By Paul O’Donnell

It’s natural for most developing players to want to emulate their professional hockey heroes. One of the biggest mistakes which young players make during their development is trying to emulate their hockey idols. We’ve all done it. We see our favorite stars move, with and without the puck, to a certain area of the ice at particular times during a game and believe that is the way it should be done.

Unfortunately, amateur hockey players are not pros, no matter how gifted. And try as we might, to copy what these extraordinary athletes do so well on a daily basis, is just not realistic for the developing player to emulate. Young players just don’t have enough strength, skill or the wherewithal to perform the vast majority of these skills at a high enough level of proficiency to be successful.

For you young players reading this, being successful on the offensive side of the game, while supporting the play away from the puck, requires you as well as your coaches to develop skills, beyond the ability to take a beating in the low slot. It also requires the intelligence, quickness and guile to move effectively and with purpose into and out of the primary scoring areas to support the puckcarrier and help continue the offensive attack as well.

Moving with Purpose

One of my top pet peeves that I’ve developed over the years is watching offensive players, while on the attack, campout in the low slot area while the battle is raging around them. Even though, there are times when you need to position yourself in front for screens and rebounds, this should never give you carte blanche to pitch a tent in front of the net every time you’re supporting the play away from the puck.

If you truly want to be successful in the primary scoring areas you should treat the low slot area, the way they do in basketball, like a three second lane. By planting yourself in front of the net on a regular basis, with little or no movement, you create a huge advantage for your opposition. Not only are you easily covered but the likelihood of receiving a clean pass reception with interference from the defensemen covering that area is highly unlikely.

The most effective way, to maneuver in the slot area is to consistently move in and out, placing yourself in the best possible puck support position with the ability to move quickly into the slot areas as the play progresses and the possibility for a high percentage pass reception or scoring chance presents itself.

While some players prefer to muck it up in front of the net I’ve discovered through trial and error that maintaining a posture just outside the slot area and quickly moving into the areas below the hash marks as the play progresses is a much more effective strategy than standing around in front of the net while taking a beating from the disagreeable defenseman.

Moving below the Goal Line

Most of the time when the puckcarrier is battling in the corner or below the goal line, quit often, the only viable passing outlet is behind the net or along the boards.  In this circumstance you may want to move to the far post positioning yourself behind the goaltender. Quite often the defenseman will forget about you or misplay their angle on you preferring to concern themselves with the play and the other side of the ice.

One of the problems with maneuvering to the far post is that it’s difficult for the puckcarrier to notice you. You can solve this problem by waving your stick over your head a few times.  Don’t worry about any of the opposition picking you up while waving your stick, the defenders will be more interested with what the puckcarrier is doing on the other side of the ice surface; just don’t call out or tap your stick on the ice to draw attention to yourself. Just wave it a few times over your head quickly back and forth and most teammates should notice your presence.

You have two options when you position yourself on the far post. If you’re playing your natural side (i.e. right handed shooter playing the right side) after receiving the tape to tape or ring pass behind the net or along the boards, you could move behind the net back towards area from where the pass came from. You’re in a perfect strategic position, as you clear the back of the net, to give a forehand pass back to your teammate, as long as he is anticipating a return pass. You can also try to catch the goaltender napping by doubling back the way you came and jamming the puck on a wraparound.

If you’re playing your off wing, your other option is to look for a one timer pass to the far side of the net close to the goal crease. This type of play takes a lot of practice and timing to be effective. Luckily if you’re close to the goal crease, your shooting options are usually limited to redirecting the puck or jamming it home.

In this situation you need to remember when presenting your stick to the puckcarrier the blade needs to be on the ice before shooting the puck. But don’t move too quickly towards your intended passing lane. Doing so will only allow your opposition to know where you plan to receive the puck or take your shot from. During these scenarios, you are much better off repositioning yourself somewhere slightly away from where you want to receive the pass. Remember, successfully maneuvering in traffic, around the high-value scoring areas, is all about the element of surprise!

You will need to time your approach to where you want to receive the puck by establishing solid two way nonverbal communication with the puckcarrier before making your move. When it’s time to move, break quickly to open ice with your stick down so the puckcarrier has a good idea of where you want the puck. It may also be helpful to move or shake your stick slightly, a few inches above the ice surface, towards the direction you intend to move.

But the most important thing you need to know about receiving a pass has nothing to do with physical skills or ability. The most important part about receiving a pass is: Just because you see the puckcarrier does not mean that he sees you. Don’t look down at the puck. Look your teammate – right in the eye. As soon as he looks back at you, shake your stick and make your break. If you’re quick enough and move to the open before the defender has time to react to your play – hopefully you’ll light the lamp.

Puck Low-Player High

As I said before, players who set up shop in front of the net as the play moves around them are putting themselves and their team at a huge disadvantage. Besides the obvious disadvantage of being easily taken out of play by the opposing defenseman, playing in the low slot area while the puck is below the hash marks just makes it harder for your teammate to get you the puck.

As the puck moves tight around the boards in the lower slot area or in the corners, time and space usually limits puckcarriers to relatively low percentage passing options.  In many of these situations puckhandlers are usually in low-levels of puck possession, usually battling against the boards and/or facing glass. Even if they had time to notice you out in front, more often than not, their passing options are limited to either sliding the puck back to the point man tight against the wall or ringing the puck low against the boards towards the back of the net.

When the battle happens to move below the goal line towards the net, the net itself becomes an obstruction to a successful passing connection. As opposing players begin to collapse their defensive zone coverage, to defend against an offensive attack from behind the net, an inevitable traffic jam is created which will hinder your time and space as well as your ability to receive or even redirect any kind of quality pass. A better offensive strategy, when the puck is below the face off dots, is to move to the high slot area above the hash marks and then break into the low slot as your teammate is ready to pass in your direction.

By positioning yourself in an area of open ice that will allow you the time and space to make a play, somewhere just above the hash marks, you have the ability to maximize your effectiveness as a pass receiver. In this position you can quickly move from the high slot and brake swiftly into the low slot area, with the element of surprise on your side as you break into the low slot area. Hopefully you will have already received a pass before the opposition has a chance to react to your move.

