Psychologists and social scientists have argued the Nature-Nurture debate for decades and although the obvious conclusion is that we are a product of both breeding and circumstance, it is what we do with what we are that matters in the end. Some inheritable characteristics will be passed on from parent to child, be it intellect or sporting prowess, and while those traits we are born with will aid in what we accomplish in our lives, it’s really what happens along the way that matters most.
By Michel Marnewick
The role of genetics actually plays a fairly insignificant minor role in the development of success. Consider this interesting statistic: in the history of Springbok rugby, there have been just eleven cases where a father and son both represented South Africa. In the first decade of the new millennium, there have been five: Wikus van Heerden (father Moaner), Andries Bekker (Hennie), Schalk Burger (Schalk Senior), Ruan Pienaar (Gysie) and Flip van der Merwe (Flippie).
The six others were Felix and Mornée du Plessis, Alf and Harry Walker, Mauritz and Derek van den Berg, Cecil and Mike Jennings, Louis and Uli Schmidt and Joggie and Joggie Viljoen.
Of 818 players to be capped at Test level for the Springboks by 2010, only eleven were sons of Springboks. At less than 1%, this is what statisticians would call insignificant.
Looking at hereditary factors in a different light, of those 818, there were 26 sets of brothers: Geo and Jacques Cronjé, Akona and Odwa Ndungane, and Jannie and Bismarck du Plessis are the latest trio. Again, at 3%, this is so statistically insignificant as to prove a rule that your genes are a miniscule part of what you can or will eventually achieve, and to what degree of success.
While you can’t totally discount that talent is, to a small degree, inherited, it’s what a person does with that talent that will determine whether they will taste glory or be forced to watch from the sidelines as John Smit holds aloft another trophy, sporting cuts, bruises, stitches and blood, a gladiator, a warrior who could not be defeated.
The Springbok captain grew up dreaming of playing in a Wimbledon final but ended up a rugby champion. He didn’t do it alone; he was a product of a very supportive upbringing, a good school and, like most successful people in the world, was encouraged to go beyond the boundaries of mediocrity.
Left to his own devices, even the most talented sportsman will fail. Without guidance as a youngster, or the support through training, setting goals and being pushed to go further and further, success is a chasm too deep and wide to cross.
How many bright young talents have slipped through the system simply because they weren’t given the opportunities others had? The schools they attended did not have the prestige and glamour of those which that supply each next successive generation of provincial and international athletes.
“Good rugby players come from good schools,” Professor Tim Noakes explains. “Jake White explained that you had to have kids who came from schools where there was competition. It is the kids who come from famous rugby playing schools, who always played tough games and tough competitions, who make it in the end.”
But he also provides a very interesting cultural dichotomy, which came out of a discussion he had with Indian cricketer Rahul Dravid. “I asked him how he copes with his wealth, what keeps him going, and he explained that he came from Indian middle class where money wasn’t really that much of an issue; they didn’t have that much but it was never important. He just loved playing cricket, but many of the kids who come from wealthy families in India just aren’t interested in playing competitively, and the poor families can’t afford it. So it was very complex – coming from a wealthy family could be a disaster, it takes away the motivation.”
In South Africa and certainly for many countries where you have a contrasting educational system between private and government schooling, those parents with the means to send their children to the expensive schools do so because they know that they are either going to receive the finest education or the best sporting opportunities.
While this isn’t an exact argument presented and proven in black and white – there will always be good government schools – the fact is, the best are expensive and they are the ones that invest heavily in education and sports facilities, ensuring success and the means to attract more pupils.
Shaun Pollock comes from good genes, and while he admits that some of his talent comes courtesy of genetic inheritance, there are other factors that also play a role.
“It must play its part, but genetics only takes you so far,” he says. “You have to nurture the talent you’re given from above and hard work, dedication and discipline are required to do that.”
The obvious point around the nature-nurture debate is that it is not the talent or genes you are born with, but what you do with them. It’s about dedication, discipline and the desire to win. Not about simply having the right genetics.
