The 10,000 hour myth

[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.

Sounds like an overly simplistic understanding of the world fed by cr*p books doled out like happy meals and juice boxes. It only took me the first 15 to 20 pages of this book, read because it was required reading for my son (I wouldn't spend my money on the garbage) to figure out that this author and his book were full of it.

[Unregistered]

I do not believe you

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/

I again do not believe you have read the book. Because Gladwell, fraud or not, did not put the 10,000 rule above all else, he in no way elevated it to the most important thing. It was simply an observation that those that were the most successful had the advantage of having more time combined with a lot of other factors, and that it was purposeful and with passion. Not that simply putting in 10,000 hours would result in excellence. There are people that have ten years of experience and there are others that have done a years worth of experience 10 times, they are not the same thing. He also pointed out and I will be repeating myself, that what those really successful people had it in common by the time they became truly successful, not that it is what caused their success. My post was also to say that the 10,000 hour rule is not the whole part of the equation, so I guess you are challenged with reading comprehension. Again, the 10,000 hours was in RETROSPECT (see I can find the caps lock too), so you are right it was most likely a by product of other things but still apart of the equation, one piece of the puzzle (oh no I am agreeing with you!) I cannot find where we are really disagreeing. Either you can not read or you just like to argue.

You might want to re-read as the 10,000 hour rule was a small observation, and yes, as evidenced by this board, some people have latched onto it like that alone makes soccer prodigies, my post in no way suggests that.

[Unregistered]

I again do not believe you have read the book. Because Gladwell, fraud or not, did not put the 10,000 rule above all else, he in no way elevated it to the most important thing. It was simply an observation that those that were the most successful had the advantage of having more time combined with a lot of other factors, and that it was purposeful and with passion. Not that simply putting in 10,000 hours would result in excellence. There are people that have ten years of experience and there are others that have done a years worth of experience 10 times, they are not the same thing. He also pointed out and I will be repeating myself, that what those really successful people had it in common by the time they became truly successful, not that it is what caused their success. My post was also to say that the 10,000 hour rule is not the whole part of the equation, so I guess you are challenged with reading comprehension. Again, the 10,000 hours was in RETROSPECT (see I can find the caps lock too), so you are right it was most likely a by product of other things but still apart of the equation, one piece of the puzzle (oh no I am agreeing with you!) I cannot find where we are really disagreeing. Either you can not read or you just like to argue.

You might want to re-read as the 10,000 hour rule was a small observation, and yes, as evidenced by this board, some people have latched onto it like that alone makes soccer prodigies, my post in no way suggests that.

Fair enough, I should not have projected all of my vitriol towards Gladwell and his poor disciples in your direction, sorry about that.

However, having dedicated a lot of my time and effort over the years educating and training kids in a love of the beautiful game, I have directly seen over and over again, this particular book cited as justification for behavior that is downright abusive and runs counter to producing good players. So whatever vitriol I have is honestly come by.

[Unregistered]

Understood

Fair enough, I should not have projected all of my vitriol towards Gladwell and his poor disciples in your direction, sorry about that.

However, having dedicated a lot of my time and effort over the years educating and training kids in a love of the beautiful game, I have directly seen over and over again, this particular book cited as justification for behavior that is downright abusive and runs counter to producing good players. So whatever vitriol I have is honestly come by.

I understand completely. And I also understand why you are passionate about the subject. It is frustrating when things get taken out of context to justify bad practice. The ironic thing is that the whole reason Gladwell talks about the 10,000 hour rule (the number is not a real proven number but a reference to about 10 years) is to show evidence that we are impatient with people. That we need to give people time to master their craft before passing judgement whether someone can or cannot be good at something. That greatness needs to be nurtured. The examples he gives with youth sports are more about access to quality training and patterns with identifying kids by birth years for development, not a time factor. Kids need time to develop and they need the best conditions to do so. Simply making them slaves to a sport with the misguided belief that this alone will create an accomplished player is very misguided. So if you get the book used against you again, I suggest you request that the person actually read the damn thing, or better yet, watch interviews about outliers by Gladwell on YouTube and see what he says about it. Because I do not think they would like what they read or heard. It would disprove their own misguided theories.

