Thoughts of how USA hockey can improve

[dumpitin]

During the past weeks there has been much discussed about the needs for change in USA hockey. From the bashing of Coach Smith on the women’s side to Mike Modano’s bickering on the men’s side it’s obvious to many, including myself there’s many things wrong with the model. I for one do not blame Coach Smith or believe Modano are the problems, rather it’s the model of development our country has evolved into. USA Hockey being the governing body we have been led by they surely have a big part in the process, but their hands will always be somewhat tied by the nature of how our society operates. Rather than finger pointing and bickering I hope to throw out a number of ideas on how we can improve our countries opportunities to create better players. I will also highlight some of the reasons we continue to not produce the number of world-class players in either gender. This piece will be too long for some and I apologize ahead. If you are truly interested in some of the ways to get USA hockey back playing with the elite it might just be a great starting point for real debate.
Having myself played the game with success at the college level and been involved with coaching in the college game and everything from the midget to mite level for the past 30 years my perspective is broad. I also have two children that participate in the game at the highest level in their age group. I hope to point out some of the things we consciously did for our children to prepare them to play at that level. Many of these things will seem obvious and things that USA Hockey has promoted. However, the key for our children was that we had access to the right information and coaching for their development and most importantly had the means to make sure they were prepared to be successful at that level.
The main problem with USA Hockey is not that they lack this information, but the fact being they have not figured out a way for the majority of our players to access it. Using the Euro powers of Russia, the Czech Republic and the two gold medal contenders on the men’s, Sweden and Finland as models on comparison to USA Hockey, it’s very easy to see where we come up short. USA hockey talks about a pyramid approach of having a wide base and funneling our players thru to the elite level. In theory, this makes sense and stands up to the Euro model, but how we in the USA go about the process is where we break down. Our supposed wide base at the bottom simply does not exist and rather than preparing our children at the young ages we actually unintentionally begin very early to prepare only a very small number of players to thrive in the game. This happens for many reasons, but first and foremost is that MOST of our players at the crucial young development stage never gain access to the information and coaching that prepares them to play at high levels. Some of the problems are economic, as not all families have the means to access the best camps, teams and coaching money can buy, but mostly where a child grows up and the opportunities he or she is provided that seals their chance to thrive. There are many great volunteers that provide a tremendous service to our young players, but unfortunately far to many have little knowledge or experience to prepare our base with the skill and knowledge set to be ready to play at a high level.
Compare this model to the Euros where they determined early on that to be successful on the international stage the key was having the widest possible number of players getting great instruction at the young ages is where we fall flat on our face. The Russians have stated clearly that the need for quality coaching is most important at the young levels rather than the later. Their coaches at these levels go thru rigorous training and only the best are given the opportunity of instructing and nurturing at this most important development stage. The other powers have the same model and the proof in it is constantly bore out with the success they have in developing a never-ending steam of great players. Their society’s compared to ours makes it easier to structure and monitor their model, but is something we must learn to implement at some means to level the playing field.
Luckily, some of our youth do get the opportunity to prepare dynamically at the early stages, but far to few, compared to the hockey powers. Using Minnesota as an example, a producer of a disproportionate number of talent, it’s easy to recognize the impact that Jack Blatherwick has had on shaping the way they approach training youth players. For those who have not heard of him, he’s a gifted coach that dynamically trains skating and skills. He spent time in Russia, early in his career and recognized the two most important skills a quality player must possess are the two mentioned above. You may have a player that can really think the game and have some success at the lower levels but to reach a high level of player without great skating or skills most fall the wayside. Jack’s model of training has been adopted almost state-wide and those lucky enough to get full access to his instruction are blessed.
Another great instructor is Coach Bill Beaney of Middlebury College. His Division III men’s program is one that every team in the country measures themselves by. Many a coach from the pros to college have been influenced by his training methods and use his model to shape the way they prepare their own teams. Coach Beaney would be the first to give much credit to his college coach, the late Charlie Holt, but maybe even more important was his importation of the soccer small-games training that enabled him to separate from the rest of the pack. Coach Beaney uses small games as the foundation for training players who can think the game at a high level and solve the problems that the game constantly throw at each player. USA Hockey has promoted this model, but unlike coach Beaney that uses about 50% of each training session with small games most coaches will throw them in for the last 5-10 minutes. More importantly though, most coaches do not have the knowledge of selecting the appropriate games for their player’s needs or have the ability to process the games with their players to maximize their learning potential.
The above two are not the only great coaches we are blessed with, there are many more. However great their impact has been on numbers of players, access to them is not possible for most athletes and their models are examples of how far athletes can progress given the right information and instruction. Their type of impact in the Euro world is mass-produced and copied for all to benefit from, rather than a small group lucky enough to have access. I’ll also say that, as well as, Blatherwick has added to the skating and skills and Beaney to the thinking component of the game combining the two models is the focus of the power programs of the world’s best..
Lastly, USA hockey has long promoted a number of positive approaches to train by. Idea’s, like much more focus on practice and playing less games at the younger levels. However, having national bound teams at the youngest of levels goes against the practice/game ratio issue by promoting an agenda that you need to play in national tournament events to be discovered. That some how being seen or more damaging not being seen as a 12 or 14 year old could hurt your chances to advance in the game. The simple reality is that instead of flying around the country to have your child get their 10 games in to qualify for a national bound team, they would get more out of, development-wise shooting 500 pucks in the basement for 10 days. Try telling that to a parent that has spent $10,000 in the past year for their child to be seen and you’ll no doubt learn just how warped people are promoting a perspective with little or no understanding on what’s in the best interest of the athlete.
There are other problems in the USA hockey model, but the above difficulties are certainly the greatest hurdles we need to over come. If we cannot find a way to better serve and legislate how we train our young players, I’m afraid to say, all USA hockey’s greatest intentions will remain accessible to a fraction needed to be successful on the world stage. I’d suggest a mentoring program could be adopted, but if merit takes a back seat to taking care of old friends like USA Hockey has generally adopted it won’t work either. Being a passionate hockey fan, I’ve loved watching the Olympic games, the NHL with their new rule changes. The only thing that would bring more joy would be having the opportunity to watch the next generation of Forsberg’s, Kovalchuk’s and Ovechkin’s develop in our own backyard. I do believe it’s possible, but we are long way from that reality with the current system in place

