I've been looking at how we defend on the ball and ways to train kids on the way up through their developmental teams:
1- It all starts with stance. No matter what age group I work with the largest issue is stance. In a defensive stance they must be low, strong, and explosive. The big mistake I often see is kids have their legs bent and lean forward with their arms out. This is not athletic. They need to be in a position of strength.
Look fors:
- Feet minimum shoulder width apart (inside of foot lined with outsdie of shoulder)
- Knee pointed forward, inside the width of their feet
- Heels not in contact with the floor.
- Butt down, back straight, chin out
- Hands should be above the height of the ball
Common errors:
- Flat footed - Not ready to move in any direction
- Head down or back bent forward, putting all the weight in one direction.
- Arms and hands down or in.
- Not in an athletic, strong. or balanced position to sruvive contact ro make an explosive move.
2- On the ball. This begins with a close out. In a close out the player must sprint at the ball carrier and once 2 sprint steps away, begin chop or "sttuter"stepping into the ball carrier in a defensive stance. They must position themselves in a manner which takes away whatever particular assest they are defending, they also need to take away as many directions of movement as possible so they can load up weight in their legs to anticpate the first move instead of reacting to it.
Look fors:
- Players are moving from low to high to get into position.
- 2 sprint steps away stance changes and choppy steps start.
- Hands above the ball.
- Chest & Feet square to the ball carrier between them and the rim.
- Chin up invading space.
- PLayers have taken away options from the attacker, so they can anticipate the next move.
- Feet must remain active.
Common errors:
- Players have straightened up or are too high on the way in and are dropping down into stance.
- Hands are in, on or below the height of the ball.
- Feet or chest are angled giving them an angle to attack.
- Defender is an arms length (or more) away allowing player to be a shooter, passer, and dribbler.
- No direction has been taken away so they weight is evenly distributed.
- Feet flat or legs straight.
3- Moving your feet. This is about hard work and good technique. If you are faster than your opponents you can basically do whatever you have to do to get there, but too many kids who are fast when they are young learn bad habits and as they get older cannot defend properly. At a low level we must teach kids to slide (which as a term is misleading) and then as they progress up through develop the ability to adjust from sliding to sprinting then back to sliding as a means of dealing with more advanced offensive footwork and athleticism.
The term "slide" does not really convey what the defender must do with their feet. The feet must make explsoive, lateral hops/chops to keep the defender moving, while allowing them to change direction. The weight must be on the push leg, with the knee angled well inside the plant foot. Then it is a quick lateral movement with both feet into the desired space. The arms should be pumping actively in the desired direction. The goal is to create 2 foot movement for every one of the offenses, beat them to desired space and all while staying in as low and explosive a stance as possible.
Look fors:
- Arms up and angled.
- Constant low stance, with heels off the floor.
- Movement resembling a push, or jump
- Quick, simultaneous movements with both feet onto new territory.
- New position should not overlap old position.
- Arms pumping laterally.
Common Errors:
- Arms are not up or moving. / Arms are reaching into or on the defender.
- Player is bobbing up and down, not staying in constanct stance.
- Movements resemble step and pull, or shuffling.
- Movements are 1 foot at a time.
- New position overlaps old position.
- Defender steps instead of "sliding".
Slide to sprint:
At higher levels vs athletic and/ skilled kids, if you haven't shut down the dribbler in one or two steps by the offense you will not regain position moving laterally while they move forward. At this point the defender needs to learn techniques involving arms and hip turning the sprint to get into a position where they can shut down the offensive player.
Arms - At low levels it is easiest to teach players not to reach in or put arms on the offensive players. At higher levels to negate skill, athleticism and the reality that they will be attacked with the free arm, kids need to learn some techniques. The first is an arm bar. If a player is creating space with their shoulder, use their forearm to get an angle or trying to get into contact with your chest or side players must arm bar. Your inside forearm must be placed above the height of the ball on the bicep or shoulder of the attacking player. The arm must intially be at a 45 degree angle or less and then extended to the 90 degree. As the arm extends you must move backwards in a two foot hop, keeping legs bent and muscles loaded for movement. After you re-establish position immediately remove your arm.
