Why do you watch professional cycling?

morstar

dougzz wrote:

It's possible to like both and not need to diminish one to enjoy the other.

Actually, I'd even say it's possible to not like both but still accept that anybody reaching the very highest echelons of their chosen sport (or past time) has worked incredibly hard to get there.

Don't get this 'our sport is soooo much more difficult than yours' mentality.

gpreeves

morstar wrote:

dougzz wrote:

It's possible to like both and not need to diminish one to enjoy the other.

Actually, I'd even say it's possible to not like both but still accept that anybody reaching the very highest echelons of their chosen sport (or past time) has worked incredibly hard to get there.

Don't get this 'our sport is soooo much more difficult than yours' mentality.

Absolutely. Plus, we all know that WWE wrestlers are the ultimate sportsmen.

dougzz

mike6 wrote:

Pardon me sir for being "pointless and stupid" but I am not diminishing any sport, merely pointing out how hard pro cycling is and how much training one has to do to get to that level. Also, in relation to some sports, how small the financial rewards are. One of the reasons I like to watch it, and, after all, that was the title of the thread.

In fairness I said the comparisons were, I didn't say you were. It did seem to me that you offered several reasons diminishing footballers. Many of the reasons we like a sport are emotional, difficult to explain, and hard to rationalize. I accept cycling is hard, but I don't accept football isn't. I could argue that that whilst you can train all you want, you'll never have Messi or Ronaldo's natural football ability. Cycling is not a great skill sport, sure there are riders that handle a bike better than others, but it's mostly about being able to create pedal power. I could further argue that for almost 20 years it was about responding to drugs better than someone else, yes you had to train too, but ultimately the guy that had it with the lower red cell count would have the most room to improve when the epo kicked in. One thing that's true in any sport is that if you're at the top of the tree, you'll have a lot more say in your schedule than a middling guy that's a lot more desperate for a contract. So in reference to Millar's book I'd be prepared to bet that the likes of Contador, Froome, Nibali, Evans, and Gilbert have a lot more say in their schedules than a domestique.
Ultimately the fact we waste time here suggests we all like cycling, well, apart from some odd characters that seem to drop in solely to troll.

mike6

dougzz wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Pardon me sir for being "pointless and stupid" but I am not diminishing any sport, merely pointing out how hard pro cycling is and how much training one has to do to get to that level. Also, in relation to some sports, how small the financial rewards are. One of the reasons I like to watch it, and, after all, that was the title of the thread.

In fairness I said the comparisons were, I didn't say you were. It did seem to me that you offered several reasons diminishing footballers. Many of the reasons we like a sport are emotional, difficult to explain, and hard to rationalize. I accept cycling is hard, but I don't accept football isn't. I could argue that that whilst you can train all you want, you'll never have Messi or Ronaldo's natural football ability. Cycling is not a great skill sport, sure there are riders that handle a bike better than others, but it's mostly about being able to create pedal power. I could further argue that for almost 20 years it was about responding to drugs better than someone else, yes you had to train too, but ultimately the guy that had it with the lower red cell count would have the most room to improve when the epo kicked in. One thing that's true in any sport is that if you're at the top of the tree, you'll have a lot more say in your schedule than a middling guy that's a lot more desperate for a contract. So in reference to Millar's book I'd be prepared to bet that the likes of Contador, Froome, Nibali, Evans, and Gilbert have a lot more say in their schedules than a domestique.
Ultimately the fact we waste time here suggests we all like cycling, well, apart from some odd characters that seem to drop in solely to troll.

Thank you for reinforcing my argument where I said "Footballing talent is a born with ability, you cant coach it" but cycling is an endurance event that requires 1000s of hours of hard training to realise full potential.

morstar

mike6 wrote:

dougzz wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Pardon me sir for being "pointless and stupid" but I am not diminishing any sport, merely pointing out how hard pro cycling is and how much training one has to do to get to that level. Also, in relation to some sports, how small the financial rewards are. One of the reasons I like to watch it, and, after all, that was the title of the thread.

