Alex Sarama is joined by Anton Kalen discuss the importance of integrating research and evidence-based practices into coaching.
Keep listening while you explore. Your episode keeps playing as you browse other pages on this site.
In this episode, Alex Sarama is joined by Anton Kalen discuss the importance of integrating research and evidence-based practices into coaching. Anton shares his personal journey from being a practitioner to becoming a researcher and how it has influenced his coaching behaviors. They delve into the need for theories of skill acquisition in coaching and how they can inform practice design. Anton provides valuable insights based on his research and practical experience, shedding light on the best approaches to athlete development.
Want to take a deep dive into the Transforming approach? Our FREE skill acquisition workshop is a comprehensive resource for you to learn about evidence-based coaching strategies. Get instant access here:https://transformingbball.com/online-skill-acquisition-workshop
Esta transcripción corresponde al audio original en inglés.
This is the Transforming Basketball Podcast, and I'm your host, Alex Sarama. This is the podcast where we help coaches and practitioners change the way we think about basketball performance. Our goal is to create the ultimate resource to help make sense of how contemporary skill acquisition ideas can be applied within the basketball world.
Throughout the podcast, we'll unpack how an ecological dynamics framework alters our perspective of the game. If you're ready to join us in our quest to transform the basketball world, then this is the podcast for you. Welcome back to the Transforming Basketball Podcast. Today I'm joined by Anton Callian from, uh, Sweden.
Explore Transforming Basketball membership and continue your coach development.
George is joined by Jamie Ransberry during the Transforming Summer Camp 2026 in Roseto, Italy.
George is joined by João Pacheco, a coach from Portugal who has been living and coaching in Germany for nearly 14 years.
Use deception, tag games and live opponents to build basketball agility, perception and decision-making in your warm-up.
Anton is a postdoc researcher, also working for the Swedish Olympic Committee, but he's also had 6 years working within the youth national teams of Swedish basketball. So Anton, great to have you on. Thanks so much for joining us.
Thanks so much for having me.
So first question I had is, I think it's, you know, I'm talking a lot about trying to bridge this gap between research and practice, but you very much had experience in both fields. So the first question is, how has your background as a researcher combined with that basketball experience shaped some of your perspective and methodologies?
Taking it kind of how my background as a researcher impacts my kind of more practical experience or practical work as a coach, I would definitely say that probably one of the main points that have kind of changed throughout the years, as during my PhD, during my postdoc, is I would say the part of scientific method that is not perhaps always going the full line of scientific research, but just the idea of having preconceived notions.
So we want to try to implement something, we want to try to change something, and that Or just kind of how do you evaluate a game? Just the idea of having at least some preset ways of evaluating stuff. So coming in as a researcher doing an experiment, we need to clearly define what are we measuring, what are the variables, what is a good outcome and a bad outcome a priori.
So before we start, and I would say I had I mean, me as a practitioner back in the days before I got into more research, and I do see it in other coaches as well, you kind of— I mean, let's say you play a game and you, you, you win the game.
So you're kind of biased because you win the game, which is obviously a good outcome. But then you, you move into kind of evaluating the performance of the game, and you have— so you have this bias with you in So you're starting to look for positive variables.
So you look at the box score and, and your eyes directly go to kind of the positive lines on, on the box score. And, and then you, you already have— you're, you're just trying to confirm your notion of the game. I think personally, at least, I've definitely developed the part of, okay, so we're going into a game.
What's the objective of the, of this game? Okay, so How am I going to evaluate this game afterwards? We will look at this and that and that, which at least hopefully it helps to get a little bit more, perhaps not objective view, but, but at least a little bit more sober view on, on a lot of these things.
Love that. So I'm just, I'm just wondering, have you got any other examples you can think of, Anton, in terms of how Maybe when you were coaching before you really kind of got deeper and deeper into the research, how did— have you got any other examples of how the research changed maybe some of your coaching behaviors or how you viewed a practice or anything like that?
