Using the club system to develop a true feeder system

Last week, after watching our club's youth teams, I asked to organize a coach's meeting. My purpose was to create a club philosophy. Within our club, coaches change almost every year, as senior players coach most youth teams. There is little consistency from year to year, and the players' growth and development appears slow and fragmented. Yesterday, Finnish coach Harri Mannonen posted a blog about clubs designing their feeder systems around a staple system and questioned whether this limited development. Whereas a philosophy and a staple system are not necessarily the same, and differ in many ways, what is the purpose or benefit of developing within one club?In the U.S., it is rare for a basketball player to develop within one environment for several years. When I coached with a very good AAU program — Hoop Masters in Los Angeles — it was rare to retain good players for more than 2-3 years. Another lasting program with which I worked, the NorCal Sparx, imploded during the high school years. Another former club, the Santa Monica Surf, kept a group together for 2-3 years, and some for a few more, but eventually the players split.There are advantages and disadvantages to a one club or one coach system. With Hoop Masters, I coached u9 boys and we emphasized several things with the belief that the u10 coach would continue this development. We focused on individual defense, ball handling, and lay-ups, and believed the next coach would build on these skills and add more team defense and shooting. Because the majority of the team played together as u9s, they had similar foundation of skills and experience.Instead, players often move from coach to coach without a natural progression. In a local Parks & Recreation league, the various coaches at u9s may or may not teach and emphasize similar things. When players move to u10s, players may play for different teams or coaches, and the u10 coaches may be unaware of the skills that were emphasized in u9s. The players may or may not have a similar playing background or skill set.As a small example, with our HoopMasters team, every player handled the ball. Skills varied, as did size and quickness, but every player practiced every ball handling drill. We did not designate positions. There was a discrepancy between the best and the worst ball handlers at season's end, but the worst ball handler was capable against a full-court press, which several opponents noted. In another environment, a coach may have told the bigger players not to dribble or focused only on one to two players dribbling the ball. If one of these non-dribblers had joined with our u9s, he would have trailed far behind. There would have been multiple starting points for the next coach.The disadvantage of the one coach or one club system, from an individual's perspective, is the other side. What if your skills or strengths do not mesh with the coach's approach? What if Dirk Nowitzki had played for coaches who believed that he should never leave the key, that a 6'10 player had to rebound and protect the basket, not shoot jump shots? If he was stuck in a one club or one coach situation, he may have quit because that approach did not fit his skills or his desires or he may not have developed into the same player.I worry about this with my teams. What if I miss on a player? What if a player excels at something that I do not notice and I stunt his growth? Two years ago, I asked the varsity coach to promote a freshman to the sophomore team because I did not feel that I was maximizing his talent. He was not the team's best player, but I felt that a new coach might get more from him. I worried that he did not fit my system or our personalities did not mesh. In a one club or one coach system, what if that player was stuck with me or my ideas for his entire career? When I trained players, I encouraged them to try other trainers to see if they could learn something from another coach/trainer rather than limiting themselves only to my knowledge and teaching.When I played, my best experience was playing for other coaches, whether at summer camps or summer leagues. My game and skills never fit with my schools' systems although my school teams were very successful. In other environments, I utilized my full skill set. As a high-school freshman point guard, I dribbled into the front court, passed to the wing, cut away and became a spot-up shooter. During a summer league that summer, I was basically Steve Nash with the Suns. The coach gave me the ball, encouraged us to run, and let me use ball screens all game. I used and improved all of my skills although our school-team system did not require those skills. If I played only with my school team, I may never have developed those skills.Despite my fun and learning with my summer teams, most of my skill development occurred with my school teams. From 5th-8th grade, I had the same coach. Our skills progressed on an annual basis, as we progressed with the same foundation from 5th grade to 6th grade. With the summer team, I was the fortunate player that my coach chose  — other players rarely touched the ball, as I had the higher skill level. My coach once admonished me for passing up an open shot to pass to a less-skilled teammate for a lay-up. This built my confidence as no coach had, but what about my teammate? Was he developing? Was that situation good for him if that had been his only coach for his entire career?I do not know if there is a correct answer. I imagine players can develop in either situation. In the U.S., there is an embarrassment of riches. With the freshman on my team, if he did not develop, there were another five point guards in the next class. If he never maximizes his talent, someone else will, and the program's success will not be altered; just his individual career.In small clubs, like my current club, we cannot lose a player. We cannot afford not to maximize each player. My first team has only one true homegrown player; the club must find ways to attract an entire team of players, which means finding jobs, enrolling some in schools, etc. Luckily, we are the only club at our level for miles and miles, so a couple players choose to drive an hour to play for our club in a more competitive level, as opposed to playing for their home club. On my second team, I have 3-4 homegrown players. The next level is the u16s, and they have only eight players. With a dearth of players, we must develop all eight and maximize the talents of all of them. Imagine coaching a varsity high-school team in a district where only eight players played on a combined 6th-8th grade team. It would be difficult to build and sustain a program. You would feel a need to maximize all eight players. That is a very different situation than being at a large public school where 70-100 freshman try out every year. If one quits, there are plenty to replace him.In a small club, there must be greater organization governed by a club philosophy. The philosophy need not be restrictive, but it should guide the coaches and players. When I watch our club, each team plays different defense and runs different offense. Is that enhancing adaptability, as Mannonen suggested, or leading to a lack of mastery?In a lesson about the haiku as an undergraduate, a professor said that the greatest constraints allow for the most creativity. Because a poet no longer has to think about rhyme scheme or syllables per line because the haiku constrains the poet to three lines in a 5-7-5 pattern, the poet can focus entirely on the creativity of the content and the idea. In the same way, whereas a philosophy could reduce variability or creativity, simplifying the process may serve to enhance creativity.Mannonen wrote:

