(a therapeutic post for me, written for an audience that will probably never read it)
Last year, as the coach in charge of the tryouts for the soccer team, I had a relatively easy task. We had 20 kids for 22 spots, and the only decision was to figure out which 10 kids would end up on each team. We tried to create two equal teams, or, do our best job of doing that, and I think it was apparent early on that we didn’t succeed (but, by the end of the year, I think it was much closer). But, everyone made the two teams and there wasn’t much controversy.
Last year we divided equally, this year, the mandate was to create a team of the top 11 players first. We again had 20 kids and everyone was going to make one of the two teams. But, it became very clear after the first day that there were six kids that were very closely bunched together in the rankings and only four of them were going to be invited to be on the top team. Go into the second day and ask the evaluators to take an especially hard look at these six kids.
One kid is only in this middle group because a) he’s new and b) he’s ranked low because of my hurried ranking on the first day. It’s apparent very quickly that I had misranked him and we agree that he should be on the team. Five kids for three spots now.
One of the kids is mine. Four kids for two spots. My other son was one of the seven that on the first day were clearly ranked on the top team.
Look closer at these four kids…go back and take a look at the ‘data’, the drills we run the boys through to give us some numbers to go with the observations. We collect numbers in two ways. The first is by rating the ‘kicks’ the boys take on 6 different attempts, both right and left footed. The second is by timing the boys in a sprint, a longer distance, and dribbling with the ball. In these drills, one boy is clearly best when compared to these four, one boy is clearly the worst when compared to these four. Two kids for one spot. An aside: my son, if placed in this group, by the data, was not the highest of these four, nor was he the lowest.
Last two…….By the ‘data’, one boy is ranked higher than the other. Ask the evaluators, they agree, and I agree, that the one ranked higher is the better player. He’s the last one on the team.
I’m very familiar with the last four players and families; they have all played last year and we are friends with all of the families. So, the two phone calls are going to be tough. The first isn’t so bad, that boy’s family isn’t completely surprised by the news and look at it as a learning opportunity for their son.
The second call is bad; can’t understand why their son isn’t in the top eleven as they watched the tryouts (I can understand this response….), didn’t attend any other tryouts because they thought this was a sure thing (….don’t understand this response…), and my inference of the last statement was that they thought I was going to put him on the team because he was friends with one of the boys. I’ve had a hard time with this one…..if I would have done the ‘favor’ I would have been doing another kid, another friend, a ‘disfavor’. Don’t know if the family understands that slant on things. Do know that it’s probably going to be uncomfortable seeing them at school events for a while.
For reference, of last year’s team, four of the players went on to other things. Each and every one of those four players would have been rated higher than the group of six discussed above.
One of the other parents of that last group asked me before the tryout what they should do; my advice, knowing that he might be borderline, was to attend as many tryouts as he could so that he would have multiple options open to him. I wish the other family had asked this same question because then they would have heard the same message…..
Sigh…
