Coaches regularly argue “Europeans are more fundamental”, but rarely define the specific fundamentals. At this point, it’s said as if it is obvious, despite shooting being the single skill most associated with fundamentals, and the best shooters generally growing up in the USA.
I wrote years ago in Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development that tactical skills such as on- and off-ball screens, dribble hand-offs, cutting, spacing, and more are skills, not parts of plays, and should be considered fundamental in the same way we consider shooting, passing, and dribbling as fundamentals. When we discuss fundamentals and European versus American players, Europeans tend to have the advantage in tactical skills and understanding.
This week, I asked my new high-school team, 15 players, if they knew an Iverson cut or a Spanish screen/Spain pick and roll. One of the 15 knew the terms or had even heard the terms. This is not surprising, as I know college coaches who were unfamiliar with these cuts and screens when introduced to them last year. Not knowing the popular names for a specific cut or screen is not necessarily an indictment of one’s playing ability or coaching, but does suggest a certain lack of experience or acumen.
With my last European U16 team, I could use terms like Iverson cut, ghost screen, and Spanish screen, and the majority of players understood and could execute without further explanation. I regularly drew up plays at timeouts and quarters that we had never practiced. Our execution was not flawless, but more times than not, we executed pretty well (as you can see above, the timing was off on the initial Iverson cut, and the back screen was set too low, but we created a mismatch and occupied the help with only two regular starters on the court).
The European style forces a more tactical game and consequently players see more tactical skills in the games they watch and often are introduced to more tactical skills at earlier ages, although screens were prohibited until U13s in this country. Players focused on individual skills (dribble penetration) and cutting in their early years (U8-U12), and began to learn additional skills each year thereafter. This idea was central to Cross Over: Players and coaches do not have to learn every skill in every season; players can develop over time and in stages.
In my season so far, baskets are scored primarily through individual offense and transition after an opponent’s turnover. Few teams, us included, run anything more than a high on-ball screen. Players get into the lane, often wildly out of control, and any contact is rewarded with free throws. Players learn to put their heads down and attack aggressively because that tends to be rewarded by coaches, referees, and the scoreboard.
My U16s played teams who ran dribble-drive-motion, but the initial penetration rarely resulted in a basket or free throws. The higher tolerance for hand checks and contact on shooters made one-vs-one drives less successful than they might be in the American game. The initial drive was used to create a small advantage, hopefully leading to a long closeout on the first or second pass rather than driving wildly and expecting free throws or having the strength and explosiveness to finish through and over help defenders as happens with the best players at the high-school level.
The problem, for those who prefer a more tactical game, is this works at the high-school level. Why run plays or look to add more complexity when your best player can get to the rim and finish against almost anyone?
As I wrote last week, we played in preseason qualification tournaments to determine the A and B divisions. My high-school team plays whomever is close or whomever fits in our schedule or had the same open date. There is no real effort to find equitable games each year, as athletic directors generally are just happy to get enough games scheduled and the schedule completed before the season starts. Therefore, games often have wide discrepancies in talent, and one or two players dominate individually. I have not coached AAU in a few years, but that was my general experience in AAU too: Teams were randomly placed in groups or a bracket by age group and maybe the teams were equal and maybe it was a regional all-star team playing against a local YMCA.
The solution to creating a more tactical game may be a greater effort to balance opponents based on current players, not previous seasons or school sizes. The solution may be an effort to allow incidental contact on shooters around the basket, more like how post players are refereed, as opposed to calling all slight contact in favor of drivers. The solution may be better youth development leagues that teach the game in stages, progressing from one-vs-one play, to an emphasis on cutting and spacing, to off-ball screens, and finally on-ball screens, so most players understand these skills as they reach high school or at least the varsity level. The solution may be not to worry about tactics; if a team is able to create good shots and score efficiently with individual drives to the basket or basic dribble-drive-motion, why complicate the game? It may be that understanding and executing an Iverson cut into a step-up Spanish screen really is not important.
If I’m understanding you the issue your addressing, I think the solution to creating a more tactical game comes from two different directions— creating big global players, as you put it in Cross Over, and having league/game structures that foster a more tactical approach.
One can be addressed by how you coach/develop players and the other by having environmental structures in place that support that. And you really need both in place, because you can teach middle school basketball players all the Iverson Screens and Spanish pick and rolls you want, but if they’re facing nothing but 2-3 zones, it won’t do you much good.
When you’re talking about the tactical emphasis or acumen of European v American players, the issue really is, as I see it, what are your goals as a coach, and is the league or federation you are working in provide the kind of structure for games that are aligned with your goals?
In the US, the system, for better or worse, fosters the showcase of individual skills (which explains why we have such great shooters), as opposed to the more tactical skills you’re ascribing to European players. Whether that’s good or bad can depend on your aesthetic taste in how the game “should” look or be played.
That’s debatable, but I think the underlying question is do we want to make conscious choices to shape an environment that creates a type of player and game or do we want to be more laissez-faire about it?
Great comment. I don’t know that there’s a right answer, but if so many people are concerned about USA players falling behind, as someone says weekly, maybe it is time to shape the environment in a certain way.
Of course, players now develop in a way that is favored by the NBA, an individual, superstar-driven enterprise. Can youth/HS/NCAA change without the NBA changing? Would it make sense? Would the people complaining about the faults of US players really prefer the more tactical game with less spacing and less freedom of movement and more team-oriented basketball?