Shorting The Bench

[greybeard58]

I remember reading an article a long time ago and this subject came up in reference to the psychology of the player. At the end the statement was that when you skip over a player,it tells the player that you have no confidence in him and you just told his team mates that you have no confidence in him. The player will soon have no confidence in himself.
A good coach will teach all players and sit for injuries and discipline only and should reward hard work. Is winning a game worth benching players for any other reason and if you are a coach that agrees maybe you should reevaluate just how you are teaching and setting your lines. Let the high school coach play with their minds .

[JSR]

Simple....it's all about putting kids in positions to succeed.

Like I said before, I don't believe in shortening the bench if your definition of that term means a player sits for long durations in a game. What I'm talking about is situational. For example: team A is down by 1 goal with 30 seconds left in the game. The coach of Team A decides to put his best six players on the ice with the goalie pulled in an attempt to get that game tying goal. In this case, shortening the bench benefits that team that is trying to win that game.

Your reference point is much different than mine. I regularly see teams sit the weaker players for long stretches in order to keep the top few players on the ice. At age 7-8.

One parent and I came up with these guidelines that, if communicated in advance of the season, could lead to understanding and buy-in.

Scrimmages (non-league games): Everyone plays equal

League games: Everyone plays equal until final five minutes where team will make decisions necessary to win, come back, or hold lead

Tournament games: Playing time will possibly not be equal

Of course, this should not be the policy if a team plays in lots of tournament games.

Teams from large associations don't have huge gulfs separating the best and borderline players. Where participation is low it can be a huge issue. If a coach plays everyone equal the top players, who are capable of winning games almost on their own, may be part of a chronically weak program.

My reference point includes a Spring travel team where the range was a very strong 8-year-old down to a 5-year-old and four 6-year-olds. If you've never been associated with a team with a spread like that it is real easy to say everyone should play equally.

I really don't think many people have a problem with your "last 30 seconds" scenario.

I am from a small association. We have a huge spread from the top player to the bottom of the bench. I do not advocate shorting the bench at all in the mite, squirt, or pee wee levels. This is silly. Seriously, we are really trying to win games over developing our players at those ages?? I do not want the good players getting worse but I sure as heck don;t want the gap between the top ad the bottom players getting bigger either and that is exactly what you promote when you short the bench. If you are a smaller association you are likely the feeder team to your high school. Why would you not have a broader view and longer term view than some silly game at the youth level. I want all of these kids to be put in ALL situations so they have an understanding of being in those situations. I want this so when all these boys are playing at the high school level they will be able to become a better team and win at the high school level. Spring AAA teams can be a place for the top players to get further ice time and develop beyond but association hockey at the pee wee, squirt and mite levels should be focusing on developing ALL of their players. You are not giving equal ice time becuase it's the "tree huger" thing to do, you are doing it because you have a goal that is beyond that game or even that season. Will you lose a few games along the way doing it that way, yep, will YOU as a parent feel a little frustrated during some games, yep, will your kid's team be a better team as whole in the long run, yep, and will your kids grow up being better kids and players because of it, yep. Shorting the bench in youth associations.... seriously

[muckandgrind]

I would like to know what everyone's definition of "shortening the bench" is....are we talking about the last minute? last 5 minutes? half the game? What?

[JSR]

I agree with you "muck" this is how far the pendulum has swung in the galvanizing craze of the just win mentality in North American hockey. We are closed to new ideas like you have kindly stated. It has been spun so far in fact that you might insinuate I am against winning, no sir, in fact I think winning has it place and is vitally important to learn how to win and also to expect to win but that comes with careful preparation and execution. This is something we do not do well in the United States. We are not the great chess masters we sometimes think we are or assume to be the case. Lets build a "better mouse trap" (expand and improve our game) well that takes some innovation to do, it it takes time and also patients none of which fair too well in our culture. You must tell me where shorting the bench benefits the greater good of the game for those who play it and for those who are entrusted to pass it on the the next generation? I am curious to know.

Simple....it's all about putting kids in positions to succeed.

Like I said before, I don't believe in shortening the bench if your definition of that term means a player sits for long durations in a game. What I'm talking about is situational. For example: team A is down by 1 goal with 30 seconds left in the game. The coach of Team A decides to put his best six players on the ice with the goalie pulled in an attempt to get that game tying goal. In this case, shortening the bench benefits that team that is trying to win that game.