Yeah, definitely. So, I mean, first part of moving into doing a PhD is just read a lot more. So that's one part of it. Just, I mean, just reading the literature, getting all the, the input. Getting into skill acquisition research and just kind of dig deep enough into that.
Obviously that will change, that changed my mindset to a lot of things and small incremental steps in kind of trying to get more evidence informed in how I do things. But if we say on a more, on a broader level, so more conceptual changes for me, Uh, happen a lot, and it comes back a little bit to the thing of more clearly defining what we're actually looking for.
So back in before all this, I mean, how do you evaluate your own exercises or drills, or if we move it more into a game-based approach? So learning designs. So back in the days, I tended to evaluate it on, okay, so We score more.
We start the exercise, we're 3 out of 10. We finish the exercise, we're 7 out of 10. Good outcome, good exercise. Let's do it again. And just starting to really pick at, but what is it we're actually trying to learn? Or what am I trying to teach or develop?
Designing an environment where, what is it I really want? the athletes to learn and starting to look much more into what is the decisions being made. Like, we work with decisions coming off a ball screen, like a pick and roll situation. Okay, so do we score?
Do we manage to score in a, in a 2-man game, 3-man game, kind of, to actually looking at, do we see the, the pick and roll player coming off the screen? Or is he moving the head? Is he searching for solutions? Where do we focus?
These kind of— do he adapt to— do we see a reaction, and hopefully a good reaction, to what the defender is doing? Or is he on a preset course to do what he already planned? Kind of really picking into it. And, and again, it comes back to having a predefined notion of How will I evaluate this exercise practice activity?
Like, what, what are actually my checkbox or things that, that I would say was a huge conceptual change for me that happened back a couple of years ago on how to kind of see the, the role of as a coach in the practice environment.
Oh, I think that's fantastic because it's so practical, Anton. And I think something I've been trying to get across is if we don't have clear intentions as a coach, I think it's very difficult to use a constraints-led approach well. Yeah, you just hit the nail on the head in terms of actually knowing as the coach, we're not just rolling the balls out and creating a generic small-sided game to play.
We're really having a really clear intent and all of us as a staff knowing what to look for. So I think this leads really nicely into the next question, and that is, as coaches, why do we even need theories of skill acquisition in the first instance?
That's personally a really interesting question that I've thought about quite a lot during the last year. And I mean, it comes back to basically what we're trying to achieve in, in, in actually any kind of skill acquisition learning environment. So at school as well.
But what we're trying to do is get the athletes, the pupils, whatever, to learn stuff. So we're trying to get to a certain outcome, which for us, if we take it back to the basketball context, is to create as good a player as possible.
However we choose to define that, but kind of we want to create a player that will have a great basketball career. On paper, this is easy. I mean, we try out this thing in practice and he turns out to be a great basketball player.
So we have input, outcome. The problem here— well, we have several problems with this. The first one is just kind of we didn't have the time to wait. We don't have the time to kind of go with a trial and error approach. So we can't try out something now, wait 20 years to see does that work, and then come back to do it again.
Because I mean, most of us at least will probably coach throughout. So we need kind of a—
Yeah.
like an incremental approach. It's not that we'll do one thing during 20 years and then change it. We're constantly adapting and trying to improve our coaching. So that's just one part that, that is just the outcome is so far in advance that we can't use that as a good measure of, is this a good learning activity?
Is this a good way to design a an academy, is this, etc., etc., because it's just too far out ahead, the, the, the final outcome. And even if it would be closer in time, I mean, of course we could look kind of at is the player better this year than, than the year before, etc.
But then again, we come into the complex environment, so it's— we get into the problem of can we actually attribute this increase in performance or decrease in performance or, or just adaptation, how much of that is actually attributable to this learning environment or that practice design or this way of selecting teams, etc.
So we can't really go with— I mean, the, the input-output approach is, if we go back to learning pedagogical research, we see it as well. So we have kind of a classical behavioristic approach.