[dumpthepuck]

USA hockey talks about a pyramid approach of having a wide base and funneling our players thru to the elite level. In theory, this makes sense and stands up to the Euro model, but how we in the USA go about the process is where we break down. Our supposed wide base at the bottom simply does not exist and rather than preparing our children at the young ages we actually unintentionally begin very early to prepare only a very small number of players to thrive in the game.




Hockey just plain does not generally draw the best athletes. It is a regional, niche sport and too expensive. It is also perceived as a white sport.

We need a way to get inner city kids into hockey. We need a way for the sport to spread to the whole country. That means that we need to do a lot about cost. Otherwise, we will continue to lose many of the best athletes that do not play hockey. Instead, they pick up a basketball and head for a playground, or kick a soccer ball to the park.

The thing is, we need those kids. Until we start getting kids of color, inner city kids, kids from Mississippi and Alabama, kids who cannot afford to play now, we can stop talking about a broadly based pyramid.

The pyramid that we have now works for some people. However, with some exceptions, they are mostly white northerners who can afford this sport. I will know that that pyramid has a broad base when high schools are just naturally built with a rink, just like they now have a gym. Then hockey will no longer be just for a narrow band of color, location and affluence. That is when USA hockey can really talk about the broad base to the pyramid.



:)

[Puck Swami]

Good posts and topic.

I don't think the US development model is that badly broken. At the top level, there are over 140 US players in the NHL, which is a huge jump from the 100 we had in the early 90s and the 20 we had pre-1980. Both 2006 USA Olympic teams were highly competitive and never lost a game by more than a goal, men or women. With a bounce here and there, both teams could easily have finished far higher than they actually did. The difference between medals and no medals in the top 6 mens teams is microscopic. Canada had $100 million in NHL talent and had a similar result to our men. I was in Torino, and I know the folks at USA Hockey - the development model is working. The best US players can skate and beat any team in the world, and it's been that way since the mid 90s, as the 96 World Cup proved.

With the Women, certainly the talent was there this year to be a solid silver, but simply did not rise to the occassion. Ben Smith will certainly not be back again, and I think you could make a strong case for Mark Johnson and/or Cammi Granato being the US women's coaching braintrust for 2010. The women need more money and a wider array of minds in the selection and development of the program, but there's no question in my mind that overall, we're the second best program in the world after Canada, which has a big numbers advantage on us.

