Words like “never” and “always,” and pronouncements that reduce or eliminate choice, bring certainty and closure to discussion and debate, quickly end arguments, and clean up messy questions. To those that use them, they solve many problems.  But regardless of the question or the application, absolutes are rarely ever appropriate. Absolutes ignore nuance and complexity in exchange for a black and white simplicity – a dangerous exchange.

As we begin 2016, soccer in the United States has a risk of becoming dominated by this type of decision-making process, with opinions positioned as fact and conclusions derived in a vacuum devoid of diversity of background, experience, and perspective.  

The genesis was simple – “we need better American players” said professional soccer across the world (and correctly so). Through a basic and inarguable statement a simple question was presented – how does the United States develop more and better soccer players? It is a multi-faceted question that requires deep analysis of causation, demands careful consideration of the impacts (intended and unintended) of various potential ways to solve it, and should have contribution from those that think in many different ways. The question does not have an easy solution.

Many started at the solution by identifying the “American style of play” in youth soccer as part of the problem. Fine – this is undoubtedly a contributing factor. Few would dispute that many teams in youth soccer play a game with too little thought, risk, and decision-making, and that the sophistication and level of teaching in youth soccer can and should be better.  But having identified only one contributing cause, it becomes clear that this cause itself is a tough problem to solve. The solution for increasing creativity and developing more thoughtful and sophisticated coaches and players lies in education and behavior change – complex endeavors that take time.  Improving educators and methods of teaching requires analysis of how to reach people most effectively, better methods to help instructors and learners, and time for all to practice and perfect these new techniques. Beginning a program to make these changes then requires massive resources deployed across the country in hundreds of different markets. These are heavy issues and they need discussion on multiple levels to be solved most effectively; the discussion itself would yield much of interest and assistance.

Unfortunately, instead of a discussion about improving decision-making and sophistication, a popular and pedantic soliloquy about the “right” style of play was heard. Solving the problem of “style of play” became so important, (and conveniently, easy), that it was solved with absolutes: only one “style” is appropriate to play – a style of passing, possession, combination play, and all sorts of other concepts that represent “attractive” soccer. But what does that phrase - “attractive soccer” – even mean?  Even the words used to define this hopelessly subjective concept are themselves filled with grey area. Is a five-yard pass a better representative of great “style” than a 15-yard pass? Is it a representative of great “style” to pass laterally repeatedly and more rarely create chances, or to be lightning fast and precise and create more frequent chances and transitions? Is a quick wall-pass combination a better representative of great “style” than a three-player combination completed in the air with a 30-yard driven ball and set-back? For those so quick to throw out Barcelona as the ambassadors of “style,” is it Messi’s individual dribbling that makes the team so stylish, or the quick passing of Iniesta, or the snapping and snarling of Mascherano? 

Before even answering these questions, there are other, deeper and more fundamental questions that are more important to consider when absolutes and mandates of this kind are on the table.

Why is it that everyone in a country of over 300 million people, stretching thousands of miles from coast to coast, must play soccer the same way? Is the culture of Southern California the same as New England? Are the personal attributes valued in Dallas the same as those in Berkeley? Is the weather and environment the same in Miami and Minneapolis? Are there as many players and resources in Des Moines as New York? All of these factors impact how the game is played, the mindsets of the people playing, coaching and watching, and the way that their version of the game is ultimately represented. Ignoring them all, and claiming that one size fits all, is ludicrous on its face.  

Even if it was possible to demand one style, why would we want uniformity in every player and coach in the country? When every player makes the same decision in the same situation, with the same predictable behaviors, have we accomplished anything to move the game forward and make it better? What happens when players that have faced one style of play for their entire career suddenly must face players and teams that play the game differently – or must themselves go to another country and play differently? Are they prepared? Does having one mandated style of play mean that we ultimately will have only one type of athlete playing the game at the highest levels? Even more obviously, doesn’t every player have unique strengths and qualities that will influence how they interpret situations differently? Surely a team of eleven Iniesta’s would not be consistently successful.

The reality is that no successful soccer country in the world has one dictated style of play, or a style of play expressed the same way by all of its clubs and leagues. The style of play of Real Madrid is incredibly different than Barcelona. The style of Manchester United is totally different than Arsenal. Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund attack and defend in widely differing ways. So why are we suddenly choosing to know better, and so comprehensively so?  