In fairness I said the comparisons were, I didn't say you were. It did seem to me that you offered several reasons diminishing footballers. Many of the reasons we like a sport are emotional, difficult to explain, and hard to rationalize. I accept cycling is hard, but I don't accept football isn't. I could argue that that whilst you can train all you want, you'll never have Messi or Ronaldo's natural football ability. Cycling is not a great skill sport, sure there are riders that handle a bike better than others, but it's mostly about being able to create pedal power. I could further argue that for almost 20 years it was about responding to drugs better than someone else, yes you had to train too, but ultimately the guy that had it with the lower red cell count would have the most room to improve when the epo kicked in. One thing that's true in any sport is that if you're at the top of the tree, you'll have a lot more say in your schedule than a middling guy that's a lot more desperate for a contract. So in reference to Millar's book I'd be prepared to bet that the likes of Contador, Froome, Nibali, Evans, and Gilbert have a lot more say in their schedules than a domestique.
Ultimately the fact we waste time here suggests we all like cycling, well, apart from some odd characters that seem to drop in solely to troll.

Thank you for reinforcing my argument where I said "Footballing talent is a born with ability, you cant coach it" but cycling is an endurance event that requires 1000s of hours of hard training to realise full potential.

Sorry, but bo11ocks.
Pro-cyclist are naturally graced with phenomenal aerobic potential which they work incredibly hard to develop to their max potential. Some take it to the very limits either to win or simply retain a job as a pro whilst some may be very blessed but don't train quite so hard but make a comfortable living without reaching their max.
Footballers are born with natural abilities to control the ball that they work very hard to develop to their potential whilst also having to develop decent base fitness. Some will work incredibly hard to be the best, some will work incredibly hard just to keep that contract and other more gifted players may take it a bit easier but get by.
I accept the money probably encourages more of the latter form of behaviour in football than it does in cycling but the cream of the crop are working equally hard whatever the sport.
You really think Messi just rolls out of bed in the morning and is great at his chosen sport?

mike6

Er...yes he is. You can not create a gift like Messi's. He will work on his fitness and his ball control but like, say George Best, it is a born with skill, It is obvious from a very young age. You can not tell if someone is going to be great on a bike until they mature, and it will still take many 1000s of hours of training, including altitude work to realise that gift. You can not be a pro cyclist without putting all those hours in no matter how gifted you are aerobically..

Of course Premiership footballers train hard, but the hours spent training is nothing like the time put in by pro cyclists, and a game of football never lasts 6 hours.

tailwindhome

mike6 wrote:

Of course Premiership footballers train hard, but the hours spent training is nothing like the time put in by pro cyclists, and a game of football never lasts 6 hours.

Not many 42 year old footballers destroying the opposition though.

Cycling can't be that hard....

joelsim

Whilst there is a large amount of born talent in football, it can also be honed very nicely. Unlike in English players, the other top nations have much better players...

But of course you have to have a gift for cycling too in order to make it to the top. 36k Euros is peanuts for the 500th best in the world of any chosen profession. Surely it can't be that low.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Not many 42 year old footballers destroying the opposition though.

Roger Milla and Sir Stanley spring to mind. And Dino Zoff - he won the World Cup at 40.

gpreeves

Joelsim wrote:

But of course you have to have a gift for cycling too in order to make it to the top. 36k Euros is peanuts for the 500th best in the world of any chosen profession. Surely it can't be that low.

Inner Ring explains it best here:

http://inrng.com/2011/07/how-much-does-a-rider-earn/

EUR 36K for the 500th best didn't seem too bad to me, so I had a quick look at some tennis players for comparison:

Oliver Golding - 3 seasons as a pro - career earnings $64k - mean of $21k/year - ranked 459th (highest 418th)
Dan Evans - 5 seasons - career earnings $300k - mean $60k/year - ranked 152nd (highest 149th)
Alex Bogdanovic - 12 seasons - career earnings $650k - mean $54k/year - ranked 272nd (highest 108th)
Brydan Klein - 9 seasons (granted he did turn pro at 15) - career earnings $252k - $28k/year - ranked 328th (highest 174th)
Jamie Baker - 9 seasons - career earnings $311k - $35k/year - ranked 333rd when he retired (highest 185th)

A guaranteed - for one year at least - salary of EUR35k actually compares fairly favourably with the salaries of very talented, but not to- 100 calibre, tennis players. Obviously, these figures are an illustration at best, there's no easy way of finding out how much tennis/cycling federation money, price money or sponsorship each player receives.