At the Junior Level, the 2004 US National Junior team won gold, and took our program to a level where they now know they can compete with the best in the world, and the NDTP is a huge success in churning out high level players. The USHL has made big strides in development as well, and feeds players to an increasingly good NCAA system, which has never had more talent or been more competitive.

At the youth level, there is more work to do, and there needs to be better coaching for younger players, more outreach to minorities, and continued reliance on skating and puck control. One hour of practice with a puck on your stick is worth at least 20 games of development, where you might have the puck for what, maybe 3 minutes? More cross-ice games, more pond hockey for unstructured creativity and less young age pressure to win is key. How many good athletes does hockey lose too young due to silly parental pressure to win and travel. I'd like to see well paid professional coaches at the youth level that won't need to answer to overbearing parents as critical.

[ARM]

I think you could make a strong case for Mark Johnson and/or Cammi Granato being the US women's coaching braintrust for 2010.I'm not that familiar with her bio outside of Team USA -- what is Cammi Granato's coaching experience to date?

[Puck Swami]

I'm not that familiar with her bio outside of Team USA -- what is Cammi Granato's coaching experience to date?

Granato has not coached, but for better or worse, she is the iconic and most credible face of women's hockey in this country, and I think she should be trained to eventually coach the US team, alongside a guy like Mark Johnson, who understands hockey at all levels - NHL, Olympic, College and Women's. Whether she could be ready for the head job by 2010 is debatable, but I think that's the end game that USA hockey should pursue, with Granato taking over the program when she's ready.

[BKDad]

These all sound like great ideas, but like most things probably won't happen overnight.

Do you have good suggestions what can be done at a local level or even by an individual girl player to get on the right track? Starting small probably could yield results much sooner.

[dumpitin]

Arm and Swami,
My intentions with the long post are to create so dialogue about long terms impovements to help the game. Hopefully we can get some people joining in with some additional ways to improve the game and thoughts on the directions I describe. I was hoping not to turn this into a who should coach the next Olympic team. Thats a whole nother fish to fry. I will add the mention of King, Hallderson or Johnson as Ben's replacement was a typical knee jerk reation at the USA offices by Walter Bush. There was no need to come out with those possibilities without a great deal more thought on who might best serve the team. I don't want to spend time debating the merits or lack of merits for these candidates or any others at this time. Hopefully, though, more than a knee jerk discussion on which directon to go will go into the selection process.

[Hux]

Good posts and topic.

I don't think the US development model is that badly broken.

At the youth level, there is more work to do, and there needs to be better coaching for younger players, more outreach to minorities, and continued reliance on skating and puck control. One hour of practice with a puck on your stick is worth at least 20 games of development, where you might have the puck for what, maybe 3 minutes? More cross-ice games, more pond hockey for unstructured creativity and less young age pressure to win is key. How many good athletes does hockey lose too young due to silly parental pressure to win and travel. I'd like to see well paid professional coaches at the youth level that won't need to answer to overbearing parents as critical.

I agree, and think the underlying problem lies not with USA Hockey, but with the local associations. Too often there are too few truely knowledgeable coaches who can teach skating, either at the Skill Development Program level, or later during Mites or Squirts when they need it most. Naturally a volunteer association is only as good as the volunteers available, but it seems to me that more needs to be done to ensure that the coaches on the ice can actually coach, and are willing to do so.

Many times I have watched practices where a coach runs a drill without actually watching what the players are doing during the drill. Here and there a comment might be made, but mostly it is setting up cones and having the kids skate through them etc. and the extent of coaching is to blow the whistle to get the next kid to go. The other coaches on the ice lean on their sticks, or chat with one another, or play with the pucks. Most often they are dads with little playing or coaching experience, and are there because their kid is on the ice and "coaching" is more fun than being in the stands.

The best coaches, and consequently the teams that have the best skaters and players (and usually the best records), are those that either chase kids through drills and point out the little things that can make a big difference in a player's development, or are asute enough to be able to stand back and notice these things. They then offer positive reenforcement while correcting the flaws. They coach rather than "run" drills.

Watch Mite or Squirt teams practice some time and notice how many kids round a cone with their inside foot up and the weight on the outside skate, rather than doing a glide turn. Note how few times, if any, a coach will notice this and make a comment to correct it. Watch how many kids start a drill standing straight up, rather than in their ready or hockey position. Watch how many kids skate up the ice with two hands on their sticks, or worse with the stick in the air, pitch forking as they go.

