Alex Sarama is joined by Tom Parry, a professor at Indiana University, Kokomo. Tom shares his insights on applying ecological dynamics in sports coaching, specifically…
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 Tom Parry, a professor at Indiana University, Kokomo. Tom shares his insights on applying ecological dynamics in sports coaching, specifically in soccer. He discusses the challenges coaches face when transitioning from traditional coaching methods to an ecological dynamics framework. Tom emphasizes the importance of combining actions and decisions in practice activities and highlights the need to design activities that involve decision-making and game-like scenarios. He encourages coaches to be open to new ideas and to value the expertise of both researchers and practitioners.
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 transcrição corresponde ao áudio original em inglês.
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 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. Delighted to be joined by Tom Parry today.
From the UK to Indiana, Tom is a professor at Indiana University Kokomo. And really, I think Tom's going to be such an interesting guest because He's at the confluence of both the research and its practical application. And Tom's done a lot of work in soccer, football for our European audience, and it's just going to be a great conversation today.
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.
So, Tom, thanks so much for joining the show.
Awesome. Thanks for having me.
Absolutely. So, I've asked this question a few times to different guests on the podcast, and I think it's always interesting because we get so many different replies, and I think it's so useful for people to connect this idea. This is the question, Tom.
If, if you were to maybe meet a coach for the first time who was being exposed to an ecological dynamics framework, how would you even describe what this is in layman's terms? Is there any maybe low-hanging fruit that you would use to introduce this to them?
Yeah, like, I think most people are going to come from like a traditional background, right? Like how we've been taught in school, how we've been kind of taught and coached in our sports. It's been very influenced by cognitive psychology. So again, we believe in that there's a right way to do something.
We need to do repetitive kind of practice to master that. And then the magic happens and somehow that transfers to the game, right? So for me, it's like getting them away from the idea of just practicing actions alone doesn't help, right? Like, like every action is tied to a decision.
It's tied to that perception. Again, what we would call perception-action coupling, right? How do you design practice activities that involve decision-making and the actions that you're looking for kind of in the game? So like, I feel like in those conversations, like, it kind of puts the emphasis back on them of really, like, how would you design an activity?
Like, what are you trying to do? And then we can kind of work through it together. So you're showing something that is applicable to what, what they want to do. But again, under that kind of broad umbrella of combining actions and decisions together and not doing them separately.
Love it. That's so nicely put. And on this note, something we hear a lot, both of us, because we've spoken about this, is the idea of fundamentals first. And we get this a lot in both our sports where coaches say, you know, I like what this is, but don't they need fundamentals first and then we can add chaos complexity later?
I just got one today where someone said, they said, you can't ask someone who can't walk to run a marathon. And we get that a lot. What would you say to that, Tom?
Yeah, like, I know someone who wrote a really good blog about fundamentals and functionals. So, like, yeah, it's really common, right? Like, for us, we're both invasion sports, right? Like, so basketball and soccer are a lot more alike than people would probably realize.
But again, like, the passing, dribbling, shooting, right? Those are the 3 fundamentals in our sports. I'd say something— I said this in my class yesterday, in my motor development class. It's like, if you look at elite sport, if there was one correct kind of fundamental technique, they would all shoot, pass, dribble exactly the same way.
And they just clearly don't, right? So, like, so even at the top level of performance, you're seeing that there's such variability in how they're solving movement problems. And again, even some of the people that we probably laud, right? And say, oh, you know, this person's so good.
They're the ones that are the most adaptable, right? That have loads of different solutions and find a functional way to perform. Like Steph Curry is a great example, right? Like everyone thinks he's amazing. He's a great player, but he does things that are a little bit different, right?
And again, it's unique to his organismic constraints, like his size, his strength, et cetera. His shots changed over time. If you, if you look at it carefully, Because he was quite a skinny kid in, in college, and then now he's obviously been working with trainers and stuff for a long time.
Well, because those organismic constraints are changing, his functional movement solutions, functional movement behavior also changes, right? Because now I might see different affordances that I didn't see before, right? Different opportunities to solve that problem.
