Does "judging potential ability" make sense?

[The-Perfect-Fm'er!]

Actually, no, he's ignored everything I've said that points out that research has suggested that the concept of natural talent is close to a myth. The only feature that is important and natural are your genetics, which strongly point towards things like pace and strength - things not necessarily that important in football (although certainly, it helps, as is in all sports). If anything, a human brain is not born fine-tuned with a sport in mind - a baby absorbs so much information as he grows up. Look at the size of a baby's brain compared with an adult's! A baby doesn't even know how to move a ball when he is first born, bloody hell.

Messi wasn't born Messi. Messi had to practice throughout his whole career. There are lots of kids with really good skills for their age group but not all want to become professional footballers, which takes years and years of dedication, and removes them from friends in school that they are happy to be with. This is why Rhain Davis, who looked absolutely brilliant as a kid, might not even have made it through the Manchester United academy.

Look at Tiger Woods. Was he born a golfing superstar, or was it the fact that he played more golf in his childhood years than most play for their entire career? Woods started golf at 2 years old and played golf essentially full-time for his whole life. The Williams sisters were trained to be tennis players from childhood.

Children have no natural talent - they just find certain things interesting. On rare occasions, children actually are able to focus on one thing and take it up as a career. What did you want to be as a child? It's likely not what you are today.

There is no evidence to suggest that "natural talent" in a footballing sense even exists. It is arguably difficult and possibly unethical to find out, as it involves affecting the lives of children, and children are notoriously bad test subjects as they are not as rational nor logical as adults in their thinking - there is a huge degree of variability.

So no, I don't believe in "we have natural talent, so there" - I say, "where's the evidence that natural talent even exists?"

The debate has run it's course and it won't change my mind. Players are born with natural ability. Through practising and learning, children develop those skills.

too believe yourself/me with 1000 hours of practice, the exact same coaching, living within the same conditions would somehow mean that we would be of similar ability is absolutely ludicrous.

If you actually step back and think logically, you'll realise how daft it is. Just think back to your school days. How bad some people were despite playing every day of the week, while you could get kids who played similar amounts or even less and were far better.

Incredible. Never heard such rubbish.

And another quick one, Children have no natural talent. Yeah, I guess if we all practiced enough, we'd all be able to belt out ballads like Mariah Carey.

Incredible.

[Lazaru5]

Judging player ability and giving it a 'score' doesn't really make any sense at all. why? Because we have some magical number that, supposedly, means our player 175/200 is better than somebody else's with 140/200 when in reality they could both be worse than a player with 75/200.

What makes a player 'good'? The ability to do something, or actually doing it? Do you pick your team on CA/PA/the star ratings or do you pick the team on form, fitness and morale? I pick by the latter, generally... because a player with 1 star can be as good as a player with 5 stars in any given one-off game. That same 1 star player may be able to produce the goods more consistently than the 5 star player who might have a blinder every 10 games.

This guy is my best player...

He isn't good enough for League 1 (supposedly) but even at 33 he is consistently producing the goods on the pitch. Despite poor attributes, and low ratings, Houdini has that certain something that makes him a class apart from every body else. When he is "on it" he's incredible, dictating the game from the left-wing position, putting in accurate crosses, running across the front of the defence and playing precise through-balls, or just beating his man and going alone... simply put, if I took any notice of the coach reports then this guy wouldn't be getting much game time (and obviously that would be a mistake!).

CA/PA? Pah, keep it... for me if they can do it on the pitch then they're good enough

[Draakon]

For me, it comes down to the next question:

My scouts have searched and found plenty of players for me. There are several players, let's say - 10 players with all 4* potential rating. How do you choose?

Very simple, I go down like this:

1) Personality type and determination - look for professional, determined, ambitious players. Yes, personality can be changed, but it's hard to do and tutoring has no success guarantee, whether in game or in real life. In FM you can see attributes like aggression and bravery, that can't be trained. Also things like consistency and pressure.

2) Physical appearance - 16 yo player is likely to grow, but 1.60 player is less likely to reach 1.90. So choosing him to future target man is not a wise bet. Weight, however, can be balanced a bit.

3) Player type - There are different player types, that can be equally good in terms of stars and ability, but have different qualities. Would you prefer skill over pace? Strength over stamina, tackling over technique?

4) Attributes - without a doubt there are attributes that can be trained and developed well and there are attributes that are hard to change, although in FM the difference is less significant. For example - shooting or penalty kicks or stamina can be developed quite easily. You just practice and work hard and you get better. But how to develop flair?

5) There are attributes that grow better with experience. Teamwork, anticipation, decisions. Well reasonable.

In conclusion: I select players that have a right type of personality with good physical and technical skills, assuming that when his mental stats are not completely rubbish they will develop with time and playing time.

[Ceirdiff]

On natural and made, in my school I'm the first/second best 1500m and 800m runner by a long way (ahead of third). The amount of training I do is practically nil. When I'm completely uninjured and bored then I'll do 1,2,3 or 5 miles depending on my mood but it's not much.

There are people who do much more training than me, as in everyday instead of 3/4 days a week. Yet these people are masses worse than I am. How does that work with your mantra? Surely if I am doing less training then they should be better than me.

People are born with abilities in different things, it's a disservice to professional athletes to say that they were made and no more.

[milnerpoint]

The debate has run it's course and it won't change my mind. Players are born with natural ability. Through practising and learning, children develop those skills.

too believe yourself/me with 1000 hours of practice, the exact same coaching, living within the same conditions would somehow mean that we would be of similar ability is absolutely ludicrous.

If you actually step back and think logically, you'll realise how daft it is. Just think back to your school days. How bad some people were despite playing every day of the week, while you could get kids who played similar amounts or even less and were far better.

Incredible. Never heard such rubbish.

And another quick one, Children have no natural talent. Yeah, I guess if we all practiced enough, we'd all be able to belt out ballads like Mariah Carey.

Incredible.

Again, exactly right.

My brother is one of those annoying people who was born to be good at sports, he picks them up very easily and much quicker than i do, but when he tried his hand at following me into playing music he struggled. People do have natural talents in things, footballers are no different.

[x42bn6]

but that has nothing to do with the natural talent he was given. Quite obviously to become the best there is, you have to love what you do, practice from a young age and keep with it, but that has nothing to do with natural talent.

Natural talent is close to a myth. It's old thinking portrayed as the results of a genetic lottery.

It's also impossible to judge, since "natural talent" is so mysterious, unknown and unmeasurable. This mysterious quantity that has never been proven to exist is apparently responsible for everything that happens in our future. Did Messi turn out brilliant because he had brilliant natural talent, or did he vastly underachieve as he was meant to be better? You cannot pinpoint what the value is - it is impossible.

again, nothing to do with what we are talking about really? You had a natural talent for writing. You didn't take it up. You still had the natural talent to start with.

Nonsense. As a baby, I didn't even recognise words. My skills for writing involved throwing things out of my cot.

I suspect the reason I liked writing was a child was down to the fact that my parents read to me as a child a whole lot, and I didn't have a lot of toys but a whole shelf of books. I probably read all my books again and again and again. That's where I developed things like creativity and the ability to recognise and play with words.