RichN95.

gpreeves wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

But of course you have to have a gift for cycling too in order to make it to the top. 36k Euros is peanuts for the 500th best in the world of any chosen profession. Surely it can't be that low.

Inner Ring explains it best here:

http://inrng.com/2011/07/how-much-does-a-rider-earn/

EUR 36K for the 500th best didn't seem too bad to me, so I had a quick look at some tennis players for comparison:

Oliver Golding - 3 seasons as a pro - career earnings $64k - mean of $21k/year - ranked 459th (highest 418th)
Dan Evans - 5 seasons - career earnings $300k - mean $60k/year - ranked 152nd (highest 149th)
Alex Bogdanovic - 12 seasons - career earnings $650k - mean $54k/year - ranked 272nd (highest 108th)
Brydan Klein - 9 seasons (granted he did turn pro at 15) - career earnings $252k - $28k/year - ranked 328th (highest 174th)
Jamie Baker - 9 seasons - career earnings $311k - $35k/year - ranked 333rd when he retired (highest 185th)

A guaranteed - for one year at least - salary of EUR35k actually compares fairly favourably with the salaries of very talented, but not to- 100 calibre, tennis players. Obviously, these figures are an illustration at best, there's no easy way of finding out how much tennis/cycling federation money, price money or sponsorship each player receives.

And you are not even taking overheads into account. John McEnroe, who has campaigned for more even distribution of money in tennis, reckons you need to be in the top 100 to make a reasonable living.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Not many 42 year old footballers destroying the opposition though.

Roger Milla and Sir Stanley spring to mind. And Dino Zoff - he won the World Cup at 40.

Forgot about Maldini too.

morstar

mike6 wrote:

Er...yes he is. You can not create a gift like Messi's. He will work on his fitness and his ball control but like, say George Best, it is a born with skill, It is obvious from a very young age. You can not tell if someone is going to be great on a bike until they mature, and it will still take many 1000s of hours of training, including altitude work to realise that gift. You can not be a pro cyclist without putting all those hours in no matter how gifted you are aerobically..

Of course Premiership footballers train hard, but the hours spent training is nothing like the time put in by pro cyclists, and a game of football never lasts 6 hours.

The likes of Froome are born with physiological gifts of equal significance to the natural skills of Messi. The strength in depth within football is immense. Just to get to a youth camp, kids are working tirelessly to be better than their peers. They have to beat far more competition than a cyclist to be the very best. They do have the advantage that there are far more opportunities to make a decent living but the odds of making it must be equally hard due to the numbers pursuing the goal.
As for 6 hours. So what, the demands of each sport are different. I have played ice hockey (badly) which may only involve 10 - 20 mins. playing time but it's brutally hard work, even playing non checking.
My HR monitor shows a lot of easy riding even on fast paced rides. When running, it stays consistently high like in a TT. And yet I do think cycling is hard, I just don't think elite cyclists by definition work harder overall than other elite sports people unless you focus on specific elements of performance.

mike6

morstar wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Er...yes he is. You can not create a gift like Messi's. He will work on his fitness and his ball control but like, say George Best, it is a born with skill, It is obvious from a very young age. You can not tell if someone is going to be great on a bike until they mature, and it will still take many 1000s of hours of training, including altitude work to realise that gift. You can not be a pro cyclist without putting all those hours in no matter how gifted you are aerobically..

Of course Premiership footballers train hard, but the hours spent training is nothing like the time put in by pro cyclists, and a game of football never lasts 6 hours.