Sometimes you can lure the defender outside his coverage area. To accomplish this you will need to initially establish a position in the lower slot. As the battle rages around you begin to inch your way out of the low slot area into the high slot area. The defenseman will naturally want to follow you, to a certain point before stopping. How far you will be able to suck the defenseman away from their primary responsibility, will depend upon the skills and knowledgeable of that individual defenseman -as well as your guile.

If you can draw that defenseman close to the hash marks, when your teammate is ready to move the puck in your direction, you can anticipate the play and move quickly towards the net. This little bit of misdirection may provide you with enough time and space to make a play and get the puck on net before the defenseman has a chance to react. The key to success, especially when the puck is below the hash marks or in the corner, is to have the ability to move to open ice instantaneously and in every direction available without being hindered by the traffic that usually clogs up the low slot area.

Hockey Puck -High Player Low

The only time you should be planting yourself in front of the net is when the puck moves above the hash marks and especially back to the points. But even in these circumstances, you can become much more effective in the low slot if you time your moves to the net to coincide with the shots by your teammates.

While it’s true that you need to establish position in front of the net for screening and rebound purposes, sometimes establishing your position between the puckcarrier and the goaltender too early, can be counterproductive. My philosophy is: Why should an offensive player take a beating or wear themselves down during the course of the game at the hands of a defenseman who seems to take just a little bit too much pleasure from your pain as he practices his wood chopping skills on your back or attempts to knock you off your feet?

Why not cut down the physical abuse by strategically moving into the low slot and setting up just before the shot is taken.  Besides the obvious benefit of not allowing the defenders the time to establish a solid defensive position on you, it also disrupts the goaltender’s concentration as well.

Goaltenders are used to being screened. Goaltenders have strategies for maintaining eye contact with the puck most of the time; but many times they become so hyper focused on the puck before and during the oppositions shooting attempt that they can become a little discombobulated by a player who simply crosses their path for even a fraction of a second while the puck is in flight. A player establishing good position at the netminders doorstop can redirect the puck before it reaches the net or drive the puck home as it drops to the ice.

Conclusion

Always remember, while the sport of hockey may be a game of quickness, agility and physical skills, without the ability to properly read and react to every play as well as every battle that you are confronted with you will never aspire to your highest possible potential. 

As always, I look forward to your comments good, bad or ugly at: paul@neckuphockey.com

Attaining the physical skills, as well as gaining a basic understanding of the intricacies of playing the 1 on 1, isn’t like learning a stickhandling move or practicing your backhand shooting skills. In addition to the hand-eye coordination and muscle memory required for your average backhander or stickhandling move, understanding the intricacies of playing the 1 on 1 effectively involves developing the experience and intuition that only comes with hundreds, if not thousands, of 1 on 1 practice and game situations.

As players reach certain ages and attain higher skill levels during their hockey development they will become exposed to more complex hockey systems, tactics and concepts which, as time goes by, they will need to become familiar. Any player who chooses to defend the backside will surely be introduced sooner or later to the full scope of concepts and strategies to contain or defend against a 1 on 1 assault.

Establishing Gap Control

Between the two halves of the neutral zone, from blueline to blueline, there are two important points of reference that every defenseman needs to take note of in order to successfully defend against a 1 on 1 or even-man offensive assault into their own zone.

The first essential part of the ice surface to be aware of is the area just inside the opponent’s blueline. Before the defenseman even begins to move his feet, he should be anticipating the 1 on 1 situation and formulating a successful exit strategy that will allow for enough time to establish a tight enough gap which will match his hockey abilities.  Gap control or gapping is the distance between the puck carrier and the closest defender or teammate at any given time during any hockey game or practice situation.

If the defenseman exits the offensive zone a tenth of a second too early he runs the risk of beginning the battle with a sloppy preliminary gap that allows the attacker more room to maneuver and a better chance of establishing a presence in his offensive zone.  In allowing an extraordinarily wide gap as he begins the slowdown process, the defender may not be able to confront the puckcarrier at a position on the ice of his choosing.  During this scenario the defender is usually forced to surrender the blueline without a fight.

On the other hand, if the defenseman cat naps or misreads the puckcarrier’s speed or ability and incorrectly leaves the zone a fraction of a second too late, the defender may not have the chance to match the stickhandler’s speed or even establish a proper gap before he is overtaken by the opponent who can then turn the corner and pass him by.

Matching Speed

The next part of the 1 on1 process may be the most crucial to the success or failure of any and every individual battle. From the point at which the defenseman starts moving his feet and begins exiting the offensive zone he needs to accomplish two very important goals before the back of his skates touch the redline. He needs to begin generating a significant amount of momentum to match his challenger’s speed and he also must establish an initial gap to work with for the remainder of the battle. If the defender is incapable of accomplishing this, in this particular area, chances of successfully fending off the 1 on 1 onslaught will be greatly reduced.

Where young developing hockey players are concerned, the vast majority have neither the strength nor skill to match speed going backwards with other players of their own age or skill levels who are moving forwards. Instead of cross-unders and C-cutting your way out of the offensive zone to generate the necessary speed – why not just turn and burn!

Turning and burning is the phrase I use when I want my defenseman to generate speed quickly going the other way. This technique is not only simple, it’s also extremely effective in allowing the point man to hang in the zone a little bit longer, as well as, giving the defenseman the ability to establish a much tighter gap control.

When it’s time for the defenseman to back out of the offensive zone, just turn and take 3 to 4 quick hard strides, with the defensive player’s head on a swivel, looking back to face his attacker until he can establish a significant enough momentum to resume his backward skating posture.

By the time the defenseman has reached the red line, if he has accomplished the previous task effectively, both skaters should be completely inside the opponent’s side of the neutral zone. The distance between the two combatants will depend on the speed and skill, as well as, each player’s knowledge and understanding of the 1 on 1 process. While an initial gap can be as wide as the total distance between the redline and the blueline, the average distance is usually 1 to 2 stick lengths between the offense and defense players’ stick blades.

