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?
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?