Mix of both, end of discussion
comment by Analog (U17200)
posted 3 minutes ago
Mix of both, end of discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not really answering the question. Do you feel its a 50\50 split?
You need natural ability. That can then be nurtured.
You can't really have one without the other
For example you could have lots of talent but if you don't have the fitness and tactical awareness you will be ineffective. Likewise you could have the fitness etc but not the ability to pull it off
comment by Heads shoulders knees John Stones, knees John Stones (U9760)
posted 56 seconds ago
You need natural ability. That can then be nurtured.
You can't really have one without the other
For example you could have lots of talent but if you don't have the fitness and tactical awareness you will be ineffective. Likewise you could have the fitness etc but not the ability to pull it off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See I think this is where I see a grey cloud.
I personally think Nature plays a more important role in England, but in countries like Spain, Nurture is more important.
There are alot of players playing right now who are not "naturally" gifted, they have just worked hard at their craft, and had top couches around them to get them to where they are.
Bit of both, got to be close to 50/50 I think.
People underestimate the nurture side though
Do you think the position a player plays, makes a difference?
i.e. A defender relies more on Nature, while a forward\Midfielder on Nurture?
i learned to play golf just watching golfers on telly,studying there swing after 12mounths i was hitting
par or just over
comment by we are liverpool fc (U13373)
posted 2 minutes ago
i learned to play golf just watching golfers on telly,studying there swing after 12mounths i was hitting
par or just over
..........
This means you have a natural ability for it.
Nurture more than nature obviously. Natural talent will only get you so far. It's more like the icing on the cake, if you are training hard all the time to be the best you can be.
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nurture more than nature obviously. Natural talent will only get you so far. It's more like the icing on the cake, if you are training hard all the time to be the best you can be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This I do agree with.
Nurture 65/35 Nature. Also explains why it will take a while before the US will put out world class players or win the World Cup. We have players with great natural ability but the nurturing isnt good enough. On pur way though.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Ronaldo worked hard to get where he is and that is why he is the superior footballer.
..............
He isn't though.
Do you think the position a player plays, makes a difference?
i.e. A defender relies more on Nature, while a forward\Midfielder on Nurture?
---------------------------------------------------
Would it not be the opposite? Attackers have more "natural" ability?
Also, what really counts as "natural ability"? Touch, awareness and balance. Those 3 are the only things that can't really be taught, but they are the basis of everything a footballer does.
Depends on the player but to make it to the very top I think it's mostly natural, otherwise anyone could be world class with enough effort.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by RtM (U1097)
posted 11 minutes ago
Nurture 65/35 Nature. Also explains why it will take a while before the US will put out world class players or win the World Cup. We have players with great natural ability but the nurturing isnt good enough. On pur way though.
-----------------------------
I think the problem with the US and UK players is that they are over coached. Too much to young just turns players into grafters because they're not allowed to just play, express and refine their natural talents.
People underestimate the nurture side though
=========================================================
There is quite a lot of research around now to suggest that the influence of nurture has been hugely undervalued in western culture, because we like the narrative of the natural-born super-hero.
We like to think that they worked hard to develop their talents, and we tend to asssume that they did so nmore than their peers (eg. Footballers banging on about kicking a ball in the street long into the night....yawn...so did lots of other kids, but they didn’t all become professionals)
But the influence of environment, and other chance factors, are largely discounbted in western culture. For example, a study was done of professional ice-hockey players in Canada, and it was found that a large proportion of them were born early in the calendar year.
This is because the junior game is orgamised into age-groups, and somebody born in December finds himself competing with somebody born in January of the same year. At that age, 10-11 months can make for a substantial differential in mental and physical development, and the player born in January is then taken onto an elite development program, so the gap widens.
A further study was then done of the Czech national football team, and the same thing was found (though obviously the cut-off was the football season, which doesn’t coincide with the calendar year). The dsame thing was found; there was a much higher incidence of players born early in the season.
This is just one factor of many.The same happens with school: children born towards the end of the school-year are at quite a big developmental disadvantage.
At the extreme end of the nurture scale is the Royal Family: because they are all as thick as pigsh.it, and so un-talented as to be practically useless, yet they find themselves at the top of the social hierarchy, with vast wealth.
You ccould argue they inherited the qualities that promoted the fortunes of their family, but the ability to fvck somebody rich is not passed down genetically, and that’s how most of them did it.
