On a thread about the poor play of lower-level teams on a message forum, I saw this comment that was posted by “Bball Coach”:
My lower level coaches are told to focus on defensive footwork and slides, make sure they can make lay-ups and can dribble full speed with either hand. Then we throw them on the court and they forget everything because the girls dont have much game experience. About the last 3-4 games of the season the girls are comfortable enough to actually do what they are taught at practice.
This answer perfectly encapsulates the idea of “fake fundamentals” and epitomized what I feel is poor coaching and a poor understanding of learning.
In motor learning, transfer is concerned with the ability to perform a skill in a novel situation. It is a prerequisite for learning. If a player practices something in practice, and does not transfer the skill to a game, there is no transfer. Therefore, there is no learning. If players continually do not transfer practice lessons into games, a coach should examine the practice.
The other readers and posters on this board accepted this coach’s comments as if they were commonplace. Of course lower-level teams should work on lay-ups and defensive slides. That is common sense. Is it?
I coach a lower-level team, and we certainly work on lay-ups. However, we have a defender in every lay-up drill. We do not do drills that look like pre-game lay-up drills. Instead, we do drills like a chaser lay-up that puts more pressure on the offensive player and increases the intensity of the drill.
As for defensive slides, need I say more. Do you learn to play defense while defending air? We have not done a defensive slide drill. We work on various forms of lateral movement during our warm-ups and conditioning. We use the Mirror Drill to make this more competitive.
Then, we play defense. We play 1v1. We play 1v1 in transition. We play 1v1 off a closeout. Why? Because defense is a perceptual-cognitive skill as much as it is a motor skill. Doing defensive slides across the court practices the motor component; however, it does not practice the perceptual-cognitive elements. How can a player perform in a game environment if they have not practiced the game skill?
Rather than criticize the players for their inability to transfer the practice to the games, why not change the practices? Why not incorporate more random and variable practice that more closely mimics the game than relying on more traditional blocked practice? A study by Starkes (2000) that interviewed expert athletes suggested that young athletes spend more time in less relevant activities and less time in more relevant activities. These experts believed that scrimmages and tactical drills were more relevant activities. A Ford, Yates and Williams (2010) study found that players spend less than a third of practice time in more relevant playing-form activities. This also helps to explain a Leek and colleagues study (2011) that found that youth athletes spend less than 50% of practice time in moderate to vigorous physical activity.
Doing these fake fundamentals make the coach look like he or she knows what he or she is doing, as they are organized and traditional. It looks like the players are engaged in activities that will improve their performance. However, the coach admits that this approach fails to improve performance, yet the approach continues.
The coach appears confident that it’s the players’ fault that the lower-levels are less skilled and unable to transfer their learning. However, he points out his or her deficiencies: the players lack game experience, so they need more practice in game situations. Doing drills does not prepare them for the game environment. This is a perfect example of traditional coaching that is accepted by most as good coaching, yet it completely fails the athlete.
“@brianmccormick: Players overcoming their coaches: http://t.co/LtY0GnkK” > OUTSTANDING ARTICLE!! Players & coaches must read! Well written!
Hello Brian, my name is Quincy Brooks and i am responsible for writing the partial comment that you took off of Socalhoops.com Women’s forum. The Entire Comment is as follows, “When a girl walks into the gym that has any kind of talent they are generally put on Varsity team. My lower levels are for girls that want to put basketball on their academic resume for college and for those that just want to play for fun. My lower level coaches are told to focus on defensive footwork and slides, make sure they can make lay-ups and can dribble full speed with either hand. Then we throw them on the court and they forget everything because the girls dont have much game experience. About the last 3-4 games of the season the girls are comfortable enough to actually do what they are taught at practice.
I find it interesting that you took part of my comment off the women’s forum and then posted videos of you teaching boys. Lets be clear about something i coached lower level boys for 8 years and the difference between working with girls and boys at the lower level at my school is like night and day. I have been coaching at James Monroe High School(los angeles city section) in some capacity since 1996 and my approach to teaching the game has taken the shape of many different forums. Yet if you go to Maxpreps.com and look at what i have accomplished since i took over the girls program you will find that every single year my team has become better. Thats partially do to the developement of my lower level girls. So your idea of “fake fundamentals” and your feelings on poor coaching and a poor understanding of learning dosent seem to apply to me or my comment.
