Why do we never talk about how this over-engineering stuff relates to skill development? It's the same, no matter if you look at soccer stars, chess, or program

Why do we never talk about how this over-engineering stuff relates to skill development? It's the same, no matter if you look at soccer stars, chess, or programming. In the beginning people are clueless and just try to make things change and take a horrible amount of time for it. Then they start to develop some patterns. Then they see patterns from other people and choose one as their one true hammer that will hammer all the nails. Then he spents an awful time arguing why X and Y are nails. Then he sees that not all methods apply all the time and starts to balance them with each other. And finally if he gets that far, he will start to develop his real own, efficient methods. So where is the over-engineer in this? Not in the psychopath section but in the hammer-and-nail section. He developed far enough to be effecient in some ways but still waists quite some time on trying to make all the problems to apply to his solution. That's normal. That's also about the skill level that you SHOULD have when you leave a university type of education. In soccer that's the point where the usual children club stuff ends and they start to compete in serious competitions, maybe one age level below the one that gets public attention. You want to put people on this skill level against real tasks to realise that not everything is a nail. So instead of always blaming people for being in this level we should appreciate it. Our university education seems to work for that kind of job quite well. And then we should continue to put these people in the right environment to develop further and provide value to their teams despite the things that they still lack.