Have you ever purposefully played a game with 7 players?

One of our readers messaged me last night with this question; Have you ever purposefully played 22 minutes of a game with 7 players on the field and 8 subs on the bench?

I have in fact done this a couple of times. In each instance it was because the opponents could not field enough players. After establishing a two goal lead we withdrew players to play even sided. There have also been a couple of times when I intentionally played down a man because we were lacking subs and an individual player believed I would not. When the player abandoned our team's system to do his own thing he found himself seated on the bench next to me while his teammates played a man (or two ) down.  This is where today's story begins.

When I intentionally removed a player from the pitch with no sub available you can be assured I was plenty upset.  It is a drastic move and a decision to be made with all due and proper consideration. In sending a message to the offending player in this manner the coach is also in effect punishing the innocent remainder of the team by making them unnecessarily play down a man. That is a slippery slope to walk. In the best case scenario the offending player receives the message with peer pressure being a part of the delivery method.  At worst, team morale and chemistry is weakened to the point of impacting not only the game at hand, but future play as well.

As it pertains to the question posed to me last night the issue is apparently attendance at practice sessions. 

Here in west central Ohio we do not have a large pool of athletes who specialize in soccer as their only sport.  Many of our club soccer players are multi-sport athletes at their high schools.  This is both by choice and in some cases by necessity. My philosophy has always been that school sports come first. Practice and even match attendance sometimes suffers because of this, but with careful planning it can be effectively managed.

The team in question is a U16 team so there are plenty of other factors that can impact attendance.  Driver's Education courses is a primary one at this age.  School choir and band rehearsals and performances are another.  Church holidays and festivals should always come before soccer. Family gatherings for weddings, funerals, baptism, confirmation, first communion, spring vacations all take precedent over attending a soccer practice. Players of this age may be working to help pay for a car or to save for college. What of the player who misses training because of illness or doctors appointment?

I understand from a coaching standpoint wanting everyone in attendance at every team function, but it simply is not realistic in our environment ... and quite frankly, it is not necessary for success.  I offer my own spring teams of the last several years as examples.  We have been ultra successful while abiding by the mantra that family / church / school come before soccer. 

Forcing seven players to play against eleven opponents while eight healthy teammates watch from the bench because they missed training is punishing the seven, is it not?  And if the coach is asking players to chose soccer training over family, church or school obligations it is really problematic.  Let's face it, there is not a single player on this team likely to play professionally and therefore soccer should not be the main priority for any of them. 

And place yourself in the boots of those who will be forced to sit out a portion of todays match while their teammates play down.  If I chose church, school, family over soccer and then was punished by the soccer coach for doing so?  Soccer would move down on my priority list.  If I knew I had to miss soccer practice in the future, I might not even bother showing for the next match just to sit the bench and spectate.  How many players can the team afford to lose before it becomes completely dysfunctional?

This subject matter ties in nicely with the recent articles on playing time and where elite kids shouldn't meet and rules  While our family is undoubtedly and without dispute soccer fanatics our mantra is "soccer is something we do, but it does not define who we are."  We live a balanced life placing God first.  Family, school, work, and other aspects of our lives are prioritized somewhere after God ... and before sports.  Not only are these kids not going to play professionally, but none are going to earn a full ride to play soccer in college either.

So, perhaps the coach is attempting to teach a lesson on honoring commitment?  If so, I wonder if the coach has considered the conundrum he is placing kids and families in who have committed to family, church and school activities and events ... often times prior to the spring soccer commitment and almost certainly before spring soccer schedules have been released?  

When it comes right down to it, this is all about the coach who is butt hurt that he is not at the top of the priority list for these kids and their families. He is attempting to exert control that he might not be embarrassed by the product he puts on the field.  Yes, playing down to seven men is a temporary matter and short term solution for getting his way for the (relative) long run. In a word, selfish.  He wants and is taking ownership of the team. This is foolish for the team belongs to the players. The players are the only ones who can truly take ownership of themselves. 

So, shouldn't it be the players who decide the standards for participation in today's match? 

After all, it is the players who must play for one another on the pitch in order to be successful and so it is the players who should decided the standards by which they do so.

In conclusion what we have been addressing is where on the commitment continuum various members of this team fall.  Obviously the coach is compelled whereas at least 8 players in his judgment are not. The coach might view these 8 as resistant and is attempting to force them to be reluctant, maybe in a best case scenario, compliant.  This is not the way to achieve buy-in to the team's culture. In fact, it is a dangerous way of defining team culture in a negative sense.  Here's  a secret all successful coaches must appreciate - while a coach can present a vision for a program's or team's culture it is the players who will actually define that culture. It is only through the coach's sales tactics that he can bring to bear any influence their culture.