland, 2020). The problem being that TI D is a mu ltifaceted process, with successful performance resulting from the dynamic interaction between each other, the changing environment and task demands, which is difficult to objectify ( Phillips, Davids, Renshaw and Portus, 2010). Historically, TID programs are associated with the subjective evaluation of players’ potential by coaches and scouts, who base their criteria primarily on personal taste, knowledge, and experience ( Christensen, 2009; Meylan, Cronin, Oliver and Hughes, 2010 ). TI D at a young age has been seen to rest on assumptions suggesting that talent is domain specific, early indications of talent can be recognised by a trained eye and that such early indications can predict success in the future (Durand - Bush and Salmela, 2001). However, in the last few decades, there has been an increasing interest in complementing these subjective assessments with evidence - based talent identification procedures, in order to increase the probability of selecting successful players. As a result, talent res earch has seen the integration of multidimensional and comprehensive models that detail prerequisites and predictors of successful adult performance ( Williams and Reilly, 2000 ; Vaeyens , Lenoir, Williams and Philippaerts, 2008; Unnithan, White, Georgiou, Ig a and Drust, 2012). 11 Due to the subjective nature of the process to identify elite players and the non - linear process TI D requires , there have long been arguments around what attributes to identify ( Helsen, Starkes and Van Winckel, 2000). However, what must be considered is that a scout’s evaluation of specific qualities of future elite players is their interpretation of these players’ mental, physical and technical qualities and not their past experiences (McCormick, 2015). Coaches and decision makers in pr ofessional football have traditionally used subjective observations to assess the performance of their team, to review the strengths and weaknesses of future opponents and to identify potential signings (Carling, Williams and Reilly, 2005) Arguably this may come down to such field tests to detect individual s who standout, only considered a satisfactory alternative to laboratory test s ( Castagna, Manzi, Impellizzeri, Weston and Alvarez, 2010) as they are usually simple and do not require equip ment for their application (Walker and Turner, 2009) However w ith t he development of advanced computer systems this has supported a greater understanding of position profiles with in football. M ost of the research to date has used subjective methods to sel ect variables for analysis (Taylor, Mellalieu and James, 2004) or they have replicated indicators used in other studies (Andrzejewski, Konefal, Chmura, Kowalczuk and Chmura, 2016). With various methodological approaches to TI D , there have been attempts to determine the most effective system for football (Vaeyens, Coelho e Silva, Visscher, Philippaerts and Williams, 2013; Abbott and Collins, 2004; Vaeyens, Lenoir, Williams and Philippaerts, 2008; Durand - Bush and Salmela, 2001) , although there still remain doubts over the scientific foundations for objective TI D systems ( Bailey and Talbot, 2015). Sports organi s ations, especially within the North American context, have begun to embrace advanced analytics based on digital technologi es to assess players’ technical skills and their future success (Schumaker, Solieman and Chen, 2010) but there is still a lack of knowledge about the role and impact of these new technologies on the TID process ( Radicchi and Mozzachiodi, 2016). Therefore, it is not surprising that there are few, if any, models to identify talents that are globally accepted as , according to the authors, many of the proposed models are, in the best case, descriptive and schematic and there have been few attempts to identify their validity ( Louzada, Maiorano and Ara, 2016) 12 2.3 – Player a ttributes highlighted in literature Before identifying what attributes are prioritised with TI D , there is a need for a greater understanding around what makes an attribute. It has been argued that scouts predict the development potential of a young player using physical (Figueiredo, Gonçalves, Coelho Silva and Malina, 