ESPN Analyst Jay Bilas Argues America needs more 'teaching' from its coaches.
Bilas says, "No reasonable basketball person can refute the fact that the fundamental skills of American players are slipping, and so is the American game. I believe a primary reason is an increased emphasis on coaching the game, and a decreased emphasis on teaching our kids how to play the game."
"Generally coaching of team preparation, the devising of game plans and schemes to defeat opponents. When you are coaching, you are dealing with the strategies, different offenses and defenses, and putting in plays to take advantage of the skills, strengths and weaknesses of your players. The measure of a coach is the quality of the development of his system, and has been distilled into winning."
"'Teaching' consists of instruction and training of individuals in the fundamental skills of the game, and in teaching players how to play, instead of how to run plays.
The measure of a teacher is not in winning, but in the fundamental soundness and skill level of the players taught. A player with excellent fundamentals and skills can play successfully in any system."
"American coaches, at all levels, have gotten away from teaching, and have gravitated more to coaching.
"Immediate Gratification of Coaches: A greater interest in winning than in developing well-skilled and fundamentally sound players. They are impatient."
Bilas makes some suggestions.
He says, "It takes time to teach and instill discipline. While it may seem more important to spend the majority of time in practice working on the execution of half-court offense, or putting in new set plays, it is far more important to develop the skills of your players."
"Increased Specialization: Kids are identified by size and body type into positions way too early on in their development and are 'coached' differently. The result of this specialization is that our (American) players are boxed in and therefore limited.
"Emphasize working on (motor skills and the finer technical skills of a sport.) Do not divide players, every player works on the same skills making more well-rounded and more fundamentally sound. And they are more coveted by coaches at all levels.
In conclusion Bilas makes solid reasons for his argument that sports parents and coaches should keep in mind.
"The U.S. has the Best Athletes, the Best Coaches and the Most Basketball Resources in the World.
We need to spend less time coaching, and more time teaching, especially at lower levels of the game. We need to encourage coaches to teach, not just to coach, and for players to practice, not just to play. There is not reason why our better athletes cannot be our best players. If we do a better job of teaching, the level of play in the U.S. will skyrocket, and the game will be better for it."
Time for Coaches to Coach
Agree
I echo the sentiments in Coach Picles post. The over-emphasis on winning as "the" primary goal has certainly placed more importance on the strategic side of the plate, and it is something I see time and time again at many levels. Problem is, (especially in the long run) athletes would win more and be able to perform at higher levels if coaches spent more time teaching and practicing the fundamentals of the game. These are the things that long term athletic success is made of.
Kirk Mango
Becoming a True Champion
long term vs. realistic
I can agree with some of what Jay Bilas says, but I don't see any realistic ways to change it. There's been this explosion of international basketball players, and that's what Bilas is speaking of. Basketball is very new (15-20 years old) in many of these countries and the best athletes in these countries are now performing at a high level. I think the fundamental difference in many of the international players is the school/ club system. In many of these countries where they don't have freedom like we do here in the US, kids are picked at young ages and sent to play for club teams. It would be like the US taking the 20 best 12 year old basketball players and sending them to Chicago, employing Coach K or Bobby Knight to work with these kids 24/7 and yes, you'd have a wonderful basketball team when this group hit 15. I don't think in reality this is what America wants.
It's human instinct to be competitive and win. It annoys me when people complain about winning? That's why kids play sports. Some of the "newer" sports leagues try to clear the scoreboard after every quarter or put in other modes of deemphasizing winning, yet when you ask the players after the game, they know who won, and many times by how much.
Its not winning per se that is the problem
I don't believe that it is winning per-se that many are complaining about, or that in-and-of-itself is the problem; it is the idea of winning at all costs and winning versus development that is the problem - especially through younger stages.
Winning is fine as long as it is kept as an outcome.
Let me develop an analogy using a begining 12 year old volleyball team as an example. Take two teams of equal talent; one who has a coach that places winning above all else while the other coach encourages development of his players as “the” primary consideration. When these two teams meet, at the beginning of the season, the coach who has winning as a priority concentrates on keeping the ball on their opponents side of the net at all costs. Few risks are taken for fear of losing a point and his players are encouraged to pass the ball deep in their opponent’s court whenever possible, unless there is an obvious spike that can be played for a sure point. And, at the begining, his/her team does win, and by a significant margin.
