In fact, while the traditional approaches to teaching/learning in team sports, such as basketball, are primarily focused in the development of technique (Rink, 2001), recent expansion of tactical-dominant models have contributed to redefine team sports teaching/learning. In this particular approach, www.selleckchem.com/products/INCB18424.html players are stimulated to develop tactical awareness and therefore skill execution is always in a direct relation with the players�� performance in game-like situations. Consequently, the foundations of this model suggest that in early stages players should be confronted with tactical problems, helping them to develop their comprehension of the game and leading them to understand the need to optimize their skills (Mitchell, 1996; Cushion, 2002) in a game environment (Turner and Martinek, 1995).

For these reasons, the results of this study enhance the importance of tactical development, and perhaps more importantly, reinforces the need to rethink the models used by less skilled or inexperienced coaches when working with young players. It may be arguable that experienced coaches that contributed to this study work preferentially at the high sports level (e.g., professional leagues and national teams) and therefore have a perception based on what it takes to win at that level. However, this does not invalidate that those subjects are also the most experienced coaches and have a better understanding of what is more important to consistently develop a basketball player.

Another explanation that could help understand significant differences between novice and experienced coaches may be that experienced coaches evaluate these skills as being already developed and therefore their concerns could be more focused on technical optimization. Results obtained in drills, specifically execution speed and technique may also be supportive of these arguments, since experienced coaches rated the speed of execution higher while novice concerns are more focused on technique. Results also confirmed the defensive superiority games as the less important in the players�� development in the three coaches groups. Despite the crucial role of small-sided games in the coaching process, confirmed by the results of this study and well documented in recent scientific literature (Hill-Haas et al., 2008), available studies are limited when related to the importance of superiority or inferiority games.

More importantly, literature is scarce when we try to establish a proper Batimastat rationale between these items and the needs of basketball players�� development. Usually, defensive superiority games, such as 1��2 or 2��3, are complex game-like situations which are related with the development of team defensive strategies and therefore, more specific to higher levels of competition. For these reasons, it is not difficult to understand the lower results obtained in this item, especially those corresponding to novice and intermediate coaches.