Part II: Do Coaches Know What an Athlete is???
Even though I do feel that white coaches are the worst when it comes to judging a player, I believe a lot of coaches need a reality check. These coaches all today really believe they know what an athlete is, but I beg to differ. All I have ever heard a coach speak of in basketball when talking about and athlete is vertical leap and quickness. Well these simple minded fools are missing a few other characteristics that make one and athlete. In the dictionary an athlete is defined as, a person who is trained or skilled, in exercise, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina. So basically an athlete has skills, strength, agility, stamina and is able to apply them to an activity. All four of these qualities make up an athlete, not just one or two all four. So why is it over the years I have heard so many coaches that I played for when talking about and athlete only talk about speed and vertical leap. If you were thinking to yourself “maybe they were bad coaches”, I would agree with you. But it’s not just the coaches that I have played for that usually just key in on these two characteristics and want to believe that’s the definition of an athlete. So many basketball coaches only see these two characteristics as a player being athletic. The funny thing is the number one thing basketball coaches probably see as being athletic is vertical leap, and that’s not even part of the actually definition. Now I’m not a fool, I know that vertical leap is definitely an attribute that helps to make one an athlete,(and for your information I got hops) however I find it ironic that most coaches harp on that being the main attribute and it actually is not part of the definition. Believe it these coaches aren’t as smart as they try to seem, or they say they are. A lot of them are ridiculously ignorant of a very basic term that they probably use every day. To be and athlete you need all four of the characteristics. Even if you are superior at one that doesn’t make you an athlete, the definition of and athlete isn’t just one of those characteristics. If a coach is going to just sit there and decide how talented a player is by just his vertical leap or speed then why does he even have to watch the players play the game to decide who he wants to play? He may as well just have the players run a 40 and test there vertical leap and who ever has the best results for these tests just play them. Why don’t coaches do this, because that would be ridiculous, there are other parts of the game that make one an athlete, however it almost seems as if a lot of coaches test for those abilities and then just play the ones with the best results ignoring the other parts of what it takes to be an athlete. Coaches misinterpret athleticism so much, and also can’t see if one is even able to use his ability. The coach just sees that the player has maybe a great vertical leap and assumes he is going to be able to use it. I’ve seen so many players over the years that are very quick and have great verticals. However some of these guys couldn’t catch a pass if I handed it to them on a trey. There’s also other guys despite being gifted with these characteristics have no sense of timing what so ever which totally eliminates there ability. This is why the definition of an athlete implies that the player is suppose to be able to apply there skills or strengths to the activity. If one is not able to apply the skills they have to the sport what good is there skill or ability? I believe that being able to apply one’s abilities to the game takes natural instinct. Which would lead to the one thing if I rewrote the definition of an athlete in a dictionary I would add instinct. Because without instinct for the game one is playing, he will not be very good. No matter how god gifted one is, if he has no instinct for the game, he most likely is not going to be able to use his ability very well. Instinct for the game comes with having timing for the game and if one has no timing there ability is going to be pretty useless. Instinct is something that can not be taught. It’s a pretty similar trait to someone’s vertical. Someone who has a terrible vertical is never going to be a tremendous leaper, no matter how much work they put in. That’s just the way it is, a vertical leap isn’t a skill that can be taught, it is pretty much God given. One can improve some what but terrible jumpers can plain out put endless hours of work in and are most likely still not going to be great jumpers. The same goes for instinct probably even more so, instinct is god given. You are never going to be able to teach someone who has absolutely no instinct for the game instinct. Its natural, its something a player is born with, one simply has it or they don’t. There is also another level of instinct that some players have and that would be killer instinct. Not too many players out there have this quality, however the ones that do are relentless, they never give up, and always exploit there opponents weaknesses. Having that killer instinct can make up for so much, this takes a player to a whole other level. Killer instinct can make decent athletes great players, and makes great athletes elite players. A player with this trait should never be overlooked because there is no telling how great of a player he could actually be. A player having that killer instinct can definitely make up for a lesser skill set or even being not as great of an athlete. Again, I’ve have seen many players who seem like they have it all. They have the height, skill set, athleticism, what else would most say one would need. Then I see these kids play and they disappear on the court. Its like there nowhere to be found, they end up getting out played by players you would say are half as good as them, but its because they have no kill in there game, they play the game lackadaisical and soft. To be honest with you players like this you may as well send home too, because they are never going to be a good player because they have absolutely no kill in their game and lack the essential instincts for the game.
Coaches need to also see that just because one guy is superior in one category of being an athlete doesn’t make him better than the next. Why do you think Jordan was not just a great player, but the greatest player to ever play the game? He contained all the things necessary of being an athlete. He was pretty good at every aspect of the game, that’s why he was good. Not just because he could jump, he had a good skill set to back it up. More importantly Jordan had the natural instinct for the game, and even more important than that Jordan had the killer instinct for the game. Jordan was relentless on the court; he would never give up, and would exploit any weakness of his opponents he could find. Jordan would smell the blood and fear of his opponents and go as hard as he could at them for the full 48 minutes of the game. Lots of people talk about the defense pressuring the ball or pressuring the offense, but its players like Jordan that every time they touched the ball on offense they put pressure on the defense. Players who offensively can put consistent pressure on the defense are very valuable, again this is a trait that is natural and can not be taught. Then there’s players like Darius Miles, who was supposedly a superior athlete with a good skill set and excellent size for the NBA. However he never lived up to the hype of his name, why because he had no kill in his game. Pretty much when it comes down to it Darius Miles was soft, played lackadaisically, had no heart, and had no idea what killer instinct could mean. So many coaches take these players hoping to turn them into something; they say they see potential, ignoring the fact that is plain to see that the kid has no instinct for the game. So these coaches waste all this time trying to teach these kids how to play the game, not realizing the reason they aren’t any good is because they lack the natural instinct that can not be taught. These kids don’t know how to apply their ability to the game. If I’m a coach no matter what I’m putting players on the floor that day in day out give me the best performance and production. I’m not going to put players on the floor that maybe have the potential to give the best performance and best production if they find a way to use there skills and ability that day, and if they aren’t able to do this are going to get beat by 30 points. Good coaches put there best players on the floor, the players that are going to give them the best chances to win the game, despite anything else.
conclusion-
I believe coaches today plain out use the term athleticism way too loosely. They quickly assume from the start that a player is an athlete just because they have one strength. This doesn’t make one an athlete, this makes them skilled in one area or have ability in one area; you need all the attributes that make up an athlete to be an athlete. The way I look at it the more attributes a player has that makes up an athlete makes him a better athlete. So even if there’s one guy that’s really good in one area, if the next guy isn’t quite as good as him in that one area but way better him in every other area, that makes him a better athlete. But hey call me a fool, I’m just going by what I read in the dictionary that is used by millions everyday.
I believe coaches today plain out use the term athleticism way too loosely. They quickly assume from the start that a player is an athlete just because they have one strength. This doesn’t make one an athlete, this makes them skilled in one area or have ability in one area; you need all the attributes that make up an athlete to be an athlete. The way I look at it the more attributes a player has that makes up an athlete makes him a better athlete. So even if there’s one guy that’s really good in one area, if the next guy isn’t quite as good as him in that one area but way better him in every other area, that makes him a better athlete. But hey call me a fool, I’m just going by what I read in the dictionary that is used by millions everyday.