In this area, the defenseman should be quickly sizing up his opponent’s physical skills, speed, direction and possible passing options. He also needs to begin establishing an inside presence on his opponent, placing himself in-between the puck and his own goaltender.

Narrowing the gap prior to contact

As soon as the player defending the backside crosses the redline, he needs to begin slowing his speed down, gradually narrowing the space between him and his attacker until the point of contact. If the defender has equal momentum, a tight gap and the inside position on his attacker, this speed reduction should be almost imperceptible to the stickhandler as they both approach the blueline.

As the defenseman prepares for the inevitable confrontation, he needs to be acutely aware of his situation prior to contact. In addition to the puckhandler’s available passing options, the defender also needs to be aware of the offensive player’s body language, as well as which way the stickhandler shoots.

As the offensive player begins his attack run the defender must ask himself, what is the attacker’s body language saying? Is the opposition attacking straight at the defender or does he appear to be angling to the inside or outside slightly? Is he approaching at maximum speed or beginning to glide toward the defenseman for a deking move?

All of these factors become extremely important when it’s time for each individual defenseman to sum up the situation and plan his defense.  How each individual player accomplishes this task effectively will depend on his physical ability and ice awareness; but most importantly how much 1 on 1 practice and game experience he has accumulated up to that point in her career.

Another important factor for the defenseman to pay close attention to, while the puckhandler’s attempting to break into their zone, is which way the opposition player shoots, right or left handed. Inexperienced defenseman tend to take little notice of which side their opposing stickhandler shoots as the gap narrows ever closer towards his blue line;  but shooting-side is actually one of the most important factors that every defender must closely monitor.

A strong side attacker understands that his entry point into the offensive zone is limited because of the way he shoots. A right-handed stickhandler, for instance, attacking along the right side of the ice, will usually not attempt to move in-between two defensemen, while he also places himself on his backhand.  A player in this situation would much rather take what the defense gives him as he approaches the blueline while continuing to inch his way towards the middle.  By forcing the defensemen into the middle to cover him he’s also creating some wiggle room to the outside of the ice surface, towards the boards. This usually allows the attacker the space to alter his course towards the boards, which will be a much easier entry point into the offensive zone than attempting to enter the shark’s mouth up the middle.

On the other hand, some players prefer to attack the opposite side of the offensive blueline; that is, opposite from the way they normally shoot. These types of attacks, quite often, create a greater threat to the defensive stand than normal offensive attacks. Crafty attackers attempting these types of entries will usually angle their attack a lot closer to the boards than a defenseman would normally expect; but in actuality, they are just setting the defenseman up for a sharp lateral move towards the middle of the ice surface as soon as they gain entry across the blueline.

This type of attack can create a great amount of confusion and havoc between two defensemen as each one tries to decide who’s going to pick up this dangerous intruder who is stickhandling on their strong side, ever deeper into the zone.

Conclusion

As any player who has dedicated his hockey career to defending the backside can attest, the physical abilities and knowledge needed to gain even a minimal amount of proficiency while playing the 1 on 1 is a constant work in progress. This is true because while, at first glance, the fundamentals of effectively playing the 1 on 1 appear to be fairly basic and constant, the speed and intricacies of playing a 1 on 1 consistently evolves as the play itself proceeds.

For any young defenseman who is striving to gain 1 on 1 understanding and proficiency, it’s essential for that player to receive as much knowledgeable instruction from coaches who understand the nuances of this crucial aspect of defense. These educators should also appreciate the importance of establishing a solid 1-on-1 foundation to build upon through constant repetition. To accomplish this task effectively coaches must be willing to dedicate a certain amount of time during almost every practice to allow the developing player the chance to hone his or her one-on-one abilities by trial and error.

I look forward to your comments, good, bad or ugly at: paul@neckuphockey.com

With the regular hockey season over and spring hockey about to begin, many hockey parents are under the misconception that their child’s future hockey development hinges on their participation. I’m here to tell you right now – it does not! In fact, I believe in some respects playing spring hockey, the way it’s currently structured, brings little or nothing to the table for your hockey player’s development.

In the past, as a coach, whenever hockey parents have inquired about spring hockey, I would always be very honest with them. I would say to them that I think it’s great that their son still wants to play and that I would be happy to put together a spring team if there’s enough interest; but in the next breath, I have always told these usually anxious parents that I would rather have their sons play a different Spring sport or even, just go hang out with their buddies for a couple of months, to recharge their batteries.

It’s at this point, where I would always get the look. You know, that look that people give to other people when they realize that they’re talking to somebody, who isn’t all-there. Before moving on, I’d like to give you my impression of what these parents are probably thinking, from the looks on their faces, just after I’ve suggested that their child should skip spring hockey:

“What do you mean my son shouldn’t play spring hockey?  Are you nuts? How is my son going to get his D-1 scholarship, before getting drafted by the NHL, if he doesn’t play spring hockey? Are you under psychiatric care? Have you ever been held for a 72 hour involuntary psychiatric evaluation before? Do you take antipsychotic medication?”

If you’re laughing while reading this, you’ve probably met the parents I’m speaking of.

By USA hockey statistics, over 43% of all hockey players quit the game by the time the 9 years old and over 70% by the time players reach their teen years. Nobody can tell me that the way it’s currently structured, in many parts of the country, that spring hockey isn’t an important factor in these alarming statistics.

While many hockey coaches, directors and parents want to believe that playing a heavily weighted ‘game to practice’ spring league hockey schedule is fun for players; but really, aren’t they only kidding themselves?  I would like to know, what’s so fun about a player having to go through the anxiety of another tryout or having a coach screaming down the back of their young necks while playing a meaningless game that does nothing for the player’s development? Furthermore, for you parents, what’s so fun about schlepping your hockey player, 30 miles one way, on a Friday night, during rush hour, for a useless away game on a beautiful spring evening? My point is that there is a better way.

Decades ago European hockey authorities introduced small games hockey theory into their training practices and procedures. This philosophy embedded so early during young European hockey players’ development has produced many of the great European players that we see in the NHL today. Whether they’re moving to open ice without the puck or stickhandling in small spaces and traffic, the influence of small games training is clearly noticeable during every NHL game if you know what to look for.