Yeah.
It's an approach where we have an input, uh, we have some kind of— I mean, we ring the bell and give, give some food, and then we see, uh, a change in outcome. And that works well. I mean, it's theoretically sound. It— the results of doing these kind of experiments are in line with the theory of behaviorism.
For easy atomic skills tasks where we have kind of closing time. It's really easy. It doesn't depend on multiple processes taking place, anything. It's just kind of, uh, this happened, this is the input, this is output. But as soon as we're trying to move into more complex settings, so we move into school where we, we want to teach maths For example, we can't really see.
So they get into first grade and then they come out of ninth grade, and, and that's kind of where we judge if what we did in first grade is good. And it's just not. I mean, then you have skills building on each other, so you might need to learn basic addition, subtraction before moving on to—
these things are way too complex to just look at. Yeah. Input in forms of how are we teaching and output in form of how good did they get at math, at basketball. So we need to try to understand the process in between these 2 things to give us hints.
I mean, we, we won't get the final answer, but we'll get stronger or weaker hints at does it look like what we are doing is beneficial or not. So How can we see not the final outcome, but the theories will help us define what should we be looking for, which kind of development should we be looking for to know that we're probably on the correct path towards becoming a better basketball player, etc.
So first of all, to see what are we actually looking for, which changes, which adaptations do we want to see over time? that is a shorter time period than those 20 years of a career, but also to inform us on what do we think is a better or worse learning environment to create those kind of adaptations.
And here is where you get into, I mean, the big debate on information processing approaches or ecological dynamic approaches and everything. It's It's— I mean, they take different approaches to explain how we go from this input in forms of practice to the output of skillful basketball players.
Okay.
And this is where we need to get into— I mean, we use these theories to shine light on the activities we're doing, and based on these theories, we evaluate if Do we believe that this is better or worse? So I would say that is just— we need them because we can't rely on a trial and error approach.
Excellent. You mentioned, Anton, about the classroom in that, and something I've been seeing a lot in recent years is classroom ideas trying to transcend over into the sports world. I recommend exercising extreme caution on this because a lot of these classroom ideas are grounded in, I'd say, information processing theories, talking about things like working memory, retrieval practice, recall.
And, you know, there have been a lot of— a very popular book that kind of came into the sports world written by a teacher, which a lot of coaches have adopted without actually looking at skill acquisition. Whereas I actually think— and this is where I want to get your take on— I think we can actually see more the other way, with an ecological dynamics approach impacting the classroom and really changing how teachers teach.
What, what would you say on that?
I think I know the book you're talking about. I haven't read it myself, so wouldn't say that I'm that deep into kind of which way information should flow here. But we have— first of all, I mean, we can go back just to thinking about these as What are the overall aims in these 2 settings?
So, I mean, if we're in a basketball club, an academy, we probably, at least if, if it's a kind of ambition to create good players, we're trying to look to optimize the future performance of probably only one or a couple of players in each.
I mean, obviously we try to to make each of them as good as possible, but we're trying to optimize future performance on an individual level. Whereas there's a classroom, I mean, everyone attends school at least to a certain degree. We have a different driving force here because, I mean, at least in Sweden, I mean, if you have multiple students failing a course, That doesn't shine good on you as a, as a teacher.
So you're probably more inclined to just get everyone above a certain threshold. How to say? So I would say that it's probably more of a collective approach to teaching and learning, which just that by itself will create a little bit different environments and, and incitaments for, for the coach or for the teacher, which, which I think we need to keep in mind when we try to transfer these ideas.
I mean, a teacher is probably not trying to create an academic Michael Jordan. They're not think— they're not in the classroom thinking, okay, uh, let's try to get this guy to get the next— no, to get the Nobel Prize within 20 years. Probably they're thinking, okay, how can we get them to be able to move on to the next year?
So that is one, I think, probably important part to keep in mind, just the difference in settings. And then another problematic part is the thing of— so in the classroom, we're talking about basically cognitive skills.
