Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Adam Lallana


WhiskeyJar
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not - honestly. I said exactly what I thought - the gains in pace through any type of training are the least measureable of any. That is my opinion. Is your opinion that you can shave a significant/substantial/measureable amount of a 40m time by training? Nothing to do with any invisible ceiling. As a top athelete, if you run in the 40, can you train for a year and run 10% faster?

 

Mate, what are you talking about?

 

People who want to get quicker train to do it. That's why you'll have young footballers doing training aimed at speed. It makes them quicker. End of. It makes the most of the raw materials.

 

Otherwise, you need to be telling athletes to stop training and just turn up on the race day and leave it down to genetics. 

 

Cumulative marginal gains. That's what success is about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetics don't have much to play in football, it's a skill sport. 6 foot plus players (Henry) can be excellent, little 5 foot 6 players (Messi) can be excellent, you can be strong (Drogba), you can be weak (Modric), you can be fast (Walcott) you can be slow (Alonso, Pirlo).

 

It's nurture were football is concerned not nature.

What's skill if not genetics?

 

Stu, how is effort down to genetics? This is all arse backwards.

 

Top level skill is inborn, the components of it are inborn, effort is nurture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you run faster?

 

Quite simple, you run. Ignore Numero, at least until he makes an actual contribution beyond pointing at other peoples muscle fibres and snorting.

My brother is a 1500m runner he is the slowest in a sprint with 99% of the runners he runs against, he is tiny, most 1500m runners are tall my brother is half their size, and a good few years younger, however he can maintain a high pace, he has to lead in races and keep his pace and wear the others out. That comes from being able to run through the pain barrier, again motivation.

Usain Bolt is another case in point, he is the opposite of what they say a 100m sprinter should be physically. Now that he has established himself you get retrospective cunts who like to revise and say 'ah of course, hes genetically physically adapted to be a great sprinter' add scientific theory for the way he runs when his actual style is very arwkard. I wont get into his specifics as Im not privy but you can bet there is a faster man out there lain undiscovered, he's not natural at all and has trained for many years, his body responding to the training required.

How you reach that extra 2% is not that important there are many ways but the motive to bridge the gap is important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also allows 90% of the players in the NBA to make a living. Something, no matter how good your practiced setshot is, You cannot.

 

Actually put Stu's plyometrics argument to a test and do them for the next year then post a gif of you dunking a basketball.

Only because they have an artifical height minimum limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's skill if not genetics?

 

Stu, how is effort down to genetics? This is all arse backwards.

 

Top level skill is inborn, the components of it are inborn, effort is nurture.

 

Can you tell me then why Usain Bolt didnt make it at man united with all his genetic superirority he obviously needed to train from a younger age dont you think? obviously not enough of the 'football gene'.

He'd have been a better basketball/footy player than sprinter id have thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's skill if not genetics?

 

Stu, how is effort down to genetics? This is all arse backwards.

 

Top level skill is inborn, the components of it are inborn, effort is nurture.

 

You don't think that genetics is a big factor in mentality then? Leadership, determination, application - are you placing them as genetic or as things developed by nurture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think that genetics is a big factor in mentality then? Leadership, determination, application - are you placing them as genetic or as things developed by nurture?

Mainly nurture, one would assume, otherwise schoolteachers and parents are vastly overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raw physical attributes are down to nature. 

Maximizing those raw attributes is a combination intrinsic capability and external forces.

Mindset, will, sacrifice, leadership and mojo are learned.

All people at the top of anything have an obsession and most people would agree a very typical single minded focused mindset. All of them.

Raw phyiscal is nothing, messi wasnt born 6ft.5 so he bridged the gap with what he had, his skill. In football, almost anyone can make it if they start early. However its very competitive and very subjective so not under your control say like a running time.

Genetics change, was it Walcott who wasnt even in the top 10 fastest players at Southampton for many years, growth spurts, fired on by training, genetic changes fired on by training, the point is no one knows their potential until they achieve it and even then it is not clear. Genetics as a guide of anything is quite useless, you can have two great runners shagging all day for a thousand years, they might not have a single kid who becomes the top sprinter they were. At best they might give birth to the nevilles. 

The 100m sprint is a very isolative sport and even then there is a lot of leighway on the variables which will determine it, peaks and troughs, mindsets, outside events, conditions favourable to a certain type which are just some of the variables even if you manage to isolate it all as much as you can. Usain Bolt can false start so we can see that nurture is multiplying and minifying anything nature or genetics brings to the table a hundred times over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainly nurture, one would assume, otherwise schoolteachers and parents are vastly overrated.

 

This is getting really specific now, but these things have a lot to with the psyche/ego. It comes down to drives, motivations, instincts and stuff. Nurture plays a part here but these things are innate as well (genetic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All people at the top of anything 

 

You are still missing the point imo. To get to the very top of anything necessitates all the attributes - genetic, nurture, self belief/drive/sacrifice - and tbh in most cases a little luck. Those are specific conversations.

 

We are talking broadly - as an individual you cannot substantially change certain core physical qualities, which are genetic, and in the majority of athletic endeavors are positive discriminators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainly nurture, one would assume, otherwise schoolteachers and parents are vastly overrated.

 

Okay. 

 

So if that's the case, and I pretty much agree with you, then I don't see how you can think that genetics trumps nurture. Genetics is just the base foundation that gets you a ticket to the ballgame. 

 

Of the thousands of kids that are born every year that have the ability to turn the raw materials they are given into something very special the major factor in whether they make it or not will be nurture. The ones with the application that are lucky enough to be developed properly will make the most of that raw material and the ones that don't will fade into the background.

 

One of the most talented lads in that famous United youth team got a mention in Ferguson's book. He was brilliant by all accounts. He lacked the application so his raw material was worth nothing. Pisshead. Flaked out. Gary Twynham.

 

Genetics gives you a chance, it gets you past the entry exam. Nurture makes the difference after that in football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Den, you are fantastically missing the point.

 

Which bit, the diversion bit about Usain Bolt learning to run fast or Fowler learning to volley a ball, which I know a few of his dads mates he did learn to do and had it in his own autobiography how many millions of balls his dad used to stand behind the goal and throw at him from when he could walk?

I think if you asked Robbie Fowler himself he will say that he learned and honed his skils rather than being born with them, we were talking about Fowler, the catchphrase they use is 'most natural finisher' and many LFC fans get really giddy to have the chance to use that catchphrase but the reality doesnt bear that out, hes good at volleying because his dad used to spend hours every day from when he could walk throwing the ball at him to volley, you can see its learned, this shouldnt be controversial and all the usain bolt talk in the world wont change that fact. He looks natural, which is testament to how much time he used to spend practicing it, the acadey under heighway may even have thought he was a 'natural talent' neglecting that they werent around when his dad developed his skills by practice so probably would just assume it was natural. 

If his dad and mum were both too busy he would not be anywhere, if they didnt know anything about footy or care he wouldnt have made it he be stacking shelves in Dingle. If his mum and dad had spent the time getting him to study instead of play footy he'd be on a middle income with a decent job. He will tell you that himself or better yet just read the passages in his autobiography ay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ones with the application that are lucky enough to be developed properly will make the most of that raw material

 

The ones that get noticed initially, at that young age - that are then lucky enough to be developed to the point where their individual application becomes the discerning factor are the big or fast or strong ones - yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...