When I coached a professional women’s basketball team in Sweden, I assisted my best player with her u15 girls team. When I returned to the States after the season, I assisted an u14 girls’ AAU team. The teams were vastly different. The U.S. team was bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled. The team went to AAU Nationals and finished pretty well, top 12 if I remember correctly. They were a good team, and the core of the team had been together for several years and attended the same school.

The Swedish team differed. While every girl attended the same school (there was only one high school on the island), they had not played together for long. One of the better players had played for little more than a year. Even though they had an older chronological age, they had a younger biological age: the U.S. girls were more physically mature.

While the U.S. team had one outlier (a McDonald’s All-American who played only one season with that team), by the time the girls were 18 and 19, those who were playing were not that different in terms of skills. By 18, the Swedish players had matured, and the U.S. players no longer had a visible physical advantage. The respective mean ability for the two groups was similar.

The initial differences can be explained by early specialization and physical maturity. Only one U.S. player played multiple sports, and the coach rarely played her, while most of the Swedish players played or had played soccer, and one of the best players was also an elite age-group shot putter. The U.S. players had played far more basketball, practiced more, and played more competitive games by 14 than the Swedish players had by 15 years of age, and this early experience explains much of the initial variance in their respective talent levels. However, after 3-4 years of playing basketball, most of this variance disappeared: some Swedish players really improved and were good players, while some never developed into great players or quit, just as some of the U.S. players eventually played in college, while others were not good enough or quit for various reasons.

This scenario plays out throughout the U.S. at the local levels. However, the Swedish players were luckier than many of their U.S. peers, as they developed without the knowledge of or comparison to the better U.S. players. The better U.S. players did not affect their development, and consequently they had an opportunity to catch up to the U.S. players.

At the local level in the U.S., groups affect each other. Imagine a small town has 100 3rd-grade girls interested in basketball. All 100 sign up for a local YMCA league. The league has 10 teams of 10 players with parents volunteering as coaches. Each team plays 10 games with a mini-tournament at the end to determine the champion. This is the traditional way that many children are introduced to organized team sports.

Of those 100 players, some will be good, and others will be bad. The good players in 3rd grade are typically the tallest, fastest, or strongest players. Occasionally a couple players will have some experience, often due to an older sibling, and these players will start with slightly better understanding and greater skills than the true beginners.

Inevitably, the parents of a couple of the standouts will get together. They may scheme a way to play together during the following season to ensure their daughters have success or they may decide that their daughters are too good for this level and need more competition. Just as with the Swedish and U.S. players, the primary differences at this point are physical maturity and prior experience. However, the parents, and maybe a coach, misread maturity and prior experience as Talent. Since they believe their daughters are talented, they do not want to be held behind by the pedestrian players. These parents form an Elite team.

The elite team plays in tournaments and travels to play other elite teams. Other parents want to join the Elite; nobody wants to be pedestrian. The elite team holds a tryout and chooses 12 players from the original 100 (unless it was able to recruit some other elite players from a neighboring town). With 12 players now identified as elite, what happens to the others?

Some players likely quit because they did not play much or their coach emphasized winning too much; others may have tried out for the elite team and quit after being cut; some will continue in the YMCA league. Imagine 20 girls quit basketball; that leaves 12 players on the elite team and 68 girls playing in the YMCA as 4th graders.

If you look at this sample as evidence of the importance of early specialization, the argument is persuasive. Imagine the original 100 players were ranked 1-100 with 1 being the best and 100 being the worst. In 4th grade, the mean rank of the girls playing on the elite team is likely in the single digits; after all, they formed the team with the league’s best players and held a tryout. Meanwhile, the YMCA’s mean for player ranking is in the high 40s or 50s. Even if the worst 20 players (81-100) quit, the YMCA also lost 12 high-ranking players. At this point, being on the elite team has had no effect on the players’ talent or development. However, if looking at the elite team vs. the YMCA league as a parent at the beginning of 4th grade, the two appear very uneven, and somehow this unevenness is attributed to playing on the elite team rather than the players’ experience and physical maturity.

