facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Cricket > Cricket

Cricket Join fellow Tigers fans to discuss all things Cricket

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 19, 2009, 12:09 AM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
Cricket Savant
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Location: Ω
Favorite Player: Rohit Sharma
Posts: 33,562
Default It takes 10 years to be an expert

How crucial is experience in being a key factor in winning? In this old article psychologists reveal that it takes about 10 years for someone to be an expert.
Authors also maintain it's not experience only but effortful study that determines a success in a given arena.

Consider our players experience:

Aftab: 2004-2009 (5 years )
Ash: 2001-2009 (8 years)
Razzak:2004-2009 (5 years)
Mashrafe:2001-2009 (8 years)
Shakib: 2006-2009 (3 years)
Farhad: 2006-2009 (3 years)
Rasel: 2005-2009 (4 years)
Shahadat: 2006-2009 (3 years)
Mushfiqur: 2006-2009 (3 years)
S. Nafees: 2005-2009 (4 years)
Tamim: 2007-2009 (only 2 years!!)

Mashrafe has clearly improved over the years but not Ash although in his defense there has been the added pressure of captaincy.

Psychologiss call this the 10 year rule and instead of refreshing our team every game like a 404 webpage, it's about time we choose some kye players and let them gel over the years. Maturity > talent and we shouldnt rely on a silver bullet of finding a bunch of new sensations or prodigious players whom we think will save us from misfortune like damsels in distress. (And it's not just about choosing a fixed 11 but a well-rounded team of 22 odd players that will adapt to all pitch conditions). It will take time....yes, we have heard this same excuse before but it's our TEAM which has been playing for 20 odd years not our players.

Culled from the article:
Quote:
The Expert Mind
Studies of the mental processes of chess grandmasters have revealed clues to how people become experts in other fields as well
By Philip E. Ross

A man walks along the inside of a circle of chess tables, glancing at each for two or three seconds before making his move. On the outer rim, dozens of amateurs sit pondering their replies until he completes the circuit. The year is 1909, the man is Jos¿ Ra¿l Capablanca of Cuba, and the result is a whitewash: 28 wins in as many games. The exhibition was part of a tour in which Capablanca won 168 games in a row.
How did he play so well, so quickly? And how far ahead could he calculate under such constraints? "I see only one move ahead," Capablanca is said to have answered, "but it is always the correct one."

He thus put in a nutshell what a century of psychological research has subsequently established: much of the chess master's advantage over the novice derives from the first few seconds of thought. This rapid, knowledge-guided perception, sometimes called apperception, can be seen in experts in other fields as well. Just as a master can recall all the moves in a game he has played, so can an accomplished musician often reconstruct the score to a sonata heard just once. And just as the chess master often finds the best move in a flash, an expert physician can sometimes make an accurate diagnosis within moments of laying eyes on a patient.

But how do the experts in these various subjects acquire their extraordinary skills? How much can be credited to innate talent and how much to intensive training? Psychologists have sought answers in studies of chess masters. The collected results of a century of such research have led to new theories explaining how the mind organizes and retrieves information. What is more, this research may have important implications for educators. Perhaps the same techniques used by chess players to hone their skills could be applied in the classroom to teach reading, writing and arithmetic.