Awesome. And on that note, I think it's really interesting that you raise the example of Steph Curry, because I use him a lot too, because what a great example of an adaptable performer. But I saw an interesting video a couple months ago where he was talking about his shooting form and about the biomechanical positions for what's correct.
And then it was actually very apparent because they showed him shooting after, and how he shot was actually completely different to what he said in the videos. Is that something you've seen a lot where maybe it's— I guess it's Gibson's idea of knowledge about versus knowledge of, but we see a lot of players verbalize things, but then what they're actually doing is very different.
Yeah, there's a really good— I can't remember the guy's name, but I think it was like a Russian sprinter, like a classic example of this. He had like a really good sprint start, right? I think he might be like a 200-meter runner or something like that.
And so he like taught people, like he went out, did kind of symposiums, like, this is the way you do the start. And then someone found videos of him starting and kind of compared it to what he was saying, and he wasn't doing what he was teaching, right?
Like, there was a real mismatch between that. And yeah, I think that's a, that's a good example. Like, being able to describe what to do isn't the same as doing it, right? And I think that's a really hard thing for some coaches to kind of get across.
Like, you can have players that can say, oh yeah, I need to do this, right? Like, but then actually producing the action, because it's driven by the interaction with information in the environment, they perform differently, right? I think there's a lot of that, like, as a, as a misconception.
I think sometimes coaches fall into that because, again, their own experience, right? Like, well, I was coached this way, so therefore, like, I mean, that must be right because then it's— that's tied to me, right? Like, the way I was taught and how I played, it's quite personal, right?
So it's really hard to kind of change. And sometimes we need to take a step back. I, you know, I said to some young girls, like my, uh, my youngest daughter's age, like U9, right? So these kids are like 8 years old. And I said, I was just like, I don't think you should go to like one-on-one training, right?
I don't believe in that. We have places near us that like agility training or technical training and stuff like that. They They use technology because it's shiny and phone and that kind of stuff. And I said, I was like, I don't think that's a good use of your time or money.
I was like, I said, I got grass. I wasn't rich when we grew up. We grew up very working class kind of like area. And I used to just go to a field and do different stuff, right? Like I'd try and hit a traffic cone like in the middle of the field, go chase the ball, try and hit it again.
I was like, and I actually became a much better technical soccer player when I was coaching because I had a ball at my feet all the time and I'd try different things. I'd explore different ways to do it. So now when I play, I can do things that people are like, wow, like, how do you do that?
It's like, because I've just been messing around, right? Like, I've not been taught. I've kind of given myself the opportunity to explore how many ways I can solve this problem. I think that's a really key component for coaches is you're not as important as you think you are.
The problems you set are the most important things. And sometimes we need to kind of not get in the way, I think is really important.
I love that. That's a great line. So you're in a unique situation, I'd say, Tom, because you're researching and you're doing a lot of work in that field, but then you're really living this in terms of you're doing a lot of sessions on court with kids of different abilities and ages.
What would you say maybe are some of the reasons there is this gap that exists right now between the research and the practice? And maybe, I guess, a 2-part question. Are there any solutions that you've maybe thought of to help reduce this gap a little bit and really get more practitioners understand the research?
But also, I guess the other way, getting researchers, I guess maybe I don't want to say more attuned to what where practitioners are and what they're doing, but maybe finding a way to get this kind of message across.
Yeah, like Keith Davids made a really good statement on a podcast or some presentation I watched. He said, like, coaches' experience is really useful, right? Like, we're not going against— it's not like academics versus coaches. Like, we, we should be, and we are trying to work together to make things better, right?
But not accepting the, the status quo we've always done it this way, right? Like, I, I want evidence. I want you to tell me, look, like, this works in this way, what we're trying to do, which again, ultimately for all sports is transfer to the game.
So like, I like that idea of we've got to value each other, and I feel that there are more academics now that are about— there are people involved in coaching like myself, so like, we obviously value the coaching side, but I feel as a There's a lot more of that from the academic side, and it's like really just getting or convincing coaches to be more open, to be like, okay, like, tell me about this stuff.
I've heard you talk about this stuff and you've sent me some things, but like, I'm kind of interested. Like, just open that door, right? And there's lots of people that are more than willing to help and kind of discuss those ideas. What I've started to do in America for soccer there's a big kind of coaching organization, used to be the National Soccer Coaches Association of America, NSCAA, changed to United Soccer Coaches now, right?
