MITE ADM From Illinois Parent

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

sportsdevotees
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:31 pm

MITE ADM From Illinois Parent

Post by sportsdevotees » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:51 pm

Hey All,

I am an Illinois Parent. Curious how Minnesota is adapting to ADM. Most of Illinois has rebelled against the major concepts of ADM. So many parents were upset at ADM that 650 kids signed up for AAU, in order to skip this ADM process. AAU is full ice.


I came to you in peace. Just curious, since Minnesota is well known for hockey. Since most Illinois parent see it has a process to stuff as many kids on the ice, in groups of 20+ per small ice area. NOt allowing for 1-1 coaching. Pretty much rejecting the ADM program.

Do you feel the process is better? All Illinois parents think their kid is Patrick Kane and only want full ice games.

Just curious on your thoughts...
Last edited by sportsdevotees on Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:45 pm

Wow they already picked their Brick roster. :roll:

sportsdevotees
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:31 pm

Post by sportsdevotees » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:24 pm

old goalie85 wrote:Wow they already picked their Brick roster. :roll:
Yeah. No AAA players though. All AA players. The AAA teams kept their players from joining the Brick Team.

The Brick team was an expensive package deal. That's why it was so early. It was over $800 just to tryout. But the tryouts took place In United Center(Blackhawks Arena). It was also a package of meeting Blackhawks players. So it was more of a timing thing with Blackhawks, and what worked with them.

Froggy Richards
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:15 am

Re: MITE ADM From Illinois Parent

Post by Froggy Richards » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:30 am

sportsdevotees wrote:Hey All,

I am an Illinois Parent. Curious how Minnesota is adapting to ADM. Most of Illinois has rebelled against the major concepts of ADM. So many parents were upset at ADM that 650 kids signed up for AAU, in order to skip this ADM process. AAU is full ice.


I came to you in peace. Just curious, since Minnesota is well known for hockey. Since most Illinois parent see it has a process to stuff as many kids on the ice, in groups of 20+ per small ice area. NOt allowing for 1-1 coaching. Pretty much rejecting the ADM program.

Do you feel the process is better? All Illinois parents think their kid is Patrick Kane and only want full ice games.

Just curious on your thoughts...
The more I have had a chance to study ADM over the last three years the more I think that the primary driving force was the cost/availability of ice time. USA Hockey wants to grow the game and by allowing more kids to practice together, the cost comes down, time slots are better, etc. This in theory should allow more kids to play the game. That's fine and dandy and I get it, but that should absolutely not be the driving force. We should be doing what will best develop the kids, not what gets more of them on the ice at one time.

There are certain concepts of ADM that I agree with. Mite age kids should be primarily playing half ice games. That doesn't mean no full ice. In my mind, it should be about 70-30 towards half ice. More kids get to touch the puck, you have to make quicker decisions. In summary, more kids are involved in the play, which is great for everyone. In full ice, you tend to see 2-3 kids dominate the puck the entire game and some kids NEVER touch it once. That being said, they still need to play some full ice. It helps them learn the concepts of the actual game of hockey and most importantly, the kids love it, so for me that alone is enough to incorporate it.

As far as the small area games in practice, I think there is some merit to them, but they shouldn't be the only thing you do. Every team is different and coaches can decide the best practice plans for their kids.

If Small Area games and ADM were created because USA Hockey absolutely believed it was the best way to develop kids, then I would be all for it. But like I said, I think it was more a product of necessity than anything else, and then they tried to sell it as the best method for development.

I coach Mites in a smaller Association. We have our own arena but Mites are last priority, so we practice outside during the week and inside on weekends. It's just our U8 kids out there by themselves each practice. So I can't speak for what's best for the rest of the country that has limited ice time.

So, in summary. I agree with some concepts of the ADM. Majority of half-ice games is a good idea, but I would certainly not want to share the ice with 3-4 teams unless it was absolutely necessary. Since USA Hockey knows that's the reality for some States, they sell it as the best way to do things, as opposed to coming out and saying, "This is the way we have to do it because we don't have the ice." They want lots of kids to play and they want it to be cheap. Then they can say, "Look how much we grew the game."

