Malcolm Gladwell says that if you want to shine, put in 10,000 hours

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4969415.ece

What is talent in sports?

This is an extract from espncricinfo.com where one of my favorite commentators Harsha Bhogle brings in an interesting insight into talent.

Here is the link where you can find this interesting and thought provoking article.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/519265.html

If you would like to read the article here by Harsha Bhogle:

My father believed - as was the norm with respectable middle-class families in the years gone by - it was important that his children were good at mathematics. If your child was good at mathematics, you had imparted the right education and fulfilled one of your primary duties as a parent.

He often quoted to us what his friend, a respected professor of the subject, used to say: "There should be no problem that you encounter in an examination for the first time." It meant you had to work so hard that you had, conceivably, attempted and vanquished every situation that could find its way into an exam paper. It begs the question: if you did achieve 150 out of 150 in an exam (which my wife very nearly did once, much to my awe), was it because you were extraordinarily intuitive or because you had worked harder than the others, so that you didn't "encounter any problem in an exam" for the first time?

In other words, is getting a "centum" (a peculiarlyTam Bram expression) a matter of genius or a matter of perseverance? It is an issue that many intelligent authors around the world have been debating for a while, and one that is at the heart of sport. Would anybody who solved a certain number of sums get full marks? Would two people, each of whom put in 10,000 hours (Malcolm Gladwell's threshold for achievement) produce identical results? Or are some people innately gifted, allowing them to cross that threshold sooner?

We pose that question a great deal in cricket when we argue about talent. Players who play certain shots - the perfectly balanced on-drive for example - are labelled "talented" and put into a separate category. They acquire a halo, and in a near-equal situation they tend to get picked first. "Talent" becomes this key they flash to gain entry. And yet it is worth asking what talent really is.

Is it the ability to play the on-drive or, more critically, the ability to play that on-drive consistently? It is a critical difference. Consistency brings in an element of perseverance that you do not normally bracket with talent.

Let me explain. I have often, while watching Rohit Sharma bat, said "wow" out loud. I probably said it because I saw him play a shot I did not expect him to. Or maybe it was a shot very few players were able to play. Just as often, I find myself going "ugh" with frustration at him. It is probably because, having had the opportunity to go "wow", I now expected him to play the same shot again. And so, without explicitly stating it, I am invoking the assumption of consistency to assess talent. The old professor of mathematics would have said, "Play the shot so often that it is no longer a new shot when you play it."

It is while I was debating this in my mind that I became aware of why Sachin Tendulkar paid such high compliments to Gary Kirsten for throwing him balls. Tendulkar wanted to perfect a shot and needed someone to throw him enough balls to attain that perfection, so that when he attempted it in a match he wasn't doing it for the first time. And in a recent conversation he said he was at his best when he was in the "subconscious", not distracted by the "conscious", and able to play by instinct - which he had perfected through practice.

Now we often call Tendulkar a genius, and yet, as we see, the talent that we believe comes dazzling through is, in essence, the product of many hours of perseverance. Is Tendulkar, then, the supreme example of my father's friend's theory of doing well at maths? And assuming for a moment that is true, shouldn't we be honouring perseverance because that is what it seems "talent" really is?

And so it follows that when we complain that all talented players don't get to where they should, we are in effect saying that they didn't practise hard enough to be consistent. Maybe it means we should all use the word "talent" more sparingly; not bestow it on a player until ability has been married to hard work long enough to achieve consistency.

This is also the starting premise of a new book I hope to continue reading - Bounce by the former table tennis champion Mathew Syed. I am delighted by its opening pages, one of which said "talent is overrated". It is something I have long believed.

Another interesting read which in a way adds to the above article, from a different sport, NBA - One of the toughest leagues in the world of sports.

http://www.nba.com/india/news/talent_redefined_2011_06_15.html

If you wold like to read the article here by By Karan Madhok:

At the top of the basketball pinnacle, seconds after holding the NBA Championship trophy, Dallas Mavericks coach Rick Carlisle ‘complimented’ his winning team with these words: “This is a true team. We don’t run fast or jump high. These guys have each other’s back. This is a phenomenal group.”

Wait a second – something about what Carlisle just said sounds terribly, terribly wrong, doesn’t it? No, not the part about the Mavs being a ‘true team’, or being a group of guys having ‘each other’s back’. No I mean these specific words: “We don’t run fast or jump high.”

The Mavericks are the 2011 NBA Champions, the kings of the toughest league in the sport of basketball, and their coach, the person behind their growth into victors, admits that his side isn’t particularly good that the two things that form some of the basic building-blocks of success in basketball: speed and athletic ability.



Now, of course Carlisle’s words have to be taken in a relative sense – Of course, the Mavs are fast and athletic, but compared to their more high-profile competitors, the Miami Heat, whom the Mavs defeated in the Finals, Carlisle’s squad is indeed slower, older, and less athletic. Carlisle’s statement was almost a last parting shot at the Heat, who feature two of the NBA’s most athletic superstars, two players who have made a successful career out of their ability to jump the highest and runs the fastest down the basketball courts. In Dywane Wade and LeBron James, the Heat had two players whose speed and athleticism made them near-unstoppable.

Near-unstoppable, I repeat, because obviously, the “slow running” and “low jumping” Mavs somehow figured out a way to win the series.

Everyone kept saying that in Wade and James, the Heat had the two most “talented” players in the Finals. The most outrageous statements of them all came via Scottie Pippen, formerly the running-buddy of basketball’s near-unanimous “greatest-ever”, Michael Jordan. After the Heat took care of Pippen’s Bulls and dominated MVP Derrick Rose, Pippen went on a radio show and claimed: “Michael Jordan is probably the greatest scorer to play the game, but I may go as far as to say LeBron James may be the greatest player to ever play the game.”

“Best all-round talent”; “Greatest player”; “Chosen One”: The superlatives kept coming for James; Meanwhile, his counterpart on the Mavs, Dirk Nowitzki, despite getting appreciated for his talents, never received the same type of adulation, and the reason behind that was that Nowitzki succeeded via a more old-school skill-set, sharp-shooting and his savvy, whereas James succeeded on his strength, his speed and his ability to jump really, really high.

We all know now what happened in the Finals. Nowitizki put up an MVP performance, averaging 27 points and 9.4 rebounds per game, hitting countless clutch shots and especially showing up heroically on a fever-ridden night. On the other hand, James shrank away, averaging much lower than his season average in the Finals, and shrinking spectacularly in the crunch time moments. James TOTALLED 18 points in the six fourth quarters of the series, averaging just three points in the fourth quarter per game. He was passive, he didn’t get to the free throw line, and he was a defensive liability during several key moments.

Is that who we call the ‘most talented’? Is that who someone with great basketball perspective – Scottie Pippen – called the ‘greatest player ever’?

I think the Finals offer us an opportunity to redefine what we describe as ‘talent’. If Carlisle’s Mavs, led by Dirk, could do it without jumping particularly high or running particularly fast, then ‘talent’ is something else. ‘Talent’ is not just to be a good athlete but to know exactly when to use the full potential of your talents. ‘Talent’ is the ability to figure out a way to win, no matter what the situation. ‘Talent’ is playing as a team, and being there for your teammates.

The Miami Heat have players who can run fast and jump high. The Dallas Mavericks have talent.

Though both the above articles are related to talent in sports, there should is no doubt in my mind that this is a universal truth and applies to all the walks of life.