Yeah.
There's very seldom at least a major cinematic part to it. So the cognitive part doesn't connect as tightly to— I mean, of course, writing. So we do, we do have some parts that, especially in the lower grades, on kind of learning to write, handwriting and stuff.
But, uh, they tend to be a different class or different set of— we shouldn't probably, but they're on a different part of the, the spectrum of skills moving on more towards the cognitive side. And so that, I think, is another— not that should say that we can't translate ideas from one to the other, but when we do, we can't do a copy-paste.
That's exactly it.
Just say this works in a classroom, let's apply it on the basketball court. We need to keep in mind of— we need to keep in mind when we try to to translate these ideas of, okay, are we talking about similar type of skills?
Are we talking about similar kind of aims on, on a group level of what we're trying to achieve?
That's it. And I think ultimately performance in basketball is obviously, it's not like knowledge in a classroom where sport is about doing, not about knowing. Yeah, like Gibson's knowledge about versus knowledge of. I think it's very useful because a player might give the right answer, but that doesn't mean they're actually a skilled performer in the game.
Exactly.
I want to get on, Anton, to pioneering work that's been done in Sweden. And Sweden is one of the first countries in the world to really adopt an ecological dynamics framework when it comes to player development and coach education. And you played a big part in that, um, working with the Swedish Basketball Federation to actually design a new framework.
Could you talk us through a little bit just the process of kind of what was existing in Sweden and then how you guys went through this process of change to lead to the new framework that we have and all the great work that's being done in Sweden with so many coaches now using the CLA?
So a couple of years, probably more than a couple of years with COVID years disappearing mentally, but somewhere pre-COVID. We had a framework in place since further back. It was a good job that was done on that framework, and, and it was developed, and at the day that it was developed, it was seen as kind of big and, and fairly
comprehensive. That was, I think, and, and this was— I wasn't directly involved in this process, but it was kind of We need to— it's like a lot of documents. You say that this is something that needs to be a living document that needs to be updated yearly, etc., and then that just doesn't get done.
So it was static for quite some time, the old player development plan, I would say. So within the Federation, there was a decision that, okay, we need to kind of maybe revamp, reamp this. A little bit more than just being— since we're lagging behind on, on updating it.
That was during my PhD time, and, and I still had some connections with the Federation even though I was living in Spain and, and so forth. So I gotta— they approached me to see if I was interested in kind of helping out a little bit from the scientific perspective.
So, so one of the big pushes was Orkan and Camilla that initiated this job was try to take a little bit more research-based evidence— evidence-based is a strong word, I would say an evidence-informed approach to it. So that's where I came in and kind of gave some, some overall ideas.
I was reading up a lot on skill acquisition at the moment. I was actually teaching a motor learning course at the union in Spain by that time. And I've had, I had some colleagues that taught it the years before and after. And so we're kind of, we're a small group within the union in Spain that was quite deep within kind of motor learning literature at the time, which made it even more interesting for me to get in and see if we could get in some motor learning research within the framework.
And so we pushed— I mean, constraints-led approach or an ecological dynamics approach was probably a better fit, even more so while— so another part was the framework was a really linear development.
Yeah.
Kind of a library of technical executions that you should know by this age and this comes before that. And, and I think there was an interest in trying to move on a little bit further than that and kind of maybe produce something that was a bit— would be able to inform on a little bit broader scale than just saying, okay, so in practice, first you should do this, then that.
So can we, can we create something that would help to inform How do we approach the youth national team system? How do we approach kind of getting into all these different aspects of the federation's work? That's one of the reasons why we chose to adopt kind of a more of an ecological dynamics approach to it.
From there, I did quite a lot of the scientific background behind it. We had some other guys being in on, on the psych part, on people with, with more expertise than me within research of specific areas. And from there, then it moved on to, to kind of trying to translate that a little bit more into practice, which is— I mean, it's a challenge.