The concept of a "word" was non-existent for me as a baby - it was impossible that I would have the natural talent for writing.

Well he has natural talent for golf

How? Did you see Woods as a baby to see how good he was?

I suspect that he was absolutely rubbish at golf at the age of 2, but consistent practice and exposure to the sport might have made him enjoy it more, and motivate him to take it up better.

but golf is definitely far more man made than football. If he didn't have natural talent towards golf, he obviously wouldn't be so good from an early age.

I don't think it's obvious at all. Why can he not be an exponent of "if you practice a lot, you will become really good?"

I'm sure there are plenty people across the world who played just as much in the park as Messi did or played as much golf as Woods did, are they better? No. They had nowhere near the talent.

There are loads of YouTube videos out there of kids with insane skills for their age. I can guarantee that pretty much most of them will never get anywhere near the professional tiers.

Research suggests that it is development like this that makes the biggest difference - the "10,000 hours" mantra. Players who trained just like Woods would turn out like Woods.

It is not just a case of "well, why don't we just train them 10,000 hours then?" Because some people aren't as motivated as Woods was as a child. Some don't enjoy golf as much as him.

And how do children become motivated towards something? That is an open question in science and psychology, of course, but it is fairly easy to brainwash a child into liking something. If you like, as a baby, you can be pretty-much steered in a specific direction from birth, with a high likelihood of enjoying it later on.

well his dribbling, footwork, way he moves is worked on like anything as you'd expect but cannot be created.

Well, no, because you can improve your footwork with drills as a footballer. We know this because people put cones in the ground and footballers dribble around them...

Initially, as a baby, Messi couldn't even walk! If anything, he developed the skills to dribble from scratch. It is entirely possible that Messi as a child was more used to zig-zag chasing rather than wild runs towards toys, of course, which would have motivated how agile he is, but can it be created? Certainly.

You can't coach someone to be as good a dribbler as Messi, someone who glides past players so easily or else we would see 1000x's of Messi's, simply not the case.

I quote you: It is not just a case of "well, why don't we just train them 10,000 hours then?" Because some people aren't as motivated as Woods was as a child.

Not every child is as motivated as Messi, hence we do not see as many Messis in this world.

What I do think is that if everyone had Messi's upbringing, we could have a lot of Lionel Messis (bearing in mind we would essentially be competing with each other, so it's not really independent as such).

If people were the same, Barcelona would produce the same players over and over again.

But people aren't the same - not because of natural talent. People are different in a footballing sense because they have different levels of training as children.

I think you're really doing a dis-service to footballers to believe everything (or almost everything) is taught,

Some things are mysterious, such as artists, musicians and chess players who are child prodigies, but not footballers, where there is a cross between physical, mental and technical cognitive ability. However, even for these artists, musicians and chess players, science continues to analyse why they are prodigies - rather than leaving it as "yes, they are born with it - let's leave it there" - because it makes no sense.

I played was in my house in the living room and kicking a ball in a park with my Dad. I dribbled past players so easily, I weren't taught that. I didn't practise dribbling to become good, the only thing I did in my living room was shoot at an inflantible goal my Dad was in!

You presumably saw a lot of people playing football in the park and on television. In the house you likely had to avoid many obstacles like vases and tables. You might have had loads more football experience at 5 than most children at that age too!

In addition, even if you were shooting at your dad in goal, you still had to move the ball around to get better positions - I am sure you tried to fool your dad by feinting left or right every once in a while.

They pick the young players who show the most natural talent when it comes to controlling the football and using the football intelligently for their age. Then they develop those NATURAL skills to create a player.

There is nothing "natural" about the 9-year-olds that Barcelona look at in trials and childs' leagues. The 9-year-olds represent all the physical, mental and technical skills built up through 9 years of development, which can be a huge number of hours. The Tiger Woods example, if you like - 9-year-old Woods probably had nearly 10,000 hours of development alone.

When Barcelona look at these 9-year-olds, all they are looking for is a player who currently looks pretty good in certain areas - like technique, vision and passing. They don't look for this unknown, mysterious concept of "natural talent" - they are not going to look for this invisible quantity! They are looking for players who are currently very good, with the knowledge that they are more likely to turn out to be very good as they have put in the hours beforehand.

You cannot have one without the other. No player will ever be created, while no footballer while make the grade without being coached at some stage. Although natural can get you places, look at Ian Wright, barely any sort of coaching at a young age, yet 33 caps for England and an Arsenal legend. Is that down to being taught things or simply his own natural ability to score goals and play football.

Wright is an exception to the rule, since his career is unlike most Premier League footballers, who never drop down to amateur levels before signing youth terms. And even as a teenager, he had trials at professional clubs. He could not have had that without developing.

And how do they develop these 9-year-olds? Nurture. They "have a gift" because they look good for La Masia - and they "look good" because of nurturing before they turned 9-years-old.

They "have a gift" because they "have a gift" - that's it. They're brilliant because they worked for it.

You can't create Messi, that's why in the past 50 years, only Messi and Maradonna who resemble a slight match have emerged. If it was as easy as developing a player from day one with a lot of practise, we'd see hundreds and even thousands of these players walking the pitches today. We don't. It's natural.

Nobody said it was easy. All I am saying is that "if we had the exact same experiences right from childhood to adulthood, we would turn out to be like Lionel Messi. Probably not equivalent thanks to things like genetics and competition with each other, but we would turn out to be very good footballers on his level."

Just like many things in life, the 10,000 hours "rule" (it's not a guarantee, but the spirit of the "rule" applies) sounds easy in theory, but is difficult in practice to achieve. No parent is going to force a child through 10,000 hours of something they don't enjoy doing.

I am not sure about this point. It is a natural gift, if no one has taught him the right time to deliver a cross, the height, the weight of a cross and the pace it should be delivered at. How is he doing it? It's something that comes natural to him.

Or he could have been David Beckham, who spent hours kicking a ball again and again and again from the same spot as a child. Free-kicks, crosses, shooting...

It's as simple as this for me.

If you have exposed, me, you, messi, and 47 other random people at a very young age without any previous experience of playing football, played for 5 hours. In those 5 hours, in Messi, you'd see someone quite clearly above the rest. That is natural talent and it would happen.

Natural talent is then developed. For example, Messi dribbling and footwork, he was born with this amazing ability but in order to improve it at a rate to stay well above anyone else, he'd still have to practice and keep playing.

An interested assertion, but that's just it - an assertion.

I think a better experiment is to take a number of children and ask them to do something that they have never seen (important - not just "done") nor experienced before. In other words, they cannot have seen any football, or arguably a football itself. The reason is that seeing football conveys a huge amount of information in itself for a child - they know nothing about round objects being propelled with their feet, playing with 21 other people, having 2 people dressed in different kits standing in this rectangular object, why they stop running every now and then, and so on. In football-mad Argentina, I highly doubt this was the case.

In 5 hours, I would imagine that all of us would have varying results in this "footballing ability" test, in the same way that all children at 5-years-old are very different already (5 years of development is massive in terms of child intelligence). However, it would take a huge stretch to extrapolate this to professional levels. It is quite likely that Messi's illnesses as a child meant that he was absolutely hopeless as a child, for example - but it was something he really enjoyed doing.

