The number of teams we have wearing state colours is an argument we can have till the cows come home – and no doubt we will. What people on both sides do agree on is that not having the “buy-in” of top coaches has hurt the quality of the programme.
Having buy-in was important on many levels. Obviously having them coach or mentor new coaches was important. But the other thing that their buy-in would have brought was the legitimacy of the change and the involvement of athletes and coaches that they influenced. Some of my own mentors/coaches disagreed with the plans, and although they never told me I shouldn’t get involved, it certainly influenced my decision not to put my hand up for a number of years. In the end I did it to support the kids from my club, for whom trying out was like stepping out into the unknown and I thought having a familiar face would have helped. I still lean towards the idea of having less teams.
The effects of losing these coaches and those they influenced became evident. As a casual observer, it became a bit like seeing a Vichy-styled regime prop up while some of our leaders went into self-imposed exile. We still had some great coaches who remained involved, but it could never quite make up for the ones we lost.
Expansion may or may not have been the best idea. Certainly the reasons that Sooty mentioned for doing it all sound good. In another life I was an IT consultant in training and learned that great ideas seldom work without the buy-in of key people. Change management is a delicate beast, and as a consultant, one of our rules was we never took something on if the support from the key people wasn’t there, no matter how good the idea. Change cannot be simply promulgated and shoved down people’s throats without consequences. Those who oppose it can do much to undermine its success whether deliberate or not. Getting people on board is a skill that is at least as important in coming up with the great ideas.
Whether or not having our best coaches on board would have fulfilled Sooty’s vision remains the unanswered question. I wonder what those coaches think of the programme now that it has shrunk back down to 8 teams? Less than 20 girls tried out for U17s and talk is that they won’t have a second team. As Eldo said, there are girls who he cut from the U16s that would benefit from playing in a second team, and I have to agree (some of them were from my club so I have a bit of bias here). We may also be facing the prospect of neither having the quality of coaches (from those who left) nor the quantity of players in development.
