Send Orders for Reprints to reprints@benthamscience.ae
The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2017, 10, 141-150

141

The Open Sports Sciences Journal
Content list available at: www.benthamopen.com/TOSSJ/
DOI: 10.2174/1875399X01710010141

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Norwegian Football Academy Players – Player´S Self-Assessed Skills,
Stress and Coach-Athlete Relationship
Stig Arve Sæther1, *, Nils Petter Aspvik1 and Rune Høigaard2
1

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
University of Agder, Norway

2

Received: December 06, 2016

Revised: July 6, 2017

Accepted: July 21, 2017

Abstract:
Background:
Being part of a football academy environment is associated with many advantages. Even so, academy players will also encounter arange of personal and interpersonal challenges that might affect their development, including stress and the coach-athlete
relationship.
Objective:
This study’s purpose was to investigate how football academy players assessed their own skills compared to their teammates, andhow this is associated with perceived stressors and their perceived relationship with their coach.
Method:Participants (N= 122) represented 3 football academies (12-19 years old). Instruments used were CART-Q and a modified version of
the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire.
Results:
The results showed that the players with high-perceived skill reported a higher amount of self-organized training, more playing time,and a lower level of performance stress compared to the low perceived skill players. The results also indicate that the players
perceived they had a close coach-athlete relationship and a low level of stress.
Conclusion:
The results suggest that low perceived skill players should receive equitable focus from coaches, especially related to theirperformance stress.
Keywords: Talent development, Football academies, Stress, Coach-Athlete relationship, Self-assessed skills.

INTRODUCTION
Becoming an elite soccer player is a challenging and demanding process which requires both talent and an extensive
time of deliberate practice over several years [1]. In order to foster talented young players, football academies havebecome an important development arena. Being part of a football academy environment is associated with many
advantages, such as; high-level coaches, skilled teammates, and training facilities [2], which often result in increased
motivation to continue training for a potential professional career [3]. An important part of the development process isthe constant skill-assessment that the players face. Such assessments are usually done by expert coaches [4]. However,* Address correspondence to this author at the Associate professor, sports science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim,
Norway; Tel: +47 73551133; E-mail: stigarve@ntnu.no

1875-399X/17

2017 Bentham Open142 The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2017, Volume 10Sæther et al.

the players’ ability to self-assess their own skills, in addition to engage in critical reflection on their training, could
beregarded as important parts of the development process [5, 6] in terms of addressing their potential lack of skills. As aresult, academy players will encounter a range of personal and interpersonal challenges that might affect theirdevelopment [7]. For example, the players are expected to perform at a high level on a weekly basis, experiencing ahigh level of pressure. This pressure may be warranted, necessary, and integrated content in the development process to
become a more elite player. Even if players are expected to regulate this pressure, a high level of pressure may be adouble-edged sword; it can lead to the development of mental toughness and strategies to cope with pressure and stress,
but it can also be damaging and hamper the development process, resulting in choking under pressure or potentiallywithdrawing from competitions.
Even among talented football academy players, there are large differences in the players’ skill level and one could
therefore expect the players to assess their own skills accordingly, and this assessment could also be an important partof the further development of these players skills, and play a significant part of their role in the group.
Player Self-Assessment of Skill
An important part of the development process is the constant skill-assessment that the players face in theircompetitive environment. Such assessments are usually done by expert coaches [4]. Coaches could also be introducing
a self-fulfilling prophesy in selecting players for their team, which, in turn, affects these players’ assessments of theirskills and their lack of such skills if they do not get the opportunity to play. This would give the selected players theadvantages, since the coach-athlete relationship has been found to enhance mental toughness [8], potentially affecting
the athlete’s ability to cope with stress [9, 10]. However, even if the coach is the most important supplier of a stable andpredictable social environment, the players are also faced with their own expectations. The players’ ability to self-assess
their own skills, in addition to engage in critical reflection on their training, could be regarded as important parts of thedevelopment process [5, 6]. It is, however, important to acknowledge the possibility of a social desirability bias whenplayers are assessing their own skills. For example, in a study of young talented football players they found that the
youngest players overestimated their own skills compared to their older teammates [11]. However, despite a potential
bias, the player`s feeling will be the same. If you don`t feel good enough, it doesn`t matter if you are underestimating
your skills compared to the coaches’- or teammate`s perception. The player`s feeling will be the same, hence a potential
increased stress level in this regard.
StressStress is often defined as an imbalance between the situation and a player’s resources [12]. The term “stress” hasbeen widely discussed: Fletcher, Hanton, and Mellalieu [13] suggested that stress should represent an overall processincorporating stressors, appraisals, strains, and coping responses. According to Fletcher et al. [13], a stressor is theenvironmental demand or stimulus encountered by an individual, while strain is defined as an individual’s negative
response to stressors (e.g., burnout, dropout).
Independent of its definition, stress is experienced at different intensities and durations during adolescence and has
different effects on each individual [14], and it seems to increase during the players’ adolescence. An example of such
stressors could be a player who is coping with a transition into academy football [15], and the fear of failure regarding
performance and development [16]. Players must learn to cope with stressors if they are to pursue a career in
professional sports [9], as failure to cope can lead to decreased performance [17]. The stress-recovery balance has beenfound to be related to injuries and illnesses in youth elite football players [18]. It is reasonable to believe that the players
could experience the perception of stress differently based on the skill level of the player [1]. One could expect theplayers with the highest skills to experience the highest pressure to perform, and thereby, the highest level of stress. On
the contrary, players who are experiencing a lack of mastery could have a high degree of stress because they may not be
selected for the playing squad or they may be afraid of losing their place in the academy. This could potentiallycontribute to reduced well-being [19], hope [20], and player burnout [21, 22]. Furthermore, according to Rudolph [23]and Rudolph and Hammen [24], boys seem to experience the most stress in relation to external events. Examples ofsuch external events might be their coach, their teammates, and their performance. A qualitative study of early (12-14
years) and middle adolescent (15-18 years) Premier League Academy players found making errors, team performance,coaches, and selection to be the most important stressors among the middle adolescent players, while making errors,
team performance, opposition, and family were the most important stressors among early adolescent players [1].

