The question of what is holding back basketball in Great Britain (GB) is something I get asked on a weekly basis. Though I try to give an honest answer, I always feel it would be much more interesting to ask someone who actually has a direct responsibility for the sport. Last week over the course of 45 minutes, GB’s Head of Performance Warwick Cann (pictured holding the jersey), answered my questions and discussed the state of the game.
With a background of over 20 years in elite sport management and coaching, Cann took his position 2 years ago in September 2009 and was appointed to tackle the elite end of the spectrum for basketball in the UK. His responsibilities range from developing the often discussed standards of coaching, overseeing the GB Regional Institutes of Basketball, helping with the Advanced Apprenticeship in Sporting Excellence (AASE) programmes, and co-ordinating the national team programmes for the GB Futures and Under-20s, as well as Under-18, Under-16 and Under-15 sides in England (and an Under-17 development programme he revealed they will be initiating). “It’s all geared towards establishing a pathway for elite level basketball players and coaches to progress in a better fashion, with more quality and the intention of providing a future for British basketball and the home nations,” Warwick explained.
Cann, an Australian, is surprisingly positive about the work England Basketball (EB) had done before he came into his role, pointing to the well documented financial issues that the current CEO, Keith Mair, has sorted out. “The stark reality is that 5 years ago England Basketball was broke, bankrupt or non-functioning so I think EB, Keith Mair and others have done a good job in building over the last 5 years”. However, he admits there was little framework for player development, that coach education was severely lacking and a dearth of accessible facilities holds a stranglehold on the development of the sport.
“Whenever you come into a job you do a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis, so you look at what has been happening, what hasn’t been happening and what needs to happen,” Cann continued. “I made an assessment based on what has been done and considered the factors. Financial ability, existing national framework models as well as facilities, were the three things I needed to get my head around to be able to map out a strategy for a performance pathway going forward”.
England Basketball are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to growing basketball because their funding relies on participation. Can you solely focus on the elite end of the spectrum with the hope that having high performing national teams will increase participation, or do you focus on the grass-roots with the idea that the more people are playing the more likely you will be to eventually produce a good national team? It is clear that in our junior leagues there are some programmes that are head and shoulders above the rest and that produces a huge disparity in competition; putting EB in a difficult situation and limiting player development.
Cann states that EB are trying hard to establish Central Venue Leagues to better cater for participation and fix that disparity, but says that high participation numbers are crucial to produce elite level basketball players. “Performance relies upon participation, it relies on volunteers to do the things right at a junior level, it relies upon an element of quality in all we do at club level to get better coaches and players. No-one ever stays in one place, as you grow you follow a performance pathway, but you start as a junior player; Under-8, Under-10 in a club. What you learn in those formative years has a lot to do with quality that you’ll experience as you go along the performance pathway. We need participation and we need clubs to be healthy. I know that EB are looking at it very very closely.”
The aforementioned funding model used by Sport England (who decide the amount of money each national governing body will receive), which only measures participation in people 16 years of age and older, also doesn’t help says Cann. “That focus doesn’t necessarily help basketball which I think to be internationally competitive needs to look at a wider participation model at younger age groups. I think it should be more players in either Central Venue Leagues or localities at Under-12 or Under-14 levels, that’s where participation needs to grow from, from my perspective at least based on what I know from other countries”.
“I think sometimes what is mapped out by Sport England for the federation, doesn’t allow EB to concentrate on the areas that they would normally like to. I’m not saying that as an excuse, I’m just saying there’s a bit of a discourse between where participation is best measured in this country and that creates certain logistical problems.”
Funding however, is only one piece of the puzzle. In Warwick’s mind, training environment (access to facilities, coaching), a professional league that develops players, and a domestic development pathway are the keys to developing a world class programme, but he admits we still “have a long way to go”. Launching into a five minute analysis of the things basketball in the UK lacks, it became quite apparent that he is acutely aware of the issues; a far cry from the perception that those ‘in charge’ of the game have very little clue as to what is going on.