So they do like a conference where the MLS draft is done, right, at their kind— they have presenters of all sorts of different people up there. So I presented once there based on a paper that I wrote in like their magazine. I was finding the same thing.
It was like maybe a bit disillusioned with academia, right, of like No one cares about this stuff that we're writing, right? Like, I need to get it into the hands of people who are at the coalface, right? And yeah, there's paywalls to journal articles, right?
So that makes it a little bit more difficult too. They're hard to read sometimes, right? Particularly for complex kind of movement behavior. So they have a publication called Soccer Journal, and they have some stuff in there that's like, you know, classic soccer blurb things.
Uh, but I reached out to the editor and said, hey, this is my background, kind of got a foot in both camps. Like, I teach at the university level, I coach like 3 days a week, and then on the weekend I'd like to write some papers kind of bridging the gap between science and practice.
So I went to where the coaches are, really kind of worked on presenting some of these ideas in maybe a bit watered down, but like at least some of the concepts and have some practical applications of it. And yeah, I've had some people reach out and be like, oh, I read that, it was really interesting, like, do you have time to talk?
Or we've gone back and forth on email. But again, it's like you're getting the ones that have opened the door to let that happen. I work in the biggest soccer club in Indiana, right? Like, we train at a facility that has 30+ fields, full-size fields, right?
It's like, it's insane. But very few people are kind of like open to that because Hey, I don't know why, but like maybe they look at me as a threat that I'm challenging the status quo, right? Like, oh, we shouldn't be doing it this way that we think is right.
And instead of looking at it as what's right for the kids, we're looking at it as I don't want my ideas to be wrong. So therefore I'm just going to ignore those ideas. And like, no, like for me, it's all about the care.
If someone comes out and does a great research project, says, hey, the constraints-led approach in ecological dynamics is a load of rubbish.
Yeah.
and they present a good case, I'll start believing in it, right? Like, I, I will follow the evidence every single time.
Such a good point. So something I've seen a lot of, I'd say especially in the last 3 years, is ideas from the classroom trying to be applied to sports coaching. And that's— I've spoken about it a few times, but what we've seen a lot of is terms such as, I guess, Working versus long-term memory retrieval practice, forgetting curves.
And, you know, I've been quite critical of that just because it doesn't align with an ecological approach. And I think coaches, it can be very difficult because it comes across like it's science and it sounds like it's evidence-based, but obviously it's very different with the ideas that we believe in.
So what are your thoughts on that and kind of any advice you'd have for coaches who have been really heavily influenced by those ideas?
Yeah, again, like, there's some good things in education, right? Like, and there's people doing all sorts of different work. It's just what's been accepted by the mainstream, again, has been really driven by this kind of cognitive psychology framework, right?
Could you just say right now, Tom, just sorry to interrupt, just for the listeners to understand a little bit just what cognitive psychology is?
Yeah, so like cognitive psychology looks at the brain as a computer. Like, it's like a processing system. The information in the environment isn't good enough to act upon, so I have to process it. I have to kind of interact with my memories, what I did before, I can move.
Which again, there's a huge novelty problem there, right? You present yourself— present with a new problem that you've never experienced. Well, how do you do it? Oh, well, I interact with the environment. Well, let's just cut out the middleman, right? Like, let's just do that all the time.
I think Andrew Wilson, like, psych scientist on, on Twitter, he made a really good point and said we need to look at verbs. He said like, we don't have memory, we remember things, right? And I was like, okay, like I like that kind of distinction.
That because, again, like you do, you do remember things, but that doesn't require the need to store it up here. One example I use in my class quite often is if you compare these 2 approaches in cognitive psychology, we would say again, like this information that I'm receiving from the environment isn't good enough, so I have to process it in some way.
Whereas on the ecological side, it's perfect, right? Like, it gives me everything that I need to know to, to act upon that. So why is past information stored in memory better than real-time information? Like, to me, that doesn't make sense, right? Like, surely, like, what's happening right now is most important.
