Get More From Every Scrim by Adapting Review Structures
After a decade working with teams, I’ve noticed a pattern that never seems to go away. Somewhere between twenty-five and fifty percent of post-scrim reviews end up being a waste of time for multiple players and staff members.
This review time might be the most important moment of the week, yet many coaches approach them with an organic, reactive process instead of being consciously designed.
When you consider how crucial this time is for a team’s growth, the waste becomes almost tragic.
The main reason is simple. We put the wrong people in the room for the wrong reasons.
You’ve probably lived some of these situations yourself:
During the scrim:
One player tilts and never recovers.
Two players keep miscoordinating, and the team can’t practice properly.
You stomp the enemy team, so the game teaches you very little.
During the review:
A couple of players don’t say a word.
Someone complains that the topic “doesn’t affect my role.”
The conversation revolves around one or two players while the rest disconnect mentally.
A veteran gets bored because rookies need to review things that seem obvious to him.
These scenes are normal. They happen in amateur teams and in professional teams. And they happen for a reason.
Most coaches default to what I call the 5-0 review: five players together, one coach talking at them for the entire session.
It works but it’s very inneficient.
Here’s the good news. There is a very simple change that immediately increases the impact of your reviews:
Stop doing full 5-0 reviews by default. Start doing split reviews.
Divide players into small groups based on what happened in the game, their mental state, and their individual growth plans. A different structure allows for better focus, better pacing, and better learning.
Every time I explain this to coaches, I get the same reaction. They love the idea and see the value instantly. Yet almost none of them actually do it.
My hope with this article is to give you the tools and clarity you need to break that pattern and start running meaningful split reviews that truly accelerate your team’s growth.
How to Run Efficient Post-Scrim Reviews
Split reviews are not only for large staffs. Even if you coach alone, you can still run them.
Of course, the ideal setup is a head coach, an assistant coach, and a psychologist. But the core idea works at any scale. What matters is understanding what the team needs in that moment and designing the review around that need.
Below are the main structures you can use, and a few examples of when to use them, and how to execute them.
The 4-1 Review
When one player is clearly tilted
If you have a psychologist, they take the player aside. You run a normal review with the remaining four.
If not, you still have options:
Send the tilted player for a short break. Fresh air, bathroom, water. Give them the whole review block to reset.
If emotions allow it, talk to the player for 3 minutes. Keep it calm. If you’re angry, don’t try to “fix” him right now.
You can also send the four players for a 5-minute break, talk to the tilted player privately, then let him rest while you run a 4-0 review.
Any time a player mentally collapses during a scrim, consider a 4-1. It protects the team’s learning and gives the player a chance to recover.
When the review would focus almost entirely on one player
Early in the season, many reviews revolve around early game. In League of Legends, that often means the jungler becomes the center of attention.
After a few days of this, the other players start disconnecting in reviews.
Instead:
The coach working directly with the jungler takes him for a 1:1.
The other coach runs a review with the remaining four.
If you’re a solo coach, you can still do this:
In 2–3 minutes, explain what the group should focus on.
Leave a veteran or the IGL in charge of the group review.
Then take the struggling player aside for targeted work.
When someone was a non-factor in a short game
Imagine a 20-minute scrim where top lane had almost no impact. The jungler and support inted the rotations, so the map was chaos. The top laner followed the calls and had no real chances to join fights. Also, he was playing a new matchup.
In this case:
The assistant coach reviews lane and wave management with top.
The head coach focuses on the two players who derailed the game.
The mid and ADC attend because their map movements and pressure tie into jungle/support decisions and execution.
This makes the review relevant for everyone.
If you are coaching solo, the top laner can review his lane by himself and, right before the next game starts, talk for a couple of minutes with the coach to share his findings.
The 3-2 Review
Bot lane issues
New patch, unclear meta, and your bot lane keeps losing the same matchup on both sides.
Sit with the bot lane to fix it. Skip the full review if needed. Solving this unlocks much more value.
Send the other three players with the assistant coach, or if you are coaching alone, have a veteran lead the review.
Jungle + Support coordination
Jungle + support shape the entire map. If they’re not aligned, the game collapses. Reviewing as five helps, but if you’ve already hammered this point and it’s still happening, do a split:
The head coach works with the jungler and support.
The assistant coach or a veteran leader works with the remaining three.
This keeps everyone learning instead of watching mistakes they’ve already seen.
