Ultimate Blogging Challenge January 2026 - Underdog

This weekend, Colin's U18 A team played twice against the same team, which is usually pretty harmless. This time, they had the following “reinforcement players” with them: 

4 x U16 Elite

2 x U16 Elite and U18 Top

1 x U16 Elite and Swiss National Team U16

1 x U18 Top

4 x U21 A, but with a partner club that is currently in first place. 

What are these expressions about, A, Top and Elite, and how do they matter? They represent very different development pathways.

A is the broad-based competitive level. Most players compete here while balancing school, apprenticeships, or other commitments. Training intensity is solid but realistic, and the focus is on development, team play, and enjoyment of the sport.

Top is already selective. Players train more, competition is tougher, and hockey clearly takes priority, even if it is not yet fully performance-driven.

Elite, however, is a completely different environment. Elite players are selected at regional or national level and are typically on a pathway toward the National League, in other words aspiring professional players. They train significantly more, receive professional coaching, structured strength and conditioning programs, and are often supported by sports schools or performance-oriented education models. These players are not simply “younger players” – they are systematically developed high-performance athletes, with the explicit goal of competing at the highest level of Swiss ice hockey.

This is why the use of younger Elite players in U18 A games feels problematic. While they may be younger on paper, they are often faster, stronger, tactically more advanced, and far more intensively trained than A-level players who are one or even two years older.

The rules allow such reinforcements in limited numbers, and in that sense they were followed. But when so many Elite players are used strategically in A-level competition, the issue is no longer about age,  it is about developmental imbalance. What was intended as flexibility starts to look like an exploitation of the system, especially in broad-based sport.

A typical roster on this level consists in two goalies and 15 players. The opponent showed up with 2 goalies and 18 players, of which 12 were technically allowed, but higher qualified. That's overkill in my book.

But hey, if life  gives you lemons, right? How did our guys do? 

They fought hard but lost the Friday game 0:4, which was tough. The team supervisor observed how their ability to reflect on themselves diminished as their frustration grew. They pointed fingers at their teammates' mistakes and failures, believed the referee was biased against them, and thought the coach had no idea what he was doing. 

One of Colin's teammates had a disagreement with the coach and left the game prematurely. I had never experienced that before, and I was a little shocked. The player tried to explain himself in the group chat and mentioned at the same time that he didn't feel like playing the second game, but wished them good luck. 

I was curious to see whether he would carry out his “threat” and what the consequences would be. Fortunately, he has very reasonable parents, and they made sure that he not only showed up for the game, but also made an effort and supported his team. 

In fact he played very well. So did the others. You could tell that they didn't want to be intimidated and beaten down a second time. Until five minutes before the game would have gone into shootout, one especially hard working player of our team scored the game winning goal, and I felt a weight lift off my shoulders. Of course, they still had to be careful that their opponents didn't equalize again. The opponent then pulled their goalie, but instead of equalizing, they conceded an empty net goal. 

Colin and his team celebrated a well-deserved 4:2 victory and gained valuable life experience. They showed character and backbone, and the defeat the night before had only strengthened their fighting spirit. 

I am so proud of them. 

In the end, this weekend was about much more than rules, rankings, or categories. It was about how young people react when things feel unfair, overwhelming, or stacked against them, and how they find their way back.

They experienced frustration, doubt, conflict, and disappointment. They also learned what happens when you take responsibility, show up anyway, and keep going as a team. The sweet win on Saturday mattered, of course, hashtag revenge, but what mattered more was that they didn’t let the situation define them. They grew through it.

And maybe that’s the real takeaway: systems are never perfect, fairness is often debatable, and we don’t always control the conditions we are put into. What we do control is how we respond.

So here’s my question, even if you’ve never set foot on an ice rink:

Where in your own life have you had to perform, grow, or stay resilient in a situation that felt technically “allowed,” but fundamentally unbalanced?

Because learning to handle that might be one of the most valuable lessons sport, and life, has to offer.