A different slant on nature vs nurture

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

^^^By which time it is too late to make a Talent Development Selection - so this approach is flawed from the start! The only true measure of "talent" is to identify a profile which the athlete should aspire towards achieving and develop 'steps' along the way to measure their rate of progression towards meeting this profile. Rate of progression is the only real measure of "Talent"

Cheers

If the rate of progression is high and ultimately saturates, it is not talent.

Talented people can come from behind and surpass the early fast progressors.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by sureshs

If the rate of progression is high and ultimately saturates, it is not talent.

Talented people can come from behind and surpass the early fast progressors.

If the rate of progression is high, the athlete in question can be said to be "talented" in performing that particular skill. If their progress tails or levels off, it is likely not through lack of "talent" but more likely through change in stimulus or motivation, be it either intrinsic, extrinsic, internal or external.

and you are correct Sureshs, but those who come from behind...show a fast rate of progression when playing catch. The biggest issue facing those making decisions on Talent Identification/Talent Selection is not those athletes you select, but what to do with those you do not!

Cheers

[5263]

Originally Posted by 5263

PMac is on the right track but goes wrong in the highlighted above. We need to
work to have several avenues of success and not limit it to the one we see as best or more likely. Maybe height will give us 15 players in the top 100, but miss the one guys who could be 4 yrs at #1. We can't afford to miss him imo.

We need more paths to success!