Running up the score or running down the competition? To What End?

This week the girls U12 club team that I co-coach easily won an indoor game against a local town team. When we jumped ahead by 4 goals we told the girls that they had to string at least 3 passes together before shooting on goal, that they had to use their moves and that shots had to be with their left foot (if their right foot is the dominant one). I have been involved in games where we were on the receiving end of mismatches. It's no fun for the losing team and I believe it doesn't teach the players on the winning team anything. Mercilessly running up the score also is poor sportsmanship, shows a lack of respect for the opponent and can let the girls slip into complacency so that they're caught off guard when they play a stronger team down the road. (I especially love the teams that celebrate every goal in a drub fest as if they just won the World Cup while their parents are ringing cowbells. Geesh! Get a life!)

Since the opposing team was not creating enough pressure on us (in other words, they were “ball watching”) we imposed conditions on the girls to make the game more challenging for them without disrespecting the other team. We explained to the parents in a team e-mail that we felt it was a good time for the girls to work on what we have been teaching them in practice: when you run into pressure you relieve this pressure by moving the ball elsewhere by a combination of back and square passes then moving into areas with less pressure before the defense can adjust. The natural tendency of players is to plow straight down the field until they run into the defense or run out of space then lose the ball (which is the approach you'll see in some other programs). Taking this “kick and run” approach creates ugly soccer with frequent turnovers and lost scoring chances. We would prefer the girls to possess the ball until they can penetrate the defense with through passes, wall passes or crosses. Playing this way also involves our keeper in the play as well. But, most important, this way of playing the game is more attractive to watch and is effective at all levels of competition.

I’ve heard coaches for the team that relish running up the score claim that they let their players do so because they don’t know what else to do, that it’s too hard to turn off the competitiveness, and that their players shouldn’t have to pull in their reins. While this might be true for professional sports where coaches and players are paid to win, I don’t accept this at the youth level. (Even in the premier league in Massachusetts the standings limit the goal differential of a win so that winning by more than 5 goals doesn’t help in the final standings.) I believe this rationale is an excuse that feeds the coach’s and player’s egos. In other words, it’s a rationalization for poor sportsmanship and for treating the opponents as objects, as something less than human. I feel the purpose of competition is to test and expand your limits. If the opposition can’t provide enough resistance to challenge you, I believe it’s better for everyone to impose conditions on yourself to make the game harder and therefore more rewarding.

There also is the issue of empathy for what your opponent experiences. Easily and gleefully crushing a team can demoralize the opponents. What is to be gained doing so? A false inflation of one’s self-worth at the expense of someone else? A person who has a strong self-image doesn’t rely on making others feel bad in order to improve how they feel about themselves.

Playing Time

Playing time pops up occassionally in the different coaching forums that I monitor. Over the years of coaching both in town and club (in MAPLE and MASC) I’ve tried to make sure everyone plays as evenly as possible. Everyone doesn’t necessarily play equal number of minutes primarily due to how many players I might have for each position. However, I don’t have players who are parked on the bench for long periods of time. While I don’t track playing time down to the minute I do have line ups and general sub patterns worked out before the game. My lineups are fairly flexible to account for injuries, last minute illnesses, etc. Maybe I’m wrong but my hunch is that many club coaches feel that giving equal playing time is “kumbaya” soccer. Over the years I’ve heard stories from parents whose daughters played in other clubs but left or quit entirely due to lack of playing time. Several years ago at a Virginia Beach tournament I talked to a coach from a large Massachusetts club who proudly told me that he had 11 starters who came off the field only if they were running out of gas, made a major mistake or were injured. The others rode the pine and maybe got a few minutes a game. He told his players that if they found themselves sitting on the bench it was their signal to look for another club.

I don’t happen to agree with this approach because I feel the best way to test and strengthen players is in the heat of competition. Several years ago I read Andy Barney’s “Training Soccer Legends" in which he explains the philosophy and training methods of the Kansas City Legends Club (which he founded). Barney (USSF “A” license) outlines a number of things he does in training that differs from the traditional approach to coaching (no bibs, players have to take on defenders on every possession, only 1v1 and 2v2 play at the younger ages) but he also does not dole out playing time just to his better players. Chapter 48 of his book is titled “Equal Time = High Self-Concept = Maximum Potential.” He gives all players equal time. Why? Here is a lengthy quote that explains.

It takes tremendous courage to commit to an equal playing time approach in every game. Yet this is the only way to ensure that both your better and weaker players learn the right lessons for life from their youth soccer career. The weaker players learn they are valued by you and will take greater risks with the ball in the knowledge that they won’t be punished with reduced minutes. Often the weaker players on your squad, (who may have dropped out of soccer because of reduced playing time on other teams), will become your stronger players as they mature because of your fairness and support for costly creative risks while they are learning. By playing all players evenly you let everyone know that you believe in them and care only for their development, not the wins and losses for the gratification of your own ego. The stronger players, (who would get more playing time on any other team), learn the more valuable lesson that every child is part of a team and makes a solid commitment, should be given equal opportunity to learn and develop. There’s plenty of time later in life for the ‘only the strong survive’ approach. In all youth educational environments equality of educational opportunity is a child’s right. Taking away a young person’s chance to learn and grow because that player is not as effective at that development stage sends the wrong message to both the better and the weaker players. The weaker players get the message that they’re not as valuable and, because they get less than fair playing time, the negative message and reduced minutes eventually guarantee their demise. Players receiving less time cannot feel as good as those receiving more. In the meantime the stronger players learn the cynical attitude that it’s OK to cheat a teammate just as long as the team wins.

[Picking up a few paragraphs later.] I am of the opinion that all kids deserve equal playing opportunity for education. … I would encourage the readers of this book to see the unequal playing time proponents for who they are. These people are individuals who regard the win as more important than the self-concept of the bench sitter or non-starter. If we are honest with ourselves an unequal playing time policy isn’t about development of the stronger player. It is about getting the statistical win on the board at the end of the game and the coach being able to walk away and beat his chest about the win.

Barney claims that he selects the most respected parent to do the subbing and to keep track of the rotation of starters between games.

It appears his approach works. Their web site lists the accomplishments of this club, which includes 257 state, 18 regional, and 3 national ODP players, plus 24 professional players while winning 48 state championships, etc. http://www.kclegendssoccer.com/content/accomplishments.cfm

I’m not saying one way of handling playing time is “right” and another way is “wrong.” It comes down which business model the club wants to follow and which approach fits the players and parents plans. It seems that there are two basic approaches: 1. build teams with the focus on winning even if it means some players see limited or no playing time, or 2. focus on developing players which could mean the team loses games due to the weaker players. As long as the club and coach explains to their paying customers the ground rules for playing time, the parents shouldn’t complain if they find their child not playing as much as they’d like. It appears that there are enough clubs representing both philosophies that parents and player can find a fit to their liking.

Anyway, food for thought.