Introducing the SABA concept to high-school players

by on October 11, 2020
in Team Offenses

For more information on SABA: The Antifragile Offense, buy the paperback or Kindle.

Learning from players about their own learning

This is one example of a common theme from coaches and trainers who believe in a certain way to develop players and fundamentals. Hardly anyone would question the statement or the philosophy; of course players need to practice layups, and we have been told repeatedly that “repetition is the mother of all learning.”

At some point, however, should we listen to the children? Is there a chance that the children know better? After all, if the children are bored, are they learning and improving? And, if they are not learning and improving, what is the purpose behind a repetitive drill?

.

The picture above is from a presentation on skill development. The paper by Torrents and Balague (2006) found that children learn rapidly, with variety, without many repetitions, and with minimal following of directions.

Compare their descriptions of learning with the tweet. The coach is advocating a lack of variety, a large number of repetitions, and a desire for players to follow directions. Also, it is implied that this learning is not rapid, as one expects that a coach/trainer would not repeat the same thing over and over after it has been mastered.

Who is correct? Do children need to learn to do large number of repetitions of repetitive tasks? Do coaches need to design practices and drills that fit with the way that children learn?

A repetitive layup drill as described is an example of constant block practice: Players practice one version of one skill.

Now, for beginners, constant block practice is recommended because a beginner needs some basic idea of the skill; there are hundreds of ways to throw the ball up and into the basket, but time has shown only a few of these hundreds of potential executions to be reliably effective. Instructions, demonstrations, and constant block practice helps the beginner identify the basic skill executions that are most effective.

However, constant block practice often is not the best practice to promote retention and transfer. Retention is the ability to retain learning from one day to the next, whereas transfer is the ability to perform the learned skill in a different environment; for our concerns, transfer generally means to perform the learned skill in a competitive environment or to take improvements in practice to games.

Random variable practice has been shown to improve retention and transfer. Random variable practice incorporates several skills and different executions of the skill; obviously, this makes the practice more like the environment of a game.

In a game, one does not shoot 20 right-hand layups in a row. Instead, a player shoots a layup, then plays defense, runs the court, passes, dribbles, plays defense again, and then potentially shoots another layup, although it is likely different than the previous layup in some way: angle, defensive pressure, speed, execution (one foot or two foot), etc.

Incidentally, the realities of the game fit more closely with the ways that children learn. Incorporating different skills and different executions of skills increases the variety of movements and decreases the repetitions of specific movements, and makes following specific instructions more difficult.

Therefore, how should we proceed? Is it our job as a coach to teach players to do things that they do not like? Do we need players to embrace tedious, repetitive tasks? Is that imposing an adult mindset or an adult learning model onto children? Is our goal to teach the children to do a skill (layups) or to teach children to accept an adult way of learning (minimize variety, increase repetitions)? Is there a reason children learn new things quickly?

Coaches embrace repetitions. This is how we have taught for years. However, it is not how we have always learned. We used to learn on the playgrounds and playing around with fathers or siblings. We were introduced to sports in playful environments, and when we joined teams, coaches refined those skills. Now, children often are exposed to sports and skills for the first time when they join a team. Does that change how we coach?

Before I joined a team, I could do a layup. I honestly do not remember learning a layup, but I know we started to play basketball on the playground in 2nd grade and could not join a team until 5th grade. I also know that in our practices in 5th or 6th grade, we had to make 20 right-handed layups and 20 left-handed layups in a row as a team.

This was not teaching layups. We could make layups. This was creating a challenge, learning to concentrate, and making layups with a small amount of pressure.

How did I learn to make a layup before joining a team in 5th grade? Probably by watching others, practicing in my front yard, playing at recess and lunch, and more. It was not through drills or by following directions.

Is that the best way? Should we use repetitions to quicken the learning process? Or, do these drills and repetitions actually lengthen the learning process because children do not learn when they lack motivation due to boredom?

Rather than doing things our adult way, when should we learn from the behaviors and motivations of the children?

The Competitive Cauldron

More information about the competitive cauldron is available in The 21st Century Basketball Practice, which is available as a paperback and a Kindle. Also, below are three older articles that introduce the concept and its use in my practices with high-school players.

Planning a practice with the competitive cauldron

Why is the coach always right?

Tracking wins and losses in practice

The Rationale for Blitz Basketball

by on October 8, 2020
in Team Offenses

Blitz Basketball is available as a paperback or a Kindle.

The Goofy Foot Layup, language, and motor control

Television analysts repeatedly refer to layups as “wrong foot” or “wrong hand”. Most analysts are old, relatively speaking, and when they were taught to play basketball, everyone agreed that there were wrong ways to execute skills and right ways to execute skills.

One-handed passes were wrong.

Jumping to pass was wrong.

Crossing one’s feet on defense was wrong.

Using the inside hand on a layup was wrong.

Jumping off the same-side foot as the shooting hand was wrong.

None of these skills is wrong, and, in fact, many coaches now actively teach these executions to develop better and more skilled players. Despite their acceptance in the modern game, many refer to these skills as “wrong”, even when promoting them.

