HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Just got back from a trip to the Twin Towns. Had a chance to catch several youth games over the weekend. I could post more, but one thing jumps out.

For all the envy on the part of some in middlin' programs, there is a serious downside. Roster sizes are way too big. In one game I watched, Squirt-age girls, shift lengths were no more than 35-40 seconds on average. It was like watching an NHL game, without the speed. Why is this? I think it is because they have three full lines and are super-sensitive to provide equal playing time.

On the surface that last point sounds like a good thing. Certainly a noble goal. But I couldn't help wonder how much better the experience would be for everyone if the team carried no more than 11 or 12 skaters. I know, I know. You're going to tell me why this 'wouldn't' work.

1) "We can't hold back three players that deserve to play at that level too! It isn't fair."

2) "If anyone is sick or misses a game we won't have enough players!"

First: Mega-associations could easily field two balanced A teams of 11 skaters versus one super-team of 15 skaters. They could easily roster 11-12 skaters on B teams versus the SEVENTEEN I heard of in one program.

Second: Oh yeah, the kids are going to hate it if we have to go with just nine.

One suggestion, since I've been told there isn't enough ice available for more teams to practice, is to make shared-ice practices more the rule than exception. From what I've heard, parents don't like shared-ice practices. Shame.

I saw many good things this weekend. Parents are very tame in comparison to what I see in the Sun Belt. Association hockey is alive and well in Minnesota, despite the perception it is somehow failing. Kids smiling, having a great time. Smaller rosters at younger ages would only have made it even better.

I don't agree. I understand the logic, and even agree with that, but what you propose isn't the best approach in our real life.

I like 15 skaters. I like 3 sets of D. I like units of 5 skaters at practice working as a group and developing a partnership and trust for one another. Having a regular D partner that you always know where he'll be is huge for the younger level D. For a forward line always having the same D partners is a huge advantage too. Of course forwards and D are moved around but they go out, practices and games, in units of 5.

Some teams carry odd numbers of D and one shift a D is on the left side and another shift on the right. Can they handle that? Sure, several can. Now let’s talk about a forward trying to break out the puck and every time they try he's "working with" a different D. Some lead him nicely, some pass in his feet or to hard, different every time. This is a coaching mistake, in my opinion, that I frequently see.

In order for a unit to work at its best it helps if they practice and play together. Duh. You know where your buddy is, F or D, because you always play together.

Now the other issues. Try and carry 4 or 5 D and all of a sudden a couple of injuries or illness can really bring practice plans down. Remember the 3-1 game ratio. 50 practices is a lot and all 50 run better with 15 skaters. That's the goal, 50 outstanding, evolving from November to February, practices. Go with a smaller number and 30 of the 50 practices aren't what they could be. Some associations charge for practice ice based on the number of team members so now you have teams paying $200-$300 more for their PWB team over another in the same association which can cause problems. Plus the smaller team, which is sold as a potential advantage, ends up being a problem as the family is paying $300 more for the "benefit" and they end up with 8 kids at practice and don't accomplish as much in their practice.

Now, there's never the exact correct number, 45 skaters to divide among 3 teams, so one team is going to have a smaller number of skaters. The girls definitely short the top team as skill drop off is greater with girls. Boys decision is tougher but if the goal is to truly develop as many players as possible they should put 15 skaters, minimum, on A.

Lot's of advantages to smaller rosters. Practice times can be shared by 2 teams. 22 players can be taught by the top coach, not just 15. Practice ice is 33% cheaper.
Games can be reduced by 33% with the same playing time. Think of the savings on travel, etc.
The 5 man unit is a newer argument on this matter. It must be a very advanced team to need that specialization. I think the op was suggesting this mostly for squirts and girls teams.
I don't see prevalent cases of injuries devasting rosters and I've never seen anyone complain about too much playing time. What's not to like about smaller rosters? Wait, there is the case of 4-5 fewer families having the A team prestige. Oh the shame!

I think I can "ride the fence on this one". Having five kids playing from high school down to mites, I would love to see my sons A squirt team with fewer skaters.[more touches more shifts] Mites in our town tend to keep the numbers low on each team.[some practices two skater to each coach]When I think back to last year when my oldest was playing Bantam A we had times that 3 or 4 guy were out or hurt during the game. This was though. So I think less is better at youger ages not pee wee, bantam or high school.

Observer, I understand the mindset. I just disagree with it, and so do others who people respect.

