Shorting The Bench

[hockey74]

There is a good article in "Let's Play Hockey" (latest issue-p.44) on shorting the bench. Comments?

[nahc]

I wouldn't describe this as a "good" article. It is one person's view on shortening the bench. Should shortening the bench be done at Squirts, probably not. Pee Wee's possibly. Bantams, especially Bantam A, probably. The question is whether or not kids learn from being on the ice and unable to compete against the other teams better skaters. I am of the opinion that you don't just roll the lines, one actually "coaches" a game. Everyone still plays. Against a lesser opponent, the 3rd line may play a ton, double shifting, etc.. Just as against the top teams, the 3rd line may not play as much. Over a season, everyone plays about the same amount. Believe it or not, winning DOES, to a point, instill pride and that winning attitude within the team. Of course there are so many differant situations throughout the state concerning number of skaters in an association, etc that one size doesn't fit all. The article is pretty slanted and, again, only presents one person's view..........I certainly don't beleive kids will be scarred for life if a coach shortens their bench......just another's opinion.........

[spin-o-rama]

Is this the article? http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... _Hands.pdf
It gets reprinted every so often.

Shortening the bench should not be based on skill. If it happens, it should be based on work ethic and attitude in practice and games.
If you are in favor of shortening the bench for skill reasons, why not just advocate 10-12 man rosters?

[Marty McSorely]

Spin o Rama....you are right on! You should roll all your lines 98% of the time. I hear of Pee Wee teams sitting kids that are -3 in a worthless district game.....what's the point, to show the rest of the team your third line isn't any good?

[InigoMontoya]

Two thoughts to stir the pot a little:

Hockey is by far the most equitable youth sport; the 10th kid on the travel basketball bench doesn't see the floor nearly as much as the starting point guard, the 12th kid on the baseball team may only get 1 at bat and an inning in the field.

If this was truly a huge issue with coaches, it wouldn't be happening, as they are in charge of which line hits the ice. Therefore we can assume that it is mostly a huge issue with parents - which can be further broken down to: not an issue with parents of kids that get a lot of minutes, but huge issue with parents of kids that don't. The hypocritical aspect is that many parents don't see an issue the year Johnny is on the first line, but raise a fuss the next year when Johnny is asked to be a role player.

[Bronc]

Spin o Rama....you are right on! You should roll all your lines 98% of the time. I hear of Pee Wee teams sitting kids that are -3 in a worthless district game.....what's the point, to show the rest of the team your third line isn't any good?

In all sports you can see the teams that think they are overmatched, they change line ups, shorten the bench match lines, etc. Just like in football where the overmatched team tries to hang in there with trick plays, on side kicks to start the game etc. Sends a quick message to your team you are in trouble (especially when they don't work and rarely do).

Bottom line, teach them skill not schemes and if you want the players to have faith in the coaches the coaches need to demonstrate faith in the players.

In all things they need to be a win -win scenario. Especially those third line players who get sat they are not out there trying to get better or help the team they are just trying not to screw up and get off the ice, what a great experience.

Is there a time and place (very rarely in youth sports) to shorten your bench (ie; discipline, attendance, effort, championship games, etc) you bet, but if a coach finds themselves doing it often, they need to look in the mirror on how much are they developing the kids, especially as the season goes on.

If a coach late in the year feels shortening the bench is a necessity I do not believe that is not a strong reflection of the coaching and development they did the rest of the year.

[O-townClown]

My son is a Mite and teams regularly shorten the bench, even at this level. Some programs are notorious for it. I got a text message from a parent at the International Silver Stick qualifier that said his son played twenty-four minutes straight (stop time).

The problem many of us see is that once a team goes to their top players you are left with two choices. Do the same or take the L.

[HockeyGuy81]

Spin o Rama....you are right on! You should roll all your lines 98% of the time. I hear of Pee Wee teams sitting kids that are -3 in a worthless district game.....what's the point, to show the rest of the team your third line isn't any good?

If they're -3 in a "worthless" district game they've probably done a good job of showing the rest of the team that they're not playing very well.

