Anonymous
Years ago

Selection Dilemmas: Skills vs Potential

When does it become unfair to players when selections are made upon the supposed future potential of individual players?
Shouldn't selections always reflect merit and achievement and if not how long do you persist with players who shows no marked improvement and are beaten week in and week out in the district comp?
What hope exists for players if they know that player X is going to make the team no matter what they do and irespective of the form of player X or the excellent form of players vying for that spot?
By the time player X is exposed as ordinary several players have missed out on exposure because of it.
At district level coaches keep faith with taller players longer because height is gold in basketball and it seems skill still rates second to it.

Topic #18016 | Report this topic


Anonymous  
Years ago

Let me guess, you are having a cry about your son/ daughter not getting the court time they deserve, based on your (biased) opinion of their ability..... how unusual!

Reply #211378 | Report this post


HAHA  
Years ago

Ouch!
How do you know for a fact that that is what is being insinuated?
I happen to be a small(er) guard and can completely relate to this situation.
Some of the tallies I have played with who were kept on past their abilities and even interest in playing were kept past their use by dates also- I think we have all played with people like that before and it happens- not much you can do about that mentality but that was a bit harsh!

Reply #211380 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Good point anon. I marvelled at all of the 5'2' super skilled players at the Olympics....

Reply #211383 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

HAHA, surely a personal response to a personal question isn't entirely out of place? I think that the first response is common on this forum in junior topics because a lot of the questions stem from individuals who think they (or their children/players) are getting a bad deal and jump straight in with a clear agenda. I'd guess that a far straighter question on this might get a better discussion going.

If that's the case, it might be worth restarting and going from there. Neither selecting purely on current talent or on height (or projected height) alone is likely the best path, so something like:

In basketball, what is the right balance of current skills and future potential (including height) in selecting players for development?

Reply #211385 | Report this post


KingJames  
Years ago

It is true politics play a big part in District Selection. However, it is always good making a fool of those players when you get to play against them!

Also in terms of height usually taller players are less skilful when they start out so their potential to improve is greater then someone that is already good. Take Schensher for example I use to play against him in under 16's div 4 and he was hopeless (however being a foot taller then everyone he still dominated), he ended up not being such a bad player after all ;)

Reply #211392 | Report this post


HAHA  
Years ago

For sure- I was hoping to open a dialogue by throwing in some other perspectives rather than assuming with anon's reply that it's just sour grapes from a one eyed parent.

Reply #211394 | Report this post


Melvin Corpuscle  
Years ago

I think attitude counts for a lot too. I'd rather pick the player with less skill, who's gonna bust his arse and try to improve every time he hits the court, than the skilled guy who (perhaps deservedly) thinks he deserves to be in the team - but brings a sucky attitude that will negatively affect the team .. (and yes, I'm drawing on a recent selection quandry !)
But the trick is to keep an open mind, and never count a player out - if the hard worker just doesnt progress and isnt coping with the grade/team, then its best for all to drop the player as soon as you realise. Conversely, if the player who missed out adjusts his attitude and is striving to achieve - maybe he forces his way into your team ...

Reply #211433 | Report this post


Anon  
Years ago

Melvin did you ever stop to think that sometimes the skilled player has never been given a break and that is why he has that sucky attitude - and perhaps given the shot that he deservedly (as you put it) should have had the sucky attitude may disappear....

Reply #211453 | Report this post


Libertine  
Years ago

You can't teach height.

Reply #211460 | Report this post


Tallish  
Years ago

If you are small, you must prove you can play.

If you are tall, you must prove you can't...

Reply #211463 | Report this post


ankles  
Years ago

Aaaah, more selection dilemmas. As a selector of sorts involved with a couple of different state teams (not SA) in the past couple of years and with a tall daughter, I have an extremely balanced perspective!! Not!

You can't teach height is absolutely right. But my daughter has been left out of a state team because she was tall! The coaches philosophy was that at 16's its all about running and height doesn't. The same coach took her the next year and she certainly held her own, even though she didn't get any shorter!

Coaches will (and should) pick their players to suit their style and demands. Sometimes this means they sacrifice a player's development in the interest of short-term team gains (nothing wrong with that if their goal is results, as opposed to development). The Schenscher (?) story is familiar. Tall players take longer to develop, get absolutely hammered by the referees (who seem to think that they are tall so shouldn't have any additional advantages - meanwhile they don't slow down the quick player or make the exceptional shooter shoot from further out!) and are often trailing behind physically more mature kids who are zipping up and down the court.

My experience is that, beyond certain minimum physical requirements, almost anybody can make it as a player (say State teams and above). Many will take different paths. We can all name talented kids who seemed to have all the tools - height, athleticism, skill, 'unsuckyness' - yet have not gone on with it. And there's always great examples of players who were not necessarily first picked who have gone on to have outstanding careers (Brad Davidson comes to mind as a guy who was never one of the 'chosen ones' at junior level yet has managed to carve out a very successful NBL career and win a Commonwealth Games Gold Medal for his country).

But when you are talking about development programs, you need to put resources into the players 'most likely' to succeed. How many 5'6" point guards are there in world basketball? Naturally these selectors need to look at players with the tools to play at an international level if everything else falls into place. So many of the girls in these programs are 6' girls or 6'5' boys whose skills are still developing. They may not handle the ball as well as others yet but if they are going to play at international level (and this is the purpose of these ITC-style programs) they will be matching up on Penny Taylor/
Kobe Bryant types (6'2" 2/3 athletic 2/3 players in the case of Penny) and its tough to develop a 5'7" extraordinarily skilled player to compete with that.