* Brian Burke on the ADM - "implementation will be a challenge, but the principles are spot on"
* Don Lucia - Skills over Systems, if you can't to things technically you can't do them tactically
* Stan Van Gundy - "we have to go to Europe to find players for the NBA because Americans haven't taught their big players to handle the ball" (his basketball speech is linked on a hockey website since the issues are the same)
* US Soccer Federation - small area games (don't dismiss it because it is another sport, the LTAD of the ADM are identical to the findings USSF had when they studied futbol)
* Fred Engh, Bob Bigelow - youth sports consist of kids playing adult games and problems arise when adult's impose their ideal
* Steve Larmer, Greg Millen - philosophy espoused in their book "Whose Puck is it Anyway?" is to encourage experimentation and allow kids to make mistakes

Your reply ignores virtually all of the ideas put forth by these individuals. Are they fools? Idealists? Or could they possibly be on to something?

To address your interest in seeing units of five at a practice, why not 10 on a team instead of 15 then? Or 12 with a couple coaches filling in to make sure they proper passes are made?

Regarding cost, share ice in some practices. Do you really think two coaches can't work together on a lesson plan? Several will argue that kids are better off being exposed to multiple styles. Not only that, if your kids is playing 40-50% of a game rather than just 33% you can get by with a couple less games.

Obviously many of these ideas come from "outside the box" compared to how things are done in some mega-associations. Your reply is excellent, for it illustrates why status quo remains. That said, two things stood out in the games I saw:

1) A Machine/Blade caliber player demonstrated mastery of his stay-at-home role in a Mite game, passing off every time he touched the puck. Hot potato, hot potato. Paul Coffey he'll never be.

2) A girl in a Squirt-age game was in control of the puck with a head of steam. Approaching the attacking zone, she also skated past the bench. Not more than 30 seconds into a shift, she dumped it to the corner at the blue line and jumped through the door. Line change. I don't think that happens in a small association. Make a play.

Let's say I'm a HS coach. I've got three kids to choose from. One can handle the puck, plays well in traffic, but doesn't really understand the importance of coming off the ice. Another is a master of the change on the fly, but really isn't very creative and struggles to make anything happen when he has the puck. The last one came up as a youth as a very steady player; now that the game is faster he's just ordinary. Which one makes the team? (The third kid was actually my partner in Squirts and Pee Wees...like me, his career went nowhere!)

Observer, I understand the mindset. I just disagree with it, and so do others who people respect.

* Brian Burke on the ADM - "implementation will be a challenge, but the principles are spot on"
* Don Lucia - Skills over Systems, if you can't to things technically you can't do them tactically
* Stan Van Gundy - "we have to go to Europe to find players for the NBA because Americans haven't taught their big players to handle the ball" (his basketball speech is linked on a hockey website since the issues are the same)
* US Soccer Federation - small area games (don't dismiss it because it is another sport, the LTAD of the ADM are identical to the findings USSF had when they studied futbol)
* Fred Engh, Bob Bigelow - youth sports consist of kids playing adult games and problems arise when adult's impose their ideal
* Steve Larmer, Greg Millen - philosophy espoused in their book "Whose Puck is it Anyway?" is to encourage experimentation and allow kids to make mistakes

Your reply ignores virtually all of the ideas put forth by these individuals. Are they fools? Idealists? Or could they possibly be on to something?

To address your interest in seeing units of five at a practice, why not 10 on a team instead of 15 then? Or 12 with a couple coaches filling in to make sure they proper passes are made?

Regarding cost, share ice in some practices. Do you really think two coaches can't work together on a lesson plan? Several will argue that kids are better off being exposed to multiple styles. Not only that, if your kids is playing 40-50% of a game rather than just 33% you can get by with a couple less games.

Obviously many of these ideas come from "outside the box" compared to how things are done in some mega-associations. Your reply is excellent, for it illustrates why status quo remains. That said, two things stood out in the games I saw:

1) A Machine/Blade caliber player demonstrated mastery of his stay-at-home role in a Mite game, passing off every time he touched the puck. Hot potato, hot potato. Paul Coffey he'll never be.

2) A girl in a Squirt-age game was in control of the puck with a head of steam. Approaching the attacking zone, she also skated past the bench. Not more than 30 seconds into a shift, she dumped it to the corner at the blue line and jumped through the door. Line change. I don't think that happens in a small association. Make a play.

Let's say I'm a HS coach. I've got three kids to choose from. One can handle the puck, plays well in traffic, but doesn't really understand the importance of coming off the ice. Another is a master of the change on the fly, but really isn't very creative and struggles to make anything happen when he has the puck. The last one came up as a youth as a very steady player; now that the game is faster he's just ordinary. Which one makes the team? (The third kid was actually my partner in Squirts and Pee Wees...like me, his career went nowhere!)