Don Lucia's U-8 development philosophy

[SECoach]

In defense of USA Hockey and MN Hockey on this topic.....For those that have been paying attention, the focus at these two organizations has clearly mirrored Lucia's. Small sided games, no traveling, etc is being preached loudly but many have still not heard. The pressure from non enlightened parents and coaches for mite players to travel and play full ice 5 on 5 games is immense. Our association for one has determined that we will focus almost entirely on small sided, cross ice play at these ages. Practices should be small skill stations and "games" should be played in small areas cross ice. Yes, there are a few very loud opponents to this. There is likely a few in every association that believe this, but are unable to stand up to the pressure to parents wanting to see their son/daughter on the big sheet with the clock running. Those in a position to educate, need to do so. The only way to turn this around is for those that have the knowledge to stand up to the pressure and do what's right. Those of us that have seen the amazing changes in players ability in very short periods when they are given the chance to get more than one or two touches each time they are on the ice need to stand up, speak loudly, and not duck when the rotton vegetables start flying. The argument that the kids need to play games to stay interested doesn't hold water. 6, 7, and 8 year olds keep track of goals scored and who won when the game is played in the corner of a rink or cross ice with cones for goals. Yes, they need to compete for it to remain fun, but the need for full ice competition is for the parents and not the kids.

[O-townClown]

The only accurate statement in Lucia's U8 development is - We should not put the kids out there based on age it should be ability. I have two boys that play mite hockey - One is a second year A-mite and one is a second year C-mite. I think the cross ice games are great for develping the younger or less talented players, which is why all our c-mites play cross ice games. However it does the Better or Older players no good. All the arguments for cross ice hockey are for developing our weaker players, what about the better kids - why should they suffer. We share all our ice and in our practice do alot of small ice games in practice. So I understand the concept, but this year we were forced by our district to try the cross ice games for the A mites. So far the better kids dominate even more - it is easier to go cost to cost on a quarter sheet with only three or four players to get around. There is less puck movement, the kids complain more because they want to play on the full rink not to mention the head ache it creates for arenas. Every time someone talks about the benefits COST always seems to come up. I beleive the people heading this charge should be honest and tell people that is really the only benefit at the higher levels of mites. I really hope they don't force the higher levels of mites to go to cross ice games because they will just play into the hands of programs like Minnesota Made. Associations will lose there best players which will eventually ruin them. I can't believe they would even consider this at the squirt level. Like I said we were forced to try it and based on what I have heard from the kids and seen in the games all the arguments for it are not true.

I think your post is another illustration of how hard it is to please all the parents in a program with just one approach. Believe me, at this age kids just want to play. If a kid is complaining about cross-ice it is because they are hearing from somewhere else.

Just got back from a parent-child game. My 5-year-old just finished a season of Mites on an Olympic sheet of ice. Refs, clock, offsides, etc... Believe me, he would have been far better off not having to chase guys around a sheet of ice even bigger than what the NHL players are asked to cover.

You nailed it. Cross-ice is for the below average kids. It gets them 'touches'. This is important because there isn't a lot of payback for a kid that is chasing the best kid with no success. The reason this philosophy is in vogue is that most of the country would benefit from higher participation.

Minnesota, especially the affluent Twin City suburbs, can do whatever it wants. Where I am it is critical to keep more kids interested in hopes of developing them in order to fill out teams at older levels. I know Bantams playing in Canada and one that flies out of state for all practices and every game. If the hockey were more vibrant here kids wouldn't do that.

For a picture of what much of the country is dealing with, go to YouTube and search for "SWALINA" and watch a Squirt absolutely abuse a summer house league. There is no way anyone is having fun. Those kids need to play cross-ice.

How does this impact the strongest player? It won't ruin them to participate. Another point is that Minnesota's calendar is skewed to the point that players are 6 months older. In that case I'd say we could agree and have 3rd graders playing full-ice games. Half the kids are hockey age 9 and half are the older half of hockey age 8.

Cross-ice isn't evil. My son is going backward to play in a Mini Mite program this winter. Believe me, I'm sure we'll all be happy seeing him with the puck. Not many of the kids get to touch it much in a regulation game.

[sorno82]

The problem here is that people think it is all or nothing. I find the best thing for kids is a mix from each of the trains of thought. Cross ice at 5, 6 and possibly 7 is great. At age 8, a mix of full and cross ice works well. People still seem to think that the star at age 5 or 8 is the star at 20. You need to keep the slower to mature and late developers involved, since they may end up being the best when they get older.

