The Challenge Point of a Drill
How do players improve when drills are below their competency level?
I saw a video of a former player working with a trainer. There were at least three players working out individually, plus the trainer. The players dribbled toward a chair at the top of the key, crossed over, attacked the basket, and finished as the trainer lightly hit them with a pad. A very basic, somewhat standard training drill.
The video was overlayed with music, so viewers cannot hear if there was feedback and the quality of the feedback. The drill was posted as typical social media fodder, used as marketing, using the player to sell the trainer as much as anything else. I have no knowledge of the rest of the workout, how often, goals, and more.
My first, basic question: There are at least three players; why make a move against a chair instead of a defender?
We often say players never should get too far from the basics, and many might consider this the basics for a near-professional player. The drill certainly is below his competency level. There was no real challenge. The drill was not game-like, as there is no defense, no decisions, no passing option.
What is our goal when we practice without game constraints? What is the goal when practice is beneath the player’s level and devoid of a true challenge? Not every drill must be game-like or at a perfect challenge point, but what is our goal when neither is present?
Work. Repetitions. What is the goal of the work? He’s improving. How? Repetitions. Repetitions of what? His skills. What skills? Dribbling. He has shown a better crossover against defenders in games than in the drill. That’s why he needs more practice. To accomplish what? To get better. At what? Dribbling. How? More work. What does the work do? Repetitions. What do the repetitions accomplish? Improvement. How? By doing more. More of what? The move. He can do the move already. But he can do it better. Sure, but not in the example. That is why he needs to do the drill more.
The circle never ends. We know nobody plays perfectly, which means doing more and working harder are always acceptable answers to any question. But how does more and harder actually improve the player?
Nobody questions simple drills such as this because they are standard, expected. These drills are orderly and clearly practice a game skill: Dribbling, making a move, whatever you see. A high-school coach commented that the practice was incredible.
The practice appears purposeless to me; it is exercise; it is chasing repetitions to demonstrate practice, not to improve something specifically. My Insta-like triple move drills have a purpose, but often are lambasted because people love to criticize multi-move moves. Making a move at a chair looks like something we want to happen in a game, but making a triple move, likely inducing more mistakes, is not something most coaches want to see. We judge based on superficial appearances and not intentions. We do not question drills that appear to practice important skills in a desirable manner. This is how we end up with Fake Fundamentals persisting from generation to generation.
Everyone uses a similar dribbling drill of some kind, which means it must be a good drill. What is it good at doing? What is the drill accomplishing? Be specific.
Doing more of the same engrains habits. When you shoot like Steph Curry, further stabilizing a habit is good. However, while he has a good crossover and handles competently during games, is engraining habits with no defense and no speed requirement good practice?
Dribbling is difficult to measure, which makes it ideal for trainers. Dribbling has more variety and creativity than shooting, which also makes it perfect for trainers, as the combination of challenges, creativity, and variability enable many interesting and motivating activities, and the lack of definite results maintains positivity.
It is difficult to convince a player who shoots and misses 10 shots in a row that he is making progress. The result is immediate and obvious, which is one reason changing shooting styles is difficult, as players generally regress before they improve because change is hard. Dribbling drills have no definitive outcome or result. Were the repetitions good? I don’t know. How are we measuring good? He maintained control and did not dribble the ball off his foot, which I suppose is one measure of good. Would the move work in a game? Unlikely. It was too slow. Is the practice good if it will not transfer to game performance?
Now, listening to the feedback or the instructions possibly could inform us of the intention or purpose. Was the move supposed to be lower? Faster? Was he focused on the next dribble? Was he trying to move further laterally before exploding? Was he building toward a tunneling effect on different moves? It is possible to do the very same drill (I would not use a chair) with a very specific intention and accomplish something to improve the player’s skill.
However, do all three players have the same needs? How individual is individual practice when several players go through the same exact workout and receive, more or less, the exact same feedback? Why practice individually without receiving specific, individualized drills, feedback, and instructions? What is the purpose of the individual practice when it is not individualized? Why have three players and not use them as defenders? Simply doing drills with no defense does not make for individual skill practice, although often the two are equated.
Work and repetitions improve habits. However, when the practice is half-speed because there is no defense, the work engrains these habits. When the crossover dribble comes a little high because there is no defender to punish the slight loss of control, the repetitions engrain this habit. Stabilizing one’s habits is not the same as improvement or learning; one may stabilize a skill at a suboptimal level, which only makes the eventual practice to improve the level more difficult and time consuming.
An appropriate challenge maintains motivation and attention. Players keep the proper intention when they practice. A game-like drill tends to increase motivation, and the competition provides immediate feedback on the move. Players are described as going through the motions when drills lack a sufficient challenge and are missing the game constraints. Going through the motions is exercise, not skill development.
Drills are a tool to solve a problem. I defended Insta drills last month because drills are not good or bad. The specificity, purpose, and intention of the practice determine the utility of a specific drill. The problem is using the wrong tool or relying only on one tool: Everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer. Coaches copy a simple drill such as this because it appears to improve an important skill, but what does the drill really accomplish? How does the player actually improve?