HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

flpucknut wrote:Coaches/Parents - What is the appropriate ratio for coaching youth hockey? At what age does the dynamic switch?

I think winning is important. I think anything you do should be done as well as possible and I think caring about the outcome and learning to compete are very valuable skills in hockey and in life.

I also look at the team I coach (B squirts) and sometimes wonder if I applying the right ration in how I approach practice and game lineups. We focus mostly on skills, with some more game like situational drills mixed in... I've moved kids around quite liberally, moving from F to D all season. Have I sacrificed a win or two by not putting out my "best" lineup? Probably.

I look at these kids and feel my focus should be preparing them to play High School hockey. I feel playing F and D will help develop them as better over all hockey players.

At the same time the kids aren't stupid. They know what our best line up is and I can tell that some get frustrated when we don't put it out there. Am I doing those kids that are already ultra competitive a disservice by not putting them in the best situation to get W?

Again, what's the balance? When does the focus switch? Should an A Pee Wee coach have a different ratio than a B Pee Wee Coach?

Don't need an argument about what ratio is best, I would just like to read others opinion...

boomerang wrote:Did you play squirt hockey? Do you remember how many games you won? I'm going to go ahead and guess that you don't. I don't remember how many swim meets or golf meets I won in high school, and that is more recent than squirt age. I think parents and kids get caught up in the right now. I get it...it's easy to do. I also think parents and kids and coaches sometimes get caught up in their egos. I think youth hockey, all the way up through Bantams, is about development. To me, that means helping each kid improve as hockey players as much as they want to/can. Not as much as their parents want to--as much as the kid wants to. Parents sometimes get caught up in how much money they are spending and want results, dammit! Kids get caught up in "I'm an A player so I'm better than you" when maybe they were placed on A's because one other A kid has a totally obnoxious parent, and the kid is mouthy, too, so they stuck him on C's, and you were next in line. Or maybe they needed another coach at B's so they bumped a kid up. Maybe a B player's parents didn't want to pay the level fees for B's so they put the kid on C's. Could go on and on there. Bottom line is it's a general indicator of the team's playing level, but not the be all, end all for each player. Lots of players and parents seem to think the end goal of youth hockey is to BE on the A team.

Is it nice to win or be on a team that wins a lot? Sure. Of course! But winning doesn't mean everything. Maybe the refs made a call that changed the outcome of the game (doesn't happen very often) or maybe the puck bounced your way that day, or maybe the other team had a lot of sickess or injury or vacations or maybe your team just played better that day. I've seen one team dominate a district only to be beaten by the team that's last in standings. I can't tell you how many games my peewee won last year. Neither could he. He can tell you the record for this year, but last year is last year. Doesn't matter anymore. Winning seems important during the game and maybe even during the season, but most parents I know think it's more important that their kid improves at hockey and that they work hard. I don't give two $hits about individual games, and by the time I'm warming up the car, I can't even remember half of what happened in the game. It's not important enough. I remember if my kid made a great play or scored a goal or made a bunch of assists, and I remember if the kids were being chippy or if the ref made a really bad call or if there was a parent who was way out of line, even giving consideration to the heat of the moment, but that all goes out of my head by the time I get home.

I'd rather see coaches switching up positions and changing up lines for the good of the players involved. We have one kid on our team who has only played D up until this season. He got moved up to forward because the coach knew it would force him to skate more. When he got put back on D, he skated more and won more races to the puck. It made him a better player. We absolutely lost a game or two because of that and a few other switchups, but my ultracompetitive kid has his eyes on the long term. He sees the politics and knows that youth doesn't mean squat. He also knows their team is only as good as their weakest player, so anything that makes that player better is better over all. He also knows that he's getting better and focuses on that. He gets frustrated when they don't win because of those changes in lineups, but he knows the long term is more important than how he feels right now.

So yeah...it sucks to lose, but it sucks more not to ever get better because a certain group of kids are always together. Our last few games have had a line with a kid who shouldn't be a C (B1 or A player) matched up with a kid who just started skating this year. They used to put the first year kid with other kids, but those other kids just ignored him. The line he's on now, he's actually scored a goal, and the B1/A kid got to get three assists in one game by setting the other kids up to score. It made a huge difference in both of those kids' development, both on and off the ice.

I think you're always going to have people who focus on the number of wins, but maybe some of that can be mitigated by mentioning in the team meeting that your goal as a coach is to make your players better. If I had a choice between a coach that gets a lot of wins and a coach whose players make the next level higher the following year, I'll take the second guy every time. I'd also, as a parent, rather hear from a coach that he's concerned about the kids and not concerned about the number of wins.