I have a couple videos myself…. ENJOY Mr. Brian
Championship!!!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D0u52F8ga4&w=420&h=315
This young lady came in with little to no basketball experience in fact she quit boxing to play basketball for me.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXTJqWWhYk0&w=560&h=315
As you so fondly put it… “need I say more”.
I put a video of boys because that’s the video that I have. I have coach CYO 5th-8th grade girls, U10-U12 AAU girls, U14 & U15 AAU girls, varsity girls, J.V. girls, junior college girls and professional women in Europe. I’ve also trained girls from beginners to McDonald’s All-Americans to professionals and worked nearly every major girls basketball camp on the west coast. I also happen to have coached boys on almost all the same levels. I don’t agree that they are night and day. Different, yes, but not always that different.
It wasn’t an attack on you personally. You put no name on the post. However, regardless of what you say, think or suggest, I have a problem suggesting that the problem with the lack of transfer is some problem with the players and not the practice strategy. I coached JV girls in Orange County two seasons ago and had several players who had never played previously on a team. Transfer was not an issue. We were not the most skilled team, even at the end of the season, and we were not the best team, even in our league. However, all 12 players improved, and we tied for the league championship. They transferred every skill that we practiced into the games. We did not practice every skill because there is not time to develop every skill. But those that we practiced, they transferred. Why? Because the practices were designed to transfer skills into game situations, not to look good in practice. Practice is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Drills are used to develop a skill; they are not the end. For more on this idea, see: http://developyourbballiq.com/the-limitation-of-a-drill-how-to-make-a-coach-more-effective/ (You’ll see girls!)
The point of the post was to demonstrate a common comment made by coaches, and the problem with the misunderstanding of the learning process. Blocked practice leads to quicker immediate practice improvement and performance, so it appears as though players have learned the skill. Fewer mistakes are made. The practice is more organized. However, studies have shown that this type of practice does not transfer to game situations as well as random or variable practice. These types of practices lead to more mistakes in practice (slower acquisition and reduced practice performance) but transfer better to games. I’d recommend Vickers (2007), MaGill (2011), Schmidt and Wrisberg (2001) as good sources; also the work of A. Mark Williams from John Moores Liverpool and Damian Farrow of AIS.
Brian, you took a comment that was made in reference to the drop off in talent between good varsity teams and their bad lower level teams. It wasnt a discussion about training techniques. As stated in my post, My girls are doing everthing we were teaching them in practice in the game by the end of the year. The comment was posted to say, “yes the level of play might look bad now because it early in the season but try back later on in the season after the youngsters have settled in”.
I posted my name so that the people that read this can do their research on me and find out that i am in fact a coach with a sucessful program. Having a sucessful program means i develope my young talent.
The problem with the lack of transfer for me and my program is because of the players. I say so because as a new player, being nervous causes you to forget newly aquired skills. The biggest cure for being nervous is being fimiliar. As a coach you cant simulate game speed nor can you simulate the playing environment. The only thing you can do is put them in games so that they can gain that fimiliarity. Thus by the 8th game my girls are rather competitive as well as productive because of the found confidence they gained by playing the game the way we teach it.
“About the last 3-4 games of the season the girls are comfortable enough to actually do what they are taught at practice.” But hey maybe you didnt read that part since you were in such a rush to prove a point.
while your “practices were designed to transfer skills into game situations, not to look good in practice.” My practices are designed to develope proper technique and skills so that the girls can transfer that into becoming productive varsity players. So i repeat, “we focus on defensive FOOTWORK and slides, make sure they can make LAY-UPS and can DRIBBLE FULL speed with EITHER hand”. I never once mentioned how we go about teaching those skills, you assumed. Then you proceeded, to express your idea of “fake fundamentals” and your feelings on poor coaching and a poor understanding of learning. The point of my response was to demonstrate how a blogger takes comments off of other websites in a lame attempt to promote their own agenda and thoughts about other coaches. The bottom line is my approach and method to teaching the game is obviously sucessful.
-Overall we were 24-9 last year and went on to win the los angeles city section D3 championship(first time in school history)
-won our first round game in the D3 state playoffs before losing to the eventual state champions.
-Undefeated in league play the last two years
-I currently have 5 girls playing basketball in college, 2 this year that will graduate and go on to play at the next level.
