Western Canada

After seeing and playing several teams play from Western Canada you notice some trends as a result of players and styles:

1 -Help side or a lack their of. Most western teams do not make it to the key let alone the midline on the weak side. This a result of cutting based offenses, size of cutters and apparent belief amongst some officials that blocking cuts is a foul. As a result of not being able to impede the progress of huge cutters teams need to deny and chase them on the weak side so that when they cut they can continue to deny. This often changes on the ball defense to containment based because any break down in on the ball defense results in a finish chance inside.

2 - Motion. Most western teams tend to run a motion style offense with multiple cutters resulting in lock downs or post ups at the rim. While size and skill make this an effective tactic, the balance, team play and movement are all surprisingly effective in comparison to Central Canadian Teams. Ontario and Quebec tend to use more iso and pick and roll reads to create 1 on 1's while western teams rely on off the ball cuts and reads to win the same battles.

3 - Skilled Size. The real difference between western teams and eastern team is the size of their skill. BC men start 4 players 6'6 pr larger 1 of whom plays like a traditional post. Alberta women have 9 players 5'11 or larger playing a variety of positions. We are lucky if our large guys and girls have post game. These are all skilled athletes with a future at the CIS level. How many 6'0 posts do we have in the men's game at our NB high school level. How many girls coaches in NB would let their 6'0 girl develop wing skills in games? The playing field is not level and finding a balance between training our teams to compete and our athletes to develop to compete at the next level is crucial.

Train to Play

How do you convince kids to train?

The issue that i struggle with is that the only way you get better is practice. Kids need to play and experience competition but at some point they have to put in the time to improve their game.

You don't become a world class chef just having dinner parties, you cook for yourself and on your own experimenting. How many penalty kicks do soccer players practice vs how many they get in a game? The latest research suggests that success is directly correlated to deliberate practice. Top performers spend many more hours of practice then their average counterparts.

The issue becomes for kids especially in smaller ponds (athletic communities) that the same 1%-10% of the population can have relative success in any sport by showing up. Most coaches, players, and supporters aren't interested in the long term development of athlete as much as they are the short term experience of the athlete or team in the context of their sport. As a result kids spend time moving from sport to sport playing and don't see the incentive to train.

Why would an athlete spend hours on their own in the summer moving form average shooter to good shooter to try to earn more playing time on the basketball court, when they can play in a soccer league and be an average player. In larger centres this is less of an issue because the depth of athletes is such that those who do not spend as much time training cannot fill out roster spots. They very best athletes continue to be the best, while the the second tier and bench players are sport trained athletes as opposed to average athletes.

Simply put the only way you get better is to practice, but how do we convince kids to practice when they can just play something else instead.

Canada Games Test Tournament

I spent last weekend watching the first tournament that our Canada Games boys and girls teams played. I just had a few observations on how that went:

1 - Speed Kills! In just about any aspect of the game, if you can get there first your team has a significant edge. First to rebounds, first to loose balls, first down the floor (both ways), ability to keep your player in front, ability to recover, ability to blow by. If you have superior speed and can still execute skills at speed you are well on your way. The NB girls that won the tournament had greater team speed (and individual speed in a lot of cases) they the opposition. By playing to that strength the lions share of the scramble points, hustle points, and uncontested points went to NB which was enough to win the games handily. The NB boys only struggled in the game vs. Nova Scotia when NS went a group made up of superior athletes and started beating NB players to spots with and without the ball in 1 on 1 matchups.

2 - Skilled Depth. It sounds simple but the team with the greater wealth of talent wins. If you can have 12 very skilled players up against 5/6 great players and some role players; over the course of a 40 minute game the skilled kids are going to come out on top. If they work and show skills they can balance out the ability of the stronger individuals on the other side, and they should win most intagbible categories as their always making a skilled play, and when the opposition goes to their bench they won't be.

3 - Bigs are overrated. While clearly the larger the frame you can have and be atheltic and skilled , the better it is for basketball. Pure post players however, can be overcome quite easily in the FIBA game. Better shooting, ball pressure, and speed of play doesn't allow them to be as effective as they once might have been. Players that dominated this weekend were long, athletic skilled wings or strong quards.

4 - Shooting. This weekends game was played on a large new floor in a huge open empty space in an arena. It was very clear who the shooters were with good mechanics and which shooters were streaky or relied on consistent environment. Both winning teams had more players that could hit open shots from 18-21 feet in this environment. Shooting is still the great eqaulizer.

5- Tactics. While at this level you might think tactics play a larger role, its not entirely true. Tactics are more a change of pace, or a way to test the opponents offensive or defensive principles. Sure a trap can still cause havoc or get you some quick hoops, a shift to zone might change the momentum, and a set piece gets who you want the ball. At this level most of the game is being played in breakdown moments and 2nd/3rd level reads. At speed and with such high caliber teams, the hardest working more skilled team often wins regardless over 40 minutes. Now in an evenly matched game at key moments the correct tactical call becomes huge because a quick lead or big shot can be the difference. The reality is training and natural gifts combined with intensity can still win the the game at this level. Everyone is better, but its not the NBA where everyone is a freak who can do everything, so tactics still don't seem as important as talent.