The elite team is more competitive than the average YMCA team, and people notice. Suddenly, parents in the YMCA league fear that their daughters are falling behind by not playing with an elite team. Some of these worried parents have their daughters try out for the elite team. One or two may make the team, replacing one of the original elite who falls out of the competitive stream. Those who fail to make the elite team join together to form the semi-elite team to help their daughters “catch up.” At this point, the difference between the elite and the semi-elite is physical maturity, experience and one season of playing on an elite team. However, all the difference is attributed to that one season. Suddenly, the YMCA is almost irrelevant, as 12 girls left for the semi-elite team and another 10 or more girls quit basketball because of the coach or to play soccer or for some other reason, leaving around 48 players, sufficient for six teams of eight players.

If looking at the mean player rankings (still based on the 3rd grade rankings), the elite team remains in single digits, the semi-elite is in the high teens and the YMCA has dropped even further with the departure of 12 more highly rated players. Simply looking at the numbers at the end of each year, it appears that the elite players are much better than the recreational players, and the recreational league is worsening. However, this ignores the fact that all the numbers are based on the initial season. The difference between the three groups has nothing to do with coaching, skill development, competition, etc., but is entirely due to physical differences and potentially differences in experience and rate of learning. The fallacy is that the elite team caused the difference.

For one to suggest that an elite team caused the difference, the elite team would have to take 10 players initially whose mean ranking was around 50 and elevate that ranking over time. If we randomly selected 10 players from the YMCA to join an elite team, for the elite team to have had an effect, when the players were rated 2 years in the future, the mean of the elite team ranking would have to  improve significantly more than the ranking of the players in the YMCA.

That’s not how it works. The club programs select the best players, and then claim that their team is better than an average team. Of course it is. Furthermore, the YMCA players and the semi-elite team are not left alone to develop at their own rate. They are in the same town, and ultimately, the teams and players are compared to the elite players. Many players lose motivation and quit because of the comparison, as it becomes obvious that they are not good enough. However, is it obvious?

At 15 years of age, none of our Swedish players would have made the u14 team in the U.S. They were a year older chronologically, but already lagging behind in talent. If they were in the same town, not in different countries, the Swedish players likely would have been cut or quit on their own by 15 years of age due to the comparisons with the U.S. team and players. Instead, because they were allowed to develop on their own without the comparisons, the team as seniors in high school (they were the same grade in school, as Sweden starts school a year later than in the U.S.) would have been close to 50/50, maybe 7 U.S. players and 5 Swedish players.

These players who trailed at the beginning of high school due to differences in physical maturity and experience closed the gap by the end of high school when allowed to develop independently. Unfortunately, children in the U.S. are not afforded this opportunity for independent development, so many children get lost in the competitive stream or quit because of the comparisons or the perceptions rather than giving themselves the opportunity to mature physically and gain experience. At 9 years-old, one season of playing experience is a big advantage; at 18 years-old, having played 10 seasons versus nine seasons is inconsequential. However, that perception that forms at 9 years-old is often hard to recover.

This is how the myth of early specialization was created and how it persists. The problem is the comparative nature of the youth sports, and the perceptions that it creates. Certainly over the nine years from 3rd grade to 12th grade, there is a coaching effect, competition effect, teammate effect, and more that impacts one’s development. However, it is often the stigma of early perceptions that either push forward or hold back a player.

A player does not need to be the best player in 3rd grade to be the best player in 12th grade. As the Swedish example demonstrates, late developers and multi-sport athletes can catch up over time, and the top players at 14 are not necessarily the top players at 18.

One primary purpose of a Long Term Athlete Development plan (Balyi, 2004) is to give these players the opportunity to develop over time and not allow the initial differences at 9 years-old to make decisions about who will be the best at 18 years of age. Shifting the philosophy at 9 years-old toward development and away from designating the elite ultimately assists all players, not just the weaker players, as it encourages a broader foundation, which will help the better players overcome the early plateau or peak in performance that afflicts many of the so-called elite.

