A friend emailed and asked for advice, as he volunteered to coach his son’s youth basketball team. As in many leagues, most of the players are beginners, and teams only practice for an hour or two each week before playing their weekend games (and people wonder why youth leagues are overly-competitive with a 1:1 practice:game ratio; leagues are teaching parents and players that practice is unimportant, and games matter most, primarily because practices are inefficient from a profit standpoint). Here is a sample practice plan. (more…)
Posts Tagged ‘youth basketball’
Planning a Youth Basketball Practice
Saturday, November 5th, 2011Developing Better Game Passers
Friday, June 10th, 2011For drills to be effective, they must transfer to better game performance. Many coaches spend a lot of practice time on drills like three-man weaves or two-line passing drills, yet continue to complain about their players’ passing skills. The problem is the constraints: the constraints of a three-man weave differ from the constraints of completing a pass in a game. (more…)
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts Coach Education: Is it worth the time and effort?
Thursday, February 24th, 2011When I last coached high school basketball, I was forced to attend a mandatory “coach education” seminar. It was a three-hour lecture by a septuagenarian athletic director. Most of the clinic resolved on how to ignore parents. It was a complete waste of time and had no real relevance to actual coaching. (more…)
2v1 Transition Situations
Monday, February 21st, 2011Note: Originally published in the Hard2Guard Player Development Newsletter 5.3.
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. (more…)
The Fallacy of Wins and Losses in Youth Sports
Monday, January 31st, 2011Note: Originally published in the January/February 2011 issue of Los Angeles Sports & Fitness.
In a recent youth football championship game, one team trailed 6-0 when the coach ordered a trick play that is now a youtube sensation. After a penalty, he called out loudly that the defense had been off-side, and the official forgot to walk off the five yards. He yelled at his center to move the ball forward. The center stood up and handed the ball over his shoulder to the quarterback, which is a legal maneuver. The quarterback started to walk off the five yards and then sprinted past the unassuming defenders for the game-tying touchdown. (more…)
Skill Development Definitions and Coaching Philosophy
Saturday, July 31st, 2010
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 Is Zone Defense Bad for Youth Basketball?
Wednesday, June 30th, 2010Today I watched a video that vilified zone defenses and presses in youth basketball. Now, I am a man-to-man coach and played in man-to-man defense only leagues when I was young. However, as long as zone defenses are legal, I do not see why youth leagues should prohibit them or why coaches should be discouraged from employing them.
Before getting too deep into the argument, I suppose that I should frame the age groups. The video mentioned that zones should not be used before high school. Therefore, our conversation centers on u14s. Now, I do not even believe that players need to play organized basketball until they are 8 or 9. When players begin organized basketball, I believe that they should play 3v3 games, not 5v5 (more on this below), which is why I created the Playmakers Basketball Development Leagues. I do not see a need for 5v5 games until players are 10 years old or older, so the argument of zones or no zones has to do with the 10-14 year-old age group.
What is the argument against zones and presses?
Generally, coaches feel that zones and presses are lazy. Coaches imagine other coaches stationing five players in the key to force jump shots and protect the basket. Of course, this happens. I have heard of coaches who play a 2-3 zone defense and literally tell the bottom three defenders to stand on the block, in the middle of the key and on the block, respectively, and not to move. To prevent this type of lazy coaching, coaches vilify all zone defenses.
Of course, I also know coaches who play man-to-man defense and tell 1-2 players not to worry about their players (the weaker players) and concentrate solely on help defense. However, nobody suggests outlawing man defense because of this type of over-competitiveness.
Coaches believe that teams who play zone defense force young, unskilled players into outside shots which they cannot make consistently. They believe that presses benefit the biggest, strongest players who overwhelm young players who lack the strength to exploit the entire court.
To me, the answer is not to outlaw zone defenses. How does ignoring the problem (inconsistent shooting, lack of strength, lack of passing under pressure) help anyone?
The problem is one of spacing, which is easily fixed by reducing the number of players on the court. In top European soccer academies, players do not play full 11v11 games until they are 11 or 12-years-old. They start with small-sided games using a smaller field to encourage more touches for each player and to make the game more manageable.
In basketball, when a team employs a zone defense and packs in the defense against a youth team, it condenses the space. The offense cannot use the entire width of the court; well, it can use the entire width, but due to a lack of skill, the defense does not play the entire width. Of course, a team can do the same with man-to-man defense as well: if the coach knows that nobody on the opposition can shoot a three-pointer, his defender can back off several feet and play the passing lanes.
The answer is not strategy, but structure. Fewer players on the court opens more space for players to practice their skills. Fewer players on the court means more touches for each player.
The same is true for a press. Presses work against younger teams because players lack the strength to throw over top of the press. Therefore, the defense can shrink the court and put all five defenders in the back court. Of course, a team can do the same thing with a man defense too, especially with the press breaks that most teams employ. If using fewer players, there is plenty of space for offensive players, and the press cannot condense to space or overwhelm the offensive players.