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:35 am

I'd say that judging from some of the things you alluded to in your post (NOT allowing for 1 on 1 coaching) at least a few of you folks in Illinois have completely whiffed on the implementation of the ADM program. Admittedly there are pieces of the national ADM program I can do without but I don't see it as a reason to drop USAHockey for AAU.

FWIW, I think Minnesota Hockey came out with a nice balance in its ADM program. For games, half ice the first half of the year and full ice the second half. For practices I don't see why a coach wouldn't utilize station work and small area games. So I really don't understand the resistance to that aspect of ADM. You'd rather your kid stood in line for his 1 long skate down the ice every minute or so?

57special
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:23 pm

Post by 57special » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:49 am

So ILL has decided to completely cut off the bottom of the pyramid when it comes to participation numbers? Good luck with that.

It's not hard. Look at the size of a Mite compared to a Midget. About half, right? Why not cut the ice in half, also?

Money figures into it also. Here in MN they pay $160-225 / hr. For ice. Down south it can be at least double that. Cutting the costs in half is pretty appealing.

Redarmy19
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:33 am

Re: MITE ADM From Illinois Parent

Post by Redarmy19 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:11 pm

sportsdevotees wrote: Since most Illinois parent see it has a process to stuff as many kids on the ice, in groups of 20+ per small ice area. NOt allowing for 1-1 coaching. Pretty much rejecting the ADM program.
If you have 20+ kids per station, the problem isn't ADM, it's that you have WAY too many kids on the ice.

jg2112
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:46 pm

Ever heard of the adage that a maestro like Datsyuk or Kane can stickhandle in a phone booth? How in the world does full ice games for Mites help that goal?

Soccer doesn't have 8 year olds playing on pro fields. Basketball doesn't force 2nd graders to shoot on 10-foot high hoops. Thankfully the ADM can help old school hockey folks revise their assumptions (and I'm just a parent, but my daughter's U10A coach is full-on old school. As a result she stands in lines to shoot 2-3 times in 10 minutes and touches the puck 20 times total in a 60-minute practice).

If the options are my child touching the puck 40 times in a 10 minute game or 10 times because there is a superstar hogging the puck, what option is better for the entire association?

I think it's pretty clear even beyond the Mite age range. There's a reason the 3 v 3 leagues at Velocity, the Lumberyard, and in NSP sell out every year. More puck touches at higher speeds in a more compressed space make kids better players no matter the age. That goes for goalies as well as skaters.

MNM JMH
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:17 pm

Post by MNM JMH » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:53 pm

If the options are my child touching the puck 40 times in a 10 minute game or 10 times because there is a superstar hogging the puck, what option is better for the entire association?

I think it's pretty clear even beyond the Mite age range. There's a reason the 3 v 3 leagues at Velocity, the Lumberyard, and in NSP sell out every year. More puck touches at higher speeds in a more compressed space make kids better players no matter the age. That goes for goalies as well as skaters.[/quote]

Or these parents want to have the SUPER STAR kid that is controlling the puck in games. More practice + $ = better skills...

Really has nothing to do with ADM, and the ADM is ok for mites but might not be the right CHOICE for Squirts on up.

jg2112
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:59 pm

MNM JMH wrote:If the options are my child touching the puck 40 times in a 10 minute game or 10 times because there is a superstar hogging the puck, what option is better for the entire association?

I think it's pretty clear even beyond the Mite age range. There's a reason the 3 v 3 leagues at Velocity, the Lumberyard, and in NSP sell out every year. More puck touches at higher speeds in a more compressed space make kids better players no matter the age. That goes for goalies as well as skaters.
Or these parents want to have the SUPER STAR kid that is controlling the puck in games. More practice + $ = better skills...

Really has nothing to do with ADM, and the ADM is ok for mites but might not be the right CHOICE for Squirts on up.[/quote]

I've got no disagreement with what you've said. Ultimately, the kids have to develop, and that means a lot of skating, a lot of stickhandling, and a lot of learning how to control the puck. If a non-Mites coach is good, the ADM is unnecessary.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:24 pm

sportsdevotees wrote:
old goalie85 wrote:Wow they already picked their Brick roster. :roll:
Yeah. No AAA players though. All AA players. The AAA teams kept their players from joining the Brick Team.

