Great Article

[TriedThat2]

Jack hit the nail on the head with this one!


By Jack Blatherwick

Let’s Play Hockey Columnist



During a PeeWee game a while back, I took video of a player with the poorest skills. I didn’t know him previously, but picked him out during warmup because he looked like me skating around out there, not quite sure if the stick works better right-handed or left. This wasn’t your usual highlight video, of course; it showed clearly why our so-called development programs do not develop anyone but the top players.

Here’s the scene as I walked into the arena. It was a weekend tournament, and they were selling tickets at the door — nothing exorbitant — just enough to let you know this was a big-time event. Signs were taped to the glass supporting each team, featuring names of players, numbers and encouragement to win. Brownies and cookies were tempting at the bake sale, and hockey moms were handing out noisemakers. So, after picking up a chocolate chip cookie, I headed to the far end of the rink and pulled the stocking cap down over my ears.

This was a big deal, no doubt, because the trophies were displayed prominently to let everyone know that winning was the priority. Well, I take that back. You could get a trophy for losing, too, but it wasn’t so big.

This kid – the one with Blatherwick-like skills – got eight minutes of playing time, touched the puck seven times, and never took a shot. When I say “touched the puck” I mean he batted it north – had it on the stick for as long as two billiard balls are together in a collision. He got rid of the puck and headed to the players’ box before he could make a mistake. After all, this was a high-stakes tournament – much like the one last week and those in the next seven weeks.

I didn’t see anyone screaming negative comments when kids screwed up. No, it was all positive screaming. Cheerleaders (the moms) wore team colors and were all about winning. Dads, of course, tried to act like it didn’t matter, but everyone could tell it was life and death. Only a few of them yelled things like, “Hit him, John (that’s the kid who needs the most skill work). Hustle. Get up; don’t take that from him. Play the body. Move the puck (He did! Maybe he should try not moving it). Hit. Hustle. Good shift, son.”

Good shift? Let’s see: he skated south when he should have been going north – then back to the north a few strides, before dodging away from the puck, so he wouldn’t screw up. He batted it once, and got off quickly. Good shift?

Kids used to learn hockey by trial and error, most often in an environment without such high stakes. They weren’t aware that so many people cared. It was all about sticks, pucks, skates, ice and competition without trophies. You could try a new move without fear of eliminating your team from the top 20 in unofficial state rankings.

The best learning environment would replace fear of failure with hundreds of chances for trial and error. It features competitive large- and small-sided games that don’t count for anything – scrimmages without scoreboards. Skills are rehearsed over and over in practice, then tried again at high speed and in competition between team-mates.

But sadly, we have inflicted upon the average players, a ridiculous system of big events – games that are much more about extrinsic motivation than development. The very best players can do well in these artificial productions, because the coaches give them more ice time and more freedom to fail – and because they’re already good, they are rewarded for success more often. The weaker players have to settle for, “good hustle.”

The Minnesota State High School League – in their ongoing effort to fight hockey, now that Herb Brooks isn’t around to fight back – has reduced the ability for coaches to schedule scrimmages when and where it’s appropriate for development. Brilliant. Like…“Let’s not consult the experts (the coaches) on this. We’ll just take a vote and legislate mediocrity.”

They must have been at the weekend PeeWee tournament and liked the trophies for seventh place. Or maybe they think of hockey in the same way they think of other educational wonders, like big-stakes tests as a way to improve poor performance on big-stakes tests.

I have a solution. It worked 40 years ago; it’ll work today. It’s simple: turn off the heat in the arenas. Cheerleaders will go to the gym to do aerobics. Dads will huddle around the heater in the lobby, out of sight, out of mind. Kids will forget how important this is to everyone, and administrators will take their trophies and go home. If I’m right about this, it leaves only kids, coaches, referees…and frozen whistles. That’s an added bonus, frozen whistles, because there are no breaks in the action. Kids just play hockey.

Now that’s a learning environment.

[inthestands]

TT2, you are wise beyond your years... Well maybe not that far.

It's true, if the game was left up to the players to play, coaches to teach, and officials to call em as they see em, EVERYONE would be much better off.

It's disappointing to know we are long past that style of hockey.........

[muckandgrind]

TT2, you are wise beyond your years... Well maybe not that far.

It's true, if the game was left up to the players to play, coaches to teach, and officials to call em as they see em, EVERYONE would be much better off.
It's disappointing to know we are long past that style of hockey.........

Ahhh.....if only life were that simplistic....but it's not, and contrary to what some people think, it never really was. Parents have, and will continue to be, a part of their kids lives whether you like it or not.