Remember, hockey is not an individual sport...it's a team game and coaches should have the latitude to do what's in the best interest of the team as well as the individual players.

I would actually prefer to see a mix of the best players and some of the other players put in the game in that situation. Teach all the players to be successful, give them all confidence. They won't always succeed but neither will the 6 best players...

[JSR]

I would like to know what everyone's definition of "shortening the bench" is....are we talking about the last minute? last 5 minutes? half the game? What?

My definition is any point of the game, period, in the youth levels

[muckandgrind]

I agree with you "muck" this is how far the pendulum has swung in the galvanizing craze of the just win mentality in North American hockey. We are closed to new ideas like you have kindly stated. It has been spun so far in fact that you might insinuate I am against winning, no sir, in fact I think winning has it place and is vitally important to learn how to win and also to expect to win but that comes with careful preparation and execution. This is something we do not do well in the United States. We are not the great chess masters we sometimes think we are or assume to be the case. Lets build a "better mouse trap" (expand and improve our game) well that takes some innovation to do, it it takes time and also patients none of which fair too well in our culture. You must tell me where shorting the bench benefits the greater good of the game for those who play it and for those who are entrusted to pass it on the the next generation? I am curious to know.

Simple....it's all about putting kids in positions to succeed.

Like I said before, I don't believe in shortening the bench if your definition of that term means a player sits for long durations in a game. What I'm talking about is situational. For example: team A is down by 1 goal with 30 seconds left in the game. The coach of Team A decides to put his best six players on the ice with the goalie pulled in an attempt to get that game tying goal. In this case, shortening the bench benefits that team that is trying to win that game.

Remember, hockey is not an individual sport...it's a team game and coaches should have the latitude to do what's in the best interest of the team as well as the individual players.

I would actually prefer to see a mix of the bes players and some fo the other players put in the game in that situation. Teach all the players to be successful, give them all confidence. They won;t always succeed but neither will the 6 best players...

See, this is where I disagree. What you said sure sounds nice and all, but is not rooted in reality. IMO, players missing a shift at the end of the game won't lose confidence...and I'd like to see a study that says otherwise. I can only talk from personal experience with me as a youth player and my kids. Myself, like my kids, have been on both sides of the equation, both as missing that shift when we weren't the top players and as getting those shifts when we were. In fact, I think missing that shift acts as a motivating factor for those players to get better and be thought of by the coach as a player he wants out there to help the TEAM win.

Want to see a player lose confidence? Put them in a position to fail and watch them crawl into a shell and become tentative..

[PanthersIn2011]

I would like to know what everyone's definition of "shortening the bench" is....are we talking about the last minute? last 5 minutes? half the game? What?

Not playing a kid for reasons related solely to his ability is shortening the bench. No matter how much time is left. And no matter what the situation is. Period.

I think most adults and most players (PeeWee & older) will accept a limited shortening of the bench in the final minutes of a game. But I think it is vitally important that the coach's decision be made in "real time". Way too many coaches pick their 5 kids in November and use the same 5 kids all season long. Instead, reward the kids who gave you extraordinary effort. You should see different kids (different lines) from game to game.

Good coaches are not afraid of putting kids into situations where they might fail, because they realize that is also where the greatest opportunity for growth is. And even failures can actually teach in ways that successes cannot.

Youth coaches have an obligation to get every player into critical situations over the course of the season.

And for Squirts and Mites, I agree with greybeard. Sitting while the team succeeds is more destructive than trying and failing. They're not being selfish ... they're being 10. Just keep it simple and roll them!

[Bronc]

I would like to know what everyone's definition of "shortening the bench" is....are we talking about the last minute? last 5 minutes? half the game? What?

Not playing a kid for reasons related solely to his ability is shortening the bench. No matter how much time is left. And no matter what the situation is. Period.

I think most adults and most players (PeeWee & older) will accept a limited shortening of the bench in the final minutes of a game. But I think it is vitally important that the coach's decision be made in "real time". Way too many coaches pick their 5 kids in November and use the same 5 kids all season long. Instead, reward the kids who gave you extraordinary effort. You should see different kids (different lines) from game to game.

Good coaches are not afraid of putting kids into situations where they might fail, because they realize that is also where the greatest opportunity for growth is. And even failures can actually teach in ways that successes cannot.

