The only thing I disagree with is, the future is in fact now.

The future, 10-15 years from now will be different.

Maybe positions will be more defined again.

You are correct, in essence many teams are moving or have moved in this direction and we see it now, but we should see it more in coming years I feel, especially at the higher levels where the skill players are.

I see the counter to this being the officiating, more than the coaching, which wasn't necessarily addressed in the article.

The skilled big guy can go out and shoot the three ball but anyone trying to post up still has to be a wrestler rather than a baller!

Sausage

Bob Knight in a coaching clinic at Albert Park (showing my age) said he felt with the size and athletic ability of players getting better and better each generation that game would evolve to 4 v 4 - now he thought it would be like a 4 out style offense with no post players and everyone can put the ball on the floor.

He figured this would happen by 2000, we all thought lots of things would happen when the clock stuck 2000 but anyway food for thought, I never forgot that statement as a coach and the game just keeps evolving.

Plenty of players, even big guys who can put the ball down and use some skills, but my gripe here is the way they change their perception of the rules in the paint, compared with elsewhere on the court.

Easier to attack from outside where you at least don't have someone hanging onto you I guess. Until you enter the 'No Boys Allowed' zone that is!

Dafuq is a Point Guard Roll?

True, it should read role, shouldn't it.......Oh well!

Anon^ if you have something intelligent or an opinion to add feel free.

Anon #703303 I was referring to.

Only problem is I dont see anyway how the big man game gets back to where it was.

Shooters are probably only going to get better and that's scary when you think there are already teams who have the 3 points > 2 points mentality.

Crazy/left field idea: what if the rules were changed so that on a foul and continuation (not on 3s though) you got 2 shots plus the 2 counted. Possible 4 point play. And not just one extra shot. Would this open the game up on the interior? Would mean teams get pounded inside or they dont foul so they get a lot of post work done over them.

5 guards on the court....all ranging in height.

Macdub - what about first foul shot is worth 2 points and each subsequent one is worth 1 point? So in your continuation scenario, the and-1 foul shot is for 2 points and creates the 4 point play you want.

Doing this has the advantage of making it never worth fouling a player when they're shooting. At NBL foul shooting accuracy rates, players would average ~2.2 points per pair of shots and the better foul shooter would average ~2.6 points per pair. i.e., more than if you let them take the field shot and they score every time. Even Mika Vukona would average better than 1.5 points per pair of foul shots!

The problem is this would reduce fouling and probably close checking to the point that offence could become too dominant. As a result, the game might be too much like an All Stars game for many people's liking.

Yes, games evolve, revolve, devolve, and evolve again, but people looking for paradigm changes are usually looking in the wrong direction.

And its not just basketball, indeed not just sport. People have been arguing against specialisation since Adam was a boy, and it still works.

What's more, if anything, it would be the opposite to what is being proposed.
All other things equal, a taller player will always have an advantage over a shorter. Therefore a shorter player must be better in other area to offset this.

True, basketball allows less specialisation than many team sports, but that's nothing new. It's also offset by the fact that there are multiple avenues to the basket. If you're tall enough to reach over your opponent and stuff the ball in the basket, with one foot still on the floor, then you don't need to rely on your perimeter shooting.

Of course every coach would love to have a team of guys 7.5 feet tall, who can leap like a gazelle, and pirouette like a Ballerina. But then along will come the 6.5 guy who's faster, more agile, and can drain the ball from the perimeter. Specialisation occurs not because we demand it, but because it can.

So-called "pigeon-holing" is somewhat off a chestnut IMHO. A short kid, who's never going to beat 6ft, had better develop some skills as a guard if he wants to play and dreams of the big time.

Last couple of posts I agree with to a large degree. I have always advocated that if we see a problem with the sport we need to look at the causes and not the symptoms.

When it comes to the evolution of the game, it is strongly aligned with how the game is interpreted.

If we want it to get back to how it was to some degree, we need to officiate the rules the way they were intended.

Players will get bigger, stronger and faster, coaches will use them and employ tactics to win games, junior coaches hopefully to also develop talent, but if we don't address the elephant in the room and try to change rules without consideration for the actual cause, we are not making a difference...

The thrust of the article is correct. Bigger players can no longer rely on playing in the paint and having no other skills. In todays game, an inability to shoot the outside ball and spread the floor is a killer.

The problem for younger kids is that many coaches right across the district scene think their job is to win games. They ignore development of players. You can see this in clubs that consistently run full court traps in younger levels, never teaching kids correct defensive movement. You also see many coaches at younger levels resorting to zones to try and win. It is sad.

Likewise many coaches will unwittingly pigeonhole players in to certain roles. Putting the big in the post helps structure the team. Getting offensive rebounds and scores helps a team win. So it is clear why it is done. Unfortunately it really is to the players detriment. They might feel good about winning games, but the player doesn't develop the skills they need long term.