The likes of Froome are born with physiological gifts of equal significance to the natural skills of Messi. The strength in depth within football is immense. Just to get to a youth camp, kids are working tirelessly to be better than their peers. They have to beat far more competition than a cyclist to be the very best. They do have the advantage that there are far more opportunities to make a decent living but the odds of making it must be equally hard due to the numbers pursuing the goal.
As for 6 hours. So what, the demands of each sport are different. I have played ice hockey (badly) which may only involve 10 - 20 mins. playing time but it's brutally hard work, even playing non checking.
My HR monitor shows a lot of easy riding even on fast paced rides. When running, it stays consistently high like in a TT. And yet I do think cycling is hard, I just don't think elite cyclists by definition work harder overall than other elite sports people unless you focus on specific elements of performance.

When I was coaching athletics I had a very promising 14 year old footballer in my hurdles squad. He was good enough to be in the Sunderland Premiership Academy. He was told, at the age of 14 mind you, that he would not be good enough, and was kicked out. So, they can tell at a very early age if you are gifted enough as a footballer to bother coaching you. That is surely based on natural talent.
Doubt you could tell with a cyclist if they were good enough at such a young age, there are too many factors involved and how the aerobic system matures.

morstar

mike6 wrote:

morstar wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Er...yes he is. You can not create a gift like Messi's. He will work on his fitness and his ball control but like, say George Best, it is a born with skill, It is obvious from a very young age. You can not tell if someone is going to be great on a bike until they mature, and it will still take many 1000s of hours of training, including altitude work to realise that gift. You can not be a pro cyclist without putting all those hours in no matter how gifted you are aerobically..

Of course Premiership footballers train hard, but the hours spent training is nothing like the time put in by pro cyclists, and a game of football never lasts 6 hours.

The likes of Froome are born with physiological gifts of equal significance to the natural skills of Messi. The strength in depth within football is immense. Just to get to a youth camp, kids are working tirelessly to be better than their peers. They have to beat far more competition than a cyclist to be the very best. They do have the advantage that there are far more opportunities to make a decent living but the odds of making it must be equally hard due to the numbers pursuing the goal.
As for 6 hours. So what, the demands of each sport are different. I have played ice hockey (badly) which may only involve 10 - 20 mins. playing time but it's brutally hard work, even playing non checking.
My HR monitor shows a lot of easy riding even on fast paced rides. When running, it stays consistently high like in a TT. And yet I do think cycling is hard, I just don't think elite cyclists by definition work harder overall than other elite sports people unless you focus on specific elements of performance.

When I was coaching athletics I had a very promising 14 year old footballer in my hurdles squad. He was good enough to be in the Sunderland Premiership Academy. He was told, at the age of 14 mind you, that he would not be good enough, and was kicked out. So, they can tell at a very early age if you are gifted enough as a footballer to bother coaching you. That is surely based on natural talent.
Doubt you could tell with a cyclist if they were good enough at such a young age, there are too many factors involved and how the aerobic system matures.

Surely that says more about the fierce level of competition. There will be scores of kids on the fringes of making that academy and behind those scores, hundreds of talented kids putting in serious effort pursuing the belief they can make it. The kid you mention wasn't quite good enough, out of the hundreds they see and time with that kid, they made the judgement.
Don't you think the BC talent programme does exactly the same. Only they are dealing with an entire nations talent to get that scale of selection whereas Sunderland is one of scores of football academies.

mike6

morstar wrote:

mike6 wrote:

morstar wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Er...yes he is. You can not create a gift like Messi's. He will work on his fitness and his ball control but like, say George Best, it is a born with skill, It is obvious from a very young age. You can not tell if someone is going to be great on a bike until they mature, and it will still take many 1000s of hours of training, including altitude work to realise that gift. You can not be a pro cyclist without putting all those hours in no matter how gifted you are aerobically..

Of course Premiership footballers train hard, but the hours spent training is nothing like the time put in by pro cyclists, and a game of football never lasts 6 hours.