Personally I like what you've portrayed here. Did you MAYBE (nothig is for sure) sacrifice a win or two THIS SEASON, perhaps. BUT by placing development over winning now you are laying the foundation for them to win later. The best coaches I know focus on development, skills, and learning to play the game the right way when the kids are young so that when they are odler and it actually matters they are in position to win then. Is that hard for some parents (and maybe kids) to handle or grasp in the moment, yes, but you will have won them over in spades when they are winning as bantams and high schoolers.... I believe this to be true in all sports and if you do it right you can raise the level of ALL players doing it this way.I don't believe there is "ratio" I believe you examine the team you have, see what THEIR strarting point is and start developing from there, the development will evolve in and of itself as the kids move from one level to the next.

bestpopcorn wrote:

Personally I like what you've portrayed here. Did you MAYBE (nothig is for sure) sacrifice a win or two THIS SEASON, perhaps. BUT by placing development over winning now you are laying the foundation for them to win later. The best coaches I know focus on development, skills, and learning to play the game the right way when the kids are young so that when they are odler and it actually matters they are in position to win then. Is that hard for some parents (and maybe kids) to handle or grasp in the moment, yes, but you will have won them over in spades when they are winning as bantams and high schoolers.... I believe this to be true in all sports and if you do it right you can raise the level of ALL players doing it this way.I don't believe there is "ratio" I believe you examine the team you have, see what THEIR strarting point is and start developing from there, the development will evolve in and of itself as the kids move from one level to the next.

High School Varsity

Because I said so

When does it actually matter?

Why does it matter?

SCBlueLiner wrote:It is said the game is a way of teaching our youth life lessons. The everybody plays mentatility only teaches kids that all you have to do in life is show up.

SCBlueLiner wrote:This debate has many different sides to it. My belief is that there is a delicate balance between winning and development. You can't sacrifice development for the sake of winning but you also can't totally sacrifice the ability of the team to be successful for the sake of development. Team morale is important. There are going to be players on your team that want to succeed, that want to win, and losing a lot will demoralize some of those kids and you won't get the most of their abilities out of them. So, in that respect, losing is counter-productive to development.

Coach: You need to give your best effort in practice.
Player: Why?
Coach: So you can be a better hockey player.
Player: Why? All we do is lose anyway.

It gets to a point where the kids know the difference. Coaches and parents ask them to go out there and do their best yet they look at who is getting ice time and at what positions and they know better. Why am I, the player, being asked to give it my all when coach won't even give us a chance to win this game?

This scenario above has me very torn on the subject. A few years ago I was all for rolling the lines, everybody plays equal time, it's about development. I have now seen the effect this has on some of the players. I still believe that everybody on the team should play. I also believe the coach has to balance the needs of the team with the needs of the individuals. Part of this is realizing that all these kids on the team need to play so that you can develop some depth on the team. It is very shortsighted to ride your top players all the time, it will catch up to the team in the long run. There are, however, certain points in the game, maybe a key PP pr PK, maybe a late game situation, where the coach should put the kids on the ice that gives the team the best chance to be successful. Ice time should be earned. Those kids who give everything on and off the ice to becoming a better player should be rewarded.

The coach should work with all the players in practice to develop each and every one of them, not work with a few of his special players and ignore the masses. I have seen that happen. I learned long ago that games are won in practice, not on gameday, and player development is where they are won. So I have to agree with those who say good coaches are the ones who know how to coach a practice and can develop their players. Good youth coaches are not made on gameday with their ability to make key substitutions or implement the right system or game strategy.

As for at what ages does the scale start sliding from everybody plays equally to winning starts taking on importance. Up to squirts everybody should play in all game situations. At Pee Wees, these kids are in Jr High, they know what is going on. This is where the balancing act starts. I'm not saying ride the top players to every win, but, the coach needs to give consideration to the importance of winning to some of these kids. Play everyone as much as you can but realize there are key times where your top players should be on the ice. By Bantams these kids are entering high school, checking is part of the game, junior and college scouts are starting to look at these players. This is where hockey starts getting real and the players should have to earn their ice. High School, absolutely. Why is hockey any different than basketball or football? At high school, the coaches in those sports put the best players on the field/court that gives the team the best chance to win. Hockey should be no different.

It is said the game is a way of teaching our youth life lessons. The everybody plays mentatility only teaches kids that all you have to do in life is show up.

JSR wrote:

SCBlueLiner wrote:This debate ... up.

Yes and No all of this stuff has ALOT of "what ifs" to it. The scenarios you paint are alot different for tiny out state association with one 14 man team, versus huge metro area association with 12 teams at any given age level. (and FYI, sadly enough just showing up is ALOT of our society, actually alot of them can't even do that....)

Also, considering you have control over who you schedule and who you do not in most levels of youth hockey, doesn't it seems reasonable that you can take care of the "winning" part of it through proper scheduling rather than short benching

DrGaf wrote:

JSR wrote:

SCBlueLiner wrote:This debate ... up.

Yes and No all of this stuff has ALOT of "what ifs" to it. The scenarios you paint are alot different for tiny out state association with one 14 man team, versus huge metro area association with 12 teams at any given age level. (and FYI, sadly enough just showing up is ALOT of our society, actually alot of them can't even do that....)

Also, considering you have control over who you schedule and who you do not in most levels of youth hockey, doesn't it seems reasonable that you can take care of the "winning" part of it through proper scheduling rather than short benching

District/conference schedules are non-negotiable.