You thought Ravel was bad?!

CLK_FPC

Sounds like a massive waste:

Levo

These kind of stories anger me, a lot of people including me would dream to be a professional footballer or even have the chance.

Then you get these kind of people who have the talent and promise but waste it for what? Fuck all.

mightberight

Really hard to read, an excessive, use of commas.

Kid Cunto

Didn't Ravel hit his girlfriend? So yes, I do think he's bad.

mightberight

You did have the chance though. I don't think there's much "natural" talent to it - it takes thousands of hours of practice to even get signed up into a youth programme. Obviously there is a case of people thinking they've made it when that happens, and along with being a teenager, it's understandable that many don't make it.

Ralaks

Of course there is plenty of natural talent to it.

Drainy

no. He grabbed her phone and threw it out of the window.

mightberight

No. We all have two arms and two legs, and size, strength and to an extent speed aren't crucial for football. No one's born knowing how to play football.

Levo

So why aren't all players like Ronaldo, Messi, Neymar etc?

They is a reason why they is such a difference in the quality of players, some people have a lot more natural talent then others.

mightberight

Natural talent has been mythologised to almost a god-like, mysterious essence. What exactly is it? You think they're born knowing how to dribble? You'll find that virtually every top footballer has only got to the top because they've trained since an early age, and they've trained the hardest. It's all a matter of practice and it's a cop-out to suggest you can't be good at something because you're not "naturally" talented.

Raven Blade

Wasteman.

Talent is useless without discipline and determination. He's got nobody to blame but himself. I wish I had such an opportunity.

An Irish Red

You could have played football every waking hour of your childhood and not been half the player Lionel Messi is. Practice is crucial but some people have more of an aptitude for things than others.

amolbhatia100

I agree. Messi isn't more talented than me. He just practiced more.

x42bn6

Have you not considered the possibility that Messi is who he is today because he played football so much as a youngster?

Football is a much more complex activity than, say, sprinting or music.

Tiger Woods wasn't "born" a world-class golfer - he was introduced at the age of 2, and continued to practice throughout his childhood. He broke 70 at age 12!

Your genetics certainly contribute to a certain extent but I'd argue that "talent" is way more than genetics, especially in football. If anything, Messi's genetics are not great - he's short and needed expensive medication as a child. Messi's "talent" was built up over time - like Tiger Woods.

mightberight

Aptitude? That's just conjecture. The burden of proof lies with you in the same way as it does for people who claim the existence of God. The only natural ability would be physical, and that's less of a problem for footballers.

There is no doubt that if Messi hadn't have put thousands of hours of football practice from an extremely early age and received the right technical guidance in Argentina and at La Masia, he would have little notable football "aptitude."

I think a lot of what separates those from an early age is the formation of a technique that can be honed to an elite level - hoofing the ball, kick and run etc. might work at youth level to win, but not to become something special. The South Americans or the Spanish don't have a superior footballing genetic code, do they?? It's just culture, nature doesn't come into it.

Ralaks

Yes. You've obviously never played football in your life. Some people have natural talent for it just like some people have natural talent for playing the guitar, just like some people have natural talent for picking up women etc.

Obviously it isn't everything, but still you cannot possibly deny that some people are born with more natural talent than others for football, that would just be absurd - or well you did, since you well, did.

An Irish Red

I'm not saying Lionel Messi was 'born' world class, but he had an aptitude for it. I'm also not dismissing the effect of practice, every one at the top level put thousands of hours into their sport before they reached anything approaching prominence. Some people are naturally better at things than others, I don't see how that's arguable, to be honest. There'll be players across every league in the world who have put in the work Messi has and are not comparable in terms of talent.

alastair

You can actually go backwards though. You have to get the balance - too much of a sport too young and you can tire of it too quickly. This seems to be what happens to a lot of young kids - they get distracted by other things and bored by their original activity.

Ralaks

Indeed. It's a stupid argument due to a stupid and probably not well thought out statement, it's really on par with some of the shit Scholesey put out over the years.

x42bn6

How do you measure the footballing talent of a newborn child?

Even music - musical prodigies were exposed to music at a very young age. A musical prodigy doesn't play Mozart on his first try - a musical prodigy goes to a piano and bashes the keys. Innate musical talent? Not really. What matters is how a child is guided from piano key mashing to musical extraordinaire - that happens through practice and practice alone.

Picking up women is down to practice more than anything - a newborn child doesn't know anything about it. The talent is built up over time, through things like learning to talk and socialise, learning to understand other people, etc.

I think a lot of us are guilty of taking the "didn't fulfill his potential" too literally, the idea being that there's this magical number derived at a young age that determines how far they can go. It's practice.

mightberight

Har de har, I've clearly never played football, right. All you're doing is just assuming something that you've not actually looked into. You can't even tell me what natural talent is - give me a scientific link identifying an aptitude in the brain for being a footballer? Or a chess player? Or a pianist? You won't be able to. The 10, 000 hour mark is what it takes for someone to become elite at whatever they want to be. Many of just haven't applied that or had the right training to do so effectively.

