Regarding “ I'd argue the fundamentals don't change much, but how they are taught, used, and expressed changes…” I am particularly interested in your perspective regarding changes in how technical, and tactical skills (I’m conscious of the distinction now being made between ‘technique’ and ‘skill’) are taught. More specifically, in the context of ecological dynamics and a constraints-led approach, what, if any, is the applicability, especially with novices to the game or novices relative to a technique or tactical skill, of explicit demonstration/modelling of these and ‘on-air’ practice? Is everything to be ‘discovery’ learned through designed constrained activities (game-like, small-sided games, …) and subsequent de-briefing/feedback? Thanks.
My initial thought is on-air practice is vital for beginners because you have to learn the basics, but then I think about how I learned to play, and I acquired skills through play. I practiced on-air on my own, but it was completely self-initiated play. I practiced things I saw on TV or saw other kids do.
I'm not beholden to any theory. I try not to use ecological dynamics or constraints-led in any of my writing now because so many researchers and even practitioners, content producers, and influencers are overly dogmatic. To me, as a coach, any drill is designed to solve a problem. If a beginner cannot bounce a ball, is a stationary dribbling drill or follow the coach or something simple appropriate? Probably. Does it matter if it violates some theory? Not to me. Coaches aren't researchers.
My goal is to help the players in front of me improve and enjoy the experience. I lean heavily toward games and staying as close to the game or a part of the game as possible, but I am willing to regress as necessary to solve the specific problem for a specific individual.
The difference, to me, is once the problem is solved, we do not need to do the same drill every day. So, once the player can bounce the bal and has some basic control, stationary dribbling likely will not continue the learning. There needs to be a new challenge. That's is the learning spiral I have written about. It's not about repeating something that has been mastered, but perturbing the skill to continue improvement rather than mastering the skill at fairly juvenile level.
Hopefully some of this makes sense and answers your question.
Foremost, I very much appreciate your response, Coach McCormick. A long-time follower, I have tremendous respect for your thinking and the content that you have produced. Subsequently, I was quite interested in your perspective regarding something I’ve been mulling over for quite some time.
As an educator who is also a coach, I am a researcher. I’ve always been interested in, and researched human learning and instruction. An important purpose of these endeavours has been to inform my practice.
From a youth coaching perspective, this really crystallizes the questions (a) what is a fundamental and relatedly (b) how do you “prepare them for the next level” in a game that evolves? What are the skills and techniques they can take with them regardless of how the game evolves and that equip them not just to play the game in the future, but to create it?
(a) I'd argue the fundamentals don't change much, but how they are taught, used, and expressed changes. I've argued for years tactical skills (using screens) are fundamentals, like technical skills (shooting). We used screens when I played, but they were part of plays, not thought of as skills, and therefore we did not learn to use screens, we learned to follow directions in a play that incorporated a screen to create a specific cut. But, to a certain extent, the basics are the basics. I've called closeouts a fake fundamentals, but also the most important defensive skill in the modern game; the function is largely the same - move from an off-ball to on-ball position - but the techniques and objectives have changed.
(b) which gets toward the second question, of how to anticipate those changes. I think general wins...movements that transfer between sports likely win out over super-sport-specific movements (old school step-slide vs general lateral shuffle). I've written about moves vs basics in the newsletter. I teach the basics, and allow players to create their individual moves. The basics remain the same: Everyone uses a crossover dribble. Moves evolve. They are individual style, and when we get too specific teaching a specific style, we're behind because the next evolution is occurring...
Greetings, Coach McCormick:
Regarding “ I'd argue the fundamentals don't change much, but how they are taught, used, and expressed changes…” I am particularly interested in your perspective regarding changes in how technical, and tactical skills (I’m conscious of the distinction now being made between ‘technique’ and ‘skill’) are taught. More specifically, in the context of ecological dynamics and a constraints-led approach, what, if any, is the applicability, especially with novices to the game or novices relative to a technique or tactical skill, of explicit demonstration/modelling of these and ‘on-air’ practice? Is everything to be ‘discovery’ learned through designed constrained activities (game-like, small-sided games, …) and subsequent de-briefing/feedback? Thanks.
I'm appearing on a podcast tonight about this article, and I have been thinking about the acquisition vs learning paradigm from Kashen's language theories: https://brianmccormick.substack.com/p/hard2guard-is-back
My initial thought is on-air practice is vital for beginners because you have to learn the basics, but then I think about how I learned to play, and I acquired skills through play. I practiced on-air on my own, but it was completely self-initiated play. I practiced things I saw on TV or saw other kids do.
I'm not beholden to any theory. I try not to use ecological dynamics or constraints-led in any of my writing now because so many researchers and even practitioners, content producers, and influencers are overly dogmatic. To me, as a coach, any drill is designed to solve a problem. If a beginner cannot bounce a ball, is a stationary dribbling drill or follow the coach or something simple appropriate? Probably. Does it matter if it violates some theory? Not to me. Coaches aren't researchers.
My goal is to help the players in front of me improve and enjoy the experience. I lean heavily toward games and staying as close to the game or a part of the game as possible, but I am willing to regress as necessary to solve the specific problem for a specific individual.
The difference, to me, is once the problem is solved, we do not need to do the same drill every day. So, once the player can bounce the bal and has some basic control, stationary dribbling likely will not continue the learning. There needs to be a new challenge. That's is the learning spiral I have written about. It's not about repeating something that has been mastered, but perturbing the skill to continue improvement rather than mastering the skill at fairly juvenile level.
Hopefully some of this makes sense and answers your question.
I’d like to listen to the podcast that you referenced. So, will appreciate a link. Thanks. Cheers!
Podcast: https://open.substack.com/pub/basketballintelligence/p/brian-mccormick-on-changing-fundamentals?r=p5v03&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Thank you for sharing the link to the podcast.
Kind of went a different direction than anticipated.
I re-read https://brianmccormick.substack.com/p/hard2guard-is-back.
I think that the dichotomy between learning and acquisition is an ‘interesting’ one….
Foremost, I very much appreciate your response, Coach McCormick. A long-time follower, I have tremendous respect for your thinking and the content that you have produced. Subsequently, I was quite interested in your perspective regarding something I’ve been mulling over for quite some time.
As an educator who is also a coach, I am a researcher. I’ve always been interested in, and researched human learning and instruction. An important purpose of these endeavours has been to inform my practice.
Again, many thanks. Cheers!
From a youth coaching perspective, this really crystallizes the questions (a) what is a fundamental and relatedly (b) how do you “prepare them for the next level” in a game that evolves? What are the skills and techniques they can take with them regardless of how the game evolves and that equip them not just to play the game in the future, but to create it?
Excellent questions.
(a) I'd argue the fundamentals don't change much, but how they are taught, used, and expressed changes. I've argued for years tactical skills (using screens) are fundamentals, like technical skills (shooting). We used screens when I played, but they were part of plays, not thought of as skills, and therefore we did not learn to use screens, we learned to follow directions in a play that incorporated a screen to create a specific cut. But, to a certain extent, the basics are the basics. I've called closeouts a fake fundamentals, but also the most important defensive skill in the modern game; the function is largely the same - move from an off-ball to on-ball position - but the techniques and objectives have changed.
(b) which gets toward the second question, of how to anticipate those changes. I think general wins...movements that transfer between sports likely win out over super-sport-specific movements (old school step-slide vs general lateral shuffle). I've written about moves vs basics in the newsletter. I teach the basics, and allow players to create their individual moves. The basics remain the same: Everyone uses a crossover dribble. Moves evolve. They are individual style, and when we get too specific teaching a specific style, we're behind because the next evolution is occurring...