Watch when players skate the circles in practice and note how many skate with their stick in the air, and pointing away from the direction they are turning as they do their crossovers. Does anyone say "stick on the ice, stick leads the body through the turn?" Probably not. Look towards the bench and you will see two coaches chatting instead.

Watch shooting drills and see how many times a coach will fully explain and demonstrate all the elements involved in shooting a puck. Do they explain and show, in slow motion, position of the puck on the stick, position of the puck relative to the skate, position of the body, weighting of the rear leg and transfering the weight to the lead leg etc. etc. etc? When the drill is running do they stop a player and work to point out the mechanics that are right, and those that are wrong?

Usually the answer is no. Most of the time you will see a coach shoot the puck against the boards or into the net without going over each action that is involved. Most of the time the coach will shoot using only his arm strength or upper body. They will then stand back and let the kids fire away, and maybe say something to one or two kids who are most obviously having trouble shooting the puck.

And as Swami noted, watch how many teams actually skate, and for how long they skate. Any team that has a kid standing for more than 30 seconds between each rep is a poorly coached team. (I once watched a Squirt practice with 15 kids on the ice, using half ice. During a 20 minute span, while the team was doing a 3 on 2 break out drill, the kids averaged just under two minutes of skating time. Total. The other 18 minutes and 10 seconds was spent standing in line waiting for their next rep)

Ultimately the coaches and what they are coaching on the ice is the responsibility of the local association. And until more attention is paid to following what USA Hockey, Hockey Canada, and the IIHF has developed with the CEP materials, particularly at the Mite and Squirt level, the longer we will languish behind other countires in our development of players.

[Skate79]

I keep thinking of Finland and how a country of 5 million people can turn out an Olympic program that is obviously well run and contributes many players to both college and the pros. If Finland can do it, why can't the US?

The answer may lie in the fact that the US has so many team and individual sports that hockey may not be attracting the best women athletes. Also, the cost of the sport is somewhat prohibitive when compared to soccer, basketball and tennis and thus available only to those who can afford it. This precludes middle income/low income families from encouraging their girls to participate.

That said, this may be an opportunity for a public-private partnership of sorts to help USA Hockey organize developmental programs at the very low levels to ensure active participation from athletes, access to rinks with plenty of ice time, attention to detail coaching, equipment, etc.... Otherwise, I'm not sure how women's hockey will accelerate and grow.

I can't speak to the coaching because I have no experience in this area. I'm not sure you can expect well-paid experienced coaches to spend time at the lower levels helping to develop the next generation of players. That may be too pie-in-the-sky thinking.

[dumpitin]

Skate79,
you bring up great points about making the sport more accessible for all the right reasons. In many of the Euros and in Canada it is much easier and less costly to buy in.
However, you are missing the point in thinking we do not have enough quality athletes in the pipeline. Sure it would great to add more, but the reality is we simply do not train the ones we have now enough to ready them for the highest levels. You mention Finland as a comparison. Let me tell you this if we where to tape a typical Finn. practice at the 8-9 year old level and put that up in comparison to the typical USA practice at the same age level, you would be floored, but you would profoundly understand why we are not developing at the young ages. Sure there are some great coaches out there who run great practices, but the numbers of those don't come close to the Euro model's where their developmental coaching is mandated country wide on what to teach and when. We on the other hand have far too many first generation parents who think they've reinvented the game and how to train because they've come up with a course of cones the kids can skate thru is genius.
Hux, gave us sime examples about the things he's seen at the rink that simply don't serve the kids. Unfortunately, what he talks about is much more the norm, hence, it's really not we need more number-wise, just more kids that get coaching and are prepared for the next challenges.

[ARM]

Let me tell you this if we where to tape a typical Finn. practice at the 8-9 year old level and put that up in comparison to the typical USA practice at the same age level, you would be floored, but you would profoundly understand why we are not developing at the young ages.I understand that at any age, any level, a well-run practice is ideal. But right up there with learning the game and how to best play it should be "have fun". In all sports, so many athletes burn out and walk away from the sport in their teens because it just isn't fun anymore. Too many coaches who think the game is all about them, too many parents who can't let it go and are constantly telling them "You should be playing instead of Pat.", too many requirements to pick a sport at a young age and focus on it all year. Sports should be fun, and any model that doesn't remember that will not succeed in the long run.