Youth coaches have an obligation to get every player into critical situations over the course of the season.

And for Squirts and Mites, I agree with greybeard. Sitting while the team succeeds is more destructive than trying and failing. They're not being selfish ... they're being 10. Just keep it simple and roll them!

The unfortunate part of shorting the bench when it is the norm, you see coaches decide why even practice the others in those situations. Therefore it becomes a double wammy (not in games or practice).

You see players not only are they full strength shortened, but not getting special team experience in a game nor at practice. Then in the few instances they get in a game they mess up and therefore just reinforces to the coach they can't do it, go figure.

[HockeyDad41]

Coaches who shorten the bench at the youth level must really be under a lot of pressure to win. That's pretty sad.

[rockcrusher]

This is how it works in our association.

Mite and Squirt level, Equal playing time for all.
Peewee level, Play to win the last five minutes of the game.
Bantam level, Play to win the last period.

However our numbers are so small, that at all levels everybody pretty much gets equal playing time. Our bantam team only has 12 skaters and two goailes, so its pretty hard to shorten the bench much except for the last minute of the periods.

[defense]

Shorting the bench should be used infrequently in ALL youth hockey associations. Why you ask? The programs intent is to develop NOT thwart the overall improvement for each young athlete. Shorting the bench will come soon enough for the amateur athlete once he reaches high school level. Therefore at association level it is paramount to develop the young athlete and to give the young athlete the opportunity to fail and succeed in the game. Europe does a far better job in development of their young athletes strictly because they are not so transfixed on winning at squirt, pee wee and bantam. Their goal is development and they far exceed the North American model when it comes to skill and team building. In the United States we are obsessed with bringing home the trophy. Coaches lets face it, the NHL is not coming to knock on your door. So think long and hard about your role in development. If a coach wishes to short the bench come playoff time that is his choice to make. By that time he has honed and molded the team into what should be a cohesive 5 man unit that hits the ice and is capable to execute the system. His kids are by that time confident in their roles and ability to play the game and contribute to the team. By doing this you are setting the youth up to succeed not fail as you have given the player ample time to improve during the course of the season into his expected role. It is my opinion that it is not necessary short the bench for an invite trophy, it is not worth it to the team or the program to be zealots for blue ribbons in spite of developing player athletes at the young age and that includes bantam.

I cannot and will not argue with this, very well said. It is possible to win games using all of the players, I have been involved in this.
No matter wich way you look at it though, winning is important. Eventually the guys want to win. I see nothing wrong with the competitive juices being primed at a younger age...but if it has to wait untill high school, it is likely better in the long run. Nice post.

[O-townClown]

Coaches who shorten the bench at the youth level must really be under a lot of pressure to win. That's pretty sad.

Exactly. The worst violator in our state is a program that shares a facility with two other programs and is in competition for the same kids. To attract them, they feel winning is what matters.

I wholly understand the "don't shorten the bench" philosophy. What I'll point out though is that if your team loses over and over again to a team that isn't as strong as you at the top, isn't as strong in the middle, and isn't as strong at the bottom frustration sets in.

Is it fair to the best players in the program, many of whom have been losing to a program like that 6-8 times per season, to hold fast to the everyone-plays-equal philosophy? Do so and they may never win.

Pressure to win? Heck yeah. Scores are all posted on the internet now.

I grew up where even our star players never saw the ice more. No matter how late in the game. Yes, I agree this is the best way to do things.

Just gets a little hard when most every program in our state doesn't. Two choices: take the L or do something about it.

[jancze5]

I don't think at any level below High School do you need to shorten your bench. Your coach does however need to put his team is best possible position to win, or should try to. This may mean MATCHING up the best fit to get results.....(that's B S lingo for Shortening the bench)

[JSR]

Simple....it's all about putting kids in positions to succeed.

Like I said before, I don't believe in shortening the bench if your definition of that term means a player sits for long durations in a game. What I'm talking about is situational. For example: team A is down by 1 goal with 30 seconds left in the game. The coach of Team A decides to put his best six players on the ice with the goalie pulled in an attempt to get that game tying goal. In this case, shortening the bench benefits that team that is trying to win that game.

Remember, hockey is not an individual sport...it's a team game and coaches should have the latitude to do what's in the best interest of the team as well as the individual players.

