Making sense of generational arguments about skill development

I don’t understand the following argument:

“Players from previous generations had more skill.”

+

“Players from previous generations were three-sport athletes.”

+

“Players from previous generations played more pickup games.”

=

“Players need to specialize earlier and train privately with individual coaches to improve their skills.”

How does one acknowledge later specialization and more play in the more skilled players (debatable whether or not previous generations were more skilled) and conclude that doing the opposite is the way to develop better skills?

By Brian McCormick, PhD
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League
Author, The 21st Century Basketball Practice and Fake Fundamentals

Tags: , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Making sense of generational arguments about skill development”

  1. Mike says:

    Cognitive dissonance.

  2. Swanson says:

    When training young players coach must be focused on the following basic fundamental moves jumping to style moves don’t give them the good foundation while they grow. Now, most of the young players are eager to improve their style and forget a basic.

  3. BrianMcCormick says:

    Your response has almost nothing to do with the original article.

Leave a Reply