The Cross Over Movement Blog

We rank third graders. I don’t know who, because I don’t even look at player rankings anymore after I was involved with a service and saw the disastrous process that led to the rankings, but someone ranks 3rd grade basketball players.

I read some comments about women’s volleyball rankings yesterday. The comments said that women’s volleyball rankings are a far better predictor of college success because only one group ranks players and they do so after their senior year of high school. In basketball, who doesn’t rank players? It is the easiest way to sell subscriptions to a site: rank a bunch of kids and get their parents to buy a subscription to see if they are ranked. It gives people something to argue about on message boards, which keeps them coming back and posting more, which increases the hits and the advertising revenue. It’s all a big business.

The problem with ranking third graders or eight graders is that people want to be right. I trained a player a couple times when he was in eighth grade. He was ranked as one of the top 8th graders in the region and invited to the Area All-Star ShowCase Spectatcular. Good for him. Now, he stopped playing basketball in 10th grade to focus on football. He never played varsity basketball. However, he was invited to the same All-Star Spectacular in 12th Grade! The people never bothered to take his name off the list. He was still considered a top prospect and he did not even play the sport any longer and never really showed anything more than the size needed to excel.

When we rate players at a young age, two things happen: (1) We build high expectations for a kid which puts pressure on the player to perform constantly and justify his lofty ranking every time he steps on the court because the haters are waiting with their wireless internet cards to bash the player as soon as he has a bad game; and (2) We create a self-fulfilling prophesy where the rankers want to see the player do well to show that they are right, so they introduce the player to trainers and AAU teams and get the player free stuff, which creates the Entitlement Affliction: players and parents believe they have something special which means they deserve something in return.

The problem is that precocity is largely a myth. Just because someone excels at nine-years-old or fourteen-years-old does not guarantee success. In the volleyball argument, some suggested that basketball coaches do a much better job developing players than volleyball coaches, which explains why the rankings are more accurate predictors for volleyball. I disagree. Some of it has to do with sex (boys vs. girls) and different ages of maturation, but much of it has to do with inaccurate rankings because rankings do not measure the important things like work ethic, desire, competitiveness and the like because one cannot see those things in a brief glimpse of a player during a game.

Malcolm Gladwell writes:

We think of precociousness as an early form of adult achievement, and, according to Gladwell, that concept is much of the problem. “What a gifted child is, in many ways, is a gifted learner. And what a gifted adult is, is a gifted doer. And those are quite separate domains of achievement.”

To be a prodigy in music, for example, is to be a mimic, to reproduce what you hear from grown-up musicians. Yet only rarely, according to Gladwell, do child musical prodigies manage to make the necessary transition from mimicry to creating a style of their own. The “prodigy midlife crisis,” as it has been called, proves fatal to all but a handful would-be Mozarts. “Precociousness, in other words, is not necessarily or always a prelude to adult achievement. Sometimes it’s just its own little discrete state.”

A “precocious” third grader is oftentimes almost a year older than his peers and therefore is bigger, stronger and faster. However, over time, these size differences balance out. The future seven-footer is likely gangly and awkward as a nine-year-old or even a 13-year-old. What constitutes an exceptional skill level at nine or 13 differs at 18 or 19-years-old. We get excited when a kid can throw the ball in the basket from the three-point line at nine-years-old: however, does that skill translate when he is fully grown?

Early acquisition of skills — which is often what we mean by precocity — may thus be a misleading indicator of later success, said Gladwell. “Sometimes we call a child precocious because they acquire a certain skill quickly, but that skill turns out to be something where speed of acquisition is not at all important. … We don’t say that someone who learned to walk at four months is a better walker than the rest of us. It’s not really a meaningful category.”

Kids shoot differently at 13-years-old than they will at 18-years-old. They use more legs, they dip the ball to get strength, they shoot from a lower release point. When they shoot consistently at a young age, does that translate to better adult shooting? Or, does it lead to a sense of satisfaction and a desire not to change the shot and learn a higher release or quicker shot?

In music, people point to Mozart. However, “First of all, the music he composes at four isn’t any good,” Gladwell stated bluntly. In the same respect, we get excited about the “best” 4th grader, but does he really play good basketball? When he reaches to get steals because officials do not call fouls or dribbles coast to coast because he is faster, is that goo basketball, at an adult level?