Norwegian Football Academy Players

The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2017, Volume 10 143

Coach-Athlete RelationshipIn the sports context, the coach-athlete relationship plays a central role in the athletes' physical and psychosocial
development [25, 26]. More specifically, the coach-athlete relationship has been reported to have a significant impact
on athlete satisfaction, performance, perceived skill, and self-esteem [27 - 29]. Several research studies have underlined
the importance of high quality coach-athlete relationships in reducing stress, performing well, and enjoying competitive
experiences [30]. Similarly, Rodahl, Giske, Peters, and Høigaard [8] demonstrates that satisfaction with the coachrelates positively to mental toughness, with the most important aspect being personal treatment, which subsequently
may increase the athlete’s ability to cope with stress [9, 10]. A study conducted by Lorimer and Jowett [31] revealed theimportance of empathic coaches. An emphatic coach has a capacity to accurately perceive, from moment-to-moment,
the psychological condition of an athlete, such as feelings, mood and motivation behind his/her behaviour. Lorimer and
Jowett found that having an emphatic coach might have a positive impact on athletes’ performance and success, and theauthors implied a need for coaches and athletes to work closely together. Jowett and Ntoumanis [32] identified three
dimensions in describing the coach-athlete relationship: Commitment, Closeness, and Complementarity. Commitment
represents coaches’ and athletes’ shared perspectives (common goals, values, beliefs) which are developed as a result ofopen channels of communication. Closeness refers to feeling emotionally close with one another in the coach-athlete
relationship. The construct of Complementarity reflects coaches’ and athletes’ complementarity or co-operativeinteractions, especially during training [32].
The development of a close and empathic coach-athlete relationship is a long-term process, and it is shaped by theenvironment in which it unfolds. In team sports, and perhaps especially in a football academy context, there are several
challenges that may hinder or hamper the possibility for all players to establish a close and productive coach-athlete
relationship. Firstly, coaches in team sports are more likely to interact with the whole group of athletes (i.e., the team),
because more focus is on developing the team as a whole, in contrast to individual sports, where the focus is more likely
to be individually focused. In addition, in team sports, the group is often larger, and consequently, less time andrecourse are available for interactions with each member of the group [33]. Lorimer and Jowett [34] found that coaches
and athletes demonstrate a better empathic understanding in individual sports compared to team sports. A similarfinding is apparent in Rhind et al.’s [33] study, in which individual athletes were much closer, more committed, andmore complementarity to their coach than athletes in team sports. Secondly, in a talent academy, the pressure andexpectation to develop elite players also embrace the coaches. It is therefore more likely that the coaches will invest
more time and interact more closely with some of the players (i.e., most talented) and will also give them more playing
time, because the coach believes and expects that their probability of becoming new elite players is greater. Based on
this, it may be reasonable to expect that the best players, indicated by the most playing time, may experience a closer
coach-athlete relationship than players with less playing time. Furthermore, a close and empathic coach-athlete
relationship may also be a significant factor in coping with different stressors in the environment. However, if thequality of the coach-athlete relationship is poor, athletes may not be able to utilize their coaches as a coping mechanism
and instead may experience the coach as a new stressor for them.
According to Reeves et al. [1], adolescent athletes in team sports are under-represented within the stress and coping
literature, and research in this area is highly recommended. This article will therefore examine football academy
players’ perceived stress, and coach-athlete relationships, and how they are related to self-assessed skills. Morespecifically, it was investigated that whether there were differences in perceived stress and the coach-athlete
relationship between athletes with high perceived skill, average perceived skill, and low perceived skill.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
One hundred and twenty-two Norwegian male youth football players (mean age = 14.0 yrs, SD 2.0 yrs) representing
two football academies, one top-level club (31%) and one league two club (69%), respectively, were included in thepresent study. All of the players in both academies participated in this study.
Procedure
The data were collected after a training session in the respective academies following the end of their season. Before
answering the questionnaire, all the participants were informed about the purpose of the study, that their participation
was voluntary, that the survey was anonymous, and that all information would be treated confidentially. All players