Thanks for replying it is refreshing to have someone to converse with on this board, a rare occurrence indeed. And keep doing the best for the kids to help them love the game, at the end if the day, it is about them.

[Unregistered]

I the vein of soccer knowledge, can someone suggest good soccer reading material? Favorite books on the beautiful game?

[Unregistered]

I the vein of soccer knowledge, can someone suggest good soccer reading material? Favorite books on the beautiful game?

Brilliant Orange: The neurotic genius of dutch football.

[Unregistered]

I the vein of soccer knowledge, can someone suggest good soccer reading material? Favorite books on the beautiful game?

Inverting the Pryamid by Wilson. It's on tactics.

[Slow Xavi]

I the vein of soccer knowledge, can someone suggest good soccer reading material? Favorite books on the beautiful game?

Books -

Teambuilding: the road to success
Rinus Michels
Classic by Dutch Master

Soccernomics: Why England Loses, Why Germany and Brazil Win, and Why the U.S., Japan, Australia, Turkey....
Simon Kuper, Stefan Szymanski
Interesting to think about in terms Oregon v. Washington and California, much less the rest of the world

How Soccer Explains the World
Gets into the tribalism of soccer

Morbo by Phil Ball
On the history of spanish soccer; unfortunately long-winded and like his columns better

Soccer Thinkers/Columnists -

3four3 blog
Phil Ball

Also worth reading -

Report on Youth Academies in Europe
US Soccer Coaching Curriculum

BOOKS MADE INTO MOVIES -

Fever Pitch (English version of movie not bad)
Damn United (never read the book, but love the movie)

[Unregistered]

My favorite books on the subject are: The Little Tranny that Could, Somebodys in the Kitchen with Messi, Olay is not Just a Soap Your Granny Uses, and the ever present, Shoot You Lazy Moron, this isnt Barca!

[Unregistered]

My favorite books on the subject are: The Little Tranny that Could, Somebodys in the Kitchen with Messi, Olay is not Just a Soap Your Granny Uses, and the ever present, Shoot You Lazy Moron, this isnt Barca!

Hahaha

[Unregistered]

Books -

Teambuilding: the road to success
Rinus Michels
Classic by Dutch Master

Soccernomics: Why England Loses, Why Germany and Brazil Win, and Why the U.S., Japan, Australia, Turkey....
Simon Kuper, Stefan Szymanski
Interesting to think about in terms Oregon v. Washington and California, much less the rest of the world

How Soccer Explains the World
Gets into the tribalism of soccer

Morbo by Phil Ball
On the history of spanish soccer; unfortunately long-winded and like his columns better

Soccer Thinkers/Columnists -

3four3 blog
Phil Ball

Also worth reading -

Report on Youth Academies in Europe
US Soccer Coaching Curriculum

BOOKS MADE INTO MOVIES -

Fever Pitch (English version of movie not bad)
Damn United (never read the book, but love the movie)

Also interesting "Sven Goran Eriksson on Soccer". Pick it up it will not be what you expect...very good information.

[Unregistered]

I the vein of soccer knowledge, can someone suggest good soccer reading material? Favorite books on the beautiful game?

The book written by local coach Stan Baker is an excellent book.

[Slow Xavi]

Also interesting "Sven Goran Eriksson on Soccer". Pick it up it will not be what you expect...very good information.

The book written by local coach Stan Baker is an excellent book.

will check these out

[Unregistered]

http://www.wired.com/2013/05/so-you-...ert-rule-bunk/

That article states it as I see it. Talent is real, specifically in soccer and if you don't have it, 10,000 hours of practice won't give it to you.

[Unregistered]

http://www.wired.com/2013/05/so-you-...ert-rule-bunk/

That article states it as I see it. Talent is real, specifically in soccer and if you don't have it, 10,000 hours of practice won't give it to you.

Now you tell me. We are at 7645 hours.