Rather than physical gifts, are there better indicators of future success. In academia, Gladwell points to Einstein:

A better poster child for what precociousness really entails, Gladwell hinted, may thus be the famous intellectual late-bloomer, Einstein. Gladwell cited a biographer’s description of the future physicist, who displayed no remarkable native intelligence as a child but whose success seems to have derived from certain habits and personality traits — curiosity, doggedness, determinedness — that are the less glamorous but perhaps more essential components of genius.

If a 13-year-old is tall and fast, but lacks determination and a work ethic, will he be a top player when he is a senior in high school? Gladwell used his personal example of his running career:

“I was a running prodigy,” he said bluntly. But… being a prodigy didn’t forecast future success in running. After losing a major race at age 15, then enduring other setbacks and loss of interest, Gladwell said, he gave up running for a few years. Taking it up again in college — with the same dedication as before — he faced a disappointing truth: “I realized I wasn’t one of the best in the country … I was simply okay.”

Of the 15 nationally ranked runners in his age class at age 13 or 14, only one of that group had been a top runner in his running prime, at age 24. Indeed, the number-one miler at age 24 was someone Gladwell had known as one of the poorer runners when they were young — Doug Consiglio, a “gawky kid” of whom all the other kids asked “Why does he even bother?”

The early success often leads to a fixed mindset, where the child believes his talent is innate. As long as he is on top, that’s fine. However, when faced with a challenge, or setbacks, the answer is often to give up, as there is no sense in working hard if talent is innate and it has been proven that you are not the chosen one.

Labeling a child precocious creates more pressure to perform than good. I don’t understand the parents who seek opportunities for their child to be rated. People tell me all the time that if a kid is not rated they will not be recruited. I can list a dozen kids I have helped get to college programs who nobody had ever heard of and who had never been ranked. Colleges use rankings to get names. However, nobody gets scholarships based on their ranking. Coaches watch players and make their own decisions. I don’t know any college coaches who care who the top 5th graders are (except maybe Billie Gillespie!). Nobody wins awards for being the top 5th grader. Spending an entire childhood worried about player rankings and college scholarship ruins the childhood experience and confuses the destination with the journey.

To develop talent, it is far more important to impart and develop skills like industriousness, work ethic, desire and competitiveness than to concentrate on maintaining one’s player ranking.

I read an interesting account of Avery Jonhson who was fired today by the Dallas Mavericks. The article mainly describes Johnson’s inability to communicate with his players and his lack of humility. Coching in the NBA is certainly different than coaching high school or college baketball, but it is an interesting example of communication failures.

I believe communication skills are the most important skill for a coach. Mike Fisher writes:

Please note that none of the aforementioned items even approach being about X’s-and-O’s, about benching Kidd in the final seconds of the loss at San Antonio, about Avery’s assemblage of thirty-something “pets’’ who on a whole made few contributions to one of the worst overall seasons experienced in the highly-successful Cuban Era. None of them are even about wins and losses, the recent 3-12 playoff record, for instance – even though Avery struggles in all these areas.

No, these complaints are about dealing with people, about motivation, about relationships, about communication.

The best coaches are not necessarily the best X’s and O’s guys. They are the ones who communicate with their players. ironically, NBA organizations generally hire former NBA players because they believe the former players can communicate with current players better than coaches without NBA playing experience. However, I would argue that the ability to communicate with people is a talent that is unaffected by one’s playing career.

Now, NBA players might respect a former player automatically, while someone who lacks the playing exprience might have to earn the respect, but the players will eventually respect the coach that makes the player and team better and in most cases, that’s the coach who communicates with his or her players.

On the NorCalPreps message board, I read this comment by a user. This user has a very talented son, I don’t know his ranking, so take it with a grain of salt. However, I do not disagree with any of his comments:

I was in Denver this past weekend for a major AAU/Elite Club Tournament…I saw several top players play this weekend who are RANKED HIGHLY by these various SCOUTING SERVICES and I was alarmed by what I saw and what I read about the PLAYERS’ RANKING!!

I saw Player A, who is ranked, make bonehead decisions, played no defense, and played selfishly, but, Scout A covering the event,
wroted that Player A was “impressive.”

This is what I remembered Player A did that was consistent with what Scout A wrote: Player had one dunk and made a three point shot. So, I said to myself, “So, this what makes a HS BASKETBALL PLAYER, playing on the AAU/Elite Travel Team circuit great?” If you can DUNK, make a 3 POINT SHOT, and score the MOST POINTS, you WILL get RANKED HIGH!”

