The Development Advantages in Europe

Looking beyond the magic practice drill to identify systemic changes

Many people argue the United States must develop players like in Europe. A common social media comment reads something like this one:

Few specifics are offered other than general criticisms of coaches, parents, social media, fundamentals, and AAU. Of course, these exist in Europe too: There are good and bad coaches; coaches obsessed with winning youth games; clubs signing young players from other clubs; parents complaining about playing time and switching to new clubs; posting highlights on social media after every game; and clubs are essentially the same as AAU teams (not affiliated with schools or the education system), although there are definite differences (players playing for a high school and AAU team is a major difference).

I have coached in several countries and worked with a variety of age groups. My experiences are not conclusive; I have not worked in basketball powerhouses such as Lithuania, Serbia, and Spain. European basketball is not a monolith, especially when discussing development systems. Each federation and club approach development differently. There are some consistencies and generalities, but there is not one single example or explanation unless discussing the overarching rules, as each federation uses the official FIBA rules, including mini-basket, fairly consistency. Some differ in terms of age when teams can set screens, play zone defense, and more, as some rule modifications vary from country to country, although the general applications do not differ much.

The four primary advantages for player development in Europe, in my experience and in my opinion, are: (1) Length of the season; (2) Mini-Basket or basketball for those younger than 12; (3) Ease of progression outside school systems; (4) Strength and conditioning.

My season started in August and will end in May. I believe we will play ~40 games. The season’s length generally means one game per week, which affords more practices per game, and also more time for general practice rather than specific game preparation. Personally, I preferred previous seasons of the same length in which we played ~60 games.

High-school and college teams generally play twice per week due to condensed seasons. Colleges may play Wednesday and Saturday, which typically makes Sunday an off-day. Most coaches do not go too hard on Tuesdays and Fridays before games, and Thursdays may be another off-day or light day, depending on the coach, schedule, travel, opponents, and more. That leaves one real practice per week.

We play on Saturdays. I generally do not focus on opponents, nor worry about fatigue because I play 12 players, but I am an outlier. Most coaches typically spend at least one day on game preparations and a lighter practice (Friday), which still leaves four days for general practice, or three real practices plus another off-day.

We expect high-school coaches to develop players, and also to win, but constrain the season to complicate achieving both goals, unless one starts with the most talent. We abide by the short season because society wants high-school students to pursue multiple activities and sports, to be well-rounded individuals. We strive to achieve multiple, often conflicting outcomes. Achieving, standing out, and progressing in multiple activities is difficult for teens, but we devise our systems around this goal. Our focus is high-school achievement; essentially we treat high school as the end, although interested parties (college coaches) want development and need players to move beyond the end.

We have too many competing interests, which is the reason many parents look outside the school system for other opportunities (AAU, trainers) to meet their and their children’s goals. AAU receives blame for everything bad about basketball in the United Staes, but AAU, like European basketball, is not one thing. AAU exists due to our reluctance to extend the high-school season (despite high schools teams playing in spring, summer, and fall leagues in many states), and our desire to accommodate college coaches. We fail to center the players in our decisions.

Mini-Basket

I have never coached in official FIBA Mini-Basket. These comments pertain to youth, pre-teen basketball: 12 years old and younger. Most areas in the United States play the same basic game from beginning to end: Five-vs-five full-court games on 10-foot baskets with no rule modifications. Occasionally, leagues modify their rules, whether using a smaller basketball or prohibiting full-court presses with certain age groups, but the general game looks similar to the adult game in structure, although the actual play varies dramatically.

In Europe (FIBA), the game progresses, adding or subtracting in each age group until reaching the adult game, typically between U15 and U17. Games start four-vs-four and utilize lower baskets through at least U10s. There are different rules on screening, zone defenses, and more. In many countries, despite perceptions, the early emphasis is one-vs-one skills and attacking one-vs-one to create shots. Dribbling, offensive moves, and layups are the foundation, similar to our emphasis with U9s at HoopMasters, described in Blitz Basketball.

I have argued modifications such as no zones and no pressing are unnecessary, as players requiring these simplifications should play three-vs-three, not five-vs-five, among the reasons we created Playmakers League for beginners and young players. I still believe young players should start with three-vs-three, but I am swimming against a very strong tide.

However, I recently concluded no zone and no full-court press rules are more about coaches than players. People often suggest these modifications because defenses pack the three-second area, taking advantage of young children’s lack of shooting skill (lower the basket, shorten the three-point line!) and strength. These arguments are true, but the greater purpose behind rule modifications is focusing coaches on basic technical skills by limiting the tactics and strategies to implement to prepare for games.

An U10 coach feels compelled to implement a zone offense to attack even-front and odd-front zones and presses, which is, at minimum, four plays to teach and memorize, in addition to player-to-player plays and one’s own zones and presses. That is far too much to cover with young players and beginners, especially when teams practice once or twice per week, maybe three total hours.

Instead, coaches have much less to cover tactically and strategically when zones, zone presses (full-court player-to-player is acceptable), and offensive screening are prohibited. They can focus on dribbling, passing, shooting, and spacing, which are the foundation. Sure, the modifications make the game easier for the players, leading to greater success, and this may be a reason for the modifications, but I truly believe the modifications are more about reducing the practice content to focus on the true foundational elements at early ages. Players with better and bigger foundations are prepared technically to handle more tactics and strategy as they graduate from one age group to the next.