The Drosophila of Cognitive Science

The history of human expertise begins with hunting, a skill that was crucial to the survival of our early ancestors. The mature hunter knows not only where the lion has been; he can also infer where it will go. Tracking skill increases, as repeated studies show, from childhood onward, rising in "a linear relationship, all the way out to the mid-30s, when it tops out," says John Bock, an anthropologist at California State University, Fullerton. It takes less time to train a brain surgeon.
....
Recent research has shown that de Groot's findings reflected in part the nature of his chosen test positions. A position in which extensive, accurate calculation is critical will allow the grandmasters to show their stuff, as it were, and they will then search more deeply along the branching tree of possible moves than the amateur can hope to do. So, too, experienced physicists may on occasion examine more possibilities than physics students do. Yet in both cases, the expert relies not so much on an intrinsically stronger power of analysis as on a store of structured knowledge. When confronted with a difficult position, a weaker player may calculate for half an hour, often looking many moves ahead, yet miss the right continuation, whereas a grandmaster sees the move immediately, without consciously analyzing anything at all.
....
The conclusion that experts rely more on structured knowledge than on analysis is supported by a rare case study of an initially weak chess player, identified only by the initials D.H., who over the course of nine years rose to become one of Canada's leading masters by 1987. Neil Charness, professor of psychology at Florida State University, showed that despite the increase in the player's strength, he analyzed chess positions no more extensively than he had earlier, relying instead on a vastly improved knowledge of chess positions and associated strategies.
....
In the context of chess, the same differences can be seen between novices and grandmasters. To a beginner, a position with 20 chessmen on the board may contain far more than 20 chunks of information, because the pieces can be placed in so many configurations. A grandmaster, however, may see one part of the position as "fianchettoed bishop in the castled kingside," together with a "blockaded king's-Indian-style pawn chain," and thereby cram the entire position into perhaps five or six chunks. By measuring the time it takes to commit a new chunk to memory and the number of hours a player must study chess before reaching grandmaster strength, Simon estimated that a typical grandmaster has access to roughly 50,000 to 100,000 chunks of chess information. A grandmaster can retrieve any of these chunks from memory simply by looking at a chess position, in the same way that most native English speakers can recite the poem "Mary had a little lamb" after hearing just the first few words.
...
A Proliferation of Prodigies
The one thing that all expertise theorists agree on is that it takes enormous effort to build these structures in the mind. Simon coined a psychological law of his own, the 10-year rule, which states that it takes approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field. Even child prodigies, such as Gauss in mathematics, Mozart in music and Bobby Fischer in chess, must have made an equivalent effort, perhaps by starting earlier and working harder than others.

Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time. It is interesting to note that time spent playing chess, even in tournaments, appears to contribute less than such study to a player's progress; the main training value of such games is to point up weaknesses for future study

Then again, Capablanca and his contemporaries had neither computers nor game databases. They had to work things out for themselves, as did Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, and if they fall below today's masters in technique, they tower above them in creative power. The same comparison can be made between Newton and the typical newly minted Ph.D. in physics.
....
At this point, many skeptics will finally lose patience. Surely, they will say, it takes more to get to Carnegie Hall than practice, practice, practice. Yet this belief in the importance of innate talent, strongest perhaps among the experts themselves and their trainers, is strangely lacking in hard evidence to substantiate it. In 2002 Gobet conducted a study of British chess players ranging from amateurs to grandmasters and found no connection at all between their playing strengths and their visual-spatial abilities, as measured by shape-memory tests. Other researchers have found that the abilities of professional handicappers to predict the results of horse races did not correlate at all with their mathematical abilities.
....
The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born. What is more, the demonstrated ability to turn a child quickly into an expert--in chess, music and a host of other subjects--sets a clear challenge before the schools. Can educators find ways to encourage students to engage in the kind of effortful study that will improve their reading and math skills? Roland G. Fryer, Jr., an economist at Harvard University, has experimented with offering monetary rewards to motivate students in underperforming schools in New York City and Dallas. In one ongoing program in New York, for example, teachers test the students every three weeks and award small amounts--on the order of $10 or $20--to those who score well. The early results have been promising. Instead of perpetually pondering the question, "Why can't Johnny read?" perhaps educators should ask, "Why should there be anything in the world he can't learn to do?"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind
__________________
It is a far finer gambit than any chess play: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game. -GH Hardy

Last edited by Zeeshan; March 19, 2009 at 12:37 AM..
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old March 19, 2009, 12:18 AM
kalpurush's Avatar
kalpurush kalpurush is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: June 7, 2005
Location: Victoria: Heaven's Earth!
Posts: 19,097

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gopal Bhar
How crucial is experience in being a key factor in winning? In this old article psychologists reveal that it takes about 10 years for someone to be an expert.
Authors also maintain it's not experience only but effortful study that determines a sucess in a given arena.