The likes of Froome are born with physiological gifts of equal significance to the natural skills of Messi. The strength in depth within football is immense. Just to get to a youth camp, kids are working tirelessly to be better than their peers. They have to beat far more competition than a cyclist to be the very best. They do have the advantage that there are far more opportunities to make a decent living but the odds of making it must be equally hard due to the numbers pursuing the goal.
As for 6 hours. So what, the demands of each sport are different. I have played ice hockey (badly) which may only involve 10 - 20 mins. playing time but it's brutally hard work, even playing non checking.
My HR monitor shows a lot of easy riding even on fast paced rides. When running, it stays consistently high like in a TT. And yet I do think cycling is hard, I just don't think elite cyclists by definition work harder overall than other elite sports people unless you focus on specific elements of performance.

When I was coaching athletics I had a very promising 14 year old footballer in my hurdles squad. He was good enough to be in the Sunderland Premiership Academy. He was told, at the age of 14 mind you, that he would not be good enough, and was kicked out. So, they can tell at a very early age if you are gifted enough as a footballer to bother coaching you. That is surely based on natural talent.
Doubt you could tell with a cyclist if they were good enough at such a young age, there are too many factors involved and how the aerobic system matures.

Surely that says more about the fierce level of competition. There will be scores of kids on the fringes of making that academy and behind those scores, hundreds of talented kids putting in serious effort pursuing the belief they can make it. The kid you mention wasn't quite good enough, out of the hundreds they see and time with that kid, they made the judgement.
Don't you think the BC talent programme does exactly the same. Only they are dealing with an entire nations talent to get that scale of selection whereas Sunderland is one of scores of football academies.

What I am saying is that a 14 year old, lets face it,boy, could be assessed at such a young age and be told his natural skill level was not up to wasting coaching time on. They can realy tell that young, just making my point that footballing ability is a born with gift, you can not put skill where it is not already present. The coaching comes in positional play, tactics, marking etc.

morstar

mike6 wrote:

What I am saying is that a 14 year old, lets face it,boy, could be assessed at such a young age and be told his natural skill level was not up to wasting coaching time on. They can realy tell that young, just making my point that footballing ability is a born with gift, you can not put skill where it is not already present. The coaching comes in positional play, tactics, marking etc.

I don't disagree with that assertion. I disagree that cyclists work harder than people in other sports.

Thank you for reinforcing my argument where I said "Footballing talent is a born with ability, you cant coach it" but cycling is an endurance event that requires 1000s of hours of hard training to realise full potential.

Any sportsperson at the very top of the profession has stacks of natural talent, for me that is an absolute given. Be it physiology or be it skill.

My point is, that being the best isn't about absolute potential. It is about being better than your opponents. Apart from the very rare anomalous performers, no matter how gifted you are, there is always going to be someone of almost identical potential trying to beat you. If you are not working hard because of your gift, the guy with an equal gift who is outworking you will beat you nearly every time. This applies to ball skills as much as aerobic performance. How many thousands (possibly millions) of keepy uppies do you think the likes of Messi did growing up? Beckham used to hit hundreds of dead balls after normal practice had ended.

To be an elite sportsperson, you are always working hard to stay ahead of the competition. Some journeymen making a comfortable living may be taking it easier using natural talent but the cream of the crop are putting in the hours of hard graft no matter what past time they're pursuing.

Heck, I don't even like football. Just can't agree that any sports stars are, en masse, work harder than another sports stars as a generalisation.

gpreeves

RichN95 wrote:

gpreeves wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

But of course you have to have a gift for cycling too in order to make it to the top. 36k Euros is peanuts for the 500th best in the world of any chosen profession. Surely it can't be that low.

