A new season, a new schedule. Names are being moved, lines are being drawn, lists are being compared. And then: the team composition. Often the final piece of a lot of puzzling – but it should actually be the starting point of a vision on learning and development.

Pitfall 1: “Lower teams have less ambition”
As if motivation is automatically related to level. As if the child in the third or fourth team who is ready on time every week wants less than the talent in the first. We stick performance levels on children and often unconsciously give a value judgment to that. As if the first team is the real team, and the rest is a kind of waiting room for those who still have to learn what winning is. But what if those lower teams are bursting with commitment, discipline and a hunger to learn - and we simply don't see that because we are paying attention to the wrong things?

Pitfall 2: “This is how we always do it”
You can divide teams in a hundred ways. By level, yes. But also by effort. By social behavior. By motor development. By learning style. By how much fun they radiate. Or by combinations of players that actually strengthen each other. Yet we often reach for the same template: who is good enough for the first, who can hope for the second, and we fill in the rest. But suppose you start from the question: What does this child need to develop? Then you could easily end up with a completely different team composition.

Pitfall 3: “Homogeneous teams are useful”
Putting like-minded people together is clear. The training runs smoothly, the pace is the same, and frustration is low. It is ideal for the trainer. But for development? Not always. Differences between players offer learning opportunities. A child who can explain something to someone else often learns even better. A child who is allowed to participate with someone who is just a step ahead grows faster. And a team in which players differ slightly from each other – in level, approach or energy – can learn much more from each other, as long as there is room for interaction and guidance. Difference is not something to brush aside, but to consciously work with.

And so…
Ask players what they want. Involve the coaches who have seen, trained and coached them for a year. And try not to rely on gut feelings, but on objective data. Yes, it takes a bit more time than quickly putting teams together. But how you divide says something about how you view learning and development – ​​use that opportunity consciously.