The Brick team was an expensive package deal. That's why it was so early. It was over $800 just to tryout. But the tryouts took place In United Center(Blackhawks Arena). It was also a package of meeting Blackhawks players. So it was more of a timing thing with Blackhawks, and what worked with them.
Huh :shock: :?: :?: .... This post is full of inaccuracy..... first of all this years Brick team is for kids born in the 2004 birth year.... There are no 2004 AAA winter teams, the youngest Tier 1 AAA goes is 2003 this year, so of course all of the kids are "AA", they can only play "AA" at this age, next year will be the first year they have AAA for their age, that being said I know some of the players who made the roster and a couple played up on 2003 AAA teams so your assertion that there were no "AAA" kids is just blatantly false, as was the assertion that AAA teams kept their kids from trying out as there were no AAA teams...... That said the 68 or so kids who tried out at the final tryout in January are/were all very high level AAA caliber players... Also it was not $800 to tryout, the December evaluation/ID camp was $99 and was not at the United Center, the final tryout in January was $65 at the United Center, and yes some Blackhawks were their to meet and greet..... there were some other "pre-camp" things you could do last summer and even last year to "get your kid on their radar" and those were a bit costly but those things were meaningless moneymakers that literally had zero impact on the final roster, and they were not "mandatory" by any means, and they weren't $800.... if your kid was an actual "player" he got invited to final tryouts even if he had not been at anything previous to January so it cost those kids $65 total to tryout (plus gas money to get there I guess.....)..... I suppose if you went through EVERYTHING that was "available" it could maybe have run up to $800 but virtually none of the kids who actually made the Brick team did those things, so I guess the old saying is true, there are payers and there are players..... :idea:

Section 8 guy
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:29 pm

The more I read about people's views of the ADM, the more I realize how necessary rolling out the ADM model was. No way is the primary driver of the ADM model lack of ice time. Is better utilization of ice a side benefit? Absolutely. A main driver? No way. It's very scientific actually, based very much on physical and cognitive stages of development at various ages. The philosophies are completely based on optimizing development.

Can someone help me understand why everyone is in such a hurry to play full ice? The first 5 games you play full ice in mites are a blast. 10 games into squirts it's a non event. Slow down people. Playing an extra six months of cross ice is going to be long forgotten by the time they are second year squirts. It just isn't that big of a deal.

edgeless2
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:08 pm

Post by edgeless2 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:50 pm

Section 8 guy wrote:The more I read about people's views of the ADM, the more I realize how necessary rolling out the ADM model was. No way is the primary driver of the ADM model lack of ice time. Is better utilization of ice a side benefit? Absolutely. A main driver? No way. It's very scientific actually, based very much on physical and cognitive stages of development at various ages. The philosophies are completely based on optimizing development.

Can someone help me understand why everyone is in such a hurry to play full ice? The first 5 games you play full ice in mites are a blast. 10 games into squirts it's a non event. Slow down people. Playing an extra six months of cross ice is going to be long forgotten by the time they are second year squirts. It just isn't that big of a deal.
Scientific?? For which players? Please expound on that theory.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:05 pm

Section 8 guy wrote:The more I read about people's views of the ADM, the more I realize how necessary rolling out the ADM model was. No way is the primary driver of the ADM model lack of ice time. Is better utilization of ice a side benefit? Absolutely. A main driver? No way. It's very scientific actually, based very much on physical and cognitive stages of development at various ages. The philosophies are completely based on optimizing development.

Can someone help me understand why everyone is in such a hurry to play full ice? The first 5 games you play full ice in mites are a blast. 10 games into squirts it's a non event. Slow down people. Playing an extra six months of cross ice is going to be long forgotten by the time they are second year squirts. It just isn't that big of a deal.
I agree with alot of the ADM stuff, I like small area games, though I do not believe they should be limited to cross ice like most places do, just because its "easier". There are other very worthy small area games (like check up 3on3 etc...) that are just as good if not better at developing that young aged player. I also love using stations for practice, I think it's a great use of ice, it keeps kids moving, you can do lots of different skill and battle station work etc.... I even like it for older players too.... However, while I agree with much of it, and I agree with the premise, the reality is kids still want to play a "real game". Lots of people love using soccer as an example in this debate. Yes the fields are smaller and there are fewer players on the field for soccer at young ages BUT the field is an actual field, with goals at both ends, it's not jsut a "portion" of a real field, and you still play a "real game" even in soccer at those ages, and you still line up with certain amounts of positioning, a feel for where penalty areas and goal boxes are, and a midfield line etc.. iN otherwords the smaller field games palyed in soccer directly translate to the larger field and have a dynamic that's relevant to the 11v11 game...... These cross ice games are "wedged" into a sheet of ice, there is no crease, center line, or blue line and most places don't keep score or really even "ref" the game and while there is alot of good quality skill work going on, it's not a real game nor does it really translate to a real full ice game very well (another reason I am a proponent of the check up 3on3 which to me actually meets what the ADM wants and does what kids this ageneed, but also translates to the real game if you ask me... So while there is science behind the "idea" the actual implementation of the idea has not been done properly in hockey IMHO, as opposed to soccer where it is done properly again IMHO

SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:31 pm

JSR wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:The more I read about people's views of the ADM, the more I realize how necessary rolling out the ADM model was. No way is the primary driver of the ADM model lack of ice time. Is better utilization of ice a side benefit? Absolutely. A main driver? No way. It's very scientific actually, based very much on physical and cognitive stages of development at various ages. The philosophies are completely based on optimizing development.

Can someone help me understand why everyone is in such a hurry to play full ice? The first 5 games you play full ice in mites are a blast. 10 games into squirts it's a non event. Slow down people. Playing an extra six months of cross ice is going to be long forgotten by the time they are second year squirts. It just isn't that big of a deal.
I agree with alot of the ADM stuff, I like small area games, though I do not believe they should be limited to cross ice like most places do, just because its "easier". There are other very worthy small area games (like check up 3on3 etc...) that are just as good if not better at developing that young aged player. I also love using stations for practice, I think it's a great use of ice, it keeps kids moving, you can do lots of different skill and battle station work etc.... I even like it for older players too.... However, while I agree with much of it, and I agree with the premise, the reality is kids still want to play a "real game". Lots of people love using soccer as an example in this debate. Yes the fields are smaller and there are fewer players on the field for soccer at young ages BUT the field is an actual field, with goals at both ends, it's not jsut a "portion" of a real field, and you still play a "real game" even in soccer at those ages, and you still line up with certain amounts of positioning, a feel for where penalty areas and goal boxes are, and a midfield line etc.. iN otherwords the smaller field games palyed in soccer directly translate to the larger field and have a dynamic that's relevant to the 11v11 game...... These cross ice games are "wedged" into a sheet of ice, there is no crease, center line, or blue line and most places don't keep score or really even "ref" the game and while there is alot of good quality skill work going on, it's not a real game nor does it really translate to a real full ice game very well (another reason I am a proponent of the check up 3on3 which to me actually meets what the ADM wants and does what kids this ageneed, but also translates to the real game if you ask me... So while there is science behind the "idea" the actual implementation of the idea has not been done properly in hockey IMHO, as opposed to soccer where it is done properly again IMHO
As seen through the eyes of an adult. Through the eyes of a child.....maybe not so much. Is painting lines on a soccer field to make it smaller really different than playing cross ice in hockey? To a child?

Redarmy19
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:33 am

Post by Redarmy19 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:52 pm

SECoach wrote: As seen through the eyes of an adult. Through the eyes of a child.....maybe not so much. Is painting lines on a soccer field to make it smaller really different than playing cross ice in hockey? To a child?
It's significantly different. Reason being, a child can skate the length of the ice in about 10 seconds whereas it probably takes about 30 to run the length of a soccer or football field. Not only that, they have the option to glide part of the way in hockey. Comparing hockey's playing surface to any other sports is one of the most misleading arguments I've heard, it's just not the same.

NextGoalWins
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:40 pm

Post by NextGoalWins » Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:31 pm

IMO cross ice and SAGs like the one JSR described plus about 30 more like it are far more beneficial to developing the skills that players need to be successful than full ice scrimmages. We've all heard that hockey is a game of 2 on 1s or, games are won and lost on the boards and in the battles. SAGs expose the poor edgework and hands that gets little attention by the majority of coaches. The players with the better edges, footwork and hands are much better at creating and using 2 on 1s and are more successful at working the puck and winning battles along the boards. Puck possession wins games. Full ice scrimmages and games are great and should be used to advance hockey knowledge but game play is the easy part of hockey. All of the countless hours and reps that should be spent on quality edgework, skating, passing and puckhandling will be the difference makers. SAGs give players the forum to execute, excel and master these skills with a high frequency. Full ice scrimmages do not.