I, I still find a lot of the literature on kind of motor learning, skill acquisition in general, regardless of which kind of theoretical approach you, you take or anything, just scientific literature on the area isn't that approachable for a practitioner.
It's not.
And I do still think there's kind of a gap on it. And, and even though we talk about information processing approaches as an opposite to kind of constraint-led approach ecological dynamics, it's— I mean, most of the people that doesn't want to adopt a constraint-led approach doesn't really follow kind of best practice from an information processing approach.
Really a question of choosing a theoretical framework for how you approach skill acquisition is rather— it's a big, bigger problem of do we tend to use any evidence-informed approach at all or not?
Yeah.
I think still that, that's a bigger issue than I mean, get into the nitty-gritty of, in this case, these theoretical approaches dictate— what dictates— but thinks that we should approach things a bit differently, fine. But I mean, on the bigger picture, if we're talking about basis, foundation of coaches, of parents coaching their kids, we're still a couple of steps ahead.
It's more on how can we get any evidence into the practice design at all.
Absolutely. So, Anton, I'd like to kind of shift the focus now from Skill Act to your area of research and specifically 2 papers that you've looked at. And I'd love to start with the first one you did on talent ID. And the paper you co-authored, it was Talent Selection Strategies and Relationship with Success in European Basketball National Team Programs.
Yeah, I'd love it if you could just talk a little bit about that. And specifically, maybe we could spend more time on what this, like, what the practical kind of implications are for coaches, because I see a lot of confusion in this area.
So this is the last article of my thesis, of my dissertation. So I had another previous article that kind of looked at talent selection processes throughout the youth national team programs as well. So basically these 2 articles take 2 different angles on it.
We have one that kind of takes the individual athlete's angle. We're looking into a little bit on relative age effect. Does the relative age kind of the reverse of relative age effect once you're in the program, like who survives, et cetera. But something coming from doing work within the federation and having done some work on being a regional team coordinator, and there's not that much sport-specific research taking kind of an organizational approach.
The approach of, okay, so how should we as a federation, we as a national team program, approach these issues? I mean, of course, we can say on an individual level that there's a relative age effect. Players born earlier in the year are more inclined to get selected, but How can we really try to shine a light on how should organizations act within kind of a player development setting?
We looked at a little bit different aspects of it, but basically looking in into something that interested me as a youth national team coach and just how big is the generation. So let's take Sweden. First national team I was involved in was the '99 generation of the Swedish, uh, in Sweden.
So if we track this generation throughout their youth national team career and, and up through to the seniors, kind of first question was just, I mean, how many players is actually selected on average? How many players do we get into the program at some point?
throughout. And then the next question is, so does this differ? Do we explain which countries tend to have a broader selection generation by generation? Does this tend to have kind of an impact on the final result, which in this case we thought would— the most interesting would be, so do we get senior national team players out of the youth system?
So that was the basis for this, and we saw first of all kind of some fairly basic results. So countries with the higher number of licensed players tend to have larger number of selected players per generation within, within the national team. Spain, France, Italy,
Germany tends to have throughout the, the under-16, 18, and 20s tend to try out more players, if we put it that way. That's the smaller countries, fewer licensed players tend to have a more narrow selection by generation, which, I mean, it's, it's a quite obvious result, but sometimes we, we actually do need to confirm empirically what we all think we know, but I wasn't able to actually find any figures on this previously.
So, so that was kind of the first step. Then we, we checked a little bit and found kind of, can we correlate it with the national team rankings? Found quite a strong relationship between the countries that tend to have higher number of players per generation in the youth national teams tend to be ranked higher on FIBA ranking on the senior level as well as the youth level, but perhaps more interestingly on the senior level.
So the teams that are more successful on the senior stage tends to have, within Europe, tends to have tryout more players in their youth system. On the women's side, this wasn't as strong. I mean, probably partly because in general, countries tend to have fewer female players selected than male players.