More and more, our governing bodies have been trying to put more emphasis on integrating small games training into our coaches training regiments. And while some coaches have answered the call, many others in the hockey community have not. The reluctance of some coaches to implement small games theory into their regular hockey season is somewhat understandable. Almost every coach has too little ice time and too much to teach before the playoffs roll around, during the regular season, to have the ability to implement any meaningful small games regimen into their practice schedule.

This is why springtime is the perfect opportunity to introduce, in-house, 3 on 3 and small games theory for hockey players at all age levels and skill brackets. For those who wish to participate, spring hockey should be a time for young players to get some relief from the pressure of the regular season and have the chance to play a less formal style of hockey with their neighborhood hockey buddies – in an environment that’s fun!

What I love about 3 on 3 and small games is that there are no coaches telling players that they’re doing something wrong or screaming at them because they weren’t in the right place or doing exactly what the coach wants.

The beauty of small games, when introduced correctly, is that players actually learn so much more, in what appears to be an informal pond hockey style setting, than they ever could hope to learn in any 3 seasons of regular spring hockey, the way it is currently structured in many states today. This is because each and every player who participates will touch, carry and shoot the puck, 5, 10 or maybe even 20 times more during one session than they ever could in a regularly structured spring league game.

I believe, if introduced correctly, this informal pond hockey style of competition, can significantly improve an individual player’s physical skills and quickness as well as their on-ice awareness of the game. These uncomfortable small areas, in which players are forced to compete, will force each and every player to establish new and higher comfort levels for themselves. This very effective time tested European training is, in actuality, a very effective method of self teaching, which will pay huge dividends, not only for the coming fall season, but for years to come as well.

I’m sure all of us, at one time or another during our lives, wish they could have the opportunity to pull back the media curtain and take a peek into the, behind the scenes,  world of a major sporting event, from the inside looking out. Well, I’d like to do just that, while I describe my experiences from my recent trips to Fort Wayne, and Detroit, from the perspective of a fledgling reporter while covering the NCAA Division I men’s hockey playoffs, otherwise known as Frozen Four.

When I first came up with the brilliant idea of applying for press credentials for the Frozen Four playoffs I did so on a whim. So when I received an e-mail from my editor Ken Markham that my credentials were approved, for not only the Midwest regionals in Fort Wayne Indiana but for the actual Frozen Four in Detroit, I think I was more shocked than elated at the outcome.

My first stop on my two-part  Odyssey, as a member of the press, was the NCAA Midwest Regional playoffs in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where four of the top 16 Division I collegiate hockey teams in the nation would be battling for a chance to compete two weeks later in Detroit, at the Frozen Four.  The four teams competing in the Midwest regionals were the top-seeded Miami of Ohio Red Hawks, Minnesota’s Bemidji State University, the always dangerous Michigan Wolverines and the 16th seed in the tournament, Alabama-Huntsville.

By the time I reached my destination on Friday morning I decided to hit the ground running and drove straight to the War Memorial Auditorium where the event was to be held. My first objectives were to obtain my media credentials and get the lay of the land. Because I’ve never  been a member of the press before,  I wanted to find out who was who and absorb as much information about college hockey and the Frozen Four as my 53 year old brain could handle.

Unfortunately, in my haste to come up to speed quickly, all I managed to accomplish was to get myself lost. After a half an hour of asking directions from people who didn’t know how to get around much more than me, I finally meandered into the media pressroom. Like so many misconceptions, epiphanies and a few “ah-dah” moments that I would have over the next few weeks, the media area wasn’t what I expected.

Following my initial entry, I quickly scanned the area that was dedicated solely for the press. In my mind, I imagined it would be a more permanent area with built-in tables or divided desk cubicles like you see in libraries.  The reality was that this was a makeshift area created solely for this event. This temporary work area was created by connecting a dozen or so temporary 6 foot folding tables together with enough temporary strip outlets taped to the tables to satisfy everyone’s needs.

On the other side of the room, there were two more tables butted together with dozens of stacks of information that came from the individual teams themselves as well as the overall event. Anyone who takes joy in the minutia of college hockey, would probably believe,  they had died gone to college hockey statistical heaven if they ever had the chance to view the information that was laid out in this table.

Almost any information, statistic or conceivable factoid that could be thought up about the individual teams, players or coaches was available. While I was perusing through the wealth information that was available to me, I thought to myself, “there couldn’t possibly be any more information that they could possibly add” – but I was wrong.

By the time I reach the Frozen Four in Detroit there were at least three times the amount of stacks of information that became available to the media. But, of all the information that was available to me, my favorite was the individual game statistics that were provided to every member of the press after each and every period of every game. What was so special about these particular statistics was that, in addition to the usual information that you would expect, such as goals, assists, penalty minutes and shots on goal, the individual these stats were broken down even further.

What became of particular interest to me during both events were the shot stats. The shooting statistics that were provided to us, during both events, didn’t only include the shots that made it to the net, they also included every other shot that was even attempted by both teams during the entire game.

With a diagram of a hockey rink at the top of each page, every shot, tip, or goals scored, was carefully plotted in the exact location that the shot was taken by the number of the player took it. Through an ingenious legend, made up of numbers, letters,  circles, lines and checks, whoever was reading it could instantly receive important feedback about shot selection during any situation, be it a power play, penalty killing or an even man situations.

After a while, it seemed as if you could begin to track and anticipate each team’s momentum and strength, just by each team’s shot selection. For instance, I was able to notice correlation between how strong or weak any one particular team was, just by taking note of the area of  the ice,  where each player  chose to take their  shots from.

After a while I noticed that even if one team had outshot the other by a significant margin, it didn’t have an effect on the outcome. What usually decided the outcome wasn’t necessarily the quantity of shots attempted, but rather, the quality shots from inside the prime shooting areas; such as the slot area or those that occurred when players were standing on the doorstep just outside the goal crease.

