PDA

View Full Version : Who's responsible???



toehimp
12-12-2009, 07:59 AM
Hey all,

Having come from the tUMD-DU game last night, a question has arisen. tUMD has not played 60 minutes of hockey in a game for a while, and I want to know: What percentage of responsibility do the players and coaches each have for the performance??? If a team is lackluster on the ice, who's job is it to turn it around??? Is is the players job to rally the team and get back on track??? or is it the coaching staff's responsibility to motivate the players to play.

I use tUMD as the example, but Im sure that there are many other teams in collegiate hockey that fail to compete for the whole game. Anyone have an opinion on this???

moose97
12-12-2009, 08:20 AM
Having come from the tUMD-DU game last night, a question has arisen. tUMD has not played 60 minutes of hockey in a game for a while, and I want to know: What percentage of responsibility do the players and coaches each have for the performance???

Well, you bring up an interesting point. The kids get a scholarship based on the fact that a game is 60 minutes in length, not 58, not 62. If they can't be out there (i.e., only physically set foot on the ice for, say, two of the three periods, and let the other team play 6 on 0 for the entire third period), then that's a big problem.

Now, is that conditioning, or is it a basic lack of communication from the coaching staff that the game is the specific length (60 minutes) that it is in college? Kids going direct to college from the high school game may be confused by this change, as they frequently play fewer minuted (17 minute periods - 52 minute games in Minnesota HS hockey, and some areas play 15 minute periods - 45 minute games), and if the coach fails to tell the player that the games are longer, that sounds like poor coaching.

Back to the player. If they attended a game while being recruited, they should have noticed these basic details - but you never know. I think it's a toss up. Besides, I've heard of this concept called "shifts," where the only player actually on the ice the entire game (all 60 minutes) is the goalie anyway, so getting a skater to play "all 60 minutes" is really not accurate anyway...

I think I've rambled enough for now. Perhaps someone can expand on my thoughts...

Nevergoodenough
12-12-2009, 09:10 AM
Hey all,

Having come from the tUMD-DU game last night, a question has arisen. tUMD has not played 60 minutes of hockey in a game for a while, and I want to know: What percentage of responsibility do the players and coaches each have for the performance??? If a team is lackluster on the ice, who's job is it to turn it around??? Is is the players job to rally the team and get back on track??? or is it the coaching staff's responsibility to motivate the players to play.

I use tUMD as the example, but Im sure that there are many other teams in collegiate hockey that fail to compete for the whole game. Anyone have an opinion on this???

This type of question usually comes from someone who has never played any sport at a high level. I hear moms saying "they just look so tired" and arm chair quarter backs expecting their team to always be "on" and win every game.

But, to attempt an answer: The players are expected to play a system that is put in place by the coaching staff. Sometimes the systems fail against different systems and the players may not appear to be working hard when in fact they are doing as they've been coached to do and it isn't working so things fall apart.

These young men don't like to lose. They are, by nature, very competative or they wouldn't be where they are. That being said, it should be the coaches responsibility to put in place systems that are flexible, and to encourage high levels of effort be all. If a player (or players) don't want to give high effort, then the coach should set them and play those who will. That puts the job on the backs of the coaches, in my opinion.

toehimp
12-12-2009, 09:11 AM
Im aware of the 'shift' concept. My point was the team playing as a UNIT for 60 minutes, rather than taking a period or two off on a regular basis. Thank you for pointing out the mis-wording of my previous post.

stev

Puck Swami
12-12-2009, 11:48 AM
It's really rare to see a team play all-out for 60 minutes. Athletes have different work rates based on physiology, conditioning and desire. There are also periods where systems play, energy conservation and game strategy dictate a different pace. Finally, the opponents work rate are also up and down during a game, and their work rate can make your team look like they are working less hard. For example, last night, in the third period, Denver had a 3-1 third period lead, and I am sure that they did not want to over-pursue the puck and get get caught defensively, while at the same time UMD is playing desperate offensive hockey to get back into the game. Denver is working hard to prevent a goal, while UMD is working hard to score one - totally different strategies, and different work rates.

Some players have also high-revving motors and some don't. DU has a player named Matt Glasser, a 5-9 fourth line guy whose feet are almost always moving and hustling. He doesn't produce very much with all that effort, but he's sure fun to watch. Joe Colborne, on the other hand, spends a lot of time gliding around at 6 foot 5. He can cover Glasser's distance with about 1/2 the effort, and racks up much more production due to his higher level of (NHL first rounder) talent. Some DU fans wish that Colborne would hustle like Glasser, but that's not really not Joe's game. Joe is still growing into his big body, and if hustled like that, he'd fall probably over.