What happened a while ago in a different context and under different constraints You're not going to get a good answer from that. And then often the rebuttal that I get from students, because they're learning, like, some of the ideas, they'll say, yeah, but, well, you just update it with the new information, the real-time information.
I was like, again, so then why do we need that, right? Why do we need this part over here when you're saying it's the real information that really gets the action that we want to occur? It's tough because it's all about exposure. When I played, we did drills.
A lot of the stuff we did was game-based because that's what our coaches that were volunteers, like, thought was the best. That's what— that's why we went to practice, is to play games. I didn't go to practice to dribble around cones. And even like exposure that I had, I've coached at high schools here, I've coached at clubs, I've coached college here.
Like, we all keep doing the same thing because we think it's right. And I think coaches need to take that extra step of like, Don't think it's right, find the evidence that it's right. And when you kind of dig a bit deeper, you tend to find that there's not a lot of evidence that those things actually work.
It's just, it's almost like agreement by consensus.
Hey coach, I wanted to take a quick break from this episode to let you know that we just launched our new website at transformingbball.com. The goal of our site was to present basketball coaches and practitioners with the ultimate resource for applying evidence-based ideas.
It contains a number of free resources such as blogs, practice activity ideas, as well as some of our paid products including clinics, workshops, and courses. The website contains everything you need to take your coaching to the next level. Find the website in our show notes or head to transformingbball.com.
That was great. And I should have asked you the cognitive psych bit before the teaching question, but I think that really helps people make sense of why things like retrieval practice don't make sense, because we're not retrieving anything. Yeah, it's the same thing.
Forgetting— I mean, it's so linearized.
Yeah, we're attuning. We're doing attuning practice, right? I'm attuning to sources of information. In the environment, where are P? I wrote. I've written a paper that like I've not sent it. This is like for Soccer Journal again, right? It's like I I have to be careful because I need things for tenure, but I also like like to put things out that I think are useful for the field.
So I came up with this idea that you know we have principles of play, right? It's like in soccer, U.S. soccer gave us these pyramids. Put these principles of play at the bottom of the pyramid. They're foundational. For our understanding of the game.
So I redesigned their diagram where it's all together because they are all together. You're not just attacking, right? There's a transitional period from attack to defense and that kind of stuff. So yeah, I try and coach with a principle-based approach. If I give them instruction, which are constraints, it's very simple ones like when you have space, dribble.
When you don't have space and you're under pressure, look to pass because that means there's space somewhere else. Well, that works in every situation. Like, I don't have to say in this phase of the game. No, like, whatever's happening, that one of those 2 things is probably beneficial to do.
Then I started to look a little bit kind of like deeper, or maybe more of like an umbrella on top of that, and came up with this idea of like universal principles. So I had 5: the goal, intentions, space, relationships, and transition. So the goal of the game is to score and to stop the other team from scoring.
I can teach that to 6-year-olds. Get in the way, right? Like when they're going to goal, just at least get in the way. Yeah, that becomes more complex as you go through the levels of maybe how we're doing, how we're going to do that.
When we look at the intentions, like what are we actually trying to do? Like, and again, in relation to the opponent, yes, our intention is to score, but our intention is to create opportunities to score. By manipulating the opposition. Like, I love your idea of like dominoes.
You're searching for dominoes, right? Once they start falling, we keep going, right? Like, we find that opportunity again. That's an intention, right? You're intentionally looking to do that because you know it creates better opportunities to score. Space— spread out when we've got the ball, get tighter when we don't have the ball.
Okay, you see that in a basketball game. Relationships— where am I? Where am I in relation to my teammates? The opponents, the goal or the basket, right? Like the ball, how does that change my role, like on the, on the court? And then transition, like you are attacking or defending, there's no in-between.
If you have the ball, you're attacking. If you don't have the ball, you're defending. So getting them used to that, right? Like there's no rest period in between. So by using those kind of like universal principles, I can now like go to practice and say, okay, this is Does my practice include these universal principles?
Are they learning, not as like maybe a central component of the practice, but are they learning at least most of those 5 things that we're trying to do? What it does, it helps me reflect on my practice design because now I can look at an activity and be like, ah, like that really only hits space.
Yeah.
