In Cross Over, and my other writing, I have argued that the year-round competitive system does not provide time for development. Competitive games are not conducive to development because games are performance-oriented, not development-oriented.
In “The Importance of Play for Motor Learning,” Todd Hargrove writes:
Play is by definition fun and voluntary, so animals only play when they are not under any form of survival stress. Animals brought into a new environment will generally not start playing until they scope out the area pretty well and make sure the coast is clear. (I have seen my four year old do this at playgrounds repeatedly.) Learning is essentially an investment in the future, and brains are programmed to make that investment only when things are looking pretty squared away in the present. By contrast, if you are under some form of stress that threatens survival, the brain is not primed to learn or play.
Think about the different survival stresses of the high-school season: Making the team, earning playing time, winning games, league, play-offs, and more. Once the high-school season ends, players try out for club teams, have to earn playing time all over again, and then play in front of college coaches attempting to secure a scholarship. With this type of year-round stress, are players ever in an optimal learning environment? When does the survival stress subside and the play begin?
I spent more of my time as a child and teenager in play-like environments. I played pick-up games at the park, at a local gym, and in my front yard. I played in spring and summer leagues without any real coaching. These environments were optimal learning environments because they were fun and voluntary. There were no immediate threats to making the team or earning playing time, so I was able to invest in learning. I tried new moves. I tried new shots. If I failed in a game, I practiced on my own. Because I determined my practice, it was a more play-like environment than going to a trainer to work out and do the trainer’s drills. I was secure. I was playing. I was primed to learn.
As Hargrove continues:
As a practical matter, this means that if you approach your practice for a sport or other activity with an overly serious mindset that creates stress, you are activating a brain pattern that is not conducive to learning.
How many coaches go out of their way to create an overly serious mindset towards practice? Is this mindset enhancing their learning? Coaches purposely induce stress, then do not understand why the players fail to learn. Is it the environment?
I wrote a couple years ago about the values of playing everyone in every game. This could be an additional benefit. If players know that they will play, they may feel more secure in the present, priming their brain to learn. By enhancing their learning, they are more likely to improve, and therefore earn or deserve the playing time. It becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy: believing that everyone should play creates an environment where everyone improves and performs as if everyone should play.
If play is essential for motor learning, how should we organize practices? How should we train young athletes? I ran a workout last week for a coach with college players. I played team tag and advantage 1v1 interspersed with some shooting drills. The workout was more active, and based on their comments, more fun than their normal workouts. Did they improve more? Who knows? It was one workout, so there was really no opportunity for a marked improvement. However, is there a likelihood that players would improve more in an environment that is more active and more fun? Are players likely to practice harder if they enjoy the activities?
Are players reaching the varsity high school and college levels with a poor sense of how to play the game, despite playing more competitive games than I dreamt of playing, because they do not engage in enough Play?
My daughter works out quite a bit for an 8th grade girl. She practices shooting, dribbling, layups, etc. She goes to the gym and practices on her own while her brother (Junior in High School) plays pick up with his friends. The issue I see is that she never gets a chance to play. Girls don’t play pick up…well, at least not around here. Is my city unique in that respect? I think it’s a significant hinderance to girls basketball. I’m encouraging her to lay with the varsity and JV boys…and I think she will now. I just wish she had a place to play w/ other girls. Just a thought.
FranK:
No, your city is not different than others, and yes, that is a hindrance to girls’ development. It’s also why I am not down on AAU/club basketball as much anymore, as children need to play; if they are not going to play pick-up, then they need to be in a league or on a team. Of course, if that league or team gets too serious, then you have the problem of stress interfering with learning, so good can lead to bad.
Even when I played for my high school summer league team as a freshman, our coaches hardly coached at all and we rarely practiced. It was just a chance to get in the gym and play someone other than ourselves. It was not really a stress-inducing environment; it was more stressful than a pick-up game, as there was a sense that the coach was evaluating us, but it was non-threatening, as we played through mistakes, everyone played the same, nobody remembered who win, nobody kept stats, we didn’t have to run one offense, etc. When summer leagues or club basketball takes on that form, I think it has value, especially for children who otherwise would not play in pick-up games. Unfortunately, as soon as uniforms, the scoreboard, and coaching is involved, that sense of freedom tends to disappear and winning becomes more important than learning.
When I coached with the Santa Monica Surf years ago, they rented a gym one night per week just for open gym for girls. Unfortunately, it didn’t last too long, as it costs money and parents saw it as less important than other activities. I do know that most colleges and junior colleges run off-season open gyms primarily for their players and recruits, but sometimes you can sneak in. I sent a frosh boy to J.C. open gyms one spring instead of him playing AAU. He wouldn’t always get in every game, but he usually got a couple runs.
What do you think is best to relate the concept of play and fun when the goal is also to help the players develop good basketball skills and fundamentals? I have coached youth from 3rd to 8th grade and usually try to split my practices up so there is a wide variety of games and drills that incorporate many skills, rather than drilling the kids where it seems to be more deliberate skill development. I now have a 5th grade boys traveling team and the other coaches thoughts are to focus on a particular skill and run many drills that focus more on the individual and do not keep the other kids very active. Our first practice we ran mainly full court passing drills the entire 1hr 15 min. We practice twice a week and one thought is to focus on one skill a practice. I have seen my players improve during other years while mixing up practices with a variety of drills and games that the kids enjoy. Can you give me a general direction of how these practices should be planned? I feel i can create a better learning environment by having more action and making a point to put fun drills in. But will I be delaying skill development by using these techniques versus more specific deliberate skill development drills?
If you take this to the extreme, how many different skills will be emphasized? Shooting, passing, dribbling, defense, finishing, etc. Even with only five skills, that would mean that players would go four practices without shooting. Players would essentially shoot 1.5 times per month – is that really a good way to develop skills deliberately?
Furthermore, what kind of full-court passing drills were these? Were there defenders?
As for the initial question, I don’t think there has to be a distinction between fun & play and skills & fundamentals? I use the drills and games that I use because I believe they develop skills and games better than more traditional drills. I mix in more traditional drills when necessary or to correct something specific.
Furthermore the games teach the full skill in relation to the defense rather than the technique of performing the movement correctly. Skill is making the right decision and having the ability to execute the required action.
Creating the right environment for learning http://t.co/YR490wCZ #Learning