it is both not either.

good psyche

good training / coaching / environment

being blessed with the right genes for whatever sport you excel in

all make positive influences

It is all about the 10,000 hours of input

I suggest reading Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell

Good question, but if someone was brought up without any sporting background, could they make it without any natural talent at an older age just through good training and hard work?

yes

i think there are some AFL players that have come from non football background countries as adults

Thanks for the book reccomendation BJF, I will get onto it.

More thinking specifially in basketball. For example did Shaquille O'Neal and Yao Ming have an easier time becoming NBA players due to their genetics? - Were they born to be athletes?

Yao is an interesting topic as by all reports I have read he was actually bred to play basketball. It is quite a disturbing story of how he was created.

Athletes are made. It's all about the mental discipline someone has to do the the training required, putting in the time needed to improve themselves physically and mentally, eat right etc.

50-60 years ago where the likes of "Sports Institutions" and "Conditioning Centres" didn't exist, you could have attributed "Natural ability" to people that stood out in their sport; but nowadays with the right knowledge about the sport and the contacts, any person can engineer themselves into being a great athlete; all about time and discipline to put into it.

Bit of both. Yes, Shaq and Yao had an easier road in because of their respective heights, but there are also a fair few giants around who don't cut it in sport.

I think modern sport is more about training and development though.

I agree above but my experience is the 1% genetic advantage separates the good player and the ones who are paid.

Very sport specific too.

AFL is a good example of everyone has a chance.

Swimming - no chance unless you are genetically inclined (eg size 20 feet)

Shaq, Yao v Manute Bol, Shawn Bradley

As far as I knew , I was a fairly good shooter and not much of a player.
A better junior than senior.
Those that worked harder went passed me.
We've all got it within us , for whatever we want to grasp for.
Basketball is 10% ability and 90% training .

definetely a bit of both but if your parents own the club, instantly these may not apply

For what its worth I think its an inversely proportional relationship between talent (born) and training (made) but that can be heavily skewed by which side of the fence you put attitude on! If you think attitude/work ethic/commitment is bred into you, then most athletes are made. If you think those attributes can be developed, then they are made. If you think its probably a bit of both, then we are back to a nice cross-shaped graph!

Ie, the les talent you have, the harder you have to work. There are absurdly talented athletes whose attitude sucks yet still make it (though i would suggest never to the very top) and there are very limited athletes whose attitude is fantastic who make it depsite their physical shortcomings.

I've long-maintained if you lined up Todd Woodbridge and Andrew Gaze along a line of the best 100 athletes in their sport, they are not near the top - yet both are arguably among our best-ever at their chosen sport.

Its when you get a top-ten athlete with a top-ten attitude that you get Jordanesque greatness. They're the guys whose athleticism gives them opportunity and they're attitude gives them longevity.

Then for each sport you need to overlay a threshold of primary attributes. If you're a 5'6 point guard with NBA aspirations, you'd better be amazing. Likewise if you are a 6'5 gymnast hoping to dominate the floor, maybe work on being an announcer.

Of course these thresholds are the a moveable feast depending on what level you are talking about. The lumbering ridiculed white guy who can't jump in the NBA is probably among the best 10% of athletes on the planet if you include everybody. He just looks pretty lame next to Superman!

Then there's the school of thought that says repetition is absolutely the key (along the lines of Gladwell's 10,000 hours theory) and a NY times article of a couple of years ago pointed to girls tennis schools in Russia where they aren't allowed to play matches, and girls golf schools in Korea where its all about the driving range as evidence. Google 'ny times myelinisation' for the article.

And then overlay all of that with the vast mysterious world of the BA development pathways! :)

Its much too complicated to give a yes or no answer. However there are subtly different answers depending on the sport. It is fair to say that the more "skill oriented" a sport is the more environment (experience, practice, coaching etc ) plays a part part. This in turn can be divided into individual vs team sports. For example, A 100m sprinter is a less skilled but explosive type activity. There is skill involved but whilst you can improve your speed, you are pretty much stuck with what you are born with. In other words if you are born slow you can work your arse off but at best, you will only ever be less slow, not quick. On the other hand, in more skill based activities, if you practice enough you can improve your skill set considerably and may well be considered very good but possibly not elite. The beauty of team sports such as afl etc are that they have such a diverse set of skills required you can often specialise and therefore be considered "elite" in a limited way. This can be more difficult in a sport such as tennis where you are required to master all skills to be elite. Because you cannot rely on others to cover your inadequacies, there is nowhere to hide.
Basically at the end of the day, you may well be blessed with inherited advantages ( limb size, feet size, peripheral vision etc) but it is what you do with these that are the most important contributor to success. All things being equal, the person with the most favourable inherited characteristics will be the more successfull, however we all know that it is not an equal playing field. Motivation, opportunity and a myriad of other factors play a major part. People have mentioned Gladwells 10000hrs of practice but have glossed over one of his major factors in determining likely success. Your date of birth. Guess you could argue that your birthday is a result of breeding!!!