Mugsy Bogues proves that you can do that, but it's the exception rather than the rule - so do you put your resources into finding the one exception or go with the numbers and put the resources into the players more likely to succeed?

It all comes down to the goals of the program. Is it about winning or developing players? I think most junior programs should be about developing players (and would coincidentally do away with the National U/14 Club Championships for just that reason if I had a magic wand).

You wanna win? Take the skills NOW. You wanna develop players (and a strong program)? Take the potential (which incidentally includes attitude and enthusiasm).

Reply #211484 | Report this post


Anon  
Years ago

What age group are we talking about here - Potential can also mean potential height. My observation with some clubs/coaches is that it is about the here and now and not about what is to come. Is this wrong? I dont know. But I am curious to know why there are no male AIS scholarhsip holders from SA this year. Is development of potential height and basketball brainiac players being overlooked for early pubescent height and athleticism?

Reply #211500 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Hypothetically, how long would you go with a tall who gets beaten every week but still makes a state team based on mythical potential?
Height has to be qualified by athleticism and brains otherwise, with the saying , 'you can't teach height' you need to add 'anything' to the end.

Reply #211516 | Report this post


ankles  
Years ago

211500 - I'm talking about juniors through to U/20's. I'd can U/14's Nationals for just the reasons you're talking about - lots of post-pubescent kids who are highly-skilled and coordinated but have maybe another inch growth in them. Rarely are they already tall enough. I feel for a lot of the early-maturing boys who are stuck in the post the minute they have their first shave, only to find out they have topped out at 5'10" with post skills only.

To the how long do you persevere you have to ask how tall? Mark Eaton played in the NBA simply because he was 7'6 (or whatever) and that changes heaps. If he was a mere 7-footer they wouldn't have persevered for so long!

If you want to run a stereotype to the end, we need to look at teaching talls in a different way. These are kids who stand out all the time (and often shy away from that attention - ectomorph (tall, skinny, often intelligent) body types are also often shy), often because they lack the coordination of their peers. They are expected to succeed at basketball simply because they are tall, so we throw them in with everybody else and try and teach them to dribble in a one-on-one drill with a guard who makes them look stupid. They miss shots from so close to the basket we can't believe it but they never take an unguarded shot (and generally never one without contact of some sort). They are continually targeted by the opposition coach - whose general solution is to physically intimidate them and we wonder why they don't develop quickly. There's nothing we do to help them develop confidence or skill (not to mention getting on forum's and bagging their selection over other, more skilled players!).

As I said in an earlier post, I have a tall daughter. I watched a game last year where the opposition coach wouldn't let his big (6'7") go against my daughter (6'3") who was more athletic, and so had a dispensable player 'tag' her all over the court. Not a single foul was called even though it was effectively a Hack-a-Shaq treatment (without the foul shots). Had I man-handled the referee that way in the street (I was sorely tempted I must say), he'd have been most offended, yet we expect developing bigs to handle that because they are bigger, often less strong, often less confident, but taller.

Reply #211556 | Report this post


uh oh  
Years ago

I think ankles should publish his report

Reply #212858 | Report this post


DDFan  
Years ago

HAHA:
"Ouch!
How do you know for a fact that that is what is being insinuated?"

Isaac:
"HAHA, surely a personal response to a personal question isn't entirely out of place? I think that the first response is common "on this forum" in junior topics because a lot of the questions stem from individuals who think they (or their children/players) are getting a bad deal and jump straight in with a clear agenda. "I'd guess" that a far straighter question on this might get a better discussion going."

Sorry Isaac, & pending a ban, but that is a load of crap.

NB: DD inserted quotation marks, to put emphasis on my stand.

Reply #212887 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

Note: "...surely a personal response to a personal question isn't entirely out of place? I think that the first response is common on this forum in junior topics because a lot of the questions stem from individuals who think they (or their children/players) are getting a bad deal and jump straight in with a clear agenda. I'd guess that a far straighter question on this might get a better discussion going."

My goal, when writing that post, was to steer the conversation to a better discussion on the merits of either approach, rather than just a "tall kids are unco" gripe topic. Shame that you think that's a "load of crap".

Reply #212891 | Report this post


DDFan  
Years ago

My bad, I was with HAHA in wondering if Anonymous #211378 had an agenda, & supported his stand. I thought you were giving a green light for responses like Anonymous #211378's. *** WRONG ***

Kudos to ankles.

Reply #213002 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

211378 is suggesting that the OP is the one with the agenda and, based on typical junior threads, I think they're probably right. Not necessarily green-lighting 211378-style responses, more so suggesting that there is a way for people to start these types of topics to avoid threads heading in that direction and getting that 'agenda alert' reply straight up.

Reply #213003 | Report this post


DDFan  
Years ago

In retrospect, it's a shame Anonymous #211378 responded before you did.

Love your work. : ) : ) : )

Reply #213005 | Report this post




You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.



Close ads
Serio: Tourism photography and videography
Little Streaks - The fun and interactive good-habits app designed especially for kids.

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 6:01 pm, Fri 29 Mar 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754