[ilike2score]

How about a creative way to solve the issue of shortening the bench....Dressing only Ten skaters per game!!!! Go ahead and roster as many as you want...but only dress Ten. With smaller roster sizes more teams will be created. With smaller roster sizes and more teams more kids will get more ice time. With more kids getting more ice time recruiting and retention will be increased. With more teams more games will be played. With more teams and more games being played more tournaments will get filled. With only ten players dressed per team a more level playing field will be created. With only ten skaters per team game time length can be shortened to create even more ice time. With ten skaters per team kids can get more individualized attention similar to a smaller teacher to student ratio.

[Vapor]

The fact is that this is more of a "parent" issue than a "kid" issue. The kids know what's going on...they don't want to be put into a situation where they most likely won't be successful. Why should a player that works his butt off all off-season to better himself and is clearly a better player, not be rewarded with more ice time ?! That's life. Those that work hard get the payoff. I agree that it doesn't need to happen at Squirts, but PW and Bantams it does if you want to compete.

[defense]

I wouldn't describe this as a "good" article. It is one person's view on shortening the bench. Should shortening the bench be done at Squirts, probably not. Pee Wee's possibly. Bantams, especially Bantam A, probably. The question is whether or not kids learn from being on the ice and unable to compete against the other teams better skaters. I am of the opinion that you don't just roll the lines, one actually "coaches" a game. Everyone still plays. Against a lesser opponent, the 3rd line may play a ton, double shifting, etc.. Just as against the top teams, the 3rd line may not play as much. Over a season, everyone plays about the same amount. Believe it or not, winning DOES, to a point, instill pride and that winning attitude within the team. Of course there are so many differant situations throughout the state concerning number of skaters in an association, etc that one size doesn't fit all. The article is pretty slanted and, again, only presents one person's view..........I certainly don't beleive kids will be scarred for life if a coach shortens their bench......just another's opinion.........

All said is very close to the common sense that people should have.
I have no problem shortening the bench in older levels of play unless it will wear down the players that see the time. This is where a good coach comes in. If the top dogs are conditioned enough to still be competitive throughout the third period, go for it. There is a line that can be crossed, but it is pretty leanient, especially at the bantam level.
In most cases a team would likely be able to score a big advantage by playing a larger bench through the body of the game. There are numerous ways to go about this, but with the right mentality in the team, they can wear their opponents down. Not everyone will agree with that statement, and that's fine. My take on it is: if winning isn't everything, what's first place for???? As I said, if the players who are playing all the time can be tough enough to handle it, fine go ahead. I would rather have fresher legs, bodies, and minds late in the game though.

[council member retired]

When I am at a high school game, I internally can't wait till the 1st or 2nd line to come back out. Holding my breath, hoping the team doesn't score on line 3. If the 4th line saw the ice in the 3rd of a tight game, I may say to myself or whom I am with "what are they doing out there".

I don't know the bantam teams well enough. And I couldn't tell the 3rd line from the 1st on most peewee teams in just one game. But I would imagine if I was cheering on a bantam team, I would say to myself "what are they doing out there" if late in a tight game. As a viewer rooting for the win, I am guilty.

[defense]

Probably forgot the part about I think it is perfectly fine for the top players to win the game. When the game is in jeopordy, a win is a win, is a win. What I meant was a little rest in the middle parts of the game can be a benefit. By rest, I'm not saying the top players should be benched or even take shifts off...I'm saying roll three lines instead of two... in some cases maybe roll the 4th line now and then. When the game is on the line I want my top players out there and I want them ready to go.

[dogeatdog1]

How about a creative way to solve the issue of shortening the bench....Dressing only Ten skaters per game!!!! Go ahead and roster as many as you want...but only dress Ten. With smaller roster sizes more teams will be created. With smaller roster sizes and more teams more kids will get more ice time. With more kids getting more ice time recruiting and retention will be increased. With more teams more games will be played. With more teams and more games being played more tournaments will get filled. With only ten players dressed per team a more level playing field will be created. With only ten skaters per team game time length can be shortened to create even more ice time. With ten skaters per team kids can get more individualized attention similar to a smaller teacher to student ratio.

