Are Long term athlete development (LTAD) pathway descriptions fit for purpose?

I've been thinking for a while about the suitability of the models and various rubrics that are out there to describe long term athlete development (LTAD) pathways for training the youth athlete. While there is an obvious practical requirement for such structure and framework, I feel like the conceptualisation of these models are somewhat lacking in their creativity and imagination. Specifically I’m referring to either the performance pathway pyramids that the youth coaches will be so familiar with, or the staged models that detail physical qualities to be focused on at certain stages of development. In my practical experience (albeit limited), they are lacking in appropriately capturing the nuances of what it is to experience the process of physical development from either a coach or athlete perspective.

These approaches certainly offer common sense approach to describing the intended process, but lack ecological validity in practice. For example, any given athlete might have 'performance' levels of one skill or attribute, with 'foundation' level abilities in another. Chances are you are training more than one athlete at a time, who might well have a differential set of qualities at various stages. What does this pathway show us now, other than direction of travel? Depending on the level of details supplied, a performance pathway pyramid might define certain qualities, or the expected level of aptitude, but can we not do better than that? We get few chances to communicate important messages - are we wasting this with a pyramid that tells us that the aim is to improve?

These models are built from a skills or environmental perspective, not from the athlete's perspective. They describe what the key focus might be on at a given time, but they don't give you really any idea as to what that might look or feel like for the athlete. I think we can do better

I recently listened to a lecture by Craig Harrison of AUT which I feel gave a better conceptualisation of the athlete development process - it was that of a garden of development. While the coaches bring structure to the way in which they create and design their drills, exercises and games, the model presents and embodies the idea of creating opportunities and space for adequate exposure to a range of stimuli that might be beneficial in helping an athlete to flourish.

This may seem unnecessarily pedantic to unpick these sorts of models but in my opinion it’s a missed opportunity to engage.

While a garden might better grasp the nature of the environment in particular the programme is trying to create, it does still lack being able to describe from an athlete's perspective what it is that is happening. So far, you’re either IN the garden (going where) or you’re on the pyramid. Where is the meaning behind this?

Perhaps all models lack a dimension, but as Dan John likes to describe, the world repeats itself in fractals - I believe there is a better, more succinct way to capture and engage athletes, to describe the process and practicalities of athlete development. Do I have it? No, but I'm still looking and thinking.

A better model must not only transmit the key areas of knowledge that underpin sound LTAD, but must engage coaches, athletes, parents and organisations alike.