Hips - Generally your hips and chest should be square to the opponent between them and the rim. When unable to slide and keep in front the defender must "hip turn" in one movement the hips (and legs down to the feet) switch from square to hip tp hip. Since the defender does not need to expect space or time to adjust it is important to keep contact hip to hip. (If you lose contact the defender can change direction and pull back leaving you out of position.) Run hip to hip until the offensive player must slow down (out of room) or until you can get an angle to "hip turn' back in front in defensive stance and "slide" again.
Look fors:
- Arm comes up high @ 45 degrees when offensive player intiates contact.
- Arm extends as feet hop back to create space.
- Hips, feet, and legs all switch position in one movement.
- Contact is maintained until position is re-established.
Common errors:
- Arms end up on the body or lower arms of offense.
- Player extends arms without moving feet creating space instead of holding it.
- Arms remain on player when not recovering.
- Players are stepping out of slides into a run, in stages.
- Contact is not maintained, offense has room to escape.
In the next entry I'll include drills to support these concepts.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Players not plays.
I read a quote once that went something to the effect - "If your X's are twice as big as the other guys O's, then your X's look pretty good when they run your plays."
What I continue to take away from this quote is no matter what you run (or whether you run anything at all) your success is determined by the quality of your players against your opponents. For a long time I thought my job as a coach was to put in a system that if run properly would give us an advantage over our opponent. I've had high and low amounts of success with this concept. The two determining factors often tended to be how good the players in the system were and the level of our competition. You very quickly learn everyone has a system and if their ahtletes are bigger, faster, and more skilled their system wins.
Now I just try to make my players more skilled and work harder than our opponent. The reality then ,and now, is that we beat the other team when we play better, smarter, harder. Teams with more talent, size, skill or effort beat us everytime if they can at least match us in the other categories.
Now I spend less time on plays and more on skill. I want 5 players on the floor that can shoot it, and beat their player 1 on 1. I want 5 players who can handle the ball and make decisions. When you have 5 players that can do these things on the floor the game becomes so much simpler to coach and play. The guy with the ball makes a read to attack, everyone else reads and reacts, open guy scores the ball.
The same is true on defense. I don't need 6 different things we do on defense. I need 5 players that can use strength, footwork, and hustle to stop the ball. When we rotate, hustle, angle and battle harder then the other guy we win. When we don't, we lose.
Why do it:
1) You are actually coaching kids to play. Not making cogs in a system.
2) You end up with skilled kids that can play anywhere, any way for a lifetime.
3) Your job gets easier. Your not making adjustments for every detail and the emphasis becomes players learning, not you teaching.
4) Its player owned and operated. At game time its their reads, commitment (prior to and during), and ability that controls the outcome.
Why not to do it:
1) If you as a coach can't live with mistakes. This won't always be pretty, especially while the skills, minds and feet co-ordinate. If you need to mirco-manage and can't live with trial and error. This may not be for you.
2) If you can't live with short term butt kicking. In the developmental years and early on in their careers they are going to get beat. They will get beat because other teams use systems that maxmize the strength of their team without improving them for the future. In mini their big kid will score 20 pts a game on you because he/she was told to go stand by the rim and shoot. Your big kid is turning the ball over and feeling confused because they have to handle, pass and play on the wing. Short term success for them. In the long run your kids will be the better player in the short term they may lose.
3) If it is about your stuff. If you aren't ready to let kids go off plan, make reads, find their own ways to be successful, this isn't for you. If you have to know what your kids are going to do every second, not for you.
What I continue to take away from this quote is no matter what you run (or whether you run anything at all) your success is determined by the quality of your players against your opponents. For a long time I thought my job as a coach was to put in a system that if run properly would give us an advantage over our opponent. I've had high and low amounts of success with this concept. The two determining factors often tended to be how good the players in the system were and the level of our competition. You very quickly learn everyone has a system and if their ahtletes are bigger, faster, and more skilled their system wins.