The Internet makes information available like never before, yet there appears to be no changes in the way that the majority of coaches teach children. Last week, I worked out a college player during the lunch break of the college’s youth camp. I stayed and watched some of the camp. Despite having a limited number of players and enough balls for each player plus six baskets to use, I saw lines of players standing around and very little action. Today, I attended a practice in India and saw children dribble through cones for 40 minutes doing a drill that was taught at an NBA-sponsored coach’s clinic. Finally, I graded papers for my Introduction to Coaching practice plan assignment, and nearly every student started his or her practice with jogging around the field or court followed by stretching. Every student used a very linear model: stretching, block practice/technique drill, block practice/technique drill, scrimmage. Every sport was the same.

Why are players still dribbling through cones? I would argue that the drill practiced more bad habits than positive habits. If the drill is for coordination or for very beginners learning to manipulate a ball, I understand. However, to me, this is not a ball handling drill and certainly is not teaching a player how to make a crossover move that will work in a game against a live defender.

What are the constraints of a game move? The biggest is reading the defender and making the appropriate move. Next is protecting the ball away from the defender while simultaneously attempting to go past the defender. Cones do not offer practice on these constraints. The drill is designed poorly, as the weaving in and out of the cones is not done with the same type of set up and push off that one uses to beat a defender, and the drill encourages a higher dribble to make it around the cones.

Why are teams still jogging around the court and static stretching? Beyond tradition, if anyone thought about this, how would stretching a muscle prevent its injury? How does jogging at a sub-maximum speed prepare one’s body for a full-speed activity?

Why must all practices progress in the same manner – stretching, block 1, block 2, block 3, scrimmage? Is there a coach’s manual that instructs all coaches to wait as long as possible before scrimmaging? Why aren’t different forms of small-sided games and scrimmaging used earlier in practice to build up to a full-sided scrimmage? Ironically, the one student who described using random training in his practice serves in the U.S. Army and wrote a practice plan based on preparing his troops for a simulated exercise in front of commanding officers. He used a linear progression in his plan, but it evolved nicely and made sense for his given situation.

When I watched the practice today or the camp, the activities looked like important, skill-developing drills. I doubt many people beyond myself would consider these drills to be inappropriate. Of course dribbling through cones develops better ball handling. Does it? Is it the best use of time and space?

I spoke to tennis coach Ted Murray today and he mentioned the same thing. He went to a local tennis academy and watched the instructor have the players “warm up” by jogging a couple laps around the court. Then, he lined up all the players and walked from player to play and fiddled with their forehand grip. In 30 minutes, not one ball was hit! How do you get better at tennis without hitting the ball? How do you enjoy tennis if you never hit the ball?

Youth coaches always complain about the lack of practice time, which is an issue. However, if you know it is an issue, why waste so much time doing ineffective drills? Why waste time stretching?

These block practice and technique drills look like they practice skills, and we assume that these skills transfer. Do they? In David Winner’s Brilliant Orange, Jan Benthem, the chief architect of the Amsterdam airport, says: “Normally, everything is split up and problems are solved separately. That makes individual problems easy to solve, but the connections between the problems become very complicated and something simple ends up in a real mess. If you integrate it in the first place, that turns out to be the most simple solution” (p. 228).

Skill building is the same. If you separate skills and practice one skill at a time, it is easier to solve the problem. For instance, in a drill like dribbling through cones, it is easier to solve the problem of controlling the basketball. However, when you connect that skill to the game, new problems arise. Players have to connect the practiced skill to a game skill, and the constraints are very different. The skill ends up in a mess because making a move against a defender is unlike making a move against a cone. I agree with the architect: if you integrate the skill from the beginning – start with a more complex skill that involves a reaction to a real cue, like a tag game or even a simpler drill where players dribble at each other and crossover to avoid the other one – it actually becomes the simpler solution.

This contradicts conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom states that you start with the most simple task that one can do and you progress as the player masters the initial task. I looked through a curriculum with this model yesterday, and it seemed like children would play basketball for 10 years before acquiring all the requisite skills to play a game. What child is going to play basketball for 10 years without playing a game?

Instead, the simpler solution is to move to more complex tasks and move back and forth between complex and simple tasks to teach, refine and reinforce different skills. Game success depends on the connections between the skills, and progressing with simple task after simple task leaves the connections in a mess once the player is presented with the game problems.

