Balance Development and Winning?

It is parent teacher conference night at your child’s school. Excited to hear about what your child has been doing so far this year, you enter the classroom with the other parents and wait to meet the teacher. As you are waiting, you look around the room at all the posters on the walls and notes on the board. It looks like the kids have been busy, and it is a great environment for your child to learn and grow. You see different lesson plans, motivational quotes on the wall, and the entire classroom looks very organized. Impressed with what you see, you assume your child has a great teacher this year.

The teacher enters the room and heads right to the front of the class, like he does every day, and prepares to address the parents. The teacher scans the room and welcomes the parents saying, “Thank you all for coming. It has been a great start of the year and I think you will be impressed with what we are doing each day in this classroom.” 

The teacher walks over to a switch on the wall to dim the lights. Turning on his IPAD, a PowerPoint presentation comes up on the big screen in the front of the room. The first slide reads, “Welcome to Mr. Smith’s Classroom.” The teacher begins by talking a little about himself and his teaching experience. Again, everything sounds great, and you are impressed with his credentials. On the next slide, Mr. Smith introduces his approach to teaching the kids this year. He describes his focus with the kids as a “balance between learning and getting high test scores.”

A stunned silence consumes the room and as you look around, you can see other parents who share your same perplexed look. The silence is broken by a mom blurting out, “What does that mean?” With confidence, the teacher replies, “Well through the year we will be doing as much learning as possible, but will need to take time to make sure your child gets high test scores as well. So, at times, I will be skipping some “less important” things to focus more time on making sure your child will score higher on the test. We will spend time on test taking strategies and focus only on what will be asked on the test. This will take away from some other things they need to learn, but their test scores will be higher.”

Bewildered by what you just heard, you raise your hand quickly. When called upon, you ask, “I thought the point of school was to teach and for my kid to learn. Shouldn’t that be the only priority for you?” The teacher quickly snaps back, “You want your child to fail the test?”

Although this is a hypothetical, the point of it is to show how we may want a different approach in the classroom for our kids. As a coach, I consistently read articles and hear coaches talk about a legitimate need to balance development and winning with their teams. It makes as much sense as a teacher defending a need to balance a child learning and getting high test scores in the classroom. We want kids to learn and have success whether on a test or in a game, but there is not a need for a balance between the two. There needs to be a strong focus on just one!

Like a teacher, the critical job of a youth coach is to teach and develop young kids. Each day, each practice (or lesson),  is about what the players need to learn today that will help them learn what they need to learn tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. Just like in the classroom, on the soccer field, or in any sport, the goal is to learn and get better. The goal is for the kids to have the opportunity to expand their understanding and knowledge of a subject in order to continue to grow. The hope is that their ability over time will vastly exceed our own. I hope our goal is not as naive and short-sighted as just doing well on a test or winning a game. The focus of anyone who is trusted to teach young kids should be much bigger and more influential on the kids’ entire lives. 

Besides, and not to openly state the obvious, but when learning and development is truly the goal of the approach, the top priority, higher test scores or winning will occur naturally overtime because  the kids are actually learning and getting better. But the reverse, taking the backwards approach by focusing on only teaching to a test or to get a win, the kids often do not learn much or grow much further beyond their current abilities and skills.

If a teacher teaches to a test, in essence the teacher is asking the kids to memorize material and regurgitate it back when asked in multiple-choice format. A kid can do well on the test by memorizing the material but have no true understanding of the information and will most likely forget it quickly afterwards. The same is true on the soccer field. 

A coach can have the players play in a manner that will help them win without really teaching and giving them a better understanding of how to play the game. Strategies like, “Kick it forward up field” or “just kick it out” are ways to help getter better results without the kids learning much. Not letting the kids take risks and try skills in games is a way to avoid mistakes that lead to a team getting scored on. A fast, aggressive, big and strong, group of 9 year olds who just kick the ball forward and chase after it, who rarely try to pass or control the ball, and who avoid taking risks WILL WIN A LOT. But at the end of the season, despite a shelf full of trophies, there will be little improvement or grow. 

Some coaches may say the balance is in when, or the situation, that the team tries to play the right way versus just trying to win the game. If it is a “big game” like a championship game in a tournament or a “rival club,” they will coach the game differently. They will coach the game to get the win than to teach. The other games that do not “mean as much,” the coaches let the kids try to play the game more, allow them to take more risks and work on weaknesses of each player and the team. 

For me this is why there is no such thing as a balance between winning and development. In this example, that coaches give all the time, shows a severe lack of balance. In reality, the coaches are teaching their players skills and how to play the game, but when it “really counts” the players are not given the chance to use the skill taught. The only time the coach is allowing the players to try to play the game in a way to help them develop is when the game is easy enough to ensure a win. That is not a balance. It is very strong bias towards getting a win. So, in both situations, the focus is still winning. It is never about the development, as it never gets to be the priority. If it was the priority, the “stakes” of the game would be irrelevant. The focus of the coach would always be the same.