Consider our players experience:


Mashrafe:2001-2009 (8 years)
Shakib: 2006-2009 (3 years)


Mashrafe has clearly improved over the years
..and Shakib is the world's #1 allrounder in 3 years!!!
__________________
> Start slow. Build a base. Then explode.
> I needed to perform so that I could give my countrymen an occasion to cherish and be proud of - Ice Man
> My photographs @ flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/obayedh/
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old March 19, 2009, 12:28 AM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
Cricket Savant
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Location: Ω
Favorite Player: Rohit Sharma
Posts: 33,562

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalpurush
..and Shakib is the world's #1 allrounder in 3 years!!!
Well to be honest in his thread last time I checked he dropped to #11, (although it has to be verified).

But imagine what he can be in 7 years time? He can surely rise to Lara's calibre or soar to Tendulkar's status. He shouldnt be content with this result only.

p.s. Read the book Blink! where a tennis coach could predict like a psychic whether a serve will be faulty or not just by looking at the player....such is the power of intuition developed over years of experience.
__________________
It is a far finer gambit than any chess play: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game. -GH Hardy
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old March 19, 2009, 12:45 AM
Rabz's Avatar
Rabz Rabz is offline
BanglaCricket Staff
BC - Bangladesh Representative
 
Join Date: February 28, 2005
Location: Here
Favorite Player: Father of BD Cricket
Posts: 20,542

Jar hoy, tar noi (9) tei hoy,
jar hoy na...
tar nira nobboi (99) teo hobena..

Once a (ash)fool, always a fool.
__________________
Verily, in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest [Al-Qur'an,13:28]
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old March 19, 2009, 12:49 AM
thebest thebest is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: February 21, 2005
Location: in the blue planet
Posts: 3,822

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabz
Jar hoy, tar noi (9) tei hoy,
jar hoy na...
tar nira nobboi (99) teo hobena
..

Once a (ash)fool, always a fool.
One of my mom's favorite quote whenever my siblings or I failed in something
__________________
Twenty20 is not a gentleman's game. It's like a one-night stand and not a marriage. It is a street format and the goonda doesn't know what is a late cut or a cover drive
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old March 19, 2009, 12:57 AM
kalpurush's Avatar
kalpurush kalpurush is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: June 7, 2005
Location: Victoria: Heaven's Earth!
Posts: 19,097

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gopal Bhar
Well to be honest in his thread last time I checked he dropped to #11, (although it has to be verified).
Here it is...
Shakib Al Hasan


Current ODI Rating
Current ODI Ranking
Highest Rating
Highest Ranking
Date of Birth
ODI Debut
Last ODI Match
Batting Style
Bowling Style

> 403
> 1
> 403 - ( 23/01/2009 )
> 1 - ( 19/01/2009 )
> 24/03/1987
> 06/08/2006
> 23/01/2009
> LHB
> LMF







__________________
> Start slow. Build a base. Then explode.
> I needed to perform so that I could give my countrymen an occasion to cherish and be proud of - Ice Man
> My photographs @ flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/obayedh/
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old March 19, 2009, 01:04 AM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
Cricket Savant
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Location: Ω
Favorite Player: Rohit Sharma
Posts: 33,562

thanx kalpurush bhai...i double checked and it was my mistake, nycpro wrote it was *test* all rounder rankings...

how callous of me
__________________
It is a far finer gambit than any chess play: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game. -GH Hardy
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old March 19, 2009, 01:11 AM
kalpurush's Avatar
kalpurush kalpurush is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: June 7, 2005
Location: Victoria: Heaven's Earth!
Posts: 19,097

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gopal Bhar
thanx kalpurush bhai...i double checked and it was my mistake, nycpro wrote it was *test* all rounder rankings...

