Can a soccer player be "made" to be a star?

Discussion in 'Youth & HS Soccer' started by nandoal28, Dec 16, 2011.

  1. Eph4Life

    Eph4Life Member

    Sep 4, 2011
    UK
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Did anyone watch Tottenham play Norwich today? Did you see Gareth Bale's second goal? You can "deliberately practice" your whole life, and can't teach someone the pace that Bale, or Lennon, or Wolcott, or Valencia from Man U. have.
    Elessar I enjoy your posts for the most part, but I think in this case you might be somewhat misguided. There is an interesting section in the book Soccernomics about how most of the players from the English National team in the 90's I believe were born of working class parents, and three of whom had fathers who were Coaching/Managers in the soccer field. To say there is not a genetic component in sports excellence would be short sighted. Some of it can be argued on the nature v. nurture concept, and that is a valid argument.
    In my last few years as a soccer parent, part time coach and full time soccer savant I am hearing the same tripe over and over again. 1) Physical attributes are less meaningful, even a detriment because the good fast kid at U-8 just scores alot of goals because he is fast and he is receiving the ball from the big fat kid in the back. Here is an idea: take the big fast kid, make practice fun for him with small sided games and fun contests, keep him interested at 12 and beyond and he will be better than your kid who can stand and dribble 100 times in a row.
    2) The level of American youth coaching is absolutely abysmal. Our first year, we had a Director of Coaching for our club meet with the parents and look us all in the eye and told us we know NOTHING about soccer. He was from El Salvador. He got canned the following year. He had a neat accent though.
    3) Next year, we had a coach who said all the right things and then had our center forward shoot the ball from the opening kick and try to score. This from a coach who preached "possession". For the record, I kept track. We tried it 12 times, and we didn't score.
    4) Next coach who, I kid you not, was responsible for 18 teams from U-9 to U-18. He was from Scotland, again he had a great accent. How can you seriously evaluate the talent on each team if you are responsible for 18 teams?? Kids were busting their butts, improving as the year went on, and the lineups never changed. See point #2.
    5) I would love to see coaches start to move from Football, Baseball, Lacrosse, etc to soccer at the rec level. Stop rolling your eyes, soccer purists. It is slowly starting to happen.
    There are great sources of info from people like RCA, and tons of stuff on the net now available to a conscientious parent who is willing to get his National Youth License down the road, and pay attention to one or two teams WITHOUT getting paid for it.
    I would love to continue this discussion so fire away. I will warn you though, I have been paying attention. :cool:
     
  2. uvahoos

    uvahoos Member

    Jul 8, 2011
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    I agree, beware of the foreign accent without the substance and credentials to back it up. Some of the best and worst local coaches I know are foreigners. The accent is a guarantee of nothing but a potential trap for soccer newbies.
     
  3. Eph4Life

    Eph4Life Member

    Sep 4, 2011
    UK
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Now you tell me? Thanks.:)
     
  4. elessar78

    elessar78 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    True, but how many fast people are not playing in the EPL (or any other top league).

    I make the same argument myself about parentage. But it's not the same one people tend to make about genetics—most people want it to be something that happens in the womb but I believe most of it is an external event(s). Gareth Bale, Walcott, Alex-Oxlade Chamberlain . . . all came from Southampton's youth program. I think in-born qualities like height, fast-twitch muscle fibers give you an advantage, but the real advantages lie elsewhere.

    Gareth Bale has an uncle who is a former professional. Oxlade-Chamberlain's father was a former England International. Messi's dad was a youth coach for a professional team in Argentina. Tiger Woods, Williams' sisters in tennis are some more examples of how having an nearby adult who can teach you the game correctly from a very early age can confer a HUGE advantage.

    All I'm saying is that innate ability is oversold while things like deliberate practice and early mentors, access to facilities and training are undersold.

    The counter argument that is put forth is that there are many kids that practice till the cows come home and don't achieve greatness. The response to that is that they are not doing the correct kind of training and they are not developing the insight necessary. I posted a video from coaching legend Horst Wein in the coaching thread "Training the Brain." In it he talks about the player's ability to perceive. No amount of cone dribbling, shooting practice will give you the mental speed to perceive and recognize things in soccer situations.

    Agreed, we've demonized the fast U8 kid or the coordinated/strong U8 who can boot it 40 yards. But really it's demonizing the coaches who don't move these kids beyond using their speed. I agree with your solution, btw.

    My team still does that (boot it down the field off the kickoff). BUT it's not because I coach them to do that. I don't waste time in training teaching kids how to "properly" kick off. The kickoff lasts all of 2 seconds and very very very few times has it resulted in a goal either way. FWIW, my team has scored twice off the kickoff. Once the goalie was asleep at the start and my forward just kicked it toward goal. Second, the three players involved in the kickoff combined down the field while the defense basically watched because they felt good that they had just scored on us. Just playing devil's advocate... sometimes what you see is not what is taught by the coach.