Inner Ring explains it best here:

http://inrng.com/2011/07/how-much-does-a-rider-earn/

EUR 36K for the 500th best didn't seem too bad to me, so I had a quick look at some tennis players for comparison:

Oliver Golding - 3 seasons as a pro - career earnings $64k - mean of $21k/year - ranked 459th (highest 418th)
Dan Evans - 5 seasons - career earnings $300k - mean $60k/year - ranked 152nd (highest 149th)
Alex Bogdanovic - 12 seasons - career earnings $650k - mean $54k/year - ranked 272nd (highest 108th)
Brydan Klein - 9 seasons (granted he did turn pro at 15) - career earnings $252k - $28k/year - ranked 328th (highest 174th)
Jamie Baker - 9 seasons - career earnings $311k - $35k/year - ranked 333rd when he retired (highest 185th)

A guaranteed - for one year at least - salary of EUR35k actually compares fairly favourably with the salaries of very talented, but not to- 100 calibre, tennis players. Obviously, these figures are an illustration at best, there's no easy way of finding out how much tennis/cycling federation money, price money or sponsorship each player receives.

And you are not even taking overheads into account. John McEnroe, who has campaigned for more even distribution of money in tennis, reckons you need to be in the top 100 to make a reasonable living.

Absolutely, I'd imagine cycling teams pay for travel, accommodation and other competition related costs, yet the tennis players often need to fund these themselves. Salaries in tennis appear to be heavily skewed towards a very small "elite" - Nadal's career earnings are $60.5m and Federer's $77m.

mike6

morstar wrote:

mike6 wrote:

What I am saying is that a 14 year old, lets face it,boy, could be assessed at such a young age and be told his natural skill level was not up to wasting coaching time on. They can realy tell that young, just making my point that footballing ability is a born with gift, you can not put skill where it is not already present. The coaching comes in positional play, tactics, marking etc.

I don't disagree with that assertion. I disagree that cyclists work harder than people in other sports.

Thank you for reinforcing my argument where I said "Footballing talent is a born with ability, you cant coach it" but cycling is an endurance event that requires 1000s of hours of hard training to realise full potential.

Any sportsperson at the very top of the profession has stacks of natural talent, for me that is an absolute given. Be it physiology or be it skill.

My point is, that being the best isn't about absolute potential. It is about being better than your opponents. Apart from the very rare anomalous performers, no matter how gifted you are, there is always going to be someone of almost identical potential trying to beat you. If you are not working hard because of your gift, the guy with an equal gift who is outworking you will beat you nearly every time. This applies to ball skills as much as aerobic performance. How many thousands (possibly millions) of keepy uppies do you think the likes of Messi did growing up? Beckham used to hit hundreds of dead balls after normal practice had ended.

To be an elite sportsperson, you are always working hard to stay ahead of the competition. Some journeymen making a comfortable living may be taking it easier using natural talent but the cream of the crop are putting in the hours of hard graft no matter what past time they're pursuing.

Heck, I don't even like football. Just can't agree that any sports stars are, en masse, work harder than another sports stars as a generalisation.

I agree with a lot of what you say, except the last paragraph. Extreme endurance sports, and cycling is probably the most extreme, need stupid amounts of training. To get that last one or two % of aerobic capacity takes extraordinary measures. Altitude training, mountain repetitions etc etc. Its the law of diminishing returns. Football is essentially a skill based sport.
Like marathon runners, the amount of work required to be even an averagea Pro cyclist is huge.

No_Ta_Doctor

The idea that football skill is some sort of innate natural talent that can't be coached is laughably wrong. The kids that succeed at football - from the hundreds of millions that play - are the ones that spend every waking hour with a ball at their feet, from pretty much the time they can walk. By the time the 14 year old is getting the boot from Sunderland's football academy he will have already played thousands upon thousands of hours of football. If he didn't have some decent coaching along the way then much of it may have been wasted, as he may have just learnt the wrong way of doing things and have to take a lot of steps backwards to unlearn it.

In contrast, your average pro cyclist is probably only getting his first proper bike by the time he's 14.

joelsim

No tA Doctor wrote:

The idea that football skill is some sort of innate natural talent that can't be coached is laughably wrong. The kids that succeed at football - from the hundreds of millions that play - are the ones that spend every waking hour with a ball at their feet, from pretty much the time they can walk. By the time the 14 year old is getting the boot from Sunderland's football academy he will have already played thousands upon thousands of hours of football. If he didn't have some decent coaching along the way then much of it may have been wasted, as he may have just learnt the wrong way of doing things and have to take a lot of steps backwards to unlearn it.