Now I just try to make my players more skilled and work harder than our opponent. The reality then ,and now, is that we beat the other team when we play better, smarter, harder. Teams with more talent, size, skill or effort beat us everytime if they can at least match us in the other categories.
Now I spend less time on plays and more on skill. I want 5 players on the floor that can shoot it, and beat their player 1 on 1. I want 5 players who can handle the ball and make decisions. When you have 5 players that can do these things on the floor the game becomes so much simpler to coach and play. The guy with the ball makes a read to attack, everyone else reads and reacts, open guy scores the ball.
The same is true on defense. I don't need 6 different things we do on defense. I need 5 players that can use strength, footwork, and hustle to stop the ball. When we rotate, hustle, angle and battle harder then the other guy we win. When we don't, we lose.
Why do it:
1) You are actually coaching kids to play. Not making cogs in a system.
2) You end up with skilled kids that can play anywhere, any way for a lifetime.
3) Your job gets easier. Your not making adjustments for every detail and the emphasis becomes players learning, not you teaching.
4) Its player owned and operated. At game time its their reads, commitment (prior to and during), and ability that controls the outcome.
Why not to do it:
1) If you as a coach can't live with mistakes. This won't always be pretty, especially while the skills, minds and feet co-ordinate. If you need to mirco-manage and can't live with trial and error. This may not be for you.
2) If you can't live with short term butt kicking. In the developmental years and early on in their careers they are going to get beat. They will get beat because other teams use systems that maxmize the strength of their team without improving them for the future. In mini their big kid will score 20 pts a game on you because he/she was told to go stand by the rim and shoot. Your big kid is turning the ball over and feeling confused because they have to handle, pass and play on the wing. Short term success for them. In the long run your kids will be the better player in the short term they may lose.
3) If it is about your stuff. If you aren't ready to let kids go off plan, make reads, find their own ways to be successful, this isn't for you. If you have to know what your kids are going to do every second, not for you.
4) If you have clearly defined image of what you want every kid become. If in your mind you look at kids and have them pegged, pigeon holed, labeld or categorized this may not work for you. Tall cannot always = post and little cannot = shooter. You need to be willing to let kids work stuff out on their own for their own purposes not yours.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Getting a little handsy . . .
So I've been reading. What I've been looking at is the FIBA rules and the "Tower Philosophy" of advantage & disadvantage. I'ld like to say that this reading is beccause I have a genuine love of the game, but my movtives are a little more mercenary. I'm always looking to gain the extra understanding, language, or technique that I can pass on to help my kids be successful. My current adventure is out of a desire to reconcile what I'm seeing, experiecing and needing to coach in my summer work with BNB and what I'm seeing, experiencing and needing in my high school coaching.
My issue is with what to tell my kids. As a coach there is nothing more frustrating then telling a kid one thing and having him/her come back in the middle of a game upset because an official has contradicted something he/she has been told. The kid doesn't want either adult upset with them, what is a kid to do. I find this more often happens with hand, arm, body placement at both ends then it does with issues of violations or offensive skill execution.
What we need is an example. Case in point. Offensively and defensively we tell our girls (age 15-16) in the summer that there is going to be contact so they have to intiate it. "You can either, be the player getting hit or the one doing the hitting." Then they will go out and swim over on cuts, knock down arms in passing lanes, get forearm contact on screens, meet cutters with a forearm and hip, get hands in and out on the ball handler to keep distance and stop them from using their arms. We seem to have success and have been complimented on our aggression and physicality. Now when we come back to high school boys (age 14-19) we try to send the same message about being the aggressor we end up in foul trouble. I ask them to be proactive: jam and force the issue attack at both ends and we are told to back off. We are told we cannot reach, can not invade space, can not wrap. I hear a logical explanation and ask my kids to adjust because that is all we can do.
The issue comes down to advantage & disadvantage. Not all contact is basketball is foul, if it were then we would be out all night getting a half in. So the official uses their baseline rules about position and spirit of the game, while not allowing rough play, to determine whether illegal contact clearly and immediately gained an unfair advantage for one player or the other. What I struggle with is finding the middle ground to work with my kids. I struggle with how the same action can be good tough play in a 15 year old girls game, but excessive between to 17 year old boys.