By Brian McCormick
Brian McCormick Basketball
Author, Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

When looking at the best players in middle school, high school and college, what skills separate the players? If we eliminate physical attributes like height which we cannot control, and adjust for athletic skills beyond the purview of most coaches like strength, agility and quickness, what technical and tactical skills separate the best players from the average players? If I could condense the ideas into one phrase, I would say that finishing plays separate the best from the average: the best players make better decisions and more shots inside the scoring zone than average players who miss open teammates or take more contested shots.

When I watch young and beginning players play, much of the game occurs outside the scoring zone. Players dribble too much and make too many passes to advance the ball from one of the court to the other, and every dribble and pass presents an opportunity for a beginner or young player to make a mistake, which means the ball never enters the scoring zone before being turned over. These 5v5 full-court games do not focus on the aspect of the game which separates the best players from the average: the finishing plays.

The same is true in soccer. When I refereed youth soccer, games were contested in the middle of the field. Entire halves passes without a shot on goal. Many refer to these games as “bumblebee ball” because of the lack of spacing as every child follows the ball around the field. When a shot did occur, it usually resulted from the fastest kid booting the ball ahead and outrunning everyone to take a shot.

This week, I tired of our basketball game at the after-school program where I coach, so we played indoor soccer. We played width-wise on the basketball court and played 4v4. Because of the size of the court and the limited number of players, the entire game was played in a scoring zone – defenders had to guard against the final pass or shot, while attacking players dribbled at defenders, ran quick 1-2s or shot on goal.

The 4v4 game did not develop every skill, as we did not take free kicks or throw-ins and the size of the field limited any long passes. However, the players practiced the important skills: passing in tight spaces around the goal, shooting on goal, attacking defenders with the dribble, and defending the area around the goal. Rather than booting the ball down field when the defense won possession, every ball was played out of the back with short passes, as booting the ball simply game the ball back to the offense for another attack.

5v5 basketball games often resemble the bumblebee ball. Basketball games never look quite so bad because players can use their hands, which is a less complex skill than using the feet, and there are fewer players on the court. However, when we play full-court 5v5 games, very little action occurs in the scoring zone. Most made shots result from a better player stealing the ball and outrunning the other players for a lay-up.

3v3 leagues center the game in the scoring zone. 3v3 does not develop every skill, as there is no press to break and it is hard to play a 3-man zone. However, when people talk about skills that are deficient in high school players, the four most common answers are typically:

1. Shooting
2. Moving without the ball
3. Help defense
4. Finding the open man

Furthermore, when I think of the biggest differences between a good player and a poor player at a young age, three basics separate these players in a progressive fashion:

1. Making lay-ups
2. Catching and squaring to the basket when defended
3. Passing or shooting off the dribble rather than stopping and then making a pass or attempting a shot

For youth players, these three skills progress from easy to difficult. Making a lay-up is primarily a motor skill and often depends on the player’s coordination, strength and amount of practice. Catching and squaring to the basket often is a confidence issue; many players turtle with the ball because they are scared to make a mistake and they do not know what to do when they face the basket. They are overwhelmed by the possible responses, as well as the defensive pressure which narrows their attention and makes it harder for them to make a good decision. Passing or shooting off the dribble can be a strength and coordination issue, but often it relates to attention and decision-making. Because young players have to devote some attention to the dribble, which expert players do not, they have less attention to find an open teammate or concentrate on the basket. Therefore, they have to stop the dribble first and then decide what to do rather than making a decision while dribbling.

These three areas, as well as the four high school deficiencies, would be improved with more play inside the scoring zone. 3v3 play provides more opportunities for each player to shoot and practice lay-ups. 3v3 play forces players to move without the ball and puts more emphasis on the other two players to be ready to help if their teammate gets beat with the dribble. 3v3 also reduces possible responses which helps players learn to find the open man. They have more space and time to evaluate options and make correct decisions, whether squaring to the basket or passing off the dribble to the open player.

When players move from a 3v3 league to a 5v5 league, these skills will transfer. The players will have to adjust to a faster game, but that happens any time that a player moves up an age group. Players will face different pressure, including presses, but they will have a higher skill level with which to use against the increased defensive pressure. If players develop the confidence to square to the basket in 3v3, they carry over that skill to 5v5; when pressed, they square to the court to find an open player rather than turtling with the ball or panicking and throwing up the ball for grabs.

