I really find the amount of players who can't use their 'bad' foot to the standard they're playing at appalling - watching a world class player on his good foot play like a league 2 player when having to use his other foot has always bothered me.
At the same time, I can understand and appreciate that their are finite hours in a day's training and honing your good foot and taking it to the next level is as big, or perhaps the biggest driver for most pros. Why take your bad foot up to competent or good when you could take your good foot up to: very good from good; great from very good; world class from great, or all-time from world class?
If you're someone like De Bruyne, do you attempt to make your left in some way a percentage of what your right currently is, or do you try and make your right a parallel of someone like Beckham beings as that's your scope? Perhaps only Messi has 'maxxed' out a foot to the point he could spend the remainder of his career on his right, but for everyone else there's always another level to take their good foot up to to the point their bad foot isn't their biggest priority.
I don't think there's a wrong answer to the question as there's merit in both. I guess some players split their time and work on both, but I guess that could be seen as half the gains on both feet rather than optimal use of their spare time.
Anyway, if you were a pro, or even if you're taking a vested interest in training and playing at your own level, what do or would you opt for? Is it better to become razor sharp with your good foot, at the expense of improving your bad one; proficient or even very good with your bad foot whilst making few gains with your good one or are you happy to incrementally improve a bit on both sides of your body at the expense of making leaps and bounds of refined improvement?
Btw, those of you who are truly ambidextrous, what is your approach to this question from a personal perspective and to it from the angle of the professional game?
At the same time, I can understand and appreciate that their are finite hours in a day's training and honing your good foot and taking it to the next level is as big, or perhaps the biggest driver for most pros. Why take your bad foot up to competent or good when you could take your good foot up to: very good from good; great from very good; world class from great, or all-time from world class?
If you're someone like De Bruyne, do you attempt to make your left in some way a percentage of what your right currently is, or do you try and make your right a parallel of someone like Beckham beings as that's your scope? Perhaps only Messi has 'maxxed' out a foot to the point he could spend the remainder of his career on his right, but for everyone else there's always another level to take their good foot up to to the point their bad foot isn't their biggest priority.
I don't think there's a wrong answer to the question as there's merit in both. I guess some players split their time and work on both, but I guess that could be seen as half the gains on both feet rather than optimal use of their spare time.
Anyway, if you were a pro, or even if you're taking a vested interest in training and playing at your own level, what do or would you opt for? Is it better to become razor sharp with your good foot, at the expense of improving your bad one; proficient or even very good with your bad foot whilst making few gains with your good one or are you happy to incrementally improve a bit on both sides of your body at the expense of making leaps and bounds of refined improvement?
Btw, those of you who are truly ambidextrous, what is your approach to this question from a personal perspective and to it from the angle of the professional game?