The next time your child brings home an “A” on a test, ask him to explain what he learned or the information the test was about. You may be a surprised by the response or lack of response depending on the approach leading up to the test. The next time your child wins a soccer game, ask him, “What did you get better at today?”  Again, depending on the approach, there might not be a good answer.

We become fixated on measuring success in artificial ways that give us a false sense of accomplishment or indication of growth. When in reality, the only measure of success and growth that is accurate is IF you can do something you could not do before, understand something that was previously beyond your comprehension, or attained the tools to use that skill and knowledge together in way you could not before. 

There is no need for balance between development and winning. Just teach and develop players. If that is your goal, the winning will take care of itself (in time). More importantly, your impact on the players will last much longer than a single win or single season. When a coach talks about a balance between winning and development, all I hear is “I really do not understand the point of my job.” The “balance” is just a somewhat ridiculous way to try to hide the fact that the coach is not that interested in teaching and developing players as much as the final score of each game.

If you're not going to Teach, Why Coach?

It is a simple question to address a serious problem among youth coaches. Many people want to coach and enjoy doing it most of the time, but are not really interested in actually teaching the game. They may want to support the kids, encourage them, be their “buddy”, but a lot of those feelings come to a screeching halt the moment a child or a team begins to struggle. Immediately, the blame for the struggle falls on the players. According to the coach, the players are not focusing enough, not working hard enough, or just simply are not capable of “getting it” due to their current level. It is not considered whether or not there is something THE COACH can do differently to HELP or TEACH the players. It is just assumed the kids are incapable or have made a choice that they do not want to learn.

It would be nice if children did exactly what is asked, and they all learn in the same way and at the same pace. If a coach could just say, “do this” or “learn that” and each kid is magically fully capable of performing, coaching would be a much easier profession. Of course, that would not be coaching or teaching. It would be simply “telling” and expecting immediate compliance, and that is not the world we live in. In the world we live in the sky is blue, and kids (like adults) are all very different and often do not do exactly what is asked or meet our expectations right away. The world we live in requires coaches to TEACH to help kids improve. It requires patients, creativity, empathy, and a firm belief that every child is capable of learning what you are teaching. It requires the coach to be willing to consistently examine and critique his approach to decide if it is the best way to reach the players.

Is that not what we ask of the players? Is it acceptable for a player to try something once, fail, and then quit trying? Is it acceptable for the player to pass the blame on to someone else or just assume they cannot do it? For players to learn and develop they must take different approaches, and give themselves time to practice the skills coaches are trying to teach them. If the coach gives up before the player has learned it, why would we expect the players to continue try on their own? For a coach to quit when it gets hard, or to refuse to do what is difficult, does not set a good example for the players. When an approach does not work, it should not immediately be put on the kids and made to be their fault. When it does not work, the coach should find another way. He never quits… as that is the same expectation he has for his players.

“You have not taught until they have learned." – John Wooden

We are too quick to blame the kids or assume it is something they are doing, or not doing, without taking a second to look in the mirror and decide if WE CAN DO BETTER. That is coaching, that is teaching, and that is what kids, who look for us for support, deserve. If you are not willing to do that or are not really interested in teaching, than why coach? Teaching by definition is helping someone do something or learning something that previously was beyond their reach. That is not an easy task no matter what the subject. If you are really interested in teaching, than you not only EXPECT there to be struggle and setbacks, but you know they are necessary to accomplish your goal. Without a certain level of discomfort and uncertainty, there is never any growth.

Now, if you are in the “well some kids just do not want to learn” camp, then you really have stumbled into the wrong profession. It is just an excuse. That is it. An easy cliché to fall back on when something you try does not work or a player is making it more difficult than you would prefer. A real teacher will never fall back on this reasoning because it does not make sense. It is not at the core of what a teacher or coach is all about. It goes against everything educators stand for. A coach believing a kid does not want to learn, is like an artist believing something cannot be drawn or a scientist believing some problems cannot be solved.

Why do I believe that? Because we all are born wanting to learn. It is what we do from an early age. We are constantly interacting and trying to better understand our world around us from the day we are born. We are built to learn and grow, and I have not met anyone who really does not want to continue to grow in some capacity. In my time in schools and at the soccer field, I have met plenty of coaches and teachers who are not that interested in teaching, but I have not met a single child who did not want to learn.

