Where are the tricks promised by Ricardo?

[Stoof]

No because someone with a low IQ cannot be taught the intelligence of Eistein. But footballers all range in IQ's and if you look at Grahame Le Saux or Jonothan Woodgate for a crude example.

What has intelligence got to do with becoming a professional footballer? At what point has anyone suggested that's a factor?

Can you honestly tell me if you take two babies born from different families, bring them up in identical conditions, allow them to practice the same amount of time, doing exactly the same things in their practicing, that they will both turn out to be exactly the same as each other, footballing ability-wise?

 

[General Levy]

What has intelligence got to do with becoming a professional footballer? At what point has anyone suggested that's a factor?

Can you honestly tell me if you take two babies born from different families, bring them up in identical conditions, allow them to practice the same amount of time, doing exactly the same things in their practicing, that they will both turn out to be exactly the same as each other, footballing ability-wise?

Maybe...

It would be an very interesting study, thats for sure.

Also the IQ part was aimed at Defsta's Einstein theory :up::rofl:

 

[Darrkespur]

My Grandmother said: "always let the idiot have the last word" :up:

I thought it was funny that this was the last post when I read this thread...

This whole argument seems so silly to me. Why does your genetic background matter for tennis and science but not for football?

Now I'm a big believer in learning, teaching and coaching. With dedication and a good instructor, anyone can dramatically improve their skills, no matter what the discipline. However, training can only take you so far. If you can't do the maths intuitively, you will always struggle as a physicist. If you don't have a feel for the way a sentence comes together, it's unlikely you'll be able to practice your way to a published novelist.

It's the same in sport. You can get yourself to a competitive level with training and dedication and coaches like Moniz can help you bridge the difference between being a conference player and a championship one, for instance, with that improved first touch. But if you didn't have the pace, or the passing ability, or the instinct for goalscoring, you wouldn't be there in the first place.

As a coach, you only see the players who are good enough to be playing for a team already, General Levy. You may not think physical attributes/genetics come into it because most of the kids you see already have passed that test. They have enough ability coming into the system that the ones that practice the most are likely to be the ones that succeed.

So your argument has some merit in terms of the people at a good youth team, perhaps. But I was never good enough to get into such a team, most people aren't. I was good at maths, however, and that meant I got into a good university to study physics. I don't think that anyone could do the degree I'm doing just because all the people on my course can do it, though.

We're all wired to be good at certain things and training and practice helps us improve. It's not an either or thing.

 

[Stoof]

We're all wired to be good at certain things and training and practice helps us improve. It's not an either or thing.

Most definitely. :up:

 

[truespur]

lol you lot are funny

 

[SpurSince57]

No because someone with a low IQ cannot be taught the intelligence of Eistein. But footballers all range in IQ's and if you look at Grahame Le Saux or Jonothan Woodgate for a crude example.

No, intelligence can't be taught. That should be apparent to all but the most terminally dim. Yet someone with a similar IQ to Einstein might not have the same innate facility for Physics and Mathematics. The fact that footballers' IQs range widely is totally irrelevant.

Congratulations for totally missing the point.

 

[chrissivad]

It realy depends on what you mean by 'tricks'

[yt]WMESo0rMA9o[/yt]

There are some great tricks in there, but you wont see alot of them on a football pitch.

I have seen improvments that i would put down to skill, if its our skills coach or not thats a diffrent matter.

These skills and tricks help develop your game, look at the control our players have of the ball now. Berbatov has always had good control of the ball and can pull a ball out of the air with ease, but the players around him have improved in this area alot over the last year or so.

 

[General Levy]

I thought it was funny that this was the last post when I read this thread...

This whole argument seems so silly to me. Why does your genetic background matter for tennis and science but not for football?

Now I'm a big believer in learning, teaching and coaching. With dedication and a good instructor, anyone can dramatically improve their skills, no matter what the discipline. However, training can only take you so far. If you can't do the maths intuitively, you will always struggle as a physicist. If you don't have a feel for the way a sentence comes together, it's unlikely you'll be able to practice your way to a published novelist.

It's the same in sport. You can get yourself to a competitive level with training and dedication and coaches like Moniz can help you bridge the difference between being a conference player and a championship one, for instance, with that improved first touch. But if you didn't have the pace, or the passing ability, or the instinct for goalscoring, you wouldn't be there in the first place.

As a coach, you only see the players who are good enough to be playing for a team already, General Levy. You may not think physical attributes/genetics come into it because most of the kids you see already have passed that test. They have enough ability coming into the system that the ones that practice the most are likely to be the ones that succeed.

So your argument has some merit in terms of the people at a good youth team, perhaps. But I was never good enough to get into such a team, most people aren't. I was good at maths, however, and that meant I got into a good university to study physics. I don't think that anyone could do the degree I'm doing just because all the people on my course can do it, though.