"Variability is one the main principles of motor skill learning. But if the club has a staple system, it will make the players repeat the same motor patterns over and over again, season after season. So having a staple system is counter-productive when comes to motor skill learning."

Which motor skills? If a club adopts a packline defensive philosophy for all levels, does that ensure that players will repeat the same patterns? Doesn't that depend on the offenses? If a team is adept at its basic defensive principles, will that allow for more creativity?I agree, for the most part, with Mannonen's argument because he is influenced by more restrictive systems, as he wrote:

"Sometimes clubs — at least here in Finland — will put an emphasis on designing a staple system of play for all or most youth teams within the organization. This staple system may be drawn up in great detail. It may include set plays, a continuity offense, a distinctive set of defensive rules and so on."

My goal is not to create a restrictive system or to force the coaches to run my plays, my defense, and my drills. However, a philosophy, an objective, and a systematic skill development progression will enhance our club's player development. From year to year, individual coaches, who will change, will shape this development, but some things should be absolutes for all the teams or for specific ages.What does that mean? Based on the way our teams have performed, we need to emphasize speed: Speed of play, speed of foot, speed of thought, and speed of decision making. The better teams play much faster than us at the youth levels, and this starts at practice. We need to emphasize shooting at every level, as only one or two homegrown players is an above-average shooter. As an extension of speed, we need more attention on individual defense, as very few players excel at moving their feet and containing dribble penetration.My goal is not to design one specific system for the entire club so every team runs the Flex and plays the packline defense. My goal is to create some absolutes and allow each coach to use his or her creativity within those absolutes. I think that the u16 coach should have an expectation of skill levels and knowledge base when players move from u14 to u16 rather than starting over each year.Essentially, the goal of a club should be to utilize the best of both approaches (one coach/one club vs. hodgepodge), whereas, my club, due to the constant coaching turnover is stuck with the worst. A club should have a continuity of learning for players as they progress from level to level. The teams should speak the same language so I can pluck an u16 player for my 2nd team, and he can adjust quickly to the new team because we have the same basic principles. However, individual coaches should have freedom to use their own drills or their own style, as long as they achieve certain skill-related benchmarks and speak the same general basketball language. In this way, there is continuity in each player's development, but there is the opportunity to learn from different coaches and different styles, even within one club.