There are no end of quotes that relate to wasted talent.
No matter what area of life you look at there will always be talented people. Some look to use that talent, others choose not to, while some simply lack the courage to use it. Then there are those who will say they were never given the opportunity to use it.
Then there are those who choose not to select talented players. It was the great Australian cricketer Keith Miller who said of Laurie Nash “the greatest waste of talent in Australian cricket history.” Nash was an uncompromising fast bowler who loved to dig the ball in short. In 1932 playing for Tasmania against the touring South Africans in Hobart Nash was on a hat-trick. Everyone was trying to think what he would bowl, a yorker being the expected delivery. Nash bowled a bouncer, and broke Eric Dalton’s jaw!
In the 1936/37 Ashes series, – the first after Bodyline when the selectors were not game to pick Nash, – he was selected for the final test despite England captain Gubby Allen trying to stop his selection. He would only play two Tests in his career and took ten wickets at an average of 12.8. It is believed Bradman wanted him on the 1938 tour of England but the selectors would not pick him.
Apart from being an outstanding cricketer and Aussie Rules player Nash knew he was good, as was reflected when he was asked who was the best player he had seen in that sport, he replied, “I see him every morning when I look in the mirror.”
So many talented players have a belief that others lack. That belief in themselves has proven troublesome to selectors and managers over time, but it is important that they learn to manage these players and not ignore them or try and suppress their ability.
So, to say that someone has wasted talent can be a harsh criticism to make, especially in today’s world where natural talent in many sports is seen as being ‘an individual,’ and these natural attributes are coached out of individuals; hence the enjoyment for many gifted players diminishes. They either are discarded branded “not a team plauyer,” walk away or simply fail to perform to their capabilities.
Whenever you hear of coaches trying to suppress natural talent you hope that parents or others around that individual will remind them of the words of Benjamin Franklin who said “Hide not your talents. They for use were made. What’s a sundial in the shade?” Of course many today woul;d have no idea what a sundial is, let alone what it was used for!
Even if you have talent for something it will only carry you so far. It was the former president of the United States of America Calvin Coolidge who said that “nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not. Nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.” He went on to say “persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”
This has been proven time and time again, especially in sport where players who may not have been as talented as others through hard work, persistence and determination have ended up achieving far more.
That having been said it is terribly sad when you see young players with ability and promise not fulfil that promise, and frequently through no fault of their own.
Ten years ago there were two young footballers who clearly had talent and ability. Both should have gone on to play at a higher level. Both had the passion and commitment, but both were told that they were not strong enough for the step up. Sadly, what the coaches who made that assessment failed to explain was how they could become stronger when in possession of the ball. Both players, who were in their late teens, one may have been 20, failed to ask how they should gain strength. Instead they simply went to a gym and told the trainer they wanted to get stronger. The trainer it has been claimed did not ask why they wanted to get stronger, and simply gave them a program that saw both bulk up their upper body and thighs in terms of muscle. Yet that bulking up took away from one a quick turn of pace, and the other also lost a yard or two of pace that used to see them glide past players. Suddenly two of the attributes that had made them the players they were had gone. They were now never going to make it to the next level and make a career in the sport.
In May 2013 nineteen year old Sam Chalmers the son of former Scottish international rugby union fly half Craig, tested positive to anabolic steroids when on Scotland Under-20s duty. He was suspended for two years after pleading guilty.
On his return to rugby after serving his suspension Sam Chalmers told the Guardian ““I have been stupid, naive and impressionable and would urge other young players not to give in to the constant pressure to be bigger in the manner that I did,”
Chalmers was in the gym trying to bulk up when he was offered supplements by others at the gym, and foolishly took them without checking what they contained. The supplement market has become a huge market for budding sports stars. At the time of his suspension Chalmers said in a statement “After my experience, I would certainly encourage young players to seek out the correct advice from the right places before taking any kind of supplement or product.”
Chalmers is not alone in trying to take a short cut, in South Africa where a professional rugby contract is seen as life-changing, and a chance to earn a fantastic wage as well as give a player an opportunity overseas, many are taking supplements, but worse some are taking steroids while at school and there have even been stories of parents injecting their own children with them.
A week ago this writer witnessed a similar sitiuation to the two footballers with another player who had excelled at under 21 level. They had been recognised as a talent and were put into a State Institute of Sport program. Here they were given a training program that changed their natural body shape. They too built up muscle, they became physically solid and strong. Yet again while developing their body strength they too had lost the turn of pace that took them away from a player. Yes, once they got going they still were quick, but they were no longer able to pull away from the opposition in the first two metres.
