Winning Versus Player Development
When does developmental basketball transition to competitive basketball?
A major discussion within youth basketball is the value of winning versus development. Many coaches, especially those who do not coach youth basketball, suggest winning is not important at youth levels, whereas many youth coaches coach as though winning is important.
Essentially, many coaches seem to think winning becomes important only at their levels: NBA General Managers do not care how many college games a player wins; college coaches generally do not care about a high-school player’s AAU or high-school wins; a high-school coach does not care about wins in youth basketball. Coaches view previous levels as development for their own level, but coaches view their own levels as the most important levels: Youth coaches want to win youth championships; high-school coaches want to win league and state championships; college coaches want to win league and national championships. Who is right? Is every level just preparation for the next level? Is every level competitive in its own right? When should winning become important?
I differentiated developmental and competitive in Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development, but at what age should developmental basketball transition to competitive basketball? Rarely is the answer unanimous. Even Spain, a country known and praised for its basketball development hosts national championships for U12 age groups, which suggests a move to competitive games by 10 or 11 years old. This tends to escape attention in the develop players like in Europe arguments.
Why are youth games any less valuable or important than high-school or college games? Why should youth games be subservient to higher levels, but not high-school or college games? How do we distinguish development from winning when countries sponsor national tournaments and the scoreboard designates a winner for virtually every game?
Years ago, legendary field hockey coach and author Horst Wein published an article titled “Winning vs. Player Development” that outlined 10 guidelines for development-oriented soccer:
No more 11v11.
Practice less; play more.
Let the players play.
Teach all positions.
You can’t be creative unless you’re having fun.
Let players create their own games and rules.
Teach players to take risks and improvise without worrying about consequences.
Don’t be afraid to try “right brain soccer.”
More creative coaches = more creative players.
Youth players need a creativity-friendly environment.
Many coaches have adopted some of these; some think they are heretical. These guidelines align closely with the Playmakers League.
Three-vs-three basketball has gained in stature over the last decade, but many still resist three-vs-three leagues and insist their children play five-vs-five basketball, regardless of age. Three-vs-three promotes development, as players receive more time on court, more touches, more meaningful defensive possessions, and one anecdotal study showed parents were less invested, and therefore behaved better at three-vs-three games compared to a five-vs-five league. The only objective negative one can offer is three-vs-three is not five-vs-five, which is the entire point.
The constant refrain is children play too many games and do not practice enough. The statement should be more specific. It is not games, but structured, competitive games and practices. Are competitive games play? Can play be a part of practices? How much do children actually participate during competitive games?
If I counted every pickup game in my childhood as a game, I spent more time in games than practices, and probably played more gams than today’s youth. If I counted the hours of self-directed practice in my front yard as practice, the scales tip toward practice. However, both are play, and I engaged in more self-directed play than organized basketball (practices + games) during my childhood. Sports should encourage these unstructured, purposeless, child-initiated, self-directed experiences. Children need more play, and fewer organized practices, games, or training sessions.
Organized sports often limit players: Don’t shoot that shot, don’t dribble, etc. Coaches demand players fit their model of good basketball. They run plays, play specific positions and roles, shoot specific shots, and more. Coaches control the games, as much as they possibly can. Players often are not allowed to play or explore.
Positionless basketball is a popular term, but generally translates into “no post play” as opposed to players who learn to play in all positions (perimeter, elbows, blocks, corners) and learn all skills: Shooting, passing, dribbling, post moves, attack moves, and more. Positionless basketball is more than running a five-out offensive set; players should be encouraged to explore all skills.
Creativity often is undervalued, and fun generally is dismissed. Sports are games; they should be fun. Players should enjoy their experiences. Creativity should be desired and nurtured. We marvel at Luka Doncic, Nikola Jokic, Stephen Curry, Kyrie Irving, and others because of their creativity, their ability to find new and unseen solutions. We value creativity in our most elite players; why not nurture creativity in our youngest players? Why discourage young players from trying new things?
We played six-vs-six at recesses when I was a child because we had one court per grade and 12 boys who wanted to play. Why exclude someone or substitute when everyone can play? This is a child’s response to too many players. Adults substitute because the game is supposed to be five-vs-five. Adults follow written rules; children make up rules based on circumstances, skill levels, fair play, and more. Why not allow children to design games and rules? They may have better answers.
Players who reach higher levels take risks and try new things. Tyrese Halliburton continually made jump passes when jumping to pass was considered a mistake. Curry shot 35-foot three-point shots when many believed three-pointers were bad shots. Jokic and Doncic constantly take risks with the passes they throw. They did not start these behaviors or develop this confidence once they reached the NBA; they were encouraged from a young age to try things.
Creative coaches develop creative players. What is the harm in trying new things? I was hired to coach a volleyball team when I was in college. I did not realize this until I showed up for the first day of practice. I never played on a volleyball team, so I did not know any standard drills. I made up things that seemed like they would improve the basic skills we needed to learn. I experimented. We did things I have never seen at another volleyball practice, but we ended up pretty good competitively, players had fun, everyone signed up the following season, and their next coaches did not complain about a lack of skills. Being different is not wrong.
The distinction between developmental and competitive is difficult. Nobody wants to lose, regardless of age. Sports are competitive, as there is always a scoreboard. However, how can coaches promote development, especially during the developmental years, which, to me, is everything prior to the varsity level?
The theme of the ten guidelines is encouraging players to think for themselves and to be creative. A developmental approach favors exploration and encourages players to take risks and expand their skills. Valuing skill development, empowering players, and encouraging creativity is the first step toward a more developmental environment, but many coaches will not take this step and sacrifice a win for development because coaches are judged by won-loss record.
Winning is not the enemy, but it also cannot be the only thing. Any time the path to winning becomes more about limiting than expanding, competition takes precedence over development. The environment is competitive when coaches tell a player to stand in the corner, away from the ball in a mandatory play league, or play some players only once the game is decided, or restrict who is allowed to dribble or shoot. These are not developmental behaviors, and these should be avoided in youth basketball.
Playing in a national tournament or winning a game is not the problem; problems arise when the behaviors required to qualify or win the game supersede the developmental experience for every player. Developmental basketball should be a time for expanding skills and playing, not limiting behaviors and sitting on the bench.
I think it’s all about emphasis at different levels and deciding when it is generally developmentally appropriate to emphasize winning over development for an age cohort. Clearly winning is or ought to be the top emphasis at the professional level, but, even there, you (hopefully) talk about developing a young player or you look at teams in a rebuild developing a whole group of young players.
Conversely, at the youth level, of course coaches (myself included) “want to win,” but for a variety of reasons I don’t want that to come at the cost of every kid getting a chance to play, have fun, develop and participate. We had a losing season this year, but the kids were able to have fun and get better. They fought like hell to win games and we lost some real heart breakers, but they never got discouraged because we didn’t emphasize it. The kids play hard because THEY want to win, but they had fun because there was no added external pressure to win.
The whole question of winning has to be secondary to development at every level though-- it’s a matter of when the drive to win will aid the development of the player, whether the player is ready for that and where that motivation should come from. You can have a 7th grader hell bent on winning who needs a coach to reign him in a bit or a supremely talented NBA prospect more motivated to party than anything else who needs a coach to light a fire under him to help him develop to the next level.
Thanks for a very thought provoking piece. Great stuff.