Posting Up

The first point I would like to make about posting up is the distinction between posting up and post players. Post players, or what I refer to as "bigs", are a rare and special commodity in our province. I say this because a true "big" is a phsyical specimen with a unique skill set designed for being superior in size to most of their opponents. They play close to the basket, and have different roles then most players.

The issue is that we don't have a lot of "bigs" in our province. The best NB boys players this year were a 6'4 point guard from Riverview and a 6'7 forward from Nepisiquit. THey'll both play at Acadia next year and neither will play the post. The point I'm trying to make is we will often see kids in our programs who are taller than the rest, and suddenly we teach them to be a post. Then they get to high school and aren't bigger anymore, or they have no options to do anything beyond their club/school because they wouldn't be a post at another level. My feeling is that we need to make our kids skilled face up players and if we are lucky enough to ever get a kid who is 6'6 - 7'0 who will be a legitimate "big" kid then we can worry about their interior game at that point.

That being said, one of the skills everyone needs to have is the ability to post up. Posting up is the skill of putting an opponent on your back to seal them away from the ball. This allows the offensive player to cleanly catch the ball, while maintaining contact they can exploit when they've made the catch. This skills allows people to catch by the rim uncontested, get an inbounds pass, or simply create space to catch to play 1 on 1. THe key is to post up a player not an area.

H0w do you teach kids to post up?

1 - The first step is to teach them to be comfortable and mobile with contact. Have them low in a stance, doing some pushing and pulling for space.

2 - PLayers need to learn that lower and wider allows them to hold space vs. contact and maintain position. Have one player position themselves as low and wide as possible to be strong and balanced. Have a partner (with increasing force) try to move them off a spot.

3 - Place a ball on the floor. Have both partners (using only their legs) fight to be closer to the ball then the other player without touching the ball. See how long one player can keep the other away from the ball using their back, butt and legs.

4- Once that is done have kids work in groups of three. Start with guided defense and work up to live play. One partner can have the ball and be trying to throw a straight line push pass to his partner. The third defender is trying to deny the ball into the offense. The reciever must post and position their body between the ball and the defender before they can recieve the pass.

What sort of footwork do kids need?

The basic footwork and body position is a step over or "swim move". The offensive player is low and tight to the defense. They then swing their inside arm out and around the defender knocking away arms and pinning the defenders torso. They step quickly over the closest foot of the defender, pinning the knee with their backside. They repeat this process until they have created an unobstructed line between themselves and the ball, with their defender on their back/hip.

Why post up?

The post up has many purposes.

The big one is that is takes the skills, footwork, and speed/agility often needed to beat an opponent and turns it into a game of who is stronger. So if a player were having trouble recieving a pass vs. and opponent of superior speed, agility or defensive aptitude they could use the post up as an equalizer.

The second advantage of the post up is it has contact already created. On any good attack of the defense, the offensive player has initiated contact and sealed a player off. The post up allows most of the work in initiating to be accomplished prior to the catch and it is only a matter of maintaining contact while keeping a hard angle in the direction you wish to move.

Finally it is a chance to be physical with an opponent. If you've got a player that is particulary fast or talented that you want to make work hard one defense, then a post up nullifies their speed and skill and requires them to exert a great deal of energy dealing with the contact. The other teams star cannot rest on defense if they are constantly being posted up, regardless of whether or not we intend to attack them with the ball.

1 on 0

The game is easy when you get a one on zero. At least it should be! If you can get 1 on nobody and can't score the rest doesn't matter because you won't win anyway. So everything I'm about to talk about needs to be prefaced by the notion that you have to be able to make shots.

How do you get a 1 on 0?

Run

When we get the ball who is running out? If the answer is not everyone then you've got a problem. If you can get even 1 player down the floor ahead of an opponent you've got a 1 on 0. In an ideal universe someone would have sprinted to the rim as soon as we got the ball and been there in the first 3 seconds of our possesion with everyone else down and ready to shoot somewhere between 5-7 seconds. This means if you've got anyone on the other team that gets caught up, gambles, doesn't hustle back or just isn't as fast as their matchup then you are getting a 1 on 0 look for someone.

Take On

If you can't get a 1 on 0 by running you should at least be able to get a 1 on 1. This means if someone can take on their defender and beat them cleanly off the dribble then we get a 1 on 0 for them or someone else. This isn't the same as backing someone in or playing 1 on 1 all the way to the rim. A take needs to be at speed and leave the defender behind. This way the ball handler gets a 1 on 0 or their teammates do when defense shifts to help.

Cuts

A cut is a chance to beat someone. Its not something we do for the sake of doing it. Everytime you cut you force the defense to react to you, if the defense doesn't have to deal with you then your cut wasn't very good. Once a defender challenges you then its a battle to see who wins. If you win you should get a 1 on 0 catch or put them in a position to need to close out so you can use your "TAKE ON" to do the same.

