So, if the good player is born, and it is not the patrimony of a few, but of many thousands to distinguish him? to what extent can the coach who discovers him and directs him towards a destiny that saves him from the anonymous one in which thousands of aspirants are left?
The act of selecting players born good players can not be enough as an index of soccer wisdom, if to the fact of the election is not added the act of the location in the field, in "the position" or in the most appropriate function to the conditions that that player brings by decision of his nature.
Always within the infinite variety that offers us the constant human inequality, which goes to the extreme of making different even the same twin brothers, we have to find, for example:
1.- Players of great ability without much intelligence.
2.- Players of great intelligence with little ball handling.
3.- Players of intelligence and ability without temperament for the fight, for the adversity that soccer, as every game, reserves to all.
4.- Players of much temperament and fighting spirit without cunning to apply it to the fight of roguery that in essence is soccer.
5.- Players of very different physical constitution.
I do not want to continue typifying, because I am aware of how impossible it would be to group all the human normo-types of this human variety without rules... The cases mentioned will suffice.
Those players, all of them apt to play well as owners of some virtue; could they do it in the position of construction or destruction of the game that they themselves chose from the informal infantile distribution?
In the second of the cases, that is, in the case of the players that with more aptitude for the destruction were oriented to tasks of game construction, or vice versa, is where, much more than in the election of the good player, we locate the degree of sapience of a soccer players' selector: he will approach the possibility of proving that he "knows" soccer, in the relation that he guesses right with the destination of those players to the most appropriate places to the nature that each one brings.
He will get closer to this possibility to the extent that he is able to advise him, and convince him, about the inconvenience of trying to do, in the function he assigns him, that where the player is less strong in resources. To put it more appropriately: what is not "for him", which can be as much the subtle in the player with little ball control, as the dedication to the game of force on the part of the player with physically weak ability.
Source image: Unsplash.