I would actually prefer to see a mix of the bes players and some fo the other players put in the game in that situation. Teach all the players to be successful, give them all confidence. They won;t always succeed but neither will the 6 best players...

See, this is where I disagree. What you said sure sounds nice and all, but is not rooted in reality. IMO, players missing a shift at the end of the game won't lose confidence...and I'd like to see a study that says otherwise. I can only talk from personal experience with me as a youth player and my kids. Myself, like my kids, have been on both sides of the equation, both as missing that shift when we weren't the top players and as getting those shifts when we were. In fact, I think missing that shift acts as a motivating factor for those players to get better and be thought of by the coach as a player he wants out there to help the TEAM win.

Want to see a player lose confidence? Put them in a position to fail and watch them crawl into a shell and become tentative..

We will have to agree to disagree I guess because I have seen this strategy work first hand on numerous occassions. You just have to be patient and also relaize it will not work everytime and you have to be big enough to accept that there is a greater good at work. I also disagree that you are putting players in a position to fail in the youth level. Losing does not equal failing, not trying equals failing.

[mvhockey12]

Coaches who shorten the bench at the youth level must really be under a lot of pressure to win. That's pretty sad.

You'd be surprised how much pressure some coaches are put in, even at the youth level.

One thing I haven't seen being talked about is motivation. Everyone talks about confidence, and how poor Timmy will lose confidence if he gets skipped over once a period or whatever, but what about the kids' motivation? I don't mean external motivation where the coach pumps a team up before the game, etc. but I'm talking about that inner drive where each individual kid wants to go be the best they can possibly be. If they don't have that drive to show the coach, the team, themselves that they can and should be on the ice (court, field, etc) then why play? For the social aspect? Yes. For the competitive aspect? Seemingly not. Motivation and passion should drive every kid through any difficult time, whether that's not being played as much as they wish, not going in on critical situations, etc. If they want to be that player then they should strive to work harder than anyone in practice, work hard by themselves outside of practice, spend time at the outdoor rinks, ask their parents to be in camps during the summer, things like that.

Another thing that I can't help but ask is how do you ever develop in games?

Last time I checked, I didn't work on my skating, passing and shooting in games. I used the skills I had and learned from PRACTICE and put them into my game situations. I believe in games you earn experience, you learn handling certain situations. In practice, however, you develop. That's where you get your stride perfected, your shot better and your passing tape to tape.

Now, do I believe you should shorten the bench in squirts? No. PeeWees? Yes, because it happens everywhere, especially if you want to be competitive (and I mean A and B levels, B2 and C should be even playing time) Bantams? Absolutely because these kids will be trying out for high school hockey in a couple years and they need to know where they stand and should know how hard they have to work in order to make their high school team. And do I mean shorten the bench from the very first face-off? No. It should take place later in the game and in special teams situations, PP and PK. That's just my thought on this issue.

[muckandgrind]

What about coaches using that final minute of ice time in critical situations as a reward to those have put forth the most effort in both practices and games?

[HockeyDad41]

Coaches who shorten the bench at the youth level must really be under a lot of pressure to win. That's pretty sad.

You'd be surprised how much pressure some coaches are put in, even at the youth level.

One thing I haven't seen being talked about is motivation. Everyone talks about confidence, and how poor Timmy will lose confidence if he gets skipped over once a period or whatever, but what about the kids' motivation? I don't mean external motivation where the coach pumps a team up before the game, etc. but I'm talking about that inner drive where each individual kid wants to go be the best they can possibly be. If they don't have that drive to show the coach, the team, themselves that they can and should be on the ice (court, field, etc) then why play? For the social aspect? Yes. For the competitive aspect? Seemingly not. Motivation and passion should drive every kid through any difficult time, whether that's not being played as much as they wish, not going in on critical situations, etc. If they want to be that player then they should strive to work harder than anyone in practice, work hard by themselves outside of practice, spend time at the outdoor rinks, ask their parents to be in camps during the summer, things like that.

Another thing that I can't help but ask is how do you ever develop in games?

Last time I checked, I didn't work on my skating, passing and shooting in games. I used the skills I had and learned from PRACTICE and put them into my game situations. I believe in games you earn experience, you learn handling certain situations. In practice, however, you develop. That's where you get your stride perfected, your shot better and your passing tape to tape.

