How to actually improve finishing
The traditional Approach to Teaching Finishing
Think about how you were taught finishing and layups growing up. For 99% of players it is almost a guaranteed that they were taught the uniform layup of driving in at a 45 degree angle, jumping off our left foot and finishing with our right hand and vice versa. We were instructed to always use the “correct” hand on the corresponding side of the basket (left hand on the left side), and almost all of us were introduced to finishing by doing so “on air” or without a live defender.
From the outside looking in, you might say this is a solid approach; mastering the basic fundamentals before moving to an actual live play setting. However, recent research has found that this traditional approach of fundamentals first is not actually the most effective way to teach a skill, especially if you want that skill to translate to an actual game setting.
As youth players are learning the game, they are oftentimes restricted from developing a wide variety of finishes in order to reproduce and constantly rep the supposedly textbook way to finish that many coaches still preach today. Think back to how you were taught layups growing up. Now think about how many times you actually used this uniform layup from a 45 degree angle to actually finish in a game. There are literally thousands of possible variations of a finish. No finish is ever going to be the same due to a variety of factors (where the defender is positioned, where you are on the court, etc.). Learning is non-linear, so why would we teach one of the most important skills in basketball in such a linear, uniform fashion?
There’s a Better Way …
With an understanding of the constraints led approach (CLA), we know that finishing skills emerge as a result of the interaction between constraints (individual, environment and task). Task constraints are the most predominant when actually teaching skills, and when we talk about finishing, task constraints include factors such as the positioning of the defense, your location on the court, finishing off a cut or drive, etc. The traditional approach to teaching finishing (1v0) totally disregards the role that constraints play in an actual game. It is important to understand that a “skill” (finishing) is simply an emergent behavior that appears within a specific environment. Without using a game-like environment (live defense, unpredictability, etc.), it is impossible to truly develop a skill that will transfer seamlessly to from practice to a game.
Having players learn and use the same, uniform finishing technique eliminates the opportunities for players to develop a wide variety of finishing solutions. This issue is especially harmful for youth players. We often times hear that players must first develop the fundamentals before progressing to a more complex, game-like situation. However, research has time and again proven this theory incorrect and outdated. Rather, youth players exposed to the CLA framework as it relates to finishing are better attuned to their environment and are better able to self-problem solve and explore a wider variety of finishes because of the freedom and creativity the framework allows.
Effectively Manipulating Constraints in 1v1
As coaches, we must change our perception of our role, moving away from instructors to designers of learning environments with appropriate constraints, in turn exposing players to a variety of solutions, behaviors and decisions.
Using this approach doesn’t mean coaches give up complete control. Coaches can carefully manipulate certain constraints so that specific solutions or movements are more likely to occur or be repped. For example, if we want to develop two foot finishes we may employ a scoring system where players get double the points for finishing off both feet. Here we are not explicitly telling the player what to do and how to do it. Instead, we are simply creating an environment where two foot finishes are rewarded and thus more likely to occur. However, players would still have the option to finish off one foot if they perceive that to be the best solution.
As mentioned before, task constraints are those most often associated with developing a skill and the easiest to manipulate. Below is a list of task constraints that can be used in a 1v1:
Starts
Does the offensive player start with an advantage over their defender? Where does the rep start from on the court? How does the rep start (off the catch or attacking off the dribble)?
The “start” being manipulated to give the offensive player an advantage. The defender initiates the drill by touching either cone. Once the defender moves, it is live and the offensive player attacks to score.
Number of Dribbles
Limiting the number of dribbles the offensive player can take is a common task constraint applied to 1v1. By decreasing the number of dribbles, players are forced to be more deliberate and purposeful in their attacks.
Space
Adjusting the amount of space players can play 1v1 in is also a great constraint to experiment with. Increasing the amount of space makes the objective easier for the offense and harder for the defense. Decreasing the amount of space makes it easier for the defense but tougher for the offense. Rarely do players have the freedom to roam the entire court before attacking in a game, so space is a constraint that should almost always be used when playing 1v1.
The “space” is being manipulated as players are only allowed to play in the middle third of the floor. By decreasing the space, the drill becomes more difficult for the offense.
The Defender
You can also limit how the defender plays. This is especially helpful when teaching finishing with youth players. For example, the defender must play defense with his hands behind his back. This allows youth players to still interact with their environment and self-problem solve while also allowing them to have some level of success.
The “defender” is being manipulated here as he is not allowed to move until the offensive player passes through the cones. This gives the offensive player a slight advantage.
Scoring System
You can also manipulate the scoring system of the 1v1 to guide players towards certain finishes or solutions. For example, you could award double the points for any weak-handed finish. Oppositely, you can also adjust the scoring system to directly impact the defense. If the defender gets beat middle, you can take away a point for that player.
Time
Time is another popular constraint that is usually used in a 1v1 setting. In my experience, the best use of the time constraint in 1v1 occurs when the time component is random and variable. For example, at the start of one rep I may start counting down from 7. However, the next rep I may start counting down from 5. Adding unpredictability and variability wherever possible is another critical element to skill acquisition.
Don’t Over Constrain
The key thing to consider when using the CLA is determining task constraints can be manipulated in a purposeful way. While manipulating constraints can help players improve in different environments, we need to be careful of not over constraining the drill or task. Constraints are meant to invite potential skills, behaviors or decisions to emerge within the environment. However, constraints certainly can have the opposite effect and eliminate potential outcomes from occurring. Therefore, coaches have to be very careful to refrain from over-constraining players. Over-constraining happens by too heavily restricting the behaviors or solutions players can use. For example, players play live 1v1 to improve finishing but are instructed to only use a specific finish. Using these scenarios may lead to pigeonholing players and narrowing their focus.
Another potential issue with over constraining is making the drill or task too easy or too difficult. Optimal learning is likely to occur when the difficulty of the task is matched to the skill level of the performer. If the task is too easy, players will not be able to explore solutions and self-problem solve in a realistic, game-like environment. If the task is too difficult, players will not be able to explore solutions self-problem solve at all.
If you always give the offensive player an advantage to start when playing 1v1 …
Players will only become attuned to finishing when they have a positional advantage (and may struggle to finish in a game when they do not have a positional advantage).
The task of scoring in the 1v1 may become too easy if always given an advantage to start. This limits the player’s ability to explore different solutions and actually retain and transfer skills from practice to games.