Right? I'm not really working on them working together, which is important. It's a team sport. Some of them interact with each other, right? So my relationship with my teammates and my relationship to the opponent and space really interact with each other because I— everybody moves to find their own space, right?
Like, it's like in basketball, you'll see kids, they'll run into space if they think they're going to get passed to because they want the ball. Nothing wrong with that. The next level for me of like what a really good player is, they do that, but then they also move to create space for other people.
And other people then see that affordance to create those opportunities to score again. So like, there's some interaction in there, but again, like, as an umbrella concept, I find it seems to work a little bit better as a reflective tool to look at practice design.
I love what you said just too about the, you know, feedback is a form of constraint. And a lot of people think we're never instructing, but I think especially there's a key difference. What we're typically doing is making them aware of principles of play.
And I might instruct there, but it's far more exploratory where it's a principle of play. It's not a game model where they're doing one thing. And then the key difference is then how they actually move to solve that problem. It's going to be different every time.
And we're not offering instruction on how to solve the movement problem. It could be something like dominoes, like you said. We could say, all right, when we have dominoes, we've really got to look to convert this advantage within 6 seconds. How they do that, it's going to be— there's going to be different things.
And we might instruct, we could say, let's look for more cuts to end dominoes, but then it could be from anywhere. It's not just one thing that's going to be the same every time.
I'll say things, I catch myself like saying things in practice where I'll say, how can you create space for your teammates? Right? So like I'm posing a question to hopefully help them solve that problem a bit different. And again, and some of it too is there's some other areas like psychological safety that I think is really important.
Even the young ones that I have, they're like petrified of making a mistake. And so I'm like, it's fine, right? Like, it's practice. I expect you to do loads of— find loads of ways that don't work. I said, but you'll find like a few ways that do work, and you also start to recognize when those things work, which again, the time element is really important.
Like, there is a time to dribble, there is a time to pass. There are consequences to that. Like, driving to the basket is awesome because what happens is the defense collapses, which then creates space somewhere else. Are there times when driving to the basket doesn't make sense?
Yeah, right? Like, so you've got to be able to teach that in your activities, right? Like, they've got to become attuned to those things of like, when should I do this? When should I not do this?
Absolutely. So I guess, Tom, this is as we wrap up here. My last question is a big one, and it's about it depends. And this is something we see a lot. I wouldn't— I'd say, you know, yes, we see it in research circles.
There's a small group of researchers talking about how, you know, information processing can be blended with a constraint-led approach. But I'm probably— I think it's more interesting on the practical side where Coaches see a CLA activity and they think it's just a creative tool without maybe seeing how it fits in as part of a wider methodology.
And I say coaches maybe don't see why we would not decompose completely and go to repetitive tasks. We might play a game that's unopposed, especially with young kids, right? But it's— I'll give you an example. They call it killer in basketball, where the kids shoot from the free throw line.
But typically what you see is like 10, 15 kids in the line, always from the same spot.
Yeah.
You could do that with play for kids, always shooting in a different location. But, you know, you would not go down to drills and repetitive practice. And a lot of coaches don't understand why. You know, why is it that philosophically we rely on other ideas like task simplification as opposed to really compromising on our beliefs and, you know, having to resort to drills?
Yeah, we— so like, the couple things, like, there's— we believe that information is really important. We talk about information movement couplings, right? Like, so we don't move without information, without the perception of information, and we don't perceive without kind of moving too. So I think that's like a key component.
Like, in our approach, we're much more tied into the idea of the value of information and trying to maintain that in our practice tasks. On the other side of that too, like, when we— like, when you compare like an information processing approach And ecological dynamics.
So I see those as the kind of theoretical competitors, so to speak. And why I don't buy into the it depends argument, you can mix those theories together. If you look at those 2 theories, you cannot. They have such fundamentally different tenets. If you believe this, you can't believe this, right?
Like for us, we believe in direct perception, right? Like the information out there I can directly interact with. To help guide my movement. Information processing doesn't believe in that, right? They believe in indirect perception. So like a fundamental level, they are literally working against each other, right?
They're disagreeing at such an important level. You can't do that. Like, can you? It depends methods. Yeah. And like Rob Gray has a really good podcast where he kind of compares those 2 theoretical approaches and says like, it doesn't constrain your toolbox. You can use all sorts of different things.
