The first thing I would do

If there is one thing you cannot teach in basketball, it is length.

But often it comes back in analysis after a campaign. At federation level, the success of a generation often depends heavily on whether or not there is an elite big in that age group. At club level, having a homegrown tall player changes the entire financial structure of a roster.

And still, many clubs and federations leave the recruitment of tall players almost entirely to coincidence.

There are enough studies explaining why exceptionally tall children often enter organized sport too late — or never at all. Motorical development, psychological insecurity, social discomfort and fear of failure all play a role. Very tall kids often struggle to control their body at an early age and, because of that, they usually don’t experience sport the same way as others do.

Which makes it even more surprising that basketball still takes such a passive approach.

We often assume that talent will eventually find its way into the system. But if you look at how many potentially high-level profiles are lost to other sports — or to no sport at all — that assumption becomes difficult to defend.

The French basketball federation understood this years ago with projects like “L’Avenir en Grand”, where the federation proactively searched for exceptionally tall children long before they were ready to compete.

Not because those players would immediately help win games.

Actually, that is exactly why these projects are rare.

Most clubs and federations are still largely driven by short-term pressure. Coaches are evaluated on their last game. Directors on this season. Presidents on the next election cycle. Long-term structural thinking is often the first thing sacrificed when immediate results become the priority.

But we all agree that one player can change an entire generation for a club or a national team.

And the profiles with the highest long-term upside are often exactly the ones that traditional youth systems fail to attract early enough.

That is why, if I ever had a role with structural impact at club or federation level, this would probably be the first thing I would focus on.

Not only because I believe it works.

But because it addresses a problem that basketball still underestimates.

What makes the idea even more interesting is how scalable it is. A local club can think about it. A federation can build an entire long-term structure around it. The principle remains the same: stop waiting for these profiles to appear naturally and start creating environments that make the sport more accessible for them.

Basketball spends a lot of time discussing tactics, skill development and decision-making.

All very important.  But sometimes the biggest difference still starts much earlier.

With who enters the gym in the first place.