The Case Study: Kane, McDermott, and the Tottenham Plan
John McDermott joined Tottenham Hotspur in 2005 and took over the leadership of the academy coach education – the position that determines how a club thinks. His program: a long-term, technique-centric development plan, described by English media as "Dutch-style" – ball control and 1-on-1 as the foundation, physicality as a subordinate criterion.
The fundamental decision behind it sounds simple and was radical: players were recruited and retained for their technical ability, not for their physical attributes. Until the age of about ten, technique was practically the sole focus of development.
Into this system came an unremarkable boy from Walthamstow. McDermott's description of 13-year-old Kane is unflinchingly documented: ten percent behind in agility, thirty percent in jumping power, slow – in his words, the "runt of the litter," the weakest animal in the brood, thirty percent behind the group.
Why did the club keep him anyway? McDermott's answer is the key sentence of this guide: Kane had something immeasurable – an exceptional mental drive to improve. He wanted to get better, and he worked harder for it than everyone else.
The rest is well-known – but the details are worth noting: Kane was not merely passed through but developed. Four loan spells in different leagues, years of patience where others would have long written him off, and an environment that – in McDermott's words – simultaneously worked on training, technique, tactics, nutrition, social, and mental aspects, driven by "belief in the plan." At 21, his career exploded. The slow boy had matured into a complete striker – and the academy that kept him became the blueprint for England's wave of talent, which continued to produce players like Winks and Skipp.
The bottom line for every club: Tottenham didn't identify Kane because he looked special – but because the system was built so that someone like him wouldn't fall through the cracks.
Mechanism 1: The Relative Age Effect
To understand why late developers are lost everywhere, two mechanisms are needed. The first is the Relative Age Effect (RAE) – one of the most robust phenomena in talent research.
The Principle: Age groups have cut-off dates. A child born in January plays in the same age group as one born in December – but is almost a year older. In adulthood, this is nothing. At nine years old, it's one-eighth of their entire life: a year's advantage in physique, coordination, and experience.
The Consequence: The relatively older players appear more talented – they are bigger, faster, more assertive. They are scouted more often, called up to representative teams, trained better, and encouraged more. A birthdate advantage turns into a development advantage that reinforces itself. Consequently, the first quarters of the birth year are massively overrepresented in selection and professional squads worldwide.
The Double Irony: In the long term, the tables often turn. The relatively younger players who persevere despite their disadvantage often develop precisely the tools that count later – technique, game intelligence, problem-solving ability – because their physique was never an shortcut. Those who cut them early are cutting their potentially best players.
Every coach can check this effect in their own team: note down the birth months of the starting eleven. The result is almost always sobering – and the first step towards correction. Further reading: Identifying Talent in Football.
Mechanism 2: Growth and Biological Age
The second mechanism is even more significant than the cut-off date: biological maturity. Children of the same chronological age can be years apart in their physical development – one 14-year-old might be biologically 16, another 12.
The Growth Spurt as a Disruptor: Around the pubertal growth spurt (usually between 13 and 15 for boys), levers, center of gravity, and coordination change faster than the nervous system can readjust. The typical consequences: temporary "deterioration" – the player who was agile yesterday suddenly seems clumsy, loses tackles, stumbles over his own feet. Additionally, the susceptibility to injury increases.
The Misinterpretation: Precisely in this phase, most development decisions are made – C-Juniors, squad scouting, academy transitions. Those who don't consider biological age confuse maturity with talent and growth plateaus with stagnation. Kane at 13 wasn't a bad footballer – he was biologically young.
The Consequence: Physical data from adolescents is almost worthless without maturity context. A 30 percent deficit in jumping power means something different for an early developer than for one whose growth spurt is still pending. Modern academies therefore estimate biological maturity (e.g., via growth velocity and maturity estimation formulas) and interpret all performance data through this lens. The amateur club doesn't need lab diagnostics – it needs awareness and simple aids: regularly record height, note growth phases, biologically classify performance dips, and adjust training load. Background: Athletic Training in Youth Football and Injury Prevention.
Why Clubs Systematically Cut the Wrong Players
Both mechanisms would be harmless if selection decisions considered them. They almost never do – for understandable, but correctable, reasons:
The Eye Loves Dominance. The early developer decides games today. The late developer hints at what he can do in three years. Scouting is a snapshot – and snapshots favor the physical.
Competition Rewards the Present. Coaches measured by league tables field the most mature players. Every championship logic in children's football reinforces the effect – one of the reasons why federations are abolishing league tables in the children's sector: The New Game Formats in Children's Football.
Nobody Sees Those Who Are Cut. The selection error is invisible: The Kane you send away at 13 is never seen again – so the system learns nothing. The successes of those retained seemingly confirm the selection. It's survivorship bias in club form.
