I attended two college basketball games and watched several others last week, and the decision-making and execution in 2v1 situations was deplorable. When I played, we generally practiced 2v1 situations in the less-emphasized aspect of a 3v2/2v1 drill. However, our junior varsity coach Jim Peth constantly stressed that a 2v1 was just like a 1v0 and should be finished with a lay-up every time.

The problem is timing. As I explain in the video above, there are two very basic types of 2v1 fast breaks: (1) the two players attack in a straight line as one wave; or (2) one player sprints out ahead of the second player.

In youth basketball, problems occur because the player without the ball tends to get far in front of the ball handler, but the ball handler continues to dribble. The wing sprints to the basket, stops and waits. The ball handler eventually passes to the stationary target, giving the defense an opportunity to recover because the wing stands straight up while waiting for the ball and finishes slowly. To compound the error, the ball handler passes too early: that is, he passes before the defense commits to the ball, meaning the defender has a shorter slide to recover to the finisher.

Now, I write too early with some trepidation. In fact, when looking at this break as a whole, the ball handler passed far too late. If a teammate is ahead of me, and there is a lane to complete the pass, I should pass ahead. Put the pressure on the defense. In these cases, the 2v1 should look more like a 1v1 with the second player trailing. The original ball handler typically receives the return pass because the wing attacks, draws the defender all the way because of the 1v1 situation and passes at the last moment to the original ball handler for a lay-up.

Once the ball handler decides not to pass up the court, the pass comes too early which you can see in the video. As the ball handler, I attack until the defense stops the ball. If I allow the defender to play the passing lane or hedge in between myself and my teammate, the defender has a better chance to deflect a pass, steal the pass, slow the break or defend the shot. As I demonstrate, if the defender fails to commit all the way to the ball, I finish. Players develop with the mindset that they have to pass in a 2v1 fast break. Our defense played the pass all season last year, and players continually passed even though we sat in the middle of the key and made no attempt to stop the ball.

When players attack the basket, they must attack to score. When that lane disappears, then they adjust and pass to the open player. However, many mistakes occur because the ball handler is unsure of what to do and attacks passively, slowing the speed and allowing another defender to recover. In the drill below, 2v2 Army Drill, there is always a second defender sprinting into the play because the defense will be trying to recover in a game. The goal is to score in the 2v1 rather than having to play 2v2. That means that the break should take no more than one pass once the offense gets inside the three-point line. If it requires two passes to score, especially below the free throw line, the first passer probably made a poor decision.

In the college games, the ball handler almost always passed too soon, even in the successful breaks. He made the finish more difficult for his teammate rather than taking one more dribble, drawing the defender to the strong side of the court and then passing to a wide open teammate.

In the first example in the 2v2 Army Drill video, the player in green runs too slowly. Rather than sprinting and trusting his teammate to get him the ball, he runs down the court asking for the ball with his hands. When the ball handler passes to him, he has no advantage over the ball handler. Because they ran so slowly, the second defender easily recovers and makes it a 2v2 situation. The ball handler and the wing failed to put pressure on the lone defender. If the ball handler takes on the defender, he has to make a choice: guard the ball handler who is aggressively attacking the basket or continue to play both players. If the wing explodes down court, the lone defender must decide to drop to the wing’s level, giving the ball handler more space to attack with speed, or stay at the ball handler’s level, giving the wing a wide open lay-up if the ball handler passes over the top. In this case, neither player put pressure on the defense, and the second defender recovered easily: transition situation squandered and no basket scored.

In the second repetition on the same video, the ball handler passed too early again which is why it took another pass to score. However, because he rushed the ball down court, they had time for the extra pass. Rather than pass when he did without forcing the defender to stop him, I would like to see my players attack the rim. The defender was playing in the middle, which makes the pass more difficult than the drive. I would prefer for my player to attack the rim. If the defender recovers late, then the pass might be an option or if he is out of position when recovering, a lay-up attempt may result in a three-point play.