We're all wired to be good at certain things and training and practice helps us improve. It's not an either or thing.

Why do you think that you were more adept at mathematics then other subjects? Did you parents come from a mathematical background? Did they or your teachers encourage you at mathematic more than other subjects?

I coach both kids, and adults, some with mental disabilities. Some have a decent understanding of playing football; others find it hard to even kick a ball.

I honestly think that you wasn't good enough because either you didn't practice enough or you just didn't enjoy it as much as others. The whole training emphasis has changed from when I was a youth player and how I was coached, to now and how I coach others'. The competitive aspect is completely removed from under 11's and below. This is because encouraging taking part is more important then competitiveness at a young age, with the emphasis on enjoyment; thus wanting to practice more, then competing, which for most children, believe it or not quashes their enthusiasm.

 

[tooey]

Such a simple discussion turned into a boring moaning and bitching session. Ohh and GL because i have f all posts does that make me lower in the hierarchy of this forum in your opinion. Or is it "uncool" to have a high post count. Come on dudes the arguement cant evan have opinions its basic facts. NO.1 some people are born more sportingly able than others NO.2 Practice does go along way to makeing you better. So in conclusion people are not all born with equal skills *fact* although training yourself in a certain area be it football or medicine will make you improve.

 

[General Levy]

No, intelligence can't be taught. That should be apparent to all but the most terminally dim. Yet someone with a similar IQ to Einstein might not have the same innate facility for Physics and Mathematics. The fact that footballers' IQs range widely is totally irrelevant.

Congratulations for totally missing the point.

:clap:

 

[Stono]

Such a simple discussion turned into a boring moaning and bitching session. Ohh and GL because i have f all posts does that make me lower in the hierarchy of this forum in your opinion. Or is it "uncool" to have a high post count. Come on dudes the arguement cant evan have opinions its basic facts. NO.1 some people are born more sportingly able than others NO.2 Practice does go along way to makeing you better. So in conclusion people are not all born with equal skills *fact* although training yourself in a certain area be it football or medicine will make you improve.

Classic SpursCommunity, one might say. :razz:

 

[Darrkespur]

Why do you think that you were more adept at mathematics then other subjects? Did you parents come from a mathematical background? Did they or your teachers encourage you at mathematic more than other subjects?

I coach both kids, and adults, some with mental disabilities. Some have a decent understanding of playing football; others find it hard to even kick a ball.

I honestly think that you wasn't good enough because either you didn't practice enough or you just didn't enjoy it as much as others. The whole training emphasis has changed from when I was a youth player and how I was coached, to now and how I coach others'. The competitive aspect is completely removed from under 11's and below. This is because encouraging taking part is more important then competitiveness at a young age, with the emphasis on enjoyment; thus wanting to practice more, then competing, which for most children, believe it or not quashes their enthusiasm.

My parents aren't mathematicians but my grandfather was a scientist so you could say it came from there. I wasn't encouraged to do more maths at school and I can't say I enjoy doing it now. I'm just better at it than other things and found it easier to get good results, so I continued with it at degree level because there's good career paths with a numerate degree.

I'm not particularly interested in maths per se (although some parts of physics are fascinating) and I wouldn't say I practice it all that much - certainly I did less maths at school than football. I'm just naturally better at maths than at kicking a ball, so my career path led me down that route. I certainly enjoy football a lot more than I do quantum mechanics, but that hasn't helped me much at playing - if anything the only thing I was good at was reading the game but because my ball skills and coordination started at a low level, it was very difficult to practice to become anything more than a semi-competent defender.

I'm not against coaching or practicing and I think it's great that kids are put into less competitive situations nowadays. but I think it's ludicrous to say that I'm not good because somehow I didn't enjoy playing or because I didn't play enough - I used to play a good 90 minutes most days but no matter how much practice I had, I would never have been a footballer. My starting level of ability was too low so no matter how hard I trained, It would have taken 30 years to get to a good level.

Some people are tall, some are fast, some find it easy to keep close control of the ball or pull off reflex saves. Training as I see it is there to build on your existing skills and make up for your shortcomings but you can't ignore the huge effect your physique, natural ability and skills have on you.

 

[Fordy]

I think its very much aimed at the youngsters coming through.
A work colleague of mine's young lad is with spurs. he's only 9 and Moniz takes them for training most of the time.

 

[idlepete]

Ultimately, the basis of your argument is about theory and hear say. Where as mine is about practice and facts. You are so wrong, that I cannot be bothered to answer you. I suggest now let your 5 figure post count mates reassure your wisdom.

I'm only a 4 figure, but I'll have a go anyway. You've made a bit of a twonk of yourself, denying genetic variation and all that to support your odd stance. Still, can't back down now, eh?

