- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction Score
- 28,416
Watching the Tenn-Vandy game is a stark reminder of different coaching visions.
Basketball is an incredibly complex game of practically unlimited possible actions and reactions (which is why I get so impatient with critics of UConn play: basketball is a really, really hard sport to play well consistently).
Tenn trots up the court, runs set plays, and reacts (sort of, sometimes) when the ball doesn't go in. In different ways, most coaches teach this. They don't ultimately trust their players' athletic instincts or intelligence. That's because those coaches don't really trust themselves either. They are people of limited vision. People of narrow vision aren't less successful in life or less happy personally. But they do impose more control on others around them.
What Geno & Co (and some other coaches, like Muffet) do is trust themselves to trust their players. Which is why Geno always talks about trust. But you can't just trust your players in a game of limitless possible decisions. So it's drill, drill, drill and reduce the infinite to a series of finite responses. Despite the incredibly complex nature of basketball, in the end there are only so many usual situations and so many ways to react to those situations. If you practice enough, you can generally (not always) react (as in UConn's read-and-react) in one of a couple of ways that gives you a reasonably good chance of getting a high percentage shot. We witnessed a clinic against USF. But what's a "clinic"? It's teaching responses to common situations. And I wager that none of the breathtaking passes last night hadn't already been done many times in practice. What looks spontaneous is the result of an incredible amount of disciplined drill. Ironically, trusting coaches indirectly impose even more control over their players. Very sneaky!
Limited vision coaches can certainly succeed if they have a advantage (in basketball, that usually means height). They can systematically leverage that advantage, though, because they are conservative, they are prone to the clever counter-attack (what North Carolina did to Wilt Chamberlin in the 57 men's NC). Trusting coaches of greater vision adjust better to changing conditions (Geno vs. Pat). I don't exactly know their downside. I do suspect they have more fun in life, and certainly it is a lot, lot more fun to be a fan of their teams!
Basketball is an incredibly complex game of practically unlimited possible actions and reactions (which is why I get so impatient with critics of UConn play: basketball is a really, really hard sport to play well consistently).
Tenn trots up the court, runs set plays, and reacts (sort of, sometimes) when the ball doesn't go in. In different ways, most coaches teach this. They don't ultimately trust their players' athletic instincts or intelligence. That's because those coaches don't really trust themselves either. They are people of limited vision. People of narrow vision aren't less successful in life or less happy personally. But they do impose more control on others around them.
What Geno & Co (and some other coaches, like Muffet) do is trust themselves to trust their players. Which is why Geno always talks about trust. But you can't just trust your players in a game of limitless possible decisions. So it's drill, drill, drill and reduce the infinite to a series of finite responses. Despite the incredibly complex nature of basketball, in the end there are only so many usual situations and so many ways to react to those situations. If you practice enough, you can generally (not always) react (as in UConn's read-and-react) in one of a couple of ways that gives you a reasonably good chance of getting a high percentage shot. We witnessed a clinic against USF. But what's a "clinic"? It's teaching responses to common situations. And I wager that none of the breathtaking passes last night hadn't already been done many times in practice. What looks spontaneous is the result of an incredible amount of disciplined drill. Ironically, trusting coaches indirectly impose even more control over their players. Very sneaky!
Limited vision coaches can certainly succeed if they have a advantage (in basketball, that usually means height). They can systematically leverage that advantage, though, because they are conservative, they are prone to the clever counter-attack (what North Carolina did to Wilt Chamberlin in the 57 men's NC). Trusting coaches of greater vision adjust better to changing conditions (Geno vs. Pat). I don't exactly know their downside. I do suspect they have more fun in life, and certainly it is a lot, lot more fun to be a fan of their teams!
