Coaching is one of the most difficult things I do.

Aside from the effort I put into my relationship with my wife and parenting our children, coaching is probably the most difficult thing I do.  Coaching involves the teaching of fundamentals and tactics, sportsmanship, life lessons, and so much more. The bottom line with coaching is relationships though.

This spring my challenge has doubled as I have 36 players on two different teams. I was speaking with a coaching colleague recently who also is coaching two teams and about the same number of players.  His philosophy seemed to be "focus on winning games" because with that many players it is too difficult to spend enough quality time with them all.  I disagree, at least in part.

It is true, that 36 players is a lot to work with during a soccer season.  It is also true that it is important to build a relationship with each one of them.  It takes a lot of work so the key is to work smarter rather than harder for there is indeed limited time.  Working smarter is also necessary in maintaining relationships that have been established. 

I am not sure why, but I continue to be amazed when God stands my well laid plans on their ear.  That God's will prevails is a lesson I have learned repeatedly.  Even so, I do plan meticulously for each season, each team and each player. There is a certain amount of anticipation involved in the planning for both season and individual players.  Just as I implore players to expand their play from "one-decision" soccer to "multi-decision" soccer I must do this in my coaching.  In the context of coach / player relationships this involves putting the TEAM first while also being ever mindful of the individual players that comprise a team.

In spring club soccer there are usually limited disciplinary actions required. I am very flexible about players who must miss for a school sport or school activity. The same holds true for players who miss due to work.  Church and family always come before soccer. The point being absence is not usually an issue. It was in one instance this spring when a player elected to referee a match a couple of fields over while his teammates played a match at the same time.  In this instance I turned to the team leadership to resolve the issue and they did so in an amazingly mature and fair fashion.

Rather, in spring club soccer the bigger issues can be of players buying into a teams philosophy and system of play.  Sometimes a lack of time to devote to the team can be an issue in this area. Other times it can be a lack of humbleness in a player that detracts from team play.  Being humble does not entail thinking less of yourself so much as it entails thinking less about yourself and more about your team. I suppose President Kennedy would have put it, "Ask not what your team can do for you, but what you can do for your team".

At a recent match involving our "A" team I made both a formational change and personnel changes to address on-going concerns in our play.  In short, we were lacking consistent back to goal target play, were clogging the face of the goal in out attacking third and were poor in our transition from attacking to defending especially in the center midfield.  So, we switched from a 4-4-2 to a 4-1-4-1.  The initial results were mixed. The general comments were largely supportive of the formational change.  As might be expected, other areas of concern arose. Somewhat unexpectedly was the fact some of the areas of concern were still personnel based as could be witnessed on the first goal we allowed.  In general, the first half of play was different than what we had been experiencing although I would not say it was fundamentally better overall.

I pondered what to address as half time approached.  There was just so many things to select from I was feeling overwhelmed in identifying 2 or 3 to really bring focus on.  We were down 0 - 1 to a weaker team.  The mistakes made on the goal the opponents scored encapsulated the way the entire half had been played by our team.  I preach "attention to the details of the process" as a king consideration to success in sports and in life. This was severely lacking in our play on the field by a majority of the team.  Missed assignments. Mental errors. Selfish play.  One-decision soccer.  Multiple touches on the ball when 1 or 2 would have sufficed. Self-inflicted pressure. Basically we were still underachieving and this was largely due to individuals self-inflicting pressure on themselves and by extension the team at large.

To be honest, what I witnessed was an accumulation of factors that had been building over the course of the season. This team has 16 players capable of starting. It is an area all-star team. There are many players who were captains of their high school team, the go-to guy on their high school team, all-league, all-district and all-state players.  The key to the season would hinge on their willingness to sacrifice for each other.  From a team perspective we had been failing miserably in this regard.

Too many individuals playing for themselves is a recipe for disaster on any team. The truth of the matter is, one player playing for himself on a team is too many.  We have had several this spring.  So while we have won some games we have also lost some that we should not have.  In those tight games when we needed to rely on one another, we had individuals playing outside their roles and generally trying to do too much on their own.  We were unable to trust one another because we had yet to sacrifice and embrace one another.