how callous of me
I though it was Mr. Ahad Ali Sharker...
__________________
> Start slow. Build a base. Then explode.
> I needed to perform so that I could give my countrymen an occasion to cherish and be proud of - Ice Man
> My photographs @ flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/obayedh/
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old March 19, 2009, 06:52 AM
Gowza Gowza is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Australia
Favorite Player: Mike Procter
Posts: 12,043

the inexperience isn't an excuse anymore because alot of other teams now are also inexperienced plus in general BD players are below par at their age than others of the other test nations. the other test nations regularly produce players in their late teens/early 20s who are of international quality from the beginning of their career i.e. batsmen who average 30+ and bowlers who average under 30.

i'm not saying the whole team should be international quality from such a young age but more than there are atm should be. i completely agree with the 22 (i'd rather 25) core group of players, with that in mind who would you put in this core group? for me there are 30+ players worth considering, obviously only 25 at any one time can be in that core group, though that core group should be revised from time to time.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old March 19, 2009, 06:55 AM
Akib's Avatar
Akib Akib is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: February 27, 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Favorite Player: Graeme Smith
Posts: 5,856

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gowza
the inexperience isn't an excuse anymore because alot of other teams now are also inexperienced plus in general BD players are below par at their age than others of the other test nations. the other test nations regularly produce players in their late teens/early 20s who are of international quality from the beginning of their career i.e. batsmen who average 30+ and bowlers who average under 30.

i'm not saying the whole team should be international quality from such a young age but more than there are atm should be. i completely agree with the 22 (i'd rather 25) core group of players, with that in mind who would you put in this core group? for me there are 30+ players worth considering, obviously only 25 at any one time can be in that core group, though that core group should be revised from time to time.

Well their domestic structure allows them to play more quality games at a younger age. Ours isnt that much quality.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old March 19, 2009, 08:34 AM
Tigers_eye's Avatar
Tigers_eye Tigers_eye is offline
Cricket Savant
 
Join Date: June 30, 2005
Location: Little Rock
Favorite Player: Viv Richards, Steve Waugh
Posts: 31,464

The so called psychologist's degree needs to be revoked. signed Tendu, Azhar and a host full of cricket players.
__________________
The Weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is an attribute of the Strong." - Gandhi.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old March 19, 2009, 10:09 AM
abu2abu abu2abu is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: Paris
Favorite Player: Ian Bell, aftab ahmed
Posts: 1,423

I agree inexperience is no longer an excuse, but we shouldn’t give up hope too soon either. In fact anything other than exposure at the top level could be a hindrance. Look at owais shah, he 's 30+ years old now and has played plenty of ODIs, U19 games and A team matches and still struggles to assert himslef at the top of the order.

I am hopeful that our current bunch of boys will become world beaters in due course. It just might take longer than we anticipated. Check out Mike Selvey's latest piece on Chanderpaul: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog...indies-cricket

Shivnarine Chanderpaul was then a young man on an adventure, just 22 years old in his 13th Test match and still fresh away from Unity village on Guyana's north-east coast. He had yet to make a Test century. Set 340 to win, West Indies were in trouble when Chanderpaul, a slender angular kid, joined Carl Hooper in a rumbustious charge so violent that Warne, the potential match-winner, was withdrawn from the attack.

That was in 1996, some ten+ year’s later he has become a world beater. Ash debuted in 2001, I expect great things by 2011...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old March 19, 2009, 10:30 AM
FagunerAgun FagunerAgun is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 18, 2006
Favorite Player: Rafiq and Tendulkar
Posts: 5,636

Mashrafe has clearly improved over the years but not Ash although in his defense there has been the added pressure of captaincy.
Captancy is not an excuse. All other team captains for other nations are performing much better than Ash relatively.
In this process of ten years, we need to see gradual improvement in performance while in Ash's case, we see a gradual slide in performance and decision making on the field.
Actually, all psychology and reasons fail with him while favoritism works with him. Luck favors only the courageous ones.

