|
August 2004
STATE OF THE GAMEThe Ups and Downs of "Playing
Up"
By Lyle Phair | From 
Most people look at “playing up” an
age group as a positive thing and in many instances that is true.
Looking at it solely from the viewpoint of whether a player is challenged,
it sometimes makes sense to have a player move up to the next age
classification.
But sometimes it does not. Sometimes it can do
more harm than good and it depends on the player and the situation.
The first time I played up an age level was as
at 16. There was a group of five of us who played on an “Intermediate”
(adult) hockey team, with players predominantly in the age range
from 18 through 35 – some of them former junior or pro players.
We all played together on the third line.
The reason we were asked to play with the older
guys was not because we were that good or would make the team significantly
better. The team was just short of players and needed a third line.
In looking back, the experience was probably a positive one for
us, although that might be a stretch. I can still remember being
“speed-bagged” by a couple of guys who were in their
early 20s in my first futile attempts at fighting. And I also recall
getting hit so hard by men 50 pounds heavier than me that I had
at least two concussions that season, if not more
But it wouldn’t have been anything close
to a positive experience, if we weren’t playing on a Midget
team at the same time. With the adult team, it was a constant struggle
just to keep up and survive. With the Midget team we were at the
upper end in terms of talent, so we were able to be involved at
that level.
The combination of the two levels let us achieve
some success, yet kept us challenged and grounded. That is why I
am a big believer of two-year age classifications in all levels
of youth hockey. You never have to “play up” yet you
realize the benefits of both ends of the spectrum when you’re
one of the older, more experienced and stronger players one year,
then one of the rookies learning the ropes and struggling to keep
up the next year.
The next season, I moved to junior hockey where
the players are typically between 17 and 20. One of the other rookies
on the team had a late November birthday and he started the season
as a 14-year-old kid. He ended it as a 15 year-old man, who led
our team in scoring and could more than handle himself when the
rough stuff started.
Through two more seasons of junior hockey he was
heavily recruited by colleges and had his pick of where he wanted
to go. Unfortunately, “playing up” on a team with players
as old as 20 had its disadvantages as well. Even though he had a
strong home life and a supportive family, he gave into negative
influences on his team. He failed to graduate high school, lost
his scholarship opportunity and ended up playing a total of six
years in junior hockey. Eventually he graduated high school and
did attend a Canadian university before he played professionally
for a couple of seasons. But he was nowhere near what he might have
been.
In my junior and senior years of college at Michigan
State, I was fortunate to be a locker room neighbor and linemate
of Craig Simpson. A fast-tracker all of his life, Craig had played
Junior B hockey at 14 and began his freshman year of college as
a 16-year-old who turned 17 in February. Not only did he lead the
team in scoring in both his freshman and sophomore years before
he was drafted second overall in the NHL draft and turned pro, he
was probably more mature at 17 than the majority of his teammates.
There were still difficult adjustments for him
both on the ice and off. But he handled them well and eventually
went on to a very successful professional career. Obviously “playing
up” in youth hockey is very different from “playing
up” at the junior and college levels. But while it has its
differences, it also has its similarities.
Age is just one determining factor in grouping
kids to play hockey or any sport. Most kids will fall within that
range, no different than they do at school. But no matter what the
age range, or when it starts and when it ends, there will always
be kids who are at the upper end of the group in terms of physical
and mental maturity and skills. And there will always be kids at
the other end.
So for players at the upper end of the scale,
how do they know if and when “playing up” at the next
age level is the right thing to do? I don’t think you ever
do until you actually experience it. Every kid, and every situation,
is different and there is no way of knowing.
Skill-wise and talent-wise, it’s not a bad
thing to be in the upper third of the team or league. It’s
great to be one of the better players. That’s a position that
very few get to enjoy. In reality, there are very few players who
are so much better than everyone else that they should “play
up” an age level – especially in areas where there are
several different levels of play (B, A/AA and AAA). If a player
is dominant, they can just move up to the next competitive level.
So how dominant do you have to be before you should
move up? At the younger age groups, like mites and squirts, the
game is more one-dimensional and the strongest skaters typically
control the puck. The better players are much easier to pick out.
They are the ones that everyone is chasing.
Beginning at Pee Wee, the game becomes much more
complex. Skating and individual skills, while still important, become
less of a factor as the speed of the play increases and timing and
positioning, reading the play and interacting with teammates become
much more prominent. The better players are somewhat harder to see.
Determining if they should “play up” becomes a little
tougher.
At any level, if a player is dominating control
of the puck on the ice and can generate a scoring chance at will,
that player should consider moving to the next age level. But in
my mind, the decision should really come down to where the player
fits in on the team at the higher age group. If he or she can be
in the upper half of the team – top six forwards or top three
defensemen – then the decision is pretty easy. If “playing
up" means playing a limited role, then it’s probably
the wrong move.
At the end of the day, “playing up”
should really be up to the player. Just because a players’
parents think he or she should move up to be challenged, doesn’t
mean it’s time to “play up.” Hockey is much, much
more than what we see when we watch the play on the ice. And the
interaction with teammates and coaches at the rink, away from the
rink, in the locker room and on the bench and how comfortable a
player is in those situations has a huge impact on what happens
when they do hit the ice.
This article appears in the August 2004 issue
of New England Hockey Journal. Click
here to subscribe to the magazine.
|