In contrast, your average pro cyclist is probably only getting his first proper bike by the time he's 14.

Can't agree with that at all. Top footballers are born with an innate talent that is then nurtured. It's no different than running. You've either got it or you haven't.

JohnnyAllez

liversedge wrote:

I watch pro cycling because;

1. it inspires me
2. it entertains me
3. it motivates me to ride
4. it sure beats the rest of the crap that's on tv

Do I really care who wins? Nope. Does doping impact any of this? Nope.

+ 1.
The rest of it, with forum people giving their opinions based on what they claim as evidence to suit their particular argument, its all just a sideshow. I don't get why some people think that their opinion counts for anything or why anyone else cares what they think, when it's really just that, their opinion, and only relevant to themselves.

dougzz

JohnnyAllez wrote:

The rest of it, with forum people giving their opinions based on what they claim as evidence to suit their particular argument, its all just a sideshow. I don't get why some people think that their opinion counts for anything or why anyone else cares what they think, when it's really just that, their opinion, and only relevant to themselves.

So you posted this just to read it yourself? Oh sorry, you don't care what anyone else thinks.........

morstar

JohnnyAllez wrote:

liversedge wrote:

I watch pro cycling because;

1. it inspires me
2. it entertains me
3. it motivates me to ride
4. it sure beats the rest of the crap that's on tv

Do I really care who wins? Nope. Does doping impact any of this? Nope.

+ 1.
The rest of it, with forum people giving their opinions based on what they claim as evidencie to suit their particular argument, its all just a sideshow. I don't get why some people think that their opinion counts for anything or why anyone else cares what they think, when it's really just that, their opinion, and only relevant to themselves.

Funnily enough, I come on a forum because I like all the opinions and different takes on things. I find challenging your own beliefs is the surest way to come to mature and considered opinions.
Some of the left field bo11ocks opinions can get quite tiresome but I find the forum a good place to hang out. Lots of good links to interesting stuff too.

smithy21

No tA Doctor wrote:

The idea that football skill is some sort of innate natural talent that can't be coached is laughably wrong. The kids that succeed at football - from the hundreds of millions that play - are the ones that spend every waking hour with a ball at their feet, from pretty much the time they can walk. By the time the 14 year old is getting the boot from Sunderland's football academy he will have already played thousands upon thousands of hours of football. If he didn't have some decent coaching along the way then much of it may have been wasted, as he may have just learnt the wrong way of doing things and have to take a lot of steps backwards to unlearn it.

In contrast, your average pro cyclist is probably only getting his first proper bike by the time he's 14.

Absolutely agree. The myth that the likes of George Best was some sort of natural genius is nonsense. As a kid he practised a ridiculous amount. Obviously there are physical gifts people have eg if you are 6 foot 10 you are more suited to basketball than cycling but most of what people perceive as natural talent has already been honed by many hours of practise.

I would recommend reading Outliers and Bounce.

gpreeves

smithy21 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

The idea that football skill is some sort of innate natural talent that can't be coached is laughably wrong. The kids that succeed at football - from the hundreds of millions that play - are the ones that spend every waking hour with a ball at their feet, from pretty much the time they can walk. By the time the 14 year old is getting the boot from Sunderland's football academy he will have already played thousands upon thousands of hours of football. If he didn't have some decent coaching along the way then much of it may have been wasted, as he may have just learnt the wrong way of doing things and have to take a lot of steps backwards to unlearn it.

In contrast, your average pro cyclist is probably only getting his first proper bike by the time he's 14.

Absolutely agree. The myth that the likes of George Best was some sort of natural genius is nonsense. As a kid he practised a ridiculous amount. Obviously there are physical gifts people have eg if you are 6 foot 10 you are more suited to basketball than cycling but most of what people perceive as natural talent has already been honed by many hours of practise.

I would recommend reading Outliers and Bounce.

+1 to Outliers, a very interesting read.