Great idea ... do you have the extra $ it is going to take to get the ten player teams in the tourneys? we split the costs in our association. Wouldn't matter on the practice $ as we could split ice between 3 teams. but at 10 players you are looking at a minimum of another $200 a kid for 4 tourneys .. I could see it now.. A team at 10 kids.. no one wants to pick two A teams... 5 b1 teams and people would get on this thread and complain that the teams are dominate... then the parents of the A team won't want their kids practicing with B1ers and the cost goes up again. Then Jonny A gets hurt and they go to a B1 kid and pull him up to the A team.. all the kids pick on him cause he isn't good enough to be an A player and he quits the game.... Just a few scenarios to think about when going with a smaller roster #.

Shorten the bench thoughts.. Good coaches on good teams will get buyin from the kids (who cares about the parents) they will put their kids in the game when they think that they have the best chance of succeeding. Lines 3-4 won't be out to take a face off in the d end late in the game but might get to play more and have the big studs watch when the team is up by 4 ...We use tourney games at the peewee level to even the play time. District games mean more so the big guns play more in those games. Problem with this is that you have to be consistent as a coach and get on the #1 kid when he isn't trying just as you do to the #15. I have seen #1,2,3,4 sitting on the bench watching the bottom kids trying to hang on in a tourney game early in the game to send a message that effort needs to be there no matter who you are. You would be surprised to see the effort that is put out by the big guns after sitting a couple of shifts.

[Bronc]

The fact is that this is more of a "parent" issue than a "kid" issue. The kids know what's going on...they don't want to be put into a situation where they most likely won't be successful. Why should a player that works his butt off all off-season to better himself and is clearly a better player, not be rewarded with more ice time ?! That's life. Those that work hard get the payoff. I agree that it doesn't need to happen at Squirts, but PW and Bantams it does if you want to compete.

To think players/kids do not have issues with shorting the bench a coach has got blinders on at every level. Players/Kids want to play they adapt and realize it is not their place to challenge the coach as most don't/won't and shouldn't have to listen to their whining. But to think players are ok with it, you are out of touch. Most have been taught to say and do things even when most feel differently. Is there limited rationale for a time and place to shorten the bench (ie: final 3 minutes of a Championship Game, Discipline for attitude, effort, attendance, punctuality, etc) you bet and a parent/player has to get over that.

Parents are more vocal in support of their kid (are some over the top of course, just like some coaches are). Then again if a parent does not stick up for a child who does(?)

In youth sports remember, the families all pay the same for a season of hockey, the coaches aren't paying players & in many cases the coaches are the ones getting paid. If they have a bad game(s) (ie; poor strategy, etc), maybe it is the coaches who should be sat for not developing the players. Extreme thoughts I know, but that is what most of this blog is talking about.

Everyone needs to keep in perspective what are they looking for:

- Positive Experience for the player playing at the appropriate level
- Development of the team and individual
- Being competitive and learning how to win and lose

Its not all about johnny nor is it all about winning the trophy.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[spin-o-rama]

Great idea ... do you have the extra $ it is going to take to get the ten player teams in the tourneys? we split the costs in our association. Wouldn't matter on the practice $ as we could split ice between 3 teams. but at 10 players you are looking at a minimum of another $200 a kid for 4 tourneys ..

Why do you still need to enter 4 tourneys? 3 could be done. 2/3 the games and 2/3 the tournaments would give the kids the same playing time and save a bundle on travel time and expense. Same principal applies to 1 1/2 hour practices instead of 1 hour ones.

I could see it now.. A team at 10 kids.. no one wants to pick two A teams... 5 b1 teams and people would get on this thread and complain that the teams are dominate... then the parents of the A team won't want their kids practicing with B1ers and the cost goes up again. Then Jonny A gets hurt and they go to a B1 kid and pull him up to the A team.. all the kids pick on him cause he isn't good enough to be an A player and he quits the game.... Just a few scenarios to think about when going with a smaller roster #.