Last edited by FagunerAgun; March 19, 2009 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old March 19, 2009, 03:02 PM
nycpro96's Avatar
nycpro96 nycpro96 is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Favorite Player: Tamim Iqbal
Posts: 6,062

this is semi true. for cricketing standards, it shouldnt take a cricketer 10 years to become an expert or maybe it should but our cricketers dont need to become 'experts'.i think we fans would be happy with just good results and good character and good cricketing skills from our boys. just look at shakib who in 3 years became the world's #1 ODI Allrounder. I think everyone has the potential to do good but only some could/can be GREAT (modern era, lara & tendulkar & murali etc.). those guys are what would can be considered a cricket expert.
__________________
Reporter: You could hit the first ball for 4 couldn't you?
Tamim: Ha, I could hit the first ball for 6, that's not a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old March 19, 2009, 03:52 PM
crikfreak's Avatar
crikfreak crikfreak is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 11, 2008
Location: Sharjah, UAE
Favorite Player: MASHRAFE MORTAZA
Posts: 2,300

u could apply the "10 year rule" elsewhere... but how can u apply it in cricket when a player gets to play for about 10-15/18 yrs in his career... especially pace bowlers... i mean... if it takes u 10 years to become an expert.. u've have only about 5-6 years to p[lay like an expert...

in cricket... i think it shouldn't take more than 5-6 years... but... this is my opinion only....
__________________
EAST OR WEST..... MASHRAFE IS THE BEST!!!

Last edited by crikfreak; March 19, 2009 at 04:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old March 19, 2009, 04:14 PM
Gowza Gowza is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Australia
Favorite Player: Mike Procter
Posts: 12,043

people forget that cricketers start from early teens or even younger, don't discount age group cricket and the lesser levels of cricket. those various levels also teach and also give experience to the players. they don't start getting experience and/or learning from when they hit the national team, the journey starts long before then, it's just a less effective system in BD than in other test nations.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old March 19, 2009, 05:31 PM
LateCut's Avatar
LateCut LateCut is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: February 4, 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,389

I have several decades on me. However, I am expert at nothing! In this respect I feel a kinship to Ashraful. My God! I will have a nightmare tonight.
__________________
"....no victory or loss is final. They will compete again tomorrow and there will be another shot at redemption." Sambit Bal
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old March 19, 2009, 06:43 PM
alibangali alibangali is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 10, 2009
Location: lendon
Favorite Player: TIK47
Posts: 1,896

I agree with gopal bhar that players need time to settle and build team chemistry espicially our players since they are not groomed well domestically.
I also agree with akib that other test playing countries groom their players better so comparing with them is a no brainer. You cant expect players to come into the intl arena facing the world's best to suddenly display all their talent and skills when they have never expeienced this before. Our domestic cricket is dat much poorer. So lets cut some slack and give them some time to develop.

Because of our poor form and record playing the top teams it has naturally created pressure on all the cricketers espicially the captain. You cant compare this pressure to the pressure other countries face (since their cricketers dont have to deal with the bad reputation and humility that our cricketers face in their subconscious). So lets give our players some slack instead of constant bashing and negativity that we display which puts on even more pressure. We will only improve when we have a team of players that can rescue a game when other players fail, we cant only rely on a handful of players to win for us all the time.
The only way this can be achieved is if we given them time and support to gel together and instead of chopping and changing we just iron out the creases.
__________________
Cats Graduated to TIGERS 17-10-2010
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old March 20, 2009, 07:07 AM
Mahmood's Avatar
Mahmood Mahmood is offline
Administrator
Operations & Administrations
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: Montreal, Canada
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 7,809

It takes 10 years to produce the world's best all rounder? Any country will take that deal.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old March 20, 2009, 08:21 AM
Spitfire_x86's Avatar
Spitfire_x86 Spitfire_x86 is offline
Cricket Legend
Fantasy Winner: BD v NZ 2008
 
Join Date: December 17, 2004
Location: Dhaka
Posts: 7,712

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gopal Bhar
Consider our players experience:

