Coaching philosophy

[dklaiman]

As some of you may recall, I was appointed head coach of my kid's hockey team. The kids are in 8th and 9th grade. We're a non-travel team, so we're either less skilled in the eyes of the evaluators or the kids/families are less serious about the game.

My general philosophy is that for games, if a kid tries hard, the kid plays. I won't bench or short shift a kid for a lack of skill.

We are in a tournament this weekend. Last night we had our semi-final game. We win, we play for the championship. We lose we play for 3rd or 4th. For the last 5 minutes, I shortened the bench and sat three kids. One of the dads (an assistant coach) is pissed off because his kid was shorted ice time. We scored 3 quick goals and I put those kids back in. His philosophy is all kids play. That we win and lose as a team. I responded that that is my general philosophy for league games, but not for tournament games. I also proposed that he run the bench today. He declined.

We play for the championship this afternoon. I plan to do the same--if it's a close game, I shorten the bench to give us the best chance to win.

What would you do?

Thanks.

 

[Greyfox]

It's your team but I would have the same philosophy that I had used all year. I would not change it because somehow the game now is more important. It might be to you but it is not to the kids. Do what got you here.

 

[elalan]

I have coached youth football for the past 17 years. The park where I coach has a policy of not allowing fathers to coach their sons. There are sometimes exceptions, but usually only after the father has coached more than a few years for teams not including their son. This avoids the scenario where the coach takes personally some perceived slight directed towards their kid. Of course, this policy is unusual in that most associations would not have enough coaches if they didn't allow parents to coach their own kids.

But I digress. About the most toxic situation on a team is when the coaches do not present a united front and seek to undercut each other or express their displeasure at the decisions of the other. If the assistant cannot accept your policy, then he needs to stay home. Or, tell him you will work out some other acceptable compromise, but you aren't switching your approach on the eve of the big game.

Good Luck!

 

[The Nid Hog]

As some of you may recall, I was appointed head coach of my kid's hockey team. The kids are in 8th and 9th grade. We're a non-travel team, so we're either less skilled in the eyes of the evaluators or the kids/families are less serious about the game.

My general philosophy is that for games, if a kid tries hard, the kid plays. I won't bench or short shift a kid for a lack of skill.

We are in a tournament this weekend. Last night we had our semi-final game. We win, we play for the championship. We lose we play for 3rd or 4th. For the last 5 minutes, I shortened the bench and sat three kids. One of the dads (an assistant coach) is pissed off because his kid was shorted ice time. We scored 3 quick goals and I put those kids back in. His philosophy is all kids play. That we win and lose as a team. I responded that that is my general philosophy for league games, but not for tournament games. I also proposed that he run the bench today. He declined.

We play for the championship this afternoon. I plan to do the same--if it's a close game, I shorten the bench to give us the best chance to win.

What would you do?

Thanks.

My response would be based on what you already did. If you discussed your coaching philosophy and your strategy with your assistant coaches/helpers before the game, heard out their suggestions, and then told them of your decision before the game, nobody has any room to complain. If you didn't, it might not be a surprise that he didn't know that there was a different strategy for regular season games and tournaments. Good communication is usually a buffer against bad feeling.

As far as your strategy goes, I don't see anything wrong with it. I think it's a great idea to see that everybody plays, and not just tossing the scrubs in from the bench in the waning seconds. On the other hand, playing the best kids first doesn't just reward them for talent--it also rewards them for practice and effort. And if you move the lineup around in the season based on how the players have been doing, they know you're watching. Kids who might not be doing so well know that if they do better they will be rewarded, and they will have an opportunity to demonstrate what they've got in a game. I think you're doing fine.

 

[914fan]

I've coached soccer from 6yr to 12yr. I've used the same philosophy as you. as a side note my practices were always more about conditioning than skills. we did well every year. in tournaments I sat my weaker players more, unless we were up.

 

[SalvadorMontenegro]

I've been thinking about this since I read the post this morning and I think this is my verdict:

These kids are either high school age or almost high school age. If they were playing for a high school team, the coach would be employing the same tactics you are. The lesser players are old enough to handle this. Furthermore, it's not fair to the team if you put in the lesser players and they cost you the game and the tournament. How will the better players feel? In a perfect world, they'd all be equally talented and everyone would play and you'd win. The world aint perfect.

In the words of former NFL head coach and brilliant Western philosopher Herman Edwards, "You play to win the game!"

 

[dklaiman]

Thanks for all of the responses. I was going to do what I did yesterday and shorten the bench. Fortunately, I didn't need to and we won 4-1. That made the ride home in the blizzard a lot more enjoyable. Also, the kids who got shorted yesterday played great today.

 

[TimmyBoston]

Thanks for all of the responses. I was going to do what I did yesterday and shorten the bench. Fortunately, I didn't need to and we won 4-1. That made the ride home in the blizzard a lot more enjoyable. Also, the kids who got shorted yesterday played great today.

Congrats

 

[SalvadorMontenegro]

Are you glad you stayed on as coach?

 

[dklaiman]

Are you glad you stayed on as coach?

Yes and no. This is my 7th year of coaching hockey as either a head or assistant coach. This team has made the greatest improvement of any team I've coached, but we've also had far more drama than any other team. The factors that tip the scale in favor of yes are that I've gotten to spend more time with one of my kids and I like to think I'm setting a decent example for him in terms of commitment, acknowledging mistakes, takng responsibility for actions that others may not like, etc. And, as they say, winning cures everything.

 

[commanderkeen]

As a player I can give my opinion on playing vs not playing. There's 4 scenarios.

1. Play on a winning team
2. Play on a losing team
3. Sit for a winning team
4. Sit for a losing team

That is the order of rank I would say also. It is always fun to play, especially for a winning team, but if the team is winning and I sit, that's alright too. If the team loses all the time and I sit, that's when I get pissed.

Anyways, congrats for winning. From a coach I always appreciate consistency, do things like you always do them and don't waiver especially when things get tough (not saying you shouldn't change up plays/strategy).

 

[Doc4]

My Dad spent decades coaching junior-high basketball. He had a rule: if your parent comes to the game, you play.

Now, the kids who played better played more. The kids who tried harder played more. In basketball, it's more 'normal' for playing times to be a lot different ... not like "rolling four lines" in hockey ... but everyone would play some.

In a regular game, I'd lean more toward rolling 4 lines, but at the end of a tight playoff game, I certainly understand 5 minutes of a shortened bench.

 

[elalan]

As you know, you are a much better (and popular) coach when you win.

 

[dklaiman]

Right now I'm a genius and everyone wants me to coach again next year. Personally, I can't wait for the season to end in 3 weeks. I am running seriously low on cliches.

 

[Doc4]

I can't wait for the season to end in 3 weeks. I am running seriously low on cliches.

No good cliche' wasn't repeated often.

Just take it one cliche' at a time, do the little stuff right, work as hard when you pracitice your cliche's as when you say them, give it 110%, and before you know it ...

 

[dklaiman]

Thanks. I was afraid i was going to have to watch Bull Durham again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeVca9MwDX8

 

[Go West Young Man]

My theory would be that if the kids are 10, everyone gets equal time.

By the time they're 14 or so, they know the score and understand how individual performance affects the outcome of the game. I'd definitely favor the better players in clutch situations.

Once they hit 16, all bets are off, everyone should compete for their spot.

 

[Azza]

Congrats on the win!

- Aaron

 

[klassic1]

I see no problem with your decision making. Coaching is a balance of allowing all the players time on the ice while maximizing the opportunity to win.

I'm sure the kids are happier that they won and ALL get to play in the championship game rather than a few extra minutes of ice time in the semi's for a few players.

Isn't there a thread about all the coddling that kids get now a days?
I remember as a kid in little league baseball, the only way I got off the bench and out of right field was to learn the game and start making the plays...

 

[LuckyR]

Either philosophy (treating tournaments as special games to be won at all costs and treating them like all games) is reasonable, this sounds like more of a communication issue than a philosophy issue. If there was a stated plan for games then without warning this changed because this game happened to be in a tournament, you definitely are going to have upset parents (and players).