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.