“We need a good training environment for our players, that’s both facilities access as well as coaching supervision of our younger players. The reality is, from the age of about 12 to 17 is a crucial area involving 5 years of investment and specialising time where people need to train more and work on their skills.”
Would DVO be where he is now had he not gone abroad?
Many people have pointed to the lack of progress in player development that seems to occur in that age range. The raw athletes and talent Britain possesses in young age groups, by some accounts, indicate we would be a world class programme, but somewhere along the line if the player chooses to stay in the UK, development and improvement seems to stall. Warwick wants to see more of a focus on skill development in clubs as opposed to winning and greater synergy between club and national programme coaching.
“We need coaches who can actually develop players over a 4-5 year period rather than just identifying talent and allowing it play. We need coaches who can actually teach the skills, analyse the skills, develop the skills and enhance the performance of whatever talent is around.”
“We need an organisational structure that allows it, we need more full time employed coaches who are focused on developing players rather than coaching teams and we obviously need a good professional league for which our players can aspire.”
“We need an alternative to the United States in development terms at High schools level which we are working on. We need a professional league that players can aspire to, or if they go overseas can come back to and launch themselves in to Europe and professional basketball if that’s what their ability is.”
Which brings us on to the top tier of basketball in the UK, the British Basketball League (BBL). The professional league has a role to play in developing the sport, but very few BBL franchises appear to care about developing young British talent.
Cann recognises that the economic climate is challenging. He reiterates competition at the senior level is extremely important, pointing to the fact that almost all high performing nations have strong domestic leagues and perhaps more importantly, are happy to invest in the development of young home grown players. “I would like the BBL and other EBL clubs to have full time coaches who could continue the development of an 18 year old and turn them into a professional player between the ages of 18-22, I’d welcome that, but I do acknowledge that we have to explore potential solutions for achieving this together”.
So much of our conversation comes back to coaching. The problems lie with a current coaching qualification system that allows an individual to be a ‘qualified’ level 2 coach after attending a course of just a few weekends, and a lack of a high quality coaching tradition meaning that few truly great coaches exist or are employed or engaged in a position to pass their expertise down. Add in that there is next to no chance of coaching being a full time profession anytime soon, it is obvious that the way it is being done at the moment isn’t working.
“It’s clear in the Areas of Emphasis, I’ve said in one of my recommendations that the coach education system needs to be looked at and that has been passed on to all the home countries. And in actual fact the Performance Management Group has now formed a working group to look at coach education and in particular the qualifications with a view to improving it,” he explained. It was evident he is not a fan of the current system, but was careful to not be overly critical of the organisation he works for. He revealed that an agreement in principle has recently been made to overhaul the Level 3 qualification, as well as bring in a new Level 4 geared towards those who are deriving an income from coaching. The Level 1 and 2 are expected to be looked at afterwards, but “these things take time”.
Included in the Areas of Emphasis was a national coaching curriculum to guide coaches on what needs to be focused on to develop basketball players; the first step in trying to improve coaching standards. It is currently the most high-profile thing Cann is involved with, and despite the sentiment being celebrated, questions remain as to how its implementation will be effectively monitored.
The old adage ‘you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink’ comes to mind. However, he disagrees. “I’ve just come back from Lilleshall Under 13 girls where I’ve written a report which provides feedback to all the coaches. There is noticeable improvement within passing, shooting and finishing which are three areas which were maligned a few years ago and are highly referenced in the Areas Of Emphasis,” this perhaps may be true, but does little to indicate a cause and effect relationship. “We need to get better at some of the ways we do measure,” Warwick relented. “But monitoring is certainly part of it. The reality is you can’t watch every coach in the country do their job and of course it’s voluntary so you can’t make every coach do it. I think there is significant pride amongst British coaches in wanting to do better and if we can take some of the focus away from winning and concentrating on doing a better job at training we will in fact be able to make an impact.”
