Your right Danny, he's finished too;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Printable View
Your right Danny, he's finished too;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Skill: Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience. (Online dictionary)Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
My reference to "whatever that means" referred to you when you originally said "you can't develop new skills". I honestly think the confusion is because you don't really have a clue what you're trying to say. Your contradicting yourself at every hands turn.
Ok ill be as clear as possible. See the last point I think it should make sense to you(yes even you :P). Even if you want to pretend(maybe you aren't pretending, perhaps being thick is innate to you :D) it doesn't, so you don't have to discuss the point at hand.
To me, talking football terms, I don't see anything that you or CD mentioned as a skill*. I see them as characteristics/attributes of a players game. Do you know what innate means? If you need to refer to your online dictionary again then fine go ahead, i'm not going to define it for you. Talent or whatever you want to call it, to me anyway in footballing terms is something that cant be taught or coached or acquired through experience you either have it or you don't. You're a duffer or a Kilbane ( and perhaps McClean)
*Ill agree that I don't see a skill in footballing terms as the same as you and CD, but I know most of the people I talk to offline would agree with me.
Finally, back to the original rhetorical question/statement. If you think that being a player who puts the head down, runs fast, is strong and has a decent touch is all that is required to make it in the premiership then he should have no problem. I don't think I can be any clearer than that.
I understand your last paragraph completely Paul, I just happen to think you're completely wrong. If you see Duffs ability to skin a full back as innate and instinctual as opposed to deliberate and learned then you are just wrong. I'm struggling to think of something in football that is truly innate - perhaps McGrath knowing where the ball will end up every time the opposition is attacking or Aldridge goalscoring for Liverpool. I think describe the qualities you are trying to put into words.
I'd also state that if you don't see skill in the same way as an accepted definition then it is you that is likely mistaken. With regards to your passive-aggressive digs at my intelligence, I think the onus is on you to make your points clear and not rely on everyone to be able to interpret your garbled messages. There are plenty of examples of others here not having a clue what you are trying to say.
Just to be clear, I didn't state what you have put in the last paragraph there. You did. Is that what you think it takes? I took from the original sentence that that is what you thought.
Edit: I think you would enjoy reading some of Matthew Syed's books. Not always on the mark but he writes very well about the talent vs practice argument. I really enjoyed "Bounce: Mozart, Federer, Picasso, Beckham, and the Science of Success"
I see skills learned in work, through experience the same as anywhere else, but what do you then define what Duff has, compared with say Kilbane.
Did you play much soccer(don't pull up on this) growing up? Do you think that the one or 2 guys on the team who were always a notch above, got there through practice(or acquiring new skills)? Did you also believe that you were able to reach that level through practice and acquiring new skill. I can say honestly I didn't, I just didn't have it. I don't just see this in soccer of course.
I always find this theoretical v practical argument funny(in the context of sport), the ones who generally put experience and practice down to being as good as the best(and learning skills to improve upon), are generally the ones with the worst hand-eye co-ordination and those furthest from having the innate ability I'm referring too. I don't know if its a defence mechanism or just an arrogance or just plain inability to see within themselves, but whatever it is, its a distorted view of reality - I'm not saying this is you, but just something I've noticed. I also found the same people were generally quite smart from a theoretical point of view, but from a social intelligence stand they were pretty low, for example chatting up girls or working a room compared with say solving a maths equation. But it didn't need to be as clear defined as that.
Skillset from a work perspective in industry i mean is learned or thought or whatever, but then there are people who "are more naturals" for example astrophysicists/software engineers/mathematicians etc. You can work as hard as you like but you will never have that inner ability that they were born with. Maybe its genetic who knows.
