➡️Thanks to @VanjaCernivec for reintroducing me last weekend to some Fighting Monkey concepts! I like the concept behind FM (founders have a dance/ martial arts/ gymnastic background). I’ve added my own ideas to more closely align it with what we do from 🏀 standpoint.
Firstly why are we doing this? I see a huge value in the FM concepts for developing more fluid movers, promoting coordination and rhythm etc. This is how I’ve adapted some of the coordinations…
👉Rather than having players copy the movement instructor/ dancer etc, give them a base sequence and allow them to explore their own movement techniques. See if cues can be used to get the players doing their own coordination before they see the instructor demonstrate it.
👉Apply external feedback and analogies rather than internal feedback. This means trying to avoid talking about specific body position placements. Just like 🏀, see a lot of internal feedback used in this space too which actually makes it harder for the players.
👉Attempting to promote more repetition without repetition within the base FM routines. Eg different velocities, potentially the same coordination in the upper body but something varied with the feet, varied positions etc. This should be unpredictable rather than blocked/ serial.
🗣 Like everything, I think it’s important for coaches to critically reflect and add their own perspectives to apply it to their own context vs precisely replicating one specific model.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Taylorism, Henry Ford, Traditional Drills & Conceptual Offense!
This is a long thread hitting on many conversation points. I also want to address some of the confusion and misunderstanding as to what constraints are within the basketball coaching community.
Let's start with Taylorism. This was a system of scientific management used in factories created by Fred W. Taylor. The most notable proponent of Taylorism was Henry Ford, who used Taylor's ideas to mass produce the iconic Ford Model T.
According to Taylor, the best way to increase efficiency was to break down each job into its individual motions, while workers were timed with a stopwatch. All unnecessary motion was eliminated and the worker, following a machinelike routine, became far more productive.
🧵This is a thread on how I apply differential learning (DL) to shooting. I believe the benefits of non-linear pedagogy are particularly evident with shooting. This season I’ve never done form shooting or given any explicit instruction to “correct technique” as my players shoot.
DL differs to CLA in that the goal is not to manipulate task constraints. Rather, we destabilise existing movement solutions to encourage self-organisation which may nudge the player towards a new, more effective solution aligned with their individual constraints.
It’s critical to first understand context. I like using DL for warm-ups as I think it’s great for opening up degrees of freedom. Also it’s perfect for light training days. I would say we spend considerably more time doing CLA activities however.
What constitutes effective feedback? This week we made a whole video on this topic at @bballimmersion. Read on for the thread.
(1/20)
Firstly we must ask if the feedback is even needed? I view feedback as an instructional constraint, as effective feedback can help draw players attention to something they are missing. Many times however, feedback is offered which is redundant and not useful for players (2/20)
Here are some other common feedback pitfalls:
1. Too much of a reliance on offering internal feedback related to body parts, positions, hand placement etc. (3/20)
One of my most important responsibilities is to prepare my players to train effectively when they leave the program. I call this as PLP (Player Led Practice). 10 mins on the clock, players have to take the lead designing a task which is variable, efficient, and with decisions.
@LinusholmstromR is 16 years old in the previous clip, impressive! This is how I describe the task. Imagine you are at college, and need to teach your roommate or student manager about guided defense so you can train effectively when practicing alone.
This is their task, using guided defense to work on Pick & Roll setups. Alternating between off the catch and dribble, changing locations, guided d giving different coverages etc creates good variability. Bursts are applied to create sky high time-on-task.
🤯Chaos Shooting
👉 2 balls, 2v2, 3v2, 4v2 all allow for good time on task.
▪️Offense can shoot threes, pass or drive but no rim finishes.
🏀This is something we are doing most practices. Let’s take a look behind the mess to understand the value of an SSG like this…
Bursts are applied, so offense and defense stay for 60 seconds before a rest & then change. When starting with this we did not add loud music. This led to more connections, making it a little easier for the offense. Also wasn’t as much of a strain on working memory.
🎶 Now we do this with loud music (not shown w/ Twitter copyright). Purposely pick something a little stressful such as heavy metal or arena sounds! Encourage offense AND defense to connect above the noise. Defense rebound and pass to anyone. Find the ROB shot, count the BRADs.
Thread on finishing. This is an example of how we can use constraints to lead to different solutions emerging. This allows players to self-organize and use finishing techniques which solve the problem and suit each player’s individual constraints.
This 10 minute video is today’s @BBallImmersion membership upload. One common question from coaches who read the blog was that these players must have been taught finishing moves 1 on 0 before being able to do them in a 1 on 1 or other SSG.
I’m not sure where this comes from as no situation is ever the same. The number of potential techniques are ENDLESS due to the always changing interaction of constraints. It’s akin to fighting an insurmountable battle explicitly teaching techniques as there are so many variables