Would 5 or 6 purpose built basketball facilities across the country go a long way in solving a lot of the problems basketball has suffered in the UK? “Yes.” he answers in a matter-of-fact manner. I push for some elaboration as to why if that is the answer, then it appears as though nothing is being done to make it happen. “Certainly in England I know they have plans and they have looked at regional development centres, but the reality is that the funding level from Sport England for facilities is minor and so they don’t have a lot of investment”. What that means, he explains, is that NGB’s have to to find other partners like local councils who are prepared to invest, but with most of them being in a ‘sport for all’ mindset, they want to see their money spent on a multi-purpose centre that would benefit as many people as possible.
“Certainly purpose built facilities and four court stadiums (would make a difference), if they were accessible, and I think this is the point, it’s the access and the cost of access for basketball which is becoming the limiting factor. It’s not just for games but it’s for training as well, whereby other community models like football have their own assets, have their own fields which they’ve accumulated over a period of time, basketball is playing catch up in that area, it’s a tough area.” He openly questioned whether it was “a wish too far” to hope that we would see community based basketball facilities on the near horizon, as they have in places like France, Australia and Spain.
Cann thinks the Olympics will be "huge"
With 2012 fast approaching, there is no doubt that if basketball is ever going to explode in the UK, the London Olympics is the perfect opportunity. There will never have been a basketball event in Great Britain that has got as much media coverage or publicity, and it is likely there will never be anything like it again. Cann is optimistic about what it could do for the sport in the UK, hoping it will bring basketball into the living rooms of the British people and awaken them to what a giant of a game it is.
The one thing on many people’s mind though, is what the British basketball landscape will look like post-2012. British Basketball are only funded until 2013, and with FIBA demanding the home nations choose how they will be represented in international competition by June next year, there is a chance British Basketball will cease to exist as an individual body. “I think I can say that UK sport has been very pleased with the progress of basketball. I think we’re perceived as doing things the right way, developing a pathway, we’re certainly perceived as a sport that is very focused on after 2012,” Cann reveals, once again to my surprise. “I think that recognition is shared by UK Sport but it’s up to them to identify that so I would be hopeful that their support for basketball is ongoing based upon the performances and the things that we’re doing. I think most people recognise we’ve come a long way and it would be a shame just to drop the ball and not fund beyond that.”
I ask Warwick where he sees British basketball in 6 years, and he responds with a positive outlook by any measure of the imagination:
“We’ll be very competitive at the senior level, we’ll still have to work hard, but our international teams will be successful. Hopefully all our junior teams will be qualified in Division A, as hard a task as that is. We’ll have overhauled coach education, and the schools system/pathway as an alternative to United States high school will be clearly evident for our players and we’ll at least have a plan for those coaches who are good enough to coach professionally so they can aspire to have a career in their own country.”
There is no doubt Warwick has huge aspirations and an even huger task ahead of him, a task that anyone involved with basketball in the UK knows is likely to be incredibly frustrating. I ask him what the worst parts of his job are; “I don’t have worst parts, everything that’s worst is a challenge and I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t want a challenge”.
What do you think of Warwick’s thoughts and what GB/EB are doing? What would you do differently? If you have any questions drop a comment and let me know as I may be able to answer them from the transcripts!
You'll probably like these :
Follow Us
Join the 8000+ others who follow Hoopsfix and subscribe.
Loading ...
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
To put plans like these in place we need funding and/or investment, and lots of it. That funding isn’t going to come through Government channels, so we’ll need to find an alternative to get these plans up and running. It’s a great idea in principle but to implement such a plan without major investment in all areas it won’t happen, which would be a shame, as the plan has solid ideas in what needs to happen to improve the game here. We need to attract investors to invest in a long term plan, involving the building of purpose built facilities for basketball, involving all parties from BBL down to community basketball. But who will invests money in a project that is not going to generate a greater return from that investment? How do we make the sport worth investing in? This is why the BBA hasn’t started and probably never will, might be a good idea, but no one wants to take the risk.
