A question came up from a fellow coach on the subject of talking with non-starters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So many times when the discussion of playing time comes up, either the player or parent is asking what they need to improve on, or the coach uses improvement in particular skills as a prerequisite for more playing time. Now the paradox: As a coach, don\u2019t you expect improvement from Everyone on your roster? If everyone improves, including the non-starter, is your starting team going to change? (probably not!). So by tying more playing time to improvement, aren\u2019t you setting this player up for more disappointment?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n This definitely represents an interesting conundrum for us coaches. In order for a non-starter to become a starter they need to get better. Either that or a starter needs to have a dip in form. You certainly hope and expect that the starters will continue to improve, though. If that’s the case, then the non-starter should never get into the starting lineup. So how do we handle this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n First and foremost, it is important to get the non-starter focused on what they can control. They cannot control what others do. They can only control their own effort and attitude. It’s about putting in the work with intention. A potentially big part of this is making sure you give them at least as much attention as you give your starters. Probably even more<\/a>. That way they don’t feel left behind or left out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A major consideration in this whole scenario is a kind of assumption that players improve at the same rate. This really isn’t the case, though. Player’s progress at different rates. That means non-starters can definitely overtake starters over time. This is especially true when you’ve got players at different points in their development. Younger players tend to make gains more quickly than older ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here’s the mistake coaches can make. We obviously want to see our non-starters improve. Even if they never make the starting team, their better play in practice will at least create a higher level of play in that context (see A-team vs. B-team<\/a>), challenging the other players more. We cannot, though, tie playing time to improvement – at least not in a nominal sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By that I mean we can’t tell players they just need to get better because the reality is that they need to be better than the starter(s) ahead of them. Thus, it’s a relative thing, not an absolute. That being the case, you have to frame it more along the lines of, “You need to be better than (or at least as good as) Jane in …” That gives you room to base things on the relative levels of the player rather than absolute changes by the non-starter.<\/p>\n\n\n\nControl what we can control<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
Different rates of improvement<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
Don’t tie playing time to improvement<\/h6>\n\n\n\n