For football, anything that involves things like manipulating balls and objects, kicking things, spatial awareness and teamwork will help a child become good at team sports. I'd argue that that is where the "natural talent" you speak of comes from.

The ability to become "brilliant at football" has various measurable quantities, such as successful dribbles and passes - these motor and mental skills are developed from other skills developed as children. The ability to build complex structures with blocks comes from the ability to manipulate the blocks to begin with, as well as the ability to balance things, organising objects and so on. So the "natural talent" at "building" would be the result of all the actions leading up to it, including block manipulation.

No footballer is ever created though. It's impossible. Without being disrespectful, anyone who knew the game would know that. Natural talent is the first biggest thing. Once spotted, it's developed and conditioned so that player can be the best player he can possibly be. Obviously as well, his own attitude and work ethic and desire plays a big part also. To believe that almost everyone is born within the same ability is laughable.

Well then, are you going to laugh at the research that is being done in this area?

For the bold bit, for "natural talent" to be spotted, a player has certain characteristics in his play that are good. For example, say his passing is very good as a child.

His passing ability does not come out of thin air. His passing ability is built on his development as a child to work in a team, to manipulate objects, to be able to run and have sufficient leg strength, and the mental ability to always look up.

All of these are built upon even more primitive skills, such as the ability to hold things, and the ability to crawl and walk.

If "natural talent" is "how good a player looks at a young age for some skills", then "natural talent" is still "the sum of all development from childhood". All those primitive skills.

If "natural talent" is something from birth, then I question how this can be measured at all, since newborn babies are absolutely helpless. You can't go up to a baby and say, "Wow, he's the next Lionel Messi. I can see this!"

If "natural talent" is "the result of this mysterious innate ability of a child, combined and fused with his development", then Occam's Razor suggests that the mysterious innate ability might not actually be required. This supports research in this area, which says, rather obviously, that "the more you practice, the better you become."

If "innate ability" cannot be decoupled from "development", then it is an assertion that the two are coupled together, which is something that needs to be looked at further rather than taken for gospel. For example, we know that pushing the "h" key on the keyboard usually produces a "h" letter on the screen. However, if I told you that it was the combination of "magic" and the actual key-press that produced the "h" on the screen, you would be sceptical. Here, "innate ability" = "magic", "development" = "press h" and "natural talent" = "h appears on screen".

The concept of "destiny" is something that is impossible to prove, since we can always argue that our predicted destiny was wrong should circumstances turn out to be "incorrect". The same goes for "natural talent" - it is impossible to create an experiment to show "natural talent" exists, since when the player turns, say, 21, you can always argue that when they player never fulfilled their talent. It is unfalsifiable. Which isn't surprising - since we only say players are "truly talented" once they actually "make it" - because we can't predict the future.

[x42bn6]

I'm an expert in both genetics and psychology. Everyone here is at least partly, or more likely, mostly wrong.

Of course I'm likely wrong... I just think I'm less wrong than the thought of a "genetic lottery".

Genetics, i.e. nature, cannot be used to purely justify a skill-based sport like football. Skills are applications of your abilities, of which some of it is genetics, but most of it is development.

The problem of the concept of "natural talent" is that it implies that a person has the ability to perform these skills at birth. Football, however, is a complex motor sport and I question whether a baby has the ability to "know" football from birth.

If AVFC10 is defining "natural talent" as "how good a player looks as a 9-year-old", then I think that that is not natural, since a 9-year-old child is miles more advanced than a newborn baby.

The debate has run it's course and it won't change my mind. Players are born with natural ability. Through practising and learning, children develop those skills.

too believe yourself/me with 1000 hours of practice, the exact same coaching, living within the same conditions would somehow mean that we would be of similar ability is absolutely ludicrous.

If you actually step back and think logically, you'll realise how daft it is. Just think back to your school days. How bad some people were despite playing every day of the week, while you could get kids who played similar amounts or even less and were far better.

Because some kids played more football than others. Others perhaps focussed more on studies. Some played football after school. Some had trials with football clubs. Some hated football.

It is more illogical to think that your football matches in school represent equal amounts of football development on behalf of everyone on the pitch. It is also illogical to think that being good at football at school implies you will be good at a professional level (the good old "biggest and quickest win").

And another quick one, Children have no natural talent. Yeah, I guess if we all practiced enough, we'd all be able to belt out ballads like Mariah Carey.

Incredible.

If we began singing at 3, skipped high school to record demo tracks, wrote songs as a teenager, and did nothing but sing throughout childhood, why not? The thing is, few children actually start singing at 3 and even fewer skip high school to attempt a music career. It is a lot harder than you think to go through Mariah Carey's life.

Like you said, it's motivation that's the key - not natural talent.

It certainly sounds easy - start singing at 3, do nothing but sing, deliberately sabotage your education, great success - but in practice, it's not easy. This is why you do not see millions of Mariah Careys - because few actually want to go down this route. Not because she had the ability as a child.

[Recury]

Kind of glad I dropped out of this debate when I did, lol.

[Menion]

Natural ability exists, just not to the extent that a lot of people wish to believe. What you generally have is a spark of ability. What that spark does is give you a slight head start. Make makes that spark turn into ability, is the joy you get from achieving a goal and striving for another. For example:

Little Jimmy has that spark of ability. He kicks the ball at the shed and misses. He tries again and misses another time. The next time he gets the ball, he hits the shed. Now this gives little Jimmy that joy, a sense of achievement. From that he tries again, this time he tries to hit the shed 2 out of 3 times, or even tries to hit the shed door.

On the other hand, we have poor little Ahmed (because it appears we have to be multicultural in all aspects of life now) kicks the ball at the shed and misses. He tries another 2 times and misses again. This plants some doubt in little Ahmed’s head, he doesn’t think he can do it therefore, he can’t.

Very simple, I know. At the end of the day, like in all things, the majority of achievement is through believing you can. Of course, you have to put the work in first of all. It’s those small victories early in life that give you that sense of belief. Every time you do something new, you want to push onto the next thing.

That really is a simplified version of it. What you then have to consider is the physical aspects of taking up a sport. Now some of these are natural occurrences and some of them can be trained. Take for example Messi’s low centre of balance; this is not something that can be trained. This is something that is natural. An example of something that can be trained is Cahill’s giant leap (anyone heard of plyometrics?)

So in all, I would say around 70% of becoming a top athlete is belief and hard work. The other 30% is natural ability. You can become an athlete with limited natural ability, you just won’t be the best around.

Back on topic, how can you tell the difference between a CA/PA 20/200 and 80/150? You can, the 2nd one would be better. You can’t guess that’s not there. Things you would look for are:

Speed and acceleration

Vision and creativity

Work rate and teamwork

Mobility and positioning

Anticipation and decision making

Desire and the will to win

If you have them, there’s a good chance you can turn someone with poor technique into a top player. Any technique on top of that is a bonus.

[Scab]

While I think genes probably play at least some role, I don't really see what support there is for this "every serious practitioner is not the same, so natural talent must be why" claim, which looks suspiciously like an argument-from-ignorance logical fallacy. It's not like we have full control over, or even knowledge of, exactly how everyone learns from the moment they are born. That we are formed to handle certain things better than others, rather than have innate talent for them, seems a lot more plausible to me, especially over seemingly nonsensical claims like "it's a gift", "he was born to play football", etc.

