|
June 10, 2005
STATE OF THE GAMETime's of the Essence for Youth Players
By Lyle Phair | From 
The game of hockey is by far the world’s
fastest sport. Nothing else even compares.
What also seems to happen at warp speed is a players’
“hockey life.” In an instant, players go from wobbling,
unsteady 5-year-olds to bone crushing, body checking 14-year-olds.
Each shift, each period, each game and each season seems to fly
by faster than its predecessor. And before you know it, there’s
way more behind you than there is ahead of you.
So it’s that much more important to make
the most out of the present and immediate future, and make every
second count. Unfortunately, in hockey, we tend to waste a lot more
time than we should.
One of the greatest wastes of time might be in
how we practice. In most areas, it’s deemed acceptable at
the 8-and-under age groups for two teams to share the ice for practice
time, which means there could be 30-32 pint-sized players shuffling
around an area that to them seems like they are skating on Lake
Erie. Nothing wrong with that. But once players hit the ripe old
age of 9, that line of thinking gets tossed out the window.
Teams suddenly require their own practice times
and it becomes unthinkable to share ice with anyone. As a result,
there might be at most 15-16, or as few as 10-12, players on the
ice at one time. To me, that doesn’t make one iota of sense.
Professional, junior and college teams have 25-28 full-grown players
on the same surface for a practice. Yet teams with players half
the size and less than half as fast are only able to conduct a practice
with half as many players?
Doesn’t it make sense to form teams with
two or three fewer players on them and then always have two teams
sharing the ice for practices so there are 24-26 players on the
ice at one time?
Not only could it make the game more affordable,
but it also could free up some valuable ice time in areas where
it’s at a premium – allowing more players the chance
to get involved in the game. Or at the very least, maybe the players
on current teams could skate three times a week instead of only
twice.
With fewer players on a team during games, each
player would get more ice time and less bench time. Additionally,
a shorter bench would virtually force the win-at-all-cost coaches
to play everybody on their team a meaningful amount a time, if for
no other reason than they all need a rest at some point.
Sitting on the bench is not much fun for anyone.
The less time spent there, the better. While I agree that players
need to rest during a game, most games for players in the age groups
12-and-under are only 30 minutes long. With three lines per team,
each kid only gets to play 10 actual minutes of 30 minutes of ice
time? Doesn’t sound like much to me. Increasing that ice time
to 14-15 minutes a game per player at a minimum sounds like a lot
more fun.
Back-up goaltenders also seem like a needless
and wasteful position in youth hockey, especially for kids younger
than 12. Really, what kid would want to go to the rink, get dressed
in their equipment, sit on the bench and watch, then get undressed
and go home? Sounds like a blast! While there should be at least
two kids on every team who are capable and willing to play goal,
they should also have the opportunity to play out when they are
not in the net. At the very least, they should at least split playing
time in every game.
But in my opinion, the biggest waste of ice time
is during blowouts, where the two teams have no business being on
the same ice surface together. Each game is obviously much more
enjoyable for everyone involved if both teams are competitive. There’s
nothing more demoralizing for a team, especially a team of kids,
than getting spanked. And the team giving the spanking doesn’t
get much out of it either. The most common results are a lot of
bad habits and a lot of inflated egos, which at some point will
be painfully brought back to reality.
Granted, sometimes these things can’t be
avoided. But in most instances, with a little thought, planning
and effort ahead of time, they could be. Ultimately, the kids still
have to play the game, and once the puck is dropped they control
the outcome. But there are still many games that were obviously
decided long before the teams skated onto the ice.
At the B level of play where teams are formed
by draft, although parity is not guaranteed, there is a greater
chance of it occurring. Still, it’s the players who have to
play the game, and during the season they will progress (or not)
both individually and a team at varying rates. At the A, AA and
AAA levels, where teams are formed by tryouts, there’s much
more opportunity for greater variance in the competitiveness of
the teams. Some teams attract, or go out and recruit all of the
best talent. Others overestimate the talent level of their teams
and place them in a division where they have no chance of competing.
Sometimes they do this just to say they are playing at a certain
level so they don’t lose players who want to play at that
level.
Unfortunately, some adults who put together teams
are more concerned with winning than they are with having competitive
games and allowing the kids to dictate the outcome on the ice. Until
increasing participation and creating competition become more of
a priority than winning, precious ice time and meaningful minutes
of playing time will continue to be wasted.
Lyle Phair can be reached at feedback@hockeyjournal.com.
This article appears in the June issue of
New England Hockey Journal. Click here
to subscribe to the magazine.
|
