Hook
User
Platinum Boarder
| Posts: 67 |   |
Karma: 1
|
First Step Quickness - 2006/07/30 03:07
I'm interested in informed opinions regarding overall first-step quickness. Anyone aware of specific work in this area.
Let me add some context. Is an explosive and long first step quicker in getting by a defender than a quick short step immediately followed by an explosive "next" step?
And, how long should that long first step be? If it is too long, it can become a "braking" factor slowing down forward progress and adding stress to the hamstring (especially if the player does not stay low through the movement).
Know of any timing studies or kinetic analysis?
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
coachmccormick
Admin
Admin
| Posts: 636 | |
Karma: 0
|
Re:First Step Quickness - 2006/07/30 17:30
I've been thinking about this lately too. Most people teach a long first step. For the last year, I have been emphasizing the head and shoulders, not the foot. So, I tell players to get their head and shoulder past the defender, not their foot.
In general acceleration terms, the first step is a small step because you want to keep your power line and get your hips ahead of your foot strike.
As for studies, I don't know. I know track coaches use an acceleration ladder to teach acceleration and the first step is a small step forward and the stride length increases with each step until the runner is at full stride.
I don't see why basketball is any different. A longer first step supposedly cuts off the defender's angle, but if it's slowing the offensive player, is it really effective? If the player is more explosive with the first two steps, wouldn't that be better?
So, I think the long first step is overemphasized and instead the body position and the explosion should be the emphasis.
I'd be very interested in any studies as well.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Hook
User
Platinum Boarder
| Posts: 67 | |
Karma: 1
|
Re:First Step Quickness - 2006/07/30 20:03
I agree, head and shoulders are key in getting past the defender. After all, this is one of the guidelines officials use in determining defensive blocking calls.
On the other hand, this should not come at the expense of balance and control. It does no good to get by your defender only to fall down or be out of control for your next move. The feet are still important in maintaining a proper relationship with the head so that the body isn't thrown out of balance. That is why I think foot and ball quickness drills are critically important.
I was thinking the same thing about sprinters and the way they come out of the blocks. Yet, they pretty much run in a straight line and don't have to make sudden changes in direction as they ramp up to speed.
There are a number of interesting factors at play, and a kinematic and efficiency analysis would provide some valuable insights I bet. There must be someone looking at this stuff to gain a competitive edge...wouldn't you think?
I've got mixed opinions, as it is. It would be interesting to get Lee's thoughts on this.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
coachmccormick
Admin
Admin
| Posts: 636 | |
Karma: 0
|
Re:First Step Quickness - 2006/07/30 20:20
It also depends upon the natural explosiveness of the athlete. I work with a kid who is very explosive and he does not need to get low at all to get by his defender. Interestingly, he says its his second step which gives him the explosiveness.
I do a drill with players which is a lunge and reach drill to teach body control in an "off-balance" position.
Another drill sprint coaches will use is a falling start; so, they have the athlete stand with two feet together and lean forward, keeping body in a line, as far as they can. Once they start to lose their balance, they step forward to catch their balance and accelerate into a short run. The key is to get the body into the power line acceleration position, but also have that first step be one of acceleration, not a big step to catch the fall completely.
Lee does speak about the difference between offensive speed and defensive speed because the two are different, as the offense has to get around a defender, usually using some sort of change of direction or fake, while the defense is reaction speed because the offensive player makes the first move.
Basketball provides many variables; for instance, off the dribble is probably at least slightly different than triple threat. For instance, off a hesitation move, I have always done the natural plyo step Lee teaches. However, off a triple threat move, you cannot use this because it's a travel. So, theoretically, my acceleration from a hesitation move should be quicker than from a triple threat move (maybe this is why so many players prefer to make moves off the dribble, even from a stationary dribble, as opposed to a live ball move); maybe a bigger step from a live ball move is necessary to counter-balance the slower movement; or, maybe an even smaller step is required to get the body moving.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Hook
User
Platinum Boarder
| Posts: 67 | |
Karma: 1
|
Re:First Step Quickness - 2006/07/30 21:51
That makes sense about working in some supplemental drills to improve balance while pushing the performance envelope. I was thinking that would definitely be necessary, as you want to be on the edge of "out of control", but still have it to attain the most gains. The lunge and reach sounds about right.
Definitely there are subtle footwork differences between off the dribble attacks and triple threat attacks. In addition, I found the go-dribble pull-up jumper off the hesitation move to be distinctly different with respect to the pound dribble and footwork than the straight pull-up jumper off the dribble. Totally different rhythm and spacing/timing objectives that translate into distinctly different footwork patterns. Don't think I've seen these ever addressed before. Clearly, there remains a tremendous amount of performance improvement discoveries waiting to be uncovered.
Who and where are the real basketball performance experts. It seems to me that Pete Newell just scratched the surface.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
coachmccormick
Admin
Admin
| Posts: 636 | |
Karma: 0
|
Re:First Step Quickness - 2006/07/30 22:25
Are there any? I know people profess to be basketball performance experts, but are they really? I think Lee Taft has some good things to say about movement; I'm intrigued by UT's basketball strength coach Todd Wright; Al Vermeil is a legend.
However, it's guys like Tim Grover, Joe Abunassar and some guy in DC who get 30 grand a month from pro players, and I'm not sure how much they contribute to basketball performance; according to a fellow strength coach, Abunassar is convinced basketball is an aerobic sport, not anaerobic. I've been told Grover is more of a weight room guy and doesn't do much on the floor.
I just don't think enough people think of basketball in these terms. Everything is offense/defense, sets, strategy, etc. Performance gains are made through memorizing additional plays and playing multiple defenses. But, very few people combine sports science with basketball, and more needs to be done combining the two, which is one aspect of my book I hope that I highlight and one area I plan to incorporate in my next book on coaches' education.
Google basketball or basketball coach or youth basketball or look at the DVDs in Sysco's and almost everything is geared towards plays and team discipline, with very little information available for individual performance enhancement.
This is why I go to listen to strength trainers more than basketball coaches and went through the USA Track and Field and USA Weightlifting programs so I could broaden my horizon beyond what's currently done in basketball training.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