[BKDad]

There's lot of other dynamics going on as well.

Since there isn't much uniformity between what various coaches teach, it's hard for the kids. To use an earlier example, a kid might be told by Coach A to have one hand on the stick while doing crossover drills around the circles. Later on, Coach B might then tell the same kid that s/he should have two hands on the stick at all times. What's a 9 year old kid going to do? Generally they'll do what the coach du jour tells them to do. (This kind of thing really sticks as well. In January I happened to watch the Olympic team practice. A highly touted girls club team got to warm up with them for the first 20 minutes or so. One of the warm-ups was skating the circles. The Olympic coaching staff kept yelling "One hand on the stick." None, as in zero, of the club players did that. Even after direct instructions right to them live, loud, and right as they were skating.)

The second problem is a classic teaching issue. Do you teach to the top of the "class" while helping the kids further down in development to reach the top? Do you teach to the mean of the bell curve, and let the kids on top fend for themselves and the the kids on the bottom try to catch up? Do you teach to the bottom? Each teacher seems to have their own idea, as does the administration in a school. In addition, some teachers are much stronger with one approach versus another. So too with coaches.

Third, you have peer issues. Just like you find in school, there's lots of pressure from some to fit into the mean. The kid who does his/her homework might take a lot of grief from the rest, as might the kid who does well on tests. Same in the locker room or even in the drill line. This is especially true for younger kids on a team. I sadly was witness to this first hand, or at least was told about this in detail by a couple players on the team. A kid who was the youngest on a club team played totally inspired hockey at the regional tournament semi-finals and finals. Even though the kid wasn't the leading scorer, this kid did all the things offensively and defensively that everybody on this board always praise. The opposing coach spent a few minutes in the hand-shake line telling the kid what a great job the player did and how the player controlled the outcome of the game. The team coach took the player aside while waiting for the medal presentation and praised the player. Later, in the locker room, the kid was praised again in front of all the players for the inspired play. But, once the coach left the room, several of this kid's team mates got on this kid and gave the kid an unbelievably hard time. This carried over for the next few practices. The kid finally decided that it wasn't worth taking the abuse, so the kid throttled back some. That may not be the best decision, but that is the kind of things kids do. Especially girls at that age.

How do fix all that?

[uvmcats]

DUMPITIN, HUX, PUCK SWAMI, ETC

Great posts. I think these ideas hit the mark more than some of the previous threads. Controlling and focusing expenses at the lower levels is essential to the future development and growth of the sport. Spending money wisely may not be at the forefront in operating youth programs. I think money is spent on flashier uniforms, more tournaments, fancy gear bags and warm-ups, etc. and not necessarily focused on the best methods for development of the kids.

In our community we have been successful in having the recreation board allow the youth association exclusive rights to running the concessions and all proceeds going back to the coffers of the association. This has allowed registrations to remain at the same amount for quite a number of years. However, this has maintained the membership level but served to expand it.

I am working with/on the city council to take another look at youth sports programs in the community with the idea of user fee system for use of municipal recreation facilities (our rink is municipally owned). Basketball, soccer, baseball, football, etc are not charged for use of municipal recreation areas while hockey is charged as any other renter for use of the rink. The irony is that the proceeds of the rink pays the annual salaries of the rink staff who maintain the playing fields in the summer. (Obviously the other sports programs are resisting) Even a $10 per youngster fee in the other sports would pay for one of the staff which in turn would reduce the ice rental fees for youth hockey by a third or more. I am also using the argument that it is a good business practice for the future life of the rink if they hook kids into sports that use the rink so when they become adults, they join adult programs that rent the ice thereby sustaining its future viability.

From what I see on these posts I think the idea of paid coaching is a good one. I used to pay for coaching when my daughter figure skated and I don't know why this idea is so foreign in hockey development at local associations. If we are successful at the rental reductions, I am going to ask the board to give serious consideration to this idea. Even without that success, I will advocate the use of resources for paid coaching over flashier uniforms, more paid tournament fees, etc. Thanks for the ideas.

I absolutely agree with DUMPITIN that cost is the key to attracting youth into the sport. We must find ways to make the sport more affordable at the entry levels. I worry about our sport when I see the prevalent development of select programs at the mite and squirt levels.