So, so they tend to vary more, which, I mean, if we're talking about general differences between sexes in, in kind of development, when you do your senior debut, etc., that kind of makes sense. But perhaps what I think, one thing that was for me at least the, the most maybe impactful result of this was When we look within, so we look at, we, we zoom in the level and check.
So within each country, so let's take, well, we won't take the UK as an example because you have kind of moving from, from Team England into Team Great Britain. We take an easier example, we take Spain. So if we check generation by generation where they tried out a higher number of players in the European Championship.
So the generations where more players had at least one European Youth Championship had a higher number of players debuting with the senior national team as well. So that, that I think on a practical level is probably the most impactful result we had. I mean, naively at least, that should indicate that the more players you send throughout the age categories to a European Championship, the more of them should make a senior debut.
Then of course we could argue, I mean, there's things that we couldn't look into, which is it might just be that when we have a stronger generation, we have more players that are available to get, kind of available to get selected. There's more, there's a higher number of players that we think could do good in, in a European Championship.
So we will select more of them, like we'll change more year to year. And since it's a better generation, that should also develop a higher number of— so we can't really say that, that the higher number of senior players from a generation is a direct result of selecting more players, but there's definitely something here.
Yeah.
No matter if it, if it's on a previous stage, that at a club level. So there's more clubs doing a good job in, in developing players in a certain age category. So there's just more players to choose from. And of course, when we have more good players developing in the club system, that should push more players into the senior national teams.
But there's definitely something here on kind of Differences generation to generation.
Makes sense. Makes sense. So I guess just inviting like larger pools of players to camps, things like national team tryouts are important. And then it's, it's interesting to me just seeing some of the talent ID strategies a lot of national teams are using.
I still feel like there's a, a huge focus on action capabilities and individual constraints such as height and size. Versus looking at things like attunement and, you know, really looking at skillful performance. And I guess, Anton, this flows into the next question I have, which is your paper on, uh, it was on domain-specific and domain-general cognitive functions in sports performance.
And for me, what I wanted to tie this into was I'm seeing a lot of training with lights in the basketball world.
Yeah.
Flashing lights and things like this. And typically what you see is when these lights are used, people talk about how it improves players' decision-making skills. What would you say about that?
So the paper you talk about was actually a fairly big review article we did. So a meta-analysis where we kind of group, we take all the available literature on, in the, in this case, kind of skill test of cognitive fun— different style of cognitive function, and if that actually relates to the skill level or athletic level of, of, of the athletes.
So we, we brought in, I think it was about 150 papers, and, and classify them on different kind of sets of— so what kind of cognitive functioning are we testing? Are we trying out some basic cognitive skills like just reaction time? Are we trying some more complex ones like executive function?
The thing of when you see, for example, you see green being written in red and red being written in green, and you should— you need to choose the correct one. And then more into kind of decision-making skills, which is actually, I mean, you have a stimuli in some form and you need to make a decision or anticipate what is supposed to happen.
So that's kind of the 3 levels of cognitive skills we're talking about. And then we're also talking about the stimuli you get in these tests. So what we are reacting to, do we see a video? Is it a live play situation? Is it a lie?
Like, what is it that I have to react upon? And that can be more or less specific to the context. So more or less basketball specific. So for example, there's some things done with eye tracking where you actually on the basketball court and you react to a defender.
And, and you have to make a decision there. Of course, your, your reaction to a live defender is, is more specific than watching it on a video in terms— is more specific than the action response. So how do I actually— do I write down an answer on a paper, which is obviously less skill-specific, less basketball-specific than for example, pushing a button with right or left hand, which is a little bit more specific, but still obviously not as specific as actually passing the ball left or right.
So that was kind of the basis. And as we thought, as we hypothesized before, kind of the higher type of cognitive skills. So tests. So when we test kind of decision-making skills, that predicts the, the skill level, the, the basketball level, or the sporting level of the athletes much better than kind of basic cognitive skills, which is reaction time.
