AIBU to say private school children are much sportier & better musicians?

[Denimrevival]

Just on the back of comparing with friends & family with dc in private schools. The kids & their families are all naturally sporty & outdoorsy anyways but the school provides a vast range of sports with it's own pool & swim team.
Musically their kids all play 2 or three instruments all at least grade 4 or 5..
How do these private schools do the academics, music & sports to such a high standard? Do they also have a very good base if the kids are having sport & music reinforced outside school through their families lifestyles?

Dh and I were discussing our friends son who is extremely driven top of his sport trains daily and applying for US scholarships. He is driven Dh was similar but academically. Both state educated.
It’s quite rare but frankly your child is like that or they aren’t. I don’t think a school or parent can force it it has to come from them
I'd agree with this. I've taught at state schools with some pupils who were exceptional in music/drama/sport. They had a talent, their parents were fortunate to have the means to support the training/tuition and they had a good state offer.
I had friends who taught in private and they said that the smaller class sizes made it easier for pupils who required regular absences for their talent to get caught up because if a class of 18 is settled then they could spend a bit extra on the student who has been absent.

Anecdotally the talent seems to be innate to the child and then parents facilitate the talent in the way they believe is best for their children and family.

You may think it but the more you go around saying it, the fewer friends you'll have!

Yes, even in the most competitive state grammars and very selective of the private schools you will get those teenagers who are utterly focussed on something - it often comes from within the child (unless it is a Tiger mother type situation).

I genuinely don’t think you can force it - it’s innate. Like Billy Elliott!

It's true that you can't create talent where it doesn't exist, but innate ability alone is unlikely to lead to success in many fields.
Billy Elliot is fiction of course, and whilst there are similar real life stories they are few and far between. The "fairy story" of Billy Elliot is that his potential is recognised and he gets an opportunity that very few children from his background will ever experience. But without that opportunity and the decade or so of high quality training and gruelling practice that the film misses out completely, then child Billy would never have become Swan Billy no matter how much intrinsic talent he had.
To achieve highly in most fields you need some natural ability, some recognition that you have potential, good training and a lot of hard work and practice. If you have parents or someone else willing to facilitate that practice, both financially and logistically, you have a massive advantage over someone who doesn't, even if they have actually got more intrinsic ability. Money can't create talent but it can certainly nuture it. That's where the difference is.

Absolutely. Kids cannot take themselves to or pay for training until they're too old to be able to compete with those who started young (in most sports). Stories where kids from very poor backgrounds made it to elite levels usually either involve state-funded training programs (common in countries like China/Russia) or their talent being noticed by a scout/coach who then is prepared to train them for free. That's very rare unless parents encourage/facilitate it.

Anyway, as in many areas of life, hard work beats talent every time if the talented don't work hard. Natural talent alone will not get a kid to succeed in either sport or music.