This is a funky one, its funny people say they have natural talents. Kids are born with a blank slate, its their parents and their style of play that defines who they are and how well they are at sports. For example if your child plays games at a very young age that encourage development of their motor skills then later in life they will find it easier to learn how to throw, catch ect. This is highlighted alot by sporting parents, how their children seem to be natural athlete's while really its just that they were introduced into a family that focused on those skills, so they developed them as they grew at a faster rate than a child who did not have this introduction.
Oddly because of this a boy with brothers to play with, tumble on the ground and compete with will learn these skills often at a much higher level than compared to a boy who is surrounded by girls and therefore plays more "girl" games at a very young age.
Even a "natural" build player is someone who's body has been formed by their first years of play, height, weight, strenght can all be affected in the first 4-5 years of a childs life.

In saying all of that, having learnt a skill it then requires many hours of commited training in order to develop the level of skill we see today.

Some of you have mentioned Shaq and Yao a few times.

What about good old George Murshean?
Was he bred and groomed for basketball? lol

The DOB theory is another of gladwell's that suggest that elite athletes are all born within a certain few months of one another. The basis of the concept is that these peope are only better as they are born around the cut off dates for junior sport age changes so most elite athletes will be born a few months either side of Decemeber for basketball purposes.

The idea being that the kids that are bigger and stronger in their age group stand out and therefore receive more intensive training as kids. The ones chosen are usually say 9-11 months older in body size and shape than the other kids born on the wrong side of the cut off date.

Just did a quick DOB check on the 36ers

SA Born Ng , Hill, Holmes born in the last third of the year.

Do Victorian teams have a different age cut off date to SA as Rhys and Mitch are the 1st third of the year along with DJ and JD

Ballinger born in December , Shannon born in January and Ron Howard born in November. Winder was April

Sam Harris the outlier as he was born in May

if you take the suggested timing of birth into account of October to April for elite athletes the 36ers have 11/15 born in this slot .

Tom Daly's birthday is not listed on the website but he too was born in the first third being February making 12/15 if you take in Devries July DOB.

Considering Harris is the tallest man in Australia it would suggest that he was picked up anyway for additional training due to his size.

DeVries was acknowledged as the hardest training which could mean success came to him through his own hard work.

If you are born in May, June , July or August you have limited chances of being an NBL player

I haven't looked at all the other NBL teams but for instance Cairns have 9 players in the slot and 2 out, breakers have 9 in and 3 out

The ones out are either American or bigs like Loughton who would have stood out at a young age.

Brett Maher 17th April.
Andrew Gaze 24th July.
Magic Johnson 14th August.
Michael Jordan February.

These were the first four ballers I thought of and googled. DOB means nothing, any stat can be created to support any theory.

BJF - I think you'll find Gladwell's example with the hockey team, was at an underage championship. I think if you went to an U16 or U18 bball nationals, you'd find the same thing. Something like 50% between Jan -March & 75% between Jan - July.

That part of his analysis I agree with, however, he then suggests that because of the opportunities these kids get by being older/more physically developed, they have an advantage in making a career out of their chosen sport.

I actually find, in basketball, when you hit seniors, those born Sept - Dec have a greater chance of succeeding as they have spent the past x years playing bigger, older guys, and the advantage the January's have dries up.

Just my thoughts.

I agree that at open age groups at first look it doesn't appear to be a major factor, however without knowing the birth dates of every elite player in every sport it isn't really possible to argue one way or the other. There have been a few people selected at random but to do the theory justice we would need to consider every player in say NBL. However i can tell you this as fact. Two years ago I was at the under 16 National B'Ball championships at Ulverstone and I had just finished reading the "the outliers" and i had the Championship booklet with all the athletes and their birth dates in it. To cut a long story short i was bored one afternoon and decided to check the theory. Including males and females there where 260 basketballers (13 teams of 10 x 2(male/female)) I may be off by one or two (i am relying on memory) but there was only two (possibly 3) athletes born in Dec. ( out of 260!) Even more remarkably, The most athletes were born in Jan, the next most in Feb, the next most in March and so on all the way down to Dec. A bloody big coincidence! Sounds like bulls..t but I guess its easily checked if anybody could be arsed. I know it's not cut and dry but I thought it rather interesting.

I understand that if a person dosent train and practise you can't make it to the top level, therefore obviously nurture is necessary, but does a athlete need some 'natural ability' to make it to the top level?

No just very pushy parents

timely conversation http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6260592