There is only so much you can teach a kid at any age. After a certain point, it is all diminishing returns. Hours and hours of repitition of mundane drills will burn out a lot of kids. What Lucia and Blatherwick are trying to get across is that the kids must learn the basic skills, but after a certain point, you have to just drop the puck and let the kids play, without pressure, and for the pure joy. They will then develop a passion for the game, work on their skills in a discipled manner, then go out and just play.

There is a curse for early expertise. If a kid shows promise early, parents go hog wild and sign up their kids for every clinic and try to get them on the best teams, whether the kids like it or not. With all the investment, kids feel pressure to perform and may eventually give up the sport, or stop excelling, due to excess pressure from parents.

THey are also saying that the odds are against you playing in the NHL or even D3, so you might as well have fun while you can, and let the chips fall where they may. If they become passionate about the sport, then the true development comes after puberty, and all the extra ice time as a 7 year old is somewhat meaningless. Keep them involved, let them have fun, and do not live your life through your kids achievments.

[stplhockey]

I don't believe you actually read my post. My youngest son is 5 years old and playing his second year of c mites. I beleive cross ice is best for him. I agree that skill development is extremly important. However for my older son who is 8 and in his second year of a mites I beleive he should play full ice. For his practices we do a lot of small ice games to develop skill, but he has learned alot from playing full ice games that he couldn't learn playing half ice. I think we tend to under estimate the intelligence of 7, 8 and 9 year olds. Once again age shouldn't matter. I am pretty confident our A mite team would beat our C squirt team. I think our a mites could handle full ice games better than the c squirts even though the c squirts are older. We need to assess the ability of the kids we are dealing with than use the appropriate practice and games plans. I NEVER said cross ice is bad, I think it has its place but it should NEVER be mandated to anyone.

[SECoach]

Cross ice or small area games are used at the highest levels of hockey practices. High school, college, olympic, and NHL teams all use small area games or situations to provide players many opportunities, in a short time period to touch the puck, change direction, elude opponents, and most of all to make decisions. Players at the highest levels are constantly put in practice situations to get better at making decisions with less time and less space.

Somewhere along the line it was decided that the best ways to develop young players is to put them on a full sheet of ice and let the best kids take the puck and skate up the rink with it for a shot on a goalie that can barely move. This player needed to make few to no decisions and needed to use little to no "skill" to accomplish this. The players that are slightly below this player in the talent pool do their best to catch the better player. Anyone that has seen a full ice mite game has witnessed this.

An occassional full ice game for the grandparents to see is fine. Beyond that the focus for young players needs to be play in small areas. This extends beyond their "game" time and needs to be highly stressed at practices. The days of the lines drills with lots of cones on the ice has passed. The players need to compete, but compete in a situation, whether it be a practice or a game, that gives them the most opportunity to use the skills they need to get better at and make decisions. Practices with this structure are also FUN.

National 16 Soviet coach in 1986 was asked what the biggest difference was between North American hockey in terms of development and that of the Soviets. His answer was:
Soviets: High intenstity, of a short duration, in an enclosed area.
North America: Low intensity, of a long duration, in an enlarged area.

[stplhockey]

I have heard all the arguments on how the small ice games are used in Russia. The reason the Soviet Union was so good is if you played hockey their that was YOUR LIFE. You didn't do anything but play hockey. I think if you went back and logged the amount of time the old soviet union teams spenty on ice in general vs what north american players did you would find the real answer as to why they dominated. If that is what it takes I don't want that. Both of my boys play multiple sports. They enjoy the variety. You ask them what their favorite sport is and their answer depends on what sport they are playing at the time. Youth sports is about having fun because if the kids don't enjoy it they will quit. I also was at a coaches meeting where an ex coach of the Czech National team said the only reason they played small ice games was out of neccessity. They only had 17 rinks to use so in order to get anough kids playing they had to go to small ice games. Like I keep saying I beleive there is a time and a place for small ice games, but there is also alot of value in full ice games as well. Which is why we do the small ice games in our practices but schedule enough full ice games for the kids to learn some of key parts of hockey you can't learn in cross ice games.

[SECoach]

That same Czech coach stated that it began out of necessity but it was quickly realized the benefits it had for the players. Whether out of necessity or by design, European players bring a game that is based on skill and rink awareness vs strength and power. I understand that many believe the latter is a better game......I don't.

Full ice games have their place. The mites in our association typically get two hours of ice per week. One game per week creates a 1 to 1 practice to game ratio. Not acceptable.