One Player, One Impression, One Decision. Without documented development trajectories, the last impression decides – and a late developer's last impression is almost always their worst.
The antidotes are precisely the Tottenham principles.
What Tottenham Did Differently: The Five Principles
1. Technique as Selection Currency. Recruitment and retention were based on ball control, game understanding, and 1-on-1 quality – attributes that biological age hardly distorts. Those who select by technique select independently of maturity – and incidentally protect themselves from the most expensive scouting error: mistaking physique for football ability. Training page: Learning and Teaching Football Technique and Training 1-on-1.
2. The Long-Term Plan. A development program designed for over a decade shifts the evaluation horizon: Those who think in twelve-year increments don't panic over a weak 14th year of life. McDermott's phrase "belief in the plan" is precisely that: institutionalized patience.
3. Taking the Immeasurable Seriously. The Kane decision was made based on a criterion not found in any performance test: willingness to learn. Tottenham had the culture to weigh this criterion against all measurable data – more on that shortly.
4. Holistic Development. Training, technique, tactics, nutrition, social, mental – the late developer needs the complete package because their journey is longer. Those who only offer football will lose them during challenging periods. Exemplary elsewhere: Character Development in Football.
5. Organizing Playing Time. Kane's four loan spells were managed developmental steps: real games at appropriate levels instead of bench roles at too high a level. The amateur translation: flexible appearances between the first and second teams, older and younger age groups, always guided by the question "Where is he learning the most right now?". Related model: The Chelsea Model.
Measuring the Immeasurable: Will to Learn as a Selection Criterion
“Mental drive to improve” sounds like intuition – but it's observable if you know what to look for. Six indicators that coaching teams can systematically record:
1. Reaction to Correction: Does the player visibly implement feedback in subsequent attempts – or does he repeat his pattern?
2. Behavior After Mistakes: Seek out the next action or hide? The response after the third misplaced pass counts, not after the first.
3. Initiative: Does he stay after training? Does he ask questions? Does he work at home? (Homework Ideas)
4. Training Behavior When Behind: How does he train in weeks when he hasn't been selected?
5. Dealing with Stronger Players: Does he seek out the best opponents in training – or the comfortable ones?
6. Quality of Questions: Players with a drive to develop ask different questions ("What can I do?") than status-oriented ones ("Why is he playing?").
The key: These indicators belong in the regular evaluation framework – alongside technique and tactics. In Coach OS, mental attributes (ambition, concentration, self-confidence, team spirit) precisely reflect this dimension; evaluated over seasons, intuition becomes a documented trajectory. And documented trajectories are the late developer's life insurance: They show the upward curve where a snapshot only shows the deficit. Methodology: Player Evaluation in Football and Tracking Player Development.
Late Developers in Training: What They Need
Retention alone is not enough – late developers need adapted development environments:
Technical Advantage as a Strategy. The years before the growth spurt are the opportunity: those who cannot dominate physically have the time and incentive to dominate technically and cognitively. Training focus: ball control, first touch, decision-making quality, Scanning – the toolkit that counts doubly after the growth spurt.
Protection in Pressure Situations, Challenge in Learning Situations. In games against early developers, the late developer needs tasks they can win (playmaker instead of target player, half-space instead of aerial duel). In training, they need stronger players as a benchmark.
Align Load with Biology. During growth spurts: modulate volumes, manage jumping and sprinting loads, prioritize mobility. This prevents typical overuse injuries – and the frustrating spiral of injury and setback. Basics: Strength Training in Youth Football and Flexibility and Mobility.
Explained Patience. The most important sentence a 14-year-old late developer can hear is an honest explanation: "Your body will catch up later – that's normal, it's documented, and our plan accounts for it." Those who understand what's happening to them will persevere. Mental support: Mental Toughness in Football.
Bio-Banding and Other Tools
The professional world has developed tools for the maturity problem – some are transferable:
Bio-Banding: Players are grouped for specific training or tournament formats according to biological rather than chronological maturity. The early developer suddenly learns against equally matched players instead of winning with their physique; the late developer showcases their game instead of being overwhelmed. England (Premier League) has been systematically experimenting with this for years. Amateur version: targeted training groups across age categories, festival days mixed by size/maturity.
Cut-off Date Rotation in Focus: Some federations test rotating cut-off dates or quotas – what's more important for clubs is awareness during scouting: birth quarter next to every observation sheet.
Allowing Players to Play Above and Below Their Age Group: The biologically young 14-year-old in the younger age group, the mature one in the older – flexible and depending on the learning objective. German playing regulations offer more scope for this than many clubs utilize.
The Development Squad Instead of the Selection Squad: Instead of "Squad A and those cut," a permeable structure where transfers in both directions are normal and explained. Selection becomes a snapshot description, not a judgment.