If you are looking for a group of players who already have all the needed skills, who already know what is needed to know about the game, and who will put up little to no resistance along the way, then you want to be a babysitter, not a coach (or teacher). Real teaching is a battle, and I do not mean that in the normal sense. It is not a battle between the teacher and students or the coach and the players. It is a battle between the coach and himself. It is the battle between the part of the coach who wants to do it his way and the side who knows he needs to do it differently to help the kids. It is the battle between making excuses and finding solutions. It is the battle between blaming circumstances and changing the situation. It is the battle between ego and expertise.

So I go back to my original question. If you are not really interested in teaching, why coach? If you do not want to take the time to do all you can to help each player learn and grow, are not willing to roll up your sleeves and go to work, accept setbacks, learn from failure, be creative and grow your ability to reach kids, then why put yourself through the stress of coaching? Some may say they just like to coach kids, but “just being there” is not enough and it does not equate to coaching. You cannot just show up and the kids will get better. Just like the kids cannot just show up and get better. They have to put in effort and focus on the task at hand, but the coach is the one who has the ability to create an environment for that to happen.

Every kid can be reached, every kid can learn, every kid can be inspired to want more and expect more, but it requires a coach… a teacher, who is willing to do everything necessary to help that child find his path and reason. That is what a coach does. That is, by definition, our job.

Tryouts... Really?

Tryouts are part of club soccer and something any player who wants to participate must go through at some point in the current system of youth soccer. Throughout the country, club teams all have their own approach to selecting kids and placing them on teams for the upcoming year. Often, the identification process is influenced by the rules of the governing leagues or state associations, so players’ experiences may be different depending on where they live. These rules dictate when and how tryouts can be done and the manner in which organizations notify players about which team they made or did not make. Despite these differences, tryouts all share many of the same frustrations and anxiety saturated situations that make the experience less than ideal for the players and the their families.

A question I have about the tryout process… Is there a need for tryouts for majority of the kids who attend? You may be asking yourself what I mean. Let me explain. For most clubs, the majority of the kids at tryouts are kids who participated with the club the previous year. For the past 10 months, those players have been practicing and playing games with the same staff who is now “evaluating” them during a tryout to decide their placement for next season. Are these players spots going to be determined by their development over the past 10 months or by a few days of tryouts? Which makes more sense?

I would assume that the previous 10 months of coaching and watching those players practice and compete would be enough information to determine where they should be placed for next year. What are the same coaches going to see in an extra three days of tryouts (roughly 3 to 4 hours) that was missed throughout the entire previous year? If the club was organized in a way to allow all the coaches for a particular age group to interact and coach all the players in that age group over the course of the year, it would be very easy for those coaches to look at that group of players and decide where each player should be placed before going through any type of “tryout” process for the following season.

For these players at tryouts, what can they do to help or hurt their chances of making a certain level team? Does a player who struggled during the season get the nod to move up a team because of a good day at tryouts? Or vice versa? I cannot see a coach moving a kid down a team due to struggling at tryouts after having an outstanding year. If a coach or club’s approach with returning players is that their placement on teams is solely based on the tryout, and the previous year is not considered, then I can see a need for those players to "tryout" as it is an actual tryout since everyone is starting with a "clean slate" and performance in those couple of days will determine placement. Since this is not the case, there is not a real need for those players to go through that process. Nothing is gained or lost for those players, so to call it a “tryout” is misleading and can create the wrong impression of what is going on for both the players and parents. Players show up looking to show their best, but in reality, probably a lot has already been determined before showing up (and it should be).

Think of it from a different perspective. If you were a coach who wanted to be rehired to coach next year, how would the club determine whether or not to bring you back? I think we would want to be evaluated over our body of work from the entire year versus having the club bring coaches in for a couple days to to run a couple sessions, and based on those sessions, it is determined whether which teams we coach or not given a team to coach. As coaches, I think we would logically ask, "Why is my placement being based on a couple of training sessions, when a significantly more comprehensive amount of information is available to evaluate my performance as a coach?"

What about the “bubble” players? Even with these players, I think coaches have a pretty good idea of where they fall, and again, I do not think a couple days of tryouts make a difference for these players either. If players were close in ability during the season, I do not think it makes sense to use tryouts to set them apart. I think that is an easy way out for coaches or club. Instead of really sitting down and analyzing how each player did over the course of the year, strengths and weaknesses, potential for growth, attitude, consistency, etc… it is easier to just let the kids compete for one or two more days and pick who came out on top. Easier for us to say, “Hey, it was close, but this player had a better tryout” than “we took some time to really look at the season as a whole and this is what we decided.”

If those players are not at tryouts, we might lose them because they go to another club’s tryout. If a player wants to change clubs, they will change clubs. Having them attend your tryout does not stop that from happening. If the club has provided great value and experiences to the player over the course of the year, then why would the player leave? If the club did not, having the players attend tryouts just tries to limit options due to fear a player will leave because of not following through on what was promised previously. In short, that is not a good enough reason.