PanthersIn2011
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:27 am

Post by PanthersIn2011 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:53 pm

Redarmy19 wrote:It's significantly different. Reason being, a child can skate the length of the ice in about 10 seconds whereas it probably takes about 30 to run the length of a soccer or football field. Not only that, they have the option to glide part of the way in hockey. Comparing hockey's playing surface to any other sports is one of the most misleading arguments I've heard, it's just not the same.
Isn't the ratio about the same for adults? (i.e. running 100 yards takes about 11 seconds whereas skating 200 feet takes about 4 seconds).

Besides, the game of hockey (IMO) is mostly about getting the puck and making a decision in the amount of time/space that you are given. SAGs are good practice tools for young players in that they compress space (hence time) down to something that resembles hockey at older ages. They are actually good practice tools for older players also.

Should USAH lighten up a little bit? Yes. Should USAH stop patting themselves on the back for the ADM when SAGs and station work have been around for a long time? Yes. Does it kill mites to play full ice? No. Should you spend the majority of your mite game time in smaller areas? IMO ... Yes.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:59 am

SECoach wrote:
JSR wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:The more I read about people's views of the ADM, the more I realize how necessary rolling out the ADM model was. No way is the primary driver of the ADM model lack of ice time. Is better utilization of ice a side benefit? Absolutely. A main driver? No way. It's very scientific actually, based very much on physical and cognitive stages of development at various ages. The philosophies are completely based on optimizing development.

Can someone help me understand why everyone is in such a hurry to play full ice? The first 5 games you play full ice in mites are a blast. 10 games into squirts it's a non event. Slow down people. Playing an extra six months of cross ice is going to be long forgotten by the time they are second year squirts. It just isn't that big of a deal.
I agree with alot of the ADM stuff, I like small area games, though I do not believe they should be limited to cross ice like most places do, just because its "easier". There are other very worthy small area games (like check up 3on3 etc...) that are just as good if not better at developing that young aged player. I also love using stations for practice, I think it's a great use of ice, it keeps kids moving, you can do lots of different skill and battle station work etc.... I even like it for older players too.... However, while I agree with much of it, and I agree with the premise, the reality is kids still want to play a "real game". Lots of people love using soccer as an example in this debate. Yes the fields are smaller and there are fewer players on the field for soccer at young ages BUT the field is an actual field, with goals at both ends, it's not jsut a "portion" of a real field, and you still play a "real game" even in soccer at those ages, and you still line up with certain amounts of positioning, a feel for where penalty areas and goal boxes are, and a midfield line etc.. iN otherwords the smaller field games palyed in soccer directly translate to the larger field and have a dynamic that's relevant to the 11v11 game...... These cross ice games are "wedged" into a sheet of ice, there is no crease, center line, or blue line and most places don't keep score or really even "ref" the game and while there is alot of good quality skill work going on, it's not a real game nor does it really translate to a real full ice game very well (another reason I am a proponent of the check up 3on3 which to me actually meets what the ADM wants and does what kids this ageneed, but also translates to the real game if you ask me... So while there is science behind the "idea" the actual implementation of the idea has not been done properly in hockey IMHO, as opposed to soccer where it is done properly again IMHO
As seen through the eyes of an adult. Through the eyes of a child.....maybe not so much. Is painting lines on a soccer field to make it smaller really different than playing cross ice in hockey? To a child?
Yes, it is actually. I've been coaching for alot of years and I take the time to get down to my kids level and ask them what they think, how they feel about it, what is fun, what is not fun, what is "more fun". What's a real game what isn't in their minds. Guess what, perception is reality even for kids and yes a smaller field where it is it's own field is ALOT different than playing cross ice. Somehow configure a smaller rink so that the smaller rink is it's own rink and not just a cross ice section (a few such do exist though not tons) and the kids perception of the game being played is vastly different and the fun they have and the way they play the game becomes different too. Again I agree with the ADM premise but not entirely with the execution.
Last edited by JSR on Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:04 am

