By far the biggest pitfall is the "alter" of playing time.  In any organized team sport, players often will make their first judgement about coaching based on whether, or how much, they play.  "Did the coach give you opportunity?"  This may be the question, but the answer all too often depends on whether the athlete actually got to play any great amount of time.  Therefore, in order to reach any true understanding between player and coach, it is essential that the player understand how decisions of whether players are doing their job are reached .  We lay down the job of a player as being able to produce.  You must have a solid answer as to what makes a player productive.  Anthony Hopkins, the great actor, when asked about the epitome of acting said, "Know your lines."  Katherine Hepburn, another truly outstanding actor said even more bluntly, "...just speak your damn lines!"  The baseline of productivity for an athlete is very similar for me, you cannot hope to be productive if you do not know what we are doing.  Some systems must be toned down to help certain gifted or instinctual players contribute, but there is a certain baseline where an athlete must be able to understand the goals and objectives of the system as it is constructed.  They must know where to be and what is asked of them in various situations.  The basis of productivity then is to know the script.  The first judgement a coach should make is whether a player is prepared. Can they step on the playing surface and execute?  When they deviate from the plan, or script, can they explain why it was necessary given the opponents reaction?  Do your athletes understand that an unprepared player will not be productive and therefore their opportunities will be limited?

Once an athlete meets the baseline of being prepared, then they have earned an opportunity to try and contribute in a game setting.  At this point, there must be an understanding between the players and the coaching staff of what the weights and measures are that will be used to assess whether a player has been productive.  In my many readings about coaching, I came across an idea from Anson Dorrance, the highly successful women's soccer coach at the University of North Carolina.  He uses what he refers to as a player matrix.  The matrix involves taking several statistical and fitness measures that he values and using them to rank his players from the best to the weakest.  He finds that when the matrix is complete it gives him a true reflection of where his athletes fit in his program.  I have adopted this concept to my coaching as well, using analytical measures of my players to fit them into a hierarchy of production.  Using this hierarchy, we can get a true sense, from a statistical point of view, which players are being productive given opportunity.  There can be some deviations due to small sample size, when players are used and whether they play against similar levels of competition.  What I have found is that if a player performs well against lesser competition, they have earned a chance against better comp.  If their production falls, then we have an answer as to whether they are prepared to play.  As coaches we often rely on the eye test to settle whether a player should be given a chance or whether they have performed well.  Often, slotting players into the matrix will reveal an underutilized player, or a player who is more productive then the eye test thought.  The team's performance can often benefit from these revelations.  Similarly, the matrix may reveal a player who is over-utilized, and does not produce value for the team in the role they are being asked to perform.  The two biggest issues in coaching that the matrix helps to overcome are, the role of first impressions and falling in love with hustlers.  In the first instance, a coach makes an initial judgement about a player and can often be blind to that player's improvement and work to be better.  A matrix can help reveal a player's productivity that we have been blind to because of our first impression.  In the second instance, coaches tend to develop a real bond with the player who works extremely hard, gives it their all, so to speak.  This player can often be a poor offensive finisher, find themselves out of position a fair amount and place undue stress on their teammates to account for their shortcomings.  The matrix often reveals their lack of production and can cause us to properly evaluate where that player fits in our rotation.  A poor placing on the matrix is not the kiss of death to a player, people improve performance all the time, but it can help them understand their current position on the team, why they play inconsistently and where their production needs to improve.  A player who has a good matrix result but does not play consistently because they fail the first test, knowing what we are doing all the time, is a player who will be a very solid performer once they "know their lines."  Bringing the matrix out in front of your players a few times a year and allowing them to see where everyone ranks is a valuable exercise that often helps people be realistic about their performance and how they are playing.  It also makes it more difficult for a player who is complaining to their teammates about their situation to find sympathy if they are not producing.  This helps hold the coaching staff accountable for their decisions as well, it creates transparency in what is being done and helps build trust between the coaches and players.   

A productive player has the right to question their role, what is asked of them and whether it is sufficient.  Every player is different, and as a close friend of mine is fond of saying, "God makes first cuts."  In other words, it is important for athletes to keep in mind when evaluating their circumstances, what are my physical gifts and limitations?  It is possible that they can be successful and productive within a limited role, but that productivity does not hold up in a larger sample size.  It is also possible that a player can be very productive in a practice and training arena, but not ready to produce in a competitive environment.  The key to these situations being understood is the communication that exists between the player and the coaching staff and the understanding they have about how these situations are being evaluated.  Despite all of this, it is possible that a player will simply choose not to believe that they are unproductive, to doubt the system or fail to understand their limitations.  It is not always negative for a coach and player to part ways.  We will discuss the issue of trust in depth at a later time, but when an athlete does not trust or fit the system they find themselves in, there is nothing negative about moving to a new situation.  It is positive to explore all possibilities to make a situation work, but there are occasions when the system in question is not the right one for that athlete and allowing them to move on to a set of beliefs that better reflects what they appreciate is positive.  A player should make sure that desire does not cloud their judgement.  "Am I unhappy simply because I desire more?" Versus being unhappy because I believe areas where I can be productive are limited by the system employed by this particular staff.  Knowing when it is best to retain an athlete and when it is best they move on is certainly an important part of effective coaching.  There are times when to properly give an athlete their best opportunity you must let them, or even direct them, to look elsewhere. 

Our first job was to decide what it is a coach, and by extension their players, have as their primary jobs.  The need for a universal, simple answer that is both applicable and can be evaluated was necessary.  This is an essential starting point for the journey that follows and any person who wishes to get the most out of their coaching career needs to contemplate these questions and arrive at their answers.  For me, the role of the coach is to provide opportunity, while the role of the player is to produce.  Once we have these judgments in place and we have an understanding between the two bodies about their respective roles and how they will be evaluated, then we are ready to move forward with our examination of coaching.