The Scouting Form That Protects Late Developers
Selection errors happen on paper – so they can be corrected on paper. A maturity-fair observation form differs from the usual in four key ways:
1. Header with Context. Alongside name and position, include birth month and (if known) a rough maturity assessment – before the first observation statement. The observer should know who they are evaluating: a biologically 15-year-old or a 12-year-old in the same age group.
2. Separate Columns for "Now" and "Projection". What does the player show today – and what of that is maturity-independent (technique, perception, decisions, learning behavior)? Those who must separate both judgments can no longer mix them.
3. Mandatory Fields for the Immeasurable. Reaction to correction, behavior after mistakes, off-the-ball actions – fields that remain empty if the observer only looked at goals and tackles. Empty fields are the signal: look again.
4. Multiple Observations as a Rule. No judgment after one game – the form stipulates at least two observations, ideally one of them in training, where learning behavior becomes visible. The full craft: Becoming a Football Scout.
Incidentally, the same form works internally: Even internal squad decisions (D1 or D2? Selection nomination or not?) become fairer when they pass through this filter.
Training for Mixed Maturity Groups: A Sample Session
Every youth team is a mixed maturity group – the question is whether the training takes this into account. A D-/C-Youth session (90 minutes) that challenges early and late developers simultaneously:
Block 1 — Technique Under Conditions (20 Minutes). Ball control circuit with choice levels: Each station has a basic and an expert variant (tighter space, weaker foot, additional task). Players choose themselves – and coaches observe who challenges themselves. It can't get more maturity-independent: Training Ball Control.
Block 2 — 1-on-1 in Maturity-Paired Groups (20 Minutes). Duels deliberately paired: physically matched players against each other (the small fast player against the small fast player), then deliberately mixed with adapted rules – the early developer may only finish with three touches, the late developer gets passing zones. Both learn at their limit.
Block 3 — Game Form with Technique Reward (30 Minutes). 6 versus 6; goals scored after a combination via a third player or after winning a 1-on-1 count double, long balls behind the defensive line count as single. This rule neutralizes the pure physical advantage and rewards the tools that count in the long term.
Block 4 — Free Play (15 Minutes). Without rules – this is also part of honesty: late developers must learn to find solutions in unprotected play. The coach observes and makes notes for development discussions.
Conclusion (5 Minutes). Circle question: "Who tried something today that they can't do yet?" – this question addresses the will to learn, the selection criterion behind the Kane decision.
How the Major Systems React – And What It Means for You
The late developer problem has been recognized, and the leading footballing nations are responding differently: England combines the EPPP academy system with bio-banding tournaments and longer observation periods (the system in detail). Germany is easing early selection pressure with new game formats and the abandonment of league tables in children's football (the reform in detail). Belgium became famous for Futures teams, where biologically young talents play in their own selections against younger players. Scandinavia focuses on late selection overall – broad development well into puberty.
The common thread in all approaches: They extend the window of opportunity for a player to prove themselves and decouple development decisions from the moment of maturity. This is exactly what every amateur club can do on a small scale – without a federation resolution: select later, remain permeable, document trajectories. Protecting late developers is not a question of budget, but of a patience architecture.
The Parent Factor
Late development is a family issue. Parents see other parents' children grow and their own waiting – and react with pressure, club changes, or resignation. Three things help:
Education Before the Crisis. A parent evening per season on RAE and growth – with the Kane story as an anchor – inoculates the environment before the slump arrives.
Data Instead of Reassurance. “He's developing well” reassures no one. A documented two-year development curve does.
The Biographies Library. Kane is not an isolated case – from Modrić to Bender, the late developer path to world-class careers is well-documented. Such stories belong in parent communication: they measurably extend the thread of patience.
What Your Club Can Tangibly Change
1. Make birth quarters visible – in every squad, at every scouting session. What is visible is considered.
2. Roughly record size and maturity – measure twice annually, note growth spurts, read performance data in context.
3. Integrate technique and will to learn into the evaluation framework – and consistently weight them higher than momentary physicality.
4. Document development trajectories – the upward curve beats the snapshot.
5. No final judgments before 16 – generally postpone cutting decisions during the growth spurt phase or make them permeable.
6. Organize flexible playing time – across age groups and teams, guided by learning.
7. Involve the environment – parents, coaching staff, sporting management speak the same language of patience.
Case Scenario: Two Players, One Age Group
A typical dual portrait from any C-Youth team in the country illustrates how these mechanisms feel in everyday life:
Player A, born in January, biologically an early developer. At 13, a head taller than average, fastest player on the team, regular starter, selected for representative teams. His playing style: pace and physique solve almost everything. The inconvenient truth: He has learned hardly any new technical skills for two years – he didn't have to. His evaluation curve in maturity-independent attributes is flat. Prognosis without intervention: At 16, when others physically catch up, he loses his unique selling point – and has nothing behind it. What he needs: technical pressure, bio-banding experiences against players of similar maturity, tasks that the body doesn't solve.