144 The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2017, Volume 10Sæther et al.

were given an information letter for their parents. The study (ethics clearance) was in accordance and approved by the
Norwegian Social Science Data Services.
Instruments
Demographics. The participants were asked five questions about their player Characteristics. They were asked about
their age, month of birth on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 = January-March, and 4 = October-December. The
participants were asked to rank their playing time in the ended season on a 4-point scale from 1 = Few of the matches, 2= Some of the matches, 3 = Most of the matches, 4 = All the matches. They were also asked about their amount oforganized and self-organised training, both on a 7-point scale from 1 = one day a week, to 7 = seven days a week.
Self-assessed skills. The participants rated their skills (technical, tactical, mental, social, and physical) on a 5-point
scale ranging from better than most on my team [1] to worse than most on my team [5]. By adding these values together,
we obtained a total average rated assessment of the players’ skills. Furthermore, the players’ assessment of their own
skills was divided into three categories: ‘High perceived skill’ (HPS; the 25% with the highest average score); ‘Average
perceived skill’ (APS; 50%); ‘Low perceived skill’ (LPS; the 25% with the lowest average score). Such a division ofplayers into three groups has been done previously in a similar study, although this study mostly studied the perceived
talent development environment [19].
Stress. The Adolescent Stress Questionnaire is a scale measuring stress among adolescence in general [35, 36], andnot related to sport. The adolescent stress questionnaire was therefore a starting point when we developed a 12-item
questionnaire related to stress in football (sport) among youths. As a result, a 12-item football players’ stressor
questionnaire was developed for this study. The introduction to these questions was: “Here are some statements about
things or situations that you may experience as stressful. Please tell us how stressful each of these things or situations
have been for you over the past year.” The items were rated on a 5-point scale: 1 (Not stressful or irrelevant); 2 (A little
stressful), 3 (Moderately stressful), 4 (Quite stressful), and 5 (Very stressful).
The 12 items were subjected to a principal component analysis (PCA) using SPSS version 21.0. Prior to performing
the PCA, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed.
An inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The KeiserMeyer-Olkin value was .79, exceeding the recommended value of .6, and the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity reachedstatistical significance (p<.05), supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix [37]. A principal component
analysis revealed the presence of four components with an eigenvalue above 1, explaining 39.5%, 11.5%, 8.6%, and8.1% of the variance, respectively Table (1). All four components were retained for further investigation. To aid in theinterpretation of these four components, a Varimax rotation was performed. The four factor solutions explained a totalof 67.8% of the variance.
Table 1. Principal component analysis (PCA).
Item

Comp 1

Comp 2Comp 3Comp 4Alpha If deleted

Disagreement with your coach

.82

.73

Being evaluated by teammates

.63

.58

Being evaluated by your coach

.60

.40

Match performance

.85

.74

Training performance

.84

.71

Team selection

.76

.85

To keep up in training

.66

.60

Pressure yourself to achieve goals

.45

.58

Coaches’ high expectations

.70

.56

Pressure regarding school work

.88

.40

To keep up in school

.74

.47

Not enough time to invest in football

.51

,77

Eigen value

4.73

1.38

1.04

.97

% of variance explained

39.4%

11.5%

8.6%

8.1%

Cronbachs α **Cronbachs α for the total scale: .85
Note. Only loadings above .4 are displayed