No_Ta_Doctor

Joelsim wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

The idea that football skill is some sort of innate natural talent that can't be coached is laughably wrong. The kids that succeed at football - from the hundreds of millions that play - are the ones that spend every waking hour with a ball at their feet, from pretty much the time they can walk. By the time the 14 year old is getting the boot from Sunderland's football academy he will have already played thousands upon thousands of hours of football. If he didn't have some decent coaching along the way then much of it may have been wasted, as he may have just learnt the wrong way of doing things and have to take a lot of steps backwards to unlearn it.

In contrast, your average pro cyclist is probably only getting his first proper bike by the time he's 14.

Can't agree with that at all. Top footballers are born with an innate talent that is then nurtured. It's no different than running. You've either got it or you haven't.

What innate talent is that then?
There are some obvious requirements to be a footballer, not being born without legs helps, for instance. But what else?

Physique: there are a broad range of body types that are successful in football, from the midgets at Barcelona to the giant defenders and goal keepers favoured by British clubs. Or there's this:



Athletic ability: your basic sprint speed and endurance (fairly trainable) suppleness (trainable), balance (trainable).
Coordination: Foot/eye coordination (trainable), reaction time (trainable)
Vision: Judge the flight and bounce of a ball (trainable), judge the movement and shape of the players on the pitch (trainable)
Psychology: Drive and aggression - that's probably the least trainable aspect. Has the kid got the drive to put in the hours to get good?

It's also worth noting that some very technically limited players have had very successful careers. Lee Dixon, famously, couldn't do more than about three keepy-uppys. He excelled in other areas, some of them not strictly within the rules of the game.

Thankfully, most of these things are trainable simply by playing a lot of football, with some technical input. That's why as a kid Dennis Bergkamp went and kicked a ball at a wall for a couple of hours every day, and why as a player he stayed on after training to keep practising.

There's a good interview with him here that touches on some of this: http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... -love-game

Apologies all my examples are Arsenal related...

mike6

What they mean is there is an innate ability that you either have, or have not. That is the part that cant be coached. George Bests talent was not coached, his fitness, strength, and positional sense probably were. You can not coach someone to do a mazy dribble past a number of opposing players as he did against Benfica. That is innate.

I love football, I played for hours and hours after school every day, till it got dark. All I wanted to be was a pro footballer, but sadly I don't have anywhere near the talent needed, and never did. I had the determination and the mindset, but not the natural ability.No amount of coaching would have made a difference.

I played for the local YMCA, as a boy and a pub team as an adult but that was my level, I simply did not have the natural talent needed to become a pro player. That is a gift you are born with, or not in my case.

smithy21

So if George Best did have an innate ability why did he get rejected by Glentoran?

No_Ta_Doctor

mike6 wrote:

What they mean is there is an innate ability that you either have, or have not. That is the part that cant be coached. George Bests talent was not coached, his fitness, strength, and positional sense probably were. You can not coach someone to do a mazy dribble past a number of opposing players as he did against Benfica. That is innate.

I love football, I played for hours and hours after school every day, till it got dark. All I wanted to be was a pro footballer, but sadly I don't have anywhere near the talent needed, and never did. I had the determination and the mindset, but not the natural ability.No amount of coaching would have made a difference.

I played for the local YMCA, as a boy and a pub team as an adult but that was my level, I simply did not have the natural talent needed to become a pro player. That is a gift you are born with, or not in my case.

I know what they mean, they're just wrong. It's a mindset that afflicts football coaching in Britain, where kids are told to "get rid of it" or to pass it instead of dribbling. That's why Britain hardly ever produces the "gifted" players that, e.g. Holland seem to be able to find regularly from a far smaller population.

Take any footballing kid and get him practising inside and outside cuts with both feet for an hour a day and guaranteed his dribbling will improve massively inside a couple of weeks. You work on his foot speed, his balance, and how he uses his body to send the wrong signals to the opposition (as simple as dropping a shoulder). Throw in a couple of drag-backs, rollovers and turns and he'll have all the basic equipment to dribble. Far from being innate, it's eminently coachable, and it's basically what almost all young kids want to be doing on the pitch anyway.