Mozart, Federer, Picasso.........Beckham. I take it LA Galaxy's finest falls into the practice column?Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
I would say it is down to a large number of factors ranging from social to economical to physical and to mental factors. Towards the top would be practice hours, towards the bottom would be "god given talent".Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Yes, I played a lot of soccer, GAA and rugby. I think the players who were better than me were the guys who didn't eat, sleep and drink soccer on the TV but were the ones who were always playing whether with the team, by themselves or on the street. They were the ones who always had a ball at their feet. You know the ones I'm talking about. I see it now as a youth coach. I'd say you didn't have it because you didn't drive yourself as hard as the lads who were better than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
I am unsure how to respond to this but Syed was a British and world table tennis champion who choked at the Olympics... I think if you read his book, you might question some of your assumptions!Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Why just him? I couldn't possibly spoil it, could I? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
I think imagination is innate - I'm not sure you can teach a player to have a picture in his head of what he's going to do AND have the technical ability to pull it off. Think Bergkamp v Argentina or, making no comparisons in terms of ability, Marc Griffin v Drogheda. You can train players to look for space, to time runs, etc but I think the best players are those who just have an instinctive appreciation of these things because they're simply not wasting their energy thinking about them. I'd add Robbie Keane to your McGrath example - players who just know where the ball is going to drop so they don't get bogged down with indecision. I don't think James really has the ability to know what the right option is all/most of the time, but I think he can definitely be trained to take different options so he is not so predictable. Adam Johnson is actually the same, which is why it's surprising they're both at Sunderland - two players who literally need to be told what to do, but once they're told they'll do it very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
I think Beckham got where he was with a lot of hard work, and a right foot that stood out from the rest.
I think we will disagree SkStu, on here you will find most agree with you I reckon. I'm more than happy with that :) I think the example you gave is down to mental strength and nothing to do with ability or skill. I think Langer went through a patch in golf where he helped coin a phrase, i cant remember what its called now, but basically his muscle memory for gripping and stroking when putting was over-ridden and he couldn't change it. It's almost like a nervous twitch that takes over and overrides the learnt behaviour.
Just throwing this out for thought but what about the examples you have given being learnt through repetition and practice and what seems innate and instinctual is really down to repetition and experience? Maybe the difference between Bergkamp and Griffin is that Griifin did enough practice to get that right once in a season in Airtricity league but Bergkamp did enough to get it right a number of times in a season in the Premiership?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
There is the bones of a really good discussion here and with Paul's counterpoints but it's hard to take the time to do it justice on a message board (at least I find it hard!). I'd like to have a few scoops with yourself and Paul sometime so we could brainwash him over to our way of thinking! :) by brainwash I mean drunk enough!
The Yips! It is exactly memory override. Darts players suffer from it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
So i explained that ok then ;)
That's it, I thought it started with s...i knew there was an "s" there. I was way off....:D
I think that is the first time I've ever seen someone use the word instinctual.
I did that already with 2 others, one a P.E teacher, so I instinctively ignored his opinion(:D), and as we drunk more the discussion got louder, more aggressive and forceful.
Because the other individuals mentioned: Mozart, Federer, and Picasso, displayed a certain genius in their chosen discipline. Beckham did not, which I'm sure you already know.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Mozart, for example, showed his prodigious ability from early childhood and began to compose at around 6 or 7 years of age iirc, which points to the existence of innate gifts and genius.
So did beckham, be began to talk at 6 or 7.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/instinctualQuote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
:D
What do you think enabled Mozart to compose at 6 or 7? Innate gifts or the hours of invisible practice that we don't hear about?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
Or the fact there was no playstation or internet in those days and the only form of fun for an upper-class child was either whipping a servant or playing an instrument.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
At such a young age, I would say that it points to natural ability. Obviously lots of practice and learning is involved in bringing a talent to its zenith, but what draws a person at such a young age to perform such feats is down to an innate proclivity to do so, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
The quality of these compositions is something which I cannot attest to however.
It's an interesting topic for debate SkStu, and in the sporting arena I would say the best subject to choose would be Tiger Woods. He displayed consistent brilliance throughout his career until that now infamous episode in his life, but I always felt he lacked a certain magic, much like Stephen Hendry in snooker.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Well The problem with how you two see that to me means, without dismissing your opinion out of hand: "The Irish players aren't good enough because they don't practice or learn enough".
It nearly is as simple as that.
Well I wouldn't be so sensitive about it Paul. It depends on what you mean by good enough. They practiced and learnt enough to play at a professional, premiership and international level - that's pretty elite...they clearly didn't practice or learn to the same level as most of the Spanish international players for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
Quote:
Syed exposes the effort involved in becoming the top tennis player, or musician. It’s the hours that they put in that really make the difference between the elite and the amateur. Syed writes from personal experience, as he worked his way to becoming the #1 British table tennis champion. He also discusses the myth of child prodigies and how their success is affected by good coaching, strong personal motivation, and, of course, putting in the requisite amount of practice to hone their skills. The elite also have a certain mindset – positive thinking/mind over matter that allows them to eliminate self-doubt, focus on the moment, and find that centered place where they can just allow their bodies/minds to take over without having to pay attention.