.67

.83

.67

.65

Norwegian Football Academy Players

The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2017, Volume 10 145

The different factor combinations were labelled as “Evaluation stress,” indicating stress concerning evaluations of
performance by your coach or teammates (i.e., being evaluated by your coach), “Performance stress,” concerning stressregarding performance in training and matches (i.e., training performance), ”Development stress,” indicating stressconcerning expectations for development both from oneself and the coach (i.e., high expectations of coaches), and“Academic stress,” concerning stress regarding school attendance and lack of time for other activities (i.e., keeping up
in school).
An internal consistency test was performed on the four factors (subscales). The test output was a Cronbach’s alphavalue, which generally increases when the correlations between the items increase. The most traditional threshold for a“good” internal consistency is set to Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7. The Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale was 0.68 for
Evaluation stress, 0.83 for Performance stress, 0.67 for Development stress, and .65 for Academic stress. Three of ourfour subscales are therefore scoring just below the 0.7 threshold. It is, however, important to acknowledge that an alphais dependent not only on the magnitude of the correlations among items, but also on the number of items in the scale.
For example, a subscale (index) can be made to look more 'homogenous' simply by doubling the number of items, eventhough the average correlation remains the same. Since the items related to the different subscales theoretically fit eachother in the present study, and that the number of items in each subscale was low (3 items), all four subscales werecreated despite three alpha values below 0.7. For further analysis, the three items in each subscale were collapsed into
indexes.
Coach-athlete relationship: To measure the players’ relationships with their coach, we used the Coach-Athlete
Relationship questionnaire (CART-Q) [32]. The questionnaire contains an 11-item scale measuring three interpersonal
constructs: Commitment, Closeness, and Complementarity. The participants rated how they perceive the quality of therelationship with their coach as follows: Commitment (3 items, e.g., I am committed to my coach), Closeness (4 items,e.g., I like my coach), and Complementarity (4 items, e.g., When I am coached by my coach, I am ready to do my best).
The response to each item was based on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), andthe Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale was .72 for Commitment, .89 for Closeness, and .76 for Complementarity.
Analysis
All analyses were conducted in SPSS version 21.0. Means and standard deviations were calculated for player
characteristics, the four stress components, and the three coach-athlete components. Multivariate analyses of variance(MANOVAs) were used to identify the players’ self-assessed skills differences for player characteristics, player stress,
and the coach-athlete relationship. Furthermore, a Bonferoni’s post hoc procedure was applied to assess the meanvalues between the three self-assessed skills groups (HPS, APS, LPS). The significance level (alpha) was set to 0.05.
RESULTS
Our results showed no differences between the self-assessed perceived skills groups (HPS, APS, LPS) and age, birth
month, and amount of organised training Table (2). Even so, the players categorised as LPS were somewhat younger(13.4 years), compared to the other groups (HPS, APS). The players categorised with HPS did, however, report asignificantly higher amount of self-organised training and playing time during the last season (< 0.05), compared to the
APS and LPS players.
Table 2. Anova analysis.

Variables

Scale

%

25%
HPS a
Mean (SD)

50%
APS a
Mean (SD)

25%
LPS a
Mean (SD)

26

49

25

Between Groups
F

All
Mean (SD)100

Player Characteristics
Self-assessed skills

1-5b

1.6 (2.6) f,g

2.3 (2.9)

3.0 (2.6)

206.53**2.3 (0.6)

Age

12-19

14.0 (2.2)

14.3 (2.2)

13.5 (1.6)

1.254

14.0 (2.1)

Birth month

1-12

6.2 (3.5)

6.0 (3.4)

5.8 (3.4)

0.087

6.0 (3.3)

Playing time last season

1-4 c

3.9 (0.3)f,g

3.4 (0.8)

3.4 (0.8)

5.387**

3.5 (0.7)

Self-organized training (day/week)

1-7

3.8 (0.8)f,g

3.1 (0.8)

3,1 (0.6)

7,736**

3.3 (0.8)

Organized training (day/week)

1-7

3.9 (1.5)

4.5 (1.6)

3.7 (1.6)

3.473*

4.1 (1.6)

1-5 d

1.9 (0.8)

2.2 (0.8)

2.2 (0.7)

1.259

2.1 (0.8)

Stress
Evaluation stress146 The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2017, Volume 10Sæther et al.

(Table ) contd.....