The other thing that I found fascinating about this program that produced these amazing stats (and is the standard that is used for virtually every collegiate hockey competition) is that the program is  in  a DOS format. You’d think by 2010, the NCAA would be able to upgrade, at the very least,  to a Windows 95 version of the program.

Heading in to the Frozen Four playoffs I was particularly curious about the dynamic of the pecking order within the individual media services and outlets. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that there was noticeable journalistic snobbery or elitism that I had originally envisioned. For the most part, except in a few minor instances, every journalist, from the large well-known daily newspapers to the most obscure college  hockey website writers were very amiable, open and helpful during both the Midwest regionals as well as The Frozen Four. But there was one exception.

It was noticeable to me fairly quickly that they were only two distinct levels of media at both events. There was ESPN and everybody else. Except for the actual blue collar workers doing the physical labor there wasn’t much interaction between the upper crust of the ESPN media personalities and the other journalists and radio personalities covering either event.

Whether in Ft. Wayne or Detroit the ESPN analysts never attended press conferences, or even walk into the media room, at least when I was there. They even had their own separate meal area just for their own ESPN employees. While I can understand that sports coverage at their level is serious business, it was hard for me not to get the impression that they just didn’t like hanging around with the little people of the media.

The other thing, that shouldn’t have been so surprising to me, but was, was how tight the scheduling was during both events. From the pregame and post game press conferences, to even when and how long, the media buffet would begin and end, every aspect during both events, with few exceptions, were all on a rigidly controlled timeline.  If the NCAA media people schedule press conference for certain time, by golly, there’s going to be a press conference at that time.

Most of the more interesting interactions between the individual teams and the media, more often than not, occurred during these scheduled press conferences. After most practices and every game the  press conference was held at in an area which was strategically located right next to the media room. Surrounded by sound deadening drapes, the area chosen always included a portable stage large enough for a long table and four chairs to seat each team’s head coach and three select players to take questions from the media.

The only real differences between the regional playoffs and the frozen four press conferences were the size of the room, the amount of reporters attending and a slight upgrade in the formality of asking questions. When a reporter was asking a question during the frozen four, the NCAA handed the reporter a microphone and expected them to give their name and affiliation before asking the question.  Other than that, especially at the Midwest regionals, they were all pretty laid-back affairs, except during the losing teams’ postgame press conferences.

One of my most memorable experiences occurred during my very first press conference with the head coach and players from Alabama Huntsville following a late Friday morning practice.  Prior to this press conference, part of my original plan was just to get a lay of the land, by listening to the questions that the more experienced journalists would ask  as well as how they would ask them. Unfortunately, that part of the plan didn’t last very long.

About 15 minutes into my first  press conference, both the coach and the other three players from Alabama Huntsville had responded to a variety of questions from the media who were present at that  time. But from what I recall, there wasn’t one tough or in-depth question of the dozen or so that was asked.  While it appeared most of the player responses were genuinely ad-libbed, it appeared to me that most of the coach’s responses are prearranged. So, just after Alabama- Huntsville’s head coach (  ) wrapped up his prerecorded response as to how his (13- 16- 3), 16^th seeded underdog team was planning to impose their offensive will against the best team in the nation that year the Miami of Ohio, Red Hawks, I couldn’t take it anymore.

Before anyone else could get a word in, I quickly asked a simple follow-up question: “What’s your plan B”? His response back was, “What do you mean”? Explaining my question more detail, I asked the coach, “What happens if your players start getting hammered by Miami in your own end, and they (Miami) refuse to give up the blueline as easily as you hope they will, throughout the game; how does your team plan to generate (offensive) zone time, and get the puck below the dots and make them play 200 foot hockey?”

By the look on his face, I could tell, he wasn’t expecting this type of question.  But after a second or two, he responded with one of the greatest hockey lines I have ever heard in my entire life. He looked straight at me and said, “Well, there certainly is a lot more oxygen on the offensive end of the rink, than there is in the defensive end!”

Looking back on his response now, I honestly can’t remember any other part of that particular answer; but I’ll tell you this, I will remember that line, until the day I die.

If that the highest point during these press conferences, then certainly the lowest point of all, had to be the postgame interviews  with  the coach and players of Miami of Ohio, immediately after being eviscerated by the Jerry York’s, Boston College Eagles during their semi-final matchup in Detroit.

While I have been an avid Boston College hockey fan for many years, in the last few years I’ve become a great admirer of Miami’s head coach Enrico Blasi. I’ve been telling people for several years that I think Blasi is the best coach in college hockey and even after that devastating loss a few Thursdays ago, I still believe it. But just after the loss ,while walking from the press box to the press conference area, I was ticked off.

I was mad because, when Blasi’s team was on the attack, BC was able to consistently stand Miami’s attacking forwards up at the blueline, and except for a few exceptions, his team never adjusted to a simpler dump and chase attack posture.

I wanted to know why he and his players hadn’t learned their lesson against Michigan a few weeks earlier when his forwards continually tried to carry the puck over the blue line, even though his attacking Red Hawks were consistently being outmanned or out propositioned. It didn’t work then, so why continue with the same offensive tactics, two weeks later, with a talented Boston College team? How come you didn’t have your players just start chipping the puck in deep below the hash marks and begin hammering their smaller players in their own end?

That’s what I wanted to ask and that’s what I had planned to ask. But as soon as the Red Hawks coach and players walked into the conference room sit down and listen as coach Blasi gave his opening statement -I just couldn’t do it!

I’m not sure exactly why. It may have been, partly, because I just didn’t have it in me,  to kick my favorite coach and college hockey team when they were down. My failure to ask those tough questions probably makes me a bad reporter and if that’s the case, so be it; but hey, this isn’t life or death.

There were many other memorable moments that occur during these two wonderful hockey events that I will remember for a very long time. Thankfully, most of my experiences that I have had over the past few years have been very positive, not only as a member of the press, the spectator as well

Prior to receiving my press credentials this year, for the previous three Frozen Fours, I was a spectator. And I can tell you from personal experience, if you’ve never been to an NCAA Division I college playoff or the Frozen Four, before in your life, you’re missing out on one of the greatest hockey experiences any individual or hockey family could have in a lifetime.

