Today I read in the main stream media that the National Under 16 coach would be shortlisting players from the National Under 16 tournament based on work ethics as oppose to talent. He is of the opinion that players who work hard can acquire the skills while talented players maybe lazy and may not work hard. Indeed if any, the Under 16 coach may have started a debate similar to "the chicken and egg saga " i.e which came first. He is probably going to encourage people to go fruitlessly round and round without a clear cut solution.
My advice to the Under 16 coach is to be careful with his statements as they maybe misconstrued. If he believes a player with good work ethics can acquire skills than why not a talented lazy player be taught good work ethics. The point is the thinking process must be a 2 way approach, not a one way street. Unless of course the Under 16 coach is creating an environment for players by stating that even if you are not skillful, as long as you can work and play hard, you have an opportunity to be called up to the national squad. This i believe is a worthy statement, provided the aspect of talented players is not undermined.
I think the Under 16 coach must not create a warfare between talent and work ethics. In modern hockey both have their respective importance. What must be understood is that both bio- medicine and sports science provide a scientific basis for the optimum usage of players. Therefore, it is the intuition of the coach, when and how to use the player becomes the crux of the decision making. So modern hockey is a combination of various facets and how well they integrate becomes the key to a team's performance. Essentially, this is the role the coach has to undertake.
I wish the Under 16 coach happy talent spotting , as that is the universal terminology used in identifying players. It is not "work ethics" spotting.