The Triple Threat in The Modern Game
When can we begin to teach players the game of their futures?
I spoke to a group of coaches in Denmark over the weekend, and the presentation was aimed at coaches of 9 to 11-year-olds. As I prepared, I reflected on pro-triple threat arguments directed toward me since I published Fake Fundamentals.
I do not teach the triple threat, and, for those late to the party, I included the triple threat as an original fake fundamental in Volume 1. I use the term triple threat occasionally because it is a common term and acknowledge players must hold the ball somewhere at times, but even as far back as the original writing of Hard2Guard Skill Development for Perimeter Players (the initial, out-of-print edition was published in 2002 or 2003), I argued against the triple threat concept and common positioning. The traditional triple-threat concept and ball positioning are not a part of the modern game.
There are other places to read my beliefs about the triple threat. Instead, as I planned for my presentation, I reflected on the common arguments in favor of the triple threat, especially from those who coach young players who were the demographic for my talk.
The triple threat is too slow for the modern game. Unless receiving the pass as part of a designed play requiring one to hold the ball and wait for the next action to develop before passing, handing off, or possibly using an on-ball screen, the modern game is SABA (Small Advantage, Big Advantage) or .5 basketball. Players should think shot first and play from the catch rather than catching, assuming some static position, then searching for the next play.
We see this in professional basketball, but many argue this is too advanced for young players. Common arguments include: Young players will catch and dribble immediately; they will make mistakes when they play too fast; and they are not skilled enough to employ .5-second basketball.
Sure. All of the above are likely true, especially at the outset. However, young players make mistakes regardless of the speed of decisions. They are young, less skilled, and less experienced. They should make mistakes. The mistakes are a part of the learning process. Nobody starts as a beginner and progresses without making mistakes. The whole purpose of a coach is to facilitate the learning of better and more advanced skills through drills, feedback, instructions, and experience, by challenging players to move beyond their current level of play. If we as coaches do not want to facilitate this development, why even have coaches for youth basketball? Just allow players to play freely.
Additionally, nobody discusses the alternative. Imagine I agree most 10-year-old players are unprepared and ill-equipped for .5 basketball at the beginning of the season. Therefore, we teach them to catch and hold the ball in a static position before deciding on their next actions. We practice the triple threat and develop this habit. Choose your favorite triple-threat position.
Does this eliminate all mistakes? No. They catch and hold the ball, and must drive, pass, or shoot against on-balance, well-positioned defenders rather than attacking closeouts, or passing or shooting before tightly defended. The triple threat does not prevent mistakes; it simply changes the nature of the mistakes.
These mistakes do not enhance their abilities to play .5 basketball or to adapt to the faster modern game. They learn to play a game that rarely exists in the present and will not exist two to threes years into their careers.
How do they move beyond the triple threat and adapt to .5 basketball when they use the triple threat, play slow, and do not anticipate before the catch? When will they learn? When will they adapt?
If they are not ready as 10-year-olds, and do not practice and play in this style, what happens as 11-year-olds? They will make mistakes. The coach will suggest .5 basketball is too hard or too complex for 11-year-olds and will demand the triple threat to prevent mistakes. The next season, the players still will not have adapted to .5 basketball. They will attempt to play faster and make mistakes, the natural, expected outcome and progression, and the coach will again revert back to the triple threat. Eventually, rather than reverting to the triple threat, those unable to adapt quickly to .5 basketball at the beginning of a season will be cut or replaced because they cannot function in modern basketball. Coaches choose and play the faster, better decision makers and more aggressive players.
What is the downside to increasing expectations at the youngest ages and teaching the game as they will need to play it as they mature and not in a way to minimize errors in the present? Make the initial adaptation mistakes now as U10s, possibly costing the team a few U10 victories as players acclimate to the greater demands, or lower the players’ ceilings because they will play catch up to the faster, more decisive players for the rest of their (likely prematurely-shortened) careers.
Every player makes mistakes, regardless of age and style of play, and inexperienced and lesser-skilled players will make more mistakes. Coaches use cliches such as “Lose the game, but not the lesson”, “We either lose or we learn”, “The only mistake is the one from which we learn nothing”, “You will only fail to learn if you do not learn from failing”, “Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes”, “You have to get outside your comfort zone to grow”, “Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone”, “Life begins at the end of your comfort zone”, and more, but then avoid introducing more advanced skills because they fear mistakes.
Obviously, the goal is to improve and overcome these mistakes, but why approach improvement by limiting young players rather than encouraging greater exploration and challenging them to acclimate and adapt quicker through practice activities and feedback? Are we teaching triple threat so players look better and more well-coached at U10s or because we believe this will advance their skills as they mature and move to more competitive ages, teams, and competitions? Is it really developmental basketball if we seek improvements by limiting players rather than by encouraging players to learn from their mistakes and continue to push forward and explore? Are these limitations more about us as coaches or what is best for the players’ growth and development?