Just some extracts from some goodreads reviews that I felt are interesting and relevant! The Mozart thing is that he had a really pushy father who chained him to the piano but that Mozart loved it so much that he practiced, practiced, practiced and excelled. I think he mentions that the compositions were fairly fundamental but were far more advanced than anyone else his age and that this superiority continued into adult life as he just kept practicing at the same breakneck speed... But when people hear that he was composing at 6 or 7 the mind assumes that he was writing the well known symphonies at 7...Quote:
My favourite 'study' was a Hungarian guy who announced to the world he would make a chess grand champion to prove the hypothesis, found a woman willing to give him kids as test subjects, and did it. His three daughters were (according to Syed) the best female players ever, the eldest was the first ever female grand master, and the youngest was the youngest grandmaster ever, of either gender. The middle daughter had to settle for a mere 4 chess olympiad medals. Remarkably, people didn't believe his theory about practice, instead saying he must have 'good chess genes' essentially
I like your point about Woods/Hendry... Compare to Norman/White...the magic comes from the "flawed genius" thing... The relentless robotic machines are never loved nearly as much!
In my opinion, it's a combination of natural ability, the work put in by the player, and the standard of coaching and development available to them.
Natural ability is to a certain degree genetic, but across a large enough population is essentially random. Ireland should have the same "raw" natural ability as, say, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, and Costa Rica. We'll turn out the same number of potentially great players as them, although where they go after that is anyone's business.
The work put in by the player is important, but I don't think it's enough in the current global game. Without it, they're never going to be very good. I was never a good footballer (at least on the ball). I never had the coordination, athleticism, awareness or ability to think quickly under pressure. I could have worked hard and become considerably better than I am now, but I was never going to be Damien Duff. The most I could ever be would be perhaps a lower-league journeyman in England, if I worked hard enough on very specific basic skills. Whether a potential player is going to deliver on whatever potential they might have is going to depend on their own motivation and their background. All other things being equal, China would have a whole raft of world class footballers, but for a variety of reasons, their "kids with potential" don't choose that route. Recreational sport in general is not a big priority in China, and if you do play recreational sport, it's more likely to be badminton or table tennis than football. Your parents are far more likely to push you towards other used of your time though, such as music, or just working like a mad eejit.
The coaching and development is vital. That's what determines whether that young person with bags of talent is going to be funneled into the big bruiser box at eight years old, or coached in a way that best utilises their talents. This also includes the "critical mass" of people to train against and compete with, as was discussed in the Olympics thread over the summer. Enough good players will drag each other up to a higher standard than any one would have achieved individually, even if not all of them "make it".
There is no "natural ability" to take on two players, spot a one-two, and create the space for a pinpoint cross. If there was, there's be the odd African tribesman or Inuit who emerged at age 25 having never kicked a football before. What is natural are the building blocks such as coordination and awareness, everything else has to be worked on in one way or another.
Nurture versus nature lads - literally thousands of psychologists, researchers and educators haven't ever reached any kind of definitive conclusion. I doubt you will here.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers"Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Very interesting debate. Fly's mention of snooker is interesting. Hendry certainly lacked that 'magic' and seemed to be a player who worked very hard to achieve his success. Alex Higgins had the 'magic', and certainly was always worth watching. Could he have been the best ever if he was more disciplined? Possibly.
Completely on a tangent here, I just had a vision of Higgins smoking and drinking as he played! The world has changed dramatically. Didn't Bill Werbenuik drink up to 13 pints during a game? And these were sportsmen!
I know what you are getting at with the Hendry, an actual repeated world champion, vs the peoples champion type players like Higgins, White and O'Sullivan, who could at times be more exhilarating to watch perhaps, but I feel it a disservice to put Hendry in the hard working, made the most of his abilities, box. His aggression early in frames, splitting the pack, creating and converting frame winning visits over and over relentlessly, following knocking in the most difficult of opening long reds conventional snooker wisdom preached to steer clear of till the frame was more open. Unerring under pressure, nerveless almost. Yes, he allied this to dedicated hard practice and made himself almost unbeatable, but there was a well of natural ability unmatched in his or any other generation thus far to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by gastric
The others had their days in the sun and I you tube breaks by Higgins & Co more often than Hendry, but it was the latter who redefined how the game is played.
Sorry Crafty, I was inferring he gave the impression that it was hard work that made him what he was, compared to the likes of Higgins who seemed to just be naturally good. I wasn't trying to trivialise his certain ability, I was referring to perceptions of what makes sports people good at their sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
I think it also depends on the sport.