Do not misunderstand. I have almost never recieved an explanation from an official that was not satisfactory. I may not have agreed with it at the time, but their rational is always within the scope of the rules. My frustration is managing the scope.
I had a young coach ask me the other day: I see a lot of reaching going on in games, and I tell my girls to keep their hands out . . . what is the rule.
I did my best to explain it as I understood they should not be using their hands to impede or make illegal contact with the offensive player. I also tried to explain that depending on the effect, or result, of the contact is going to determine a foul or not. I finally conveyed that each official is going to see it differently and kids will need to adjust. In closing I explained that we teach our kids to play with hands off at first, then we teach counters to offensive reads that require more and more phsyicality.
The fact is there is no right answer. There is what the rules say, but the rules are situational. There is what the official says, but every official feels a little differently. There is what I say, but different coaches teach things different ways. The simple truth is you have to teach kids how to do it all: hands on, hands off, in and out, arm bars and counters for the all those things. If you do not they will end up in a situation they are not prepared for skill wise or mentally.
My issue is with what to tell my kids. As a coach there is nothing more frustrating then telling a kid one thing and having him/her come back in the middle of a game upset because an official has contradicted something he/she has been told. The kid doesn't want either adult upset with them, what is a kid to do. I find this more often happens with hand, arm, body placement at both ends then it does with issues of violations or offensive skill execution.
What we need is an example. Case in point. Offensively and defensively we tell our girls (age 15-16) in the summer that there is going to be contact so they have to intiate it. "You can either, be the player getting hit or the one doing the hitting." Then they will go out and swim over on cuts, knock down arms in passing lanes, get forearm contact on screens, meet cutters with a forearm and hip, get hands in and out on the ball handler to keep distance and stop them from using their arms. We seem to have success and have been complimented on our aggression and physicality. Now when we come back to high school boys (age 14-19) we try to send the same message about being the aggressor we end up in foul trouble. I ask them to be proactive: jam and force the issue attack at both ends and we are told to back off. We are told we cannot reach, can not invade space, can not wrap. I hear a logical explanation and ask my kids to adjust because that is all we can do.
The issue comes down to advantage & disadvantage. Not all contact is basketball is foul, if it were then we would be out all night getting a half in. So the official uses their baseline rules about position and spirit of the game, while not allowing rough play, to determine whether illegal contact clearly and immediately gained an unfair advantage for one player or the other. What I struggle with is finding the middle ground to work with my kids. I struggle with how the same action can be good tough play in a 15 year old girls game, but excessive between to 17 year old boys.
Do not misunderstand. I have almost never recieved an explanation from an official that was not satisfactory. I may not have agreed with it at the time, but their rational is always within the scope of the rules. My frustration is managing the scope.
I had a young coach ask me the other day: I see a lot of reaching going on in games, and I tell my girls to keep their hands out . . . what is the rule.
I did my best to explain it as I understood they should not be using their hands to impede or make illegal contact with the offensive player. I also tried to explain that depending on the effect, or result, of the contact is going to determine a foul or not. I finally conveyed that each official is going to see it differently and kids will need to adjust. In closing I explained that we teach our kids to play with hands off at first, then we teach counters to offensive reads that require more and more phsyicality.
The fact is there is no right answer. There is what the rules say, but the rules are situational. There is what the official says, but every official feels a little differently. There is what I say, but different coaches teach things different ways. The simple truth is you have to teach kids how to do it all: hands on, hands off, in and out, arm bars and counters for the all those things. If you do not they will end up in a situation they are not prepared for skill wise or mentally.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Defense
Contrary to some of the scores we give up I feel like we have a pretty solid defensive philosophy.
I have never been much of a believer that statistical differences are an indicator of good defense. Just because I can hold someone's score down doesn't mean I play good defense. It could, but I could also mean that: I'm holding the ball on offense for long periods, keeping the ball away from the other team, and using a couple of kids who can defend on their top players while everyone else is just letting the other team shoot. To me that's not good defense.