Language matters. Why would a coach teach something called “wrong foot” or “wrong hand”? Wrong is defined as “not correct.” What does a player think when being asked to practice something that is not correct? If the player accepts inside-hand layups or goofy-foot layups, as most do today, how does the coach know what he or she means when he or she says “wrong”?

Many coaches dismiss this argument as semantics.

Watch a practice with beginners. Often, when introducing layups, players use a goofy-foot approach: When shooting a right-handed layup, they jump off their right foot.

In a traditional view, this is wrong; the “correct” layup is to jump off the inside (left) foot to shoot with the outside (right) hand. When someone says “layup”, this is what we picture, and any other shot referenced as a layup requires a modifier: two-foot layup, inside-hand layup, reverse layup, etc.

Because a traditional view says that players must use their inside foot to shoot with their outside hand, the coach stops and corrects the players. When we call a layup a “wrong-footed layup”, this is exactly what we mean. It needs to be corrected. Over and over, we stop players who may be making layups jumping off their same-sided foot (right foot for a right-handed layup), and tell them that despite the success, they executed incorrectly and must change.

The irony, of course, is that after spending hours and hours to teach the “correct” layup, if players last long enough in the competitive stream, they will reach a level where their coach teaches the “wrong-foot layup”: The layup that they once executed naturally. The further irony is the this natural movement is no longer natural; players practice the traditional layup so much that they lose the ability to shoot the goofy-foot layup and must re-learn their natural motions.

This is the problem with language. When we label the layup, “wrong”, we automatically correct this behavior in children. However, we eventually teach this skill, and highlight the shots, so how can it be wrong? Why do we frustrate children who are beginning to play basketball and learning new skills by telling them that their initial approaches, which are successful in terms of making the shot, are wrong because they did not perform the skill like the coach wants?

Furthermore, there is a reason that children tend to shoot goofy-foot layups.

The initial movements that children learn — crawling, skipping, walking, running — use a contralateral movement pattern: I lift my right arm, and my left leg. We see this contralateral pattern when children shoot layups initially: they jump off their right foot and lift their left knee and right hand to shoot. This is not wrong and need not be corrected initially.

Put yourself into the child’s shoes. To shoot a traditional layup, the child must change his or her basic coordination, while learning to manipulate a basketball (which often is too big) to shoot at a target that is often too high. We ask children to learn several new things at once. Do we start ball handling by asking players to make around-the-back moves on the move or do we start by learning to bounce the ball, then bounce the ball with movement, etc.?

Many coaches argue that a goofy-foot layup is “wrong” because it is not natural. If that is, in fact, true, why do so many children use a goofy-foot layup when they initially start? Without prompting, they use a goofy-foot finish; they have to be instructed, and practice repeatedly, to use a “traditional” layup. How does that make the traditional layup “more natural”?

A goofy-foot layup is not wrong, and for most children, it is the initial natural movement because it fits more closely with their previously-learned skills and coordination. Rather than start with constant corrections to move to the “traditional layup”, why not allow players to start with success? Encourage them to shoot in the manner of their choosing in an effort to make the shot. After all, we judge the “correctness” of a professional’s shot by its outcome; why hold beginners to a more difficult standard of making the shot AND using a specific technique? As players progress, coaches can introduce other layups and diversify the players’ skills.

Instead, we drill the traditional layup to such an extent that many middle-school and high-school basketball players can be differentiated from other athletes by their inability to skip. Many older basketball players who have been instructed in the proper layup technique change their skipping pattern to match their layup pattern: Rather than skipping by driving their left knee and right arm together, they drive their right knee and right arm. They have adopted a sport-specific pattern to such a degree that they have lost their initial coordination patterns.

This, of course, is why older players struggle to re-adopt the goofy-foot layup that initially came naturally. They must re-learn basic contralateral patterning. All because we are adamant that players start with one traditional layup, which differs from their previously-learned patterns and requires many repetitions, feedback, and corrections.

Rather than building on success, we make the initial learning harder and more frustrating, and later when we deem the goofy-foot layup to be technically- and strategically-appropriate, that learning becomes harder and more frustrating. All because we have a traditional view of what a “correct” layup looks like and refer to an important skill as “wrong”.

If a coach is adamant that jumping off the right foot to shoot a right-handed layup is wrong, the coach should not teach the layup. However, as Stephen Curry, Kyrie Irving, and others have shown, this would be limiting the players, and eliminating one potential weapon from their skill set.

Next Page »

  • What Is A Playmaker?

    Who decided that a point guard has to be small? More importantly, what is a point guard? We expect a point guard to be a leader and have a high basketball I.Q. Why don’t we expect or challenge all players to develop this game awareness? Why rely on only one player? Read more →
  • The PBDL Concept

    English soccer academies wait until players are 11 to play full 11v11 soccer; in Italy, youth basketball players participate in skill-oriented clinics at 6-years-old, but start competitive games at 12. In the United States, kids play 5v5 full court games and compete for national championships when they are 8-years-old.

    Read more →

  • Starting A PBDL

    The PBDL emphasizes learning and development. Presently, players and parents have numerous recreation options - leagues based on fun and equal participation, typically for beginners - and numerous competitive opportunities - teams focused on strategy, game preparation and winning. There are few true development leagues - until now.

    Read more →