2009 ; Gil, Zabala - Lili, Bidaurr azaga - Letona, Aduna, Lekue, Santos - Concejero and Granados, 2014 ; Vaeyens, Malina, Janssens, Van Renterghem, Bourgois, Vrijens and Philippaerts, 2006) physiological ( Höner and Votteler, 2016 ; Huijgen, Elferink - Gemser, Lemmink and Visscher, 2014 ; Gonaus and Müller, 2012 ; Martinez - Santos, Castillo and Los Arcos, 2016) , technical ( Reilly, Williams, Nevil l and Franks, 2000 ; Höner, Leyhr and Kelava, 2017 ; Deprez, Fransen, Lenoir, Philippaerts and Vaeyens, 2015 ; Le Moal, Rué, Ajmol, Abderrahman, Hammami, Ounis, Zouhal, 2014 ; Huijgen, Elferink - Gemser, Ali and Visscher, 2013 ; Kannekens, Elferink‐Gemser and Visscher, 2011 ; Silva, Figueiredo, Simoes, Seabra, Natal, Vaeyens and Malina, 2010) and mental attributes ( Van Yperen, 2009 ; Haugaasen, Toering and J ordet , 2014; Helsen, Starkes and Van Winckel, 2000). However, what must be considered is the use of attributes over characteristics, with an argument for key performance characteristics related to task constraints, performers constraints and environmental const raints ( Sarmento, Anguera, Pereira and Araújo, 2018). Problems that have arisen from such predictors is that they are dynamic, interact with one another, and are responsive to practice and training ( Güllich, 2014; Suppiah, Low and Chia, 2015) , but also eac h attribute may vary in the rate at which it advances over the course of a year’s maturation (Doyle, 2018) and therefore a description of what talent entails is difficult to distinguish. Larkin and O’Connor (2017) have identified seven attributes that are considered “ most important ” (e.g., first touch, 1 v 1, striking the ball, coachability), and a further ten that were considered "moderately important" (Doyle, 2018). Yet, an important issue arises that the successful performance of a f ootball player is not related to one standard set of attributes but is instead achieved through a unique set of different combinations ( Meylan, Cronin, Oliver and Hughes, 2010). With the differing context of football, players must adapt, leading to an argu ment that players do not need to present one singular extraordinary attribute, but a high level in all of them ( Reilly, Bangsbo and Franks, 2000). Therefore, it is stated that the TI D process must regard many attributes to determine a high - level player wor thy of pursuing (Reilly et al., 2000 ; Reilly, Williams, Nevill and Franks, 2000 ; Vaeyens, Lenoir, Williams and Philippaerts, 2008 ; Vaeyens, Malina, Janssens, Van Renterghem, Bourgois, Vrijens and Philippaerts, 2006; Gonaus and Müller, 2012; Williams and Re illy, 2000; Buekers, Borry and Rowe, 2015). There is a general consensus that all attributes are important, which creates difficulty in identifying which should be prioritised to improve accuracy in the TI D process. Research has shown that professional clubs rely on the subjective assessment of scouts and coaches utilising a ‘shopping list’ of key criteria such as TABS (Technique, Attitude, Balance, Speed), SUPS (Speed, Understanding, Personality, Skill) (St ratton, Reilly, Williams and Richardson , 2004) and TIPS (Talent, Intelligence, Personality, Speed) (Brown, 2001). However , previous literature has argued that a much smaller scope using qualitative interviews identified a player’s speed, play intelligence, attitude towards training and learning the game as criteria for 13 TI D ( Lund and Söderström, 2017). Others have suggested that players who possess speed, ball control, and an overall desire to succeed are attributes to highlight the most talented players ( Ho lt and Mitchell, 2006). In either direction, it is recommended in TI D that scouts take a holistic multidisciplinary approach, rather than isolated assessments of individual skills and qualities ( Hoare and Warr, 2000; Unnithan, White, Georgiou, Iga, Unnitha n, White and Drust, 2017). As well as the identification of such attributes there is a need to evaluate these attribute s , with differing views around how to recognise superior ability. It is argued that a combination of technical and physical attributes (Vaeyens et al, 2008), being simultaneously evaluated Is essential to identify successful football performance ( Unnithan, White, Georgiou, Iga and