Coaches talk about turnover ratio, but again what we do on offense has as much do do with that number as our defense.
My judge of the success of our defense is the reaction of the opposition to it: are they having to call timeouts to dicuss things, are they needing to be reminded to calm down, are the looking to the officials for help, do they get furstrated and make notably frustrated decisions. My favorite defensive moment as a coach came in a game where late we got called for a blocking foul trying to trap the ball. The opposition threw the ball at our kid and said "Don't you ever f%^&ing quit!".
Why do we defend the way we do (what we believe about defense):
- It is harder to play and make decisions under pressure.
- It is harder to play and make decisions when playing at speed.
- More defenders and ways to stop the ball is better than less defenders.
- Less options and choices for the offense is better than more.
- Having the defense know what the offense is going to have to do is easier for us to attack, then reacting to the offense.
- We want the offense to have to execute skills at speed for 94 feet every possesion.
- A physical game, played at high pace, under constant pressure will favour a team that has better coached, skilled athletes over a group with a couple of solid individuals trying to execute a system.
How do we defend the way we do (what we are trying to do):
- The player with the ball must be forced to dribble it. They are not allowed to be passers or shooters.
- All dribblers must be forced to the sideline and baseline.
- Everyone defensively must be in a stance all the time.
- Job of players off the ball is to attack the dribbler and cover for attacking teammates.
- The ball cannot be unguarded.
- Everyone moves with the ball in the air. Picking up closest men once the ball is guarded.
- Any ball inside the 3 point line or at a checkpoint is doubled. Any ball in the key is collapsed by everyone.
I have never been much of a believer that statistical differences are an indicator of good defense. Just because I can hold someone's score down doesn't mean I play good defense. It could, but I could also mean that: I'm holding the ball on offense for long periods, keeping the ball away from the other team, and using a couple of kids who can defend on their top players while everyone else is just letting the other team shoot. To me that's not good defense.
Coaches talk about turnover ratio, but again what we do on offense has as much do do with that number as our defense.
My judge of the success of our defense is the reaction of the opposition to it: are they having to call timeouts to dicuss things, are they needing to be reminded to calm down, are the looking to the officials for help, do they get furstrated and make notably frustrated decisions. My favorite defensive moment as a coach came in a game where late we got called for a blocking foul trying to trap the ball. The opposition threw the ball at our kid and said "Don't you ever f%^&ing quit!".
Why do we defend the way we do (what we believe about defense):
- It is harder to play and make decisions under pressure.
- It is harder to play and make decisions when playing at speed.
- More defenders and ways to stop the ball is better than less defenders.
- Less options and choices for the offense is better than more.
- Having the defense know what the offense is going to have to do is easier for us to attack, then reacting to the offense.
- We want the offense to have to execute skills at speed for 94 feet every possesion.
- A physical game, played at high pace, under constant pressure will favour a team that has better coached, skilled athletes over a group with a couple of solid individuals trying to execute a system.
How do we defend the way we do (what we are trying to do):
- The player with the ball must be forced to dribble it. They are not allowed to be passers or shooters.
- All dribblers must be forced to the sideline and baseline.
- Everyone defensively must be in a stance all the time.
- Job of players off the ball is to attack the dribbler and cover for attacking teammates.
- The ball cannot be unguarded.
- Everyone moves with the ball in the air. Picking up closest men once the ball is guarded.
- Any ball inside the 3 point line or at a checkpoint is doubled. Any ball in the key is collapsed by everyone.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
No I in team . . .
Welcome to generation unplugged. I am constantly dealing with kids who don't believe things are a big deal. They've grown up with options, untilties, settings, multitasking, and an ungodly amount of gadgets and gizmos. As they grow up they have faced the simple truth, if something is hard or I don't like it I'll shut it off and try something else.
The lesson they've learned is if I'm not good at it, if its hard, if it makes me feel bad or even bored: go do something else. Its great. We have a generation of creative, multitasking individuals that are natives in the technological world where we are only immigrants. They communicate percieve and understand concepts that are a foreign to me as swedish.