The key to successful transition basketball is to attack quickly but with control and to take what the defense gives. In a 2v1 fast break, the defender can defend only one person. If he is not defending you, he is defending your teammate. Therefore, you should finish. If the defender is defending you, then nobody is defending your teammate, so you need to get him the ball. When thinking about the break in these terms, the decision-making is simple. Am I defended or not? Has the defender stopped me? Often, because defenders are taught to play both players, the ball handler has the best opportunity to finish.

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

There are two flaws to this reasoning.

(1) The 10-year rule pertains to expert performance. Specializing in a sport to complete the 10 years of practice at an early age would mean a peak at 18-years-old. In most sports, including basketball, players reach their peak in their mid to late 20′s. There is no incentive to peak early as colleges recruit potential and the NBA drafts potential. They want players who will continue to improve and develop. If a player’s reached his peak, there is no more development or improvement.

(2) When a player learns a skill, he goes through three general stages according to Fitts: Cognitive Stage, Associative Stage and Automatic Stage. Some champion early specialization because of the need to move through these three phases. The perception is that players who reach automaticity earlier will be better performers.

There is recent research to refute this idea. In “Inside the brain of an elite athlete: the neural processes that support high achievement in sports” by Kielan Yarrow, Peter Brown and John W. Krakauer (2009), the researchers write:

It is not automaticity per se that is indicative of high proficiency but rather the level of skill at which automaticity is attained.

If a player starts year-round basketball at eight-years-old and reaches automaticity with his shooting form as a 10 or 11-year-old, he masters the shot of a 10-year-old. The skill of a 10-year-old is not likely to lead to success at 15, 18 or 25 years of age.

The researchers continue:

Most of us fail to develop beyond a hobbyist level of performance precisely because we settle into automaticity at a level of skill that we find enjoyable rather than continuing to improve her skills. Hence, automaticity is more of a false ceiling than a measure of excellence.

When a player makes his shooting technique automatic, he settles into a comfort level regardless of the performance level. Most players remain at the level because they practice at the same level; their automaticity becomes a ceiling for their performance.

Experts, however, do not settle into their comfort zone. They continually strive for better performance – they defy the speed-accuracy trade-off by improving the speed of execution and the accuracy of their performance (Yarrow et al., 2009). Fitt’s Law suggests a speed-accuracy trade-off – the faster that one moves, the less accurate will be his performance. Experts defy the speed-accuracy trade-off through practice outside their comfort zone. They practice at a faster speed and learn to shoot with more accuracy at the faster speed. They push beyond their comfort level, and this ability to push past their level when automaticity is reached is one distinction of an expert performer.

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

Essentially, if a player picks up a basketball, he seeks the immediate reward of making a basket. However, making a basket in the short-term may not develop a skill that is useful in the long term, and that is where the coach enters the picture. The coach understands what is necessary for the player’s long-term success, and he prevents the player from falling into the short-term bad habit. As the researchers write:

“A recent study supports the usefulness of coaching by showing that subjects do not necessarily choose the optimal long-term learning strategy when allowed to choose on their own (Yarrow et al., 2009).”

Therefore, the coach’s role is to promote long-term learning or the skills that lead to long-term development, not the short-term approach. When evaluating coaches, we must remember that the coach’s role is not short-term success, but long-term development, especially with coaches of youth players. If coaches fall into the trap of a short-term approach, and players tend to choose the immediate success over long-term learning, who will enhance the player’s learning or outline the strategy for long-term success? Who will set forth the optimal approach if the coach has a Peak by Friday mentality? What coach will maintain a LTAD philosophy when parents and random Internet posters evaluate coaches on a short-term outcome?

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

Small-sided games, and specifically 3v3, are a modification aimed at improving the developmental and competitive elements of the game by creating more space, more time and more ball possessions.

Parkin (1980; cited by Weidner, 1998) found that with 9-11 year-old boys, the best-qualified players obtained possession of the ball 30-160 times, while for the least qualified it ranged from 12-82 times. Engelhorn (1988) obtained similar results for girls, as did Ortega, Cárdenas, Sainz de Baranda and Palao (2006) for boys, showing the vast differences in participation by 14-15 year-old players.

