We were third in the league at Christmas.
The season had gone better than expected. Players had developed. Results followed. Parents were happy. I should have been satisfied.
Instead, I decided to fix our problems.
We conceded too many goals from crosses. Our midfield got bypassed against good teams. We struggled to break down defences that sat deep. Each problem was real. Each problem had cost us points.
In January, I changed our defensive positioning against crosses. Changed our midfield setup. Changed our attacking approach against deep blocks. Three significant adjustments in four weeks.
By March we had dropped to eighth. The team that had been performing beyond expectations was now underperforming dramatically.
I had fixed nothing and broken everything.
The Mistake I Made
The problems I had identified were genuine. We did concede from crosses. Our midfield did get bypassed. Breaking down deep defences was difficult.
But the changes created bigger problems than they solved.
Players who’d known their roles became confused. The defensive positioning change clashed with habits they had developed over months. The midfield adjustment disrupted partnerships that had been building. The attacking change added complexity when the team was already stretched.
More critically, changing three things at once meant nothing got embedded properly. Players were half-learning multiple new approaches rather than fully learning one.
The third-place team had been good at lots of things. The eighth-place team was mediocre at everything, trying to execute changes they did not understand.
The Conversation That Clarified Everything
An experienced coach in the league watched our slide with bemusement.
“You were third,” he said. “What were you trying to fix?”
I listed our problems. The crosses. The midfield. The deep blocks.
He nodded. “Those were problems. But you were still third. The things that made you third were working. You just broke them all trying to fix the things that were not.”
He explained his approach to mid-season adjustments. Never change more than one thing at a time. Give each change three weeks to embed before assessing. Only change things that are genuinely costing you more than the change will disrupt.
“You were third despite those problems. The problems were worth one or two league positions. Your changes cost you five.”
What Assessment Actually Requires
I had assessed wrongly because I had assessed emotionally. The crosses that had cost goals stayed in my mind. The clean sheets that came from our general defensive organisation did not register as strongly.
Proper mid-season assessment needs data, not memory. Results against different types of opposition. Goals by method, both scored and conceded. Performance by game phase. Patterns that repeat, not one-off incidents.
The crossing problem I had fixated on had actually cost us three goals all season. We’d kept seven clean sheets using the defensive approach I had then changed. My assessment had magnified the problem and ignored the foundation.
Technical assessment matters too. Which players are developing? Where are the genuine weaknesses? Is performance in matches matching performance in training?
Tactical assessment asks whether systems are working, not whether they are perfect. No system is perfect. The question is whether it is working well enough that changing it would improve rather than disrupt.
The One-Change Principle
The following season, I adopted a simple rule: one change at a time, three weeks to embed.
When we started conceding from set pieces, that became our focus. Not set pieces and transitions and pressing. Just set pieces.
Week one introduced the adjustment and explained the reasoning. Low-pressure practice until players understood what was changing.
Week two applied it in training. Full sessions including the new approach. Coaching reminders during games. Feedback and refinement.
Week three tested it in matches. If it worked, we maintained and moved to the next issue. If it did not, we understood why because nothing else had changed simultaneously.
The discipline was difficult. Multiple problems existed at once. The temptation to address everything was constant. But each time I had given in to that temptation, the result had been confusion and regression.
Protecting What Works
The crucial insight from my third-to-eighth collapse was that changes have costs.
Every adjustment takes training time away from maintaining existing strengths. Every new approach creates uncertainty that affects confidence. Every modification risks breaking something that was working while trying to fix something that was not.
The question is not whether a problem exists. Problems always exist. The question is whether fixing this problem is worth more than the cost of the change required.
Third place meant most things were working. The problems were real but manageable. The changes cost more than the problems had.
Now I ask a specific question before any mid-season adjustment: What currently working thing might this change disrupt?
If the answer involves anything that is contributing significantly to our success, the change needs reconsideration. The cure might be worse than the disease.
Small Adjustments Beat Large Changes
Most mid-season problems do not require formation changes or system overhauls. They require tweaks within existing structures.
Instead of changing our entire defensive approach against crosses, I should have adjusted one trigger. Instead of restructuring the midfield, I should have refined one positional responsibility. Instead of overhauling attacking patterns, I should have added one alternative option.
Small adjustments embed faster because they change less. Players retain their foundation while adding or modifying a specific element. The risk of disruption drops dramatically.
Big changes feel decisive. They satisfy the urge to do something significant. But they usually cost more than they are worth, especially when a team is already performing reasonably.
When Struggling Teams Need Different Thinking
Struggling teams face different calculations. When everything is going wrong, protecting what works matters less because less is working.
Even then, the principle of focused change applies. Identify the specific problems, not the general feeling that things are bad. Pick one or two issues that would most improve results if fixed. Address those, embed them, then consider the next.
The worst response to struggling is panic-changing everything. Players lose all confidence when their entire approach gets discarded. Coaches lose credibility when they abandon their principles under pressure.
The better response focuses on fixable specifics. What exactly is going wrong? What would fixing that look like? How do we train it?
Struggle requires focus, not revolution.
The Review That Helps
Formal mid-season reviews work when they are specific and constructive.
Where we have come from: pre-season versus now, acknowledging progress. What is working well: celebrating genuine successes. What we are focusing on: one or two specific areas, not vague improvements. Individual feedback: private, supportive, actionable.
The review should be positive overall because development is happening even when results are not perfect. It should be specific because vague feedback helps nobody. It should be forward-looking because dwelling on past problems serves nothing.
Players should contribute their views. They experience things coaches do not see. Their perspective often reveals issues that external observation misses.
The Continuous Improvement Cycle
Mid-season is not a single adjustment moment. It’s the beginning of continuous refinement that runs through the second half.
Weekly, there is brief post-match analysis identifying one training focus. That focus appears in the next session. The following match tests whether it is working.
Monthly, there is broader pattern assessment. Are priorities still correct? Is player development progressing? Do changes need adjustment?
This cycle creates sustained improvement rather than lurching between problems. Each week builds on the previous. Each month refines the direction.
What I Know Now
Third place with problems was better than eighth place with changes. The team that was performing imperfectly was still performing. The changes I made cost more than the problems they were meant to solve.
Mid-season adjustments work when they are small, focused, and given time to embed. They fail when they are multiple, major, and rushed.
The discipline required is patience. The patience to change one thing when ten need attention. The patience to wait three weeks before assessing. The patience to protect what is working while fixing what is not.
Your mid-season problems are real. The temptation to fix everything is understandable. The path forward is smaller and slower than that temptation suggests.
One change. Three weeks. Then assess.
The results follow.
Ready for sustained improvement?
The Football Coaching Academy provides frameworks for mid-season adjustments that improve without disrupting. Systematic approaches to assessment, prioritisation, and implementation. Join 1,600+ coaches building through their seasons rather than rebuilding constantly. $1/month to start.