By Paul O’Donnell

Over the last few years, our Chicago Blackhawks have emerged from professional hockey’s scrapheap and are just now beginning to poise themselves, for National Hockey League immortality. I think many would agree that it’s not a matter of “if” they will bring professional hockey’s version of the Holy Grail back to Chicago, but rather “when” this monumental task will be accomplished.

But, before it happens, shouldn’t our entire hockey community be asking some serious questions?

• Will we be ready for the biggest youth hockey boom to hit this area since the late 1960s and 70s?
• Will our youth hockey organizations have enough experienced coaches to effectively train the massive influx of an entirely new generation of young hockey players that will inevitably follow a Blackhawks World Championship?
• Or, will we allow history to repeat itself, and let the second chance of a hockey lifetime elude us, as it did 40 years ago and which prevented us from reaching greater levels of youth hockey respectability back then?

Hopefully, the movers and shakers who make all the decisions in our hockey community are pondering these issues as we speak.

I would like to give all of you my own, simple outline for youth hockey success. In this article, I’ll start by introducing the first five of my ten common sense solutions towards improving youth hockey.

1. Implement more effective training procedures for all our players at the Learn to Skate level.

I think we could all agree on the premise that receiving proper hockey skills training as early as possible during a player’s development is a lot easier than having to break bad habits later on. In USA hockey’s American Developmental Model (ADM) they suggests that our best coaches should be training our least experienced players. But a crucial question is is:  How do we get our most experienced coaches, those who have the skills and knowledge, to perform this crucial task effectively?

The answer is simple: We should pay them.

But, even if we could entice our area’s best and brightest hockey minds to participate, would it really be a good utilization of our human resources? Wouldn’t it be far better to have our top coaches  begin developing  an entirely new and cutting edge method of training to an entirely new generation of young and willing coaching applicants who could learn and  accomplish this task almost as well?

While this may seem like a daunting task, the model that could be used is already in place. For many years referees have been trained and have been compensated through a very successful structure which can be a template for learn to skate coaching applicants who are just beginning to develop a passion for coaching.  Many of you reading this are probably thinking: “Sounds great but who’s going to pay for these applicants”?

I propose a Learn to Skate fund from which those learn to skate coaches are compensated; perhaps a $5 fee at the beginning of the year contributed by house and travel parents alike.   The simple fact is that we would all reap the benefits that would be produced by developing a higher standard of training during the most crucial phase of a player’s development.

If our youth hockey community did nothing else but alter our approach to learn to skate training it could deliver significant dividends in our players’ development.

2. Establish a hockey skills rating system for players at the Mite and Squirt levels.

The criteria for advancing a player to a more difficult level of youth hockey shouldn’t be whether there’s an open roster spot available or if a parent happens to be drinking buddy of one of the coaches.  Why we simply can’t fathom the idea of establishing simple guidelines for skating and stickhandling proficiency after four decades of youth hockey in our state is beyond me.  There is no reasonable excuse why we shouldn’t be able to begin establishing the groundwork for such a system in the very near future. It seems to work pretty well for the figure skating side.

3. Completely reorganize House League hockey at the Mite level.

How many of you reading this article right now have ever considered the prospect of taking up hockey as an adult?   What if, instead of playing in a hockey league with players of the same caliber as yourself, you were faced with the daunting prospect of playing with and competing against skaters with a wide range of physical skills and abilities?

I’m sure just the thought of trying keep up with the most experienced players in this fictitious league wouldn’t sound  that appealing to many.  While, I think many of us would agree that this prospect doesn’t sound very enjoyable, why do we force our newest players to endure this very same scenario?

I doubt, many would disagree with me if I said that during full ice games probably 20% of the players who compete at this level probably perform 80% of all the puckhandling duties. During this crucial phase of their development these young skaters want to be participating in real hockey league games just like every other youth hockey player.  But, without the puck “touches” where’s the enjoyment; indeed, where’s the skill training?   For those who aren’t one of the “elite” 20%, we’re wasting time and resources playing on full ice.?

According to USA Hockey estimates, over 43% of all youth hockey players quit the game by the time they’re 9 years old. If we ever hope to reduce this alarming attrition rate we’re going to have to find new and innovative ways to train and retain our youngest talent.

Instead of playing full ice games, why not throw the bumpers out at the redline and put the clock on “buzzer time.”  Get rid of the icings, the offsides and everything else that impedes creativity and most of all fun at this age bracket.

This type of small games format,” without all of the ridged rules of league play that these very young player will be facing soon enough, could still be considered league competition and would count in the standings as real games.

At this stage of their development, these players don’t care about things like offsides, icing or even face-offs.  All they really want to do is have a chance of bumping into the puck every once in a while or even have the exciting possibility of scoring their first goal.

“Are these very young hockey players ‘really’ playing this rigidly structured league hockey in the name of hockey development or to provide a “show” for mom and dad?

Think of all the savings in maximizing the utilization of valuable ice slots. You could easily have two half-ice games going at once or have one game and one practice going at the same time. Wouldn’t you agree with me that this would be a much better utilization of ice time resources than the way our system is currently structured?

4. Split travel house league teams into multiple divisions by ability.

Many people in our hockey community are under the impression that coaching at the travel house level, the way it is currently structured, is a fairly easy coaching proposition. While not everyone will agree with me on this point this perception couldn’t be more wrong. If anything, with the possible exception of coaching  learn to skate players, this level is by far the most difficult training challenge that a coach ever faces.  The problem that travel house coaches are confronted with annually isn’t the physical skills or abilities of these hockey players, it’s the wide range of physical skill and abilities that coaches are faced with every season.

If anything, travel coaches actually have it a lot easier with respect to their team’s training regimen and development of the players. This is because travel coaches have the luxury of picking and choosing the players they want through their tryouts. With few exceptions the skills and abilities of almost all of a travel coach’s team members will always be much closer to each other in skill level than a travel house team. Travel house programs don’t have tryouts or cuts, they have evaluations and drafts that decide which players are going to be on what teams.