This is typical in full-sided games: the best one or two players tend to dominate the action. When the top players possess the ball the most, take the most shots and make the most decisions, these players have more opportunities to improve. In essence, the players who grow early, are more coordinated or are the stronger, more aggressive players have the advantage due to more game opportunities.

A Playmakers Basketball Development League coach did an unscientific study on the differences between a PBDL and a full-sided recreational league and compared meaningful touches and engaged defensive plays in each. Meaningful touches were defined as “the opportunity to execute a practiced skill in a game situation: a pass vs. a defender, a triple-threat move, a dribble move vs. a defender, any shot attempt.” An engaged defensive play was defined as “any time the player actively plays defense: guarding the ball, defending a cutter or actively helping and recovering; and any defensive rebound; standing in the key in help defense or protecting the weak side would not count.”

The coach found:

Offensive Meaningful Touches
3v3 both teams total touches 101
5v5 both teams total touches 80

Engaged Defensive Plays
3v3 both teams total touches 104
5v5 both teams total touches 84

While not scientific, if those total plays are divided evenly amongst all players – which we know won’t happen – 3v3 players average 37 meaningful touches and 38 engaged defensive plays during a game, while 5v5 players average 16 meaningful touches and 17 engaged defensive plays.

The average 3v3 player gets twice as many opportunities to make a play with the ball against a defender and twice as many opportunities to defend an opponent than a 5v5 player. Multiply that over the course of a recreational season (let’s assume 8 games), the average player gets over 160 more offensive and defensive opportunities in which to execute skills, read opponents and make plays.

If the goal with young players is to develop skills, 3v3 leagues create more developmental and learning situations than 5v5 leagues and feature the same competitive situations.

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

Today, we played 5v5, 6v6, 7v7 and then 4v4 on the side courts. One beginner never plays offense, but is a great and enthusiastic defender. Others cherry pick. Rarely is everyone on one end of the court at the same time.

As I watched them play today – I am not really coaching, but leading an activity – I had a thought: do rules really matter for beginners?

As I watched, players traveled, double-dribbled and fouled. The best players, however, encouraged the weaker players, even when they traveled or double-dribbled. The better players did not take advantage of the slack rules. Instead, players essentially played with rules that allowed them to compete. Good players played by a strict interpretations of the rules; average players played with a loose interpretation; and bad or beginner players played with almost no rules or violations.

From a developmental perspective, is that a bad thing? As I recall, that is how we played on the playground when I was a child. We accommodated the lesser players and allowed them a little more freedom to balance the competitive levels.

In two weeks, I certainly notice improvement from some of the beginners. Players who shied away from the ball last week now ask for the ball and attempt shots. One player asked about the proper shooting technique. Another pivoted out of a trap and made a good pass.

Ironically, the best player played his best game today. I don’t think he has improved his skills, but his attitude toward others has softened and his leadership and passing increased. Also, I play some of the time to give him a small challenge and to keep him from getting bored.

From a player development standpoint, more experienced or better players should not stay in this environment for too long, as they need challenges to continue their development. However, for beginner and recreational players, is it bad to ignore or ease the rules to give beginners an opportunity to learn the game by playing the game without constant interruptions for violations?

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 - (2) Posts

Sidentop has suggested that most sport within physical education rarely reproduces those features of sport that lead to its attractiveness, resulting in student claims of irrelevancy and boredom.

In the paper, the intervention measures the effectiveness of using a more sport or team-oriented approach to physical education which Sidentop called Sport Education; essentially imagining the block of time devoted to one sport as a mini-season. The intervention found that Sport Education can produce sufficient levels of moderate-vigorous activity, while not discriminating against lower-skilled players.

The Playmakers Basketball Development League offers an ideal Sport Education curriculum for the basketball lesson of a physical education class. The PBDL addresses the difficulties of playing basketball in a small gym with a large class and prevents numerous players from sitting out at any time. The PBDL teaches basic skills using a game-play model, enabling beginners and experienced players to play the game together.