Why is the argument against zones just semantics?
One cannot play good man-to-man team defense with understanding zone principles and one cannot play good zone defense without understanding man-to-man principles. For this reason, no youth teams play really good team defense.
Let’s look at a generic 2-3 zone defense (played well) versus a good man-to-man defense:
2-3 Zone
This is a very generic defense and a very generic play. However, in a basic 1-3-1 set against a 2-3 zone, the point passes to the wing and cuts to the corner. One of the top defenders (O1) takes the ball and the other (O2) takes the high post. The bottom outside defender (O3) takes the corner, the middle defender (O5) fronts the low post and the weak-side baseline defender (o4) helps in the middle of the key.
Man Defense
In the man-to-man example, the offense starts in the same 1-3-1 set and runs the point to the corner to create a strong-side triangle. The defense defends in the same manner as above, except different defenders defend different positions. O2 takes the wing; O1 follows the point to the corner; O4 fronts the low post; O5 takes the high post; and O3 helps in the middle of the key.
The basic difference between man-to-man and zone defenses is the way that the defense defends cutters (with or without screens). In man-to-man defense, defenders deny and follow cutters to a point and then deny or play help-side defense; in zone defenses, defenders follow and release the cutter to the next defender and then recover to their zone.
However, strong-side defense and weak-side defense remain largely the same. On the strong-side, someone defends the ball and a defender is responsible for a quick closeout to any perimeter players, while a defender typically denies any penetrating pass into the post (low or high), though some zones at the college level are designed to force mid-range jump shots, so they do not cover the high post too closely and concentrate more on the three-point line and low post, like many college man-to-man defenses. On the weak-side, the defenders play with one foot in the key, two feet in the key or on the mid-line, depending on the amount of help defense.
Therefore, when the ball is passed to the wing, a player has essentially the same amount of time and space to execute a move against a good man-to-man defense as against a good zone defense.
Obviously, man and zone defenses and offenses can be far more complicated. However, if the argument is that the players are young, unskilled and inexperienced, would they be doing anything more than the most rudimentary cuts and rotations in man or zone? If a team has a sophisticated man or zone defense or offense with an u11 team, the coach probably is spending far too much time on strategy and not enough time developing general individual and team skills. Therefore, again, the problem is not zone vs. man, but strategy vs. skill development.
If man-to-man and zone defenses are so similar, what is the argument?
When coaches argue against zone defenses and presses at young ages, they make two arguments:
1) They argue against poorly taught or lazy defense, and they blame zones for this.
2) They argue against exploiting unskilled players.
Prohibiting zone defenses does not fix either of these problems. In fact, prohibiting zones could exacerbate the second problem. If zones are prohibited, it is tough to play good help defense. My team when I was young was often called for violations because we played help defense with a foot in the key, as most high school coaches teach. But, if outlawing zone defense, how do you differentiate between good help defense and zone defense?
Therefore, if you prohibit good help defense in the name of outlawing zone defense, the biggest, strongest player has a better opportunity to dominate single-handedly. The best player dribbles the ball up the court, beats his own defender and other help defenders are hamstrung or late because they are a step too far out of position because of the anti-zone defense rule. Therefore, he gets to the basket with ease and scores. On defense, it is easy to put the biggest, strongest player on the ball, teach the wings to deny everything hard and easily exploit weaker, unskilled players with man-to-man pressure.
As for the first problem, their issue is not with zones but poor teaching. I am also against poor teaching. However, I think that man defense can be as overwhelming and poorly taught as zones.
To fix these issues, we need to do two things:
1) Employ more age-appropriate games for young players;
2) Examine teaching methods of zone and man defenses without viewing zones as a four-letter word.
In the first case, if players are unskilled or lack the strength to play against a zone defense, they probably lack the skill and strength to play against man defense as well. The problem is not the defense, but the space. Young, inexperienced and unskilled players need more space and time to execute their skills. Therefore, these players should not play 5v5 leagues, regardless of the defense. Criticizing zones does not get to the root of the problem. The root of the problem is a need to create more space and time for players and to get each player more touches so that every player can develop his skills so he has confidence when he moves to a 5v5 game, regardless of defense.
In the second case, we need those who oversee leagues to act more in a role of “coaching the coaches” than just administrating. League directors should assist coaches and encourage good teaching techniques. Zone defense is not the enemy – poor teaching is the enemy. We need to remember the difference. It is possible to play great zone defense and teach players many useful skills that they can transfer from season to season regardless of the defense that their next coach employs.
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 Learning the Triangle Offense
Tuesday, December 15th, 2009Jonathan Abrams wrote a good article about Kurt Rambis instituting the Triangle Offense with the Minnesota Timberwolves. He writes:
The triangle, created by the post, wing and corner players, revolves around seven guiding principles: the ball handler reading the defense; correct decisions based on the defense; penetration through a pass into the post; separation of 15 to 20 feet for all the offensive players; movement through sharp cuts; interchangeability in positions; and balance for defensive transition.