If Prince Charles wasn’t a prince, he’d be lucky to get anybody to fvck him at all, so he wouldn’ t have any kids, and he’d be lucky to get a job sweeping the floor in Maccy D’s.
Malcom Gladwell is very interesting on this subject (in his book ‘Outliers’ ), and there’s another bestseller on the subject called ‘Bounce’., by Matthew Syed. But there’s loads of research, and loads of literature, about it.
Take Rooney and Ronaldo. I would say Rooney had more natural talent when they were both younger, but Ronaldo was the one that committed himself to becoming as good as he could be, while Rooney let himself down with the faggs, booze and grannies.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Yes he is. Ronaldo is currently the best footballer in the world as evidenced by him being the current holder of the Ballon D'or.
...................
I didn't vote for him.
I'm not sure if nature is more important but if it's definitely what makes the difference in my eyes.
Without great natural ability I don't see a player being able to become world class. If it was all about nurture then there wouldn't really be levels, it all be about what youth system you came from and what team you play for
Both important, impossible to say which is more important.
Some top players are absolute physical beasts that no matter how hard others try they couldn't possibly replicate, whether it be power, pace or whatever they have naturally got.
Other players have clearly absolutely maximised their limited physical traits to forge a fantastic career for themselves. Then again, some of that might be down to natural mental strength.
The mental side of the game is still one that is underplayed compared to the physical side. Natural mental ability to deal with failure, replicate successes and be at your best when it matters most are just as important as natural physical traits.
The mental side of the game is still one that is underplayed compared to the physical side. Natural mental ability to deal with failure, replicate successes and be at your best when it matters most are just as important as natural physical traits.
----------------------
Good point. Takes a strong mentality to be world class, especially in terms of consistency.
nature by 8,381 country miles
great players are born not made
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Nature or Nurture?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 6/10/15
Mix of both, end of discussion
posted on 6/10/15
comment by Analog (U17200)
posted 3 minutes ago
Mix of both, end of discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not really answering the question. Do you feel its a 50\50 split?
posted on 6/10/15
You need natural ability. That can then be nurtured.
You can't really have one without the other
For example you could have lots of talent but if you don't have the fitness and tactical awareness you will be ineffective. Likewise you could have the fitness etc but not the ability to pull it off
posted on 6/10/15
comment by Heads shoulders knees John Stones, knees John Stones (U9760)
posted 56 seconds ago
You need natural ability. That can then be nurtured.
You can't really have one without the other
For example you could have lots of talent but if you don't have the fitness and tactical awareness you will be ineffective. Likewise you could have the fitness etc but not the ability to pull it off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See I think this is where I see a grey cloud.
I personally think Nature plays a more important role in England, but in countries like Spain, Nurture is more important.
There are alot of players playing right now who are not "naturally" gifted, they have just worked hard at their craft, and had top couches around them to get them to where they are.
posted on 6/10/15
Bit of both, got to be close to 50/50 I think.
People underestimate the nurture side though
posted on 6/10/15
Do you think the position a player plays, makes a difference?
i.e. A defender relies more on Nature, while a forward\Midfielder on Nurture?
posted on 6/10/15
i learned to play golf just watching golfers on telly,studying there swing after 12mounths i was hitting
par or just over
posted on 6/10/15
comment by we are liverpool fc (U13373)
posted 2 minutes ago
i learned to play golf just watching golfers on telly,studying there swing after 12mounths i was hitting
par or just over
..........
This means you have a natural ability for it.
posted on 6/10/15
Nurture more than nature obviously. Natural talent will only get you so far. It's more like the icing on the cake, if you are training hard all the time to be the best you can be.
posted on 6/10/15
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nurture more than nature obviously. Natural talent will only get you so far. It's more like the icing on the cake, if you are training hard all the time to be the best you can be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This I do agree with.
posted on 6/10/15
Nurture 65/35 Nature. Also explains why it will take a while before the US will put out world class players or win the World Cup. We have players with great natural ability but the nurturing isnt good enough. On pur way though.
posted on 6/10/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/10/15
Ronaldo worked hard to get where he is and that is why he is the superior footballer.
..............
He isn't though.
posted on 6/10/15
Do you think the position a player plays, makes a difference?
i.e. A defender relies more on Nature, while a forward\Midfielder on Nurture?