Variables

Scale

25%
HPS a
Mean (SD)

50%
APS a
Mean (SD)

25%
LPS a
Mean (SD)

Between Groups
F

All
Mean (SD)

Performance stress

1-5

1.9 (0.9)g

2.1 (0.8)

2.6 (1.2)

4.523*

2.2 (1.0)

Development stress

1-5

2.1 (0.8)

2.0 (0.6)

2.3 (0.9)

1.164

2.1 (0.8)

Academic stress

1-5

1,8 (0.6)

2.1 (0.7)

2.0 (0.7)

1.261

2.0 (0.7)

Commitment

1-7 d

5.4 (1.1)

5.2 (1.0)

4.8 (1.5)

1.942

5.2 (1.2)

Closeness

1-7

6.5 (0.8)

5.9 (1.3)

5.9 (1.1)

2.260

6.1 (1.2)

Complementarity

1-7

6.3 (0.8)

5.8 (1.0)

5.7 (1.1)

2.520

5.9 (1.0)

Coach – Athlete*Statistically significant, P < 0.05, **statistically significant, P < 0.01 a HPS; High perceived skill, APS; Average perceived skill; LPS; Low
perceived skill. b 1= better than most on my team, 5 = worse than most on my team c 1 = Few of the matches, 2 = Some of the matches, 3 = Most of
the matches, 4 = All the matches d 1 = Not stressful or irrelevant to me, 5 = Very stressful. e 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree f Significantly
different than APS (Bonferoni) g Significantly different than LPS (Bonferoni)

The players reported, below the midpoint of 3 on all the four stress components. In preliminary Pearson’s r
correlation analysis revealed strong positive associations between the four stress components (0.46-0.59, P<0.01). Thismeans that players who are reporting high on one of the stress components systematically report high on the other stresscomponents. Only stress regarding performance was associated with self-assessed skills, as the LPS players reported
significantly more stress, compared to the HPS players. The three coach-athlete dimensions, commitment, closeness,and complementarity were all reported as highly above average, with no significant difference between the self-assessedskills categories. A preliminary Pearson’s r correlation analysis did also find a strong positive association between thethree coach-athlete dimensions (0.53-0.65, P<0.01).
DISCUSSION
The aim of this article was to examine football academy players’ perceived stress, and coach-athlete relationships,
and how they are related to self-assessed skills. More specifically, it was investigated that whether there weredifferences in perceived stress and the coach-athlete relationship between athletes with high perceived skill, average
perceived skill, and low perceived skill.
Self-Assessed Skills
This study showed that talented academy players’ self-assessed skills are related to playing time and self-organised
training. These findings are in line with earlier research indicating a connection between the amount of training and skill
levels [38]. Even so, much of the research claims that it is the amount of organised training, or more specifically,
deliberate practice [38], that is the essential factor. However, we did not find any differences between the amount oforganised training sessions and skill levels. One obvious reason for this would be that, these players are playing on thesame team, so the number of hours of organised training is similar among these players, independent of the playing time
given to the players. Another aspect is related to the qualitative aspect of deliberate practice. It is reasonable to believethat there is variation in quality and specificity within the relatively broad term deliberate practice, especially when it ismeasured as organised training among the players. The most highly skilled players may be better at perpetuating theiradaption of the training, but also more sensitive, reflective, and self-regulated in their own development process, andthus, better at modifying their level of practice to match their current performance level [39]. Research on similar age
groups has indicated that athletes who reflect and self-regulate well may benefit more from practice than others [39,40]. In addition, recent qualitative research has found that athletes who have reached the top in their sports takeresponsibility for their learning [41].
Moreover, self-assessed skills were not related to birth-month, which is somewhat surprising, because the relative
age effect is well documented in the literature (see Helsen et al. [42], for a review). This effect has been found to bepresent among the most talented players, as well as among similarly talented Norwegian players [43]. We also found aconnection between the amount of playing time the players were given and their self-assessed skills. The more playing
time the players were given, the higher they assessed their own skills. This could be interpreted that playing time could
be just as good of an assessment as the players’ assessment of their own skills, indicating the value of a self-assessmentof skills [5]. One obvious reason is the importance of the coach’s evaluation of the players’ skills, which ends in theplayers selected to play in the matches. Furthermore, studies show that the importance of playing time also affects thedevelopment of young talented players in terms of muscle strength and sprint ability, and this leads the authors torecommend that coaches incorporate a friendly competitive match in the weekly training cycle of nonstarting players

