Abstract
Objective: The main goal of the present study was to investigate the interim performance progression (IPP) of talented swimmers. Part of this group ultimately made it to the top (referred to as elite swimmers) whereas others did not make it to the top (referred to as high-competitive swimmers). Rather than investigating performance progression based solely on season best performances, we included the first swim performance of the season in the metrics of IPP. Knowledge about the IPP of talented swimmers from and toward their season best performances relative to the first swim performance of the season will enhance our understanding of changes in season best performances during the talent trajectory and provide valuable insights for talent development and selection processes in competitive swimming.Methods: Fifteen thousand nine hundred and forty four swim performances (first swim performances of the season and season best performances) between 1993 and 2019 of 3,199 talented swimmers (of whom 556 reached elite level and 2,643 reached high-competitive level) were collected from Swimrankings and related to the prevailing world record of the corresponding sex. The pattern of IPP was represented by two phases: phase A and phase B. Phase A reflected the performance progression between the previous season best performance and the first swim performance of the current season (PPA) and phase B reflected the performance progression between the first swim performance of the current season and the season best performance of the current season (PPB). Depending on the normality check, we used independent sample t-tests or Mann Whitney tests to establish significant differences in PPA and PPB between elite and high competitive swimmers per age category per sex (p < 0.05).Results: Without denying individual differences, male elite swimmers improved more during phase B from age 15 till 24 compared to high-competitive swimmers (20.5% vs. 13.1%, respectively, p < 0.05). Female elite swimmers improved more during phase B from age 13 till 23 compared to high-competitive swimmers (21.1% vs. 14.6%, respectively, p < 0.05). Except for age 14 in males, there were no significant differences between performance groups in PPA.Conclusion: Talented swimmers who ultimately made it to the top (elite swimmers) are characterized with different patterns of IPP compared to talented swimmers who did not make it to the top (high-competitive swimmers). After puberty, elite and high-competitive swimmers performed in general ~1% slower at the start of their season compared to their previous season best performance (PPA). However, elite swimmers improved more in the period between their first swim performance of the season and their season best performance (PPB) from age 13 (females) and age 15 (males) onwards.
Highlights
For coaches and stakeholders in competitive swimming, season best performances and national rankings are the main information source for talent identification and selection processes (KNZB, 2018)
As it is well-known that at some point during a swimmers’ career, the rate of performance progression begins to reduce, we found it highly important to include metrics of interim performance progression (IPP) that enabled the interpretation of performance progression of swimmers relative to their previous performance level (PPA) and relative to the elite performance level (PPB)
As elite swimmers and high-competitive swimmers did not significantly differ in the performance progression in phase A, we suggest that differences in progression during phase B (PPB) between elite and high-competitive swimmers should not be accounted to previously emerged differences in PPA, but to different developmental patterns in phase B
Summary
For coaches and stakeholders in competitive swimming, season best performances and national rankings are the main information source for talent identification and selection processes (KNZB, 2018). Several researchers are questioning this one-sided approach in which performance at early stages of development (e.g., age 12 onwards in competitive swimming; KNZB, 2018) is used as an indicator of future performance (Abbott et al, 2005; Vaeyens et al, 2009; Elferink-Gemser et al, 2011). They advocate that there are multiple pathways to reach expertise and that there is a risk to erroneously overlook athletes as being talented by focusing on current performance only (Vaeyens et al, 2008; Gulbin et al, 2013; Till et al, 2016). The findings showed that (1) compared to each other, top-elite swimmers follow unique individual developmental pathways toward expertise and (2) compared to other performance groups, top-elite swimmers in general progressively outperform their elite, sub-elite and high-competitive swimmers of similar age from 12 years onwards
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