The game evolves based on the creativity of those playing and coaching every day – those experimenting, challenging boundaries, and finding new solutions to new tactical problems. These grass roots entrepreneurs, for lack of a better term, create an evolving style of play that keeps the game fresh. The style of Manchester United in the 1990s and 2000s is different than Ajax in the 1970s – but both were fantastic to watch. The excitement created through the concept of counter-pressing arose to combat the infamous tiki-taka – and it created a fascinating duel. Today’s newest and coolest style is merely the subsequent soon to be fading fashion in a constantly evolving game. The Barcelona of today, (or is it becoming Bayern Munich’s time in the sun?), is merely the latest evolution of Manchester United in the late 90’s, AC Milan in the early 90’s, Ajax in the 80’s, and on and on. They all were some of the ambassadors of style of their day, they all played with their own unique style, and they all ultimately were surpassed by the next evolution.  

It is impossible to reconcile these facts with a pronouncement that there is only one style of play that is acceptable. So how will we evolve and compete successfully on the world stage if everyone plays the same style, develops the same type of player, and creates an incredibly monotonous game?

We won’t. Because our problems aren’t as simple as having a better style of play. In fact, dictating a style of play to solve development problems is like putting a band-aid over an infection. Treating this as an illness of style simply ignores the underlying symptoms and pronounces the game soon-to-be healthy in a pyrrhic fashion.

Style of play is ultimately dictated by the coaches on the ground. Great players can play in any style – because they have been taught the fundamental concepts of the game well, they have been taught how to solve problems for themselves, and they have been taught how to apply technique with intent. These great players are developed partially, but only partially, through great coaches.  So a deeper issue, and a more effective question to ask if we are truly to solve this problem, is – how does the United States develop more and better soccer coaches at all ages?  

And with this second question, with the same terrible over-simplification, some now have a similar answer in absolutes – demanding that everyone coach the same way. These professors state that all coaching is done Monday-Friday, and game day is for the players – where the coach should sit, observe, and stay quiet. They would never have hired Jürgen Klopp, and would have tried to quickly stop the career of the emotionally exuberant manager. These elitists state that coaches must have a professional or international playing background.  They would never have hired Jose Mourinho – and would have permanently fixed the derogatory label “translator” around his neck.  

Those that solve problems with absolutes insist on institutionalizing their viewpoint, background, and opinions – conquering by declaration. The problem of improving style of play is conquered with a declaration of “attractiveness,” and the problem of improving coaching is conquered by a declaration of conformity. The result of these declarations of absolutes is that everyone teaches the declared style in the declared way, with the exact same methods, tone of voice, and curriculum. 

It surely is a brave new world.

Fortunately, there is a different, less domineering way of leading, and of solving these difficult problems. A way that fosters more creative and comprehensive solutions, engages individuals across the spectrum, and ultimately insures better ideas and better support.  There is a way of leading with openness, inclusion, transparency, and through collaboration. The process may be messy, but the results are far better.

Instead of declarations, celebrate diversity of background, education, and opinion. Destroy the power distance that so often keeps leaders above those actually in the field. Share ideas with the hope that they are challenged. Be surrounded by those that think differently, and who aren’t afraid to say so. Recognize that any solution takes time – as everyone learns differently, and everyone needs to experiment and wrestle with change themselves. Acknowledge that New York is different than Houston. Rejoice that the player developed in the corn-belt may have different strengths than the one developed in the southern California sun. Be open to the fact that different styles can accomplish the same result, with different methods.

Recognize that improving coaching is the first step in improving any style of play. But remember that improving coaching is only one part of developing world class players – there are cultural variables in this country that also need to change and evolve.  

Understand that style – of both play and coaching – is ever evolving because of differences in interpretation and opinion, advances in the game, and changes in society. Appreciate that local laboratories of different styles ensure this constant improvement, and an ever more creative standard of play and coaching. But remember that meaningful change takes time, and freedom.  

At the end of the day, there is no single “right” style of play, and there is no single “right” style of coaching. Answering questions on style with absolutes and declarations are a sign of lack of understanding.

A philosophy to create an environment where all players can achieve their full long-term potential can embrace a wide diversity of styles of play and styles of coaching. In fact, embracing these differences, including those with different opinions, backgrounds, and perspectives in the decision-making process, and transparently and openly discussing these issues, may be the only way to ever solve the question of how we develop more and better players and coaches.

Here is to hoping for open, inclusive, transparent and collaborative leadership in 2016. 

Christian Lavers is US Club Soccer’s Executive Vice President and the President of the Elite Clubs National League. He coaches professionally in the NWSL, is the Director of Coaching of FC Wisconsin, and has worked with multiple youth national teams.