The FM system is unlikely to change much either way given how finely balanced it is after many years of tuning. Besides, we get youth players at ages 14-16, so whichever theory you subscribe to, their past can arguably have resulted in the "potential" the game assigns to them. Still, I'd like to see training and match practice mean more. I just don't find it believable that someone who spends years at a state-of-the-art academy, with the right approach (professional, determined, ambitious...), will not improve. I'd really prefer "bad" players' inability to become great be represented in the growth algorithm via their approach/attitude and surroundings (facilities), not via simply deciding on a roof from the get-go.

[The-Perfect-Fm'er!]

For the bold bit, for "natural talent" to be spotted, a player has certain characteristics in his play that are good. For example, say his passing is very good as a child.

His passing ability does not come out of thin air. His passing ability is built on his development as a child to work in a team, to manipulate objects, to be able to run and have sufficient leg strength, and the mental ability to always look up.

All of these are built upon even more primitive skills, such as the ability to hold things, and the ability to crawl and walk.

If "natural talent" is "how good a player looks at a young age for some skills", then "natural talent" is still "the sum of all development from childhood". All those primitive skills.

If "natural talent" is something from birth, then I question how this can be measured at all, since newborn babies are absolutely helpless. You can't go up to a baby and say, "Wow, he's the next Lionel Messi. I can see this!"

If "natural talent" is "the result of this mysterious innate ability of a child, combined and fused with his development", then Occam's Razor suggests that the mysterious innate ability might not actually be required. This supports research in this area, which says, rather obviously, that "the more you practice, the better you become."

If "innate ability" cannot be decoupled from "development", then it is an assertion that the two are coupled together, which is something that needs to be looked at further rather than taken for gospel. For example, we know that pushing the "h" key on the keyboard usually produces a "h" letter on the screen. However, if I told you that it was the combination of "magic" and the actual key-press that produced the "h" on the screen, you would be sceptical. Here, "innate ability" = "magic", "development" = "press h" and "natural talent" = "h appears on screen".

The concept of "destiny" is something that is impossible to prove, since we can always argue that our predicted destiny was wrong should circumstances turn out to be "incorrect". The same goes for "natural talent" - it is impossible to create an experiment to show "natural talent" exists, since when the player turns, say, 21, you can always argue that when they player never fulfilled their talent. It is unfalsifiable. Which isn't surprising - since we only say players are "truly talented" once they actually "make it" - because we can't predict the future.

Natural ability is proven in so many aspects of life every single day. I'm not sure what world you exactly live on. For starters, I beat my brother at tennis every single time we played. Yet, I'm 4 years younger and while he played twice a week for a club, the only times I played were against him and my Dad, definitely not nowhere near what the amount he played, as well as the fact he had played for 4 years longer. I beat him comfortably every time, I was a better player. We want to France and for the first time when I was 13 and he 17, we played squad. I absolutely battered him every game. We'd never played before, never been exposed to the game. I was a better player by a ridiculous level. He's really not very good at sports, I seem to pick them up fair better than he does. I was weaker, smaller, slower and yet I still beat him.

You go to your local tennis coach who teaches young kids, teaching kids who have never been picked up a racket before, ask him if some are clearly better than others and the answer will be yes.

If AVFC10 is defining "natural talent" as "how good a player looks as a 9-year-old", then I think that that is not natural, since a 9-year-old child is miles more advanced than a newborn baby.

I'm not sure I've said that? Natural talent is not how good someone looks at a specific age, it's the limit of their potential. Lionel Messi was born with a talent, naturally at a young age he was already ahead of people because of the ability he was born with in terms of feet co-ordination and the intelligence to play. He could have practiced the exact same and most likely, that was the case but his natural ability shone through. He was already ahead of people, he picked up things quicker, he learned quicker and could improve more than any others.

The finest example is Theo Walcott, he stated he didn't play football until he was 10. Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't play at home but from his area, given players would have practiced just as much as him, at a better level for a youth club, then surely they'd be in front of him? Oh wait, no, he scored 100 in his first season and signed for Swindon. Theo Walcott score 100 goals because he'd practised more? No, it's because he was just naturally gifted.

The difference between GOOD players and great players, you could DEFINITELY argue is hard work and practice but the difference between Messi and your average joe on the street is natural ability to play football.

I think you must be kidding yourself if you believe the current list of world best players is like that because if you analyzed the amount of hours practiced, then it'd have Messi 1st, Ronaldo 2nd, Xavi 3rd, Iniesta 4th etc....

As for your comment on about how anyone could be Mariah Carey....well that sums it up, nothing more needs to be said. Absolute crazy idea.

Messi wouldn't be the best player without practice, coaching and extreme hard work. However, nor would he be the best player without the natural ability that was given too him.

[Scab]

Natural ability is proven in so many aspects of life every single day. I'm not sure what world you exactly live on. For starters, I beat my brother at tennis every single time we played. Yet, I'm 4 years younger and while he played twice a week for a club, the only times I played were against him and my Dad, definitely not nowhere near what the amount he played, as well as the fact he had played for 4 years longer. I beat him comfortably every time, I was a better player. We want to France and for the first time when I was 13 and he 17, we played squad. I absolutely battered him every game. We'd never played before, never been exposed to the game. I was a better player by a ridiculous level. He's really not very good at sports, I seem to pick them up fair better than he does. I was weaker, smaller, slower and yet I still beat him.

Well... not to be a stickler, but that doesn't really prove anything. We have a combined 30 years of development unaccounted for here, full of affecting factors. It's worth remembering that it's not like sports (or any other one activity really) are entirely unrelated to anything else we do in life. The fact that a person hasn't practiced, say tennis, doesn't mean he lacks any and all ability that can aid him in it.

Besides, the natural talent theory is not status quo. Proving something else wrong does not prove it right. You've only based it on the fact that some people excel and some people do not - hardly conclusive observations!

[milnerpoint]

If we began singing at 3, skipped high school to record demo tracks, wrote songs as a teenager, and did nothing but sing throughout childhood, why not? The thing is, few children actually start singing at 3 and even fewer skip high school to attempt a music career. It is a lot harder than you think to go through Mariah Carey's life.

Like you said, it's motivation that's the key - not natural talent.

It certainly sounds easy - start singing at 3, do nothing but sing, deliberately sabotage your education, great success - but in practice, it's not easy. This is why you do not see millions of Mariah Careys - because few actually want to go down this route. Not because she had the ability as a child.

Not meaning to sound like a knob, but you dont know anything about singing if you think that is the case. Not everyone can sing, especially to that level. The reason she was pushed to sing is because it was obvious from a very young age she had a talent in it. Music is one thing i am very experienced in and i can tell you without ANY doubt that some people will NEVER be able to perform to a good level no matter how hard they try. Natural ability in music is VERY important, especially at a young age.

[Menion]

You go to your local tennis coach who teaches young kids, teaching kids who have never been picked up a racket before, ask him if some are clearly better than others and the answer will be yes.