-When i took over the program in 2005 we finished ranked 835 in state, last year we finished as the 94th ranked team in the state.
I noticed that you keep quoting various studies that have been performed in recent history. Now i am not a Doctoral Candidate (2013), but i have spent 15 years of my life working at my craft. 15 years appling various teaching methods and techniques and without a shawdow of a doubt i know that they are effective. My resume speaks volumes. They might not do so well in the orange county lower levels but they work very well here at James Monroe High school.
Mr. Brian i applaude you for providing me with a little mental stimulation as i prepare for practice. We have a tough tourny next week and there are some issuse i need to address.
Dude, relax. I never said a bad word about you personally or specifically. As for your allusions to my lack of practical experience, I have coached at every level from Special Olympics to professional basketball. You continue to misunderstand the point: there are practice conditions which are used traditionally by the vast majority of coaches that are termed blocked conditions. There are also practice conditions which are used by fewer coaches which are termed random and variable. These conditions include higher levels of contextual interference. These types of practices have been shown through research and in applied settings to increase skill transfer from practice to games (novel situations). As you say, newer players lack familiarity with the game situations – this is contextual interference. You don’t learn to pass by standing in two lines and throwing chest passes because in a game, you have speed, multiple defenders, etc. Therefore, to learn the skill, practice needs to incorporate these aspects of the skill execution.
But, you obviously know better. Congratulations on your success. You can feel secure because you are in the majority. The majority of coaches approach the game as you do. I am in the minority. Very few coaches approach the game as I do. That’s fine.
Relax, i am relaxed, i am also passionate about coaching. Im not opposed to learning a different method of teaching and then taking bits and pieces as i see fit to better suit my players. I havent said that your appraoch to teaching the game isnt as sucessful as mine, i am simply defending my approach to teaching. You say the majority of coaches approach the game as i do. When i know for a fact that isnt true because i talk to head coaches and interact with them on a daily basis. My opinions arent based on field studies conducted by intellectualls in a controlled environment.
But you know what, you are right… im going to abandon my approach and buy one of your books and go to one of the links you have suggested then i will attempt to implement your approach and formula to being a sucessful coach. In order to HELP MY PLAYERS OVERCOME THEIR COACH!!!
QB:
You act as though I have never coached or talked to a coach. My writing has afforded me the opportunity to speak to many, many coaches. I receive emails nearly every day from coaches asking questions, seeking advice, etc. I have conducted clinics for hundreds of coaches all over the world. The vast majority of coaches use a traditional approach. These practices are dominated by blocked-practice conditions. I know this also because when I write blogs like this, a former college coach who is very traditional, writes me to tell me that I am wrong.
His gym is one of the places where I started the term “fake fundamentals.” I watched his “academy” do ball-handling drills for 30 minutes and then scrimmage. In the game, not one player handled the ball well. They never went anywhere. He asked what I thought, and I said they weren’t good ball handlers. He said, “Didn’t you see them doing the drills? They didn’t make any mistakes. They’re great ball handlers.”
They were. In drills. In straight lines. When their coach told them exactly what to do. When the practice was blocked practice. When they could concentrate solely on one thing.
I told him to play tag. He scoffed at the notion. Finally, his assistant convinced him to relent. He thought playing tag was beneath his skilled academy sessions and college coaching background. When they played tag, balls rolled everywhere. Players struggled to change directions quickly with the ball. Mistakes were plentiful, which was the point. Tag pushed them to do things beyond their current level. Doing the same drill over and over in a straight-line with no CI was not making them better and was providing a false perception of their skill level.
You can continue to attempt to deride me for such things as actually studying the science in the game. It’s all good.
http://t.co/yr5ZnL1r great blog on coaching kids!
I think Quincy is taking it a little too personal, he wasnt attacking you. Your style Brian is an aquired taste that as you pointed out, alot of coaches do not use or even scoff at. Until I had read anything by you (a few years back)I was alot more traditional than I am now. I have grown as a coach because of your articles. Although, I believe that you need both, especially with youth to advance their skill level and playing level. They need some block and some random. I know you have never put a percentage on it, but I try to stay in the 75-80% random and the remainder in blocked or traditional.
Any coach can “brag” about their success. A coach’s ego is a delicate thing Brian! Be careful my man.
