But when two opinions use key terms differently agreement will be difficult. Instead, what often happens are arguments based on parallel lines of thought. Opinions moving on independently and never finding any common ground. The end result can be opposed groups, each with a position that it defends by selectively defining terms to meet its own needs. Even if one group understands the other, an agreement still might not occur. It takes two to tango and when this happens inside an organization a power struggle can result. The camps can retreat into their own world, suspicious of anyone outside of it and new recruits learn the accepted dogma as gospel and the gulf between the groups grows.

Author Robert Pirsig describes this type of communication as having a platform problem. Each group starts with a different point of view of the problem so they naturally arrive at different conclusion. For example: two people are asked to describe a moving train to Bill, who has no experience with trains at all. One description will be made from riding inside the cars and the other from standing outside the train as it goes by. The descriptions cannot borrow from, or even acknowledge the other, they can only define the experience from their perspective. It's easy to imagine how different the descriptions would be and the confusion that Bill would experience trying to decide which is right. Eventually, Bill would choose one of the two and would likely discount the other even though it would be just as valid when viewed from the other perspective.

The following will use the term development as an example how two people can be talking about the same subject yet come to completely different conclusions what it means. To begin with it's vital that the discussion stay rational, that is, the laws of logic will apply. (At least the basic ones. Irrational text is fine in poetry or song writing but it has no place in this context.)

Start the definition by stating who or what is being developed, the text must first be put into context. This is usually the first stumbling block in any discussion and introduces our two contestants, Many and Few. Many maintains that development is measured by the number of children playing the game. Few maintains that development is measured by the level attained by the top 10% of the players. In common terms it's the rec. crowd vs. the elite's.

Next, refine the context for each group. Is Few talking about players in the National pool, college, high level club ball, exactly what is the measure of the group? For Many, quantity must be measured in relation to something else, another time, club, sport. Something must stand in for a comparison, for example what is the increase in the number of players of a certain age in the club over the last five years. The more specific the description the easier it is to define.

With these steps both parties should be able able to carry on a dialog that addresses the question by taking the other parties point of view into account. A legitimate give and take. But what often happens is that each party frames their position in their own context while ignoring the other resulting in a parallel discussion. Example: Many states that, " Youth development is going great. Our numbers in the rec. program have grown 78% in the last two years. Baseball and Football people are really worried because they see us as raiding their programs." To which Few replies, "Development is stagnant, even going backwards. We have all of these kids in the rec. leagues but when the MLS is looking for an impact player where do they go? Latin America, Eastern Europe and for what, a second division nobody that can save the franchise. We do a lousy job of creating top class players." This type of argument is common. Both positions are valid within their own context. But neither one really addresses the other. The result is that Few and Many can talk endlessly, provide examples to support their positions but they fail to discuss the same issue from the same point of view. The result is a parallel discussion with the argument going nowhere. Neither party will learn much from the other because they are not addressing a common point of view.

Another communication disconnect is to look for the exception to the rule. (A basic rule in logic is that each premise and conclusion in an argument deals with a number, all, some or none.) If Few maintains that the small number of Americans capable of running an MLS franchise on the field shows a lack of progress in development, Many cannot simply answer with "Well, Reyna could do it" and invalidate Few's argument. Finding the exception to the rule only works when the argument is based on all or none, which in the real soccer world happens rarely outside of the team that scores the most goals wins. This does introduce the difference between what is probable and what is possible. The exception to the rule might be possible, a fourteen year old can start in the MLS. But is it likely? Only in exceptional circumstance's. When an argument is based on possibilities instead of probabilities than hope and luck becomes a method and they provide little in support of a clear definition. "The best tacticians, however, are the realists who calculate everything in terms of percentages and who leave as little as possible to chance." 9

Communication is hard enough as it is, but when terms are ambiguous or vague effective communication can be impossible. A good way to avoid these traps is to start with the Socratic method of discourse, "I am ignorant, please enlighten me" and question the premises and conclusions. By asking questions you gain greater insight into a different point of view as opposed to simply restating what you already believe. It can also clear up those ambiguities that derail a discussion right out of the gate. Finally, most arguments or discussions are essentially an incomplete text, i.e. the conclusions are stated without the premises. This can be due to a short hand form of communication where brevity is more important than clarity. This can require some reading between the lines and it's important not to change the original context of the message. In order to better understand the argument some questions concerning background information, i.e. any underlying assumptions, may help to clarify a position.

Debate is an excellent toll for coaches to sharpen and refine their opinions and knowledge. Having your ideas questioned and having to defend them can help to move ideas in new directions and keep things fresh and up to date. It can quickly point out areas that you need to rethink or at at least restate. This can make future explanations easier to understand. But debate itself requires a structure, it isn't the same thing as a "Pub conversation" about which is better, Brazilian or English Football. That type of discussion is not meant to change anyone's opinion or to prove a point. It's just rhetoric for the sake of entertainment. Instead debate, in this context, is meant to advance an idea by subjecting it to the tensions of a conflicting idea.

All of us, Managers, Coaches, Writers and Commentators, should accept our share of blame for having introduced a certain confusion into Association Football. We have not worked hard enough at presenting the game in a simple easy-to-understand manner. There is little doubt that some have delighted in what they mistakenly believe to cleverness. It has turned to confusion. Confusion for some players and most spectators (i.e. parents). Cleverness, if only these people could realize it, involves being clear and simple.

As far as teams are concerned, Managers should understand that lack of clarity leads to lack of understanding and lack of understanding leads to lack of agreement and lack of agreement spells disunity and disaster. 9

 

www.bettersoccermorefun.com