Outside of funding bodies, yeah I agree, who will invest money in a project that is not going to generate a return? No-one. But then it’s down to those in the relevant positions at each club to make it a sport worth investing in.
Not enough teams care about marketing themselves to the public. I honestly believe that every team in both the BBL and EBL 1 (and especially BUCS) can defo get big enough paying crowds to make it a sustainable business/worthy of investment, it’s just about really making the effort and doing things in the right way.
I agree on the issue of funding, there needs to be a whole lot more. I used to play for York Vikings u14′s and 15′s and one of the biggest problems was the huge costs needed just to train twice a week and play a game on the weekend, these put a lot of people off taking part and obviously restricted the players from poorer backgrounds from playing. Central Venue Leagues in my opinion are hugely beneficial as it allows a more relaxed playing atmosphere and ultimately more game time for the players who aren’t at a national league standard yet, I’ve seen players just coming into the sport who are put off by the intense we are only here to win attitude you can sometimes find at national league games, so CVL’s are the way forward in development terms i feel.
Structure
In the above article Warwick Cann talks about the elite players and the national teams, concentrating on the top of the game, but, as in any possible management (re)organization, consideration must be given to both a top-down and a bottom-up approach/solution.
A top-down approach is necessary to consider what is needed ( not necessarily what is wanted ) and what are the overall required objectives. However, to achieve these objectives, as in any type of development, it is the foundation that must be put in place first, and from this how high the development goes will depend upon how deep and strong is that foundation.
There must be a development programme for the various national teams as well as the establishment of pathways for the better players and coaches, but if there is to be an overall development of the sport far more emphasis must be placed on the foundation, at the so-called grass roots level. It is from here that elite players will eventually come.
The rise of Academies and Regional Centres must be to the advantage of the sport although at present I believe each is run independently and, in the case of Academies, can be setup without any form of (EB) regulation. To ensure the maximum advantage is gained from these Academies might it not be beneficial for all to be run under some regulatory authority. This would help to achieve and maintain set standards and practises and help safeguard the entry and exit paths of the players.
Much good work has been done in developing a strong GB squad and to gain entry to the 2012 Olympics. There can be no doubt that when the Olympics take place it will give the GB team, and therefore basketball, good and very necessary publicity. At present there may be a question as to the future of GB after the Olympics (Alex Salmond notwithstanding!!), but whatever is the eventual outcome it must be hoped that the maximum possible advantages is taken of all this hard work and publicity and not, as in the past, wasted.
Participation
The article talks of starting Central Venue Leagues which will undoubtedly give more opportunity to more people to take up and hopefully enjoy basketball, but will it do too much to improve the overall standard of the junior game?
As I understand it from the article, the premise behind these CVL’s is to try and increase participation as it is participation upon which grants are awarded. Participation is important, both to increase the chances of finding more talent and for membership income revenue for the Association.
Unfortunately in England many grants are awarded solely on the basis of some kind of participation, such as in Education or sport, and hardly ever on competitiveness, high standards of excellence and overall quality. Is it right a sport that, for example, is continually having excellent results in both national and international events, thus garnering a reputation both in and for the country, gets less grant than a sport which is “in the wilderness” but has higher participation? Would not any sport that is always achieving constant success as just suggested, not of itself attract players and increase participation? (Incidentally, is England unique in that sports are funded by such bodies as Sport England? Do clubs in other countries rely on (indirect) government grants?)
It is mentioned that “an – element- of quality” is necessary which is perhaps something of an understatement. Quality is surely a necessity, equal, if not more important than participation to achieve any degree of national and international success.
Finance/sponsorship
Finance is and has always been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to be overcome. Several years ago the sport was in such dire straits financially, that Sport England (Sports Council) sent a team of accountants into the offices of the Administration in an endeavour to rectify the problem, which they, more or less, managed to achieve. Keith Marr was appointed as CEO and, as an accountant, has managed to keep “the ship afloat” in very difficult economic times.
Although income is derived from various player/club membership fees, the sport has always had to rely on grants and funding, which has, relatively recently, been drastically reduced by Sport England.