3v3 leagues are not the only way for young players to develop, and they will not solve every problem. However, for 8-10 year-olds, 3v3 is a more age-appropriate game, like small-sided games used by top soccer academies, and 3v3 leagues provide competitive experiences that focus more on the skills that eventually differentiate the better players from the average players. More time spent with the ball in the attacking area means more opportunities to make the finishing decision, more opportunities to shoot and more opportunities to defend the basket, the most important part of defense.

In this way, 3v3 leagues provide the best means to develop young players and prepare them for higher levels of competition.

By Brian McCormick
Author, Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Join the forum discussion on this post - (4) Posts

In Massachusetts, youth hockey organizations are making changes similar to those outlined in Cross Over. The typical approach to youth hockey is similar to the common approach to youth basketball:

In some hockey programs, these young skaters would already be playing on the full length of ice, 200 feet long, the same as TD Garden, home to the NHL’s Boston Bruins. The littlest players might have dozens of games each season – stretching through much of the year – and spend hours traveling to their opponents’ rinks. In warmer months, their parents might spend hundreds of dollars for hockey camps.

The youngest basketball players play full-court 5v5 games, just like professional players, and many play on 10′ rims, just like the NBA. Players play in tournaments throughout the year.

The change in Massachusetts has come, in part, because all the games and early specialization are leading to less competitive success when the players reach their teens and beyond.

At Boston University this winter, only three players come from Massachusetts; a decade ago, the number would have been about 15, said coach Jack Parker.

“There are more recruitable players from the state of Texas and the state of California than from the state of Massachusetts,’’ Parker said. “That is unbelievable.’’

He is among the coaches and enthusiasts who say the dwindling numbers of homegrown hockey stars can be blamed in part on rigorous team schedules, with too many games and too little practice.

“I know kids who are 12 years old and are playing 100 games a year,’’ Parker said. “It’s absolutely insane.’’

Additionally, the over-competition at young ages is leading to reduced participation.

Many players, especially the youngest, are dropping out of hockey programs. Over the last five years in Massachusetts, about 16,000 youngsters quit before they turned 8, according to Roger Grillo, regional manager for USA Hockey’s developmental program.

“The research shows that it’s burnout,’’ Grillo, a former hockey coach at Brown University, said of the declining participation. “It’s too serious too soon.’’

Personally, I think eight-years-old is too young to play on a youth basketball team. I advise parents to start their child in martial arts, swim lessons, gymnastics and soccer at early ages and allow them to explore other activities as they get older. Players should play a sport recreationally before committing to a competitive team environment.

I know basketball skill trainers who work with four and five-year-olds because there is money to be made. Parents believe these children will have a head start by starting early. Instead, like the hockey players, this early start is more likely to lead to an early drop-out.

I have not seen many studies of basketball programs and participation rates, as USA Basketball does not focus on developmental programs to the extent that USA Hockey is involved. However, I know many youth coaches who believe that girls, especially, are leaving basketball to play softball, soccer or volleyball. While the migration may be due to many things, the impact of the over-competition and the emotional and physical burnout from the constant year-round play is certainly one reason.

USA Hockey distributed age-appropriate guidelines (much like Cross Over) to coaches and organizations (the impetus behind this site). The emphasis is on more training and learning and less competition.

During a hockey game, Grillo said, even the best player might only touch the puck for a total of about 90 seconds. During practice, however, players spend much more time handling the puck and, therefore, learning to play, he said.

Basketball is the same. Several years ago, I tried to convince a player to spend the off-season training, rather than playing on multiple teams. After one weekend where the player injured her hamstring during her seventh game of the weekend, I questioned her.

She said that she had to play on the teams to improve. She said that she needed to improve her ball handling and her shooting. I probed further. She never once played as the primary ball handler in the seven games and she took about 10 shots per game. In a weekend spent entirely in the gym, she took 70 shots (+ warm-ups) and never practiced her ball handling. How is that going to help her improve?