Aftab: 2004-2009 (5 years )
Ash: 2001-2009 (8 years)
...
...
Tamim: 2007-2009 (only 2 years!!)
They've been playing cricket for much longer, I bet it'd be close to 10 years by now.
__________________
sig?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old March 20, 2009, 08:57 AM
Kabir's Avatar
Kabir Kabir is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: September 3, 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Favorite Player: Sakib - the real Tiger
Posts: 11,198

A general criticism to Gopala's theory:

Yes, it does take 10 years to be an expert, theory suggests. But that expertise is achieved through appropriate levels of training. In our case, don't confuse that with the players' international experience. They start preparing for it from an early age, through age-level cricket, club cricket, and so on.

In contrary to your theory, I would say, once someone is brought to the international arena, they should be pretty close to their 10-years-experience-level. I would say, it should happen at their 8-years-experience-level. There should be 2 additional years that the player should get to be at his best. But that's it...beyond that, if someone takes any longer...that person is a slow learner. Using this argument, I can also say that:
- Ashraful/Aftab/SN are mentally disabled
- Sakib/Mash/and the likes are normal
- Tamim/Mushy/and the likes are normal, but have only achieved 5-years-experience-level.
__________________
cricket is a PROCESS, not an EVENT or two. -- Sohel_NR
Fans need to stop DUI (Dreaming Under Influence)!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old March 20, 2009, 11:01 AM
Miraz's Avatar
Miraz Miraz is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: London, United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Mohammad Rafique
Posts: 15,036

I sincerely hope we do not have to search for another sports psychologists "15 year theory" after another 5 years.
__________________
You only play good cricket when you win/draw matches.
I am with Bangladesh, whether they win or lose . http://twitter.com/BanglaCricket
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old March 20, 2009, 11:20 AM
Beamer's Avatar
Beamer Beamer is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: December 15, 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Favorite Player: Viv Richards, Sid Crosby.
Posts: 9,728

I am not sure if 10 years in chess or music correlates to cricket or any other athletic sport. Sure, with playing one gathers experience, but that experience period can't be longer than a few years. Most athletes lifespan is less than 10 years and by the time you spend the hypothetical experience gathering period, you are probably out the door before you start flaunting that wisdom. Reflexes, ability to move quicker and see faster, diminishes with age and bagful of experience at that stage matter little. Just ask Habibul Bashar, who BTW did very very well when he was not 'experienced'!

Good read though Gopal bhai..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old March 20, 2009, 11:56 AM
Zunaid Zunaid is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: January 22, 2004
Posts: 22,099

I urge everyone to read Malcolm Gladwell's most recent book - Outliers. What makes a person successful? Why do some succeed and others never reach their potential. Superstars do not necessarily arise out of nowhere - "they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot."

Along the way he brings out his "10000 hour" rule. Greatness requires an enormous amount of time devoted to whatever one eventually achieves greatness. The Beatles had 10000 hours of playing time before they achieved fame in 1964. Bill Gates had acquired 10000 hours of programming by the time he went off to found MicroSoft.

Interestingly Gladwell himself says that it took him 10 years to achieve 100000 hours at his art before his first success.

Whether you agree or disagree with the premise, this is a fascinating book - written with the same engaging style I saw in his earlier books "The Tipping Point" and "Blink".
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old March 20, 2009, 12:30 PM
Tigers_eye's Avatar
Tigers_eye Tigers_eye is offline
Cricket Savant
 
Join Date: June 30, 2005
Location: Little Rock
Favorite Player: Viv Richards, Steve Waugh
Posts: 31,464

Just to put in prospective, 10,000 hours can be calculated as seven hours a day, close to four years every day. You plug in weekends that becomes 5 years. A Doctor must work for five years after he/she finishes pre-med. I can dig that.

I have really mastered Rubics cube and mine sweepers.
__________________
The Weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is an attribute of the Strong." - Gandhi.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket