So your team is under-performing?

You have a talented team that shows glimpses of real potential, but is unable to sustain that level of play on a consistent basis. They are quality athletes in proper physical condition for soccer. Their skills vary from average to good to very good. It is a team that should win, yet they struggle to achieve to potential. Something is missing, but you cannot quite put your finger on what it is. You try everything you can think of in training to spark the team. You change lineups looking for a spark to ignite the team and your season. Sometimes you see a flicker, a glimmer of what you know they should be. but it quickly disappears. Seasons like the one being described here can be extremely frustrating for all involved.

What can be done to "fix" such a team?

The truth be told, there probably is not a miraculous cure to be had. I have often heard in posited that such a team "needs something to bring them together." In the movie Major League the Cleveland Indians baseball team is brought together by their dislike of the owner and a common goal of ruining her plans to sell and relocate the team.  This is their motivation and becomes the common goal that unites the team propelling them to success. That's what most people will take from the movie. There's something else that takes place to make this all happen and that is the key to the process.

Quite obviously the leadership on display from ownership is about as toxic as possibly can be. She doesn't want the team to succeed. It's a huge problem for the assemblage of misfits who are not supposed to win. Then two characters do the near impossible when they step forward with positive leadership to counteract the owners toxicity. The manager brings in a poster board of the owner with removable pieces of clothing. For each win a piece of clothing will be removed until a nude picture of the owner is revealed.  The catcher, begins holding every player accountable for their performance and his teammates respond.

The fictional portrayal of a team uniting to overcome toxic owner leadership makes for a good story and a cult classic of a movie.  The Longest Yard (both original and remake) is a similar movie about a prison pointy football team.  In both movies, overcoming adversity to achieve and perhaps overachieve is the theme. Can this happen in real life?

Identifying the problem is the first step in the process and is one of the focal point of my writing today. Too often when faced with an under-performing team coaches will look to shore up fundamentals, change lineups or artificially try to prop up a teams culture, its team chemistry.  I would suggest the real target of attention should be the teams leadership. Coaches and players alike might well benefit from leadership training. Make no mistake that while a coach and certain players exert more influence than other members, every member of a team contributes to the culture of the program, the team's chemistry.  Of course, if the key players are the source of toxicity the problem is exponentially compounded,

How do we know if leadership is being ineffective and holding a team back?

I believe there are ... symptoms ... that manifest themselves in the absence of strong positive leadership. These we will take a look at today.

1) Poor Body Language: Non-verbal communication is of extreme importance in leaders.  I preach this to my goalkeepers all the time. I use the term salesmanship to describe how I want goalkeepers to perform in their position. Every action must be strong and forceful giving the impression of being in complete control of the penalty area. I teach and coach this until the goalkeeper's authority goes unquestioned amongst his teammates knowing full well that if his teammates respond with belief and confidence in their goalkeeper's performance they opponents will take notice and respond accordingly as well.

Think of examples of poor body language when a player makes a mistake or the opponents present adversity. Open demonstrations expressing annoyance, disgust or frustration with others is non-verbal communication of a lack of confidence in the person that has committed the mistake. We might extend that train of thought to include similar displays of frustration directed at one's self when committing mistakes.  This type of communication coming from a teams key leaders following a mistake can result in making the offending teammate feel insecure about his role and unsure of themselves on the pitch leading to hesitancy which begets more mistakes.  It can be a vicious cycle of negativity and perpetuate poor team chemistry.

I teach and coach a philosophy of Next Play! which is simply to put the mistake behind you immediately. No "my bad" or any other recognition of the mistake having been made including non-verbal communication. The mistake cannot be changed and the game continues on. We need to stay in the present moment, not dwell in the past.

2) Gossip and Negative Talk: If poor body language is allowed to go unchecked gossip and negative talk will surely follow.  These things destroy confidence and undermine any efforts being made to build cohesiveness, togetherness and unity. Players gossiping about teammates play or talking negatively about the inevitable up's and down's that occur in any season are signs of toxic leadership. The same is true when the negative talk is directed towards the quality of coaching decisions. Those who talk divisively cannot be part of the solution for they are to busy being the problem.

When a problem exists strong positive and inclusive leadership is required to work through it to a positive solution. Coaches and captains must be involved. When it is a coach or a captain that is a source of drama there needs to be strong secondary leadership to call attention to this concern so it can be address appropriately. Difficult situations cannot be allowed to divide the team, destroy trust or erode team chemistry.

3) Negative Reaction to Adversity:  Every team will encounter adversity throughout a season. Every team will have a comfort zone for the level of adversity they are prepared to overcome. The measure of leadership is how a team responds when the adversity they face is more than they have overcome before.  How will the team respond? Let's be clear there is a decision to be made here.

Three common situations teams with toxic leadership encounter may help shed some light on what is being discussed here.

Your team may find itself losing to a clearly weaker opponent. The conscious decision to be made is whether to assign blame to someone (player / coach / referee) or accept responsibility and work cooperatively to improve the situation.