To improve youth sports, we need to remember the reasons that children play the sport and acknowledge the differences between athletes at different ages. With a more age-appropriate progression of skills and development, players gradually improve and grow more competitive.

The organizations in Massachusetts diagnosed a problem and developed guidelines to improve its product and better meet the needs of the young athletes. Hopefully youth basketball organizations transition to more age-appropriate guidelines before a big problem (reduced participation) develops. Basketball programs needs to learn from programs in other sports and be proactive rather than relying on the game’s popularity to provide new participants from year to year. The goal should be to provide the best possible programs and not rely on the NBA’s heavy marketing or the ubiquitousness of basketball on television to maintain participation numbers.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

A representative from a nation’s basketball federation inquired about my interest in the position of the federation’s Technical Director. During the conversation, he stressed the importance of understanding Canada’s development model. While unfathomable to people in the United States, sports federations around the world no longer envy the U.S. model. Instead, sports bodies interested in developing Olympic athletes and world champions copy the models of Canada, Australia and Great Britain, the early adopters of Istvan Balyi’s Long Term Athlete Development model.

Most people in the U.S. are unaware of the LTAD model or do not see a reason to change the way that athletes develop. The people who run youth sports strive to maintain the status quo, pointing to traditional success, rather than searching for more innovative ideas or the best possible development program.

In the October 2009 Fast Company, an article titled “Cassandra’s Revenge” profiled economist Noreena Hertz and her ideas on changing the world’s economic system.

“She offers the auto industry as an example: In the late 60’s, she says, when the Clean Air Act was being deliberated in the United States, American carmakers spent millions lobbying against it, while Honda decided to develop more energy-efficient cars. ‘Honda’s cost was on innovation and thinking about how the future might be, and making a product that might fit the future better,’ says Hertz. ‘The other companies were spending their money on stopping the future from happening. In that case, Honda won.’”

Other nations spend their financial resources on innovation, adopting overall systems to develop future athletes rather than waiting for precocious athletes to materialize. In the United States, we spend money on the same programs and competitions, maintaining the status quo. Our sports organizations believe in the traditional approach to athlete development which has worked for generations because we start with a great mass of participants and allow the strongest, biggest athletes to survive.

The NBA, for instance, does not invest in the youth programs developing the next generation of NBA players. Instead, due to the promises of riches and fame, the popularity of the game and the large and diverse population, the NBA knows that enough players will develop through the survival of the fittest development model and replenish NBA rosters. Major League Baseball teams run academies throughout Latin America, but rely on Little Leagues (parents) and high school programs (teachers) to develop the next generation of homegrown baseball players.

Before Dr. Istvan Balyi developed the LTAD, the former Soviet Union led the world in applying sports science to athlete development. Dr. Michael Yessis of California State University, Fullerton in Secrets of Soviet Sport Fitness & Training described the Russian versus American development systems:

“In the U.S., we treat our best athletes like Rolls-Royces, glorying in their quality, but we leave these Rolls-Royces parked in the driveway, to be spattered by rain and snow, and driven mile after mile without receiving even the most basic maintenance such as lubrication and oil changes. Yes, we fill them with gas, but when one breaks down we just discard it and get another.

By contrast, in the U.S.S.R., coaches have never felt that they have a base of outstanding athletes so large that they could care for them poorly. Thus, much as a prized Rolls-Royce should be treated, athletes there are nurtured with tender loving care. They receive the best coaching available in their area. These youngsters are encouraged in every way possible to reach their full potential.”

In the 21st Century, Great Britain, Australia, Canada and others have replaced the former U.S.S.R. as the new model, as their sports federations have adopted Balyi’s LTAD model in some form. The LTAD now guides sports development as sports scientists learn more every year about the process of developing an elite athlete. In Canada, for instance, the federation for each sport created its own LTAD plan to guide its administrators and coaches who in turn guide the athletes.

In 2008, the United States maintained its athletic dominance at the Beijing Games, but there were signs of change, if you looked closely. Great Britain demonstrated a world class cycling program despite almost no history of cycling success. A BBC article titled “How GB cycling went from tragic to magic” published shortly after the conclusion of the 2008 Games detailed the changes with British Cycling:

“In 1992, Chris Boardman won Britain’s first Olympic cycling gold since 1920. But British Cycling’s performance director Peter Keen knew nothing had really changed.

