Quote:
Originally Posted by Plechazunga
Right, I don't think anyone would disagree that natural talent imposes an upper limit. Now, how do you find out what that upper limit is?
Let's take two examples. Player A, let's call him Alf, and player B, let's call him Titus Bramble. They're both apprentices up to the age of 16.
After that, Alf trains hard every day, while Bramble is locked in a large picnic hamper for the next five years. Then he's let out, trains for a few weeks to get match-fit, and is put in the same team as Alf. Which do you reckon would play better? Do you think Alf's five extra years of practice, experience and working to both improve and compensate for the weaknesses in his game might have made him better than Bramble?
|
Ah but I would. Your upper limit comes when age starts to erode away your natural athleticism, it's nothing to do with natural talent. Natural talent just defines your starting point. From which you will always improve.
Depending how long your career is, how many injuries you pick up, how well you look after yourself and how you apply yourself in training, you will improve upon this natural talent by a greater or lesser extent.
Of course, if you lock yourself in picnic basket you may actually go backwards.