➡️ The notion of fundamentals are something adhered to by many coaches who talk about players requiring fundamentals before they get the chance to play games or perform more “advanced skills”. Fundamentals are often coupled with explicit instruction. Why is this a problem?
Firstly, coaches who believe in fundamentals suggest that players have to be taught something explicitly before doing it in a game. This is simply completely false. Just watch a normal 🏀 game and see the number of solutions players use which have not ever been taught.
This idea of being taught something explicitly before using it in a game is incongruent with how learning actually works (a non-linear process). Every player has different action capabilities based on the interaction between individual, environment & task constraints.
This interaction of constraints is ever-changing. This means it’s simply impossible to teach a “fundamental” and expect all players to use it the same way in a game. An additional problem with fundamentals is the way the coach prescribes only one way to execute the technique.
Where did the idea of fundamentals come from? I believe this stems from coaches wishing to emulate successful NCAA , Euroleague & pro coaches. They may have had success teaching fundamentals, but what about all the coaches who didn’t? This links to survivorship bias later on…
Additionally, what if there is an even better way waiting to be discovered? “One of the biggest barriers to adopting modern approaches is that coaches are afraid to swap something they are comfortable with for an unknown better alternative” - @BBallImmersion@Chris__Oliver
Another great chapter in Myths of Sport Coaching shares the role (ineffective) coach education has in spreading myths within sport coaching. This is prevalent in basketball, especially in coaching clinics and some all access video productions.
“The myth of fundamentals emerged from the mid to end 20th century motor learning literature, grounded in the idea that coaches must reduce the amount of information to assist the learners’ brains in processing information.” (Rudd, Foulkes, O’Sullivan & Woods, 2020).
On this topic, it is hard to believe that materials such as the below are STILL being used by national & global federations in their coach education. When would a player ever perform a skill without thinking?! We are humans, not robots! This just adds to this myth.
Every solution in a game is different. Furthermore, as the game has evolved coaches remain married to fundamentals which no longer have much relevance in the modern game. For example…
- Step slides which are impossible to contain athletic players in the modern age.
- Chest passes made in a straight line across a short distance (never possible with a defender in front)
- Choppy step close-outs (impossible to prevent an effective shooter).
- Line drill pivots
When coaches adhere to players first having fundamentals, they are actually just holding their players back from fulfilling their true potential. Players do need to do a chest pass before being able to make a one handed pass. Let players explore the skills they will actually use!
Rather than telling a player what to do, as coaches we can create an environment where players can learn implicitly. Little or no instructions are given, and the player learns by doing. Players do not need fundamentals before having the opportunity to play!
This is the opposite to how most coaches teach, but the one hugely supported by evidence as to how people learn best. As coaches, we have to put our ego aside to avoid running scripted drills and instead design a practice where players can develop a variety of movement solutions.
As coaches we must embrace the evidence vs being scared of it. When the evidence is referenced, many coaches become defensive and point to their extensive experience of basketball vs the science. Combining experience WITH empirical evidence is the best way to advance our sport.
Many coaches who believe in fundamentals were often coached themselves in traditional, linearized learning environments. The players who were successful being brought up with “fundamental” explicit coaching exhibit their success to the drills they use…
However, we never hear of ALL the players who didn’t make it training this way. This is the concept Known as survivorship bias that I referenced earlier on in this thread, as well as what I believe is the biggest thing holding European basketball back. More on this coming soon!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Instead of putting players through a scripted routine of pre-determined 1 on 0 techniques, literally just play defense to improve the effectiveness of individual workouts. Use varying starts, always in a new location, with specific constraints on the offense (eg only threes).
I respect coaches who spend significant amounts of time planning their workouts. I still plan, but in a very different way. I avoid going through a list of specific techniques (aka “moves”) I want to impart on the player as the “correct” way of doing something.
Instead I look at what the player specifically needs as well as giving giving them an input in the workout. I then play “guided defense” most of the time, using my positioning to replicate situations seen by real defenders in a game.
😀 Thread on the importance of FUN and how this is misconstrued, particularly in the youth sectors of big pro clubs in Europe. This creates a perpetuating cycle which other youth coaches then emulate, damaging the experience players have of our sport.
Many GMs and coaches don’t think high level youth prospects can be developed while having fun. I have no idea why this is the case. Credit to a great book I am reading “Myths of Sport Coaching” (HIGHLY RECOMMEND), where many studies on this topic referenced.
🧠 Where does this stem from? The work of Daniel Kahneman was referenced in the book. As humans we hold onto existing schemas that result in errors in our thinking. This is very prevalent in 🏀 coaches, seeing fun as something only needed for rec ball.
While there are some consistencies with the jump shot, no shot is ever the same. Coaches talk about and attempt to train players to use the exact same, “repeatable technique” but this is impossible. What constraints affect the shooting motion? Read on… @BBallImmersion
▪️Distance from the basket (Elliott, 1992; Elliott & White, 1989; Miller & Bartlett, 1993)
▪️Presence of a defender (Rojas, Cepero, Ona, & Gutierrez, 2000)
▪️Body posture at ball release (Ripoll, Bard, & Paillard, 1986)
▪️Other movements completed by the player before shooting (Lorenzo & Arago ́n, 2003)
▪️Field of view (Oudejans, van de Langerberg, & Hutter, 2002; Ripoll et al., 1986)
▪️Physical characteristics of the player (Hudson, 1985b; Rojas et al., 2000)
💊Thread: re-thinking traditional "basketball vitamins"
👉This is the closest we would get to vitamins. Instead of 1-on-0, using scripted defense. The cut-off cues a protection plan, which must be different every time. Nash, Barkley, Bounce Out or Back-Pivot.
💡Rep without rep
The problem with normal vitamins in player development is that players make 95%+ of all their reps. This shows the level of difficulty is far from desirable and therefore any supposed effect from the "vitamins" is completely negated. Even a scripted D = more challenge
3⃣ Stay for x3 reps, then change roles, then change locations.
🌬️Typical vitamins are completely unopposed (1v0) and lacking in any form of task representativeness.
💡I do not believe in vitamins because every week the conditions are changing. Plus doing the same thing is boring!