If a physical education teacher uses a block practice instruction model for basketball, the teacher may focus on a simple skill like lay-ups or dribbling the basketball on the first day, but knowledge of lay-ups does not enable one to play a game or join confidently into a scrimmage. However, through a game-play model like the PBDL, beginners learn new skills like dribbling the basketball and making lay-ups while engaged in actual game-like play.

A P.E. teacher has two goals: (1) increase physical activity (fitness) and (2) teach/develop sport-skills. The concept of Sport Education enables instructors to meet these goals simultaneously, and the Playmakers Basketball Development League is a planned, organized six-week curriculum that uses the same ideas as Sport Education as a means for player development, learning and fun with youth basketball players.

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 - (1) Posts]]> http://learntocoachbasketball.com/playmakers-basketball-development-league-as-physical-education-curriculum/feed 0 http://learntocoachbasketball.com/skill-development-definitions-and-coaching-philosophy http://learntocoachbasketball.com/skill-development-definitions-and-coaching-philosophy#comments Sun, 01 Aug 2010 04:13:57 +0000 Brian McCormick http://learntocoachbasketball.com/?p=896

My thinking differs from most coaches on most aspects of coaching, and these differences often get me in trouble. This weekend, I argued the merits of zone defenses and realized that our difference of opinion had nothing to do with zones specifically, but instead the way that we view the game and approach skill development.

Most coaches view basketball as two elements: skills and strategy. For these coaches, skills represent the technical skills that differentiate basketball: shooting, specific passes, footwork, dribbling and more. Strategy, then, is everything else, typically centering on defenses, plays, press breaks, out of bounds plays and more.

To me, there are four types of skills: athletic, psychological, tactical and technical. When I talk about skill development, I mean more than an individual workout focuses on shooting and ball handling; I believe skill development includes tactical skills like give-and-gos, pick-and-rolls, handling a trap, and more.

The difference between these two viewpoints, I learned, defines one’s coaching philosophy. The more traditional viewpoint favors a block practice environment which combines technical skill practice, typically in individual drills, with strategic practice encompassing the team’s offensive and defensive systems.

For these coaches, plays or offensive systems are specific, and players memorize movements: for instance, the team runs the Flex and players learn to use a screen only in the context of the Flex offense or the team runs the dribble-drive-motion and players learn to move in relation to dribble penetration only in the context of the DDM.

With my viewpoint, players learn these tactical skills generally first and then incorporate different general skills into team offense or the team’s system. In the traditional viewpoint, players learn skills like dribbling and shooting outside the context of the offensive system and then use these skills within the offense. In my approach, not only do players practice technical skills in skill development sessions, but they learn the tactical skills generally.

Before a team runs the Flex, for instance, players learn to use a screen outside the context of the Flex offense. Players learn to read the defense and the screen to make the appropriate cut; for instance, if the defender tries to fight through the screen, the cutter back cuts to the basket. Then, the offensive players apply these lessons to their coach’s system or plays.

The same occurs defensively. Most teams have a primary defense with their specific rules: for instance, force everything sideline-baseline, 3/4 front the post, help defense on the midline. If their primary defense does not work or does not fit against their opponent, they switch defenses: they play a secondary defense, like a 2-3 zone or 3-2 zone.

If players learn to play defense generally first, rather than with specific rules, a team can change its base defense to fit an opponent or situation. This season, we played man-to-man defense; however, against some teams, we denied the wing entry pass while against others, we played more help defense. When we played against a team that relied on dribble penetration, we did not move to a zone; we simply recognized their strength and adjusted slightly.

These adjustments constitute my strategy. From my viewpoint, we develop skills and strategy are the adjustments or game-specific tactics. For instance, how do you defend an opponent with a three-point lead and under 10 seconds to play? Do you foul before they can shoot a three-pointer? Decisions like these are the team’s or coach’s strategy. However, these strategic decisions are not important until players develop their skills generally. If players do not understand how to defend or how to use a screen or how to read the defense, a coach cannot change or employ different strategies. A coach cannot call a timeout to draw up a new play if the players lack the awareness or understanding to implement the strategy.