After watching the game and being saddened by what I had witnessed this writer went away and looked at who was in charge of the strength and conditioning program that had allowed this to happen. Incredibly the person in this role had obatined auch a position straight out of University with only three roles assisting top flights sports while at University. What practical knowledge did they have to land such an important role? These are the athletes of the future, they deserve the very best in terms of supprt for these young players to fulfil their potential. Did they land this role because the salary was too low to attract the best and most experienced people to help these athletes achieve?
It is extremely troubling to know that someone with so little experience has such an important role. Yet this is commonplace in sport today where inexperienced individuals are given roles that they simply should not have. However, this one has the potential to shatter dreams and careers. The mental fall out does not even bear thinking about.
It begs the question what has happened to Australian sport? A question that many were asking and predicting ten years ago when they started to witness the off field expertise heading overseas.
Are these situations arising now because the sports themselves can no longer pay the top dollar that those with the expertise are worth? Is that why we are seeing lesser qualified individuals taking up important roles across so many sports? Roles that are often above their level of competence.
Gone are the days where the AIS (Australian Institute of Sport) or their State counterparts have the best specialists in the key support fields. Sadly twenty years ago we saw the individual sports wanting to have their own experts, rather than relying on the institute staff, then they wanted an expert for each team. Not surprisingly the quality became diluted and performances suffered.
Then there is the role of the High Performance Director it has been assumed is one in which the skills are transferrable. That may be the case at a certain level of competition but at the very highest level it is very clear that it is not. How can such individuals who have worked for ten years or more with athletes competing in individual events have the knowledge required for a different sport and a team-based one?
The same question has been asked of some strength and conditioning coaches.
This puts those who do the hiring of these experts under the microscope, the board and often the CEO. How much knowledge and experience do they have today to make the right decisions, and is it comparable to those who came before them?
There are many who talk about keeping the love of playing alive. The fearlessness of youth, and the bravado with which each game is approached in a life that is measured in seasons not matches, and the belief that next season will always be better. At the highest level is not life now measured on a game to game basis?
It was interesting to read recently how in England where the next generation of talent coming through is so often the focus, especially in football, it was claimed that the sport has in fact marginalised the youth. The claim was that in the 1990’s more than a quarter of those going to watch football in the four professional leagues were younger than 25. The dawn and cost of all seater stadia saw the prices rise across the country, and by 2009 the average age of fans was now 41. Now the youth simply cannot afford to go.
There would be many who grew up in England who will remember areas set aside for kids, The Boy’s section. Even in the National Soccer League in Australia, Perth Glory had a section in front of the shed for children, and father’s would drop off their children in that area and go and join the throng in the shed. Incredibly some clubs today have no reduced prices for children. Parents must buy a family pass.
It would appear gone are the days when twelve year old boys or girls would go to the game on their own with pocket money given by their parents for their entry, some snack and the bus fare home. The youth are virtually forgotten today at live games. So where will they get their inspiration?
To be a mascot was a huge thing back in the day as there was only ever one per game. After Euro 2000 suddenly every player from each side had a mascot that they walked onto the field of play with.
Once again it was disheartening to hear that today there are often conditions attached to such opportunities. Some clubs insist that for a child to be chosen they must be a fully paid up member of the club’s official supporters club. English Premier League Clubs it has been reported now charge around UKL300 for the honour, and one club offered a discount price of UKL150, but it did not include a ticket to the game!
Needless to say that these prices exclude many from ever having that opportunity, Instead of using this opportunity to inspire, and go to schools and offer the privilege for free, clubs have turned it into revenue raising.
The world has clearly changed, and those at both ends of the sporing spectrum it is fair to say are often struggling to find common ground. While yesteryear attention was focussed on skill and technique where learning and standards were passed down to each generation, today the focus is more on fitness, athleticism and formations.
The FIFA World Cup that has just finished was not a great advertisement when it comes to standards of behaviour. This is because those at the top failt to adhere to their own rules, and the laws of the game that exist are not applied. The recent FIFA World Cup was a glowing example of this.
While many of the older generation view the players as having ‘gone soft’ they fail to understand that rightly or wrongly the ‘character-building’ methods and communication of the past is seen as bullying today. As has been witnessed with legal cases being mounted by some parents on behalf of their children against professional clubs coaching staff.
There are plenty who are not fans of the academy systems cropping up in all sports around the world. Ordinary community clubs give young players the opportunity, and as soon as they show a modicum of talent they are snatched away by a professional club.
In 2012 as a result of the belief that there had been a drop in standards by the England National football team, along with a declining number of homegrown players getting valuable match time in the English Premier League The Premier Leagues Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) was created. This saw 13,000 talented youngsters aged from 9-18 placed into four groups. From age 11-16 there is full time education for these children and from 16-18 further education to give these young people skills and qualifications away from football.
The clubs are now spending between UKL2-5M a year on these academies and these young players. The plus, as England’s recent World Cup performance will show is that the standards have improved, and in 2024 English players had more game time in the Premier league than they had had for 17 years!