Not always due to ability, there are some other factors that you have to take into account:

1. Sporting ability - what have they done in the past that can be used in tennis (i.e. other racket sports would impove hand to eye co-ordiantion, dancing would improve agility and footwork, martial arts would improve agility and focus, football would imrpove your footwork and timing)

2. Personality - is the person too shy to allow themselves to do their best? Does the person even care, have they been dragged along? Is the person competitive and wants to out do everyone? Is the person just there for fun?

3. Makeup of group - different people react different to certain types of groups (i.e. gender, age difference, size of groupd, cultural backgrounds (even though people don't want to admit it))

4. Coach - does the coach teach the students properly? Different people ract to different coaching methods/styles.

It's never just a case of he who is better to begin with, is better in 2 weeks time.

The finest example is Theo Walcott, he stated he didn't play football until he was 10. Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't play at home but from his area, given players would have practiced just as much as him, at a better level for a youth club, then surely they'd be in front of him? Oh wait, no, he scored 100 in his first season and signed for Swindon. Theo Walcott score 100 goals because he'd practised more? No, it's because he was just naturally gifted.

This was not to do with his natural ability as a footballer. This is down to his speed and acceleration. Poor players can achieve a lot with only speed and acceleration. If you took away Theo's pace, he would be quite an average player.

[The-Perfect-Fm'er!]

Well... not to be a stickler, but that doesn't really prove anything. We have a combined 30 years of development unaccounted for here, full of affecting factors. It's worth remembering that it's not like sports (or any other one activity really) are entirely unrelated to anything else we do in life. The fact that a person hasn't practiced, say tennis, doesn't mean he lacks any and all ability that can aid him in it.

Besides, the natural talent theory is not status quo. Proving something else wrong does not prove it right. You've only based it on the fact that some people excel and some people do not - hardly conclusive observations!

True but surely on the theory the more you practice, the better you are. The person who practicses 2x as much as someone else would surely be better at that specific task?

The best examples are in your own lives. Think back to school or siblings, surely in every day of life. When you did things with friends, some friends would be better at certain things than yourselves and the opposite despite no previous experience of a certain task.

If I practiced 35 hours a week in football from a young age, Messi practiced 25 hours, I have absolute no doubt, Messi would shine high and far above anything I could even imagine doing.

[milnerpoint]

This was not to do with his natural ability as a footballer. This is down to his speed and acceleration. Poor players can achieve a lot with only speed and acceleration. If you took away Theo's pace, he would be quite an average player.

poor players do not make it to the top level of football, full stop.

[The-Perfect-Fm'er!]

Meh, I'm out. I'm sure you can all have your fun thinking what could of been. With a bit more practice, you all could have been Lionel Messi or the next Ronaldo.

[Lazaru5]

poor players do not make it to the top level of football, full stop.

Unless you're David Beckham

[Scab]

True but surely on the theory the more you practice, the better you are. The person who practicses 2x as much as someone else would surely be better at that specific task?

The best examples are in your own lives. Think back to school or siblings, surely in every day of life. When you did things with friends, some friends would be better at certain things than yourselves and the opposite despite no previous experience of a certain task.

If I practiced 35 hours a week in football from a young age, Messi practiced 25 hours, I have absolute no doubt, Messi would shine high and far above anything I could even imagine doing.

It's unlikely to be that simple. I wouldn't say that two people spending the same time in training will always (or even usually) be equally good, but that doesn't mean it's down to genetics. There are simply too many other variables involved, some of them just listed by Menion a couple of posts up. The view I (and I suspect x42bn6) is trying to present is more along the lines of that the things we pick up on in our very early years and how we subsequently develop them is what affects how easily we pick up on other (more or less related) things later on, not innate talents. E.g. when a player is scouted at whatever age, what we see is the result of early/previous development, not innate "gifts". Hence, "potential" becomes a strange concept if treated as an absolute max in ability, as if we stop learning at an arbitrarily pre-determined point.

[Ackter]

If we began singing at 3, skipped high school to record demo tracks, wrote songs as a teenager, and did nothing but sing throughout childhood, why not? The thing is, few children actually start singing at 3 and even fewer skip high school to attempt a music career. It is a lot harder than you think to go through Mariah Carey's life.

Like you said, it's motivation that's the key - not natural talent.

Wrong. I sang from a very young age and was often praised for the quality and range of my voice - I didn't have to train, I could sing from the first time I tried.

Then I hit puberty and my voice was destroyed. No matter how much I sing, and I still sing a lot, my voice will now never be anything more than "barely adequate" at best.

Edit:

Same with a lot of musical things. I could play the drums the first time I sat down behind a kit - it turned out I was the 2nd best drummer in my school, with no practice at all. Guitar gave me a little more trouble, but I was playing Nirvana, Pearl Jam etc within a week.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Have I stepped into an alternative dimension? All this, inside a computer game, really.:confused:

I wonder if the OP is any the wiser.

[Ackter]

That annoyed me too, as I knew this would happen.

I would delete everything not related to the OP but there's so much of it I'll just put this down as a write-off and clamp down on any more instances of other threads going this way.

[x42bn6]

Natural ability exists, just not to the extent that a lot of people wish to believe. What you generally have is a spark of ability. What that spark does is give you a slight head start. Make makes that spark turn into ability, is the joy you get from achieving a goal and striving for another. For example:

Little Jimmy has that spark of ability. He kicks the ball at the shed and misses. He tries again and misses another time. The next time he gets the ball, he hits the shed. Now this gives little Jimmy that joy, a sense of achievement. From that he tries again, this time he tries to hit the shed 2 out of 3 times, or even tries to hit the shed door.

On the other hand, we have poor little Ahmed (because it appears we have to be multicultural in all aspects of life now) kicks the ball at the shed and misses. He tries another 2 times and misses again. This plants some doubt in little Ahmed’s head, he doesn’t think he can do it therefore, he can’t.

Very simple, I know. At the end of the day, like in all things, the majority of achievement is through believing you can. Of course, you have to put the work in first of all. It’s those small victories early in life that give you that sense of belief. Every time you do something new, you want to push onto the next thing.

Isn't that "development", though? Children who undergo more training, for whatever reason, will generally be better.

Also, children are fickle things and they are not necessarily discouraged if, for example, their friends all play football and it is seen as "cool". Of course, if a child is good at something, they might still drop it if it is no longer "cool".

Natural ability is proven in so many aspects of life every single day. I'm not sure what world you exactly live on. For starters, I beat my brother at tennis every single time we played. Yet, I'm 4 years younger and while he played twice a week for a club, the only times I played were against him and my Dad, definitely not nowhere near what the amount he played, as well as the fact he had played for 4 years longer. I beat him comfortably every time, I was a better player. We want to France and for the first time when I was 13 and he 17, we played squad. I absolutely battered him every game. We'd never played before, never been exposed to the game. I was a better player by a ridiculous level. He's really not very good at sports, I seem to pick them up fair better than he does. I was weaker, smaller, slower and yet I still beat him.

You go to your local tennis coach who teaches young kids, teaching kids who have never been picked up a racket before, ask him if some are clearly better than others and the answer will be yes.

How old were you in the first few sentences? If it's around 7-8, then I'd argue it's not natural talent, since you've had 7-8 years worth of development, although not necessarily in tennis.