A narrow definition of skills (essentially technical skills) leads to one way of coaching and teaching, while a broader definition, which I favor, that encompasses four areas of skills leads to a much different approach to coaching.

At the youth level, the broader approach to skill development benefits players because the players learn skills which transfer from season to season, while coaches with a narrow definition may employ different strategies which do not transfer from season to season unless a player happens to play for a coach who runs the same system.

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 - (2) Posts

I must admit that I am biased against big camps. I run basketball camps, but even this week, while running a camp in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, I felt that we had too many players of disparate abilities to create a great camp. We made it work, the players improved and had fun, but it was far from my ideal learning environment.

With a young group, our focus this week was basic technical skills (dribbling, passing, pivoting, shooting, individual defense and lay-ups) and beginning tactical skills (give-and-gos and pick-and-rolls).

Kobe’s Camp, however, appears to focus on running different offenses:

The kids will be taught the flex offense, the Princeton offense, and of course, the famed triangle offense, among many other things. “It doesn’t really matter what age group they are, these kids can learn these things — especially at that age, because they’re sponges,” Bryant said.

Really? I agree that children are sponges and learn things quickly, especially when the instructions and skills are age-appropriate. However, I do not see how teaching the Flex offense to eight-year-olds is age-appropriate.

I worked a camp where every coach had to teach the same generic pass-and-screen away offense. It took all week to get players to follow directions and pass and screen away. Every team practice was spent memorizing the offense. However, if the players did not run the same offense with their teams at home, did all this practice time transfer to improved performance?

When I run camps, I teach general skills. Rather than learning the Flex offense or the Princeton offense, I teach players how to use a screen, how to make a backdoor cut or how to use a dribble hand-off. At my camp in Idaho two weeks ago, we learned all these skills. Through the six-week Playmakers Basketball Development League, players learn all these skills in general ways, not specific to one offense.

Now, this week, I used drills that I would use with a Flex offense team. Some of the girls at the camp run the Flex with their team, so I adjusted some of our general shooting drills to mimic cuts in the Flex, so they practiced the type of shots that they get with their team. However, the tactical instructions remained general: the goal was to learn how to read and use a screen in any offense, not in one specific offense.

When I was young, we ran the Flex. We set the cross screen and received the down screen to cut to the elbow. There was no deviation. Without a shot clock, we turned over the offense time after time until we got a lay-up or elbow jump shot.

When we moved to high school, we no longer ran the Flex. Now we memorized a new offense. Through these years of playing, we never learned to curl off a screen or flare off the screen or cut backdoor based on the defense; instead, we memorized where to run in a particular offense. If the shot was not open in the Flex, rather than flare because the defender went top-side, ball-side over the screen, we caught and waited for the next cutter or we re-screened if we were not open.

There is nothing wrong with the Flex offense or the Princeton offense, and there is nothing inherently wrong with teaching an offense at a camp. However, in the limited learning time available, how do you want to appropriate your time? Is teaching an offense that the players may never run again the best use of valuable time? Is it the most fun or inspiring use of time?

I try to teach to the age group. With younger players and beginners this week (10-14 primarily with a few 15 and 16-year-olds), the focus was fun and basics. We played dribble tag and speed tag every day. Why? The games are fun and with beginner players, these types of games improve their dribbling more than learning moves and doing more advanced drills. They learn naturally, one of Kobe’s emphases:

“Fun. I want them to have a good time,” Bryant said. “That’s where sports start. I want them to enjoy themselves, and not get bogged down by this or that. These kids are going to learn a lot of things at this camp — they’re going to learn them without knowing that they’re learning them, and they’re going to have a good time doing it.”

I agree completely with the attitude. We played tag because it kept the entire camp involved, is fun and develops skills without a lot of instruction.