It can be argued why should a sport, any sport, be funded by the government, should not all sports stand or fall on their own merits and ability to attract and raise their own funds?
Of course basketball could not survive if this was to be the case but I can see no argument to the fact that if, and until, the sport is able to attract sponsorship, it will always be a 70% gradient hill or more that it has to climb before any significant development is apparent.
It was questioned in the comments section if BBL clubs are doing enough to promote themselves and the game. Do clubs have the relevant personnel to market themselves to any potential sponsors? Will any BBL club ever be able to offer a quality programme, to include high playing standard, and a quality evening’s entertainment for a capacity crowd, until it has the required level of sponsorship? I do not know of any European club that operates without some kind of direct or indirect sponsorship. The vast majority of clubs (in EBL and junior leagues/divisions) have to play in gymnasia that are not adequately designed or accommodating for spectators, but even if clubs were fortunate enough to have capacity crowds, and play in a venue that seats sufficient spectators, would this be enough to generate the required income to pay salaries plus other expenses and develop sufficiently to compete in Europe (with the extra costs this would involve) . Of course sponsorship is an extremely difficult obstacle to overcome, but, only with continued effort, the right attitude, determination and expertise will any success be achieved.
In the 1980’s clubs did have quite considerable sponsorship, (I believe that every National League club had sponsorship) but one of the greatest disappointment was how the opportunities that this presented for basketball was squandered, both by the clubs themselves and the Association.
Facilities
Facilities, both for training and playing games are and again have always been exceptionally difficult, not only to obtain, but to afford. Perhaps this has to do with culture? Unlike many places in Europe where there is a philosophy or ethos that encourages the use of local gymnasia and sports centres at reasonable cost for all sport, in England the majority of leisure/sports centres seem more keen to make a profit rather than encourage sport and the use of their facilities.
I know of one national sports centre that remains almost unused during the day and on many evenings is not used to full capacity. Surely if it was to reduce prices to a more affordable level it would encourage more sport and gain more business, thereby making up and increasing revenue?
It is suggested that purpose built centres might be built ( it would certainly be a first as I do not know of any such basketball centres in Europe) and it can certainly be done, as evidenced by the enormous hard work put in by Joe Forber and his team in Manchester. One only needs to look at the success the Manchester teams are achieving to understand the importance such facilities would be to basketball,. There are so many clubs however, that quite a few would need to be built and so is unlikely that this will happen any time soon.
Player development
“Players at under 8, under 10 in a club.” It is unquestionable that this is the way for the sport to develop future stars, but where ARE the under 8, under 10 teams? What “competition” do they have available? As Warwick Cann suggested, should it perhaps be incumbent on senior clubs, such as the BBL, to each have not just a junior team, but a junior program? At present how many BBL clubs have a full junior program? In past years national league clubs had junior programs and the junior teams competed in their own competition immediately before the equivalent senior game. In the case of our own club, at practise the junior teams often played against the senior team (normally with a 50 to 80 point starting lead !!) and the tremendous advantages this provided to the junior players was quite evident. BBL clubs now may well cite chapter and verse of the difficulties this would impose, but if it could be achieved, there would surely be a rise in the standard of junior, and eventually, senior basketball?
The junior league as it presently exists is somewhat unbalanced with an overall playing standard (and in some cases, organization) that leaves much to be desired. One only needs to look at the discrepancy in many game scores to realise that on a week by week basis there is very little in the way of regular high standard competition.
It was suggested that having clubs such as Manchester “head and shoulders” above the rest, gives a problem to the EB and limits development. Manchester players have to play up age groups to get the competition they require to improve, while games they play and win by some wide margin do not allow either team to develop sufficiently. However, if poorer teams were not permitted to compete the participation numbers would suffer which potentially would affect any funding.
Surely the previous paragraph cites a good example and reason why the league should be re-structured in a way that allows a much higher standard of competition for the better teams and on a more consistent basis. Extremely complicated for a number of reasons? Perhaps; but there are many many junior players with latent talent, so a solution must be found to allow this talent to materialise far more quickly than is possible at the moment.