There could have been many reasons why you were better. For example, if you were smaller than your brother back then, you could have been more likely to join in games like tag (where your agility would come in useful), rather than football or basketball (as your height wouldn't have helped), leading to a more agile person, which is always useful in tennis. In addition, since you were not as strong, you could have picked up activities such as throwing, pattern recognition and manipulation of small objects, improving hand-eye coordination and leading to a superior ability to swing your racquet.

Are you really satisfied with the explanation that "my tennis ability dropped out of thin air"? The argument sounds very much like destiny and fate, which are wishful-thinking, if anything.

NI'm not sure I've said that? Natural talent is not how good someone looks at a specific age, it's the limit of their potential.

But we can't see that! We cannot see into the future.

A quick question for you. Pretend, for a moment, that you are a La Masia scout. In your annual 9-year-old trials, one of the youngsters appears to stand out to you. What do you see?

Lionel Messi was born with a talent, naturally at a young age he was already ahead of people because of the ability he was born with in terms of feet co-ordination and the intelligence to play. He could have practiced the exact same and most likely, that was the case but his natural ability shone through. He was already ahead of people, he picked up things quicker, he learned quicker and could improve more than any others.

Imagine we had a Lionel Messi "clone", who performed exactly as well as Messi except that he supposedly had "inferior natural ability". What would that look like?

The finest example is Theo Walcott, he stated he didn't play football until he was 10. Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't play at home but from his area, given players would have practiced just as much as him, at a better level for a youth club, then surely they'd be in front of him? Oh wait, no, he scored 100 in his first season and signed for Swindon. Theo Walcott score 100 goals because he'd practised more? No, it's because he was just naturally gifted.

Or just very very quick, which happens to be a very useful attribute at youth level...

The difference between GOOD players and great players, you could DEFINITELY argue is hard work and practice but the difference between Messi and your average joe on the street is natural ability to play football.

I think you must be kidding yourself if you believe the current list of world best players is like that because if you analyzed the amount of hours practiced, then it'd have Messi 1st, Ronaldo 2nd, Xavi 3rd, Iniesta 4th etc....

Not sure really... Ronaldo was a street kid and all he did was play football as a youngster. When he first moved to Sporting he spent crazy amounts of extra time in the gym training, in order to get stronger. I actually think Ronaldo would actually be first. I'd also think that a large number of Brazilians would be ahead of Xavi and Iniesta for the same reason.

As for your comment on about how anyone could be Mariah Carey....well that sums it up, nothing more needs to be said. Absolute crazy idea.

Why is that? Mariah Carey had a very unorthodox upbringing involving singing as a child and skipping high-school to record and demo.

Just because it sounds easy on paper does not mean that it is easy to do in reality. The reason we do not see millions of Mariah Careys is down to the fact that it is hard to follow Mariah's career path and upbringing - you have to have a troubled upbringing, sacrifice your education and find strength in singing (inspiration from media, lessons, lack of activities, etc.).

The recipe sounds simple, but replicating Mariah's life from a newborn upwards is so overwhelmingly unlikely that it is simply that - rare. Just like Mariah Carey.

Messi wouldn't be the best player without practice, coaching and extreme hard work. However, nor would he be the best player without the natural ability that was given too him.

A baby's abilities are extremely restrictive and a newborn baby understands very little except how to survive. How can someone be "born" with the ability to play football, a complex motor skill that requires a number of basic skills to play properly?

Not meaning to sound like a knob, but you dont know anything about singing if you think that is the case. Not everyone can sing, especially to that level. The reason she was pushed to sing is because it was obvious from a very young age she had a talent in it. Music is one thing i am very experienced in and i can tell you without ANY doubt that some people will NEVER be able to perform to a good level no matter how hard they try. Natural ability in music is VERY important, especially at a young age.

Strong assertions but sadly unprovable since you cannot predict the future, especially for the future of a 3-year-old (when Mariah started singing).

Could it not be that she started singing as a 3-year-old, continuing to sing and perfect her voice until she was around 5, at which point she was pushed (and she accepted, enjoyed and survived the pressure and challenge)?

Music is one of the awkward areas in the sense that it is more of a pure skill than a complex motor skill, but a 3-year-old barely knows how to string sentences together and barely understands emotion. You cannot predict with any certainty how they will turn out at that age.

Wrong. I sang from a very young age and was often praised for the quality and range of my voice - I didn't have to train, I could sing from the first time I tried.

Then I hit puberty and my voice was destroyed. No matter how much I sing, and I still sing a lot, my voice will now never be anything more than "barely adequate" at best.

Edit:

Same with a lot of musical things. I could play the drums the first time I sat down behind a kit - it turned out I was the 2nd best drummer in my school, with no practice at all. Guitar gave me a little more trouble, but I was playing Nirvana, Pearl Jam etc within a week.

Covered above. And musical ability can be trained, although it is arguably one of those that is extremely hard to train, to the extent that it is often not worth it.

Since music relies on things that are extremely genetic (i.e. vocal chords, lung capacity, mouth size, etc.), it is not really that surprising... But compared with football, it is so much more genetic. To be good at football does not necessarily imply genetic superiority at all. Ask Karl Henry...

That annoyed me too, as I knew this would happen.

I would delete everything not related to the OP but there's so much of it I'll just put this down as a write-off and clamp down on any more instances of other threads going this way.

The last time I checked, the best forums were the ones with lots of activity and where the arguments didn't descend into personal attacks, insults and flaming. Sure, some arguments are futile, but then again, a stalemate is an acceptable conclusion for any debate. No thread stays fully on-topic anyway.

The OP asked a very open question whether judging potential ability made sense, and it only makes sense to actually critique potential ability as well as critiquing the ability to "judge".

To me, this is a thread that seems futile but there is some good debate going on in here. Good debate will go on in many other threads, even if some participants get a little annoyed. As long as they debate in good faith and don't descend into insults, is there really anything wrong with letting that thread continue?

I feel I'm learning something through these threads and my hope is that everyone is learning something too, and it is this learning that helps us understand and critique/appraise the game as appropriate. I wouldn't be ordering the Outliers book without these threads.

We might not come to a conclusion everyone agrees with, but is that honestly a problem?

Your job is surely to promote good-faith and pleasant debate amongst the members of the forum, increasing its activity? Surely this thread is an example of this?

[Ackter]

What annoys me is that there's another thread about half way down the page that would be perfect for this arguement

Introducing this argument to this thread has completely derailed it and basically ended any chance of a discussion based on the points raised in the opening post.

[Ackter]

Music is one of the most complex motor skills (there aren't many more that I can think of).

Some people are born with an understanding of how music works, of how instruments work.

Take the Piano as an example. My cousin has around 12 years of lessons, exams in piano. I've had (I think) 3 lessons on the organ/keyboard and one on piano. Play us a piece of music and I'll be able to pick it up quicker and more accurately than him.

Christ time flies, he must have been playing for 25 years now.

[x42bn6]

It's unlikely to be that simple. I wouldn't say that two people spending the same time in training will always (or even usually) be equally good, but that doesn't mean it's down to genetics. There are simply too many other variables involved, some of them just listed by Menion a couple of posts up. The view I (and I suspect x42bn6) is trying to present is more along the lines of that the things we pick up on in our very early years and how we subsequently develop them is what affects how easily we pick up on other (more or less related) things later on, not innate talents. E.g. when a player is scouted at whatever age, what we see is the result of early/previous development, not innate "gifts". Hence, "potential" becomes a strange concept if treated as an absolute max in ability, as if we stop learning at an arbitrarily pre-determined point.