Not to be overly sensitive to my new found revelation, I continued to watch these HIGHLY RANKED PLAYERS over course of the weekend and true to form, SCOUT A and his buddies validated my aforestated analysis. If you can DUNK a basketball (it shows how athletic you are), make a 3-POINT SHOT (this shows that you are great shooter beyond the arc) and SCORE all the POINTS in the game, you willget RANKED, period!!

It makes no difference to Scout A and his buddies that you do not pass the ball to your teammates, rebound, defend and/or have a BRAIN!! All they (SCOUTS) care about or want to know is this: Can he DUNK? Can he MAKE the 3? Did he SCORE all the POINTS?

MEMO TO HS PLAYERS, COACHES and PARENTS: This is the NEW DEAL: If you want to be a RANKED PLAYER, HE must be able to do the following: DUNK the BALL; MAKE the 3, beyond NBA range (i.e. you do not have to be consistent and you take as many shots you want until you make one) and SCORE all the POINTS in the GAME!! Oh, by the way, SCOUTS do not care if your TEAM WINS of LOSES, just make sure you fulfill the three requirements listed above!!

I have argued with several of the top West Coast scouts from these Internet sites over the years, so I do not disagree that they often make mistakes and typically put too much emphasis on athleticism and scoring. Unfortunately, so do college coaches. I talked to Jim Clayton of Sports City U in Huntington, West Virginia and we talked about many of the same things. Many players peak at 12 or 13-years-old. People believe that they improve as they grow and get older, but for many, they just add size, not skill.

However, my favorite part of the thread is this comment:

I just do not think you can evaluate a kid fully on the AAU level.

Now I am confused. Everytime I question these tournaments and ranking services, I am told that they are important evaluation tools for colleges. The entire system is designed to make recruiting easier for college coaches, so they can go to one place and see many players. And, now people suggest this is not the best way to evaluate players? If we can agree that these games are not the best way for players to improve, and now we agree that they are not the best way to evaluate, why are so many people so sommitted to maintaining the status quo AAU/exposure environment?

I graduated from UCLA, so I follow UCLA Basketball closely. This week, the big news is the speculation about Kevin Love, Darren Collison and Russell Westbrook entering the NBA Draft.

Also, this week, several articles have suggested that the NBA wants to raise the age limit to enter the NBA Draft to 20-years-old, though the Players’ Association is not likely to agree to any changes before the current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires.

The draft prospects of Love and Westbrook question the validity of raising the age limit.

Love is as skilled as any college post player this decade. Westbrook is an athletic shooting guard whose biggest weakness is three-point shooting or he is a point guard who has never really played point guard. In most draft previews, Westbrook is a lottery selection and Love is just outside the lottery, though several NBA scouts have questioned Love’s readiness for the NBA.

The NBA tells the public that players need to go to college to develop better skills; however, the NBA drafts players based on talent. A skill is something one can learn; a talent is fairly innate. One can argue whether we are born with our talents or whether our environment plays a role, but in a broader context, we do not learn our talents.

Westbrook is an explosive athlete. Most believe this is a talent. I believe one can improve his vertical jump and explosiveness, but I, for instance, will never be an explosive athlete.

Love throws great outlet passes, finishes in the post with both hands and bodies up well on defense. These are skills he has developed. However, scouts question his size, speed, strength and conditioning.

Westbrook looks like an NBA player. Love does not look like an NBA player. Love, however, possesses NBA skills. Westbrook does not possess any NBA-caliber skills, except possibly his individual defense.

Westbrook possesses talent, which equates to potential. Love possesses skill. We can learn skills, but not talents. Therefore, why should Love return to college? He is more skilled than many NBA post players, but he is not going to become an exceptional athlete with another year of college. Westbrook, on the other hand, may develop new skills with another year of college: he could play point guard for a season to show his ability to play the position and/or he could develop his shooting skills. If he develops one of these skills, he would improve his draft stock dramatically, as he would become either a big, athletic point guard or a capable shooting, undersized but athletic shooting guard.

Love, on the other hand, may improve his skills, but his skills are already proven. He knows how to use his body in the post. He uses both hands well. He can pick and pop and hit the three-pointer. Love is a 6’9 power forward that shoots the ball at the free throw line and from the three-point line better than the 6’3 Westbrook who plays shooting guard. However, most believe Westbrook would be drafted higher based on his talent (potential).

If this is true, why worry about players attending college to develop their skills? Obviously talent is more important than skill and the college experience can do little for the development of talents.

When I published Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development, people asked me if I thought I could change anything. It might be a coincidence (though I know my book has been in David Stern’s office, Nike grassroots basketball office and Jerry Colangelo’s office), but according to this article, changes are happening.