NextGoalWins wrote:IMO cross ice and SAGs like the one JSR described plus about 30 more like it are far more beneficial to developing the skills that players need to be successful than full ice scrimmages. We've all heard that hockey is a game of 2 on 1s or, games are won and lost on the boards and in the battles. SAGs expose the poor edgework and hands that gets little attention by the majority of coaches. The players with the better edges, footwork and hands are much better at creating and using 2 on 1s and are more successful at working the puck and winning battles along the boards. Puck possession wins games. Full ice scrimmages and games are great and should be used to advance hockey knowledge but game play is the easy part of hockey. All of the countless hours and reps that should be spent on quality edgework, skating, passing and puckhandling will be the difference makers. SAGs give players the forum to execute, excel and master these skills with a high frequency. Full ice scrimmages do not.
Agree with you for the most part except for this: "but game play is the easy part of hockey." Actually the game play part of it, and playing it "the right way" can be the most difficult part of the game for some players. Hockey sense is not "inate" for some players, even for players brought up in the ADM model who have EXCELLENT skills and I do mean excellent skills, they get into game play and they have no idea where to be or when to be there because they spent their mite through pee wee years playing nothing but small area game and now they are completely lost. Yes it exists when the ADM is taken to it's extreme, I've personally witnessed it, these kids get into 3on3 games or other small area agames and they are completely dominant, put them into full ice games and they are lost, they think too much and they get frustrated with the game and they frustrate their coaches. This is not conjecture this is very very real and I've seen it up close and personal, you need to strike a balance and not go too far to either side
Last edited by JSR on Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

hockeyfan21
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:48 pm

Post by hockeyfan21 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:20 am

JSR wrote: you need to strike a balance and not go to far to either side[/i]
Exactly.

SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:49 am

JSR wrote:
SECoach wrote:
JSR wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:The more I read about people's views of the ADM, the more I realize how necessary rolling out the ADM model was. No way is the primary driver of the ADM model lack of ice time. Is better utilization of ice a side benefit? Absolutely. A main driver? No way. It's very scientific actually, based very much on physical and cognitive stages of development at various ages. The philosophies are completely based on optimizing development.

Can someone help me understand why everyone is in such a hurry to play full ice? The first 5 games you play full ice in mites are a blast. 10 games into squirts it's a non event. Slow down people. Playing an extra six months of cross ice is going to be long forgotten by the time they are second year squirts. It just isn't that big of a deal.
I agree with alot of the ADM stuff, I like small area games, though I do not believe they should be limited to cross ice like most places do, just because its "easier". There are other very worthy small area games (like check up 3on3 etc...) that are just as good if not better at developing that young aged player. I also love using stations for practice, I think it's a great use of ice, it keeps kids moving, you can do lots of different skill and battle station work etc.... I even like it for older players too.... However, while I agree with much of it, and I agree with the premise, the reality is kids still want to play a "real game". Lots of people love using soccer as an example in this debate. Yes the fields are smaller and there are fewer players on the field for soccer at young ages BUT the field is an actual field, with goals at both ends, it's not jsut a "portion" of a real field, and you still play a "real game" even in soccer at those ages, and you still line up with certain amounts of positioning, a feel for where penalty areas and goal boxes are, and a midfield line etc.. iN otherwords the smaller field games palyed in soccer directly translate to the larger field and have a dynamic that's relevant to the 11v11 game...... These cross ice games are "wedged" into a sheet of ice, there is no crease, center line, or blue line and most places don't keep score or really even "ref" the game and while there is alot of good quality skill work going on, it's not a real game nor does it really translate to a real full ice game very well (another reason I am a proponent of the check up 3on3 which to me actually meets what the ADM wants and does what kids this ageneed, but also translates to the real game if you ask me... So while there is science behind the "idea" the actual implementation of the idea has not been done properly in hockey IMHO, as opposed to soccer where it is done properly again IMHO
As seen through the eyes of an adult. Through the eyes of a child.....maybe not so much. Is painting lines on a soccer field to make it smaller really different than playing cross ice in hockey? To a child?
Yes, it is actually. I've been coaching for alot of years and I take the time to get down to my kids level and ask them what they think, how they feel about it, what is fun, what is not fun, what is "more fun". What's a real game what isn't in their minds. Guess what, perception is reality even for kids and yes a smaller field where it is it's own field is ALOT different than playing cross ice. Somehow configure a smaller rink so that the smaller rink is it's own rink and not just a cross ice section (a few such do exist though not tons) and the kids perception of the game being played is vastly different and the fun they have and the way they play the game becomes different too. Again I agree with the ADM premise but not entirely with the execution.
You tend to speak as if your or my subjective viewpoints conclude with facts and absolute truths. The fact that you have coached for many years does not make your viewpoint fact. It is simply your subjective view, which is easily projected onto children. I believe you have previously stated that your years of coaching is in soccer, but your hockey experience is rather elementary. My understanding is that most high level soccer coaches constantly utilize small area play not only for skill training, but to develop game sense. Review some studies of how children are or are not able to relate to special concepts at certain ages. I think you would be very surprised to see that studies show that their brains are not yet able to think in terms of spacial relation.