Norwegian Football Academy Players

The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2017, Volume 10 147[44]. Coaches could therefore be introducing a self-fulfilling prophesy in selecting players for their team, which, in turn,affects these players’ assessments of their skills and their lack of such skills if they do not get the opportunity to play.
This would give the selected players the advantages, since the coach-athlete relationship has been found to enhancemental toughness [8], potentially affecting the athlete’s ability to cope with stress [9, 10].
StressPlayers who assess themselves as less skilled than their teammates reported a higher level of stress compared to themost skilful players, but only on the performance stress component. This indicates that the players only experiencestress regarding their performance level and not about the surrounding components in the environment. Overall, theacademy players report low levels of stress regarding the four components measured in this study, despite being part ofa highly competitive context with many challenges [15, 21]. The reason for the low level of stress might be due todifferent explanations. One could be that the players find that high expectations are, or should be, normal in thiscontext, and thus, they are not perceived as stressful. Another reason could be due to the age of the players in this study.
We must also consider the fact that three of our four subscales measuring stress was just below the acceptable 0.7 value,potentially affecting the results. According to Grant et al. [14], stressors are however experienced at different intensities
and durations during adolescence. If we accept, the premise that the likelihood of becoming a professional football
player lessens slightly as the age of the players increases due to tougher competition, older youth players mightexperience more stress related to their performance and development. Nevertheless, the finding that the LPS players are
more susceptible to stress regarding both performance and team selection, compared to the HPS players, is important
knowledge. Furthermore, the players’ ability to develop coping strategies [1] could also be important, especiallybecause the research indicates the difficulty of identifying potentially top-level players at an early age [43, 45].
Coach-Athlete Relationship
Earlier research has found that the coach-athlete relationship plays an important role in the players’ physical andpsychosocial development [25, 26]. More specifically, a good relationship has been proven to be positively associatedwith a player’s satisfaction, performance, perceived skill, and self-esteem [27, 28, 31]. The low level of stress foundamong the academy players examined in the present study could be a result of good coach-athlete relationships.
Moreover, one reason for the players to report a high level of Complementarity, Commitment, and Closeness towards
their coach could be a result of having highly skilled coaches in highly professional top-level club environments.
Ashworth and Heyndels [2] highlighted the advantages of high-level coaches and training facilities as an essential partof talent development. Interestingly, the present study found no significant differences in the quality of the coachathlete relationship for players of different levels of self-assessed skills. One could expect that the LPS players would
have more imbalance between their resources (skills) and the situation, compared to the HPS players, i.e., the coach’s
expectations (playing time). A reasonable question would therefore be if the players’ expectations of their relationshipwith the coach are related to their skill levels. For example, a LPS player might have a lower expectation of the coachathlete relationship, compared to a HPS player. Nevertheless, it is important for coaches to develop a good coachathlete relationship, independently of the players’ skill levels in general, and specifically, for the relatively lower skilledplayers. This should be regarded as especially important because the research indicates the difficulty of identifying
potentially top-level players at an early age [43, 45]. Coaches should therefore aim to establish an inviting environment
for future development, for example, by reducing the players’ strain in training and competition.
Limitations of the Study and Future Research
The authors acknowledge that the present study has some limitations. This is a study of 122 Norwegian youth
academy players with ages ranging from 12 to 19. One should be aware of this before generalising the present study’s
results. Furthermore, the measurements used in the present study are explorative and have not been validated in earlier
studies. Thus, the choice of developing, assessing, and analysing new measurements was done with the aim ofcontributing to a better understanding of football academy players. The stress measurement is also a limitation in thisstudy, since the Cronbach’s alpha was beneath the 0.7 threshold considered acceptable. The authors also acknowledge
that only player data are included in the present study, and they recommend that future research also should include thecoaches’ perspective. The study was conducted at the end of the season, which could mean the period where the players
perceive the least stress during the season. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that stress is a dynamic situation,
constantly in change. A cross-sectional design, which is the case in the present study, will not take this into
consideration. Therefore, we suggest more studies on stress in young talented football players with a longitudinal148 The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2017, Volume 10Sæther et al.

design. These changes in the design could offer vital information on the development process from both the player andcoach perspectives.
CONCLUSION
This study found that the HPS players reported a higher amount of self-organised training, a higher degree ofplaying time, and a lower level of performance stress compared to the LPS players. Overall, the academy players
reported a low level of stress on all four components and seem to have a good coach-athlete relationship. Because
football academies are highly competitive environments [7], they are largely dependent on offering stable environments
for their players. Based on this fact, our results suggest that coaches should focus on the LPS players, especially related
to their performance stress.
ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
Not applicable.
HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTSNo Animals/Humans were used for studies that are base of this research.
CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION
Not applicable.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Declared none.
REFRENCES[1]

Reeves CW, Nicholls AR, McKenna J. Stressors and coping strategies among early and middle adolescent premier league academy football
players: Differences according to age. J Appl Sport Psychol 2009; 21: 31-48.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200802443768][2]

Ashworth J, Heyndels B. Selection Bias and Peer Effects in Team Sports: The Effect of Age Grouping on Earnings of German Soccer Players.
J Sports Econ 2007; (8): 355-77.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1527002506287695][3]

Fraser-Thomas J, Côté J, Deakin J. Understanding dropout and prolonged engagement in adolescent competitive sport. Psychol Sport Exerc
2008; (9): 646-62.