The issue is I'm in charge. I'm running a team where you sacrifice your feelings, stats, and desires for the good of the team. I ask a group a teenage kids to put team first in a world that is designed to appeal to their feelings first. Its a polarity shift that I find harder and harder to get across to kids. Your needs come second the groups needs come first.
Together Everyone Achieves More: right!!! Their idea of together is downloading music from the friends my space, my idea of togetherness is putting up a tent in the freezing rain with your friends because that was what you did. Draw a charge for your teammate, cover for your teammate, get on the floor for the team. THey want options, I want blood.
The solution: teach the skill they need. Learning to overcome, learning to suffer for the good of the group, learning to compete and overcome for some else not yourself. Growing up taught us these things, in our games, with our friends with the choices we had. If their life hasn't taught them, I have to teach them. I have to sell team. I have teach them the internal conversations and perseverance that life taught us.
We have to create the identity and skills for them to learn, adpot and buy in to.
The lesson they've learned is if I'm not good at it, if its hard, if it makes me feel bad or even bored: go do something else. Its great. We have a generation of creative, multitasking individuals that are natives in the technological world where we are only immigrants. They communicate percieve and understand concepts that are a foreign to me as swedish.
The issue is I'm in charge. I'm running a team where you sacrifice your feelings, stats, and desires for the good of the team. I ask a group a teenage kids to put team first in a world that is designed to appeal to their feelings first. Its a polarity shift that I find harder and harder to get across to kids. Your needs come second the groups needs come first.
Together Everyone Achieves More: right!!! Their idea of together is downloading music from the friends my space, my idea of togetherness is putting up a tent in the freezing rain with your friends because that was what you did. Draw a charge for your teammate, cover for your teammate, get on the floor for the team. THey want options, I want blood.
The solution: teach the skill they need. Learning to overcome, learning to suffer for the good of the group, learning to compete and overcome for some else not yourself. Growing up taught us these things, in our games, with our friends with the choices we had. If their life hasn't taught them, I have to teach them. I have to sell team. I have teach them the internal conversations and perseverance that life taught us.
We have to create the identity and skills for them to learn, adpot and buy in to.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Compete
Kids need to compete. Kids want to compete. The issue is what they and we as the adults in charge define as competing.
The dictionary definition of compete, has it as a verb meaning: to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize, supremacy, profit, etc.; engage in a contest; vie: to compete in a race; to compete in business.
Our kids tend to think of competeing as engaging in a contest. They "compete" when there is a score or prize or an opponent. The issue is that to become a high performing basketball player you need skills created through muscle memory and repetition on your own. Kids associate competion, and the accorded effort, to game like situations. In reality the competition should be striving to be the supreme basketball player, person and part of the best team they can be. The competition and drive should be internal not external.
Solutions that we as coaches can offer:
1) For kids who can't grasp the concept of internal vs external drive you can cheat a little. You can turn drills, and skills work in practice in games, with scores, winners, etc. Kids enjoy this and tend to work ahrder. They are going to struggle on their own and miss out on a lot of development since without the external factors they won't want to drill hard or at all individually.
2) Demand high performance all the time. There are no break drills, or drills where we don't go hard. Require that everything be done all the time at game speed and intensity. The drawback to this philosophy is that developing skills for young athletes often requires to walk before you run. On teams with varied skill levels someone is going to be bored or overwhelmed. It also requires kids that are committed to being better, kids that play for fun or to be part of something may not responsd well to constant demands and pressure.
3) Spend the time reminding, praising, punishing, talking, . . . whatever your kids need to create that internal voice that pushes them. I don't buy that there are driven kids and lazy kids. No one pops out of the womb ready to take on the world, or indifferent to their surrondings. Competing and demanding excellence of yourself is a trained skill and learned behaviour. You have to keep putting people who need to learn it in situations where they develop the proper attitudes and structures. The draw back is you are talking about personality, values and attitude which are shaped by all the influences in their lives. You get them after they've spent 6-16 years with other adults and peers shaping their values, changes may not happen over night or at all. If your message deviates or contradicts their prior programming there is no sure bet they'll ever buy in.