Drust, 2012; Dodd, Newans, 2018). However , the move towards psychological attributes has caused debate as to how important they are to the TI D process. Recent work has primarily focused on areas that build up to make psychological attributes such as personality factors like grit, hardiness and resilience ( Larkin and O’Connor, 2017; Meyer, Markgraf and Gnacinski, 2017) , a s well as motivational characteristics such as achievement motivation, achievement goal orientation, and self - determination ( Zuber, Zibung and Conzelmann, 2015) However , greater focus around sk illed individuals has shown they possess greater information processing abilities such as decision - making, anticipation, situational probability and pattern recognition ( Ward, Ericsson and Williams, 2013; Ward and Williams, 2003). This has led to research indicating that psychological attributes such as self - confidence and motivation, may predict elite level football success ( Williams and Reilly, 2000; Gucciardi, Gordon and Dimmock, 2008; Van Yperen, 2009). Studies have therefore looked to prove the importance of psychological attributes in the TI D process. Larkin and O’Connor (2017) highlighted from a pool of youth players, those selected into academies were more likely to posses superior perceptual - cognitive skills than those not selected. A lso, a n umber of studies have highlighted higher level players could better anticipate the actions of their opponents, more efficiently adapt their visual search strategies and possess superior game reading, when compared to lower - level players (Den Hartigh, Van Der Steen, Hakvoort, Frencken and Lemmink, 201 8 ; Vaeyens, Lenoir, Williams, Mazyn and Philippaerts, 2007; Vaeyens, Lenoir, William s and Philippaerts, 2007) However , this has drawn criticism, with this study assuming that it is possible to create representative tasks that can measure perceptual - cognitive skills (Vänttinen, Blomqvist and Häkkinen, 2010) , with another study highlighting that it is unknown whether psychosocial characteristics dire ctly influence how expertise develops and whether their effects change over time (Höner and Feichtinger, 2016; Toering, Elferink - Gemser, Jordet and Visscher, 2009; Van Yperen, 2009; Zuber, Zibung and Conzelmann, 2015, 2016) Although some dispute its accuracy, the study provided a model which can better understand the prevailing subjective judgements of talent scouts ( Mann, Dehghansai and Baker, 2017) t o better understand the rarely linear player development due to the intertwined nature of cognitive and motor skills (Güllich and Emrich, 2014; Gulbin, Weissensteiner, Oldenziel and Gagné, 2013; Den 14 Hartigh, Niessen, Frencken and Meijer, 2018; Den Hartigh, Hill and Van Geert, 2018; Davids, Button and Bennett, 2008). Recent studies have also found that psychological parameters play only a modest role in predicting actual performance ( Me yer, Markgraf and Gnacinski, 2017; Abbott and Collins, 2004; Höner and Votteler, 2016), although they do have some part to play in the success of other aspect s such as preparation ( Meyer, Markgraf and Gnacinski, 2017) Therefore, it has been argued that psychological parameters assist talent development but are too weak for the purpose of TI D (Höner and Feichtinger , 2016). This may stem from a lack of identification of such attributes, leading to research needing to branch out to take under consideration the sociological factors such as parental support, cultural background and hours of practice ( Williams and Reilly, 2000; W illiams and Franks, 1998). Technical attributes have always been of great importance as highlighted in literature, with a substantial body of research indicating technical skills differentiate youth football performance ( Vaeyens, Malina, Janssens, Van Rent erghem, Bourgois, Vrijens, and Philippaerts, 2006; Coelho, Figueiredo, Simoes, Seabra, Natal, Vaeyens and Malina, 2010; Figueiredo, Gonçalves, Coelho e Silva and Malina, 2009; Banfi and Del Fabbro, 2006). Research has indicated that sides who maintain poss ession of the ball are more likely to be successful ( Araya and Larkin, 2014; Lago - Peñas and Dellal, 2010), with a ke y part of this being technical skills such as passing, first touch and dribbl