Coaching
Warwick Cann mentions how it is apparent that player development seems to stall within a certain age range and goes on to say how necessary it is to have quality coaches to enable these players to develop their skills.
This goes to the very heart of the problem of why the present standard is so low. The EB has had for some years an Office of Coaching Development but if one looks at the near non-existent growth in coaching development over these years, one must surely question the effectiveness of this office?
Two things are vitally important for any improvement in coaching standards. One is an overhaul of the present system of developing and qualifying coaches. The second is to have, as mentioned already, a league/division of some description such that it not only has very strict requirements re game organization, but much more importantly, promotes a constant high level of competition which will encourage a higher standard of coaching.
The present system of qualifying coaches is almost farcical when it is possible for coaches to be examined by other coaches who have only been at a particular level for a very short time and have themselves little experience of game coaching. At present it is feasible to go from a low level to a higher level in a matter of months (if not weeks?) which again is nonsensical.
Recently Warwick Cann presented an Executive Summary of what is hoped (and needed) to be introduced in relation to improving coaching, but this is presently on paper. No mention was made of how (again cost) or when it will be implemented on the ground. One must hope that, unlike so many similar attempts in the past, this one will not wither and die on the vine.
If stricter coaching regulations were to come into effect it might well discourage some from ever becoming a coach, but if better regulations and prerequisites were to be introduced, together with a (far better) monitoring system of and for coaches, then is it not likely coaching standards would improve? (Could not the Basketball Coaches Association be given a far more authoritative and regulatory role in this development of coaches?)
It was mentioned that a pathway must be found to encourage and enable coaches to coach on a professional basis and to have coaches who are keener to develop players rather than coach teams. Whilst the former must be the ultimate goal, the latter may go against the grain a little in so far as the ambition of most coaches is to coach a (successful) team.
Culture
One word that was not in the article was “culture”, which has already been mentioned in relation to the cost of facilities. Warwick Cann comes from Australia, a country where sport is almost a way of life. England is not and has never been a country with a great sporting culture, at least not in the same sense as Australia, Spain, and some other European countries. There is much rhetoric from Government, local councils and administrations, but when it comes to putting money where mouth is, very little actually materializes.
May I give an example? My wife and I were sitting outside a café in Spain with two Spanish friends, discussing the Spain versus France final, a day or so after Eurobasket. A couple at the next table overheard our discussion and just joined in (!) and before we knew it several other people at adjacent tables also joined in. We ended up with more than seven people around the table all talking about the game. This can occur not only with basketball, but with other sports such as football (of course), moto G.P., handball and tennis to name just a few .
Would this happen in England (even assuming you could sit outside a café !!!) where, despite the game having high participation amongst young people, basketball is a sport that generates little interest amongst the general public. If this can be overcome and basketball viewed as a great evening’s entertainment for the whole family, then the sport has a real chance of developing, but, to change culture, if that is what it is, is extremely difficult, slow, and takes many years.
Conclusion
I don’t offer many solutions for any of the above. Maybe it would be beneficial for the sport to have a G20 (GXXX) type summit (rather than having an “Arab Spring”!!) to discuss ways and means of improvement, but I do believe that two essential fundamental criteria must be achieved for the future of the sport.
The first is the root and branch overhaul of coaching requirements and qualification. This of course will have a direct influence on players’ development, and developing more quickly whatever potential they might have.
The second is the attraction of sponsors and sponsorship. If this was to occur then many of the present problems would be overcome; the affordability of facilities, the prospect of professional coaches, the ability of clubs to establish a junior program, the cost of travel, the ability of clubs to promote the game and so on.
