The 10,000 hour myth

[Unregistered]

I would say that 6 hours per week is good.

[Unregistered]

How many hours per week is too much? Say from u11 to u14? Total, including games.

Once again, this is a meaningless question. The hours logged by top players is a bi product of other, more important factors, not an end unto itself.

Depends entirely on the kid and how many hours of what. 6 Hours of structured practices and games with coaches critisizing them and parents lined up around them making it a life and death struggle to absolutely not make a mistake is not only unhelpful, it is flat out damaging.

[Unregistered]

How many hours per week is too much? Say from u11 to u14? Total, including games.

10+ hours most of which should be free play or individual skill work.

[Unregistered]

When you say free play do you mean unstructured games or scrimmages in general?

[Unregistered]

When you say free play do you mean unstructured games or scrimmages in general?

I mean kicking the ball around in the park, for fun, with players as good or better than you. Older or younger. Just get out and play.

[Unregistered]

I mean kicking the ball around in the park, for fun, with players as good or better than you. Older or younger. Just get out and play.

Oh yeah, that is right it is supposed to be a GAME, isn't it? Not some long drive to scholarship land...

[Unregistered]

Oh yeah, that is right it is supposed to be a GAME, isn't it? Not some long drive to scholarship land...

Ok, I see.

[Unregistered]

Oh yeah, that is right it is supposed to be a GAME, isn't it? Not some long drive to scholarship land...

Not sure where you're going there but yes it is a game and players are better if they don't play like trained ponies. Free play is in addition to, not in lieu of, training and games. It's the extra work you hear coaches talk about and it doesn't have to be a grind. Worked for my players.

[Unregistered]

Not sure where you're going there but yes it is a game and players are better if they don't play like trained ponies. Free play is in addition to, not in lieu of, training and games. It's the extra work you hear coaches talk about and it doesn't have to be a grind. Worked for my players.

I would echo you but even strengthen it…Training is important, it is where a player develops the basics, the skills you must have to succeed, but free play is where you develop the spark/passion/enthusiasm necessary to become great.

You see the same thing in every sport, basketball the greats develop their "moves" playing street ball, pick a sport and there is the same dynamic.

Yes a player needs to be technically proficient, but to truly succeed they have go to love the sport. This love finds a home in free play.

[Unregistered]

I would echo you but even strengthen it…Training is important, it is where a player develops the basics, the skills you must have to succeed, but free play is where you develop the spark/passion/enthusiasm necessary to become great.

You see the same thing in every sport, basketball the greats develop their "moves" playing street ball, pick a sport and there is the same dynamic.

Yes a player needs to be technically proficient, but to truly succeed they have go to love the sport. This love finds a home in free play.

Wait, what? Are you suggesting that children would find it hard to love the sport if all they knew of it was the competitive pressure of adults screaming at them and criticizing their every move? That wouldn't be conducive to building creativity and passion?

I for one love the creativity in my workplace, wherein every time I am going to try and learn a new skill the entire company gathers around my cubicle and starts screaming at me that I am doing it wrong, while half those people videotape it, it's awesome! Then again, I make athletic, scared to fail robots for a living.

[Unregistered]

Do you read

This person gets it. Population considerations are total bullcrap. The Netherlands has 14 million people total and they produce as many world class players as anyone else. Because there is a real and existing science behind player development, that has been perfected by Ajax and throughout the Eridivisie.

Malcolm Gladwell, the idiot that popularized the 10,000 hour garbage, is a morally bankrupt fraud, who is a laughing stock among real economists. Just look up his sickening defenses of the tobacco industry to get an idea of how stupid that guy is. Anyone listening to Malcolm Gladwell about anything, is a mindless sheep.

Player development is bottom up, not top down. Meaning the best players happened to log 10,000 hours, not because that was the goal, but because that was a bi product of loving the game, being trained to play it properly and succeeding at it because it was FUN. Idiots trying to log 10,000 hours vicariously through their 10-15 year olds are doing more harm than good and burning out potentially good players.

Back to the Dutch, parents are not involved at all once a talent has been identified in the regional leagues at the youngest of ages. Yes the environment is competitive but it has NOTHING to do with team performance or winning and EVERYTHING to do with individual development and technique.

Constant individual grading and feedback is given to the player on their technique and coaches themselves are evaluated on the individual player grades, not team results. Do we have a single club in Oregon that bothers to give player grades? No, because they are afraid of losing mommies money.

Moreover, supervised training with top tier coaches is always balanced with unsupervised play in the cages that can be found all over the place for pick up games, which is where everyone agrees that the individual creativity and brilliance that define their players is produced.

When was the last time your kid played on their own without an adult hovering over them? That is why they suck in the grand scheme of things and why they will drop the game for something more enjoyable before getting close to the pointless 10K hours.

Back to the Dutch

I am sure you have heard of the 10,000 hour rule, but I can tell by your post that you have not read what Malcolm Gladwell writes about it. He did not invent that number or perform the research. He is also very specific to say that it takes that long, about 10 years to get really good at something, but not by doing it half assed, but really doing it well and with purpose. He also talks about accumulate advantage which speak directly to the point on the Dutch, or kids that have access to the right training, the right coaching and high level of conpetition. That it is building in that over time, about 10 years that sets apart the successful. In other words, that is why at age 20 (about 10 years after first identification as a competitive player) per population we cannot compete with the Dutch. Time and training with purpose is what Malcolm Gladwell talks about, not that you simply just do something crappy for 10 years all the sudden you are good. You can take two talented players at age 8 and it will be the one that has access to the right resources AND dedicates for about 10 years that has the chance of being an elite player. Sounds like common sense to me.