How do we provide more opportunity to learn skills with limited ice time? We practice in live, game like situations in a small area. Coach Lucia is correct in stating that the game concepts and "systems" can be tought to older players very quickly. This however assumes that the players have the skills and cognitive ablility to execute them.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that full ice games in limited amounts are needed for political correctness and to a smaller degree to make the players feel like they are in a "real" game. However there has been a huge push to lots of full ice games, "A" traveling mites, etc. When the push is that strong, somebody has to go completely in the opposite direction if for no other purpose than to keep things balanced. I know many "hockey people" that believe the only way for young players to get better is to play more and more and more full ice games. If this is allowed to take hold we will be taking a ginormous step backwards.

[tomASS]

I will tell you that the small sheet of ice for 3v3 hockey in EP is a tremendous training tool for players of all levels. Take away time and space in the development phase and you will take players outside their comfort zone and they will get better. Put younger kids on to an appropriate size pc. of ice for their size and ability and you increase their involvement in the game.

Take it to another sport - one of best training session at all age levels, across the world of soccer is small sided games on smaller fields. Take away time and space requires all elements of the athlete's training session to improve. Doing this increases the involvement in the game at least 5 fold.

Taking away time and space in a game creates turnovers and mistakes. Makes sense to train so players can respond accordingly in a game.

[sorno82]

I get a kick out of people who won't take great advice from some of the best hockey people out there because their little Johnny is too advanced. These guys have seen it all, are truly passionate about the development of USA hockey players, have done a tremendous amount of research on what works, and it is there jobs.

Jack Blatherwick has been exposed to the best hockey players in the world for years. He has dug into their pasts to try find whats the common thread. He has shared what he has learned. Don Lucia has coached a lot of great hockey players, won wherever he has gone, and has two boys who have recently gone through the youth hockey experience.

Listen to them, they know what they are talking about, and most of the advise is free. They are not giving the advice to make money, they are doing it becasue they want to improve the game.

[stplhockey]

I really think we all agree in an odd way. We really try for a 3 to 1 ratio with our mites. We work our butts off to make a keep outdoor ice so we can keep the 3 to 1 practice to game ratio. Like I keep saying we use our practice times for the small ice games. We really focus on the skill development side of hockey. Neither of my boys were allowed to skate with a hockey stick until they knew the bascis of skating. Both my boys went to skating lessons starting at age two. I sent them to a gal who use to be a professional figure skater and she did wonders for them. They are always playing knee hockey in our basement and they love to go to any rink and just play for fun. I also believe puck control is huge which cross ice games really help. However I really believe my oldest picked up his speed by playing on a full sheet. Even if he couldn't catch an older kid he never gave up, because I told him you never know when he might lose the puck. Now that he is in his last year of mites that has helped him a tremendous amount. That is just one example of something you can't do in cross ice games. (For the record I am not a just a parent looking out for his/her kids I have coached hockey for 15 years. I just use my kids as examples because situations create lesssons and we all can learn from these lessons). Don't get me wrong I am a firm beleiver in doing the small ice games at practices, focusing on skating and skill development. As I have said before in my opinion there has to be some full ice games to prepare these kids for the next level. I don't know if there is a PERFECT SOLUTION and I am not suggesting that Lucia and Blatherwick are not GREAT hockey minds, but I think we need to focus on what is best for the kids. It doesn't matter what sport you are talking about players are made in pratice so if we need to make a change it is in how practices are run, NOT GAMES.

[SECoach]

I think we're getting closer. I fight for minimal full ice games because when some of us stop fighting, it becomes nothing but full ice games. I can't argue that there is "some" benifit to full ice games. However the benefit is small enough that it cannot come at the price of close area play. At the mite level it is difficult to have enough ice and enough interest to get alot of both. We have to strongly err on the side of small area play. The real challenge is to get the "fans" to understand this and then to get the coaches to learn how to make practices fun and competitive. Picture showing up for your Monday night bar league and being told there is no game tonight but instead you will be getting in five lines and skating cone drills. Not many showing up the next night. Tell those same players that they will be battling 4 on 3 or 3 on 2 in a small area and they will have a great time and also get better. The emphasis has to come from the coaches and leaders to push for fun, competitive skill development vs going 25-0 at mites. For now maybe meeting somewhere in the middle is ok, as long as the middle is on my side.

[Can't Never Tried]

Until more people understand that small area games develop better skills, and improve the time and space abilities of all players (especially the younger players) this argument...or should I say discussion will continue forever.

If they could only realize the benifit of playing these small area 3-3, 4-4, or even 5-5 cross ice games while they are younger, and how much better these kids will be when they are in bantam, and HS they would all be on board with it.

I know that many HS teams that still work 3-3 or whatever, and only in the corners, not even 1/2 of a cross ice game, and these kids are good size, but the principle is the same, it improves the ability to function in decreased time and space environment.