Pretty much, yes. Money doesn't drop out of the sky; similarly, I don't believe talent in a sport like football appears out of nowhere. Football is more complex than the likes of singing (vocal chords, about as genetic as you can get) or weight-lifting (amount of body fat, etc.). Genetically, I don't think you can "tune" yourself into football. Genetically, I don't think there exists a "football blueprint" in our minds that determines our natural talent, since a newborn baby only knows how to cry and suckle. The idea that it is hidden in our bodies as a mysterious thing is an insult, really - destiny, fate, wishful thinking.

Part of it is genetic, true, but then again, Lionel Messi is clearly not a gold standard physical specimen. Neither is Xavi nor Iniesta. Cristiano Ronaldo is closer to that, as was Ronaldo at his peak, but it just shows that genetics don't necessarily play a huge part.

In the movie A Sound of Thunder (apparently a rubbish movie, but anyway...), someone in the future allows customers to illegally hunt dinosaurs via a time machine. However, they only kill in specific circumstances to minimise the amount of damage done, as this cascades down through the years. One of customers steps off the protective path (to prevent damage to the ground), leading to a wave of changes in the present - it spirals out of control, if you will.

A similar argument applies here - if a child chooses a certain path when young, the "damage" done to that person's future is drastic. If a child discovers he enjoys football when he is, say, 3, then it potentially has a huge impact on the next 20-30 years of his life. On the other hand, if the same adult only makes that discovery at 20, then it has a minimal effect in comparison.

I think that any skills we pick up as children have potentially huge consequences in our lives. If I had read half as many books as I did, I probably wouldn't have a Joint Mathematics and Computing degree. If Lionel Messi had forgotten his football kit as a young trainee one day, he might never have made it to where he is today. If Mariah Carey had had a more stable upbringing, she might have turned out to be a glamour model instead, as she wouldn't have had to turn to music since she would have more things to occupy herself with. And so on.

For something to "drop out of the sky", it is a very easy cop-out and excuse that explains nothing and everything. As human beings, I don't think we should be satisfied with "it just happens".

[Ackter]

There are genetic things that can limit how the brain develops connections, and depending in which parts of the brain, or how much of it there is, it increases or decreases the chances of a baby's brain developing in a way that allows them to turn to football, music, brain surgery etc.

From that point on, it's nurture, but nurture can be limited by nature and often is.

[x42bn6]

Music is one of the most complex motor skills (there aren't many more that I can think of).

Some people are born with an understanding of how music works, of how instruments work.

Take the Piano as an example. My cousin has around 12 years of lessons, exams in piano. I've had (I think) 3 lessons on the organ/keyboard and one on piano. Play us a piece of music and I'll be able to pick it up quicker and more accurately than him.

Christ time flies, he must have been playing for 25 years now.

I'd argue the ability to manipulate an instrument is different to having musical talent. If you chopped Bach's hands off, he would still be a brilliant musician, although it might have been hard for him to show it.

In addition, shouldn't singing be part of music too, which employs little motor skill usage?

There are others, such as pure brain activities (chess and artists). Mathematics arguably so since the ability to visualise 3D is really difficult for some, and it's not something that easy to teach (because, well, you need to use 3D to teach 3D). Also see those mathematical geniuses who can multiply hundreds of digits together in seconds.

Pure physical activities, such as weightlifting and sprinting, are more "nature" than "nurture", as they are difficult (but not impossible) to train from scratch.

We do have to bear in mind, of course, that the human body changes all the time. The future sprinters might actually be midgets if evolution favours quicker and springier leg muscles, for example, at which point, sprinting could become a more "technical", and hence "nurture" activity.

[Ackter]

The point is that nurture alone isn't enough, you need nature on your side as well.

Are you saying there's no brain activity in football at all? You seem to be doing your best to separate the physical and mental in that last argument.

How about Tennis and the Murray family?

By rights they should be exactly the same as the Williams family (who are very close in ability), yet the Murray family are quite different.

Though saying that, Serena is better than Venus anyway, despite both having as close to the exact same training conditions for their entire lives. Why is Serena that little bit better?

[pigfacemonkeyman]

There are genetic things that can limit how the brain develops connections, and depending in which parts of the brain, or how much of it there is, it increases or decreases the chances of a baby's brain developing in a way that allows them to turn to football, music, brain surgery etc.

From that point on, it's nurture, but nurture can be limited by nature and often is.

And I thought I was out of this. It may possible to stimulate new growth within the brain from learning. Now is that considered Nature or Nurture?

[pigfacemonkeyman]

The point is that nurture alone isn't enough, you need nature on your side as well.

Are you saying there's no brain activity in football at all? You seem to be doing your best to separate the physical and mental in that last argument.

How about Tennis and the Murray family?

By rights they should be exactly the same as the Williams family (who are very close in ability), yet the Murray family are quite different.

Though saying that, Serena is better than Venus anyway, despite both having as close to the exact same training conditions for their entire lives. Why is Serena that little bit better?

She has 'Younger Sibling Syndrome'

[Ackter]

And I thought I was out of this. It may possible to stimulate new growth within the brain from learning. Now is that considered Nature or Nurture?

I'd consider it both. And that's my main problem with this whole argument. It's all a mix. There's no clean separation between them both.

[x42bn6]

There are genetic things that can limit how the brain develops connections, and depending in which parts of the brain, or how much of it there is, it increases or decreases the chances of a baby's brain developing in a way that allows them to turn to football, music, brain surgery etc.

From that point on, it's nurture, but nurture can be limited by nature and often is.

I agree with the first paragraph, but not the second.

Genetics are not the limit for complex activities, since we often barely stretch the limits of our genetics. We create "value" with a combination of our (inferior) genetics.

Usain Bolt is the fastest person in the world at the moment, but clearly, Bolt is going to be rather crap on the football pitch. George Elokobi is a monster of a man, but clearly isn't fit to lace Ronaldo's boots.

It is the combination of pace - but not pure pace - and strength - but not Elokobi strength - that creates the player that is Cristiano Ronaldo.

And Lionel Messi loses in both genetic lotteries, but is still superior!

To me, this suggests that "nature limits nurture" makes no sense, as there is no such thing as a "maximum" footballer. The best footballer in the world in the future might be a midget smaller than Messi, or Cristiano Elokobi, a tank nicknamed "Beastly ballet" for his sweet ability to strike the ball perfectly but take opponents' heads off with the shot. The best footballers in the world in the future might all be goalkeepers, as their legs get longer and longer. There is no such thing as a "maximum" footballer - hence there can be no "limit" as it implies this limit is superior to all other abilities attainable by this player.

What makes Messi so good? He's a loser in all genetic lotteries and doesn't hold multiple Ph.Ds and Mensa qualifications, so he is not genetically superior in any way. His nature, quite frankly, is a "fail". Yet it has not hindered his "nurture" in any way.