[Unregistered]

I am sure you have heard of the 10,000 hour rule, but I can tell by your post that you have not read what Malcolm Gladwell writes about it. He did not invent that number or perform the research. He is also very specific to say that it takes that long, about 10 years to get really good at something, but not by doing it half assed, but really doing it well and with purpose. He also talks about accumulate advantage which speak directly to the point on the Dutch, or kids that have access to the right training, the right coaching and high level of conpetition. That it is building in that over time, about 10 years that sets apart the successful. In other words, that is why at age 20 (about 10 years after first identification as a competitive player) per population we cannot compete with the Dutch. Time and training with purpose is what Malcolm Gladwell talks about, not that you simply just do something crappy for 10 years all the sudden you are good. You can take two talented players at age 8 and it will be the one that has access to the right resources AND dedicates for about 10 years that has the chance of being an elite player. Sounds like common sense to me.

Now that is likely the first cogent, intelligent, articulate thing I have read on this board in a pigs age.

[Unregistered]

I am sure you have heard of the 10,000 hour rule, but I can tell by your post that you have not read what Malcolm Gladwell writes about it. He did not invent that number or perform the research. He is also very specific to say that it takes that long, about 10 years to get really good at something, but not by doing it half assed, but really doing it well and with purpose. He also talks about accumulate advantage which speak directly to the point on the Dutch, or kids that have access to the right training, the right coaching and high level of conpetition. That it is building in that over time, about 10 years that sets apart the successful. In other words, that is why at age 20 (about 10 years after first identification as a competitive player) per population we cannot compete with the Dutch. Time and training with purpose is what Malcolm Gladwell talks about, not that you simply just do something crappy for 10 years all the sudden you are good. You can take two talented players at age 8 and it will be the one that has access to the right resources AND dedicates for about 10 years that has the chance of being an elite player. Sounds like common sense to me.

But the element you missed from the post you quoted from and the element that is so important is that the players who get to the 10,000 hours get there because they love the game, are passionate about the game, and couldn't picture doing anything else…If the 10,000 hours come about as a result of adults cracking whips, and coaches driving, then you will likely get nothing but a talented burnout!

[Unregistered]

Right

But the element you missed from the post you quoted from and the element that is so important is that the players who get to the 10,000 hours get there because they love the game, are passionate about the game, and couldn't picture doing anything else…If the 10,000 hours come about as a result of adults cracking whips, and coaches driving, then you will likely get nothing but a talented burnout!

Definitely agree. He makes it clear that successful people have the advantage of good conditions as well, and they are passionate and dedicated. The reason why I posted is because the 10.000 hour rule, or I like 10 year rule gets taken out of context. Malcolm Gladwell references it in his book "Outliers" which is about those really successful people and how they became that way like Bill Gates or Michael Jordan. It is less about how talented they were at 8 and more about all the pieces of the puzzle around them coming together. It can be timing, who your parents are, where you live so access to things other people do not have access to etc. the 10,000 hour rule simply is used to show how by the time we hear about these people, or they are in a position to to truly be exceptional at their craft (sports, music, or even engineering, etc.) they have had the opportunity to do what they do longer, at a higher level, with better resources and support and with passion and purpose more than their competitors. That is why they rise above. You cannot remove the 10,000 rule from access to good training anymore than you can remove it from the right timing and right environment. Basically it takes a perfect storm to create those truly elite individuals in anything, including soccer.

[Unregistered]

I am sure you have heard of the 10,000 hour rule, but I can tell by your post that you have not read what Malcolm Gladwell writes about it. He did not invent that number or perform the research. He is also very specific to say that it takes that long, about 10 years to get really good at something, but not by doing it half assed, but really doing it well and with purpose. He also talks about accumulate advantage which speak directly to the point on the Dutch, or kids that have access to the right training, the right coaching and high level of conpetition. That it is building in that over time, about 10 years that sets apart the successful. In other words, that is why at age 20 (about 10 years after first identification as a competitive player) per population we cannot compete with the Dutch. Time and training with purpose is what Malcolm Gladwell talks about, not that you simply just do something crappy for 10 years all the sudden you are good. You can take two talented players at age 8 and it will be the one that has access to the right resources AND dedicates for about 10 years that has the chance of being an elite player. Sounds like common sense to me.

You clearly did not read my post. I on the other hand have read Outliers and more importantly the research papers from the psychologists it was founded on, as well as the opposition papers written in answer. I have also read numerous studies debunking this overly simplistic postulate, including another book written to be digested to the masses, which is intended to counter balance Gladwell; The Sports Gene. It's a good read.

The common sense that hours of deliberate practice is a necessary factor in tier one success is not at issue here. The issue is that elevating it to seniority over the myriad of other factors at play, many of which you yourself touched on, is an absurd fallacy.

Moreover, the specific concept that hours of deliberate practice is itself the primary foundation and key motivating factor in success as posited by Gladwell and latched onto with frenzy in the youth sports community, is complete garbage. The positive feedback loop is without question the most objectively verified contributor to athletic success and investment, which in turn produces hours of deliberate practice AS A BYPRODUCT.

Last but not least, Malcolm Gladwell is a fraud: http://shameproject.com/report/malco...-propagandist/