We also spent time on lay-ups. We did speed lay-ups, power lay-ups, lay-ups off a pass, lay-ups off a catch, etc. We did a progression into the “Rondo,” and also learned the “Rondo Up-and-Under.” There was a 12-year-old who has never played in a competitive game before (from a remote town) who used the Rondo to create a shot in a 5v5 scrimmage on the last day to cheers from other campers.

We went through a defensive progression to learn to defend the ball and played lots of 1v1. We shot every day, going through the first three stages from 180 Shooter: 5 Steps to Shooting 90% from the Free Throw Line, 50% from the floor and 40% from the 3-pt line.

We played a lot of 3v3 and 4v4 half and full-court scrimmages to five baskets. I prefer short games with a definitive end to increase competitiveness. Also, short games allow you to change teams if the teams are unbalanced. When I worked bigger camps, each coach had a team of 8-10 players and the teams remained the same all week, even if the teams were unbalanced. We also played 30-minute games, which meant half the camp sat on the bench and watched (or sometimes more than half the camp if there were not enough courts to keep all the teams playing at once).

I usually play cut-throat at camp, so players are generally out for no more than 30 seconds in a half-court game and a minute or two in a full-court game. That keeps all the players engaged. Also, because no coach coaches a specific team or group of players, but assists everyone, the coach’s egos do not get in the way of helping the players. No coach is playing to win. Along the same lines, we did not spend time memorizing offenses. Instead, our goal is to teach general skills that players can apply to their teams at home regardless of the system that their coach employs.

Like all coaches, I have my biases. I am biased toward small-sided games, active drills and fun games that engage players while developing a number of basic, general skills. I dislike long lines and players sitting out.

While offenses taught properly can develop basic skills, is it the best way? Is playing 5v5 games with 8-10-year-old players the best way to develop their athletic, technical and tactical skills?

If you have more thoughts on camps and skill development, please join the discussion in the forum.

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

Join the forum discussion on this post - (2) Posts

When I watch young children play, unfettered by rules and coaching, they tend to have great instincts. If a player drives to the basket, they go to the ball. They instinctively know to take away the biggest risks which are close to the basket.

However, as players learn to play defense properly, these same movements which were so instinctual and quick become labored and indecisive. Am I supposed to stay with my man or go to the ball? Do I rotate here or there? Coaches spend hours breaking down players’ natural instincts so that they can teach them the right way to play.

This season, I dispensed with the superfluous instruction and started with the players’ instincts. We did almost no specific defensive instruction. Instead, we started with a simple rule: No lay-ups or shots close to the basket. The second rule that we added quickly: Do not foul a shooter. Initially, we had a simple defensive philosophy: make teams make jump shots to score.

The problem with the way that we teach defense is that we start with specifics rather than the general philosophy. On the first day, we do the “Shell Drill” to teach players the proper positioning. The offense passes around the perimeter from spot to spot, and the defense moves into the right positions based on the ball and their man. Throughout, the coach emphasizes the importance of seeing both the man and the ball.

Now, no team plays offense like this. In fact, the only thing close to the initial shell drill is a bad zone offense. I would argue that it is easier for a defender to see man and ball when playing zone defense because (1) offenses stagnate against zones and (2) the defense always knows where to look to find his offensive player (his zone).

For young players learning to play who have a lot of information and stimuli to process, playing against even a decent man offense requires the defender to see a moving offensive player and the ball, something unlike the shell drill.

When I played, my teams spent hours on the shell drill every season starting in fifth grade. We worked on the proper help-side position. We worked on rotations if the ball handler dribbled baseline. We worked on defending cuts. The drills were clean and precise. For every possible question, there was specific answer. If A happens, do B.

Games, however, were messy. I did my picture-perfect closeout from the mid-line to a shooter, sprinting 2/3 of the way to the offensive player and then chopping my steps with my weight back as I was taught, and the shooter made the shot. I followed the directions perfectly, so my coach told me that I was too slow.