Now, do I believe you should shorten the bench in squirts? No. PeeWees? Yes, because it happens everywhere, especially if you want to be competitive (and I mean A and B levels, B2 and C should be even playing time) Bantams? Absolutely because these kids will be trying out for high school hockey in a couple years and they need to know where they stand and should know how hard they have to work in order to make their high school team. And do I mean shorten the bench from the very first face-off? No. It should take place later in the game and in special teams situations, PP and PK. That's just my thought on this issue.

I wonder who is putting the pressure on them to win?

I admit I don't have any experience with having a kid in Pee Wees or Bantams, but don't all the kids on the team pay the same amount to the association to play? If your kid sits on the bench do you get some kind of discount?

What exactly is the coach afraid of by giving the kids equal time? Getting fired? Aren't they volunteers for the most part? If my association is like most, I don't believe you can get a waiver because you don't like the win loss record of the team.

[muckandgrind]

Coaches who shorten the bench at the youth level must really be under a lot of pressure to win. That's pretty sad.

You'd be surprised how much pressure some coaches are put in, even at the youth level.

One thing I haven't seen being talked about is motivation. Everyone talks about confidence, and how poor Timmy will lose confidence if he gets skipped over once a period or whatever, but what about the kids' motivation? I don't mean external motivation where the coach pumps a team up before the game, etc. but I'm talking about that inner drive where each individual kid wants to go be the best they can possibly be. If they don't have that drive to show the coach, the team, themselves that they can and should be on the ice (court, field, etc) then why play? For the social aspect? Yes. For the competitive aspect? Seemingly not. Motivation and passion should drive every kid through any difficult time, whether that's not being played as much as they wish, not going in on critical situations, etc. If they want to be that player then they should strive to work harder than anyone in practice, work hard by themselves outside of practice, spend time at the outdoor rinks, ask their parents to be in camps during the summer, things like that.

Another thing that I can't help but ask is how do you ever develop in games?

Last time I checked, I didn't work on my skating, passing and shooting in games. I used the skills I had and learned from PRACTICE and put them into my game situations. I believe in games you earn experience, you learn handling certain situations. In practice, however, you develop. That's where you get your stride perfected, your shot better and your passing tape to tape.

Now, do I believe you should shorten the bench in squirts? No. PeeWees? Yes, because it happens everywhere, especially if you want to be competitive (and I mean A and B levels, B2 and C should be even playing time) Bantams? Absolutely because these kids will be trying out for high school hockey in a couple years and they need to know where they stand and should know how hard they have to work in order to make their high school team. And do I mean shorten the bench from the very first face-off? No. It should take place later in the game and in special teams situations, PP and PK. That's just my thought on this issue.

I wonder who is putting the pressure on them to win?

I admit I don't have any experience with having a kid in Pee Wees or Bantams, but don't all the kids on the team pay the same amount to the association to play? If your kid sits on the bench do you get some kind of discount?

What exactly is the coach afraid of by giving the kids equal time? Getting fired? Aren't they volunteers for the most part? If my association is like most, I don't believe you can get a waiver because you don't like the win loss record of the team.

Have your kids played any other sports like baseball or football? Not everyone gets equal playing time in those sports. In our local youth baseball associations, players are only guaranteed one at bat and three consecutive outs in the field. In football, some kids play both sides of the ball, while some only play offense or defense.

[InigoMontoya]

Another thing that I can't help but ask is how do you ever develop in games?

Last time I checked, I didn't work on my skating, passing and shooting in games. I used the skills I had and learned from PRACTICE and put them into my game situations. I believe in games you earn experience, you learn handling certain situations. In practice, however, you develop. That's where you get your stride perfected, your shot better and your passing tape to tape.

That's a good point. Where are all the advocates of game limits and strict practice-to-game ratios letting us know that game time doesn't matter, and that the 3rd line kids aren't really missing out on many puck touches?

[skillbuilder]

One thing I haven't seen being talked about is motivation. Everyone talks about confidence, and how poor Timmy will lose confidence if he gets skipped over once a period or whatever, but what about the kids' motivation? I don't mean external motivation where the coach pumps a team up before the game, etc. but I'm talking about that inner drive where each individual kid wants to go be the best they can possibly be. If they don't have that drive to show the coach, the team, themselves that they can and should be on the ice (court, field, etc) then why play? For the social aspect? Yes. For the competitive aspect? Seemingly not. Motivation and passion should drive every kid through any difficult time, whether that's not being played as much as they wish, not going in on critical situations, etc. If they want to be that player then they should strive to work harder than anyone in practice, work hard by themselves outside of practice, spend time at the outdoor rinks, ask their parents to be in camps during the summer, things like that.