‘What Chris and I were doing in the early ’90s was classic British alpinism,’ remembers Keen. ‘He was just another one-off success. Leave no ropes, leave no trail. There was no system so there was no legacy. I saw then the challenge was to convert those highly motivated, highly talented individuals into a system.’”

Australia battled the U.S. head to head in swimming (among other sports like women’s basketball) with many of its top athletes progressing through the famed A.I.S. (Australian Institute of Sport).

While U.S. athletes develop through a hodge-podge of different programs, Canada, Great Britain, Australia and others guide the development of their athletes through the sports’ Federations. Successful U.S. athletes thrive through the British alpinism that Keen describes. We believe that athletes like Carmelo Anthony, Drew Brees and Derek Jeter are genetic freaks with innate talent who were destined for sporting greatness. The LTAD is a philosophy used by Federations to develop athletes consistently as opposed to waiting for fate to birth a new star.

The LTAD presents guidelines for coaches, parents and administrators.  For instance, the emphasis until 11-years-old for girls or 12-years-old for boys (onset of puberty) is physical literacy. In the FUNdamentals stage (boys 6-9 and girls 6-8), the LTAD emphasizes that “skill development should be well-structured and FUN and should concentrate on developing the ABCs – of Agility, Balance, Coordination and Speed, plus rhythmic activities.”

How many u8 coaches are concerned with developing Agility? When I played u8 soccer, we ran laps; we did not focus on changing directions or moving laterally. I walked into a gym this weekend and saw the end of several youth basketball practices. Every one featured young children running through the team’s plays 5v0. Players ran in straight lines, passed to designated spots and shot once every couple minutes. Coaches constantly re-focused players on the task (running the offense), as the players were distracted easily. This practice is not particularly fun, nor does it develop agility, balance, coordination or speed.

I was there to run a clinic for young players. We played three different games of tag (two while dribbling basketballs). We warmed-up with a competitive acceleration drill and a competitive agility drill. We added another acceleration drill while dribbling. Every segment was active and involved competition, though there was no real winner or loser. The short clinic trained agility, speed, balance and coordination in multiple ways, and the players laughed and smiled for the entire time. Not once did I have to re-focus the players’ attention.

Furthermore, the LTAD suggests that “this is a great age for children to take part in a wide range of sports.” Even in the next stage – Learning to Train – with 9-12 year-old boys and 8-11-year-old girls, the LTAD suggests that “it is still too early for specialization in late specialization sports [gymnastics is an example of an early specialization sport; most team sports are late specialization sports, meaning athletes peak in their 20s, not their teens]. Although many children at this age will have developed a preference for one sport or another, for full athletic development they need to engage in a broad range of activities, playing at least 2-3 different sports.” These guidelines shape the way that Federations administer sports. New Zealand’s sports federation sponsored an LTAD program for athletes younger than 14. Each athlete, regardless of sport, participated in a mix of sports each week, and only spent one extra day per week on their chosen sport.

When I train new athletes, I notice deficiencies based on a lack of breadth in their development. For instance, after watching a couple players struggle to track and catch a tennis ball while dribbling a basketball, I guessed that they had never played baseball or softball and was correct. Their athletic experience consisted of a couple years of soccer at a young age and then a move to basketball. While they have no problem physically catching a basketball, they lacked the coordination to manipulate the basketball and catch a tennis ball because tracking and catching a ball is not a mastered skill. These are very good dribblers – the problem centered with a lack of experience tracking and catching a ball, a skill commonplace in baseball and softball.

Unfortunately, in the United States, many people believe that the quicker a player specializes, the better his or her opportunity for success in his or her sport. Experience and research does not support these beliefs. Specializing in one sport at an early age impedes one’s overall athletic development, which leads to an early stagnation when developing sport-specific skills.

To create better sports programs for our youth athletes, we need to look at the LTAD model and educate parents, administrators and coaches about the importance of overall athletic development prior to sport-specialization.

Brian McCormick is the Founder of the Youth Basketball Coaching Association.