Originally published in Hard2Guard Player Development Newsletter, Volume 1 in August 2007.
Chess Champion Josh Waitzkin described his initial experiences with his first chess teacher in The Art of Learning. His teacher used the opposite approach of many youth teachers. Most players in the world of competitive youth chess apparently learn intricate opening maneuvers to snare their opponents early in a match. These maneuvers are memorized scripts, like a football team scripting its first 15 plays.
Waitzkin’s teacher, on the other hand, taught through playing. They started with three pieces, two kings and a pawn, rather than play with a full chess board. Once Waitzkin was comfortable with the movement, value, and power of a pawn, his teacher changed the pawn to a bishop, a rook, and so forth until Waitzkin internalized the movement, value, and power of each piece.
The other young players often won quick, decisive victories through their scripted starts, but any opponent who survived the opening barrage had an advantage because the scripted player lacked the internalized knowledge, like Waitzkin.
Waitzkin’s teacher effectively used game play to build his passion for chess as well as knowledge of how to play. He did not need an orchestrated opening to win; he could win through his playing ability. This teaching was a process and did not occur overnight, but Waitzkin’s multiple national championships are a testament to his playing ability.
Few basketball coaches employ the methods of Waitzkin’s teacher. Most mirror the other youth players, and use practice to memorize a press, a press break, and offensive sets to overwhelm opponents. Players do not play as much as they follow a script. When an opponent survives the initial onslaught, these players often lack the basic skills to play any other way.
A friend who uses an uptempo, player-friendly style of play lost in the playoffs and questioned why attacking, fast-breaking teams like Memphis University or Phoenix Suns never win. Some, obviously, is luck and talent. We underestimate the difficulty of winning a championship at the highest levels. My suggestion was to practice executing when everything does not go your way. What happens to an uptempo team when they cannot push the pace? What does a team who creates a fast tempo through its press do when the press has little effect?
We used the shock-and-awe formula when I coached U9 AAU. Our player-to-player trapping defense differed from the more common presses. It looked like we were running all over the court. It was organized chaos, but press breaks failed because our defenders were never where they expected us to be. Their memorized cuts and passes did not work.
In the Southern California Championship Game, the defending national champions (I know, I know) figured out our press and used their big guy to throw over the top for layups. Despite trailing, I took off our press, our strength. Typically, I believe you press, or you do not press and you cannot panic, but I did believed the other team could not score against us in the half court. We were known for our press, which is how we generated offense, but we went to a half-court game trailing by double-digits, which is a big when most games finished in the high 20s.
We won by double-digits. We usually relied on our press, but our players had a good understanding and pressing improved our half-court defense. We pressed to create layups so we could score. In this game, we created transition baskets from half-court defense, frustrated our opponent (not too difficult with nine-year-olds), and won. They had a great approach to beat our press, but lacked the fundamentals to adjust once their initial advantage was eliminated.
Waitzkin’s teacher taught him the principles of the game, and he internalized the value, movement, and power of the pieces through playing many games with limited pieces. Teams who rely solely on a continuity offense, devastating press, quick-hit press breaker, or any other scripted play risk playing an opponent that nullifies their script. Players can adjust when they understand the principles: A pressing team can thrive in the half-court or a great Flex team can adjust to a zone defense.
What principles? Movement without the ball is a starting point. A Belgian coach emailed after reading a book from the USA on coaching youth basketball. He criticized its content, which featured plays to run with 10-year-olds, zone offenses, and more: The type of stuff that sells unfortunately.
He explained they do not teach screens until players are 14 years old. We picture Rip Hamilton curling around a staggered baseline screen or something similar when thinking about moving without the ball. Moving without the ball often is synonymous with using and setting screens. Our stereotype of “European basketball”, as if it was one thing, is players setting screens and making three-pointers. Yet, a Belgian coach suggested waiting until age 14 to teach screens.
There is plenty of space in small-sided games; players should be able to get open without a screen. Coaches should start with principles, such as give-and-go’s rather than the press break from a college coach’s DVD. Players who learn to create a passing lane in two-vs-two or three-vs-three, to space away from ball-handlers rather than bringing their defenders to the ball, and to catch and square to the basket can transfer those skills to five-vs-five games in the half court or against a press.
What happens to a team that relies on a press break when the opponent takes it away or changes the press? Does the team memorize a second press break? A third? How much time is devoted to memorizing press breaks? Do these press breaks transfer to other skills? Can teams use their press break against a 1-2-1-1 full-court trap against a 1-3-1 half-court trap?
Players who learn and practice the principles of movement in relation to the ball, movement after a pass, movement in relation to another cutter, as well as basic technical skills such as pivots, ball fakes, squaring to the basket and more can use the principles against any half-court or full-court press.
After learning principles through game play in youth basketball (Playmakers League!!), high school and college players will be more sophisticated, enabling high school and college coaches to add more variation offensively and defensively. Coaches will be more creative because players will have internalized the basic tools, rather than memorizing a new press break every time they move to a new team. Principles transfer from situation to situation, coach to coach, and league to league. Plays are specific to the team and coach. When the goal is more than just winning the next game, teaching principles, especially at an early age, is the best method.
Chess is always on my 'learn to do' list. I loved 'The Queen's Gambit,' (TV and book). Unfortunately, I'm rubbish at it.
Anyhoo, basketball aside, I often see the formulaic approach you describe when watching rugby training. Mythical set piece moves that last for minutes, practised against invisible and imaginary opponents who appear to lie down conveniently.
This plan lasts about 2 seconds in a match: then the key players run sideways and give hospital passes and try to tackle with their arms outstretched like Frankenstein's monster, rather than with their bodies.
I always start with 2 vs 1 in a 5metre wide, 10 metre long channel. If you can't make this work (and most junior players struggle) why expand to 15 vs 15 (or worse, practice 15 vs 0)?
The narrow channel forces execution of pass, timing, defensive decision making and how to tackle.
But what do I know, I haven't got a beard, a tattoo and didn't go to public school...
We have the same problem in education. It is why so many students (and some teachers!) are bored to death by school.
I say that we have real learning and school learning which is what both Brian and James describe with press breakers and Rugby at pieces.
If we taught kids to ride bikes like they were in school no one would ever ride a bikes.
In real learning the kids hops on the bike and figures it out as they go. They might start with training wheels or a three wheeler but it would look like riding a bike.
If riding a bike were taught in school kids would be forced to learn the history of bikes, the invention of the wheel, how friction works and then practice taking left turns and then right turns rather than just hop on an appropriate bike and figure it out with whatever direction was needed. By the time they were given the opportunity to ride, most would just say, “I hate bikes. They are so boring.”