Innate vs learned

[Unregistered]

Little of column A, little of column B

Soccer is not like basketball, football, baseball, etc, in the sense that it is completely unnatural to use your feet in the manner soccer players do. From that perspective the actual technique and skill training in soccer is a much greater part of the equation. Conversely the general athletic, speed and strength side of the equation is a smaller part of it than those other sports.

Having said that, the athletic side dominates at the younger ages, because the skills are so underdeveloped and the manner and pace of how the game is played lends itself to athletes. For that reason a nonathletic, slower player better love the game on their own in order to keep playing and practicing in order to hang on, because athleticism is the price of admission in the younger age groups.

Outside of that basic athletic threshold the next most important factor to me, is loving the game, on their own, originating from the child, not from the parent. This is commonly confused with having "it" or being born with "it". This is where the 10,000 hours and Malcolm Gladwell and all of that comes into play.

Additionally, the kids that do well early on because get the positive feedback loop going on. Since they do well and are told they are awesome, they believe in themselves more, so the game is more fun for them, therefore they spend more time on it.

The kids that love the game play all the time on their own and when they are at practice we think they are "working hard" and are serious and all that, or we think they just naturally pick everything up faster. I think not.

They are having fun, to those kids, being on a field with a ball is the most pleasurable thing in the world. If they have good trainers working with them, all the better, but it starts with them wanting to play every chance they get and the parents and teams giving them those opportunities.

This is where I also think the positive feedback loop often backfires. The athletic kids early on who don't develop real skills, either because they were able to skate by on athleticism, only got coaches who wanted to win not train, or whatever else. They hit a brick wall when they start playing teams with athleticism and skill and they are no longer getting all of that adulation, they quit.

So my long winded answer to the question is that the best players need it all, but give me a player that absolutely loves the game to start with, otherwise you will end up with nothing.

[Unregistered]

Generally speaking, very good soccer players are good because
A. they are gifted.
B. They come from a soccer family
C. They had tremendous coaching
D. Hard work

IMHO players either have it or they don't. Majority of the talented players are gifted, come from athletic families which makes the game easier for them. There will always be an exception though.
Thoughts?

I'll stick with the girls here since they are a little easier case study.

Abby Wambach, Hope Solo, Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Tobin Heath. All gifted athletic phenoms for the women's side. Not to take anything away from these women's work ethic, family backgrounds or previous coaching tutelage but chances are high that these players found the game much easier by the nature of their particular athletic prowess. My inclination is that if it not for soccer, these athletes would have exceled at track and field, swimming, basketball, golf, softball, or lacrosse. You simply can't teach size and speed and it will always be the numero uno overriding factor in athletic success. When combined with on obsessive personality to "be the best" these attributes far and away exceed any other outside influences in play. Every coach understands this trend and it’s precisely why your DD consistently gets overlooked by the bigger and faster yet somewhat “less” technically skilled player in the group.
Now before you go and point out exceptions to this rule, let me be the first to say that while it is possible to overcome naturally gifted athletic deficiencies with hours of effort and great training it is just that – an exception.

[Unregistered]

Soccer is not like basketball, football, baseball, etc, in the sense that it is completely unnatural to use your feet in the manner soccer players do. From that perspective the actual technique and skill training in soccer is a much greater part of the equation. Conversely the general athletic, speed and strength side of the equation is a smaller part of it than those other sports.

Having said that, the athletic side dominates at the younger ages, because the skills are so underdeveloped and the manner and pace of how the game is played lends itself to athletes. For that reason a nonathletic, slower player better love the game on their own in order to keep playing and practicing in order to hang on, because athleticism is the price of admission in the younger age groups.

Outside of that basic athletic threshold the next most important factor to me, is loving the game, on their own, originating from the child, not from the parent. This is commonly confused with having "it" or being born with "it". This is where the 10,000 hours and Malcolm Gladwell and all of that comes into play.

Additionally, the kids that do well early on because get the positive feedback loop going on. Since they do well and are told they are awesome, they believe in themselves more, so the game is more fun for them, therefore they spend more time on it.

The kids that love the game play all the time on their own and when they are at practice we think they are "working hard" and are serious and all that, or we think they just naturally pick everything up faster. I think not.

They are having fun, to those kids, being on a field with a ball is the most pleasurable thing in the world. If they have good trainers working with them, all the better, but it starts with them wanting to play every chance they get and the parents and teams giving them those opportunities.

This is where I also think the positive feedback loop often backfires. The athletic kids early on who don't develop real skills, either because they were able to skate by on athleticism, only got coaches who wanted to win not train, or whatever else. They hit a brick wall when they start playing teams with athleticism and skill and they are no longer getting all of that adulation, they quit.

So my long winded answer to the question is that the best players need it all, but give me a player that absolutely loves the game to start with, otherwise you will end up with nothing.

Dribbling and shooting a basketball is natural?


The athletic side dominates soccer just like in any other sport.

Bottom line is you need to have the IQ, skills, and athletic ability. It is no difference than any other sport.

The boys quit when they get older because they start playing football or basketball. Maybe that will change now that soccer is gaining popularity in the US.

[Unregistered]

For some kids, dribbling and shooting a bb is natural. I saw a african american baby who was about 3 months old sinking threes from his stroller.

[Unregistered]

I'll stick with the girls here since they are a little easier case study.

Abby Wambach, Hope Solo, Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Tobin Heath. All gifted athletic phenoms for the women's side. Not to take anything away from these women's work ethic, family backgrounds or previous coaching tutelage but chances are high that these players found the game much easier by the nature of their particular athletic prowess. My inclination is that if it not for soccer, these athletes would have exceled at track and field, swimming, basketball, golf, softball, or lacrosse. You simply can't teach size and speed and it will always be the numero uno overriding factor in athletic success. When combined with on obsessive personality to "be the best" these attributes far and away exceed any other outside influences in play. Every coach understands this trend and it’s precisely why your DD consistently gets overlooked by the bigger and faster yet somewhat “less” technically skilled player in the group.
Now before you go and point out exceptions to this rule, let me be the first to say that while it is possible to overcome naturally gifted athletic deficiencies with hours of effort and great training it is just that – an exception.

It is interesting that you don't want the exceptions that disprove your statement, since you are also basing your argument on the exceptions.

Anyway, the question I have is you make so much about the need for natural athleticism, explain why you find so many people who have size and speed and strength, and are not great athletes? I can't cite names, because these folks have failed to distinguish themselves, but everyone knows examples. The kid who was the biggest and strongest on his team, and then for some reason faded. Size and speed without hard work unfortunately will produce a lot of nothing.

If you are choosing 10 out of 100, then of course you look at size, speed, skill, soccer IQ, and focus. If however you are just separating the successful athlete from the unsuccessful work ethic will be the deciding factor. For every Michael Jordan you can find 8 or 9 others with the same physical attributes, skills, and speed, who didn't make it.

[Unregistered]

Ohhhhhh "innate".....See, I thought it said "INMATE" and was a discussion about Vancouver Timbers parents. I was misinformed. My bad.

[Unregistered]

Hilarious. Yes, innate is easy but developing skill, that which separates those with the "gift" is the whole argument, the path, the way, the righteous and etheral sojourn towards soccer excellence.