The problem I see initially is that it seems like more of the same, just a competitor for AAU attempting to dominate the marketplace and create a basketball monopoly rather than actually change the way we develop players.

“This organization will offer programming that will cater first to young men in the summer environment – because those are the immediate problem areas – but ultimately the new structure will benefit anyone involved in the sport,” Brand said.

The LLC will sanction leagues, tournaments, camps and year-round development opportunities –the events at which NCAA coaches may attend.

Basically, the NBA and NCAA are using their leverage to squeeze everyone else out of the marketplace. Now, it governed properly, this could be a positive. However, why create an LLC? Why not run the programs from USA Basketball as most European Federations do?

Brand and Stern said the new structure is designed to negate the effects of third-party influences currently working the youth basketball environment. Stakeholders believe there are many good coaches and opportunities for youth outside of scholastic basketball, but the current structure affords access from people who may not have the player’s best interests at heart.

“We find third parties – sometimes with good intentions and sometimes not – encouraging young men to prepare for professional basketball, and only for professional basketball,” Brand said.

It will be interesting to see how they address this issue. So far, the changes only signify a switch from one business model to another. However, nothing has been said about how this organization will create a better development model. Maybe they will follow the outline in my book; if so, they should contact me as I have updated the model covered in Chapter 13 and 14. However, if the only change is the business model, it may or may not have a positive affect on basketball development (after all, they are partnering with shoe companies anyway, so how great can the change be?), but it will fall short unless it addresses actual developmental issues.

As for the partnership, I do not understand the NCAA’s role. The NCAA governs its member institutions. Now it governs youth basketball as well? It does not even do a good job governing its own institutions. Are we really supposed to continue this belief that the NCAA is a non-profit organization? The NCAA is about as big business as it gets.

The enduring image of the Memphis victory over UCLA is Chris Douglas-Roberts emphatic dunk over Kevin Love on a back door play from the corner (see Blitz Basketball for more on the play).

Memphis executed the play and Love was a half-step late in his defensive rotation. Rather than try to block the shot, he attempted to step in front and take the charge. He was in position, but the officials made a good no call because he was too close to the rim and CDR did a good job to avoid most of the contact and maneuver his body around Love. If Love had rotated a half-step quicker and got another step out from the rim, it would have been a charge.

I am not a huge fan of charges. I generally believe officials call charges far too often and I saw three girls seriously injured in college games this season when a player tried to slide in front at the last minute.

However, a proper rotation and good positioning should be rewarded when an offensive player runs over a defender. The CDR/Love instance was the correct no-call. However, the hype surrounding the play is the problem.

On the highlight show, Seth Davis made a big deal out of Love being “posterized.” On message boards today, many posters are ridiculing Love.

How are young players supposed to develop good fundamentals when they are so often ridiculed? Earlier in the game, in a 1v1 situation, Josh Shipp ran out of the way and gave a Memphis player a dunk. Is that the message we want to send? Get out of the way to avoid being on a poster or having some hack writer make fun of you on national television? Sure, there are some times when you would rather see a player give the dunk rather than make an awkward challenge where both players could get hurt. However, when you are even with the other player at the free throw line, have the angle and are in a national semi-final, that is probably not the time. Shipp was also the player beaten on the backdoor play for CDR’s dunk. Shouldn’t the blame be on Shipp for giving up the wide open cut to the rim, as opposed to Love for trying to step in front and take a charge?

How can coaches compete with the images they see every day on television and Internet sites? What type of player are we advocating when the smart play is to back away to avoid humiliation rather than trying to make a defensive play?

There is an article about an NCAA/NBA partnership created to fix the current youth basketball system. The article makes it sound very much like the Elite Development League and High Performance Centers I proposed in Cross Over and as early as 2002 in articles on several web sites.

Curiously, Sonny Vaccaro is against the idea:

“They keep coming back to summer basketball and AAU coaches, but how bad can it be when we have the greatest players who have come through the system adding to the benefit of both the college and NBA game?” Vaccaro said.

Last year, it was widely reported that Vaccaro planned to save American basketball, and his reputation, by strating an Academy for elite players. Now, he is against the idea?

I also find it strange that USA Basketball is suddenly involved:

USA Basketball President Val Ackerman endorses the NCAA/NBA pact. USA Basketball, national governing body for men’s and women’s basketball in the United States and the entity charged with fielding teams for international competition, has been heavily involved in the discussions, Ackerman said.

