A thread in another section brought to mind an issue that faces many coaches, some even at NPL level, that being players not coming to training and worse yet not letting their coaches know they are unable to make training. Now those of us in the game know how frustrating this can be as it can change a hell of a lot of your session structure.

In my current situation i have taken over as caretaker (i may take it on full time) following the resignation of our mens coach. Our season is already well and truly down the gurgler for a multitude of reasons that i wont go into. As a result i have decided to make the conscious effort to change the lacksidasical approach to training starting at the top in the mens team. Two weeks in, it appears to already be bearing fruit.

Its quite a simple system but is one i will share with you all. I also believe it is one that could be used quite successfully for those coaching in the development phase.

I have access to my players for 4-5 hours per week in 2-2.5 hour sessions.

Where a player trains, he receives 3 points
Where a player lets me know at least 2 hours before training he is unable to make it, he receives 1 point
Where he doesnt let me know and doesnt train he receives 0 points

Obviously i have decided my system and style coaching at the performance level come friday night. I am then able to give preference to those who have trained to start the game simply by looking at the numbers on the page. Ive tried to make sure these players get at least the first 15-20 mins of the game to stake their claim to stay out there longer.

It is important that any coach who is going to adopt this approach sticks to it regardless of who the player is or what game you are playing come saturday afterall sending a text message to the coach is not that hard.

When coaching at NPL performance level obviously this may be a little more difficult but its worth thinking about.

I have noticed very little resistance to date from the players who seem to have adopted this as the norm and accept whats going on, apart from one young african but thats of little concern to me. This is about changing the culture. Obviously the more at training, the better the session, the better the session, the better the games and the results should follow

Good read, New Signing.

We had problems of 'stars' in the leagues that were the top leagues in the state not training. Now we have a NPL attitudes have changed. Coaches often said they would not play players who didn't train bore the season, but would renege during it.

When I was TD of various clubs, I was keen on implementing this not train no play policy, but team coaches still secretly reneged. Too may coaches play favourites.

'Favourites' end up being too caught up with their own importance. They often dislike me whilst I coach them, but take a different view a year or two later. Too may coaches I know, are starstruck by players who need a good kick up the backside instead of an arm around the shoulder and praise.

All 'star' players have weaknesses. As soon as they think they know it all, they don't improve. All players benefit from sound training ground practice.

I even received flak from state FFA Technical Department, about playing players less, who turned up to training less, in rep sides.

As soon as you kick players out of a team, or drop them, it can cause disquiet amongst other players with a good attitude who may be their mates.

I think it helps to give all players feedback about there they need to improve over multifaceted football performance criteria. A lot of stars who don't train enough, don't/can't do the hard work needed when the other team has the ball.

I think this is good practice.

Though tempted, ive not ever marched a player from a team. Benched or left off team sheet but never sent packing.

It is incredible to think with the sheer number of players i haev registered, putting 16 on a team sheet has been hard at times. Though that is more to do with injury and absence than anything

The "make sure these players get at least the first 15-20 mins of the game to stake their claim to stay out there longer" doesn't really work unless you are in a competition with rolling substitutions.

The u18s coach at our club (State League Div 2 - WA) is new to the role this year. (He is also the club's technical director) Although he has his C licence and has vast football experience, his coaching experience has been with skill acquisition age groups. He correctly considers that this period (9-13 years old) is the most important developmental stage but so much so that he completely discounts older players (ie 16-17 year olds) who he considers have "missed the boat" at that stage. In his words "it is too late for them".

As a result, he rewards talent over hard work, picks players week in week out who barely make one training session a week over players who are training 2-4 times a week without fail. There is also a core group in the squad who regularly just wander off after training while other players pick up cones, collect balls, put goals away etc. Unsurprisingly, it is the players who train regularly and work hard who are the ones pulling their weight in the packing up.

In my opinion, the message that this sends is that hard work doesn't matter. The talented players know they will get away with slacking off; that training is, in effect optional, and as a result, they train less, develop less and their performance and the team's performance is negatively impacted. The hard workers who are training 2-4 nights a week to get 15-25 mins off the bench become demotivated and miss out on the important development that only comes from playing games.

In conversations I have had with the coach, another contributing factor is a positive discrimination towards players who have come from a disadvantaged background. Their attitude and workload shortcomings are overlooked, whereas the hard work of middle class white kids is taken as granted.

Yes, it is State league but it is also the only u18s team in a community club which fields eight mens teams from State League down to metro (ie social) leagues. Not every player who comes through the 18s will be or even has the potential to be a State League/NPL or higher player. Some will just enjoy playing amateur or social football for many years because they love football and enjoy being part of a club. In my experience, these players will generally be the ones who do the heavy lifting at clubs on committees, coaching juniors etc.

A policy whereby training attendance and performance is the primary selection criteria send a number of powerful messages. Most importantly, it manages players expectations and is fair. Training is no longer optional and yes, there will be occasions when good players miss games or are on the bench because they have been unable to train for entirely legitimate reasons (this age group is obviously heavily impacted by study commitments) but it will also greatly reduce the number of training sessions missed for no/poor excuses once players realise that they will not start that week.

I was never real good but I know exactly what you're talking about. Bloody prima donnas were always "injured" but somehow managed to be fine and dandy game day.

Bust your arse for 4 hours during the week to watch ol' mate stroll in on the weekend who had a "twinge" that needed resting.

How did you inform players they would not be required
face book seems to be the way approximately 15hrs before flights with a just "you (insert name) will be playing with (insert team ) end of massage. PS and don't dare ask Why.

Its never going to be received well when players are told they are not required especially when it is amateur football and you are paying to play. However as long as the rules are clear and you stick to them, everyone knows their place.