One of the HUGE benefits of this would be the ability for the staff to really focus on evaluating and working with new players. The coaches can spend extra time getting to know the players and families of kids who are trying out for the club for the first time. Working with them in a smaller group environment and being able to spend the limited time of tryouts really getting an understanding of the players’ abilities and goals. When there is a massive number of kids at tryouts, everyone gets lost in the crowd. Each player gets limited time on or around the ball and has much fewer opportunities to be evaluated by the staff. Even with more evaluators, often there is not enough information gained during the tryouts to really have a good evaluation to base a decision on how, where, and why to place a kid on a team. Often, with imperfect and incomplete information, there is a lot of “guessing” on where newer players should be placed or not placed, and there is more of a chance for error.

Even if you want the returning players to attend tryouts, why not be up front and let them know, that they are not being evaluated during that time. Those players’ evaluation and placement is based off the entire previous year, and not just a couple of days. It could be good to have the players there to interact with new players, and to see how new players interact with current players. But, the focus of the coaches can still be solely on the new players to try to gain as much insight about their current level of play and where a good place within the club would be for that player. It is a great service to provide for the kids who are showing an interest in your club or team.

Although this is a big change (or maybe not), it would not be that hard to implement, and I think it would be a welcomed change for players who are currently part of your club. It is tremendous customer service from the parent’s and player’s perspective. The club is saying, “We have done our job to coach and teach your child over the past year. We are very familiar with his or her abilities and will place him or her based on our observations over the past year.” If the player is nervous about placement, as many kids have an idea where they stand, they can take that time to look at another club as well, which they probably would do anyway. The tryout process is not a couple of days at the end of the year anymore, but instead a culmination of what a player has done over the course of the season. Now, when the season is over the player can relax, and trust the coaches to make the best decision based on what the player has done all year. I think we all would prefer to be evaluated in this manner, over what we have done over an extended period of time, versus just a couple days.

An even bolder idea would be for the clubs to offer spots before tryouts to all the current players. Then, tryouts are used to help each team meet its individual needs, and spaces left on the roster from players declining a spot. If a club is really focused on developing players, than it should not be that concerned about picking up better players at tryouts to make a team better. The club should be more concerned about continuing the development of its current players the following season. If the club or coach are confident in the current players’ potential for growth in their development system, than bringing in new players is not a priority or how the club relies on making teams better.

I think it is clear that tryouts are not just a way to place kids in appropriate level teams and competition (which is not always the case), but a way clubs battle with one another to try to make their teams better by recruiting players in from other clubs. Often clubs questions a player's “loyalty” when a player leaves their club for another for whatever reason. It is often in the context that the club has provided (although the player paid for) a tremendous experience and training to get better and the player “just leaves” after all these seasons.

But on the other hand, when a club cuts or demotes a player due to “better” players coming into the club, the “loyalty” question now comes from the player and parents. In their mind, they have committed to this club and its philosophy, and then just like that, they are moved off a team (they have grown close to) or cut from the club entirely. After the thousands of dollars, volunteer work and helping the club in various ways, they are shown the door or moved closer to it.

You may feel I am painting an unfair picture of the tryout process, but I think it is time we talk about the part of the process that gets swept under the rug or just accepted as “that is how we have always done it.” Being part of a club or team used to mean a lot more. Like most clubs, when you join, pay your dues, and put in the needed work to build the club and promote the club, better yourself within the club, and represent the club to your highest level, you would think the club would not show you the door as soon as someone comes along who has more value in their eyes.

If we are going to have tryouts, that is fine, but let’s at least do it in a way that does not make us look borderline reckless with the kids we work with all year round. The kids that are in your club, should not have to tryout for coaches who they have worked with all year long. You know where they stand, or you should. Let them know where they stand at the end of the year, and then let them decide what they want to do. During tryouts, focus your attention and resources and really evaluating and getting to know new players interested in the club. It will help to really know if A) the player is a good fit for the club and B) that the club is a good fit for the player by the added time given to observing the player and discussing the club’s philosophy/programs.

For your returning players, they should already know where they stand based on the 10 months of practices and games leading up to those tryouts. To make them feel like they are "trying out" for their placement for the following year seems illogical and unfair. The benefit of being part of the club the previous year(s) is that the coaches know these players already and there is no evaluation needed at that point. Those players, if they wish to return, can relax after all their hard work from the previous year and be placed accordingly. If they are returning, the end of the season does not mark the start of the most anxious time of the year, but time for a much needed vacation.

Is this an irrational attempt of changing a system? Maybe… but that is my idea. What is yours?