MV12,
Early in the year my son was not getting all the ice time he wanted and felt he should as one of only 2 returning B1 Bantam forwards but instead of letting it get him down (and it did for a while) he elevated his game and is now on a line that has recently been getting over 60% of the teams goals. He is also on the primary penalty kill unit now as the pressure player. Focusing on what he does best and his effort on the ice has awarded him this.

In addition I have been encouraging his coach to trust the 3rd line kids and let them play in difficult situations as you will surely need to be able to play them with the pace of playoff hockey. If the 3rd line is not ready to play at that level you will get beat at somepoint down the road through fatigue of your top 10 or them failing you when you do play them. Our BB1 team last year got to the state play-in game by rolling 3 lines and wearing out teams. (My son was a role player on that 3rd line) I believe if the skills the 3rd line players have are utilized to their fullest and their roles and responsibilities are fully defined, they will hurt you less than your fresh top line or two will help you... I saw it for myself last year but it requires enough and meaningful ice early in the season for them to get there... If they don't get there however, you need to know that as a coach too and adjust playing time to try and win in the playoffs. You should do whatever you can to get the whole team to the point you can trust them if you are the consumate youth coach. Winning with everyone contributing should be your initial goal at the start of the season. That doesn't mean you will always get there and that you don't put your top 6 on the ice with 1 minute left in the state play-in game a goal down either...

[HockeyDad41]

You'd be surprised how much pressure some coaches are put in, even at the youth level.

One thing I haven't seen being talked about is motivation. Everyone talks about confidence, and how poor Timmy will lose confidence if he gets skipped over once a period or whatever, but what about the kids' motivation? I don't mean external motivation where the coach pumps a team up before the game, etc. but I'm talking about that inner drive where each individual kid wants to go be the best they can possibly be. If they don't have that drive to show the coach, the team, themselves that they can and should be on the ice (court, field, etc) then why play? For the social aspect? Yes. For the competitive aspect? Seemingly not. Motivation and passion should drive every kid through any difficult time, whether that's not being played as much as they wish, not going in on critical situations, etc. If they want to be that player then they should strive to work harder than anyone in practice, work hard by themselves outside of practice, spend time at the outdoor rinks, ask their parents to be in camps during the summer, things like that.

Another thing that I can't help but ask is how do you ever develop in games?

Last time I checked, I didn't work on my skating, passing and shooting in games. I used the skills I had and learned from PRACTICE and put them into my game situations. I believe in games you earn experience, you learn handling certain situations. In practice, however, you develop. That's where you get your stride perfected, your shot better and your passing tape to tape.

Now, do I believe you should shorten the bench in squirts? No. PeeWees? Yes, because it happens everywhere, especially if you want to be competitive (and I mean A and B levels, B2 and C should be even playing time) Bantams? Absolutely because these kids will be trying out for high school hockey in a couple years and they need to know where they stand and should know how hard they have to work in order to make their high school team. And do I mean shorten the bench from the very first face-off? No. It should take place later in the game and in special teams situations, PP and PK. That's just my thought on this issue.

I wonder who is putting the pressure on them to win?

I admit I don't have any experience with having a kid in Pee Wees or Bantams, but don't all the kids on the team pay the same amount to the association to play? If your kid sits on the bench do you get some kind of discount?

What exactly is the coach afraid of by giving the kids equal time? Getting fired? Aren't they volunteers for the most part? If my association is like most, I don't believe you can get a waiver because you don't like the win loss record of the team.

Have your kids played any other sports like baseball or football? Not everyone gets equal playing time in those sports. In our local youth baseball associations, players are only guaranteed one at bat and three consecutive outs in the field. In football, some kids play both sides of the ball, while some only play offense or defense.

I thought we were talking about hockey. My bad.

[JSR]

Coaches who shorten the bench at the youth level must really be under a lot of pressure to win. That's pretty sad.

You'd be surprised how much pressure some coaches are put in, even at the youth level.

