Footballers in general have a bit of a reputation for being as thick as two short planks. Maybe this is a bit unfair, as for every John Terry or Wayne Rooney, there is a Frank Lampard or Theo Walcott to balance them out. However, fair or not, the stereotype sticks. Therefore, I thought it interesting that when you listen to our current team in interviews, they mostly come across as very bright and articulate. Even more so when you think about a couple of last year's departures - George Williams the university graduate, and Ashley Fletcher who apparently got straight A's in 11 GCSE's. I had thought it a coincidence, but it has been suggested that as part of our recruitment process, Hecky gives every potential new player an interview, which by all accounts sounds similar to a very tough job interview in a major company.This set me wondering whether the apparent intelligence of a lot of our players is not coincidental at all.
surely if a player was capable of scoring 25 goals and just as many assists it wouldn't matter if he was thick as **** or not
In general I would have tended to agree with you a few years ago, but I genuinely believe that as the game gets more and more technical, there are certain tactical aspects which must be far easier to grasp if you are of above average intelligence. Think about how intelligent articulate in general Dutch footballers seem to be - off the top of my head Hasselbaink, Gullit, Seedhorf, Rijkard, De Zeeuw, Koeman are all hugely intelligent men, and I don't doubt that it influenced the way they played.
Years ago when I was just a nipper, I remember my dad chatting to an ex-Red on our way into Oakwell. Unfortunately I cannot remember who it was. He argued that the difference between players in the top divisions from the bottom was that generally the better players were more intelligent. He did a good job of arguing his case. But I remember thinking it was a bit immodest because he had played in all 4 divisions and was basically saying "I am really clever". He could have been right on both accounts.
Marradonna, Gazza , Pele in his playing days, just depends how you interpret intelligence imo. Is it about how you learn things in life or mathematical etc diplomas.
Intelligence takes many forms. I have 2 degrees and a Degree equivalent but in the Australian Outback it is the Aboriginal who is the intelligent one. Footballers are brighter than in the past because they get 3 years more study than we had in the 60s.
I think Gazza is a good case in point. Some of his life decisions (including some in his playing career) have definitely been questionable - reportedly not joining Man Utd, for example, when Ferguson would probably have kept him on the rails. Some of his decision making on the field was also very poor. That tackle on Gary Charles stands out as one of his most costly. Would Gazza have done better on the pitch if he had a better brain in his head? I don't know. Would he have done better on his career trajectory and after retirement? Obviously it's speculation, but I honestly think he would.
I think some bosses/managers may be very wary of 'hiring' someone who seems brighter/better qualified than themselves.
