Quote:

Coach Chass:

In your opinion, what scenario is better for the top CUSC players' development?

a) A good coach from CUSC, with a few top players and a bunch of middle players? Or,
b) Another good coach from Bridge FA, with those same few top players from CUSC and a bunch of more top, or even better, players?

In my opinion, B is the better option for the top and better players from CUSC. The majority of the middle players can still play at CUSC with other players who don't make Bridge FA and other clubs AND play with the CUSC coach who some say is a great coach. A win-win, right?



Actually, I can see pros and cons to both options. With option B, those players would get an opportunity to learn to interact with a team of similarly-skilled athletes. Option B would also definitely contribute to overall team success, which, as you mentioned earlier, leads to wins, championships, and certainly positive attention garnered for the players involved.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure this is the best approach in all cases for individual player development. For one thing, if these athletes you mention were added to an already-filled-out roster of equally or better-skilled players, it would stand to reason that they would be sharing playing time with those players. I believe that experience in real-game situations is one of the most important parts of player development, so perhaps for some, the increased time spent on the field under option A might be more beneficial than the increased time spent on the bench under option B, particularly at younger ages when developing a love of the game (and thus the dedication necessary to push for excellence as they grow older) is just as important as developing physical skills.

In the same vein, the best athletes want to win in real-game situations, and will find ways to do so. Key players who know that their team is depending on their skills for success will often push themselves harder to excel. For many, responsibility is a powerful motivator. For some, competition for a spot on the field is enough motivation to push hard at practice; for those, option B might be more effective. For others who are more motivated by finding ways to win once they're on the field, option A might be more effective. In this case, I think it depends on the individual player.

Finally, if we're talking about the importance of developing players of all levels, not just a few, I'd have to point out that leadership on the field is essential for the development of any team. Few things are more motivating than being able to see a real and present chance of success; having those leaders present on a team can have far-reaching effects among the other athletes. Not only does the pressure of responsibility give the top athletes a reason to push themselves harder, to become the best by COMPETING with the best, but the inspiration and chance of success their presence brings can motivate others to try to match their performance, and can sometimes result in otherwise middle-level players becoming "top" players. On the other hand, feeling that their team has been stripped of its top talent in order to "stack" another team can be insulting and demoralizing, and could very well amount to a small advantage for a few resulting in a large disadvantage to many.

Again, arguments can be made for both sides, and "greatest benefit" can be a matter of opinion, so I'll end with a question based on a real-world example, and all with an interest can draw their own conclusions. I'll use this past weekend's match between the CUSC U14 team and Bridge 92 as a real, non-hypothetical measuring stick.

1. If you are correct in your statement that Bridge has the higher initial concentration of "top" players to work with, and

2. a CUSC team which begins with(again, if you are correct) a lower concentration of "top" players filled out with a greater number of middle-range players can stand toe-to-toe with them (and lest anyone call fluke, the CESA 92 team as well) minute-for-minute down to an overtime decision,

then it would appear that a team that started the season with a significantly smaller talent pool quite fairly matched a team full of "top" players in performance at season's end.

Based on that, over the course of a season...on which side of the field would it seem the greatest amount of overall player development took place?

I've got good news and bad news...