Screens

Screening is a team skills that reuires a good read no only by one player but by 3: the screener, the player getting screened for, and the ball handler/passer. In this situation you are using and reading to screen to get a 1 on 0 catch or force a close out/ mismatch to occur that allows a player to win a "Take On" or "Cut"


What to do once you get a 1 on 0?

This answer is easy use it. Look to score. Either your open and need to make a shot or you need to find your now open teammate as help rotates.

I'm a basketball/volleyball/soccer/rugby/cricket/handball player . . .

We have an on going debate in my school, my home, and amongst all my coaching friends and colleagues. The topic is the multisport athlete. The points of contention always seem to be what is the goal of sports at certain levels, how and when should you specialize and whether the nature/history of community dictate how the sport is managed. There are lots of issues but you can see why people have varying opinions.

Let me start by saying I was a dual sport athlete. Up until I was 17 I competed at reasonably high levels in basketball and swimming. Once in high school I limited my swimming to outside of the my high school basketball season and trained year round for basketball (this limited my opportunities but I swam because I was good at it, not because I wanted to be an Olympic athlete). Also growing up I tried a little baseball, soccer, and volleyball in competitive leauges. While doing things like sking, jogging, and a variety of sports recreationally.

I'm not interested in debating the finer points of if, when, and how you should sport sepcialize. Everyone has to make their own decisions. I am going to say if you want to compete in leagues with competitive teams that are producing high level athletes, its only fair to your kids to do the same things. That being said to create atheletes that perform at a high level we should follow what the science tells us, not what worked for some group, some time in the past.

So what do we know scientifically speaking:

Prior to Age 10 kids should play a variety of sports. The point of which is develop basic phsyical attributes and motor skills. This should be done through games and activity based learning. They should play a variety of sports every week doing each a couple of times with no one sport going for more than 6-12 weeks consecutively.

Between the Ages of 10-14 young athletes should play complitmentary sports (activities with similar movements and requisite general motor skills). They should begin training with sport specifc activities and select a prefered sport. This sport should have a high intensity training period lasting 20-30 and they should train 3-4 times per week for this sport, in addition to other sports activities. 75% of the their time should be spent training skills and physical attributes with 25% in actual preparation for competitive games/competitions.

Between the ages 14-18 (the high end range of kids opportunities in our area) kids should be sport specialised. They should be training 6-9 times per week during high intensity training periods in that sport. These periods should occur twice a year and total 42 weeks. Training should be 50% skills and phsyical attirbutes and 50% compettion specifc skills. Exercises and training should be geared towards their sport specialization.

That is science of it. I know these numbers may or may not work in individual settings. I also know that if your goal is not high performing athletes these targets are not needed. I would like to say again: if the goal of your program is to give kids a place and chance to play, you can do that without putting kids up against athletes who are training specifically to be high performance. Telling kids its ok to do less and just play more, while then making them compete with high performing sport specialized athletes is setting the kid, your coach and your program up for failure.

We do in fact have an offense . . .

The title is in response to a lot of the people that see us play and don't believe we're in fact teaching anyone anything on offense. Trust me we do. My favorite moment was year with our boys playing the best team in the province (at any level). After the game a local official said: "Your kids have to do something other then one guy dribbles and passes to the other guy to shoot it. There are guys on the floor watching those two guys play."

It was true we didn't execute very well and the only two kids who can compete against a team at that level ended up being the ones who could get open and get most of the shots. The point being I still felt we were running offense, our other kids just weren't skilled enough to run our stuff against them. We got open shots (or at least as open as we were getting when compeltely out matched). Isn't that what offense does.

As far as I'm concerned (and I've been wrong before, more frequently when my wife is present) offense is simple. You are trying to get someone a shot they can make. What makes offense complicated is lack of skills. If you can't shoot or people have to shoot from a certain area or range then suddenly you have to do all sorts of crazy things to get people the ball in those places. My feeling is that if we can shoot it, then all we have to do is beat someone one and one.

Once someone is beaten 1 on 1 with a cut, post up, mismatch off a screen, dribble drive, etc . . . then someone is getting an open shot. If no one helps then we get a layup. If someone helps late we get free throws and/a layup. If help is early then somone is open and by moving the ball someone should get an open shot.

Our offense basically is a lot of rules/concepts about spacing and movement to make it difficult for teams to help. We look to score by relying on individual skills. If we win then it is because we had better talent or we worked our but off defensively. If we lose its because we weren't better than their defense and our d wasn't good enough to get us the win by itself.

I know that there are many who feel the job of the coach is to put their kids in the best situation to win. Buld your system around the talent you have, blah. blah, blah . . . I'm coaching high school aged kids still learning to play the game. Most of them will play after school only in an informal or recreational way. Do I want their basketball experience for the rest of their life to be: go set a post screen and seal??? I want kids who can play. A kid who can get out and run with anyone and be able to shoot, attack, pass from all positions.

We have an offense. It is teaching kids to put themselves in situations where they and their teammates can use the skills they train to use. Why does it have to be more complicated then that. You can't do much better then an open shot can you???