Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber
Look at the case of Ruud and Henry. Ruud is a natural goal scorer. Scores goals in ways that can't be taught. Always at the right place at the right time, effortlessly. Give him 3 chances he will put away 2. Due to ice in the veins. An ability/talent he was born with. It's second nature. No coach or training method could impart it.
Henry, isn't a natural finisher or goal scorer. By any stretch of the imagination. Give him 3 chances and he will probably score 1. He works so hard to get himself into the right positions to score. Yet, even when he first arrived in England, like Rooney he was not prolific. In fact he was far worse than Rooney is now! But Wenger worked with him on his finishing skills. Henry improved his decision making when shooting at goal and his shooting technique in one one one situations. Thus, his finishing skill increased. So naturally his goal scoring rate increased. And since he had far more natural ability and work rate to call on, than a Ruud, he ended up being more prolific than Ruud in the league. Yet Henry even now still misses the simplest of chances even when on top form. The type only a pure and natural goal scorer can take. The champions league competition was what always showed the difference between skills and natural ability. For all Henry's skills. He could never outscore Ruud in that competition.
|
i understand what you are saying, but imo you are contradicting Scholesy, whom you agreed with in the first place, since you claim that improvement is possible. his opinion is that practice is more a thing to get into shape physically and mentally, than a process by which one may hone one's skills.
it is appealing and romantic to ascribe some nebulous notion of natural talent to certain things in football. i can understand that. and certainly when people like a young Pele , Georgie or Maradona, Messi, Ronnie, Rooney etc come along, you say, well, there you go. i don't debate these players have a natural (as in born-with/innate) ability that wasn't taught. this, however, doesn't mean that it can't be taught or learnt. to imply that would fly in the face of everything we now know about the brain and how we learn physical tasks.
this is separate from the mental aspect of things, which can be innate. so, certain players make very mature decisions that belie their age (Rooney being an excellent example). nevertheless, certain players begin to come into their own and make such decisions later on in their careers (Zidane, Deco etc). it is easy to say, like Scholesy likely would, that this was there all along and all he needed was to acquire the experience. but how does one prove this scientifically? - imo, such an explanation is very ad hoc, unfalsifiable and therefore unpalatable.
now, on the Ruud vs. Henry example, what you describe is more temperament that anything. and that is innate. certain players are simply composed in front of goal, and it shows in their chance conversion rate. Ruud has the ability to be at the right place at the right time, and i'd wager this is natural, but it can be taught. i was reading an interview with Paloschi, the young Milan striker, and he was asked about a goal he'd scored against Samp i believe. he said he'd learnt a great deal from talking with arguably the poacher's poacher of world football: Inzaghi, who had instructed him on what positions to take up in the box. after that point, natural temperament takes over, which has as much to do with nature as it does confidence.
also, Henry is more of a footballer. it is no coincidence that he is often not inside the box when the ball gets there. Ruud, on the other hand, thrives in within those 12 yards. he is therefore more likely to score typical poacher's goals.