|
| Stay tuned for website news!
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
One often unrecognized negative side-affect of the ego based need to win is that the better athlete is given more playing time and becomes an unhealthy target for the rest of the team. This player is usually fast, strong, powerful and exceptionally mature in many ways.
In one of the contradictions of premier soccer this player is often pigeonholed as a striker and becomes the target of an unusually high percentage of passes from team mates. As a consequence he isn't expected to create his own opportunities or chances for others. This results in short-term recognition but undermines long-term development of the brave, creative and ethical leadership character so essential to a fulfilled life. Such individuals are more likely to develop a "peel me a grape" attitude. When the late maturer catches up and easy opportunities are no longer available this type of player often struggles. When the "go to player" is no longer producing the rest of the team also struggles because too much of their historical success relied on the genetic talents of one player. When one or two key players are injured the rest of the team is often unable to adjust because they were never taught or expected to be maximally self-sufficient.
In 1999 when my 81/82 team progressed to the USYSA Final Four we suffered multiple serious injuries that robbed us of very skillful and talented team leaders at crucial stages of the State Cup, Regional and Final Four series.
We lost Chuck Falkenberg (Captain and central midfielder) and Amos Marrero (Goalscorer) for the whole series. We also lost Brendan Matthews (Regional team midfielder). Geoff Miles (NCAA DI and Pro player) for key games.
For teams taught to rely on one or two key players such player losses would have been the end of the dream. We simply re-positioned our remaining brave, creative leaders to accommodate the losses and reached the Final Four!
Players (and their parents) who receive seemingly preferential treatment should carefully examine the long-term consequences of the "use what he's got to win now" approach. When individuals are constantly served the consequence is dis-empowerment. When individuals are taught to create their own opportunities the result is empowerment.
Which of these two opposites do we want our children to experience?
Beware the friendly imposter! He may rob your child of their future for his own ego. |
|
|
|