HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I caught a game over the weekend and noticed that the team with a 5 goal lead kept playing 2 lines and only spotted the 3rd line a handful of shifts (I actually only counted 2 shifts total). Is this a common theme amongst girls programs in the state? If so why can't these staffs develop a 3rd line as they surely are not short on practice time. I have my opnion on the matter but wish to gain a better picture as I am an infrequent spectator to girls hockey. I do think the skill has improved alot but just wonder why a team can't give a 3rd line reps especially in a 5 goal lead type game. Back in the day we were always taught that each line has a key role to fill. I do not think the game has changed that much. By the way I have noticed this trend in boys hockey as well for some teams. Like to hear some folks comments on the subject.

As a spectator and a supporter of a team, I love it when a coach plays 3 lines with some consistency. This makes for a much better game to watch when the first and second liners get some rest and can come out with lots of enthusiasm and speed. Especially in today's game with so many penalties called, it is almost imperitive that those skilled players get some rest since oftentimes a whole period can seem like special teams only and you never know when that is going to happen.

I would say even though depth has improved a lot in girls high school hockey over the past few years there are still many teams where you have a big drop off in ability between the second and third lines. Many of the bigger AA programs, the ones with strong youth programs feeding lots of good players to the high school team, now have very competitive third lines. But still I think if you look at most of the 100+ teams that participate in the sport, such teams are still in the minority.

Also, different coaches have different philosophies on how much to utilize their third units (forwards and D). I think your example, where the third line played sparingly, even though the team had opened up a 5 goal lead, would not be typical of how most coaches would handle it. Most would probably use that opportunity to allow the other players to gain experience, especially in the second half of the game when at that point a comeback win by the opponent becomes more and more unlikely. The exception might be if there's a real large drop off in ability, where you wouldn't want your very weak third unit to be caught out there with the other team's very strong first unit (as might happen when you're the visiting team) and the coach thinks the game is still somewhat in doubt.

My last point: the teams that do the most to develop their entire lineup top to bottom will have a big advantage if they happen to advance to the State Tournament. To win it all you must play 3 emotional games on 3 successive days, and fatigue can become a big factor. With the improvement in the girl's game it's now getting to the point where it becomes very difficult to win it all unless you have a third line that can contribute, or at a minimum play well enough to keep the other team's first two lines from scoring. In boy's hockey that point was crossed a long time ago!

MNHockeyFan wrote:I would say even though depth has improved a lot in girls high school hockey over the past few years there are still many teams where you have a big drop off in ability between the second and third lines. Many of the bigger AA programs, the ones with strong youth programs feeding lots of good players to the high school team, now have very competitive third lines. But still I think if you look at most of the 100+ teams that participate in the sport, such teams are still in the minority.

Also, different coaches have different philosophies on how much to utilize their third units (forwards and D). I think your example, where the third line played sparingly, even though the team had opened up a 5 goal lead, would not be typical of how most coaches would handle it. Most would probably use that opportunity to allow the other players to gain experience, especially in the second half of the game when at that point a comeback win by the opponent becomes more and more unlikely. The exception might be if there's a real large drop off in ability, where you wouldn't want your very weak third unit to be caught out there with the other team's very strong first unit (as might happen when you're the visiting team) and the coach thinks the game is still somewhat in doubt.

My last point: the teams that do the most to develop their entire lineup top to bottom will have a big advantage if they happen to advance to the State Tournament. To win it all you must play 3 emotional games on 3 successive days, and fatigue can become a big factor. With the improvement in the girl's game it's now getting to the point where it becomes very difficult to win it all unless you have a third line that can contribute, or at a minimum play well enough to keep the other team's first two lines from scoring. In boy's hockey that point was crossed a long time ago!

Good post MnHF. I agree with your analysis. However, I think most programs play only 2 lines of D. Some might play 5 D but I believe playing 3 sets of D lines equally is rare.

OntheEdge wrote:Good post MnHF. I agree with your analysis. However, I think most programs play only 2 lines of D. Some might play 5 D but I believe playing 3 sets of D lines equally is rare.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that they do. Most of what I was saying was meant to apply to the 3rd line of forwards. I did say "...different coaches have different philosophies on how much to utilize their third units (forwards and D)". Even though most teams do carry more than four D on their roster you're right in that most coaches will play their third line of forwards much more that their 5th and especially their 6th D.