Prospect Communications Inc. (est. 1999) is an industry-leading full-service provider of strategic communications, issues management and media services for all domains of the professional and amateur sports worlds. Michael Langlois is the founder of Prospect Communications. In the communications field since 1976. Michael has established an outstanding reputation as a top independent issues management and communication skills consultant and provider of high-level strategic counsel in both the sports world and corporate sphere. This blogspace is home to Michael’s ongoing commentary regarding the intricate relationship between communications, issues management, the media, and the world of professional and amateur sports.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Criticizing a teammate has its price

I’ve spoken often in these commentaries about the importance of being a true team player.

This applies at any level, from elite youth sports to the professional ranks.

It is not easy to be a team player. Every athlete, every competitor, wants to be on the field of play, wants to contribute to their team’s success and wants to be recognized in some fashion.

This can put you at odds with the “team” concept when you are the one called upon to take a seat—especially if you are generally a “starter” and expect to play.

The fact that in sports we count not only wins and losses (a team stat) but goals and assists, or home runs and touchdowns (individual stats) makes it even more difficult.

We hear, for example, about the NFL running back that gains 2,000 yards in a season, but most fans could not name two of the offensive linemen who made the blocks to allow the all-star back to shine.

This makes the player who contributes in subtle but important ways less visible to most fans, though generally not to astute coaches.

One recent example of the difficulty in being a ‘team player’ came as the U.S. women’s soccer team was preparing to play the semi-final of a World Cup qualifier against Brazil.

The U.S. coach decided to play a veteran keeper over a younger goalie, Hope Solo, who had played well leading up to the Brazil game.

The U.S. lost 4-0 and afterwards, on her personal web site, Solo commented that,

"There's no doubt in my mind I would have made those saves," Solo said. "You have to live in the present. And you can't live by big names. You can't live in the past."

The implication was clear: the U.S. squad started the other goalie based on past reputation; she (Solo) would have made the stops the other goalie didn’t.

And Solo said so publicly.

Reaction to her comments was quite negative.

Seemingly trying to work her way through the reaction—so as not to appear as though she had “jumped ship”, in terms of standing by her teammates—an ESPN web story later related the following:

On Friday, Solo said while she still doubts Ryan's strategy, she did not mean to hurt Scurry.

"Although I stand strong in everything I said, the true disheartening moment for me was realizing it could look as though I was taking a direct shot at my own teammate," Solo said, according to the Web site. "I would never throw such a low blow. Never."


Is it easy to understand Solo’s frustration at being benched before the biggest game of the year?

Certainly.

But did she, in effect, cross the invisible line when she made her initial post-game comments?

Yes again.

A day later, the U.S. team’s Head Coach removed Solo from the squad, perhaps only temporarily. But she was not even on the bench when the U.S. won the event’s third-place game.

The coach’s comment:

“We have moved forward with 20 players who have stood by each other, who have battled for each other. And when the hard times came -- and the Brazil game was a hard time -- they stood strong."

The inference was clear: Solo, in making her comments—and subsequent apology notwithstanding—had indeed crossed that invisible line.

I have often reiterated that the media criticizes athletes for being vanilla, but in the same breath often admonishes them when they are candid and honest.

In this instance, Solo’s sin was not simply being honest and speaking her mind, but seemingly putting her own feelings above those of the team, in a public forum.

Is this fair?

Coaches want athletes who are confident, who believe in themselves. Solo was showing, by her comments, that she believed very strongly in herself.

But when she made the comments, she also, perhaps inadvertently, criticized her own teammate.

Reports suggest the U.S. may now bring in other goalies as part of the national squad going forward.

There is sometimes a price to pay for speaking out. In this instance, the comments will be remembered for a long time in the soccer world, and will no doubt follow Solo.

A steep price, for sure.

The cooling-off period between the game and the time she created her web comments might have provided Solo with the opportunity to massage the rough edges of her true feelings.

For reasons only she can answer, she chose to go a different route with her public comments.

Once made, you can’t take them back.