HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

We frequently read on here the hypothetical example of talented kids who are playing on mediocre(for them) teams. Whether that is the A kid stuck in a small association that only fields the B level or the super star on the dominant large association team, the best of the best.

Here’s the question: How good/dominant does a player need to be in order to justify the argument that they are underserved? Is it goals/game? A bored style of play? Their team going undefeated, winning with huge margins?

What real life examples are there of these underserved kids? And how would moving them up a level (to an A team or a Tier I team or the next age level) help them better?

Gretzky scored 5 goals/ game in his last year of, I believe, atoms (squirts). Was he underserved and continued to achieve greatness in spite of this, because of this, or did it not matter?

spin-o-rama wrote:We frequently read on here the hypothetical example of talented kids who are playing on mediocre(for them) teams. Whether that is the A kid stuck in a small association that only fields the B level or the super star on the dominant large association team, the best of the best.

Here’s the question: How good/dominant does a player need to be in order to justify the argument that they are underserved? Is it goals/game? A bored style of play? Their team going undefeated, winning with huge margins?

What real life examples are there of these underserved kids? And how would moving them up a level (to an A team or a Tier I team or the next age level) help them better?

Gretzky scored 5 goals/ game in his last year of, I believe, atoms (squirts). Was he underserved and continued to achieve greatness in spite of this, because of this, or did it not matter?

Puberty and genetics matter; many young superstars fizzle out when they get older. Didn't Gretzky have siblings? Did Walter Gretzky work with his kids similarily? Or, was Wayne somewhat of a driven genetic hockey freak?

I believe Jaromir Jagar played with a couple types of teams while growning up. One the same age level and one above. In my opinion, that would be a good way to build confidence and skill. Could that be similar to playing association hockey and AAA?

breakout wrote:Didn't Gretzky have siblings?

Keith and Brent that I know of, maybe others.

Greatest hockey nickname every was The Good One, given to Wayne's younger brother.

spin-o-rama wrote:We frequently read on here the hypothetical example of talented kids who are playing on mediocre(for them) teams. Whether that is the A kid stuck in a small association that only fields the B level or the super star on the dominant large association team, the best of the best.

Here’s the question: How good/dominant does a player need to be in order to justify the argument that they are underserved? Is it goals/game? A bored style of play? Their team going undefeated, winning with huge margins?

What real life examples are there of these underserved kids? And how would moving them up a level (to an A team or a Tier I team or the next age level) help them better?

Gretzky scored 5 goals/ game in his last year of, I believe, atoms (squirts). Was he underserved and continued to achieve greatness in spite of this, because of this, or did it not matter?

Easy answer. By creating an environment where players can play with players of similar ability, they develop better. Simple as that.

Anyone who spends time watching a team that has a wide range of talent on the ice at the same time can understand this. Coaches generally seem to have to coach to the "lowest common denominator" in those situations because the lesser-skilled players can't keep up with the more skilled players in the more high-temp full ice drills.

In the large associations, you don't have that same wide range of ability on the ice. The kids on the A team are A players, the kids on the B1 team are B1 players. The smaller associations don't have that luxury. Many teams will have players on their A team who should be playing A, while they have other players on the A team who should be playing B1 or B2. Nobody benefits in those situations.

Muck, don't forget that a lot of people say several of the B players in the mega associations are A players. It cuts both ways. This is why I think there is potentially as much Tier I interest in communities like Eden Prairie, Centennial, and Wayzata.

It's like asking what's too much money - no such thing. A girl too pretty or a car too fast? I ain't ever seen a kid too good.

O-townClown wrote:Muck, don't forget that a lot of people say several of the B players in the mega associations are A players. It cuts both ways. This is why I think there is potentially as much Tier I interest in communities like Eden Prairie, Centennial, and Wayzata.

The answer to that is that MN Hockey should mandate that the larger associations create two A teams. For arguments sake, they could say that any association with more than 75 players (or some other number) trying out at any level must have two A teams.

muckandgrind wrote:

O-townClown wrote:Muck, don't forget that a lot of people say several of the B players in the mega associations are A players. It cuts both ways. This is why I think there is potentially as much Tier I interest in communities like Eden Prairie, Centennial, and Wayzata.

The answer to that is that MN Hockey should mandate that the larger associations create two A teams. For arguments sake, they could say that any association with more than 75 players (or some other number) trying out at any level must have two A teams.

I like the idea of two A teams in large associations.

muckandgrind wrote:The answer to that is that MN Hockey should mandate that the larger associations create two A teams. For arguments sake, they could say that any association with more than 75 players (or some other number) trying out at any level must have two A teams.

That's fine, just remember I told you that it will result in some associations telling certain kids they shouldn't come out. Overtly? No. Indirectly? Yes.

Otown, hopefully allowing unbalanced A teams would eliminate that dark side effect.

m&g, you answered the second part of my question. And I actually meant to ask what would be the best of those 3 situations.

Here's another question. Naturally, you don't want a team with kids a few standard deviations away from each other talent wise. But what is the acceptable range? And can you fine tune it too much? If the talent curve in a league is too flat do you eliminate the development of creativity because the opportunities are too rare? Or does it promote creativity to survive? What if Gretzky had played up enough levels that he was an average player? Would he have still developed his scoring touch?

spin-o-rama wrote:What if Gretzky had played up enough levels that he was an average player? Would he have still developed his scoring touch?

Would he have scored enough to perfect the goofy exhuberance that was the foundation of is trademark goal celebration?

spin-o-rama wrote:Otown, hopefully allowing unbalanced A teams would eliminate that dark side effect.

m&g, you answered the second part of my question. And I actually meant to ask what would be the best of those 3 situations.

Here's another question. Naturally, you don't want a team with kids a few standard deviations away from each other talent wise. But what is the acceptable range? And can you fine tune it too much? If the talent curve in a league is too flat do you eliminate the development of creativity because the opportunities are too rare? Or does it promote creativity to survive? What if Gretzky had played up enough levels that he was an average player? Would he have still developed his scoring touch?

Not sure. I think it depends on the association and the coaches involved. If I'm coaching an A team, I want a group of kids who can all practice (and compete) at a high level and pace, and be able to perform drills that are considered advanced.

I don't like to ever use Wayne Gretzky as a measuring stick for how things are done. Gretzky is more of a product of the hard work he put in skating and shooting in his back yard than he is of his local youth hockey club.

spin-o-rama wrote:Otown, hopefully allowing unbalanced A teams would eliminate that dark side effect.

They never stay unbalanced for long. The parents will appeal to the board and the board will gradually, over time, decide that it is better to have equal teams so little 'jonny' doesn't have to lose more games than his buddy on the top A team. In other sports where it is more common to try to field an extra A team this inevitably happens.

That isn't to say that you shouldn't have 2 - A teams it just to say lets not get sucked in by the usual line saying that "we'll have one be the top 15 and the other be the next 15". It won't last so lets be realistic going in.

Personally, I think the best idea is to get a strong B1 coach and push the kids to work hard and make the A team the next year. I also come from a midsized association that has seen its share of slaughters by the mega associations at the A level. Who cares? It builds character and a good coach can help their players learn from those experiences. Let's not try to force the mega associations to dilute their teams. I love to play the best and see how we can do.

Oh yeah, as far as a kid being too good the only thing I think is that in the very rare instance that you have a kid excelling far ahead of his peers an association should be willing to have an independent (maybe H.S. coach etc.) group assess it and allow the kid to play up if he wants to. Sad to say, if we don't at least offer some method those kids will leave.

Never