The one I'm most experienced with at an elite level is sailing. The top sailors are the sailors who work hardest. Yes, there are some people who are naturally talented, but they get left eating dust by someone who puts in the hours on the water and in the gym. I'd always be amazed at the people who would turn up after an off-season and suddenly be in the top ten because they'd worked far harder than everyone else. Annalise Murphy was an average sailor who worked like a crazy person to turn herself into a very good one.
Football requires a different skill set, and is a lot faster-paced. Perhaps a bit less predictable. There are a million and one different situations with different solutions you can be confronted with in football, and it might require that little bit of genius or something someone else wouldn't think of. Sailing, most situations have "the right thing to do", there's room for the odd masterstroke, but it's primarily about not making mistakes. Pulling off an amazing move will probably gain you one place. Doing something stupid will lose you ten.
Good point. IMO, the greatest team of all time to watch were the Brazil team of 1970. Watching them, you would think they were very naive in approach as defence wasn't exactly their priority, but their workrate and positional play while looking very natural and easy, came about through hard work and good planning.
Wow what a great Dad! He used his kids as a science experiment. The fact he thought that way, should give you an insight into the kind of person he is. The kind that could breed a chess champion. Not really for this debate, but chess is less sport, more brain power, neural networks and artificial intelligence(if you ever programme a chess game its all about making the programme think for itself, based on a set amount of moves and the best possible outcome) coded into the brain. There are only certain types who could make the grade at chess, and you wouldn't find them in the lower/average IQ range.Quote:
My favourite 'study' was a Hungarian guy who announced to the world he would make a chess grand champion to prove the hypothesis, found a woman willing to give him kids as test subjects, and did it. His three daughters were (according to Syed) the best female players ever, the eldest was the first ever female grand master, and the youngest was the youngest grandmaster ever, of either gender. The middle daughter had to settle for a mere 4 chess olympiad medals. Remarkably, people didn't believe his theory about practice, instead saying he must have 'good chess genes' essentially
Funny the snooker comparison, it was this example that kicked off my first discussion on the matter. A friend tried to make out if he practiced enough he would be as good as say ronnie o'sullivan. I remember thinking if only i'd been born a millionaire and then i would have paid for him to take a year out of college train that much, and disprove his theory.
I think comedians would make good psychologists, but to be honest researchers, educators and psychologists don't have much in the way of science, and without sounding facetious or arrogant, I wouldn't put too much weight behind their studies. I do believe there is a definite scientific answer somewhere in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Almost certainly, but the crusty old ethics committees won't allow the necessary twisted and immoral twin studies. They're holding back James McClean's career I tell you!Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Don't worry, you don't sound facetious or arrogant, just totally f***king stupid. "Researchers don't have much in the way of science." Jesus wept, what a comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Who, if not researchers, is going to conduct the research to find the scientific answer you hope for?
I know your background and you would be sensitive to the issue. Psychologists, educators and researchers, I gathered you meant a combination of educators and psychologists, did the research. That's my point. IF i misunderstood and you meant there was a 3rd independent element then fair enough, I didn't read it like that, and it was my mistake. You don't have to be a scientist to do research...:)
Look at the end of the day, I take anything thats not scientifically proven with a pinch of salt. Its all opinion and circumstantial to a point otherwise. Excuse me if i upset you, but thats my belief. I come from a different way of thinking than you.
I think there is also a 3rd element in the natural ability v nurturing, which is athleticism, it probably fits into natural ability moreso, but its not something I see as pure natural ability.
There's an awful lot of sh*te in this thread recently.
Which normally would let go, but some of it, is the same eejits moaning about similar in other threads.
:rolleyes:
Lose the Hypocrisy, please...
Let's not forget that you all probably mean to say "Psychiatrist" rather than "Psychologist". The former are actual doctors while the later are mere chiropracters. If it helps you, great, but.... It is essentially unsanctioned. Like Voodoo.
They call themselves "Doctors" but....do not have any scholarly bonafides to say the least. The phrase in the industry is 1 Psychiatrist equals 10 Psychologists. There is even a scene in Sopranos about it.
The ironing is deliciouosQuote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Not snooker, and don't think the guy is aiming for the elite of the elite, but this may interest youQuote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
http://thedanplan.com/theplan.php
"On April 5th, 2010, Dan quit his day job as a commercial photographer" and he has a donate link on his page...I've just read it mind and that's what stood out for me straight away.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
2.5 years on how is he doing?