Winning the War: Why Long-Term Development Beats Short-Term Success

By Coach Barry Jones
IIHF Level 3 High Performance | USA Hockey Level 4 Performance

 

Coaches often find themselves caught in a difficult tension.

Develop athletes or win games?

Focus on long-term growth or pursue short-term success?

In grassroots sport, these questions can create enormous pressure.

Parents want results.

Players want to win.

Clubs celebrate championships.

Coaches are frequently judged by the scoreboard.

Over time, this pressure can lead coaches to prioritise immediate outcomes at the expense of development.

The strongest players play more.

The puck touches become concentrated.

Mistakes become discouraged.

Risk-taking disappears.

Winning this weekend becomes more important than developing athletes for next season.

I understand the temptation.

I have felt it myself.

However, one season fundamentally changed how I viewed this dilemma.

 

A Unique Opportunity

In 2025, our U17 competition presented a unique challenge.

There were only three teams in the competition.

Every team would qualify for finals.

At first glance, this structure appeared unusual.

To me, it represented an opportunity.

If every team qualified for finals, regular-season games could become something more than simply contests to determine standings.

They could become representative learning environments.

Competition itself could become a developmental tool.

 

Using Games as Constraints

Throughout the season, game day became an extension of our training environment.

Games were not viewed solely as opportunities to win.

They were opportunities to explore.

Experiment.

Gather information.

Test ideas.

Specific constraints were introduced to shape learning across all developmental profiles.

Performance athletes were encouraged to actively involve New to the Game athletes in offensive opportunities and scoring situations.

Age Appropriate athletes were tasked with initiating breakouts and driving transition play.

New to the Game athletes were given ownership of important  responsibilities, including protecting the front of the net and supporting defensive zone play.

Performance athletes were also expected to lead their lines, provide feedback, and support teammates throughout games.

The objective was simple.

Create meaningful contributions for everyone.

 

Losing the Battle

From the outside, our approach occasionally appeared unsuccessful.

We lost many games throughout the regular season.

Some observers questioned the process.

After all, another team within the program, operating under a more traditional model, won more games during the season.

That team relied heavily on Performance and Age Appropriate athletes to carry much of the workload.

Our environment looked different.

Our strongest athletes shared responsibility.

Our developing athletes were encouraged to solve problems.

Everyone was expected to contribute.

The scoreboard did not always reward us immediately.

Yet the environment continued producing valuable information.

Winning and losing simply became data.

Data helped us understand:

• What problems emerged.

• What solutions athletes discovered.

• What required further exploration.

• What needed refining.

The process continued.

 

Winning the War

Throughout the season, I repeatedly reminded the athletes and coaching staff:

We were not trying to win the battle.

We were trying to win the war.

The war was developing hockey players.

This philosophy shaped every decision.

It influenced playing time.

Leadership opportunities.

Constraint design.

Feedback conversations.

Athlete movement between developmental profiles.

Everything served the long-term mission.

Develop people.

Develop players.

Develop leaders.

 

The Final Test

When finals arrived, something fascinating happened.

Our athletes had accumulated an entire season of experiences.

They had solved problems under pressure.

They had supported teammates.

They had explored multiple solutions.

They had led.

They had failed.

They had adapted.

They had learned.

The environment had prepared them.

In the semi-final, we defeated the second team within our program.

In the championship game, we defeated the competition's dominant team 6-1, a team that had won the majority of games throughout the regular season.

The result was deeply satisfying.

But it was not the most important outcome.

 

Beyond the Scoreboard

The championship represented only a small part of the story.

Throughout the season:

New to the Game athletes scored goals.

Age Appropriate athletes experienced the most productive offensive seasons of their hockey careers.

Performance athletes continued progressing towards ambitious goals.

Four athletes achieved national team selection.

Several others earned state team opportunities and leadership positions.

Parents regularly expressed gratitude for the developmental experiences provided to their children.

Perhaps most significantly, more parents attended games.

Traditionally, many parents watch their child spend long periods without meaningful involvement before attempting to find something positive to discuss on the drive home.

This environment was different.

Every athlete contributed.

Every athlete worked.

Every athlete experienced challenge.

Every athlete experienced success.

Even after losses, parents frequently congratulated the team.

Opposing coaches commented on how difficult our team had become to play against.

Something special had emerged.

 

The Feedback Loop

The season also reinforced the importance of feedback.

Following games, conversations regularly occurred with Performance athletes regarding:

• What problems emerged?

• What solutions were effective?

• What should we explore next?

• How could we improve collectively?

Winning and losing were never final judgments.

They were information.

The environment continuously evolved.

Athletes became active participants in shaping their own development.

Ownership increased.

Engagement increased.

Learning accelerated.

 

The Long Game

I want to acknowledge something important.

The outcomes described here are not normal.

Coaches should not expect identical results simply by adopting a particular framework.

Development is complex.

Context matters.

Every environment is different.

However, this experience profoundly reinforced my belief that broadening our definition of winning does not reduce competitive success.

Often, it enhances it.

Teams built upon meaningful challenge, shared ownership, leadership, and developmental opportunities become remarkably resilient.

They learn to adapt.

They learn to solve problems.

They learn to trust one another.

And when the games matter most, those qualities often prove decisive.

 

Winning Differently

Grassroots coaches face immense pressure to win.

My experience suggests that perhaps the most powerful question is not:

"How do we win more games?"

Instead, we might ask:

"How do we create environments where everyone can contribute, everyone can develop, and everyone can experience success?"

Ironically, when coaches commit fully to this question, something remarkable often happens.

The scoreboard eventually catches up.

Because in grassroots sport, winning the war often requires being willing to lose a few battles along the way.

 

Author Bio

Barry Jones is an IIHF Level 3 High Performance Coach and USA Hockey Level 4 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.