I have coached youth to HS level athletes and the drills I do in practice are nothing like the other coaches in the league. For example, I do a drill where the players work on changing speed and direction (with and without the ball), we end the drill playing tag, because that is what alot of basketball is, changing speeds and directions (evading the defense, and staying close to the offense).
Something else I thought was funny and goes to the point of what you are talking about. Year after year the coaches in our league ask me to put in an offense for the All-Stars (7-11 year olds). I tell them you cant run an offense at that age, you will only confuse them. I told them to teach them how to properly move and space (learn to play with and without the ball)and strategy would come later. Again, before a game this year a coach came up to me and gave me a “scouting report” on the other 9-10 year old team we were about to play. He ended the report with, “I asked Little Johnny (kid from the opposing team) what offense they ran and he said we dont have an offense”(the coach rolling in laughter). And the guy telling me this just starts laughing because their coach had not put in an offense. I didnt inform him that I didnt have an offensive strategy either. I teach them to space and move according to the ball and each other, but we dont come down the court and call “1″ and the players go to an assigned area.
The best example I can give, and I was proving a point more than anything else(I knew it would not work) to the other coaches was when I they kept asking me to put a offense in for the upcoming All-Star tournament. I took the most simple offense I could think of (I call 5 out or spread, with designated spots, no screening, just cutting to basket and keeping the 5 spots filled) and the players could still not grasp this.
In closing, QB, I think your taking Brian’s article a little too personal man. Im sure you do a good job coaching. I know alot of coaches in this area probably think that I am crazy, but I have told them that in the future, random training will be the norm.
Josh:
75% is a good number, but it all depends on the age, experience, skill level, etc. It also depends on the goal and the skill involved – I do more block practice for shooting, for instance, than for ball handling or finishing, and one reason is that most outside shots should be open shots with less variability; otherwise, unless the shooter is really good, it’s a bad shot.
The point that I think that is missed is who should play in more random games and when. The general consensus seems to be that the less experienced, less skilled players need a really high percentage of block practice. I disagree.
If players don’t know how to play, isolating the drills is not going to help them learn how to play. Once they understand how to play a little bit, and the goal is to develop or refine specific skills, then more block practice is necessary. Inexperienced players lack the experience to incorporate mental imagery into isolated drills, so the drills have less meaning and less transfer. A professional player, however, imagines the game situation or the defender in the drill, so the drill has a greater purpose, and ultimately will transfer better than with the inexperienced player.
We have done very few traditional ball-handling drills thus far. Most of our ball handling this year was in the form of tag games and 1v2/2v1. However, today, in our 17th practice of the year, I did more basic ball handling drills to focus on specific aspects of specific moves. Tomorrow, we will play 1v1 in the same situation as we practiced the moves, and we’ll see if there was some transfer. I noticed in the tag games that we needed more time with the ball, as these players do not handle the ball as well as I would expect freshmen boys to handle it, so I adjusted backward.
That is the style that I believe in, which is similar to Vickers’ decision-training style or the TGfU and Play Practice approaches: start with the game; see the problem that needs correcting or refining; simplify as much as necessary to focus on the specific flaw; then return to a game form to assess the improvement.
Great article. Highly recommend coaches of all sports should read. Will circulate it for sure. Brian I love your articles. Keep up the good work.
Happen to stumble back onto this particular thread. Its over a year later and it still rubs me the wrong way. None the less i did find it entertaining… LoL
It’s a shame that you are “rubbed the wrong way” by a post about improving learning conditions for players and transfer of skills to games. I am glad nonetheless that you are entertained by research.
Well the day i think i know all there is to know about coaching is the day i walk away from the sport. I am now and always have been open to learning new techniques and philosophies that would help me to improve my craft.
The last time i was here i spoke about my team’s success then went on to achieve a little bit more of it. Now here we are in another season and once again we are successful. The best part is those J.V. players that were struggling at the lower levels are now productive at the varsity level. However i guess you would contribute that to the players “overcoming their coach”…LoL!
Mr. McCormick, i appreciate what you do. This is not my attempt to placate or patronize. I really do appreciate what you are doing whether i agree or not it makes me evaluate myself and my approach to to teaching this game. For that i am appreciative.
Great article on fake skills and why there is no practice to game transfer. http://t.co/mKSSN5YfGq