“The fact that the NBA and NCAA are coming together in an energetic way to take a comprehensive look at youth basketball is very encouraging,” Ackerman said. “This is not just about basketball; it’s about preparing young people for life.”

When I emailed USA Basketball about my book, I was told that basketball development was not a part of its mission, that their only job was to pick the teams that play in International competition.

I agree with some of the anti-change sentiment in the article:

“The NBA has never shown any interest in high school sports until there’s a LeBron James,” said Blake Ress, Indiana High School Athletic Association commissioner. “It strikes me as strange that the NBA suddenly has all this interest in developing high school and youth basketball.”

This, of course, is very true. However, I think David Stern and company are finally coming to the conclusions that I made in articles dating to 2002: leaving basketball development to the hands of businessmen is not the best possible development program. And, the only entities with the muscle and might to push the shoe companies aside, or at least change the shoe companies approach, is the NBA.

“The NBA and NCAA realize they have to take care of their own,” said David Morton, president of Sunrise Sports Group, a locally based sports marketing consultancy. “Their own being basketball. This is smart business.”

That is the argument I made when people questioned the EDL and HPC. I said eventually the NBA would have to realize that it is good for business to get involved in the development process and ensure players develop the requisite skills to put a better brand of basketball on the floor. Apparently Stern is coming to this realization.

“When coaches cooperate in systematic development of players on and off the court, it’s better for the players,” Sunrise Sports Group’s Morton said.

This is one of my main arguments against the current hodge-podge system, as there is no continuity or expectations or guiding principles. Just new coach after new coach doing things his way, trying to win the next game. Whether there is a radical change involving the NBA or a grassroots change involving individual coaches, this continuity of development needs to be at the forefront of the discussion.

On another site, I saw some posts about the scores of games featuring high school teams playing each other in a spring league. The season ended two weeks ago and high school teams are already entered in spring leagues and playing multiple games in one day.

I do not understand the point. When do these players get to rest? When do they get away from the court? Players do not improve their skills during competition. This atmosphere is like kids going to school ever single day and taking test after test. If kids spend all their time preparing for and taking tests, when does the learning take place? When does the teacher teach? If the student makes mistakes on Monday and has another test Tuesday, when does he learn from his mistakes and make the change so he can do better the next time?

Games and competition are part of the developmental process. However, when teams play year-round, as these posts suggest, competition becomes the developmental process and this ultimately hinders development and improvement.

In the April 2008 issue of Fast Company, Craig Newmark, the man behind Craig’s List, says:

“A leader gets people to do things on their own, through inspiration, respect and trust. A boss can order you to do things, sure, but you do them because it is part of the contract.”

Coaches strive to be leaders. Unfortunately, coach like bosses.

In many ways, my book and this site is a response to the way we develop talent and especially the way we approach youth basketball in the United States. In short, I advocate a long term approach and one which does not professionalize youth sports at a young age. On some sites, I have seen this philosophy, as well as the book, discredited by those who suggest this philosophy attempts to socialize sport: that is, eliminate competition and make everyone into winners so we can save everyone’s self-esteem. I have never advocated such a philosophy, and instead believe that the message and approach my book describes is the best way to develop talent.

Ettore Messina is regarded as one of the world’s best professional coaches. He is the coach of CSKA Moscow, one of the top three teams in Europe currently. The Cleveland Cavaliers Mike Brown sought his advice during the summer. On his blog, he answers the question of developing one’s child into a professional athlete:

First of all, it will be extremely helpful for your kid to try both an individual sport and a team sport when he’s young in order to develop himself mentally and physically. For example, I was very lucky that my daughter tried judo for 3 years when she was in primary school. This really helped her to develop her personality, to overcome her lack of self-confidence, to know her body better and to discipline herself a little bit.

When the parents of young kids ask me to train their son or daughter, I tell them to invest in martial arts lessons first and wait on the specialized basketball training until they are teenagers. I believe strongly in the discipline and the body awareness through martial arts, and the basketball players I train who did martial arts seemed like stronger, better athletes too.

The first thing that I would consider as a father is the quality of the coach. Many parents who are not very familiar with a particular kind of sports may be attracted by the system that focuses on the result. But there is a huge difference between playing sports on the professional level and teaching it to the youngsters. You’d better send your kid to the place where the focus is on the development of his personality and his qualities of a player, as it’s much more important at that age.

Agreed. I have written in the past of the programs who market as “train like a pro” and the problem with this training for young players. It is much more important to develop the interest and passion for playing at a young age and to model the desired traits, like hard work, sticktuitiveness, etc.

