• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Natural talent

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
A doubt in my mind on all sports including cricket. There are so many sons of sportspersons who succeed in the same sport. Is it because of natural talent or since they have better access to facilities and coaching? Is natural talent real?
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
How many sons of sportspersons have actually succeeded in the same sport? If you look at the total number of sportsmen at the highest level in a particular sport, I would expect that number to be negligible.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Natural talent is real. Wouldn't matter how hard I trained or at which facilities, I'd still swim downwards after 400 metres and would never be Michael Phelps, and I'd still be timed with a sun dial over 100m on the track and never be Usain Bolt. Having said that, access to proper training and facilities enables you to get the best out of whatever talent you have.
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
How many sons of sportspersons have actually succeeded in the same sport? If you look at the total number of sportsmen at the highest level in a particular sport, I would expect that number to be negligible.
I will say representing the country in the same sport is a decent level of success. That way, there are so many people we can quote as examples.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Depends on the country, tbh. For example, if Steve Waugh's kid got picked as a middle order batsman for Australia right now, it probably wouldn't prove much.
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
I will say representing the country in the same sport is a decent level of success. That way, there are so many people we can quote as examples.
I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is, pick a sport, pick a nation, then look at the total number of athletes who have performed at the highest level for that nation, then look at how many of them had equally successful parents in the same sport? I would still say the number is negligible.
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Natural talent is real. Wouldn't matter how hard I trained or at which facilities, I'd still swim downwards after 400 metres and would never be Michael Phelps, and I'd still be timed with a sun dial over 100m on the track and never be Usain Bolt. Having said that, access to proper training and facilities enables you to get the best out of whatever talent you have.
This answers my question to a large extent, but still not 100% convinced that you could not have been successful if you had the minimum athletic build required for the sport and if you had trained since childhood for it.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Some nerd like Spark or SS who cares about maths **** could probably tell us whether there is some statistical significance in the number of representatives whose parents have also represented their countries as opposed to the something something the general population. I dunno.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Natural talent is real. Wouldn't matter how hard I trained or at which facilities, I'd still swim downwards after 400 metres and would never be Michael Phelps, and I'd still be timed with a sun dial over 100m on the track and never be Usain Bolt. Having said that, access to proper training and facilities enables you to get the best out of whatever talent you have.
Stealing that expression.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I will say representing the country in the same sport is a decent level of success. That way, there are so many people we can quote as examples.
And for every example you can quote, there's at least 250 who don't fit that example.
 

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
So for England I can only think of Chris and Stuart Broad as father and sons who've played (may well be others but none that spring to mind).........and we're up to cap # 671.

So your theory doesn't really stack up in this example anyway IMO cricaddict.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
So for England I can only think of Chris and Stuart Broad as father and sons who've played (may well be others but none that spring to mind).........and we're up to cap # 671.

So your theory doesn't really stack up in this example anyway IMO cricaddict.
You've had 13 father and sons fwiw. Two of which are in the side today.
 

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
Well tickle my **** till Friday.....whod've thought it.

Who are the ones in the side today??

Edit: really should've thought of the Cowdreys.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well tickle my **** till Friday.....whod've thought it.

Who are the ones in the side today??

Edit: really should've thought of the Cowdreys.
As well as Broad, Johnny Bairstow's dad David played for England.
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
I doubt W.G Grace had more training than all his brothers, but he certainly had more natural talent.
 

Top