I play guitar to a decent level by being self-taught, I put in a lot of hours into it. But I also know that if I put effort into learning scales and finger picking techniques I'd be far better. There's nothing natural to it.

And at the bolded bit - I really hope you're not serious.

Ralaks

It's really not just about measuring it. Some people are just better at some stuff, it's pretty normal really. Some kids are naturally better at maths, some are naturally better at sports, people are different, some excell in sports, others in business life etc. I stand by that, it's not all practice (I'm not saying practice and hard work can't get you some place, but rarely all the way).

To be honest this argument will probably just go in circles so it's best to agree to disagree I guess.

mightberight

Oh the irony. Tell me what natural talent is, I dare you

mightberight

And wasn't Scholesy arguing that technique can't be improved at a certain age, which is far more in line with what you're advocating?

x42bn6

What key aptitudes did he have? Coordination skills? Largely developed as a child. Spatial awareness? Largely developed as a child, although a fair bit is genetic. Logical thinking? A fair bit is genetic, but you can develop this a lot too. The ability to learn during a match? Developed as a child.

It's not just the number of hours you put in - it's the quality of the hours as well. A lot of it is down to opportunities, in the same way that most successful sportsmen are born in May-August (because new sports seasons in the Northern Hemisphere often start in the summer, and hence players born in this period typically are amongst the youngest in their peer group and hence get more practice). A "Neville" who practices against a wall for years before being discovered is going to be inferior to a wonderkid who trains professionally from childhood and puts in the same number of hours.

It's not grunt work, it's putting in quality hours to train.

You might have heard of this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29 - this goes into large amounts of detail why by-and-large the idea of natural talent is bollocks. A child's mind is easily moulded and it is that which is more important - as time goes on, your innate skills mean less and less.

Ralaks

Well it would make sense, since you seemingly have no clue about the sport. It should really be obvious what natural talent means, so I'm not going to bother explaining that one. You can't prove it, you can't unprove it. If everyone had the same talent from the beginning then surely we would see more players at the level of Messi because there is absolutely no sense in saying he is the only one with the required amount of determination, and plenty of players have had the same, if not better, training available.

Yes, you can teach yourself the guitar etc, but some people just have the natural talent for such stuff and learn it easier, but I guess that's not true because you say it isn't.

Serious or not some people are way better at all kinds of stuff, it's not that much of a stupid statement compared to say, saying that there is no natural talent involved.

It's not measureable, but it's pretty damned obvious what natural talent means, I'd let that linger in your head. Key words are natural and talent.

No I've never said that. All I've said is that some people are born with better ability with a ball at their feet, I've never said anything about not being able to improve said ability. I've not once claimed that natural talent is everything.

Anyway we're never going to agree so there is little point in derailing this thread further and I can't be fucked arguying for the sake of arguying.

mightberight

Aye. Pioneers of their sport often have innovative ways of learning at a young age which places them way ahead of their peers. Don Bradman used a cricket stump for a bat and a golf ball instead of a cricket one. He tirelessly kept smacking it back against some rickety old water tank. It's no wonder that a lot of top sportsman come from impoverished backgrounds that forces them to improvise with sub-standard equipment. An actual cricket bat would probably have felt half a metre wide to Bradman.

An Irish Red

You keep arguing that people aren't born as experts in their field, which absolutely no-one here has said in the first place. Lionel Messi would have had to put time in the same as anyone else. Nobody is born brilliant at something, that much is true, but people are quite clearly gifted at certain things. If Lionel Messi had never kicked a ball he would be completely useless, but he put the practice in and his development skyrocketed past his peers because he has that natural aptitude that they lack.

x42bn6

All of these skills are easily argued through practice. Those skilled in mathematics were likely to have been taught things like counting much earlier. Things like reading skills contribute as well. Applying logical skills through play is also important. This is how they can translate their numerical and logical skills into being good at mathematics.

Those skilled in sport were likely exposed at a young age, and were likely to have taught activities like crawling, ball-throwing and catching at an earlier age.

Those skilled in business were likely good at numbers but were also exposed to talking with others frequently, such as through playing and pre-school. They were also unlikely to have spent much time "alone" but frequently interacting with others. Their parents may have encouraged this through talking frequently as well. These build up conversational and negotiation skills, key in business.

A newborn child knows absolutely nothing about, say, business. How can you argue that a child has a "thing" for business? A child can be steered into a mathematical, sporting or businessman direction. You could also steer them to mediocrity, crime or idiocy.

At, say, 6, you could have argued Messi had a "thing" for football - but how he built up that "thing" was from when he was a newborn child up till then.