---------------------------------------------------
Would it not be the opposite? Attackers have more "natural" ability?
Also, what really counts as "natural ability"? Touch, awareness and balance. Those 3 are the only things that can't really be taught, but they are the basis of everything a footballer does.
Depends on the player but to make it to the very top I think it's mostly natural, otherwise anyone could be world class with enough effort.
posted on 6/10/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/10/15
comment by RtM (U1097)
posted 11 minutes ago
Nurture 65/35 Nature. Also explains why it will take a while before the US will put out world class players or win the World Cup. We have players with great natural ability but the nurturing isnt good enough. On pur way though.
-----------------------------
I think the problem with the US and UK players is that they are over coached. Too much to young just turns players into grafters because they're not allowed to just play, express and refine their natural talents.
posted on 6/10/15
People underestimate the nurture side though
=========================================================
There is quite a lot of research around now to suggest that the influence of nurture has been hugely undervalued in western culture, because we like the narrative of the natural-born super-hero.
We like to think that they worked hard to develop their talents, and we tend to asssume that they did so nmore than their peers (eg. Footballers banging on about kicking a ball in the street long into the night....yawn...so did lots of other kids, but they didn’t all become professionals)
But the influence of environment, and other chance factors, are largely discounbted in western culture. For example, a study was done of professional ice-hockey players in Canada, and it was found that a large proportion of them were born early in the calendar year.
This is because the junior game is orgamised into age-groups, and somebody born in December finds himself competing with somebody born in January of the same year. At that age, 10-11 months can make for a substantial differential in mental and physical development, and the player born in January is then taken onto an elite development program, so the gap widens.
A further study was then done of the Czech national football team, and the same thing was found (though obviously the cut-off was the football season, which doesn’t coincide with the calendar year). The dsame thing was found; there was a much higher incidence of players born early in the season.
This is just one factor of many.The same happens with school: children born towards the end of the school-year are at quite a big developmental disadvantage.
At the extreme end of the nurture scale is the Royal Family: because they are all as thick as pigsh.it, and so un-talented as to be practically useless, yet they find themselves at the top of the social hierarchy, with vast wealth.
You ccould argue they inherited the qualities that promoted the fortunes of their family, but the ability to fvck somebody rich is not passed down genetically, and that’s how most of them did it.
If Prince Charles wasn’t a prince, he’d be lucky to get anybody to fvck him at all, so he wouldn’ t have any kids, and he’d be lucky to get a job sweeping the floor in Maccy D’s.
Malcom Gladwell is very interesting on this subject (in his book ‘Outliers’ ), and there’s another bestseller on the subject called ‘Bounce’., by Matthew Syed. But there’s loads of research, and loads of literature, about it.
posted on 6/10/15
Take Rooney and Ronaldo. I would say Rooney had more natural talent when they were both younger, but Ronaldo was the one that committed himself to becoming as good as he could be, while Rooney let himself down with the faggs, booze and grannies.
posted on 6/10/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/10/15
Yes he is. Ronaldo is currently the best footballer in the world as evidenced by him being the current holder of the Ballon D'or.
...................
I didn't vote for him.
posted on 6/10/15
I'm not sure if nature is more important but if it's definitely what makes the difference in my eyes.
Without great natural ability I don't see a player being able to become world class. If it was all about nurture then there wouldn't really be levels, it all be about what youth system you came from and what team you play for
posted on 6/10/15
Both important, impossible to say which is more important.
Some top players are absolute physical beasts that no matter how hard others try they couldn't possibly replicate, whether it be power, pace or whatever they have naturally got.
Other players have clearly absolutely maximised their limited physical traits to forge a fantastic career for themselves. Then again, some of that might be down to natural mental strength.
The mental side of the game is still one that is underplayed compared to the physical side. Natural mental ability to deal with failure, replicate successes and be at your best when it matters most are just as important as natural physical traits.
posted on 6/10/15
The mental side of the game is still one that is underplayed compared to the physical side. Natural mental ability to deal with failure, replicate successes and be at your best when it matters most are just as important as natural physical traits.
----------------------
Good point. Takes a strong mentality to be world class, especially in terms of consistency.
posted on 7/10/15
nature by 8,381 country miles
great players are born not made
posted on 8/10/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 1 of 2