Whenever a new system or idea is introduced to the space within that sport, it usually comes across many who are skeptical due to everyone sticking to what has worked for years. Commonly, when new ideas are introduced, those pioneers fall into more scrutiny from the rest of the community due to the added pressure of not meeting what is expected of a team or player to do as a standard procedure. There have been many such cases where coaches have different ideas on how they want to approach a game and get instantly criticized on how, if any, shortcomings appear quickly.
The most prominent example I can easily point to that recently surged in popularity was the whole concept that the movie Moneyball addresses. For context, the film is based on how the Oakland Athletics decided to take a more statistical approach in building their team instead of falling into the usual scope that baseball scouts fall into when selecting their team. These types of adaptations apply to all levels of sports, since each level has its own approach and standards on how it wants its players to cover and what ideas coaches have against others.
Some want to be able to replicate a standard that intends to mirror a professional level. In contrast, some others recognize that they themselves aren’t at a professional level and find ways to fit into a system that maximizes what they are comfortable with. An example I can think of that most athletes probably run into is when a coach wants a player to play in a particular style that someone is not used to, when previously, that said player is entirely comfortable and successful in a previous style they developed. Many traditional systems now try to replicate what they want a player to replicate what they had before instead of building what the player is comfortable with now and developing off of that.