[BKDad]

From what I see on these posts I think the idea of paid coaching is a good one. I used to pay for coaching when my daughter figure skated and I don't know why this idea is so foreign in hockey development at local associations.

Paid coaching is actually against the by-laws of some state hockey associations.

I think the idea is to avoid the cost spiral that are found in travel youth soccer clubs, swim teams, and the like. There's also the thought that competitiveness would be tied to the amount of money spent.

[Hux]

There's lot of other dynamics going on as well.

Since there isn't much uniformity between what various coaches teach, it's hard for the kids. To use an earlier example, a kid might be told by Coach A to have one hand on the stick while doing crossover drills around the circles. Later on, Coach B might then tell the same kid that s/he should have two hands on the stick at all times.

Which is funny in an unfunny way. USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and the IIHF (rest of the hockey playing world) have IDENTICAL manuals for teaching kids how to skate and stickhandle. The three governing bodies spent many years developing and fine tuning this instruction model, and when followed it is an unbelievable resourse that produces positive results.

Everyone who is certified to coach in the US, Canada, and Europe gets these manuals. The programs that are most successful, particularly at the lower levels are the ones that follow their doctrine closest. Unfortunately, and I have first hand experience with this, many coaches and associations put no credence in the manuals, and rely on methods that have been used since the association began.

I was in a meeting with the Board last summer, and citing how we failed to do the things that were used in the manual (we use figure skating coaches for skating instruction in the SDP and they refuse to allow sticks or pucks, agility boards etc etc for most of the instruction) and was told by a Board member "Those manuals don't have anything really groundbreaking in them. We have been doing this this way for years and have had great results. Look at the banners out there." He was pointing at a few recent State Championship banners for Midgets and Squirts, failing to note that the last High School championship was in 1993, that five championships in 15 years out of 19 teams competing from Mites to Midgets each year is not a very good indicator of the success of doing it "this way for years."

Of course winning championships isn't the only, or best indicator of success or failure. However when you go to a Mite or Squirt game and you watch how well other teams skate and handle the puck, and then you watch those of your town and you see the drop in ability you have a pretty good indicator of what is wrong. As one former NHL player, and current analyst once told me, "Your best Mite A skaters are about average when compared to the best of other towns." Ouch!


Third, you have peer issues. Just like you find in school, there's lots of pressure from some to fit into the mean. The kid who does his/her homework might take a lot of grief from the rest, as might the kid who does well on tests. Same in the locker room or even in the drill line.

You wouldn't think that something like that would really make an impact on a kid, but it does. My neice had gone trough two years of figure skating before switching over to hockey. She was great at skulling, especially backwards, and would fly up and down the ice. One day during her Skill Development Program session we noticed that she had gone from being at the front of the line in drills to the back, and seemed not to be putting much effort into the drills. Long story short..she had gotten grief from the kids in line when she had blown by a bunch and been praised, doing skulls of all things, and decided that she didn't want to stand out, be praised etc. Three years later it is still like that, and getting her to give 100% during drills is near impossible.

As a coach, you also need to be on the watch for things like this, but there is only so much you can do about 1) kids saying things to other kids and 2) having kids be overly sensitive to the comments of others. The best remedy though seems to be to keep the kids in constant motion so they don't have time to be bustin' chops!

[BKDad]

Long story short..she had gotten grief from the kids in line when she had blown by a bunch and been praised, doing skulls of all things, and decided that she didn't want to stand out, be praised etc. Three years later it is still like that, and getting her to give 100% during drills is near impossible.

There's another dimension to this, too.

Imagine two kids playing defense when two attackers break out of the offensive zone. One defender plays their attacker exactly as coached. The other kid tries to be dramatic, gets way out of position, and recovers by making a diving leap in front of the attacker bearing in on the goalie. The attacker gets distracted some, and the goalie makes a nice save. Who gets cheered? The kid who screwed up but did something dramatic. The kid who did the job as s/he was supposed to goes to the bench, and gets a pat on the helmet from the coach for doing a good job. The drama queen gets a nice talking to from the coach.

Now, who is the kid going to listen to? The coach or the people in the stands?

This is all presuming that the coach knows which is is right...

[Hux]

There's another dimension to this, too.