I coached a dominant 'big' in junior years. They destroyed teams with size and strength. This player great of playing NBA. I encouraged the player to develop some new skills, gave him the ball to bring up the court etc..., but all he wanted to do was get in the paint and score. In the end he finished up 6 foot 6 and with his skill set needed to be about 7 foot 1.

At the moment I am a parent of a young big. We know he will be around 200cm tall, so biggish, but not big enough at the high levels to play centre (more of a 2-3 role). We have been very conscious of developing other skills and have been very fortunate to have coaches willing to assist in that. In this past season he has been a dominant big in terms of rebounding and defending the paint etc... but has played the point guard role for the team. It has been a very big learning year and a huge advantage that we know wouldn't happen at some other clubs.

The challenge coaches will often face is that if they push a big in to a ball carrying role, what do they do with the little guards? They can't exactly push them in to the post.

It means that coaches have to be willing to essentially play a 5 out read and react type of offence. It is not particularly sophisticated and will result in the team often finding it difficult to score as they learn. Of course it is exactly what coaches should be teaching though!

It really comes down to coaches being willing to put development and learning ahead of wins at the younger levels. Some clubs are better at doing this than others.

@lo70, that makes sense for those who want to play at the higher or elite level, but that only covers about 5% of the juniors out there (at a guess).

The rest who are just happy to play the game and not pursue expanding their skill set beyond their level of ambition will of course continue to be coached accordingly.

"So when it's talked about as an issue, we do mean that big pre-teen/early teens kid who is confined to the paint and not expected (or given the opportunity) to develop ball-handling, shooting or decision-making abilities."

Fair Point.

I don't think anybody (except a really shit coach) would tell a kid not to develop those skills. But its possibly not enough emphasis and opportunity is given.
The big problem there is kids (like myself) who by dint of being the biggest player in the squad, play their whole time as a forward, but have no opportunity to progress to higher levels because we're not so tall in an expanded pool, and my outside game was too shitty.

I also think that not enough (ie mostly none) analysis is done on a players "growth status" and likely future size. Early bloomers get put into the frontcourt (and KPP roles in AFL, etc) when in fact if they are to have a professional career it will be in the backcourt.

I remember reading the story of an NBA PG (IIRC the Rockets) who said that in high school he played as the Center.

"It really comes down to coaches being willing to put development and learning ahead of wins at the younger levels. Some clubs are better at doing this than others."


It's a long way from being just an issue for coaches.

What's the thing (most) clubs focus on when appointing coaches? Win/loss record

What's the thing (most) parents focus on when club shopping? Successful clubs based on win/loss record

There are very few altruistic folk in the game whose sole focus is on development. For coaches, their ability to have the job they want mostly comes down to how many games they win. At all levels

Great article and well worth the read.

The PG role has always been diverse, imo it's more about whats between the ears, and more so what happens between the ears when the level of play increases. Skills are no doubt required, however only a certain mind can be successful at the PG.

Some of the comments above regarding pigeonholing kids when they are young are a little over the top. When your coaching juniors, putting your biggest kid in the PG position is rarely a viable option, so too having a tall play on the wing or in the corner in 5-Out, in fact it can be counter-productive to the player's development. Running a complete offensive system offers plenty of development opportunities for players, the modern flow offense for example provides players opportunities to use screens, hand-offs, high low options, post entries, extra passes and many read and react opportunities. It's up to the coach to ensure all players are exposed (at training) to ball handling, perimeter play and post play regardless of the players size or strength to ensure they develop consistent throughout junior years. I was at Dandenong on Friday night and saw very few teams running any offence at all, in fact I found most of the basketball very uninspiring to be honest. There were a couple of exceptions and these teams not only ran complex systems, but the athletes were clearly the ones with the most upside.

Anyway, back to my point, specialisation is not dead and imo the surest way for players to put themselves in a position to "make it". Here is a list of players that have made it on the back of specialisation........

PG
Chris Paul (play making)
Ricky Rubio (play making)
Steph Curry (shot making)
Russell Westbrook (scoring)

SG/SF
Kyle Korver (shooting)
JJ Redick (shooting)
Klay Thompson (shooting/defense)
CJ McCollum (scoring)

SF/PF
Al Jefferson (post play/defense)
Marc Gasol (post play/defense)
Blake Griffin (dunking)
LeMarcus Aldridge (post play)

C
Clint Capela (defense)
Steven Adams (defense)
Rudy Gobert (defense)
DeAndre Jordan (defense/above the rim play)

Would you take Lebron, Durant or even Giannis over many of these guys? Sure, but is that because they were developed with all round games? No, they are simply freaks of nature!! Can an argument be made for the likes of Anthony Davis & Dirk Nowitzki's all round game and junior development? I guess so, but hey, we're taking about 7 footers here and they are a pretty rare commodity too just like Lebron and friends.

All in all, I think the shift of teaching junior athletes to play with a offensive mindset in all areas of the court is an obvious one and one that is taking place organically....you need only watch a high level U12 game in Australia to see the amount of 3 balls being put up with the support of the teams coach, this wasn't happening before Steph Curry!