I enjoy reading Jack's columns...but sometimes he gets a little too preachy and plays up the stereotypes...as he does here. He can even read the dad's minds now!!!

Personally, I enjoy watching my kids play and always have. And I'm pretty darn sure they've enjoyed having me there watching them as well....as evidenced by them walking out of the rinks with big grins saying things like "did you see that Dad?!?"....Nah, like I said before, I think it's important for parents to pay attention to their kids and be there for them...they are only young once, afterall.

[TriedThat2]

Muck,
Support and encouragement are one thing, realistic expectations are another.
Many parents don't sit and watch practice after practice; they want more games, more benchmarks, so THEY can determine what is best for Little Syndey and his development.

[muckandgrind]

Muck,
Support and encouragement are one thing, realistic expectations are another.
Many parents don't sit and watch practice after practice; they want more games, more benchmarks, so THEY can determine what is best for Little Syndey and his development.

That's true...but Jack and others need to quit painting it with such broad strokes. Sure, there are some hockey parents that are over-zealous (just as there is with baseball, basketball, football and figure skating)...but, in my experience, MOST of the parents are there to encourage their youngsters and truly enjoy watching the kids progress and have fun. Wishing to lock all parents out of the arena is ludicrous....and it's also ludicrous to suggest that the kids don't enjoy have their mom and./or pop watching them play. I enjoyed seeing my dad in the stands when I played and I know my kids are happy to know that I enjoy watching them play as well.

[elliott70]

Another scary day...

Muck and I agree.

[InigoMontoya]

At the risk of Elliot spending the rest of the day in the fetal position...me, too. Like Muck, I enjoyed knowing my parents made the effort to attend; unlike Muck, I only have a handful of memories of noticing anybody in the stands, ever. Even today, when I'm coaching a practice or a game, I could rarely tell you who, if anybody, was there watching.

Like Muck (and I'm sure he won't be too shy to correct me if I'm off the mark), for the team or the kid that I'm not coaching, I like to pop in to see a practice once in a while, not to critique the coaching or the practice plan, but just a general checkup on my own kid - is he listening, is he hustling, is he being a team player, no different really than when I sit in on a piano lesson, or email a teacher to see how things are going. There is nothing better than to experience a piano teacher that connects with your kid, or have a genuine discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of your child as it relates to the current topic being studied in class, or to drop your kid at the rink with a coach that is caring, knowledgeable, and motivating.

That being said, I also agree with Jack. In many areas there is a huge chasm in the developmental opportunities between the A team and the B1 team, much less the A and C. Also agree about the 7th place trophies - actually watched a group of parents hand out medals to their kids (that they had purchased themselves) after their final MASH game.

[Spinerama]

If you want a response that counts...just ask a young player that never has a parent, grandparent or sibling in the stands. Apart from a player who plays only for the raving lunatic in the stands, the vast majority like playing in front of someone that cares. Someone that cares about all they do, both on and off the ice! Besides, who will foot the bill for a soda and burger on the way home?

[kopernicus]

you realize, that at the end of the day, all it really is about is the snacks and food afterwards.

sure, you can fee a kid anytime you want.

But to have the privledge of stuffing your favorite sweaty hockey player full of moderately priced concession stand food or vending machine junk and have them talk to you with their mouths full all the way home really says "Let's Play Hockey" to me. If youre lucky, you can hit the taco place on the way home.

[Vapor]

The parent involvement debate will never end. Jack is quick to point out that our developmental model is flawed...no so fast. Did he know anything about this player ? Did he just start playing a yr or 2 ago ? How much extra time is he putting in to improve ? In EVERY aspect of Sport and life you'll have your stars and your role players. Just because one player isn't that good, we should blame the whole system ??? In successful programs it's the top end players that motivate the less skilled to improve and "pull" their skill level up by the competition they provide in practice. Not every player is going to be "great"...kids have only so much athleticism in their body for this sport.

[inthestands]

TT2, you are wise beyond your years... Well maybe not that far.

It's true, if the game was left up to the players to play, coaches to teach, and officials to call em as they see em, EVERYONE would be much better off.
It's disappointing to know we are long past that style of hockey.........

Ahhh.....if only life were that simplistic....but it's not, and contrary to what some people think, it never really was. Parents have, and will continue to be, a part of their kids lives whether you like it or not.

I enjoy reading Jack's columns...but sometimes he gets a little too preachy and plays up the stereotypes...as he does here. He can even read the dad's minds now!!!