The most a player can do is compete every second they have available. The most we can do as coaches is everything we can to try to help them do that.
The dictionary definition of compete, has it as a verb meaning: to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize, supremacy, profit, etc.; engage in a contest; vie: to compete in a race; to compete in business.
Our kids tend to think of competeing as engaging in a contest. They "compete" when there is a score or prize or an opponent. The issue is that to become a high performing basketball player you need skills created through muscle memory and repetition on your own. Kids associate competion, and the accorded effort, to game like situations. In reality the competition should be striving to be the supreme basketball player, person and part of the best team they can be. The competition and drive should be internal not external.
Solutions that we as coaches can offer:
1) For kids who can't grasp the concept of internal vs external drive you can cheat a little. You can turn drills, and skills work in practice in games, with scores, winners, etc. Kids enjoy this and tend to work ahrder. They are going to struggle on their own and miss out on a lot of development since without the external factors they won't want to drill hard or at all individually.
2) Demand high performance all the time. There are no break drills, or drills where we don't go hard. Require that everything be done all the time at game speed and intensity. The drawback to this philosophy is that developing skills for young athletes often requires to walk before you run. On teams with varied skill levels someone is going to be bored or overwhelmed. It also requires kids that are committed to being better, kids that play for fun or to be part of something may not responsd well to constant demands and pressure.
3) Spend the time reminding, praising, punishing, talking, . . . whatever your kids need to create that internal voice that pushes them. I don't buy that there are driven kids and lazy kids. No one pops out of the womb ready to take on the world, or indifferent to their surrondings. Competing and demanding excellence of yourself is a trained skill and learned behaviour. You have to keep putting people who need to learn it in situations where they develop the proper attitudes and structures. The draw back is you are talking about personality, values and attitude which are shaped by all the influences in their lives. You get them after they've spent 6-16 years with other adults and peers shaping their values, changes may not happen over night or at all. If your message deviates or contradicts their prior programming there is no sure bet they'll ever buy in.
The most a player can do is compete every second they have available. The most we can do as coaches is everything we can to try to help them do that.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tactics vs. Talent
Everyone likes to win. Ask my players after a game or practice, I'm about the win. Heck, ask my wife during a game of Scrabble. I'm about the win. That being said, I don't think as a coach it is my job to determine the outcome. It is the job of the players to go out and win the game. Out work, out execute, out read, and have better skills then the opponent.
There are lots of ways to use tactics to win a basketball game. Do you want to win in mini game? Press and full court deny letting them throw deep since most girls and not a lot of boys can. Get a big kid teach them to post up at the rim and let their teammates feed them the ball. Clear out on offense and let your best player attack the rim all night. You'll win mini games.
Do you want to win in high school in New Brunswick? Chase the stud all over the floor, zone off of everyone else and let them shoot. That will win you a lot of games vs. the skill set of NB kids. Have you made your kids better basketball players???
These are strategies, ways we find to win. You see at all levels of basketball. I heard a middle school girl last night say, "Hey coach you know what works against her. If we all just back off everyone else and 2 or 3 of us crowd her. " Its true there is always a tactic you can use to make it harder for a team or player to be successful. At elite levels (university, pro, National teams) most of what they do is tactical. This doesn't always make kids better basketball players. The young lady's idea to shut down the girl in middle school is great, but would she or her team become more skilled defenders or players by selecting that option.
Talent wins out in the end. We've all been on teams, or in tryout situations to get to a higher level where even though we worked hard, we just weren't good enough or at least as good as someone else. {Unless you are an NBA all-star (in which case thanks for reading).} Kids need to be able to play. Especially in the FIBA game of 24 and 8 with a move to a European style by Canada Basketball. Everyone has to be able to shoot, everyone must be able to dribble, everyone must be able to play at speed and defend all over the floor. If you want kids to be skilled, we should be putting them in situations where they have to be.