One thing I haven't seen being talked about is motivation. Everyone talks about confidence, and how poor Timmy will lose confidence if he gets skipped over once a period or whatever, but what about the kids' motivation? I don't mean external motivation where the coach pumps a team up before the game, etc. but I'm talking about that inner drive where each individual kid wants to go be the best they can possibly be. If they don't have that drive to show the coach, the team, themselves that they can and should be on the ice (court, field, etc) then why play? For the social aspect? Yes. For the competitive aspect? Seemingly not. Motivation and passion should drive every kid through any difficult time, whether that's not being played as much as they wish, not going in on critical situations, etc. If they want to be that player then they should strive to work harder than anyone in practice, work hard by themselves outside of practice, spend time at the outdoor rinks, ask their parents to be in camps during the summer, things like that.

Another thing that I can't help but ask is how do you ever develop in games?

Last time I checked, I didn't work on my skating, passing and shooting in games. I used the skills I had and learned from PRACTICE and put them into my game situations. I believe in games you earn experience, you learn handling certain situations. In practice, however, you develop. That's where you get your stride perfected, your shot better and your passing tape to tape.

Now, do I believe you should shorten the bench in squirts? No. PeeWees? Yes, because it happens everywhere, especially if you want to be competitive (and I mean A and B levels, B2 and C should be even playing time) Bantams? Absolutely because these kids will be trying out for high school hockey in a couple years and they need to know where they stand and should know how hard they have to work in order to make their high school team. And do I mean shorten the bench from the very first face-off? No. It should take place later in the game and in special teams situations, PP and PK. That's just my thought on this issue.

I don;t think anyone has disagreed with doing this sort of thing at the Bantam level. The disagreements are coing from the Squirt and Pee Wee level. Personally I don't think "doing it because eveyrone else is" is a good reason to do anything. I also do not think that kids who have likely not even gone through puberty yet still realy appreciate what internal drive and internal motivation are. I was a top high school and college athlete. I don't recall getting that "drive" until I was in about 8th grade (which for us down here would likely be first year bantam age for most kids). Most first year Pee Wee's are in 5th or 6th grade, in other words not even in middle school yet and barely hitting puberty, I don't think shortening the bench at this developmental age is wise for any reason. Sorry, i just don't see it. Bantams, shorten away, High School shorten away, college, juniors, pros, shorten away. Association hockey at the pee wee level and below, personally if I paid the same as all the other parents, I'd be pissed off way more about shortening the bench than losing the game.

[InigoMontoya]

A post from the girls' side regarding the same topic:

It might sound good on paper to 'roll them' no matter what but it's more complex than that. I've rolled them for years at the 12A level and the teams I've coached have lost more than one championship because our best players were on the bench while our weaker players were on the ice against the other teams best the last few minutes or on PK, etc.

But guess what - I really don't care. Its not about what I want or 'me' winning.

But after you do this a while, you realize who does care - The hardest working (and often best) players that are outworking the lazier (and usually weaker/less dedicated) players day in and day out and never miss a practice. You know who they are because they are the ones that come out of the lockerroom with tears in their eyes after a loss.

You know who doesn't care? ...the same players that coast thru practices and give 10% effort if you turn your back on them and are staring blankly at the rafters if your chalk talk goes over 25 seconds. The same ones that seem to think that practices are optional if it inconveinences them in someway.

So...this year, for the first time, we are running power play, pk and if it's a one goal game with a minute or two left, our best players will be on the ice. Don't get me wrong...our third line is not on the bench for the entire third period or anything...

Not fair you say? So did I until this year (and maybe it's this particular team that put me over the line...however, I wish I had used PP/PK/end of game ice time to reward the most dedicated and hardest working players all along...) These girls are 12 and 13 yrs old now and they understand - or should understand - commitment when it comes to a tryout team. What's not fair is 'rewarding' players with equal ice time who cut corners, skip practice, and fall behind because because they lack effort or unwillingness to pay attention long enough to learn what they need to learn.

I'll also note that we didn't do any PP/PK, etc for first few months and each girl got ample opportunity to show their true colors and committment. I know now which girls stop doing their pushups when they don't think a coach is watching and who cuts corners whenever it suits them even though our top players are giving max effort all the time.

Of course all teams aren't perfectly split with hardwork = best players and lazy = worst...but in my experience, it definitly has trended that way. And because of the lack of depth in girls hockey in most programs, you often have a vast difference in the commitment level when looking at the most committed vs least committed on your team. It's just reality.