Player B, born in November, growth spurt pending. At 13, the smallest, loses tackles, fails in scouting sessions. His playing style: first touch, vision, solutions in tight spaces – because he never had any other option. His curve in technique and game understanding has been consistently rising for two years. Prognosis without intervention: He quits at 14 due to lack of playing time and recognition. What he needs: documented trajectories as an argument, explained patience, protected playing time – and a club that sees his upward curve instead of his height.
The bottom line: Both players are development cases – but the system typically only recognizes one. The early developer is considered a talent (and is underchallenged), the late developer a follower (and is lost). A maturity-fair system challenges A and protects B – and thus has two good players in three years instead of none.
The Typical Mistakes
Making the Deficit an Identity. Constantly labeling a late developer as such creates an identity for them. The classification belongs within the coaching team and in individual conversations – on the pitch, he is simply a player.
Confusing Patience with Lack of Ambition. Late developers need time and challenge. Those who merely coddle them do not develop them – Kane was retained and challenged.
Only Waiting for the Big Growth Spurt. Not every late developer will become Kane. The mandate is not "keep everyone because one might explode," but "lose no one due to biology whose footballing ability is convincing."
Forgetting Early Developers. The flip side of the issue: The early developer who solves everything with their physique often learns nothing – and falls behind when others catch up. They also need adapted challenges (bio-banding logic, technical pressure).
Thinking Annually. Maturity is a process, not a seasonal characteristic. Biannual updates instead of annual judgments.
How You Recognize Progress
- In Squad Statistics: The birth quarter distribution of your teams approaches a normal distribution. The proportion of December-born players in your selection rises.
- In Player Trajectories: Players with steep development curves remain in the system – even if their current level is behind their age group.
- In the Stories: Your first "Kane" – the 17-year-old you almost lost at 13 who is now a key player – changes the culture more than any concept paper.
- In the Language: When in the coaching discussion, "he's just small" is replaced by "he's biologically young – what's his curve like?", the system has learned.
The Late Developer Checklist
Ten Check Questions for the Coaching Staff and Sporting Management:
1. Do we know the birth quarter distribution of our squads and selection nominations?
2. Do we record height and growth phases at least twice a year?
3. Do we select based on technique, game understanding, and willingness to learn – documented rather than anecdotal?
4. Does every player have a development trajectory over seasons – with the upward curve visible?
5. Are our squads permeable in both directions – without final judgments before 16?
6. Do we actively adjust training load during growth spurts?
7. Do we organize flexible playing time across age groups and teams?
8. Do we conduct explanatory individual discussions with at-risk late developers – covering biology, plan, perspective?
9. Are our parents educated – RAE, growth, Kane story?
10. Do we also challenge early developers appropriately for their maturity – instead of letting them win with their physique?
Every yes protects talents that the old system would have lost. And question 4 is the lever for all others: Without documented trajectories, the remaining nine remain gut feelings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Five Takeaways on the Late Developer Question
Finally, the change of perspective that underpins the entire topic: For the club, the late developer is a development case – for the boy himself, he is simply a child who loves his sport and feels that he is currently not good enough. Every structure of this guide ultimately serves a single moment: the Tuesday evening when this boy doesn't stop after training but continues – because someone in the club believed in his curve.
1. The Kane figures are a warning: 30 percent physical deficit at 13 – and still world-class, because a system had patience.
2. Two mechanisms distort every scouting decision: relative age effect and biological maturity. Those who don't consider them cut the wrong players.
3. Technique and willingness to learn are the maturity-independent currencies – selection is based on them, not on momentary physique.
4. Trajectories beat snapshots: Documented development is the late developer's life insurance.
5. No final judgments during the growth spurt phase – and flexible playing time based on learning rather than status.
All Articles on Talent and Development
- Identifying Talent in Football
- Talent Development and Scouting
- The Golden Learning Age
- Developing Talent Instead of Buying: The Chelsea Model
- Character Development: The Right-to-Dream Model
- Youth Football League System England
- Strength Training in Youth Football
- Mental Toughness in Football
- Tracking Player Development
Coach OS: Seeing the Curve, Not Just the Moment
Clubs lose late developers in the moment – and gain them over time.
Coach OS documents precisely this progression: player evaluation across 17 attributes over seasons, physical and mental development as a curve, training history as context. When scouting says "too small, too slow," the curve shows what's really happening – and protects the next Kane in your club.
→ Test for free for 30 days: coach-os.de