What you choose to ignore is I am far smarter than you and in sporting terms I am always far more on the money than you. You don’t understand sport, it’s clear for all to see. You can read all the books and attend all the seminars and courses you want but you will never have my natural ability to read and disect what happens on a pitch.
There is no “natural talent” to be a gaelic footbaler or boxer or anything. There are genetic differences that may help someone, with a certain environment and decent nurturing, become the best they can be.
Its like this nonsense about Kerrys “natural” footballers. Its horse shit. Its that the majority of the best athletes in Kerry are well coached in the skills of the game from a young age.
Thats why tall, small, fast, slow, skinny, fat Kerrymen are always pretty decent at football. Its the lads with the combo of best environment, best heads and best athletic ability rise to the top.
So he just turned up at 18 a ready made professional?
You are so stupid its hilarious.
Its like Septhan Hawking turning up to college at 18 having never read a book in his life.
Up there with the most absurd things you have ever said on here. You are the biggest village idiot on this island.
Cassano was a guy who gifted with talents at birth. What he had could not be learned or trained. He generally decided to waste his talents though.
Again you contradict yourself completely within two sentences.
And in your first sentence here you also contradict this quote.
You are.
There’s one thing you most certainly have a natural talent for and that’s tying yourself in knots with bullshit.
I have never said anyone can get to the top.
In fact i have mentioned genetic ceilings numerous times.
I just know how the best of the best emerge and ye fucking cliwns can’t understand it.
Why can’t Aidan Walsh kick a ball?
1 Like
He can.
If that’s what you want to call it. His kicking is appalling but he has no natural technical ability. He’s a big mullocker and thats as far as his talent extends.
There are some people who make it as they have a natural physical advantage - be they born fast, strong, agile or big. There are others who just have a natural understanding of the game, they have an instinct that cannot be trained. The only people who make it in sports are these guys and generally how far they make it will depend on a mix of these natural talents and their application.
Nobody could train you to pass professional exams or qualify as a doctor.
Acknowledging a genetic ceiling is an implicit acknowledgement of the existence of natural talent, which you deny in your posts.
Apply this to sprinting. Usain Bolt has a higher genetic ceiling than I do. Therefore Usain Bolt is more naturally talented at sprinting than I am. No amount of nurture can ever make me run as fast as Usain Bolt.
That can also be applied to pretty much anything else in which either physical or cognitive ability or a combination of both are needed. People are not born equal.
Denying the existence of natural talent as you do elsewhere is an implicit statement that everybody can make it to the top with the right nurturing. Clearly that’s a load of old tosh.
1 Like
They can be all trained. Everything.
The clever guys often become clever because of other weaknesses in their physical ability. So they teach themselces to read a game better.
Its great ye 2 have seriously exposed your lack of what is after all common sense, but also has been researched to death.
There is a lovely symmetry to you two’s tag team of ignorance.
I just read the first paragraph.
No its not.
You are not born with any talent. You develop a talent for…
Nonsense. The Border Bull played football everyday with us when he was young. He was still every bit as shit as he was from 5 to 15.
Loads of us spent our first year in uni on the piss in the Hatfield and we passed comfortably. Others spent in the year attending lectures and in the library. They scraped by or didn’t make it all. There is only so much you can make it. Some people have natural talents which means they will always make it above and beyond those who don’t have them with little or no effort in contrast.
Deliberate Practice and Performance in Music, Games, Sports, Education, and Professions
A Meta-Analysis
More than 20 years ago, researchers proposed that individual differences in performance in such domains as music, sports, and games largely reflect individual differences in amount of deliberate practice, which was defined as engagement in structured activities created specifically to improve performance in a domain. This view is a frequent topic of popular-science writing—but is it supported by empirical evidence? To answer this question, we conducted a meta-analysis covering all major domains in which deliberate practice has been investigated. We found that deliberate practice explained 26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for professions. We conclude that deliberate practice is important, but not as important as has been argued.
The Relationship Between Deliberate Practice and Performance in Sports
Why are some people more skilled in complex domains than other people? According to one prominent view, individual differences in performance largely reflect individual differences in accumulated amount of deliberate practice. Here, we investigated the relationship between deliberate practice and performance in sports. Overall, deliberate practice accounted for 18% of the variance in sports performance. However, the contribution differed depending on skill level. Most important, deliberate practice accounted for only 1% of the variance in performance among elite-level performers. This finding is inconsistent with the claim that deliberate practice accounts for performance differences even among elite performers. Another major finding was that athletes who reached a high level of skill did not begin their sport earlier in childhood than lower skill athletes. This finding challenges the notion that higher skill performers tend to start in a sport at a younger age than lower skill performers. We conclude that to understand the underpinnings of expertise, researchers must investigate contributions of a broad range of factors, taking into account findings from diverse subdisciplines of psychology (e.g., cognitive psychology, personality psychology) and interdisciplinary areas of research (e.g., sports science).
Among people who are already elite?
You nonce. 
And even funnier that this was here
“We conclude that to understand the underpinnings of expertise, researchers must investigate contributions of a broad range of factors, taking into account findings from diverse subdisciplines of psychology (e.g., cognitive psychology, personality psychology) and interdisciplinary areas of research (e.g., sports science).”
They have not come up with an answer.
Its like getting 10 people who have never trained to do 6 weeks of training and test where they are at. And then use that to train elite athletes. Cos thats the kind of silly science that was going on for ywars.
Keep googling lads. I have a business to run, money to make.
Ye just keep wasting time making fools of yourselves.
You alright, Kev?
Your argument has just been demolished and that’s the best response you can come up with?
Paul Curran linked with the Laois job.
I hope it’s a tax compliant business.
1 Like
stop trying to change the subject. If you want to talk about GAA managers take it to the appropriate thread.
1 Like