Next, I sprinted a little faster, waited a little longer to chop my steps, and the offensive player drove past me. Again, my coach said that I was too slow. I defended my player as he cut to the top, just as I had in the shell drill, but at the same moment, an offensive player drove baseline for a lay-up. Now, I was out of position. Somehow, I should have known that the offensive player was going to drive and ignored my player cutting toward the ball. Nothing happened like the shell drill. The shell drill supplied easy answers. Situations in games were more ambiguous.

Now when I play, I am usually the best defender on the court. I am no faster than when I was a teenager. However, I am not beholden to any specific rules. In every situation, I make the best possible decision and adjust accordingly. As a coach, I attempt to empower players to do the same. Our defensive success is not reducing all choices to one simple answer in practice, but learning to adjust and adapt to decisions.

Do players ball-watch in zone defenses?

Yes. They should. Players need to watch the ball in man defense too. When I play defense, I am generally aware of my player. I have a good idea where he is. However, if he makes a great cut, sometimes I am a step behind. However, I know where the ball is. I see the ball handler. I can read his eyes. I almost never get beaten with a backdoor pass – even if my player has beaten me, I can stick out my foot and defend the pass. If my player stands on the weak-side and I get caught in help defense, I know exactly where he is because I follow the flight of the ball. It does not matter if I know exactly where he is – the ball tells me where to go.

This is very much a zone approach to defense. However, as I wrote last week, every good man defense incorporates zone principles, and every good zone defense incorporates man principles. Unfortunately, I think many coaches generalize zone defense based on the worst possible examples and generalize man defense based on the best possible examples. In reality, they are very similar.

Can one teach good defensive fundamentals with a zone defense?

First, one must define “good defensive fundamentals”? I take a realist approach to defense rather than an idealist. Most coaches are idealists: their objective is to prevent ALL shots. As a realist, my objective is to force low efficiency shots. I do not believe that a defender can take away everything – any time a defender works to take away something, he opens something else. For instance, on a closeout, if I close out fast enough to contest the shot, I am susceptible to a drive. I cannot defend both perfectly. The battle is (1) choosing which is the better play for me as a defender and (2) the offensive player making the right decision based on my decision and possessing the skill to make the play that the decision dictates. If I know that my player cannot shoot, I defend the drive; in this instance, I force the shot, but he lacks the skill to take advantage. Therefore, I win the battle.

With young players, the defense usually wins the battle because few offensive players are complete players. If the defense plays the drive on all closeouts, whether in man defense or zone defense, the defense wins most battles as the offense takes a low-percentage shot, drives a congested lane or passes. As offensive players improve, the defender’s decision-making becomes more difficult, and thus more important.

What are the defensive fundamentals?

1. Guard a yard. Defenders must be able to move laterally in both directions and keep a ball handler in front of them for two steps in each direction.
2. Positioning. Defenders must know how they are supposed to defend a player. What area do they want to defend? Where is the help defense? Do you send to the sideline-baseline or to the middle?
3. Closeout. Defenders must know how to cover as much distance as quickly as possible while remaining on balance and able to change directions. When covering more than 3 feet, the defender must decide whether to run at (and past) a shooter to force the drive or close out under control to prevent the drive.
4. Defending the post. Defenders must know how to move their feet to stay in position and defend a pass from different angles.
5. Defending a cutter. Defenders must know how to deny a cutter the ball while maintaining the balance to change directions.
6. Boxing out. Possibly the most important part of defense, defenders close to the basket must box out to create more space to grab the rebound off missed shots.
7. Matching up in transition. Players must know how to retreat quickly and match up in different situations where the offense has a numerical advantage.
8. Help and recover. Defenders must be able to slow a ball handler to allow his defender to recover and then close out to their offensive player if a pass is made in their direction.

These are eight basic defensive skills. I am sure coaches could list 20 more (feel free to list more below). However, which of these skills cannot be taught through zone defense?