[4]

Elferink-Gemser MT, Visscher C, Richart H, Lemmink KA. Development of the Tactical Skills Inventory for Sports. Percept Mot Skills
2004; 99(3 Pt 1): 883-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.99.3.883-895] [PMID: 15648483][5]

Kannekens R, Elferink-Gemser MT, Post WJ, Visscher C. Self-assessed tactical skills in elite youth soccer players: a longitudinal study.
Percept Mot Skills 2009; 109(2): 459-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.109.2.459-472] [PMID: 20038000][6]

Andersen SS, Hansen PØ, Hærem T. How elite athletes reflect on their training: Strong beliefs –ambiguous feedback signals. Reflective Pract
2015; (16): 403-17.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1052387][7]

Richardson D, Gilbourne S, Littlewood M. Developing support mechanisms for elite young players in a professional football academy:
Creative reflections in action research. Eur Sport Manag Q 2004; (4): 195-214.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184740408737477][8]

Rodahl S, Giske R, Peters DM, Høigaard R. Satisfaction with the coach and mental toughness in elite male ice hockey players. J Sport Behav
2015; 38: 419-31.

[9]Holt NL, Dunn JG. Grounded theory of the psychosocial competencies and environmental conditions associated with soccer success. J ApplSport Psychol 2004; (16): 199-219.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200490437949][10]

Nicholls AR. Mental toughness and coping in sport. In: Gucciardi DF, Gordon S, Eds. Mental Tougness in Sport. New York: Routledge 2011;
pp. 30-46.

Norwegian Football Academy Players

The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2017, Volume 10 149[11]

Nerland E, Sæther SA. Norwegian football academy players – Players self-assessed competence, Perfectionism, Goal orientations andMotivational climate. Sport Mont Journal 2016; 2: 7-11.

[12]

Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer 1984.

[13]

Fletcher D, Hanton S, Mellalieu SD. An organizational stress review: Conceptual and theoretical issues in competitive sport. In: Mellalieu SH,
Ed. Literature reviews in sport psychology. New York: Nova Science 2006; pp. 321-74.

[14]

Grant KE, Compas BE, Stuhlmacher AF, Thurm AE, McMahon SD, Halpert JA. Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology: movingfrom markers to mechanisms of risk. Psychol Bull 2003; 129(3): 447-66.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.447] [PMID: 12784938][15]

Finn J, McKenna J. Coping with academy-to-first-team transitions in elite English male team sports: The coaches’ perspective. Int J Sports
Sci Coaching 2010; 5: 257-79.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.5.2.257][16]

Sager SS, Busch BK, Jowett S. Success and failure, fear of failure, and coping responses of adolescent academy football players. J Appl Sport
Psychol 2010; 22: 213-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413201003664962][17]

Lazarus RS. How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. Sport Psychol 2000; 14: 229-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/tsp.14.3.229][18]

Brink MS, Nederhof E, Visscher C, Schmikli SL, Lemmink KA. Monitoring load, recovery, and performance in young elite soccer players. J
Strength Cond Res 2010; 24(3): 597-603.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c4d38b] [PMID: 20145570][19]

Ivarsson A, Stenling A, Fallby J, Johnson U, Borg E, Johansson G. The predictive ability of the talent development environment on youth
elite football players’ well-being: A person-centered approach. Psychol Sport Exerc 2015; 16: 15-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.09.006][20]

Gustafsson H, Skoog T, Podlog L, Lundqvist C, Wagnsson S. Hope and burnout: Stress and affect as mediators. Psychol Sport Exerc 2013;
14: 640-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.03.008][21]

Gustafsson H, Skoog T. The mediational role of perceived stress in the relation between optimism and burnout in competitive athletes.
Anxiety Stress Coping 2012; 25(2): 183-99.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.594045] [PMID: 21726158][22]

Raedeke TD, Smith AL. Coping resources and athlete burnout: An examination of stress mediated and moderation hypotheses. J Sport Exerc
Psychol 2004; 26: 525-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.4.525][23]

Rudolph KD. Gender differences in emotional responses to interpersonal stress during adolescence. J Adolesc Health 2002; 30(4)(Suppl.):3-13.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00383-4] [PMID: 11943569][24]

Rudolph KD, Hammen C. Age and gender as determinants of stress exposure, generation, and reactions in youngsters: a transactional
perspective. Child Dev 1999; 70(3): 660-77.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00048] [PMID: 10368914][25]

Jowett S, Cockerill I. Incompatibility in the coach-athlete relationship. In: Cockerill I, Ed. Solutions in sport psychology. London: Thompson
Learning 2002; pp. 16-31.