The point here is that all teams have variances in the physical output that change over the course of a game.

HarleyMC
12-12-2009, 12:01 PM
It's really rare to see a team play all-out for 60 minutes. Athletes have different work rates based on physiology, conditioning and desire. There are also periods where systems play, energy conservation and game strategy dictate a different pace. Finally, the opponents work rate are also up and down during a game, and their work rate can make your team look like they are working less hard. For example, last night, in the third period, Denver had a 3-1 third period lead, and I am sure that they did not want to over-pursue the puck and get get caught defensively, while at the same time UMD is playing desperate offensive hockey to get back into the game. Denver is working hard to prevent a goal, while UMD is working hard to score one - totally different strategies, and different work rates.

Some players have also high-revving motors and some don't. DU has a player named Matt Glasser, a 5-9 fourth line guy whose feet are almost always moving and hustling. He doesn't produce very much with all that effort, but he's sure fun to watch. Joe Colborne, on the other hand, spends a lot of time gliding around at 6 foot 5. He can cover Glasser's distance with about 1/2 the effort, and racks up much more production due to his higher level of (NHL first rounder) talent. Some DU fans wish that Colborne would hustle like Glasser, but that's not really not Joe's game. Joe is still growing into his big body, and if hustled like that, he'd fall probably over.

The point here is that all teams have variances in the physical output that change over the course of a game.

I see your point here BUT a coach can tell, even if the guy is dog tired, if a player is giving 100% relative to his present energy and compete level. I don't think a coach can expect to see the same energy output out of every player in the later stages of a game. But again, relative to what's left in the tank, a player can demonstrate a 100% effort.

toehimp
12-12-2009, 03:49 PM
You are correct in your assessment that I havent played the sport at the highest level. However, I have been a student of the game since I quit at the HS JV level. I have seen teams that put on a solid three period performance one night, and then sleep through other games. The frustration level from the fans standpoint is that knowing the talent level that exists, and the level of effort being put out are often at polar opposites. Im not being a whiny hockey-mom, Im asking your opinions on where the onus lies between the players and the coaches. I agree that the coach should be able to see who is dog-tired from working to max level, and who is just not in the right mindset for the game, and then make adjustments.

I have seen teams that have said "To Hell with the system" and taken things into their own hands. Sometimes it has worked, more often times not. Team chemistry is a big factor in the success or failure the team.

And I agree, these players are highly competitive people. They want wins. I get that. But often there is activity behind the scenes that effect the product put on the ice. So if a player/team is consistently not giving their 'A game', where should the responsibility lie???? Please dont read any more into the question than the question itself.

stev

JW Tigers
12-12-2009, 04:03 PM
I see a coach's job as recruiting the players and putting in place a system that will best help those players to utilize their skills and gain any advantage possible. It's NOT (IMO) a coach's job to motivate the players, aside from being willing to sit a player who doesn't give enough effort. So most of the time I blame the players, rather than the coach when I see a lackluster effort. Players are on a team representing themselves, their school, and each other. Winning makes everyone look good. If that isn't enough to motivate them, they should not be playing at all.

Puck Swami
12-12-2009, 04:11 PM
JS is right. These guys spend 10 hours of practice each week, as well as all the study sessions and weight room time (probably 20 hours a week when you add it all up) preparing for about 5 hours of game time, of which each player might actually be on the ice for 1-2 hours per week. If you can't give your best effort for that short a period, then you shouldn't be a D-I hockey player. A whole 4 year college hockey career is probably somewhere around 48-96 hours of in-game ice time. Make it count.

Skeeterman
12-12-2009, 04:20 PM
It's all my fault.

Runninwiththedogs
12-12-2009, 10:48 PM
Ciskie interviewed Brady Lamb between periods. (Well, he played an interview between periods that he had done on Wednesday.) He asked him about playing 60 mins and Brady stated they know they are not, but are working toward it. So it's not just us in the stands worrying about this.

To Swami's point re: Glasser and Big Joe, I realize there are differences between players and styles of play. However, differences between the way one player plays from night to night are where one spots the shifts they "take off" or the games they don't play "60 mins."

I place it on the player, not the coach, unless the coach does not take action and get on them and/or demote them to a lower line/shorten their playing time/bench them. tUMD had an elite player who SHOULD have been benched and wasn't, because they sucked so badly they could not afford to have him out of the lineup (although my argument would be if they suck anyway, who cares?) That player is on my tv screen right now! Ha. Now they can bench guys if they need to because they are deep. At least at forward. But I don't really believe in extrinsic motivation. It has to come from within. Look at Mike Curry. He was benched all the time. He didn't have the motivation inside himself to do better in class, stay off the booze, and work hard. A coach can't change that.