When your team faces an opponent whom they have a history of poor performances against. The first time something goes against your team the response is poor body language and negative talk. The choice to surrender to a familiar problem has already been made and a resignation to not finding a solution to this problem accepted.

A player who is subbed out reacts adversely to this coaching decision. He might verbally complain or non-verbally display his displeasure. The player has a choice to either sulk to the bench and project his selfish feelings to those around him or he can choose to redirect his frustration by staying involved in the game cheering on the efforts of his teammates and watching his particular position in preparation for returning to the game.

The point being made is simply this; whatever the reaction is, it will communicate a specific message to coaches, teammates, opponents and referees alike. Toxic people tend to be consumed with their own small situation within the greater whole of the team's predicament and are thus prone to negative reactions to adversity.  Positive people are more likely to ask a teammate to "pick me up," share information with a teammate that will aid the teammate's efforts in the match or find another way to contribute to the teams efforts in a positive manner. It is a choice, a conscious choice, to be made.

4) Pouting: At first glance pouting may seem to fall under poor body language or negative reaction to adversity, but I believe it to be a more selfish negativity than either of those.  When a player is unable to enjoy team success due to his own lack of accomplishment in the contest this becomes an anchor to the team's enjoyment dragging it down when it should be soaring in celebration, The message being sent is of "MY" performance being more important than the "TEAM" performance.

The ability to celebrate others individual success is a sign of positive leadership. When the attitude is one of genuinely sharing in success ... and failure ... a bond of cohesiveness, together and unity is fostered that helps strength a teams spirit and steel its spine.

5) Martyr Syndrome: Advanced stages of toxicity in leadership sees the manifestation of what I refer to as the Martyr Syndrome. When poor body language, gossip, negative reactions to adversity and pouting are left to run amok and unchecked, martyr syndrome is sure to follow, When a perceived leader of the team begins to communicate their belief their (lack of) performance is due to any reason except their own accountability and responsibility real trouble has taken hold of the team's culture and chemistry. Everyone is to blame except the person most responsible for his own play, actions and reactions.  Coaches and the decisions they make are blamed. Or referees are blamed for bad calls. Incompetent teammates are blamed for hindering his own performance. Injury is used as an excuse for not performing to potential.  Anyone and everything is blamed, except the player himself.

When a leader / player begins to believe other people are the primary source of problems an environment of entitlement and laziness takes root. The surrender of control of their own destiny to the power they feel someone else exerts over their performance is an admittance of lacking self confidence. Rather than looking inwardly and fighting to find a solution martyrs look outwardly for someone else to blame. And a martyr is weak. They will not fight through adversity. They seek the path of least resistance and submit when confronted by obstacles posed by the game.

In conclusion, the training of proper leaders might well be one of the most overlooked aspects of coaching.  Leadership is contagious whether positive or negative. The quality of your team is dependent on the quality of leadership provided. Therefore, training of leadership should of at least equal importance to the training of technique, tactics, and physical fitness.

How good can we be if our best player is not our best teammate?

This might be the single most important question to be asked as it concerns teams that underachieve. When the person perceived to be the best player on a team is not a good teammate the team will often struggle to achieve to potential.  I have seen this time and again as I am fairly confident we all have.

This was the case on what was potentially the best high school team I ever coached. The player looked upon by her teammates as the best player was selfishly about herself  and this did the team in when it encountered obstacles that demanded a team first approach.  The truth be told, she was not the best player on the team at that point in time. She had earned the reputation as the teams best player by scoring a lot of goals as she came through the youth ranks.  The epitome of an athletic freak taking advantage of weaker competition to pad her stats.  When a team oriented attack was installed as the preferred system of play and the scoring load more evenly distributed our "best" player became a cancer as a teammate. 

Now, one might picture such a player as an overt trouble maker, but this is not always the case. And it is the covert trouble maker that is actually the worst type of teammate one can have. This is the type of player who pushes their own agenda behind the scenes. They recruit people to "their side" of what they perceive to be a "situation" thereby dividing the team. Predictably the team faltered long before it should have. Alas, this is the destructive power of negative leadership and a poor teammate perceived to be a teams best player.

There was another player who I coached in club soccer for a number of years. He always seemed to be on the outside looking in on very talented teams when it came to exerting leadership skills. Gifted athletically but not possessing great game IQ or vision. He was a hustler, a worker and perceived this to be his role on the team.  I had a hunch he had much more to offer. There came a time when I relegated him to our second team and something miraculous happened - he blossomed into a leader. Always a good teammate, but when placed in a position and situation that called for him to lead he did so with spectacular results. He was one of the best players on that second team and unquestionably its best teammate. The team overachieved on the season in no small part due to his being a great teammate which helped make him an effective leader.

How good can we be if our best player is not a good teammate? Unsatisfyingly underachieving and mediocre is the likely answer.

How good can we be if our best player is our best teammate?  This is the recipe for success. This is when a team can overachieve.  This is when good things happen for a team and its individual collective parts.

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?