These seven guiding principles may apply specifically to the Triangle, but they are good principles for any offense. Shouldn’t all offenses involve reading the defense and making correct decisions? Isn’t the goal to get penetration into the key, whether through a pass or dribble? Aren’t all offenses predicated on good spacing? Don’t the best offenses involve all players in all positions? Isn’t the first aspect of great defensive teams the court balance when a shot is attempted?
Abrams writes:
The triangle differs from more traditional N.B.A. offenses because it presents more options for the five players on the court. There are no set plays, just many possibilities.
Isn’t the ideal offense for developing players one that presents opportunities for all five players and creates an interchangeability among players? As Rambis says about the Triangle:
“It really teaches players how to play…It teaches players how to move without the basketball, how to read defenses, how to play together.”
Isn’t that the goal for youth basketball? As Los Angeles Lakers’ assistant coach Jim Cleamons says:
“The triangle is literally a junior high school offense, so if junior high players can run the triangle, then, certainly, young players of this caliber can run it. It’s a mind-set. You just have to be open, you have to be receptive and you have to be willing to realize that you can’t dominate the basketball. If you are good to the offense, the offense will be good to you.”
I don’t know if the Triangle offense is the perfect offense or the best offense for youth teams. However, the principles and the basics that it emphasizes are those that every youth coach should emphasize. Developmental teams should find ways to get every player opportunities and to encourage every player, not just run sets to get the best player shots. If every player learns to read the defense, move without the ball, pass and take good shots, the coach has been successful, at least on the offensive side.
By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League
Youth Basketball Offenses: Principles, not Plays
Friday, October 30th, 2009Strength Coach Charles Staley’s newsletter refers to an article on Programming, which uses the example of different martial arts or fighting styles:
Most Japanese and Korean styles of martial arts utilize a “technique-based” approach to self-defense. In other words, if your opponent throws a punch to your face, you defend with “technique A.” If he throws a kick to your ribs, you respond with “technique B.” And if he tries to stab you with a knife, you counter with “technique C” and so forth. The problem with this type of approach is that you need as many counter-defenses are there are possible attacks, and that’s a lot of techniques to learn.
An alternative solution can be found in the Filipino martial arts, such as Kali and Escrima. In these fighting arts, all attacks (whether they be foot, hand, or weapon) are categorized into 12 different groups based on the angle of the incoming attack. For example, any straight thrust to your midsection is a “number 5.” Any sweeping attack from the side is a “number 4,” and so on. Using this system, the martial artist only needs 12 different defenses as opposed to the hundreds he’d need using another system.
His point is similar to one about teaching plays vs. principles. Some teams run plays for everything; they have a press break for a 2-2-1 press, 1-2-1-1 press, man press, half court trap, run and jump, etc. This methodology follows for all areas. This is like the Japanese or Korean style, where coaches must anticipate all the possible attacks and teach different defenses for each one. This is very time consuming and requires a great deal of memorization and game preparation.
Teaching principles is like the Filipino martial arts. Rather than teach a press break for every possible half court and full court press, I teach 2-3 simple skills which players use against any type of pressure defense. The basic skills and spacing are the same against any press: the foundation is the same – the specific depends on the defense. If players know the foundation and understand the proper spacing, they can adjust and adapt to different presses.
By Brian McCormick
Founder, 180 Shooter
Thinking Out Loud: Two Thoughts about Youth Basketball
Saturday, October 24th, 2009I played in an old junior high school gym this week. It is easy to forget how small those courts are. The major change from youth basketball to the NBA is the length and width of the court. Most of the rules and other measurements (basket height, free throw line) remain the same, but the court gets bigger.
From a physical perspective, this seems logical. As players grow, they need more space, and they have a greater ability to run up and down a longer court.
However, from a skills and learning perspective, young players need the bigger court. Younger and beginner players need more space to make their moves and more time and space to feel open for a shot. Older, more experienced players require less time and space to make a move or attempt a shot.
While the size and athleticism of adult players compensates for the bigger court, I think we ignore the needs of young or inexperienced players. When we played on the junior high school court, we played 4v4 because of the lack of space. Why do we make young players – players who need more space and time than adults – play 5v5 in the same area?
Second, I was thinking about a modern day, basketball version of the chick-and-egg argument:
Do young players travel all the time because officials do not call it or do officials not call traveling because the players travel so often?
It is hard to know which came first: the terrible footwork or the blind eye turned toward the terrible footwork.
Coaches and parents yell at the officials for not making the call, but if they make all the calls, the coaches and parents tell the officials to let the children play. Therefore, officials grow more and more lenient with their interpretation of a traveling violation, and consequently, coaches spend less time focused on footwork.
If officials whistled every traveling violation in a game, regardless of the coaches’ and parents’ outcries, would coaches spend more time focused on footwork in practice? Would coaches reward the players with good footwork with playing time ahead of those players who frequently travel and currently get away with it?
By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League