This of course is extremely easy to say particularly in the case of sponsorship where there are many obvious and extreme difficulties to first overcome, but if both were to materialise I would be much more optimistic about any future success of the sport.
re BBL clubs and junior programs
From the EB annual report 4 of the top 5 clubs in participation numbers (ie registered players) are BBL Clubs (from memory its Newcastle. Durham, Cheshire and Plymouth or Guildford). MK also have a solid youth program. Glasgow come under scotland which only leaves 4 clubs :
Worcester and Leicester have gone down the university route, Sheffield have had a dominant youth program for years which has now I believe separated itself and Mersey is a financial basketcase but does have a related program.
So in this area I am not sure that you can criticise BBL clubs as a whole.
I didn’t criticise BBL clubs as a whole; I said the vast majority.
In response to your comments, I think there is a lot more involved with player development than having a youth club with high participation numbers.
How many BBL teams have taken a player at young age and turned them into a professional who can have a decent basketball career? I know you always like to point to Darius Defoe, but he is an exception rather than the norm. Having a 17-18 year old riding pine for a couple of seasons doesn’t count.
Being affiliated with a university programme so you can get imports in with a free education and accommodation does not count as development; the vast majority of BBL players that play for a university as well are already established players and not “developed” as a result of that.
I don’t think anyone can defend the fact that the vast majority (not all) of BBL teams have very little to do with developing basketball players, if they did, we would see a lot more prospects (defined as under-21) actually playing and contributing in the BBL.
1. There are only 11 BBL teams. Four out of 11 have bigger programs than any club outside Manchester (so even if I concede the other 7 which I dont) that is still not a vast majority.
2. As for darius, he came at 18 but spent three years (as you put it) `riding the pine` learning to be a pro. He stuck in, did not quit and created a career, but was he playing big minutes at 18 or 19? No, wasnt playing any. Bridgey came through FInch system at Sheffield, he didnt start playing real BBL minutes until he was 23 and he had to fight for every minute. Mike Martin is another example, there are many more. Giving minutes away undermines everyone and creates a sense of entitlement amongst young Brits which stunts development.
3. Even guys playing for the best non BBL projects in the country and representing England at age groups up to U18 are not good enough to contribute in the BBL. They are simply not ready to compete physically or mentally against 23 year old guys out of Seton Hall, Illinois or even div2 all americans. You simply cant criticise BBL teams for not playing them big minutes. They would lose. Essex last year had a number of GB under 20s and an excellent coach : they werent close to BBL level.
4. The odd one who is good enough should (and will) go to a top div 1 college, you simply cant advise them to stay with the offer of a free education at a top school. The alternative is a BBL club offering to pay what is now a minumum of £27k in scholarship fees for a player who is not going to produce immediately. Economically impossible.
5. I sat yesterday and watched Team Northumbria (Newcastle eagles 2nd team) consisting if 10 Englishmen (teh vast majority under 24), one Frenchman and 1 american grad student go 5-0 in EB Div 2. guys on the floor at the end were Lamar Morrison (Ex England under 16, now 18 years old, Eagles development), Jack Thompson (MK program, GB U20), Ross Wilson (19 points, 11 boards, 6 assists, England U18, Eagles development), Jamie Glen (manchester program 21 year old ex england U18 – 20 points on 7-9 shooting), Ivan Emanuely (Ex France U16 Div A eurobasket). Add in the slightly older Siman Stewart for experience and Josh Merrington (MK development program). another young Brit, Toby Hutton injured. All apart from Jamie and Ivan do come from BBL background programs.
Now the reason university development is so important is that these guys are all getting to play minutes and make decisions at a decent level, not just throwing it to the americans. Its all on them, there is no bail out. They will either sink or swim. the university gap fills that part between U18 and U23 where all but the very best kids are good enough to compete with hardbitten pros. Some will deceide they want to make the sacrifices, some wont but they will all have that chance. All can be called up to BBL if they warrant it and we need it. Wilson played 3 minutes in the second quarter on friday night going 1/1.
And next year the aim is to get promotion to div 1 to increase the level for these guys to compete at to get them ready. So dont sniff at university links, it is one of the best ways of getting 18-22 years olds access to good facilities, coaching and an appropriate level of basketball.
{ 1 trackback }