Ease of Progression

Incorporating sports into the school system is largely beneficial for most players, as it increases access, opportunities, and affordability. No system is perfect, and the school system is not without its flaws (short season), but it generally provides a net benefit.

A major shortcoming is the rigidity of advancement. An exceptional 16-year-old, such as Cooper Flagg, cannot play college or professional basketball before a certain age because he must graduate from high school to qualify for college basketball and reach a certain age to qualify for professional basketball.

Meanwhile, my U16, U17, and U18 players in multiple countries have participated in men’s leagues against adults in addition to their age group competitions when we felt they were prepared. Selected players play up with the older age groups and then men’s leagues, playing alongside older, more experienced players against adults and professional players. Even in Ireland, I added a 17-year-old to our semi-professional team, and he defended a 25-year-old former NCAA high major D1 player. High-school juniors and seniors do not have those opportunities in organized competition to play up against professional players and adults.

Advancing to adult basketball as a teenager is not always a positive and not for every player, but exceptional players with physical and emotional maturity benefit from the advanced competition in practice and games. We have a pyramid system that could allow players to play against older players, but the school system (graduation) limits these opportunities. An advanced high-school player could play for a local junior college, NCAA D2, or NCAA D1, but instead must graduate from high school to be eligible for these competitions, and any participation begins his or her four-year college eligibility clock.

For years, people identified college basketball as an impediment for elite players, which prompted the NBA to start the G-League Ignite. In reality, college basketball is not the problem; it could be improved (earlier start, reduce the limitations on offseason practice, etc), but it provides a platform many countries have attempted to adopt with age maximums (U23 league) or mandatory playing time for young players in their second or third divisions. Talented 21 year-olds sitting on the bench behind 25-30 year-old professional players serves nobody, which is a reason more European players are looking at NCAA D1 programs now that they can be paid.

Instead, the bottleneck in the system is the inability to move to colleges when physically and emotionally ready rather than after academic graduation. One’s athletic progression should not be stifled or impacted by academic progress or lack thereof, but that is the current system in which academics and athletics are intertwined. Players need appropriate challenges to grow, and many top players outgrow high-school competition, but are prevented from seeking greater competitive outlets.

Strength and Conditioning

The basketball stereotype is American-born and bred players are more athletic, and non-athletic European players are more skilled. These stereotypes stem from cultural, racial, and traditional origins, and often conflate power with athleticism. Despite perceptions, many European players receive superior strength and conditioning than their American peers; just look at the videos of Victor Wembanyama.

As a gross generalization, our strength and conditioning focuses more on numbers and output, force and power, whereas European strength and conditioning focuses more on movement quality, flexibility, mobility, and other qualities. Teenagers often strive to get bigger, especially their mirror muscles (abs, chest, biceps), and focus on dunking, but progressive strength and conditioning develops the movement quality and capacity first as the foundation prior to chasing output.

European strength and conditioning in my experience is influenced more by track and field, whereas American strength and conditioning is influenced heavily by football. Americans place a heavy importance on hypertrophy and looking bigger, whereas many European players remain skinny despite their added strength. They improve their strength to weight ratio, whereas American players tend to look at their output. Is a 300 Lb. bench press by a 300 Lb. offensive lineman more impressive than a 200 Lb. bench press by a 150 Lb. point guard?

I am impressed with our focus on running technique and acceleration through our dynamic warmup drills, as well as the well-rounded approach in the weight room. We use the big lifts (bench press, deadlift, back squat, cleans) far less than in American programs, and utilize bands, medicine balls, and isometrics far more. I see the positive developments in just four months. The programming would be similar to a really excellent college strength program, far surpassing the average programming for most 16-year-olds in the United States.

The year-round participation with a single club and the 10-month season afford consistency, whereas American teenagers often seek private trainers to receive the same year-round consistency while moving from AAU to high school teams and back. With one game per week, we lift three times per week and go through a normal periodized cycle without changing too much because of games. Our major games are scheduled far in advance, and our strength coach works back from those dates, reducing volume and increasing intensity the week before the big games in order to peak.

Summary

Most people when criticizing the system in the United States and pointing to Europe as a model expect European teams and coaches to use magic drills or a much greater volume of time on court. Instead, few of the advantages have to do with the coaches, practices, drills, or games, and more on the consistency, planning, and progressions.

An U17 European practice is not too different from a high-school practice. Few European clubs have facilities to match an average high school in the United States. Very few non-professional teams practice significantly more than in the United States, although individual players may practice more when they play for multiple teams (U17, U19, first division men).

The improvements are fairly straightforward, but are unlikely to occur because of institutional resistance. Many parents and coaches cannot fathom three-vs-three, even for beginners, instead of five-vs-five, and nobody looks at Wembanyama as the classic example of strength and conditioning when he stands next to Giannis or Zion Williamson. The school system is unlikely to change, either in terms of lengthening the season at the expense of potential three-sport athletes or allowing players to move ahead of their academics athletically. Instead, we will moan about AAU, criticize volunteer coaches, and transfer from school to school and team to team to find better development.