And again, it's about the level of participants that you're working with. You're sliding up and down the representative scale, and you don't want to spend loads of time in like a full game. That would be the most representative. But you don't want to spend a lot, if any, time down in really, really, really unrepresentative situations too.
Like, I do ones— one of the first activities we do Every day, a little bit of technical work, and it's just a square, and they'll do dribbling and passing across the grid. So like the 3 balls start in the middle, they dribble to someone on the outside, they take the ball, they go and find somebody else, right?
So there's 3, and then once they've got moving, I'll throw another ball in for somebody. So there's 4 people moving all the time. Well, they're not against each other, but at least now I'm having to kind of find the gaps. I'm trying to Help them attune to space, right?
Where is the space? Then we build that into another activity that we call crisscross. So I have one team going north-south on a square, one person each end, 3 people in the middle. I have one team going east-west, right? So orange going north-south, green going east-west.
Ball starts on the outside. You've got to play the ball in. You've got to make one connecting pass minimum within those 3 people. And then you've got to get it to the other side, and then it comes back, right? I can— and if you pass to the outside person, you go and take their spot.
So there's movement, there's some shape relationships. Where am I in relation to my teammates, to the opposite team? They don't tackle each other, right? So it's an unopposed activity, but there's moving parts, right? Then I'll— we'll do it maybe 2 or 3 times, and on the 3rd time I'll say, okay, now it's a race.
That's a constraint, right? That's— so you start to see different— instead of me saying, You need to move faster, right? I just make it a race, you against them, and losers do some silly punishment thing that they have to do. You start to see them moving the ball a bit quicker.
They make maybe a few more mistakes, right? Because they're panicking when they don't really need to. So that's an unopposed activity. I believe in all the stuff that ecological dynamics and constraints-led approach. But because I work with a certain age group, we spend a little bit of time, like maybe we do that for 10 minutes.
Our practice is 75 minutes. So what do you think we're doing with the rest of the time? It's all game-based, 1v1, 3v2, like versions with different kind of constraints to get them to kind of seek and explore for what I want them to look for, right?
I'd see enormous value in that time in basketball, especially for coaches with like under-10s, under-12s, under-14s. That's a great way you can still allow players to develop functional solutions in dribbling without having a live defender, but having it variable and having to perceive something.
So it's, I definitely see a value to that and it's a great practical example. So Tom, I wanted to say thanks so much for coming on the podcast. Like I knew that's why I had to get you on, just, but just seeing how you make this so easy for listeners to understand, it's awesome.
What's the best way that coaches listening to this can follow you and see the work you're doing?
So I, my work email is thparry@iu.edu. So that's my work email if people are interested in just chatting about something. I do try and be relatively active on Twitter. There's like a bit more academics that are kind of getting on there now and sharing some ideas.
I'll try and share some, some good things and then some things that's just like, this annoys me, so I need to tell somebody. About that. I just posted one about drills, about how to get, how to get lots of likes on a drill.
And, uh, so my handle on there is Kestrel Psych, so K-E-S-T-R-E-L-P-S-Y-C-H. There's some interest, like there's some threads that I've done that have got quite a lot of attention that have been relatively useful. Talks about some of these sorts of ideas. And again, like, people can message me on there and can interact.
Tom, I got a good laugh. I just read that last tweet right now. And it's hilarious. People have to go check that out. I think we'll have to include it in the show notes because it's— I'm seeing this every day on basketball Twitter, like a drill which is going viral, and it's— yeah, it's driving me nuts.
Yeah, I use one. I posted one below it about, um, I think it's like it's Utah basketball, like the college, and it's called the Michigan State drill, right? And it's like there's nothing, there's nothing in there that you would do in basketball. They're rebounding, jumping up, rebounding the ball, and then throwing it before they hit the ground.
Right. It's like, I'd go nuts if my team did that in game. So interesting.
Tom, thanks so much. Coaches listening, it's Kestrel Psych on Twitter. We'll include it too. And just, yeah, big thanks for everything you're doing, Tom.
Awesome. Thanks. Thanks 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 ideas 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.