 

[DFF]

Can people stop quoting GL? I blocked him so his drivel didn't have to disgrace my eyes any more.

 

[idlepete]

DFF WARNING: SPOILER CONTAINS GL QUOTATION

Spoiler

The whole training emphasis has changed from when I was a youth player and how I was coached, to now and how I coach others'. The competitive aspect is completely removed from under 11's and below. This is because encouraging taking part is more important then competitiveness at a young age, with the emphasis on enjoyment; thus wanting to practice more, then competing, which for most children, believe it or not quashes their enthusiasm.

I've worked it out. You're convinced you weren't coached properly, and that's the only possible reason you can think of to explain why you're not starring for Spurs week in, week out. If all the kids you're coaching today are going to be a new generation of Zinedine Zidanes, make sure they support Spurs please.

 

[Bulletspur]

Why do you think that you were more adept at mathematics then other subjects? Did you parents come from a mathematical background? Did they or your teachers encourage you at mathematic more than other subjects?

I coach both kids, and adults, some with mental disabilities. Some have a decent understanding of playing football; others find it hard to even kick a ball.

I honestly think that you wasn't good enough because either you didn't practice enough or you just didn't enjoy it as much as others. The whole training emphasis has changed from when I was a youth player and how I was coached, to now and how I coach others'. The competitive aspect is completely removed from under 11's and below. This is because encouraging taking part is more important then competitiveness at a young age, with the emphasis on enjoyment; thus wanting to practice more, then competing, which for most children, believe it or not quashes their enthusiasm.

GL, I since I was about 5 I have lived, ate and drank football. I was always out playing, when I started school I tried to play for my class, the school etc. I had PE coaches the works. I was skulling school just to play football. I had a passion and desire to succeed and was absorbing information and eveything I could learn like a sponge but like Stoof (If I read him correctly) it didnt help as I was crap!! I had "two left feet" if you can understand the expression. Some of my mates who grew up and went to the same schools as my self who I played and trained with day in day out made it through varying degrees where one actually went on to play for Arsenal and subsequently England. Why did he succeed? Yes a fair amount of coaching but what he had that separated him from us was his natural ability. No amount of coaching would could make me good enough to represent my school much less to go on and play for England.

You may want to rethink your stance :shrug:

 

[tRiKS]

not natural football ability.. the human Race is 2 million years old but football only 150??!?! It's blend of natural attributes that conincidentally aid you in football. The list of individual inherited attributes is endless and the various combinations that would potentially make a good natural footballer also endless and far above a debate we could all have. It's no suprise that sportsmen are good at lots of sports not just the ones they make a living out of. Because they have natual abilties in key areas such as hand-eye, depth perception, concentration, proproirception.

Nature v's nurture... how wonderful if we all knew enough about it to properly stretch the debate but alas we don't.

Only to say it's obviou you can teach tricks to old and young dogs. there was an interstesting article in this months National Gerographic about self awareness in the animal kingdom realting it back to darwins orginal theory of evolutuion... i won't be able to do the whole thing justice but there was an example of an 8 year old Border collie that was taught to recongise over 300 english words and could ever reason differences. If that can be proved then It's not too far fetched to assume a 27yr old can be taught in the right way by the right person to perfrom a new trick to beat a player. What is also undeniable is the fact a slug can't be tught such things because of the Natural equipement bestowed on them.

tRiKS' conclusion.... It's a bit of both.

 

[llamafarmer]

We're all wired to be good at certain things and training and practice helps us improve. It's not an either or thing.

There's the simple genetic factors, like size and strength, speed and eye sight but there's also the more complex stuff involving the brain, that the best scientists in the world still don't fully comprehend. Which side of your brain you favour, how you perceive your environment (that almost sixth sense that great players have, or the ability to assess a situation with a quick glance up).

Why do you think that you were more adept at mathematics then other subjects? Did you parents come from a mathematical background? Did they or your teachers encourage you at mathematic more than other subjects?

Perhaps there is encouragement in a particular field, or perhaps there is a genetic reason why both parent and child have similarly scientific brains? Most likely both. Nature and nurture, not one or the other.

 

[tRiKS]

There's the simple genetic factors, like size and strength, speed and eye sight but there's also the more complex stuff involving the brain, that the best scientists in the world still don't fully comprehend. Which side of your brain you favour, how you perceive your environment (that almost sixth sense that great players have, or the ability to assess a situation with a quick glance up).



Perhaps there is encouragement in a particular field, or perhaps there is a genetic reason why both parent and child have similarly scientific brains? Most likely both. Nature and nurture, not one or the other.

well sadi.

My post above has a dog in it though (ahhhhhhh) so i should win