The downside that is common with all of these type of ventures in sport is that people see opportunities to benefit themselves. It has been reported that there are now three times as many coaches in the EPPP as there were when it was set up, which now has people asking is it sustainable. Not only that, but whether all of these coaches are in fact benefitting those they are there to help improve. Are they qualified for that role?
Coaching too has shifted to a worldwide trend of telling players to limit their guile and skill rather than teaching a young player when to use it to maximum effect. The edict is not to make mistakes. A player following their natural instincts is seen to be risky. They must conform to these wishes or they are branded ‘trouble makers’ and will be dropped for someone who will conform.
Australia, which used to lead the world in so many sports has fallen into this same trap. Here is a country that has historically stuck two fingers up at conformity but it is now trying to enforce such behaviour.
This conformity comes not only in behaviour and playing habits, but also physical attributes, hence the pressure on players to become “stronger.” Size has also become a big factor, although one wonders why? Just think of Messi and Maradona, neither tall men but huge in stature within the game in terms of ability. It is interesting to note that both Harry Kane and Declan Rice who starred for England at the recent World Cup were dropped from the academy system for being too small! Clearly they both proved those decision-makers wrong.
There are still question marks over the academy system in terms of them actually producing talent, but Australia in some sports has blindly followed suit. If there are not academies there are Development Squads. Why is Australia suddenly following where it used to lead? Is this purely because they acknowledge the possible revenue that can be generated?
As has been quoted many times on this site, in his book “No Hunger in Paradise” Michael Calvin wrote that 98 percent of players within the academy system at 16 were not playing in the top five leagues in England by the time they were 18. One statistic revealed that 70% of former top tier academy players was not given a professional contract in the English Premier League, or with an English Football League club. So why stick with such a system if the returns are not there? Why follow a system that is not giving you the results you need?
This proves again that being chosen at such a young age is no guarantee of success at the highest level. Some will tell you that who the coach is will play a huge part in how far you go. With so many coaches involved, including strength and conditioning coaches this can now become a minefield to navigate for a young talented individual who just wants to play.
When they become a part of an academy, an Institute of Sport or a High Performance Program these young players understandably believe that they are now being helped by the best there is. Sadly that is not always the case.
Not surprisingly with so many players being released before they have come close to their dream the focus in England shifted to look at how these players were treated when they were let go. In a few words, ‘they were on their own.’ They were left to sort it out on their own. Football has been heavily criticised over this issue.
The same again is happening in Australia. In Football, players join A-League clubs NPL sides because they are sold a dream, that if they want to play in the A-League they must be a part of that youth system. Very few come through that system and make it to establish a regular place in the A-League. What care is given to those discarded?
The same is true of players selected in development squads in other sports, or who have played at under 21 level internationally, but cannot break into a senior squad. When a team has a centralised program with a contracted squad, it becomes incredibly hard for these players despite their form to break into the national team. I
s it any wonder so many become demoralised? Also does such a system guarantee that the best players are being picked at the time, or the most in form? Restricting selection to one group over a long period of time, may well be another reason why results for some teams who have adopted such a system have dropped off.
As one sports psychologist revealed for those dropped at this stage in their sporting career or left out “many suffer high levels of Psychological distress which can last a long time.”
So how many sports have open dialogue with these players as to where they are in their career, what they ned to work on. Even that they are at risk of being dropped from the program before it happens. Communication is so important, yet so many coaches put the onus back on the player and claim it us up to them to ask what they need to do. Yet this generation is not one that is comfortable asking such questions.
There has been a great deal of criticism levelled at the lack of a duty of care by the English Football clubs with these adolescent players, which appears to be justified. The argument that you have to be mentally tough to make it to the top does not carry much weight today. Yes, you do, but surely you also have a responsibility to nurture and educate those who may not have the skills or initially that mental toughness to get to that level?
In Australia across many sports there are players with bucketloads of ability, who do have the mental toughness, but what they won’t do is suppress their natural talent, for there is no enjoyment and no challenge in doing that. Like Laurie Nash they simply want to play, compete and win.
Most of us like a challenge as it helps build our own belief and self esteem. Most coaches will tell you that they see their role as a challenge trying to win key tournaments, so why are they so myopic when it comes to seeing what players with natural ability and vision need to help bring about that success? Trying to turn an athlete into a quality player in a sport is proving to be misguided, how about trying to make the talented players better athletes?
Is this the preferred option because it guarantees job security and there will be less friction? No sports fan wants to believe that.
However, it is clear that Australia needs to have a shift in the way it develops its top sportspeople. It needs to abandon the desire to create obedient, reliable, automatons and welcome back those who reflect the Australian psyche. Who will stand up when needed for their team mates, and will do what is required in that moment; often thumbing their nose at the powers that be.