With Woods, you could have argued he had more quality practice at the age of 8 than most had at 16, which is why he is so good today.

mightberight

No it's not obvious. You can't even explain it yourself which is probably why you're getting into a bit of a hissy fit. But if you insist on leaving it here without providing any evidence whatsoever of what is natural about talent, take this quote with you: "For 37 years I've practiced fourteen hours a day, and now they call me a genius!” –Pablo Sarasate (Spanish violinist)"

Ralaks

I've never argued that they haven't built on that 'gift' to use the perhaps better word which AIR used though.

Your arguments are all fine, but I feel we're misunderstanding a tiny bit, I do think there is plenty of hard work and interest involved straight from the getgo, but I still believe that the really special cases like Messi, Woods, Jordan and Ali had that gift or natural talent if you will.

#07

Isn't there some study that says anyone can become a master of something if they practice it for 10,000 hours? Of course some people are born with certain advantages. It's quite clear, for example, that Ronaldo's makeup meant he could always become fast, strong, tall etc. but had he sat on his ass in front of a television all his life he never would have become what he is today. Nature and nurture are involved and of the two practice is more important.

x42bn6

If it is unfalsifiable, it's not worth considering. See Russell's Teapot.

Not everyone applies themselves as well as others, though. Even in Barcelona's La Masia or Ajax's De Toekomst, just like your average classroom, there are grafters and slackers.

Look at where, say, Luis Ronaldo started his football - at some fourth-division Brazilian club. Nani was on the streets as a child. Zidane's beginnings were relatively modest compared with La Masia.

Why are so many top footballers South American? Because as children, they were surrounded by football, and through relatively poorer educational systems compared with Europe, they spent most of their time playing football. The sheer amount of practice still largely beats heavily-funded European training regimes.

"Natural talent" or "talent"? It's a key question.

If it's "talent", I'd argue all you are saying is that "at some specific age (likely a young age), some players are better than others". Which is blindingly obvious but does not necessarily imply anything to do with "natural, innate ability".

When we look at Pogba and Morrison, we say they are talented largely because they are so good in their peer group. Morrison wouldn't be deemed half as talented if he scored no goals and was responsible for conceding tons every season.

Ralaks

Lets just disagree on that then, I think it's quite obvious. I'm poor at explaining myself I know that, I've always been that, I've never had a natural talent for doing that.

Yes that's all fine and dandy, I've never said that practice and hard work won't get you there, but with natural talent from the getgo it gets you there faster.

I agree with this post.

mightberight

Yes they are, but any notable natural advantages are merely physical. That's the reason why Jamaica have such good sprinters, that's the reason why Ronaldo is so powerful. But in the case of football any "natural" talent is mitigated. Paul Scholes became as good as he not only because he practiced so much but because he practiced in the right way - developing his spatial awareness, being attentive to tactical instructions, favouring accuracy over powerful hoofs as a kid. That's not natural, that's nurture. He went about it the right way and most of us don't realise that or get that guidance as kids, especially here in the UK. To say there are more "naturally" talented footballers in Spain and Brazil would be a bit bizarre, but they're so much better than us.

Saying there's natural talent for everything is a bit of an opiate to deny that anyone can become elite at anything they want to be. That's why there's so few around, as to have that ambition and work ethic from an early age is very rare. How those personality traits in themselves are developed ... well it's anybody's guess.

elmo

There is talent but it's overrated. Long hours of quality practice will get you to a world class standard, but what separates the best from the rest is an individual's drive and their physical abilities.

Edit: Added in an article which honestly settles the debate.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...ter-experiment

Jimy_Hills_Chin

Physical attributes could be classed as this mysterious 'talent' as they are natural or 'god given'.

I think that Messi's spacial awareness, his close control and his temperament are the key things that set him apart from all other players. Personally I think that his spacial awareness is likely to come from a mostly innate brain function that is genetically more enhanced in certain people.

My point of view is just from my own musings, if anyone else has some better insight on spacial awareness and such like please post it.

Of course I agree with the general consensus in that the most important attributes for success in life are drive and dedication.

As for the player in the OP. He is still making his living as a professional footballer in Brazil and no doubt earning a good wage for it.

Snow

Being able to learn a new language in a week for one.

Walrus

What this calls for, is a Venn Diagram.



From this, we can deduce that - shockingly - it is going to be a combination of natural talent, rigorous training and an excellent environment (like La Masia) to produce players like Messi. There are plenty of footballers out there who despite practicing from an early age will simply not be as good, there are plenty of players who are naturally gifted like Ravel, but who lack the discipline to train hard to perfect their talents.

Stick

I might have a go. Natural talent: physical traits inherited and unique to the individual which favour you developing something like better balance and reaction times. This trait is not present in all the population so ou can say an individual with these traits has a natural talent for all sports and an aptitude for them. It doesnt mean that the individual will be better than someone who practices more but it does mean that these physical traits provide a huge advantage to the individual.