While I have no problem with the no –cut system that is currently in place, the process of team selection and the league structure the way it is now, creates a difficult conundrum for coaches to overcome. Trying to establish an effective training regimen, as well as satisfying all of their players developmental needs throughout the season, can be a difficult proposition.  Let me explain myself a little further.

As I stated before, your average house league team during any given year is made up of players with a wide variety of skills and abilities.  If we were to rate every player on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the team’s most skilled player and 1 being the least experienced players, because of the lack of ice time resources, a travel house coach is forced to find a happy medium somewhere in between what will satisfy all of his player’s developmental needs as equitably as possible. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the time there is no happy medium.

Usually the players who suffer the most are the ones on either end of the hockey skills spectrum. If the coach’s attempt to design his training is  for the players who are rated  5, then the 1’s become overwhelmed and the 10’s become bored. The result is that some players receive better training than others because there just aren’t enough coaches or resources to sufficiently train all of their players equally.

Coaches, in league play, will usually sprinkle the least experienced players into the lineup with their better players in order to bolster their teams’ lineup and hide the weaker kids’ deficiencies.

There is a simple and easy solution to this issue. Identify the better and the developing players and separate them before teams are formed.  Then Create teams of individuals with equal or fairly equal abilities and will allow coaches to establish uniform and appropriate training regimens that will focus on all the teams developmental needs.  The Northwest Hockey League has recognized the need to do this at the team level and thus, its seeding round.  The same should be done at the individual level.

5. Abolish rules that inhibit or prevent excellence.

Most of the time new rulings by our governing bodies will tend to have positive effects on our hockey community. Take for instance, the 7-Up-7 down rule for high school. For those who are not familiar with this rule, it allows high school coaches to move players up or down between the varsity and JV levels, allowing individual players participate in seven league games before they’re locked into one particular level for the rest of the season.

This is a good rule.  It sends a clear message to all players at both levels; that excellence and hard work will be rewarded and underachievement or laziness have consequences.

Unfortunately, there are those times when bureaucracies have a way of interfering with progress in the name of fairness or political correctness. I think we’ve all been put in the position, one time or another during our lives of relenting under pressure and making shortsighted decisions, not realizing their full impact later on down the road. And while there have been several rulings through the years that I believe should be altered, there’s one in particular that bothers me to no end.

I’m speaking about AHAI’s policy of forbidding park district programs to develop, or even apply for, travel program status. I know I am going to take a lot of heat for this statement – but here it goes.

The only organizations that benefit from this ruling are underachieving hockey programs that consistently hire less qualified coaches; those who make little or no attempt to properly coordinate skills and development training between the different teams, levels and age brackets.

Why flourishing park district programs should be forced to end their successful development of players whom they have nurtured since the very beginning, makes absolutely no sense? There are reasons why these programs are succeeding – and it’s not because there are roster spot openings.  Many of these programs have highly skilled and knowledgeable hockey directors and coaches who understand the nuances of hockey as well as the proper way to develop young hockey talent. It should make no difference whether the hockey director is getting paid by a municipality or a private organization; if they’re doing it right – who cares?

AHAI’s policy was ostensibly made in the name of fairness; to even the playing field between public and private organizations? Does it promote fairness, or does it merely prop up struggling or even dysfunctional travel organizations that can’t compete with the excellence in training that many of these municipal programs consistently offer?

Travel organizations that are struggling should not be allowed to even the playing field by avoiding the necessity of improving their methods of skills development training In the name of evening the playing field.  They ought to be required to raise their standards.  Let the strong programs survive and the weak ones go away quietly; if nothing else it will free up a few more ice slots that could be put to better use.

Much of the time the reason that these organizations struggle is not because of a lack of player talent, but because of a lack of coaching talent and boards of directors that ignore the need to coordinate the development between age levels.  How many of us, as parents, would pay for or even consider allowing our children in to go to a school where there were no short, medium, and long-term goals for their students; or even reasonable expectations of what the students will be accomplishing until they graduate? But it seems as if parents are more than willing to belly up to the bar, shelling out thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars every year with hockey organizations that give little or no recognition to whether their player has been sufficiently developed to transition to the next level.

6. Realignment high school hockey with other traditional Winter sports

One year ago AHAI unveiled its ambitious plan to realign Illinois high school hockey to coincide with other traditional high school Winter sports. I was present at the first meeting; and it seemed to me that it wasn’t a matter of if this radical change was going to be implemented, but “when” the change was going to take place.

For anyone who hasn’t heard of this ambitious plan until now; our governing body AHAI would like to change our current winter hockey season formats of play currently used by our AA midget and high school hockey winter seasons and move towards the successful split season models used by states like Massachusetts and Minnesota.

Known as a high school-midget split hockey season, this plan would, in effect, shorten the high school hockey season by almost 50%, as well as realign high school hockey with other high school winter sports seasons. The new high school hockey season would start sometime in November with the state championship being determined a few weeks sooner than it is currently. During this abbreviated high school season AA and A midget play would cease, allowing travel hockey midget players to participate on their high school hockey teams.

Youth hockey midget play during this period would consist of players who don’t make the cuts for their high school programs or don’t go to high schools with hockey programs. These players would continue to play a midget hockey schedule that AHAI calls a midget light hockey season.  All Triple-A players would be exempt from this new format and continue their tier 1 league play as usual. Unfortunately, as the old saying goes, ‘the best laid plans of mice and men tend to go astray’. Since last February little has been mentioned about this change that at the time seemed so imminent.

Rumor has it that AHAI is being pressured to scrap the entire plan. If they were to buckle under this type of irrational pressure it would be great shame, as well as an opportunity wasted.

If implemented, these AA players would have the privilege representing their high schools in a much more competitive league environment during the new shorter high school season. These same players would also be able to compete with their youth hockey AA midget organizations in the fall and spring.

The athletically gifted athletes who participate in fall sports such as football or soccer would not be forced to make the wrenching decision, during their freshman year, of which sport to give up.  In a football rich state such as Illinois, too many of our best hockey talent is lost due to the overlapping fall schedule and the excessive length of our hockey season.

