So a similar discussion came up at the office, and I had to go into detail between the difference between knowledge and experience. The athlete example came up, and that is a flawed example. Let's examine why...
Although it is true that practice makes perfect for an athlete, it is just as important to practice properly. For example, shooting a basketball. Let's get two people of similar fitness and athletic background; neither have played basketball before. We let one study how to shoot from a book for X amount of hours. We let the other one have the same amount of time head start in the gym. Which one do you think is going to learn how to shoot faster? The one who studied shooting form will most likely learn to shoot before the one who had more gym time. The one who did not study can learn how to shoot, but it will most likely take the person longer. However, don't take my word for it. Lombardi says, "Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect." Or, in regards to basketball, Mullin says, "There are two roads to becoming a good shooter: Learning correct form and making 250-500 shots per day or shooting with bad form and making 2,500-3,000 shots per day." Even the pros still study tape.
The cake example is also flawed. Let's use the same test. Let's have two people with similar cooking experience. One is given a cookbook on cakes, and the other is given the same amount of time head start in the kitchen. The person who studied the cookbook has a better chance of successfully making a cake first, even if it is not on his or her first try.
Knowledge, experience, and expertise are all related, but they are also quite different. A coach may not have the experience of being a good player, but that doesn't discount his expertise and knowledge.