We've made a hard adjustment in the last year with my varsity boys teams. There are almost no assigned player positions, our offense and defense is concept based, everything everyone is being asked to do is about making reads and executing skills. Its tough. They play in league where defensive tactics and set plays are the norm over developing players who play. They want what the other team has. They want answers that never change, patterns they can memorize, and something that they can do everytime so the the pressure is on the kids who want it. In my mind the only thing you can everytime is be stronger, smarter, and more skilled. Its taking some growing pains but everyone is learning to play the game the same way.
Coaches give me all sorts of reasons why that is great but their team has to do this or that. The reailty is if you want your kids to develop skills (imho)you have to put them in a position to play, run and win executing those skills. If we tell them skills are important, but then use tactics that never let them practice new skills in games they take something away from our actions: finding a way to win is more important the learning the skill coach asked me to learn.
I'll end with this notion. One night a couple of coaches and I were discussing a similar issue one coach who disagreed with my view point passionately proclaimed, "My job as a coach is to put my kids in the best position to win games." I completely agreed with his statement. THe difference was he felt that what his kids did, and the schemes they used, to maximize their talent were what put them in the best position to win the game. I feel like what we do in practice, in games, and the off season to become better players than the other team should be what puts us in the best position to win. How do you feel?
There are lots of ways to use tactics to win a basketball game. Do you want to win in mini game? Press and full court deny letting them throw deep since most girls and not a lot of boys can. Get a big kid teach them to post up at the rim and let their teammates feed them the ball. Clear out on offense and let your best player attack the rim all night. You'll win mini games.
Do you want to win in high school in New Brunswick? Chase the stud all over the floor, zone off of everyone else and let them shoot. That will win you a lot of games vs. the skill set of NB kids. Have you made your kids better basketball players???
These are strategies, ways we find to win. You see at all levels of basketball. I heard a middle school girl last night say, "Hey coach you know what works against her. If we all just back off everyone else and 2 or 3 of us crowd her. " Its true there is always a tactic you can use to make it harder for a team or player to be successful. At elite levels (university, pro, National teams) most of what they do is tactical. This doesn't always make kids better basketball players. The young lady's idea to shut down the girl in middle school is great, but would she or her team become more skilled defenders or players by selecting that option.
Talent wins out in the end. We've all been on teams, or in tryout situations to get to a higher level where even though we worked hard, we just weren't good enough or at least as good as someone else. {Unless you are an NBA all-star (in which case thanks for reading).} Kids need to be able to play. Especially in the FIBA game of 24 and 8 with a move to a European style by Canada Basketball. Everyone has to be able to shoot, everyone must be able to dribble, everyone must be able to play at speed and defend all over the floor. If you want kids to be skilled, we should be putting them in situations where they have to be.
We've made a hard adjustment in the last year with my varsity boys teams. There are almost no assigned player positions, our offense and defense is concept based, everything everyone is being asked to do is about making reads and executing skills. Its tough. They play in league where defensive tactics and set plays are the norm over developing players who play. They want what the other team has. They want answers that never change, patterns they can memorize, and something that they can do everytime so the the pressure is on the kids who want it. In my mind the only thing you can everytime is be stronger, smarter, and more skilled. Its taking some growing pains but everyone is learning to play the game the same way.
Coaches give me all sorts of reasons why that is great but their team has to do this or that. The reailty is if you want your kids to develop skills (imho)you have to put them in a position to play, run and win executing those skills. If we tell them skills are important, but then use tactics that never let them practice new skills in games they take something away from our actions: finding a way to win is more important the learning the skill coach asked me to learn.
I'll end with this notion. One night a couple of coaches and I were discussing a similar issue one coach who disagreed with my view point passionately proclaimed, "My job as a coach is to put my kids in the best position to win games." I completely agreed with his statement. THe difference was he felt that what his kids did, and the schemes they used, to maximize their talent were what put them in the best position to win the game. I feel like what we do in practice, in games, and the off season to become better players than the other team should be what puts us in the best position to win. How do you feel?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)