The opposing coach, the one who is concentrating on development encourages his players to use all 3 hits allowed using an underhand pass, overhand pass and spike. He does not care right now whether they win or lose just so they improve on being able to run an effective offense, defense, and play each ball with 3 hits using an offensive overhand hit (spike) as their primary weapon. Few "free" balls are just passed over and they make their share of mistakes. And his team will probably lose to the team above, in the begining.
During training sessions the "winning" coach spends most of his time on running strategic plays that he has chosen to use based on scouting the next team on the schedule with the sole purpose of beating that team. This is how most all of his/her practices are run. He/she does spend time practicing skills but most of that is done as a warm-up with scrimmage time holding a large percentage of the practice time available.
The "developmental" coach, however, takes the game apart piece by piece developing challenging drills for each aspect of the game. He/she spends little time just scrimmaging, with the exception of specific competitive game type drills that they use to enhance team potential. This coach does not even know who they play next, he/she does not care.
In almost every case, and in any sport, I can tell you who will be more successful by the end of the season. And if not that season, in future seasons to come. In fact, even though this is a simplified example to prove a point, most of the best volleyball players in the country come out of club programs like this.
Personally, I loved competing and coaching against individuals who had this view of winning as a priority over developing potential (and I can assure you I loved winning as much as anyone, I just prioritized it differently). Their vision is limited only to what their opponents do, they push athletes to practice things they are not ready for because they concentrate on strategies of the game over the fundamentals of the game, and they limit athletic potential by doing so. So it is not "winning" that is the problem but placing winning above all else that I believe is self-limiting to athletes, especially in the long run. The process should always hold more value than the outcome. When it does not, problems usually develop.
Kirk Mango
Becoming a True Champion
Kid Instinct to be Competitive and Win
John,
I, respectfully, disagree with your statement that it is human instinct to be competitive and win. Many adult's will misinterpret young children's survival instinct for an affinity for winning or competitiveness. Few would disagree that children are innately selfish. Some are more outwardly selfish than others. When a younger child takes another child's toy, it is not about having the toy and being competitive or better than the other child. The child with the toy is only looking out for their best interest. When someone has their toy, children are not mad that someone else has it and they don't say I lost, they are mad that they don't have it.
No one will dispute sports does educate children about competition and winning. The problem is when too much weight is put on the role sports plays in a child's development and we fail to take into consideration what children are cognitively capable of. We all need to be careful before shooting from the hip and telling people what we think is right for kids. With regards to competition and winning, here is what research tells us.
Before the age of 8 children lack the competence and cognitive ability to effectively compare their skills against another other child's. While this next research is a bit dated, it is the best example I have found that helps narrow the gap between what adults perceptively believe kids want and what kids are actually capable of. Selman (1976)said, "...it is not until the age of eight to ten years that children develop the necessary role-taking abilities to allow them to understand another person's point of view. This ability to understand another's point of view is necessary for one to cooperate effectively with others (i.e. compete)."
One thing that must be remembered is that there are many adults out there treating 4, 5, 6, & 7 year olds like they possess the reasoning and decision-making abilities of children 8 years or older. The complaints about "winning" that you mention are part of the checks and balances of the system. Complaints should be directed at the inappropriate and unfitting actions and behaviors of youth coaches in the younger age groups.
The "newer" sports leagues you refer to are designed to combat "bad" coaching. They too are based on what research tells us. Kids before the age of 8 think about winning as an objective, rather than subjective outcome. It is definitely a number on the board. Yes, they will know the number on the board but it doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to you or I. To them, it is about Mom and Dad's attention or their discussion about the the child's personal abilities in sports.
Finally, a Michigan State University article said, "Participation in sports does not result in the development of positive social and emotional characteristics. The positive development of youth in organized sports can only be derived through sports experiences that foster positive experiences and minimize negative experiences." These sports leagues you speak of that deemphasize winning are taking more than the score into consideration when they are establishing them. They know the issues in youth sports and amidst a lot of skepticism and opposition from people like yourself. What drives them, I have to believe, is the idea that they are developing positive social and emotional characteristics in children.
Based on the research, and in my professional opinion, there seems to be nothing innately wrong with these leagues unless I am missing something.
Coach P.
Bradley J. Kayden, MHR, NYSCA Member
Coach Pickles, Chief Fun Officer
Jelly Bean Sports, Inc.
www.jellybeansports.com
Excellently written article,
Excellently written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a much better place. Please keep it up! Cheers.