Personally, I enjoy watching my kids play and always have. And I'm pretty darn sure they've enjoyed having me there watching them as well....as evidenced by them walking out of the rinks with big grins saying things like "did you see that Dad?!?"....Nah, like I said before, I think it's important for parents to pay attention to their kids and be there for them...they are only young once, afterall.

Muck, as with everything there are the opposite end of the spectrums. I don't think it would be a good idea to "lock parents out of the arena" so to speak. That said, there are those few that make their kids lives miserable duing youth sports.

Everyone would be better off if the parents were there to support and encourage their child, and then support the associations, coaches and so on. Not all of them deserve that support, but complaining to or with your child will serve no purpose unless you have a plan to participate in the volunteer effort it takes to operate that youth sport.

We've all seen too many times the parent with a loud voice pointing out everything wrong with an association and how his player got the shaft, but never stepping up to make things better.

Come to think of it, life is that simplistic if you let it be. The kids will have a blast if allowed too. "Most" youth sporting problems arise from parental involvement that many times wouldn't have to be in the mix..

[sorno82]

I look forward to reading Blatherwick’s column every week in LPH. It is some of the best information on developing hockey players out there. His over speed, off ice, and practical advice on developing hockey players is top notch. He does get nostalgic and does go overboard to make a point. There is a lot of truth in what he is saying, but to paint all hockey experiences with the same brush is over the top, but he makes his point. He is saying the best way to develop skills is in a low pressure, fun filled environment where you are challenged, but challenged with getting better rather than not making a mistake. There may not be as much creativity in today’s game, but that is more a result of having a lot less time and space to work with than in the past. Hockey players are faster, stronger and more skilled than in the past, so the days of a Bobby Orr skating with the puck for 90 seconds on a penalty kill are long gone. Many more kids are being taught the game correctly at an early age than in the past and it shows. Just look at tapes from previous era’s and compare it to today and there is no comparison. Everyone is much better, which makes the game different. There is less of a gap between the top and bottom, so the top cannot dominate in the same way it used to. I heard Lou Nanne answer a question on why there are no John Mayasich’s out there any more. He said they are all over the place-Neal Broten, Phil Housely, Paul Martin, Nick Leddy, etc. The game is so much more competitive than it used to be, so you will never have the old time dominance a creativity the nostalgic types like to wax poetically about all the time.

[JoltDelivered]

Ahh, that magic word again - DEVELOPMENT. Many people utter it, some hide behind it to explain their actions and many coaches love to hold it up like an American flag on the 4th of July when talking about this year's focus for the team.

Everytime I hear the word in the context of hockey, I want to pull my hair out! Blatherwick is right - I mean SPOT ON! Outisde of mom and dad, nobody is focusing on the individual progression of that crappy Pee Wee he mentions. Most youth coaches, and I mean MOST, are focused on managing their way through the season without getting cheese-grated by a parent or two all while trying to win a few games. Are there exceptions to this? Sure but they are few and far between.

I will say this about the word though - I wish it was used more in the context of reading, writing and arithmetic and the human condition rather than athletics.

Folks, we're talking about games that kids play for fun. They serve as a nice distraction away from the real rigors of childhood like homework, tests, report cards, being disciplined by dad, developing relationships with friends, losing a grandparent, etc... They are nothing more than this!

It is beyond me why we spend so much time worried about DEVELOPING things like outside edges, puck control and over speed. OHHH, how I love it when people use the term Over Speed!!! Alhtough it sure makes people sound "looped in" to all the itricate ins and outs of hockey skill development when they throw out the Over Speed term doesn't it??!! I laugh everytime I hear it.

Look, athletics is like everything else in life: The creme usually rises to the top, the average usually battle to keep their head above water and the below average will struggle to survive just like the Pee Wee player that Blatherwick mentions.

Remember, we all end up in the same place, it 's just some of us get there sooner than others. And in hockey terms, that place is the Tuesday night 10 PM beer league hockey game at the local rink regardless of how much hockey DEVELOPMENT was shoved down your throat as a kid.

[goldy313]

I noticed Blatherwick never mentions if that "poorest skilled" player had any fun, if it were up to Jack I'm sure that wouldn't matter because it's all about development of everybody. As someone else mentioned some just won't become very good no matter the conditions he's presented with be it with no one in the crowd or 500 people. So many other factors take hold, like time, money, other committments, etc. If we no longer have room in PeeWee hockey for a kid with poor skills then why should anyone play any sport?

Anybody else find it a bit creepy that a guy with his hat pulled down was videotaping only one kid and that kid doesn't belong to him?

[muckandgrind]

Anybody else find it a bit creepy that a guy with his hat pulled down was videotaping only one kid and that kid doesn't belong to him?

