I spent last Wednesday through Sunday on the road at the U17 Polish Championships. Therefore, today’s newsletter is a reprint from Hard2Guard Player Development Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 30.
A player who I worked with for several months asked why his in-n-out move did not work. I did not see the pick-up games in which the move failed, so asked some questions to get a better understanding. I could not see the specific failures in our training as we worked out individually, and therefore the mistakes were not exposed, although I suspected he used the move too often or incorrectly.
We practiced the move’s technique — the ball and body moving together, the C-shaped ball movement, the short-step, big-step — but the technique is only the first part of a skill. Players must know when to use a move, read the defense and use the move appropriately, and execute the technique correctly at game speed for their moves to work in games.
We often forget about the second part and assume moves practiced in drills without defense will transfer to games. We ignore the most important aspect of the skill: Reading the defense and choosing the appropriate move. Most ball-handling and passing mistakes beyond the novice level are tactical, not technical errors: Players choose the wrong move or direction more often than they bounce the ball off their feet.
Dr. Damian Farrow, the Skill Acquisition Specialist at the Australian Institute of Sport, defined reading the play as “pattern recall or recognition” in “Reading the play in team sports: Yes, it’s trainable!” in Sport Coach, Volume 27, Issue 3. The ball-handler must recall the pattern or recognize the situation to choose the correct move. In most cases, this learning occurs subconsciously through experience, and players make these decisions without conscious thought. Players do not always know consciously why they made a specific move; these movements, actions, and decisions occur too quickly for cognitive deliberation. However, how do players learn subconsciously? What if they make mistakes?
Farrow cited studies of Australian Rules Football players that found elite decision-makers have played lots of games, including backyard games as children, and many had some basketball experience. Playing one invasion game may improve pattern recognition in other invasion games, a theory supported by Steve Nash’s basketball success with his soccer background. More than likely, the increased exposure to games and decision-making, rather than solely secondary sports participation, enhanced the development of elite decision-making skills.
Farrow wrote, “Whether a player then becomes a skilled decision maker relates to whether their coach draws their attention to such details. Coaches who provide their players with game-based training opportunities rather than stereotypical drills with minimal decision making requirements are likely to develop more competent decision makers.”
The player’s moves likely failed because he had few game-based training opportunities. We primarily focused on his shooting, and his team had normal team practices and games (although he missed many for academic obligations). The individual one-vs-zero drills were insufficient to develop game moves. He improved his technique and ball control, but straight-line drills or even attacking the basket with a move fail to account for the biggest determiner of success in a game: The defense.
I encourage players to use their imaginations when they practice, but players who fail because of lack of game experience likely are unable to replicate game experiences in their minds. Experienced players likely engage their imaginations because they have the experience and wherewithal to tap into the pattern recall and recognition skills facilitating better game decision-making. Inexperienced players lack these pattern recall skills, and their imaginations and visualizations are less useful.
Farrow wrote, “Players will not develop decision-making skills if their coaches only prescribe practice drills devoid of decision-making opportunities. There must be a systematic application of game based practice activities that require players to make decisions as required in game situations.”
As I watched games last summer, players struggled to read the play: They failed to see open players, they made the wrong move at the wrong time, they attacked in the wrong direction, and more.
Some errors are technical: Some players did not attack to the left because they lacked the confidence or skill to dribble with their left hands; some players did not pivot all the way to the basket because they have no intention of shooting or attacking with their left hands and consequently failed to see the entire court (this was a problem for my team, as passes from the right were not reversed because players did not pivot to see the entire court; I implemented a practice rule that passes had to be reversed all the way before a player could attack in order to create the habit of seeing both sides of the floor. Previously, players shot faked on every catch to ensure they pivoted to see the basket).
In most instances, however, mistakes were tactical. Players did not know how to attack a defender or defense or they made an incorrect judgment (read the play incorrectly). For instance, when should players use an in-n-out move?
I divide the court into five lanes. Imagine I attack in the right slot with the ball in my right hand and a defender waiting between me and the basket. The defender can play my inside shoulder, the center of my body, or my right shoulder/ball. He can start with his back to the baseline or to the left sideline.
An in-n-out move is unlikely to work, nor is it necessary, when his back is to the sideline. When his back is to the baseline and he is positioned on my inside shoulder, I have a direct line to the basket: No in-n-out move required. When he plays my right shoulder, he opens the middle of the court, and I am likely to cross over and attack to the middle. Therefore, an in-n-out move is most effective when he plays the middle of my body — the slight fake gets him to shift his weight and possibly take a step toward the middle of the court, which creates the advantage to the outside.
I do not think about these options consciously in a game, as I would move too slowly. Instead, I practice these situations so I recall the specific pattern (playing straight up) and make the appropriate move subconsciously.
Experienced players read the play without thinking and make quicker decisions. They sense an advantage to the right and take advantage even if they cannot consciously recall why (often their guesses are incorrect when attempting to reenact their movements). This aspect of the skill often determines the move’s success. Players need the proper technique, but technique alone is insufficient. As players learn their basic techniques, they need more game-like drills to complete their skill learning.
On the one hand, commentators moan about the lack of decision-makers, on the other hand, parents love enrolling their children into sessions which 'look' professional: isolated drills, queues and someone shouting at their children.
One parent, when she first came to my gymnastics class, couldn't work out who was in charge: I was stood at one side, watching and thinking. The gymnasts were all exploring and practicing.
(9 years later, the mother has done adult gym with me, and all three of her children have done gymnastics with me, one is now a weightlifter).
Enjoyed, as I do all of your writings, the article. Seem to be advocating for both, technique instruction (perhaps at least some ‘on-air’ drills…) and activities involving defenders in order to develop skilled decision-making. There are CLA researchers and advocates who appear to be indicating that the use of isolated (‘on-air’) technique instruction within the context of team practices be, at the very least, significantly minimized. Creates a conundrum for me: what is the optimal balance?