Yeah.
These kind of tests. And the more specific the test, both in type of stimuli and response, kind of the more we move into— the, the better it predicts differences in, in basketball level for us, for example. So this is kind of a strong indication, especially with, with that many articles behind us, that, I mean, these kind of general low-level cognitive-based tests that are general, not sport-specific, they just don't do a very good job on, on predicting who would be better or worse.
I think if, if you use, if you would use kind of a light reaction, light reaction test, you would get— I think if I remember correctly, you would guess if you have pairs of players, so better player, worse players, you will be able to predict which one of them is better about 5.5 times out of 10.
So I mean, that's half a player better than if you ask a monkey to just choose one or the other. It's not that great, uh, it's not valid as talent screening or, or performance, even performance screening. So even if we do this with already kind of elite athletes, that just doesn't separate the better from the worst.
And even then, it's like it misaligns all the research. Some recent research by— I think it was Job Fransson— it's like pressing a light, ultimately it gets you better. Like you said, uh, Your reaction time for pressing a light. It's not your reaction time for actually playing in the game of basketball.
So it's like all that time that's spent using these things, it's not— we can't— I don't think we can call it decision-making because it's not. It's just— and it's not helping players actually get more skillful at basketball.
No. And that's the thing, like transfer of these kind of skills. So from a general setting with lights into a is just probably really low. I mean, maybe we could have an impact if we have a person, probably not even an athlete, if we have someone that is just in general extremely bad at reacting to things.
Yeah.
I mean, we might see an improvement that perhaps could translate to the basketball court if, but probably that athlete isn't really an athlete anyway, because if they're that bad on reacting, probably they won't really enjoy being on a basketball court in the first place.
Sure.
So it's kind of like we take it down to such a basic level that the transfer— as soon as you know anything about basketball, as soon as you, you're anywhere near being an athlete or a basketball player, That would— the transfer is probably just nonexistent or extremely, extremely low.
So it's kind of the return on investment on the time you spend on that is just not worth it at the end of the day.
Makes sense. Anton, we've touched on a bunch of topics today, but I just want to say thanks. Thanks so much for jumping on the podcast. I think it's a great reflection of like all your the things you're researching, the fact, you know, you can actually talk about skill hack ideas as well as some of your latest research and tie it together.
It's, it's great. So where can coaches like see more of your research? I, I, you, I think you use your Twitter to just share some resources, right?
I've been using some of my, my Twitter to share some of the results. I mean, that's perhaps not the, the most reliable place right now. A great resource in general for finding kind of research, especially on— for specific persons, is ResearchGate, which I would really recommend.
And even more so since a lot of research is still locked behind paywalls. More and more is coming out in the open and is accessible to read, but there's still a bunch of articles that paywalled. Never ever pay for those ones. First of all, nothing goes to us.
We don't get any of that money, so don't pay for it. And second of all, within ResearchGate, you can actually ask— there's just a button if you find an interesting article there. There's just a button like ask the, the researcher for the paper, and everyone tends to send them to you.
And, and mostly Most of them fairly fast as well. So that's just a great resource for, for non-academics and academics alike to kind of get into the research of someone and actually be able to get access to that.
That's basically how I learned, like, a lot of the things I learned about Skillhack. It was just research, a journey of discovery going through it. Open one paper, it leads you to another, to another.
Yeah. So, so that would, I would definitely say ResearchGate is a great resource.
Excellent. Well, Anton, thanks so much for joining us today. Much appreciated.
Yeah, thank you for having me.
Thanks for tuning into this episode of the Transforming Basketball Podcast. If you would like to learn more about the work we do, head to www.transformingbball.com to access our free resources and help spread these throughout the basketball world. If you enjoyed this episode, then please subscribe and leave a rating or review on your favorite podcast platform.
We will gladly answer any questions from today's episode via our social media platforms. See you next time on the Transforming Basketball Podcast.
