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?
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.
I have reviewed many of those types of studies, my degree is in psychology with an emphasis on child psychology so I do know a little about the subject.... Let's just say I am always amazed to find that kids are able to do alot more than alot of parents, coaches or teachers give them credit for if just given the right type of teaching, environment, and encouragement. I don;t think what I say above is an absolute truth, I know how the scinetific method works if you want to be technical. But it is not "conjecture" either. It's not JUST my observations, other methods back what I am talking about. Again I agree with the ideas behind small area games, I agree with alot of what you are saying I just disagree with some of how it is executed. As for my hockey knowledge, I have found over the many years that games like soccer, hockey, lacrosse and a few others are at their essence really very similar games and how the brain reacts is beyond similar when playing them. I coach soccer at a high level, I played hockey up through and including high school and I've coached mites and squirts in hockeyf or the last 7 years, while also watching my son be coached at higher levels by other coaches and he is nw a bantam. I don't pretend to grasp all of the X's and O's of high level hockey but I do grasp high level coaching and the philosophies the majorly overlap across the afoementioned sports so when discussing this subject I think I grasp it pretty well
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.
Can I get the phone number(s) of these teachers, because I have some students for them I guess because apparently they've been getting some really bad teaching because the kids in question have all the "skills" you've mentioned and they look great in SAG's but knowing where to be and when to be there in a full ice game still eludes them even now, maybe it will come with time and new better teachers but it sure seems like their heads are just spinning with what they are currently being taught or maybe the way they are being taught........
All IMO - Unfortunately, most coaches I have worked with or observed mismanage ice time for Mites-Pee Wees. They get the coaching job and project their outdated knowledge and experiences on the kids. Hockey has changed so much in the last 10-20 years. The technical skills component of practices needs to eclipse anything else at these age groups. The difference between a coach that blindly runs skill drills, or pays little attention to them, and a coach that can teach the fundamental details of each skill, will have a night and day impact on the outcome for the players they coach. If you have a bad coach then you have to get the skills elsewhere or the player will fall behind and they won't have the skills when they need to play a high speed game at Bantams and Highschool/Midgets.
Same thing goes for teaching the game and managing a bench which becomes really important as players move from PW to Bantam and beyond. A great game and bench coach has the insight and the teaching skills to break down the game for the team and the individuals. It's apples and oranges contrasting these coaches to the typical coach.
At Bantam, especially 2nd year, the game at advanced levels, completely changes from being dominated by skills to skills, speed, physical play and systems. What worked at Pee Wee will not work at Bantams. Most players' heads spin as they figure out this adjustment. A good coach speeds this process up, knows how to make the game simple, clears the players heads from overthinking, and helps them find success as they grow their game.
The big difference between SAGs and full ice at Bantams and beyond is the breakout, regroup, entry forecheck, offensive zone battle forecheck, backcheck, transitions and of course PP. In a real full ice game all have to be rock solid, fast and predicatable in order for a player and team to be successful. A lot of time has to be spent on these to make sure everyone is in synch and working together quickly and effectively. None of these can be rock solid and fast without skilled players. The more skilled the better. And the good thing is each is based on very simple concepts that have to be practiced with lots of reps until it is mastered by the whole unit. Like a good skills coach, it comes down to breaking each concept down into simple pieces and then ramping it up until its a full speed habit.
