Another take on national teams

I am reading Joe McGinniss' novel The Miracle of Castel di Sangroto pass the time and take me away from basketball for a few minutes every day (It was recommended on Jim Caple's blog, a site I can no longer find).

McGinniss briefly touches on the Italian soccer federation's coaching education program:

Janconi, however, had attended the school for allentori that was held at the Centro Tecnico here each year. Italian allenatori cannot get a license to manage at the Serie A or Serie B level without attending a sixteen-week course at Coverciano. (The result, unfortunately, is that all native managers are exposed to the same courses in tactics, psychology, and training and that all graduate having majored in la paura, or fear, and as sworn adherents to the philosophy of il catenaccio, the defense-first approach to calcio-the word catenaccio literally means 'bolt' as on a lock-which has been virtually the state religion for more than a half century.)

When the United states loses in International basketball competitions, the American public and media often point to National teams which have been together for years. However, the players on these teams do not train year-round as national teams, as the best players play in the NBA alongside the TEAM USA players and others play in the EuroLeague.

However, as McGinniss description illustrates, players within one domestic league and development system grow within a definite system of play. I have noticed this everywhere I have been, nowhere as much as when I conducted camps in Macedonia and Greece.

When I did these camps, the final camp combined some Macedonians and some Greeks for a camp in Skopje, Macedonia. And, the two groups each displayed for a distinct style of play. The Macedonians were always moving and were softer, but far more skilled than their Greek counterparts who played tougher defense and a little more 1v1 basketball, especially after a pick and roll.

Watching the Greek Championships that summer, it was clear there was a definite Greek style, as each team looked like a mirror image of the other, from my viewpoint, even though Greeks saw distinct differences between the two coaches. However, within these differences, there was certainly a Greek way of playing the game.

Because coaches are trained in one system, players in different clubs develop many of the same sills in many of the same ways. In essence, the coaching education programs create a philosophy of development and strategy for the coaches, and therefore the players.

And, when these players from different clubs join together for International competition, they understand the game in the same way, play a similar style and fit together quickly.

In America, where players come from such different developmental backgrounds, it takes much more effort for a coach to install a system and get players to play on the same page.

This, more than the myth of year-round national team training, is what the American public and media see when they feel other teams look more like teams; they are more cohesive because the entire development system, regardless of club affiliation, is fairly similar due to the coaching education requirements and the philosophical slant of the educational courses.