Developing good habits are the basis of success in sport
Do the little things right and all of your wildest dreams will come true.
In this letter I write about things that interest me. Occasionally I'll clarify previous ideas when I've learned more about an issue, or if some ideas don't get the traction I think they should.
One traction-poor idea is this: Talent is created. That's a hard argument to make to anyone who thinks talent is some vaporous quality existing all by itself out in the ether. Indeed, ether is a good metaphor for talent; scientists created ether, or at least the idea of it, to explain phenomena they couldn't otherwise account for. We use talent the same way, as shorthand for precocious ability.
When children perform at levels higher than usual for their age we say their ability is precocious, mimicking adult expertise. Examples of precocious ability can be found in the arts, sports, and sciences, especially mathematics. These children are often labeled as talented because, to the casual observer, their ability seems to spring from nowhere; a gift without a source.
But there is a source or an explanation, we just don't always know what it is. This is particularly true with children. When teenagers play sports in school or join local clubs the abilities they demonstrate are easily explainable. However, we don't normally associate opportunities to learn or train physical skills with young children. When they demonstrate any kind of ability we usually label them as talented.
Talent, as it is commonly understood, doesn’t exist; no one is born with talent or special skills. Abilities can be explained by opportunity, instruction, practice, and other circumstances of which a casual observer has no knowledge. (For parents: The youth sport talent illusion is real)
Why it matters
There is a universal misunderstanding about the origin of sport talent despite overwhelming evidence that early ability is created through physical literacy, enjoyment, and everyday attention to the little things that make up performance. There are two reasons for this:
The persistent notion that talent is a mysterious quality extant in some more than others that allows above average performance. Suggested antecedents to these qualities include genetics and luck.
Confusing physical attributes with ability. Not recognizing the actual components of a skill and focusing on the attributes of the performer blinds observers to what is happening when we watch athletes do what they do.
The big picture for coaches
Talent remains an evergreen topic because there is a constant churn of new families involved in youth sport, and because of the old yet persistent idea of a genetic source of talent. A genetic link is one of those things that sounds right. Eye color and height are linked genetically, why not athletic ability? It might sound right but it isn't.
Coaches should also note that the outcome of a performance in youth sport is sometimes highly dependent on the physical attributes of the athlete, being a tall basketball player, for example. Attributes might play a role in success but they don’t determine ability.
Attributes (size or limb length) change quickly and often in children and it takes several years before attributes become more or less permanent. Qualities (speed or strength) are trainable. So, thinking of young children who have temporary advantages as being "talented" is silly. It places too many expectations on them and is unfair to others who don't have these characteristics yet.
The big picture for parents
Encouraging movement activities for young children is important for developing physical literacy. This will prepare them for whatever sport activities they participate in later. Early and varied movement experience is also the foundation of later athleticism.
Some youth sport pundits rant about injuries resulting from early sport specialization or how single-sport participation can hurt both development and performance. There is some truth to these claims but there are legitimate reasons why single sport participation is becoming more common.
Early sport specialization simply means that youngsters begin learning, practicing, and training very early (4-, 5-, 6-years-old) intending to get a head start on an activity. This is based on the assumption that progress in youth sport is linear i.e. whatever skill level an athlete has as a 5-year-old his skills will be better at six, and even better at seven, etc. This does not work. Indeed, it has never worked, but it sounds like it should and some families follow it.
Single-sport participation is exactly what it sounds like. Athletes choose one sport and stick with it believing that playing other sports will hinder progress in their main activity. This might be true, I don't know. But single-sporting reduces an athlete's opportunity to explore other kinds of sport movements and enrich their athleticism. Increasing or improving athleticism is always a good thing.
The real benefit of the smorgasbord of youth sport activities is not to find out what a young athlete is good at — that comes later — but to find one the athlete enjoys. Without enjoyment there won't ever be expertise. So if your child truly enjoys the sport he started early or the one he's solely focused on that's great. If not, find one he does enjoy.
The real origin of ability (spoiler alert: It isn't talent)
In his groundbreaking 1975 study on expert performance, Benjamin Bloom wrote, "...no matter what the initial characteristics of the individuals, unless there is a long and intensive process of encouragement, nurturance, education, training, the individuals will not attain extreme levels of capability in the particular fields'' (emphasis added). Bloom began that study to find what made youngsters who were identified as having certain talents in sport, music, or science different from their less accomplished peers. His conclusions included the now famous observation, "We were looking for exceptional kids, what we found were exceptional conditions."
"...no matter what the initial characteristics of the individuals, unless there is a long and intensive process of encouragement, nurturance, education, training, the individuals will not attain extreme levels of capability in the particular fields'' (emphasis added) Benjamin Bloom.
In other words, there is no such thing as talent. Our abilities are a result of a lot of little things. We've all heard someone say, "90% of success is just showing up." It's true. Showing up is one of the little things that helps develop ability.
You can read more about Bloom's study and another expertise researcher, Anders Ericsson, here: Reexamining deliberate practice, early-specialization, and the 10,000 hour "rule". This article appeared in this letter in 2023.
Bloom's study is what got me started on this talent thing, but it was another article that shows the real source of expertise and how simple the process is.
The mundanity of excellence by Daniel Chambliss drives home just how unremarkable is the development of ability. It's a matter of doing little things consistently right. As the title suggests experts do the mundane tasks involved in their pursuit faithfully and correctly, and they do them all the time. They show up, they do what's required, and they get better.
Whether we're learning how to dance or run a marathon our fate is under our control. Through our actions we decide how good we want to be.
Just say no to talent.
As always, great read, thank you Bill.
Something that I think often goes under the radar on this subject...
The combination of being 'good' at a sport together with 'enjoyment'.
Often the case, in my opinion, that proficiency enhances enjoyment.
Not often that I see a kid over the age of 10/12 that really enjoys a sport that they're not reasonably proficient at.
This, I think, is the challenge... to find the sport/s that appeal to a young child, develop a degree of proficiency so that they're enthused to continue with that sport in their teens and later.