As a coach there is an acknowledgement that sometimes team chemistry just isn't what it should be and however unfortunate this might be there is precious little a coach can do about it.  Team chemistry is largely outside the realm of control of the coach.  Yes, team bonding can be worked on and enhanced, but the responsibility rests largely with the individual players buying into the teams philosophy and system of play.  There are seasons when team chemistry never establishes itself to a satisfactory level. Those seasons tend to long, very long, for everyone involved and are blemished with underachieving play and results. As half time approached during this recent game I felt we were on the precipice of that type of season.

The challenge then was to uncover enough players willing to play for one another.  A couple of weeks ago there was a parent who complained I didn't have the best 11 players on the pitch.  I would largely agree with that statement.  Reality tells us it is not about having the best 11 players on the pitch at the same time but having the 11 who play best together on the pitch at the same time.  This is the approach I took for the second half of this recent match.

I selected a starting 11 whom I believed would play for one another.  Even more than that, I felt the starting unit I put on the pitch would not want to let one another down. I attempted to select 11 who would raise each others level of play and by doing so would raise the teams level of play. 

We went "ironman" which is tantamount to the U.S. military's "broken arrow" call sign in terms of my coaching philosophy.  I would not specifically call for substitutions. That responsibility would remain in the provenance of the individuals who started the second half. If they wished a break, they would ask out. I would name a substitute to replace them. When rested and ready to return to action the starter would sub himself back into the game for the player who had replaced him.  In the world of free / unlimited substitution soccer this is a drastic, even extreme measure.

I struggled with which eleven to name. Two players in particular were worthy of consideration for the 11 who would start the second half, but were ultimately left off that unit primarily as a function of positions played. The risk involved in this strategy was immense and dependent almost entirely on those 11 who would be taking the field. In them, I put my trust as a coach.

Would these 11 individuals come together to play as a team? 

Just as importantly, would be how these 11 individuals would respond to the responsibility of calling for their own substitutions. That is, which of the 11 would trust a teammate to play in their stead.

The results were a bit mixed. We scored in the first few minutes of the second half to even the score at 1- 1 only to allow a second goal against due to poor decision making. Down 1-2 the next few minutes were dicey until we evened the score on a PK. From that point forward we began playing as I had envisioned we would when this team was assembled. On the other hand, to say there had been limited substitutions would be an understatement. This is something that will bear very close scrutiny going forward.

There was one bench player in particular who I felt was slighted in the amount of playing time he received in the second half.  The question I have been pondering is why of the five players he could have subbed for positionally only one elected to take a break and that for 5 minutes.  Is there a trust issue with his teammates in regards to his play?  Is he not viewed as a team player?

None of the bench players played extensively in the second half. Two did come off the bench to score goals for us in limited action which is good. To illustrate where we are I will share a comment made about the proper perspective of scoring goals;  "Scoring goals will be used to justify why they should be on the field while the reasons they aren't in the game are completely ignored."  An extremely interesting observation and telling commentary from a teammate.  It tells me we have a ways to go yet in this process of buying in.

So, a formational change and personnel change failed to initially stimulate play to the degree hoped for. It took an extreme change in game management to generate positive on-field results.  Now the question becomes the response of those players who were left on the bench for the majority of the second half. Will they began to take ownership of why they sat or will they blame the coach or their teammates? 

For me to think we have everything solved or worked out would be foolish. This team and this season could still go down the tubes in a hurry.  Just under four weeks to go in the season and I am left to wonder if they will go painfully slow or exquisitely fast?

As the season hangs in the balance it is ultimately the relationships that will determine which way it falls.  Discovering who is willing to put forth the effort to build relationships between players and between coaches and players will be key.  It is sometimes said a team is only as strong as its weakest player. In this case, the teams strength will be measured by the quality of relationships. Are we willing to work, to put intelligent effort into establishing better relations?  Are we willing to sacrifice the Me for the We?