NextGoalWins
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:40 pm

Post by NextGoalWins » Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:15 pm

JSR wrote:
NextGoalWins wrote:IMO cross ice and SAGs like the one JSR described plus about 30 more like it are far more beneficial to developing the skills that players need to be successful than full ice scrimmages. We've all heard that hockey is a game of 2 on 1s or, games are won and lost on the boards and in the battles. SAGs expose the poor edgework and hands that gets little attention by the majority of coaches. The players with the better edges, footwork and hands are much better at creating and using 2 on 1s and are more successful at working the puck and winning battles along the boards. Puck possession wins games. Full ice scrimmages and games are great and should be used to advance hockey knowledge but game play is the easy part of hockey. All of the countless hours and reps that should be spent on quality edgework, skating, passing and puckhandling will be the difference makers. SAGs give players the forum to execute, excel and master these skills with a high frequency. Full ice scrimmages do not.
Agree with you for the most part except for this: "but game play is the easy part of hockey." Actually the game play part of it, and playing it "the right way" can be the most difficult part of the game for some players. Hockey sense is not "inate" for some players, even for players brought up in the ADM model who have EXCELLENT skills and I do mean excellent skills, they get into game play and they have no idea where to be or when to be there because they spent their mite through pee wee years playing nothing but small area game and now they are completely lost. Yes it exists when the ADM is taken to it's extreme, I've personally witnessed it, these kids get into 3on3 games or other small area agames and they are completely dominant, put them into full ice games and they are lost, they think too much and they get frustrated with the game and they frustrate their coaches. This is not conjecture this is very very real and I've seen it up close and personal, you need to strike a balance and not go too far to either side
Agree that you need to strike a balance (which is essentially what I said in my post), but disagree that learning a forecheck, defense, powerplay, positioning in the zones comes anywhere near the difficulty of becoming an advanced skater, passer, puckhandler and shooter. If learning the game is harder than developing great skill then they are getting really poor or complicated coaching and I would get them to someone who is a good teacher of the game. Hockey IQ comes in part from knowledge, is part innate and large part comes from being skilled. When a player can handle the puck really well, pass with relative ease and skate with their head up, which comes from heavy duty quality skills training, they can see the ice and think the game better than the player that has his head down watching the puck stay on their stick and carefully executing an escape move or tight turn concentrating on staying on their feet and keeping the puck on their stick.

Like with any sport you need a good teacher to break it down in a simple way whether teaching a skill or the game. There are a lot of poor teachers out there.

SAGs are superior in creating hockey sense because they force players to make quick decisions and use their skill to create passing lanes with or without the puck and develop 2 on 1's in order to maintain puck possession and learn how to take away time and space to achieve puck possession. Its in these battles that games are won and lost. This is hockey at its most basic level. SAGs also magnifiy the number of reps of these situations. In a full ice game these SAGs occur in and around the puck all over the ice. All that needs to be added is teaching each player their responsibilities on the puck or away from the puck. We've all seen up close and personal coaches that complicate the game and coaches that simplify the game and allow their players to suceed.

observer
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:29 pm

A wise coach once told me, "the team that skates best wins."

The kids know how to play the game.

Ref22
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:30 am

Post by Ref22 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:42 pm

observer wrote:A wise coach once told me, "the team that skates best wins."

The kids know how to play the game.
Sort of.

Post Reply