Two players tilted with each other
This is a classic mid-split problem. If you have a psychologist:
The psychologist works with the two players.
The head coach runs a review with the other three.
If you’re solo:
Give the group a clear review theme and have a veteran or IGL lead the room.
You go talk to the two tilted players to get them ready for the next game.
By avoiding letting interpersonal tension spread through the whole team, there’s a higher chance your next game will stay productive.
Advanced Structures and Alternative Options
3-1-1 and 2-2-1
These setups offer maximum flexibility, but they require multiple staff members. They are an extension of the previous 4-1 and 3-2. You can always split a group to work on more specific things.
Some common uses:
Assistant coach takes one player to review lane specifics or jungle pathing.
Psychologist takes one or two players dealing with emotional issues.
Head coach works with two or three players on team concepts.
Two players review something together without a coach (common with strong duos like jungle + support or ADC + support).
As a solo coach, I don’t recommend trying this. I would only consider it if you have a mature IGL or veteran able to lead one group, and if you have a duo capable of reviewing on their own.
Dynamic Reviews
Once you master the alternatives, you can switch structures mid-review.
Examples:
Start a 3-2. The psychologist takes two tilted players for 10 minutes. The head coach works with the three on early game. Then the group reunites to review teamfights and late game for another 10 minutes.
Start a 5-0 and review the key points for 10 minutes. Then split into a 3-1-1 to work with the jungler on his pathing and the support on roaming decisions. The other three review teamfights, focusing on how the carries are DPSing and how the top laner is creating space for them.
To properly run dynamic reviews, you must know your staff well and your team needs to be used to split reviews. This way, transitioning from one structure to another will feel seamless and extremely efficient.
No review: When the team is mentally collapsing
Although it’s rare, there are moments when reviewing is not the right call.
In general, I recommend pushing through. Players need to build emotional resilience. If they learn that “we don’t review when we play bad,” they develop a dangerous habit.
But context matters.
Imagine that the last week has been rough, scrims have been tense, and yesterday ended with a difficult team discussion. Today, you’ve had three awful scrims in a row and the first two reviews were intense. After the third one, you may gain more by stepping back.
Options:
Give a break to decompress.
Have the psychologist lead a de-stress session.
If you’re on site, do something physical and fun like ping-pong or spike ball.
Praise review: When there is genuinely nothing meaningful to review
If you stomped the opponent and the past few reviews have been strong, do a very short session focusing only on positive examples. Reinforce what was done well.
This works especially well when combined with comms, so players hear themselves making good calls and see themselves executing correctly.
Then take a short break. Before they leave explain clearly that they need to keep full intensity in the next game. It’s common that players relax a little too much and aren’t focused for the start of the next game.
How to Decide Between a 5-0 or a Split Review
When the scrim is about to end you have enough information to choose the best structure.
Take a quick moment with your staff and ask a few simple questions:
Is someone mentally collapsing?
If yes, consider a 4-1 or a psychologist-led split.
Did a player have almost no impact on the game?
If so, a small-group or lane-specific review may be more useful.
Was there a problematic pair?
A duo that keeps miscommunicating or misplaying often needs isolated time.
Will a full 5-0 be low value for someone?
If one or two players will sit through 20 minutes of content that doesn’t help them, split the group.
This short check-in is enough to avoid forcing the team into a structure that doesn’t fit the moment. The goal is to run the one that gives your players the highest learning per minute.
Closing Thoughts
Before choosing any review format, look honestly at your resources. Coaching alone gives you fewer options, but you still have enough flexibility to avoid low-value sessions. If you have an assistant coach or a psychologist, use them actively. One of the most common inefficiencies in team environments is staff members sitting quietly through post-game reviews “just watching.” Gathering information is useful, but it cannot be the default.
Assistant coaches and psychologists should frequently add value in ways the head coach alone can’t:
running a parallel review
supporting a tilted player
addressing interpersonal tension
focusing on lane-specific work while the head coach handles macro.
When every staff member has a clear purpose, the players learn faster and the reviews stay sharp.
In the end, designing efficient post-scrim reviews is about intention. Not routine or habit. You improve by adapting the structure to the players’ needs, the staff’s strengths, and the reality of the game you just played.
If you approach each review with that mindset, you’ll quickly see the difference. Players stay engaged. Problems get solved sooner. Learning speeds up.
Efficient reviews aren’t complicated. They’re simply conscious.