    I think there are a lot of wonderful things coaches from other sports can bring to the table. Bruce Arena never played soccer at a meaningful level, he was a lacrosse guy through and through. I don't think he did too badly for himself.
     
  5. kinznk

    kinznk Member

    Feb 11, 2007
    As a native of Tacoma, WA and an 7yo boy in 1976 who's heroes donned the the red and white stripes, are you telling me the Tacoma Tides of the ASL were not playing meaningful soccer. The great Tides of my youth are torn down in front of me.:)
     
  6. Eph4Life

    Eph4Life Member

    Sep 4, 2011
    UK
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    "All I'm saying is that innate ability is oversold while things like deliberate practice and early mentors, access to facilities and training are undersold. "

    Elessar: We can both agree on that.


    My biggest concern/fear/conundrum is how we keep the good kids in the game at U-12 and above; and for me the answer is complex. In order to do this our coaches need to be on the ball, and be in it for all the right reasons; money isn't necessarily one of them. They need to be innovative, and need to pay attention to what is going on around them, every practice, every interaction with the player and his/her parents.
    The system is broken as we are losing 75%? 80% depending on what stats you want to use as far as attrition at the U-12 level. As all of you know, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Let's get some new perspective on how to keep these kids from going on to basketball, lacrosse, baseball (to a lesser extent.)

    The collective arrogance of most foreign soccer coaches is nauseating: and the general disdain for soccer parents has to be tempered. I see it here a lot: and I will be the first to agree that many parents are a pain in the ass.
    Yet, my son has playing for the last 5 years (starting with rec at age 5 then comp at U-9) and my wife and I have yet to have a pre-season meeting with a coach who tells us what is expected of our kid(s) and what is expected of us as parents? I am not saying all of you coaches here don't do this, but this is purely my experience.

    You have a problem parent? Pull him/her aside and tell them they aren't helping their son Johnny Lightning by screaming at him. Empathize with them, they are there because they care for their kid, and they have entrusted you with their kid. It is an emotional connection that can flourish if you take a little time to nurture it instead of ripping it out of the ground. Many of the parents who are affluent enough to pay for club soccer fees normally are successful in their own right; don't insult them with your arrogance. The parent on my son's team included a cardiac surgeon, a pediatrician, a cardiologist, a couple attorneys, etc. I am pretty sure they have earned the right to have a say in the proper time and setting.:rolleyes:
     
  7. elfmeister

    elfmeister New Member

    Dec 24, 2010
    This is an interesting discussion; I'd like to add some food for thought.

    My daughter played on a team with identical twin brothers. They had both played on all the same teams, had all the same trainers and coaches and practiced at home together. Yet by U11 one had clearly surpassed the other in technical skills and tactical awareness. Same genetics, same environment, different results.

    I can't really speculate on what was different, whether it was more passion for the game or better mental focus or something else. There seems to be another element at work here besides nature vs nurture.
     
  8. elessar78

    elessar78 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Interestingly enough, multiple studies have shown that ITRA's (Identical Twins Raised Apart) have shown striking similarities despite not having been raised together.

    Through my playing and coaching career I've known 3 or 4 sets of identical twins. You know what? One was always better than the other, by the time high school rolled around or one was interested in soccer and the other was not.
     
  9. Kevin8833

    Kevin8833 Member

    Jun 18, 2007
    Estero, FL
    Interesting, but at the same time, you don't know which of the twins spent more time playing soccer away from the teams, and how much more time they spent.
     
  10. elfmeister

    elfmeister New Member

    Dec 24, 2010
    Actually, I do. Their mother, who I am friends with, told me that the two are inseparable and always practice together. If there's a pick-up game or camp or anything else outside of normal practice, they go together or not at all.
     
  11. kinznk

    kinznk Member

    Feb 11, 2007
    Not soccer related but educationally related. There have been some studies that indicate that student IQ comprises anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of student success. Whereas the other 50 to 75 percent is made up of other factors. Nothing else comes close to being as influential as student IQ. That being said, there is a lot of other variance that contributes to student success. IQ, or soccer ability, gets you in the door but it won't keep you at the party.
     
  12. ChapacoSoccer

    ChapacoSoccer Member

    Jan 12, 2010
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    I think the 10,000 hour study results have been vastly overrated, 10,000 was an average, the range was really wide, something like 3000 to 18000 hours. that suggests huge genetic differences in skill mastery. I think the results have been mis-reported in the popular books. Also, the most famous study was only of musicians who had achieved mastery- you don't see the kids who realized it didn't matter how many hours they practiced they weren't going to master the instrument.

    I think there the deep practice really matters, but those books really oversold the research.
     