That B1 kid who gets called up is the 11-15 player that would make the traditional 15 skater A team. Why would he be out of place? An earlier thread commented on getting more kids access to A level coaching. Shared practices with the 10 player A team and the B1 teams would allow that and save on ice expense without overcrowding the ice.

The kids know what's going on...they don't want to be put into a situation where they most likely won't be successful.

A good coach will help kids overcome that fear rather than enhancing it. Show some confidence and offer encouragement to your players. We want them all to grow.

Why should a player that works his butt off all off-season to better himself and is clearly a better player, not be rewarded with more ice time ?!

Working hard should be the determining factor, not greater skill.

[muckandgrind]

I don't have a problem with coaches putting "certain" players on the ice in crucial parts of a game, especially at the A level. If there is a minute left and you need a goal, who would have a problem with a coach putting his best players on the ice to try and extend the game or get a win?

[northwoods oldtimer]

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.

[muckandgrind]

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.

All this talk about "development" and "Europe" gets pretty old. IMO, comparing North American hockey to European hockey is bogus for a few reasons. One being, that European hockey is more system oriented and regimented (anyone watch the Finns and Swedes in the World Juniors? Complete snooze-fest, trapping-style of hockey) than North American hockey which is more free flowing, as evidenced in the USA/Canada gold medal game. Secondly, there aren't as many hockey opportunities in Europe and only the truly gifted players have the better opportunities available to them past the age of 12 or 13.

You say save it for high school...not all these kids will play high school. Remember that this is a game, and ultimately, the object of ANY game is to attempt to win that game. It's the same whether you are playing baseball, football, basketball or hockey.

I'm not saying that a kid should spend the majority of the game sitting on the bench, but there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with a coach tinkering with the lines in certain situations to try and get a win....believe it or not, kids DO like to win.....and why not? It's more fun than losing

My youngest son is a 2nd year A Squirt and last year, he was one of those who might not have seen the ice at the end in a crucial situation and you know what? It didn't bother him in the least, especially if the team was successful. This season, as a 2nd year player, HE is one of the ones the coach calls on at the end of the game. My middle son is a 2nd year A Bantam and went through the same progression from 1st year to 2nd. Nothing wrong with it at all.

[spin-o-rama]

believe it or not, kids DO like to win.....and why not? It's more fun than losing.

Perhaps a more important truth: believe it or not, kids DO like to play.....and why not? It's more fun than sitting on the bench.

Summer hockey teams have practice players. That isn't true for association hockey. If the ambition is to watch your team win then spend your $$$ on season tickets to Wild/Vikings/Twins, etc.

[muckandgrind]

believe it or not, kids DO like to win.....and why not? It's more fun than losing.

Perhaps a more important truth: believe it or not, kids DO like to play.....and why not? It's more fun than sitting on the bench.

Summer hockey teams have practice players. That isn't true for association hockey. If the ambition is to watch your team win then spend your $$$ on season tickets to Wild/Vikings/Twins, etc.

Then why even keep score? Heck, let's just get rid of games altogether and just subject the kids to endless practices with repetitive drills....I'm sure the kids will just love that.

If you think a kid's self-esteem is going to be crushed because he missed a shift at the end of the game...then you don't give kids enough credit.

[northwoods oldtimer]

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 alluded to. 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.

[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.

[spin-o-rama]

believe it or not, kids DO like to win.....and why not? It's more fun than losing.

Perhaps a more important truth: believe it or not, kids DO like to play.....and why not? It's more fun than sitting on the bench.

Summer hockey teams have practice players. That isn't true for association hockey. If the ambition is to watch your team win then spend your $$$ on season tickets to Wild/Vikings/Twins, etc.

Then why even keep score? Heck, let's just get rid of games altogether and just subject the kids to endless practices with repetitive drills....I'm sure the kids will just love that.

If you think a kid's self-esteem is going to be crushed because he missed a shift at the end of the game...then you don't give kids enough credit.

Muck, you're taking things to the extreme and over generalizing. Relax.
Of course kids want to win. However, it is not the only thing - And, especially for a coach, should not be the #1 thing.

[O-townClown]

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.