Imagine two kids playing defense when two attackers break out of the offensive zone. One defender plays their attacker exactly as coached. The other kid tries to be dramatic, gets way out of position, and recovers by making a diving leap in front of the attacker bearing in on the goalie. The attacker gets distracted some, and the goalie makes a nice save. Who gets cheered? The kid who screwed up but did something dramatic. The kid who did the job as s/he was supposed to goes to the bench, and gets a pat on the helmet from the coach for doing a good job. The drama queen gets a nice talking to from the coach.

Now, who is the kid going to listen to? The coach or the people in the stands?

This is all presuming that the coach knows which is is right...


Or how about this one:

A Squirt coach, who has played for years, thinks it is a good idea for the backside wing to be OUT on the opposing D in their own end, rather than down by the net when the puck is in the far corner to "prevent the point from getting a shot" :rolleyes:

Ah, hello, what about helping out the D in front of the net by picking up the forward that is camped at the post and is more likely to see the puck come to him/her from the far corner on a pass/shot/rebound?

Ah, hello, what about helping out the strongside D who has gotten the puck and railed it around the boards. It would be nice if the backside wing were able to get to the hash marks on the board and pick up that puck, rather than have the wing camped out on the post or the center in the low slot pick off the puck while that wing waited three feet inside the blueline? (And then the coaches complain that too much time is spent in the D zone, and not elsewhere, and then devote most of practice doing breakout drills without adressing the inherent flaw in the positioning that results in the failure of the breakout to even start.)

And then when the goalie makes the initial save on the shot that results from the pass out of the far corner, and then saves the shot that comes from the wing at the post, but since there is no one there to help clear the puck, the third shot and second by the UNMOLESTED wing camped out on the post goes in the net gets grief for "giving up rebound goals" what do you say then? How does the goalie, or D for that matter, feel when they hear the groan in the stands or from the bench?

Did I mention the same coaches like to have the Centers play the very high slot/float outside the zone to get breakaways, thus leaving the D in front of the net to pick between the center low in the slot at the frontside post, or the wing at the backside? Can you say pickup game mentality in coaching for Squirts?!!!

[BKDad]

How does the goalie, or D for that matter, feel when they hear the groan in the stands or from the bench?

It depends on whether it's boys or girls.

I once read an interview with Tony DiCicco, who seems to know a thing or two about coaching women. He gave an example about how coaching girls is different than coaching boys. Imagine a team of boys coming in at half-time down by two. The coach might go on about players missing defensive assignments, bad passes, lack of hustle, and so on. A typical boy will say to himself, "Yeah, yeah. I messed up on that one play, but Joey over there screwed up at least twice, Mike kicked the ball out, Jake got stripped by that kid, and lots more." The boys will get all fired up and be ready to rip the flesh off the players of the other team. And screw up some more. But, according to Tony, if you said anything like that in a girls locker room, heads would begin to drop and most of the players would start feeling badly about how they had played, and how they had let the team down.

Of course, those are just generalities, but it does point up yet another issue that needs to be considered when coaching kids.

[Puck Swami]

Which is funny in an unfunny way. USA Hockey, Hockey Canada and the IIHF (rest of the hockey playing world) have IDENTICAL manuals for teaching kids how to skate and stickhandle. The three governing bodies spent many years developing and fine tuning this instruction model, and when followed it is an unbelievable resourse that produces positive results.

Those program manuals cost millions to develop, and they are excellent when followed. Problem is, I think Americans tend to be a more individualistic society and often think they know better. This is also a huge problem in Canada, where everyone thinks they know more about hockey coaching than the coach they have.

Europeans (SWE, FIN, RUS, CZE, SVK, etc) tend to be more collective-oriented vs individualistic-- they follow the books almost to the letter and they use professional sports club systems with professional coaches at lower levels to make sure everyone learns. That's why they can sustain such good players out of a much smaller base of registrants.

[ushockey]

I really enjoyed reading and agreed with most of these posts. Reading this thread is a little like going to a coaching clinic and talking to coaches who are really into the game and understand their impact on the players they coach.

One of my pet gripes is games instead of practices and not because they are easier. All coaches know that games are easier to run than a well run practice. Yet parents are so involved with games as their primary concern that they have no objection to paying for referees but wouldn' think of paying for coaches. Which has a greater impact on a players development an excellent coach or a top referee? As most everyone knows it is obviously coaching! If we paid coaches we could now compete with referees for the best individuals to develop our players. Would the refereeing suffer? Probably but does that really matter in the long term?