Yes.


I enjoy reading Jack Blatherwick and Hal Tearse, but more for the entertainment value than anything else. Yes, I would consider Jack very knowledgeable on the physiological nature of his topics based on his training and career path, but I take everything else he and Hal have to say with a grain of salt. IMO, they speak too much in absolute terms and make statements that they either can't or won't back up with facts.

For instance, in the October 1st edition of LPH, Hal writes a column titled: "Cold, dry hands: The short bench". In that column he makes the following statement:

"The game is for the kids, all of the kids. Reasearch nationwide tells us that players would rather play on a team that wins 50 percent of their games than sit on the bench of a championship team with little or no playing time."

While I agree with the sentiment of that paragraph, I'd like to see him reference the specific study he is pointing to. My guess is that there really isn't a study that says that, but he just put that in the paragraph to help give his point some more weight to it. When I read stuff like that, it's pretty hard for me to take anything they say seriously. To give Jack some credit, he usually does reference the sources of his info...my issue with him has more to do with the absolutes he tries to paint the picture with: (i.e. all parents are overzealous and shouldn't be allowed in the rink; tournaments and games = bad, etc.)
[/b]

[nahc]

I agree totally that this article paints way to broad of strokes. We know nothing about this Pee Wee player other than 1 game the author watched. It could be that the skater does not give 100% in practice, misses practices or doesn't want to give the effort required in PRACTICE to earn more playing time. PRACTICE is where players are developed NOT in games. As mentioned on other postings, players should earn their ice time based on their PRACTICE sessions. If a skilled player is lazy in practice or a screwoff, sitting them during certain parts of the game will really get their attention.........also the parents who can then hold meaningful discussions with their skater, and coaches, if needed to "inspire" the skater to possibly earn more ice time........

We also need to include the association rules at Pee Levels, ie does the team play to win or are they supposed to roll the lines no matter what? There are many other scenerios but just some feedback on this one article.............

[inthestands]

"The game is for the kids, all of the kids. Reasearch nationwide tells us that players would rather play on a team that wins 50 percent of their games than sit on the bench of a championship team with little or no playing time."

Muck, do you agree or disagree with Hal's comment above?

While I have played, coached, officiated, and parented hockey players, I tend to agree with his thoughts. "Most" of the malcontent in youth hockey comes from unreasonable parental expectation.

"Some" stems from poor association management, uncaring and or uneducated coaches, poor officials and stupid zamboni drivers.. All of the categories under the "Some" column can be dealt with through positive parental discussion with the player and have very little to no negative impact on the player. After all that is the most important part of the equation in my opinion.

Did I follow this guideline every game? No. That said, a few others referenced attitude, effort and a few other things falling into the equation. Lot's of truth in that thinking.

Seeing one player, and making an overall veiw on how things work is tuff. This gentleman has a lot of hockey history under his belt, and probably can access that better than most.

Wish kids today could have the option of heading down to the local outdoor rink with a few friends for some shinny or boot hockey til dark, then walk home for some hot chocolate with mom and dad. Since there are few outdoor rinks anymore, and it's not safe for kids to walk anywhere today, and most kids wouldn't consider playing outside anyway, I suppose I should quit living in the past.

[muckandgrind]

"The game is for the kids, all of the kids. Reasearch nationwide tells us that players would rather play on a team that wins 50 percent of their games than sit on the bench of a championship team with little or no playing time."

Muck, do you agree or disagree with Hal's comment above?

I said in my original post that I agree with his sentiment, I'm just annoyed that he said "Research nationwide" without referencing the actual study...THAT'S what hurts his credibility, IMO. If there is no study, than he should have said that it's HIS opinion...if there is a study, than tell us which one.

[InigoMontoya]

Interesting, given the topic of another thread, that no one has commented on "The Minnesota State High School League – in their ongoing effort to fight hockey, now that Herb Brooks isn’t around to fight back – has reduced the ability for coaches to schedule scrimmages when and where it’s appropriate for development. Brilliant. Like…“Let’s not consult the experts (the coaches) on this. We’ll just take a vote and legislate mediocrity.”

[muckandgrind]

Interesting, given the topic of another thread, that no one has commented on "The Minnesota State High School League – in their ongoing effort to fight hockey, now that Herb Brooks isn’t around to fight back – has reduced the ability for coaches to schedule scrimmages when and where it’s appropriate for development. Brilliant. Like…“Let’s not consult the experts (the coaches) on this. We’ll just take a vote and legislate mediocrity.”

Not that I agree with them, but I believe their reasoning for making this change was to reduce costs....nothing more.