  13. rca2

    rca2 Member+

    Nov 25, 2005
    Those are the kids who used the "I don't have talent" excuse for not putting in the time. Unless there is a mental or physical disability, anybody can master a musical instrument. It is simply a matter of putting in the effort and having expert guidance. In reality few people want to devote the time necessary to become an expert at something. 10,000 hours is practicing one thing for three hours a day every day for 10 years.

    By about age 12, kids are typically developing more independence and making important life decisions for themselves. Priorities often change in the teenage years. There is a lot of competition for a teen's time. Social pressures and economic pressures also influence decisions. In my view, people do exactly what they choose to do. Rationalizations for their decisions do not change the fact that they had a choice. Not making a decision, i.e., doing nothing, is a decision.
     
  14. elessar78

    elessar78 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    3,000 hours would be too easy. We'd have so many "experts" in each field.

    18,000 hours would mean training for 3 hours daily for 18 straight years. From a practical standpoint, that's highly unlikely. People would be in their 30s before they became experts

    The 10,000 hours rule is also referred to as "10,000 hours or 10 years". And it's about 10,000 hours.
     
  15. ChapacoSoccer

    ChapacoSoccer Member

    Jan 12, 2010
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Here is the link Elessar:
    http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html

    the 3,000 hours was in Chess, and it is incredible, whoever that was is like the Messi of chess. The point is that some kids respond much more quickly to practice, it doesn't take them 10k hours so master skills.

    As to a kid just being lazy, RCA2, does it really make sense spending a huge portion of your life practicing something you aren't going to be great at. Notice some people took 24,000 hours to reach chess mastery. That's great if being a chess master is your top priority, but its also sort of crazy. I think those kids who don't have the aptitude are making a smart decision to spend their time in areas where they have more talent. Spending that 3 hours a day on schoolwork will get almost any kid into a good school.
     
  16. elessar78

    elessar78 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nice link. I scanned through it briskly and I get his point. Where did 10,000 hours come from.

    I'll readily admit that there are some things that don't jive with other things I've read (at least not yet). I actually just wrote it today in another thread!

    But when I read about evolution (Before the Dawn by Wade), in it he talks about how evolution has predisposed certain populations to excelling in certain domains. Sprinters of West African descent have dominated the medals at 100M, East Africans the distance events, Jews disproportionately have received more Nobel prizes in various categories. How does that unify with 10k theory?

    As an avid chess player myself, I refuse to believe that one can achieve master status in 3,000 hours. Playing daily for 3 hours (not impossible for chess addicts) for 3 years you can't possibly see enough positions and go through enough variations and counter variations to master the game. But I'll, again, readily admit that I can be wrong about this.

    On the other end, 24,000 hours just seems like it wasn't time well spent. Yes, a lot of chess players reach grand master status later in life. But to me, that signals a lack of quality in the training. Perhaps they didn't nail "deliberate practice" maybe their instructor or independent study was flawed.
     
  17. rca2

    rca2 Member+

    Nov 25, 2005
    You wrote that as a "fact." It is merely supposition. And in my opinion a very poor supposition based on flawed logic. Humans are very adaptable. (Otherwise what would be the point of coaching? I think this has been widely demonstrated.) That trait in itself means environmental conditions and behavior influence individual development by definition. Those influences must be ruled out as a source of individual variation in performance before some other cause can be determined.

    There are statistical differences in populations, but we are talking about outliers in terms of individual performance, which by definition are not predicted by the population. So I fail to see any logic in comparing different populations to explain outliers.
     
  18. elessar78

    elessar78 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    In the "innate ability: catalyst for training" section.

    Gladwell cited in one of his books a study between American students and Asian students when it came to math. The average American student spent 8 minutes figuring out a math problem before asking for help or giving up. The average Asian student spent longer (12.5 minutes?).

    Reinforced by cultural behaviors, like what that "Tiger mother" wrote in the NY Times last year . . . that Chinese mothers are less likely to let their kids off the hook, for example playing violin, just because they suck at it initially. The children of these parents are made to work through the problem longer and harder than their counterparts. Basically overcoming "innate" disadvantages.

    In the section where he talks about the swimmers. I don't know enough about what makes elite swimmers special. They all look the same to me; long, muscular, lean, broad shoulders.

    I also don't know if what they say that transfer of talent doesn't happen from one domain to another. I believe it's widely accepted that soccer is a late specialization sport. With that in mind, generalized training in soccer and other sports at a young age still applies to the 10,000 hours.

    Also, can an argument that be made that even though one is a professional soccer player one is not necessarily an expert in his/her domain?
     
  19. rca2

    rca2 Member+

    Nov 25, 2005
    A couple of points:

    In talking about outliers, comparing one culture to another really doesn't enlighten us. Where the 10,000 hours comes into to play is to explain why a particular individual has deviated from normal performance to such a huge extent as to become an anomoly in comparison to the normal population.