[Ackter]

You're basing that on everyone's natural limits being the same (or having no natural limits at all). Messi's superiority is in his mind as far as I'm concerned, which is what makes him better than Ronaldo, whose superiority is in his body. He doesn't have a physical advantage (other than a low center of balance, which definitly can be seen to help his style), but that's not to say he's physically weak. You're too black and white. They either do or they don't, and that's not how it works. Life is full of greys, it's full of little bits of do and little bits of dont.

Why would Messi need PhDs and qualifications for his mind to be more receptive to those things that make him a better footballer?

[x42bn6]

The point is that nurture alone isn't enough, you need nature on your side as well.

Are you saying there's no brain activity in football at all? You seem to be doing your best to separate the physical and mental in that last argument.

Brain activity is important, but in football it is not necessarily pure brain power. The best footballers aren't geniuses - in fact, they're the exact opposite. The average footballer, I'd hazard a guess, is probably thicker than the population as a whole, due to a lack of pursuit of education.

For things like spatial awareness, these can be trained to a certain extent, but these are really ongoing research areas, since we know very little.

That said, that does not imply that "some things cannot be taught".

[Ackter]

Brain power does not always equal intelligence.

The brain is split into very different zones and the development of connections between them can lead to a very powerful mind for some tasks, while being useless at others. That would be a mixture of nature and nurture again. Nurture develops the connections, makes them stronger, but if their genetics are off those connections won't be as strong as they could be.

Everything can be taught to an extent, and a lot of things can be done with no training at all.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Brain activity is important, but in football it is not necessarily pure brain power. The best footballers aren't geniuses - in fact, they're the exact opposite. The average footballer, I'd hazard a guess, is probably thicker than the population as a whole, due to a lack of pursuit of education.

For things like spatial awareness, these can be trained to a certain extent, but these are really ongoing research areas, since we know very little.

That said, that does not imply that "some things cannot be taught".

I'll have you know that I am a Professional footballer with a degree in Psychology and I resent your rem...............................Sorry I couldn't keep that going.

[x42bn6]

You're basing that on everyone's natural limits being the same (or having no natural limits at all). Messi's superiority is in his mind as far as I'm concerned, which is what makes him better than Ronaldo, whose superiority is in his body. He doesn't have a physical advantage (other than a low center of balance, which definitly can be seen to help his style), but that's not to say he's physically weak. You're too black and white. They either do or they don't, and that's not how it works. Life is full of greys, it's full of little bits of do and little bits of dont.

If anything, I'm less black-and-white than "nature limits nurture".

Put it this way - the future of football may well favour physical players in the future as footballers get stronger and stronger. Does that make Messi worse? Not really... It just makes him less appropriate for this footballing world.

The "best" footballer is purely subjective and changes all the time. This means that there can be no maximum, and therefore no limit. This doesn't mean infinity, of course, it just means an infinite number of outcomes, all possibly better than another depending on where the subjectivity lies.

Why would Messi need PhDs and qualifications for his mind to be more receptive to those things that make him a better footballer?

I'm not showing that - I'm showing that genetic ability through mental ability is also not the full picture, just like physical ability. It's a combination of the two, with other things.

[Ackter]

A combination of the two, like two other things I've mentioned

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Ackter, My thanks once again,

[Ackter]

If anybody is trainable, why isn't Walcott the best player in the world?

He has all the physical attributes needed to be a top player in today's game, but what's missing? What makes him, at best, a top flight substitute?

[x42bn6]

Brain power does not always equal intelligence.

The brain is split into very different zones and the development of connections between them can lead to a very powerful mind for some tasks, while being useless at others. That would be a mixture of nature and nurture again. Nurture develops the connections, makes them stronger, but if their genetics are off those connections won't be as strong as they could be.

Everything can be taught to an extent, and a lot of things can be done with no training at all.

This does not imply that nature restricts nurture, however. The "nurture" bit can overcome the lack of "nature". It might take a while, of course.

There are, of course, more "optimal" ways to develop yourself. If you are born with lung defects, becoming an engineer might be a more sensible career choice than becoming a professional long-distance runner. However, you can still become a professional long-distance runner - you will probably have to work really hard, of course. The engineer route merely offers a higher rate of success, which is what most human beings flock to.

[Ackter]

So, you have two players. One with dodgy lungs, one with decent lungs.

Both receive the exact same amount of training possible, which one becomes the better long-distance runner, and why is that?

And with that, I'm off to regenerate for the night. Caio.

[Menion]

poor players do not make it to the top level of football, full stop.

I never said they would make it to the top. I was simply making the point that at lower level football, pace and acceleration can make up for any lack of solid talent.

Anyone who thinks you can just train hard to become the best is naive. Like i pointed out, you need some key things to be the best. But, you have to put the work in and have the belief to get there. People put too much stock in natural ability, thinking it is the be all and end all. Ability is nothing without belief.

[x42bn6]

If anybody is trainable, why isn't Walcott the best player in the world?

He has all the physical attributes needed to be a top player in today's game, but what's missing? What makes him, at best, a top flight substitute?

Maybe he hasn't worked hard enough in training as he should have. Maybe he's never had any chance to work on new things in Arsenal's rigid 4-3-3. Maybe he's too used to abusing his speed. Maybe he didn't move to Arsenal early enough, as it is harder to teach a 20-year-old than a 12-year-old, say.

Just because it's possible to change, doesn't mean it will happen.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Can we settle for Nanurture and all go and have a cup of tea.

[x42bn6]

So, you have two players. One with dodgy lungs, one with decent lungs.

Both receive the exact same amount of training possible, which one becomes the better long-distance runner, and why is that?

And with that, I'm off to regenerate for the night. Caio.

Of course the genetically superior one will turn out better.

However, I'm not saying that "nurture" remains constant. If the physically-inferior person has to work harder, then it is possible that his "nurture" is better than the physically-superior person.

In some cases, it's not necessarily "work harder", too. It might be "work differently".

[Ackter]

Maybe he hasn't worked hard enough in training as he should have. Maybe he's never had any chance to work on new things in Arsenal's rigid 4-3-3. Maybe he's too used to abusing his speed. Maybe he didn't move to Arsenal early enough, as it is harder to teach a 20-year-old than a 12-year-old, say.

Just because it's possible to change, doesn't mean it will happen.

He moved, at the age of 16, to one of the best coaches and coaching setups in the world. In 5 years, he's barely improved.

Sure, Ajax, AC Milan etc wouldve given him even better coaching, but there's no deficiency there.

[Menion]

He moved, at the age of 16, to one of the best coaches and coaching setups in the world. In 5 years, he's barely improved.

Sure, Ajax, AC Milan etc wouldve given him even better coaching, but there's no deficiency there.

He's not improved because he has an over reliance on his pace. As well as this, he lacks the desire and bottle to become a top player. If his pace isn't working in a game, he withdraws inside himself and gives up.

[Menion]

So, you have two players. One with dodgy lungs, one with decent lungs.

Both receive the exact same amount of training possible, which one becomes the better long-distance runner, and why is that?

And with that, I'm off to regenerate for the night. Caio.

Bit of a stupid comparison. If I chuck 2 people into a pool, one has 2 legs and one has no legs, who will swim to the other end faster?

That is not someone having a natural ability, that is someone else having a defect/medical condition.