Team Defense

Even in man-to-man defense, teams play a lot of zone. Anytime a team doubles a post player, the other three defenders zone four offensive players. In transition, as long as the offense has a numerical advantage, the defense uses a zone. When a ball handler penetrates and beats his man, forcing help defense, the other defenders play a zone. Help defense is essentially zone defense.

When I coached professionally, our defensive philosophy was essentially to play man-to-man on the strong side and zone the weak side. We fronted the post and denied penetrating passes on the strong side. Our weak side defenders played the mid-line. We were most susceptible to a skip pass and open three-pointer or a high-post entry for a high-low to the post player. However, since we zoned the weak side, the top defender took the high-post which meant that we had a second defender to take away the quick high-low pass. The swing to the opposite side was wide open, so the bottom defender had to sprint at a shooter. However, we effectively took away the middle of the court and the basket.

Defensive Success

Ultimately, defensive success has little to do with the particular strategy (man or zone), especially at a youth level. Instead, the success starts with players playing hard. Hustle and effort can make up for a lot of mistakes defensively, especially with young players. Next, it requires some basketball smarts. If players know the general plan (no lay-ups, no free throws; force two-point jump shots), they can make educated decisions quickly and other players can adapt. Finally, defensive success requires toughness, mental and physical. Players have to be willing to use their bodies to box out, chuck cutters and take charges, but they also have to let it go if they do everything right and the offense still scores.

When teaching a man or zone, a coach can emphasize effort, hustle, smarts and toughness, so either strategy works for developing good defensive fundamentals.

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

Full-Court Press

Against a full-court press, I teach players Diamond Spacing: the passer needs an option up the court, behind the ball and on a diagonal (splitting a trap). The fifth player spreads out the defense on the opposite side or preferably down court to draw a defender.

When the defense traps, D3 and D4 have to choose who to deny or they zone the three passing options and attempt to read the passer’s eyes. However, against youth teams where the passer lacks the strength and skill to make a 40-foot pass, D5 can rotate into the frontcourt and the defense can deny all three pass receivers. This is the problem. There is nowhere for a fourth offensive player to cut to create an open passing lane, as his presence simply congests the court even more. If younger players play a small-sided games, even 4v4, the press breaks down to an extent. Now, if the defense traps the ball, two defenders zone three offensive players, leaving an open passing lane for the offense.

Zone Defense

The same holds true for zone defenses. In any good zone defense or man defense for that matter, an inability to throw a good, strong skip pass allows the defense to clog the paint without giving up anything. Generally-speaking, whenever a defense takes away something, they give up something else. So, if a defense takes away the paint, they give up open jump shots. However, with younger players, they lack the strength and skill to take advantage of the openings that the zone defense prevents. The skip pass is too slow to create the desired wide open shot.

In this generic set, two offensive players (O1 and O3) are isolated on the weak side against one defender (D3). A quick skip pass should lead to an open shot for O3, or if D3 runs at O3 on the catch, O1 should be wide open for his shot.

However, if the offense cannot make the skip pass, or if the offense has to step inside the three-point line to shoot and therefore condensing the space, then the defenders can close out in time to take away the open shot. They defend the paint, but also have the time to defend the shot. At higher levels, teams have to pick their poison: overplay and take away the paint and give up the open three-pointer or vice versa. The ball moves too quickly to take away both.

Again, a small-sided game of 3v3 or 4v4 in the half-court makes it more difficult for the defense to take away the paint and the shot, even when the offense needs to step inside the three-point line. A 2-2 zone or a 1-3 zone would give away far too much space, so in a sense, teams would be forced to play man-defense in a small-sided league. Either way, players would have more space and time to execute their skills (passing, ball handling, shooting, finishing, reading the defense) than when playing 5v5.

As I wrote previously, when players possess the experience and skills to play full-court 5v5 games, there is no reason to prevent zones or presses to hide players’ weaknesses. However, with young players, these are the reasons against zones and presses, though the problems are remedied more easily by playing more age-appropriate small-sided games than instituting artificial rules to manipulate coaches into doing things a certain way.

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