[26]

Fraser-Thomas JL, Côte J, Deakin J. Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy
2005; 10: 19-40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1740898042000334890][27]

Bloom BS. Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine 1985.

[28]

Coatsworth JD, Conroy DE. The effects of autonomy-supportive coaching, need satisfaction, and self-perceptions on initiative and identity inyouth swimmers. Dev Psychol 2009; 45(2): 320-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014027] [PMID: 19271821][29]

Lorimer R, Jowett S. Coaches. In: Hackfort AG, Ed. Routledge companion to sport and exercise psychology New York:. Routledge 2014; pp.
171-86.

[30]

Kristiansen E, Roberts GC. Young elite athletes and social support: coping with competitive and organizational stress in “Olympic”
competition. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010; 20(4): 686-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00950.x] [PMID: 19793212][31]

Lorimer R, Jowett S. Feedback of information in the empathic accuracy of sport coaches. Psychol Sport Exerc 2010; 11: 12-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.03.006][32]

Jowett S, Ntoumanis N. The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q): development and initial validation. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 2004; 14(4): 245-57.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x] [PMID: 15265147]

150 The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2017, Volume 10Sæther et al.

[33]

Rhind DJ, Jowett S, Yang SX. A comparison of athletes’ perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship in team and individual sports. J Sport
Behav 2012; 35: 433.

[34]

Lorimer R, Jowett S. Empathic accuracy in coach-athlete dyads who participate in team and individual sports. Psychol Sport Exerc 2009; 10:
152-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.06.004][35]

Byrne DG, Davenport SC, Mazanov J. Profiles of adolescent stress: the development of the adolescent stress questionnaire (ASQ). J Adolesc
2007; 30(3): 393-416.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.004] [PMID: 16750846][36]

Moksnes UK, Byrne DG, Mazanov J, Espnes GA. Adolescent stress: evaluation of the factor structure of the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire(ASQ-N). Scand J Psychol 2010; 51(3): 203-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00803.x] [PMID: 20149144][37]

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon 2001.

[38]

Ericsson KA, Krampe R, Tesch-Römer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev 1993; 100:
363-406.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363][39]

Toering TT, Elferink-Gemser MT, Jordet G, Visscher C. Self-regulation and performance level of elite and non-elite youth soccer players. J
Sports Sci 2009; 27(14): 1509-17.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410903369919] [PMID: 19967593][40]

Cleary TJ, Zimmerman BJ. 13. Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by experts, non-experts, and novices. J Appl Sport Psychol
2001; 13: 185-206.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/104132001753149883][41]

MacNamara Á, Button A, Collins D. The role of psychological characteristics in facilitating the pathway to elite performance. Part 2:
Examining environmental and stage-related differences in skills and behaviors. Sport Psychol 2010; 24: 74-96.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/tsp.24.1.74][42]

Helsen WF, Baker J, Michiels S, Schorer J, Van Winckel J, Williams AM. The relative age effect in European professional soccer: did ten
years of research make any difference? J Sports Sci 2012; 30(15): 1665-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.721929] [PMID: 23005576][43]Sæther SA. Selecting players for youth national teams – a question of birth month and reselection? Sci Sports 2015; 30(6): 314-20.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2015.04.005][44]

Silva JR, Magalhães JF, Ascensão AA, Oliveira EM, Seabra AF, Rebelo AN. Individual match playing time during the season affects fitnessrelated parameters of male professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25(10): 2729-39.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31820da078] [PMID: 21912284][45]

Deprez DN, Fransen J, Lenoir M, Philippaerts RM, Vaeyens R. A retrospective study on anthropometrical, physical fitness, and motor
coordination characteristics that influence dropout, contract status, and first-team playing time in high-level soccer players aged eight toeighteen years. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29(6): 1692-704.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000806] [PMID: 26010800]© 2017 Stig Arve Sæther.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a
copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.