One Ice Surface, Three Athletes: Coaching Mixed Ability Teams

By Coach Barry Jones
IIHF Level 3 High Performance | USA Hockey Level 3 Performance

One of the greatest challenges facing grassroots coaches is not designing a practice.

It is designing a practice for everyone.

In many grassroots environments, coaches find themselves working with athletes possessing vastly different experiences, capabilities, motivations, and aspirations. Some athletes are touching a hockey stick for the first time. Others have years of experience and aspirations of state or national representation.

The traditional solution has often been segregation.

Separate the strong players.

Slow the session down for beginners.

Create different groups.

Run different drills.

In some environments, this may be possible.

In many Australian grassroots settings, it simply is not.

Ice is expensive.

Numbers are often limited.

Volunteer coaches are scarce.

Shared ice is common.

The question therefore becomes:

How do you create an environment where every athlete turns up, remains challenged, and leaves feeling successful?

The Reality of Grassroots Hockey

In 2025, I found myself facing exactly this challenge.

I was responsible for two U17 teams comprised of athletes with vastly different developmental backgrounds.

Some athletes were completely new to hockey.

Others displayed age-appropriate behaviours and decision-making.

A small group demonstrated performance characteristics well above the expected level for their age.

Alongside this, I had three enthusiastic assistant coaches who possessed a strong understanding of hockey, but limited experience designing learning environments.

The traditional response may have been to separate everyone according to perceived ability.

I chose a different path.

Three Athlete Profiles

Rather than viewing the athletes through the lens of ability, I developed three developmental profiles.

New to the Game

These athletes had not yet accumulated enough experiences to consistently recognise opportunities and make effective decisions within the game.

Typically, they required:

• Additional time and space.

• More successful interactions.

• Increased opportunities for exploration.

• Exposure to positive role models.

   

Age Appropriate

These athletes demonstrated behaviours and decision-making consistent with expected developmental benchmarks for their age.

Typically, they:

• Recognised common game situations.

• Possessed an expanding technical toolbox.

• Could solve familiar problems under pressure.

• Demonstrated increasing tactical understanding.

   

Performance

These athletes consistently performed above age expectations.

Typically, they:

• Processed information more quickly.

• Adapted solutions effectively.

• Solved complex tactical problems.

• Influenced the behaviours of others.

Importantly, these profiles were never intended to become labels.

They were coaching tools.

The athletes themselves were never informed of their profile.

Many already had an awareness of where they sat within the group, but publicly labelling athletes risks reinforcing fixed identities and creating unnecessary divisions.

Respecting the dignity of every athlete remained paramount.

Balancing the Environment

The first step was privately organising athletes across two teams.

Each team contained a balance of New to the Game, Age Appropriate, and Performance athletes.

The objective was not to create equal talent.

The objective was to create equal developmental opportunities.

This balancing process provided something incredibly valuable.

Every team possessed leaders.

Every team possessed mentors.

Every team possessed learners.

Everyone had someone to learn from.

Everyone had someone to contribute to.

One Environment, Multiple Wins

The greatest challenge was creating an environment where all three profiles could train together while still experiencing meaningful challenge.

The answer was not separate practices.

The answer was not separate drills.

The answer was representative environments scaled through constraints.

Athletes occupied the same environment.

They solved the same problems.

But they did not always solve those problems under the same conditions.

A New to the Game athlete may have been provided:

• Additional time.

• Increased space.

• Numerical superiority.

• Guided support options.

An Age Appropriate athlete may have operated under standard game conditions.

A Performance athlete may have experienced:

• Reduced time and space.

• Increased opposition pressure.

• Tactical responsibilities.

• Additional decision-making demands.

Everyone solved the same problem.

Not everyone solved it under the same conditions.

The Goldilocks Connection

Part 3 introduced the Goldilocks Paradigm.

Not too hard.

Not too easy.

Just right.

The developmental profiles provided a practical mechanism for implementing this philosophy.

Rather than assuming every athlete required identical challenge, the environment could be adjusted to ensure each athlete encountered an appropriate challenge point.

New to the Game athletes could experience success while still being stretched.

Age Appropriate athletes remained engaged.

Performance athletes continued developing towards ambitious performance goals.

The result was an environment where challenge became personalised without requiring segregation.

Beyond Player Development

Unexpectedly, the model began producing outcomes beyond skill development.

Performance athletes developed leadership capabilities.

Age Appropriate athletes became both learners and mentors.

New to the Game athletes gained access to daily examples of what future success could look like.

The environment became a developmental community.

Athletes were no longer simply members of a team.

They became contributors within an ecosystem.

The Australian Context

I often hear coaches say:

"We don't have enough players to separate groups."

"We don't have enough ice."

"We don't have enough coaches."

I understand these challenges.

I coach within them.

The reality is that many Australian grassroots environments will never possess the resources available in larger hockey nations.

Rather than viewing these constraints as limitations, I began viewing them as design opportunities.

The challenge was not finding perfect conditions.

The challenge was designing better environments within imperfect conditions.

More Than Mixed Ability

Many coaches describe their teams as mixed ability groups.

I now think differently.

I see mixed developmental opportunities.

Every athlete enters the environment with unique experiences, strengths, challenges, and aspirations.

The role of the grassroots coach is not to eliminate these differences.

The role of the coach is to design environments where those differences become strengths.

Because when athletes are appropriately challenged, supported by teammates, and provided meaningful opportunities to succeed, something powerful begins to happen.

Everyone grows.

Everyone contributes.

Everyone experiences winning.

And perhaps most importantly, everyone wants to come back next week.

Author Bio

Barry Jones is an IIHF Level 3 High Performance Coach and USA Hockey Level 3 Performance Coach. His work blends ecological dynamics, nonlinear design, and athlete-centred leadership to build adaptive teams that thrive in uncertainty. He is also the developer of Task Sketch, a tool designed to support coaches in creating game-representative training environments.