    When we talk about outliers, we are not talking about the top 1% of the population. One percent of the USA population is 3 million people. There are not 3 million professional soccer players or professional musicians or international chess masters in the USA. We are talking about people whose performance lies outside the bell curve of statistics--outliers. What makes them outliers is a willingness to practice their activity of choice to extent far beyond what anyone else is willing to do.

    Better athletes and players would result if the individuals did not specialize in the early years. True ball mastery is a goal for the early years, but development of basic athletic skills is important too. I describe dribbling as being 50% ball skill and 50% athletic ability. We want to develop players with both. For the same reasons that we want to see ball skills learned early, we should also want general athletic skills learn early. It is the prime time for learning motor skills.

    When we talk about 10,000 hours and experts we are not talking about sprinters, swimmers or tic-tac-toe. The activity must have a mental complexity to it. Purely physical activity like running a marathon really does not involve the same kind of mental activity as even something as simple as playing tennis where a player has to return services traveling at very high speed. Soccer, a team sport, obviously has a great deal of mental activity in recognizing situations, making decisions, and executing.

    Basketball for example actually has a great deal of carry over. General athletic skills of course (stopping, starting, turning, etc.). You don't dribble a basketball with your feet, but think about defense. Almost everything from basketball defensively carries over to soccer. Aside from the foot/hand distinction everything else on defense is relevent, both tactics and skills.

    Last point, researchers are just beginning to understand the brain. Apparently the brain actually physically adapts like the rest of the body to practice. To use a computer analogy, as you travel down those 10,000 hours the brain is upgraded in both software and hardware to increase processing capacity and speed. This is why incorporating decision making into your practices is so important. "Train the brain too" is just starting to draw more attention.
     
  20. bisbee

    bisbee Member

    Sep 9, 2010
    Great athletes are born and not made. It's almost all about genetics.
     
  21. mdc00

    mdc00 Member

    Jan 8, 2009
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But great athletes are not necessarily great soccer players.
     
  22. elessar78

    elessar78 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Please define "great athlete".
     
  23. y.o.n.k.o

    y.o.n.k.o Member

    Jan 12, 2010
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    It is funny reading some of the comments here.

    I'll say this. All pro players have worked hard and taken their opportunities to get where they are in pro sports. But not everyone is a great player or "star" player. The difference is "talent" and how it has been developed. There are things you can learn with a lot of dedication and hard work and then there are things that you can't learn no matter what. Every individual has its limits, some are higher, others are lower. Learning is a talent in its self, as not everyone can learn as much or as quickly as the rest.

    A lot of factors need to fall in place for someone to be made into a star. I believe it starts with talent or innate ability in some shape or form and then comes the rest - hard work, dedication, ambition, passion, good coaching, good environment, mentoring, opportunities, etc.
     
  24. midwestfan

    midwestfan Member

    Dec 31, 2011
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Most players can be made into very good players, but innate ability combined with what makes everyone else a very good player goes into making a star.
    I'm always amazed at the amount of time and money that parents put into making their kids into stars. Especially in the last ten years since my kids have been playing, the percentage of players to achieve the level of status that I would consider star players, is a very small percentage of the players who's parents spend inordinate amounts of money on their development. Maybe they are trying to get to that 10,000 hrs as quickly as possible. Lots of kids can master the moves and footskills that to the less knowledgeable makes that kid a great player at a young age and have people thinking they will be a star. Unfortunately most of those kids don't think their way through a game but rather try to outskill the opposition rather than out think them. And yes a lot of confidence comes with having the skills at a young age, but not knowing what to do with the skill hurts them just as much.
    something I've tried to be very mindfull of with my kids and their development in soccer.
    However, having said all that the messi's, maradona's, rooney's, and others that reach that star status have more than just skills, and more than they learned in their 10,000 hrs mastering the game.
     
  25. rca2

    rca2 Member+

    Nov 25, 2005
    The original post referred to a parent who wanted his kid to be an NFL quarterback. He didn't say NFL star or even NFL starter. Rejecting comments about practice making professional athletes because practice doesn't explain the difference between a professional "star" and other professional players misses the whole point. Nobody is saying that practice explains the performance differences among individual experts. The point was that practice explains the performance differences between a group of people--the experts-- and everyone else. The study of musicians discussed by several authors for instance did not try to distinguish between individual soloists, the highest skilled group discussed.

    If we start talking about distinguishing between individual experts, the discussion will necessarily involve subjective judgments, which means opinions rather than observed facts. Is someone an NFL player and how much did he practice are not subjective judgments. They are facts that can be identified. Who is a better NFL player necessarily involves subjective opinions, not objective facts unless you want to treat them like track stars and simply measure time in a 40 yard dash. But then you are not measuring an area of expertise.
     

Share This Page