You should not hurry to make your kid a pro athlete that has four or more trainings a week and dedicates a lot of time to sports. Personally, I think, this should not happen until the kid turns 14-15. Young kids that are exposed to a very high level of pressure physically, technically and mentally, usually, cannot stand this kind of pressure. I would like to find a teacher for my kid who will be able to offer a reasonable level of challenge to the young players and develop some kind of group mentality, still respecting everybody’s personality.

For youths, playing multiple sports and participating is more important than specialized training. Several studies confirm that those who specialize early, peak early. In the U.S., many parents rush this specialization to improve a chance for a scholarship, but nobody needs to peak at 15-years-old to receive a scholarship. Colleges want to see potential as much as refined skills.

Let’s get down to the key question: how a parent who never played a pro sports could decide what coach is good for his child? First of all, neither the parent nor the coach should be attracted by immediate results. Second, all of us can understand if there is balance in the behavior of another person. Even if my son received more attention in terms of shooting, playing time, I would be suspicious. Because treating him like a superstar when he’s 13 years old is not a good way to develop his personality.

Again, another premise of my book, that the “Peak by Friday” mentality hinders a player’s development and enjoyment of an activity, even though adults believe an experience is not worthwhile unless they win. Remember, we need to use the motivations of kids at their age groups and not super impose adult values on kids sports.

Suppose I don’t know basketball and choose a coach for my child. The most important indicators for me would be a) my son’s mood when he comes back home after practices and b) the level of togetherness of his team when I watch their games. If I see that my child comes home perfectly adequate and most of the times positive, and his team is playing with a good sense of togetherness, for me that’s the sign that you might want to stay with this coach. If, by contrast, he comes home frustrated or behaves in some strange way, he’d better leave and find someone else.

This is a huge issue with AAU teams (and high schools to an extent), as parents believe their child needs to play with a certain team. When I was younger, I saw two programs dissolve because of parents worrying about who won the MVP trophy at a tournament or the name of the program or wanting to be with a more prestigious coach or team for more exposure, even though the players were playing with their best friends, learning the game and enjoying the experience. But, there is the “keeping up with the Jones’” mentality, and often times parents ignore their kids’ needs to find the more elite, premier, select team, and the coaches market to this desire.

Until kids turn 12-13 it’s not only sport, it’s more a game. By game I mean something that can be played with a lot of mistakes. It should involve a lot of fun. It’s like in school when you experience all the fun when you start to read, to count or to discover something new. It’s more a game for the first 4-5 years. Then it becomes more serious and you should start asking those kids to be much more selective in their understanding and their learning. You start pressing them a little bit more to organize their ability to study.

Many coaches purposely try to drive the fun out of the game and insist on perfection. However, to learn, one must make mistakes. To improve, one must enjoy the activity so he invests the necessary time and energy. Asking for too much, too soon turns kids away from the game, even though my critics say this just means they are soft. I remember watching an u-9 AAU game and the opposing coach yelled and screamed at his players and several left the court crying, to which he criticized even further. The coach, apparently, had one of today’s top high school players playing for him for a couple years. However, is it worth it to drive several kids to tears, even if it helped the one kid eventually become a great player? How many players quit the game so the one kid could achieve greatness? I walked through a gym a couple weeks ago and was astonished that parents allow coaches to treat their kids in such a way. I know that a teacher in a classroom could not get away with calling a kid dumb, but coaches esentially do the same thing.

The same in sports, it should not be about fundamentals until at least 10. For sure, you can teach your children to know their body through the use of the ball: how to catch, how to roll, how to run with the ball etc.

I questioned a coach about his offering “professional fundamental training for six-years-old and up,” and many did not understand my question. If something is good for a 10-year-old, starting at eight must give the kid an advantage. If my neighbor starts at eight, I’ll start my kid at seven. This is the mentality. However, as I write about in this week’s newsletter, if kids do not develop the general movement skills early, they eventually struggle with sport-specific skills later. At the young ages, it is far more important to use fun games to teach movement and allow young athletes to explore, rather than to set-up competitive leagues and training.

As for fundamentals to be developed until players are 16-17, the most important thing to check is coordination and balance. I would not be so paranoid with all other things. Then, obviously, you teach them how to catch, how to pass, how to shoot, how to dribble, how to move without the ball. But if they don’t have the balance and coordination, it’s difficult for them to become good basketball players. For example, Ricky Rubio is helped a lot by the great balance, coordination and quickness he has. It gives him a great advantage.