That being said, Metzler and Kirk's comments raise an interesting analogy of teaching to fruit. If we take fruit, there are many different kinds of fruit, and lets face it, many of us do not like every kind of fruit and, moreover, have preferences for specific fruits. For example, my children both like bananas and strawberries but my daughter likes blueberries and my son does not. Vice versa, my son likes oranges and my daughter can take them or leave them.
These notions of fruits, therefore, are very much similar to the various teaching approaches available to teachers and coaches such as TGfU, direct instruction, cooperative learning, sport education, Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility, etc. Not all of your kids are going to like every approach and they may have preferences for certain approaches that you use. However, if you can adopt a variety of approaches to teaching your content, then you will more than likely reach more learners. On the other hand, restricting yourself to one type of teaching (or one fruit) you are assuming that all the learners you are teaching like that one approach (fruit), and this may compromise the ability of your learners to reach their full potential.
Kirk, D. 2005. Future prospects for teaching games for understanding. In Teaching games for understanding. Theory, research and practice, ed. J.I. Butler and L.L. Griffin, 213–27. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Metzler, M.W. (2005). Implications of models-based research for research on teaching: A focus on teaching games for understanding. In Teaching games for understanding. Theory, research and practice, ed. L.L. Griffin and J.I. Butler, 183–97. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.