Furthermore - I happily short shift the better players against weaker teams and therefore, at season end, total time on ice is virtually even - tilting slightly toward the stronger players if we had a lot of close games and tilting toward the weaker players if we ran away with a bunch of games...

In this age of 9th place ribbons, it might not be PC, but to me, once you get to 12U...as long as everyone is playing fairly equal over the course of the season, PP, PK, and end of game situations are a pretty small way to reward your hardest working players and create a carrot for the other players to work hard on their games so that they can someday be on the PP or 'pulled goalie' lineup. And if a girl ends up saying to mom or dad after the season - "I'm going to work really hard so that next year, I'm on the PP line"...you've probably taught her a pretty valuable life lesson.

Anyway...I'm just sayin...

[JSR]

You'd be surprised how much pressure some coaches are put in, even at the youth level.

One thing I haven't seen being talked about is motivation. Everyone talks about confidence, and how poor Timmy will lose confidence if he gets skipped over once a period or whatever, but what about the kids' motivation? I don't mean external motivation where the coach pumps a team up before the game, etc. but I'm talking about that inner drive where each individual kid wants to go be the best they can possibly be. If they don't have that drive to show the coach, the team, themselves that they can and should be on the ice (court, field, etc) then why play? For the social aspect? Yes. For the competitive aspect? Seemingly not. Motivation and passion should drive every kid through any difficult time, whether that's not being played as much as they wish, not going in on critical situations, etc. If they want to be that player then they should strive to work harder than anyone in practice, work hard by themselves outside of practice, spend time at the outdoor rinks, ask their parents to be in camps during the summer, things like that.

Another thing that I can't help but ask is how do you ever develop in games?

Last time I checked, I didn't work on my skating, passing and shooting in games. I used the skills I had and learned from PRACTICE and put them into my game situations. I believe in games you earn experience, you learn handling certain situations. In practice, however, you develop. That's where you get your stride perfected, your shot better and your passing tape to tape.

Now, do I believe you should shorten the bench in squirts? No. PeeWees? Yes, because it happens everywhere, especially if you want to be competitive (and I mean A and B levels, B2 and C should be even playing time) Bantams? Absolutely because these kids will be trying out for high school hockey in a couple years and they need to know where they stand and should know how hard they have to work in order to make their high school team. And do I mean shorten the bench from the very first face-off? No. It should take place later in the game and in special teams situations, PP and PK. That's just my thought on this issue.

I wonder who is putting the pressure on them to win?

I admit I don't have any experience with having a kid in Pee Wees or Bantams, but don't all the kids on the team pay the same amount to the association to play? If your kid sits on the bench do you get some kind of discount?

What exactly is the coach afraid of by giving the kids equal time? Getting fired? Aren't they volunteers for the most part? If my association is like most, I don't believe you can get a waiver because you don't like the win loss record of the team.

Have your kids played any other sports like baseball or football? Not everyone gets equal playing time in those sports. In our local youth baseball associations, players are only guaranteed one at bat and three consecutive outs in the field. In football, some kids play both sides of the ball, while some only play offense or defense.

All my kids also play soccer. I coach my oldest son's team. He plays Classic level travel soccer. If you are on the team you play. Everyone plays every position and everyone gets equal playing time. I do this by design because i want the kids to fully understand all aspects of the game nad be put in the position to understand all aspects of the game. I don;t care if we are up, down or even goign into crunch time, I keep my rotations the same as what I drew them up as before the game. My teams usually struggle in the beginning of each season and are always alot better from man one to man 14 by the end of the season, we are not usually the league winners. However, the more important thing to me is that every single year my teams produce more guys who excel at the next level than any other coach. Parents and other coaches are always scratching their head sbecause we never win the league yet we produce more players who excel at the next level. It's not rocket science, my goal is player development, not wins or losses, the other coaches are trying to win games. My opinion is strong ont he subject because I see it producing in the sport I coach with great success every year, the proof is in the pudding for me. Most people do not have the patience to have a goal greater than the season or game right in front of them, to me that is the problem. JMHO

[InigoMontoya]

Parents and other coaches are always scratching their head sbecause we never win the league yet we produce more players who excel at the next level.

JSR, are you Don Lucia?