7. Restructure spring hockey by introducing small games

Years ago I was told by a hockey acquaintance of mine that spring hockey was meant to be used as a developmental tool to help improve our youth hockey players skills and knowledge of the game in a less formal and stressful environment than the regular-season. But, how many of you reading this actually believe that the reality of spring hockey lives up to its intended purpose?

It seems to me that spring hockey has evolved into a two-month extension of the regular season with few practices, meaningless hockey games and little or no hope for skills progression with respect to the individual player.

Decades ago European hockey authorities introduced small games hockey theory into their training practices and procedures. This philosophy embedded so early during young European hockey players’ development have produced many of the great European players that we see in the NHL today. Whether they’re moving to open ice without the puck or stickhandling in small spaces and traffic, the influence of small games training is clearly noticeable during every NHL broadcast if you know what to look for.

More and more, our governing bodies have been trying to put more emphasis on integrating small games training into our coaches training regiments. And while some coaches have answered the call, many others in our hockey community have not. The reluctance of some coaches to implement small games theory into their regular hockey season is somewhat understandable. Almost every coach has too little ice time and too much to teach before the playoffs roll around during the regular season to have the ability to implement any meaningful small games regimen into their practice schedule.

This is why springtime is the perfect opportunity to introduce 3 on 3 and small games theory for hockey players at all age levels and skill brackets. For those who wish to participate in spring hockey, this should be a time for these young players to get some relief from the pressure of the regular season by having the chance to play a less formal style of hockey with their neighborhood hockey buddies- in an environment that’s fun!

Small games and three on three leagues have been with us for years, since Rocky Saganiuk brought the idea to Illinois from Canada, but they are currently too few and far between to make a significant impact. Hopefully this will change in the foreseeable future.

What I love about three on three and small games is that there are no coaches telling the player that you’re doing something wrong or screaming at a young player because they weren’t in the right place or doing exactly what the coaches wanted at that time.

The beauty of small games, when introduced correctly, is that players actually learn so much more, in what appears to be an informal pond hockey type setting, than they ever could hope to learn in any three seasons of  regular spring hockey the way it is currently structured today. This is because each and every player who participates will touch, carry and shoot the puck, 5, 10 or maybe even 20 times more during an average session than they ever did in a regularly structured league hockey game.

These uncomfortable small areas in which players are forced to compete, force each and every player to establish new and higher-comfort levels, thereby very quickly raising their individual skills and quickness, as well as their knowledge of the game. This very effective time tested method of self teaching, pays huge dividends later on during a players development years.

8. Cooperation

One thing that has always bothered me about youth hockey in our state is the lack of cooperation at the organizational level. Not just the lack of cooperation within the organization, but also between our youth hockey organizations as well.

This lack of cooperation begins during the tryout process at the beginning of each season. Individual organizations will spend considerable time and effort promoting and advertising their programs for large turnouts before tryouts begin.  Unfortunately, after all the roster spots are filled the unlucky players and families who are left behind are usually left to fend for themselves; scrambling, often unsuccessfully, to find another program to roster with before it’s too late. Sometimes these unfortunate players get lucky and sometimes they don’t; many of these organizations not knowing or even caring what happens to them once the final cuts have been made.

These organizations have a larger responsibility; to assist each of those players, to the best of their ability, to help find alternative programs before it’s too late. I would like to think this is being done right now, but in the ultra competitive, cutthroat environment of travel hockey of our state, it’s highly unlikely that any significant change in inter-organizational cooperation will come anytime soon.

But it’s not only inter-organizational cooperation that needs improvement its intra-organizational cooperation as well. At this level the lack of cooperation has more to do with the interaction amongst the coaches, as well as the direction and leadership of the hockey director. In too many cases, once the coaches are hired there is little or no effort to coordinate the practices in tandem with other coaches within the program or even establish minimal and reasonable goals or guidelines to help develop individual players.

While the more qualified coaches do a wonderful job developing their talent during any one season, more often than not these coaches are left handing their players over the following year to less qualified and skilled coaches who usually find a way to unravel all that was accomplished the previous season. There’s an old saying in coaching: The coach who gets the benefit of your coaching is always next year’s coach.

9. Establish a quality assurance program at the organizational level

Wikipedia defines quality assurance as: the systematic monitoring and evaluation of various aspects of a project, service or facility to ensure that standards of quality are being met. In this service driven economy of ours, quality assurance or QA as it is known, is a fact of life for any business looking for an edge to stay in business. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case within the overall sports world or hockey community in our country.

While searching for the most concise definition of quality assurance on the Internet, I thought it might be interesting to Google the phrase “quality assurance” just to see how many results I would get. If you Google just “quality assurance” you come up with 29,100,100 possibilities to select from. If you were to add the words sports or hockey to the search results narrow down just a bit.

By typing in the phrase “quality assurance sports” the list is reduced by 29,100,095 to a mere “five”. Of those 5, three are not in English. And finally if you spell “quality assurance hockey”, you come up with a big goose egg, “0”. I tried several other variations with the same result.

I guess quality assurance just really isn’t that big in the hockey community overall. Is this because quality assurance isn’t needed in the sport of hockey or because it may prove to many of us that some of our hockey emperor’s have a lot less clothing on than they would like us all to believe.

Of all my suggestions in this article I am sure this is going to be the most unpopular. Those who are familiar with what quality assurance is supposed to accomplish may perceive this idea as hockey’s version of Big Brother. If misused or unmonitored, those of you who believe this would probably be right.

With that being said, can any of us really say that overall, the hockey product that we have produced over the years has met or exceeded our customers expectations; our customers, being the players and parents who pay the bills?  My personal belief is that while we all believe, as hockey coaches and administrators, that we have tried our very best to train and develop our hockey talent, our best just hasn’t been good enough.

For as many years as youth hockey has been around in Illinois, we should be doing much better than we are today.  We are only kidding ourselves if we believe that the modest successes of those hard-working players from our state, who are now reaching higher levels of hockey success beyond high school, will continue in the future. With states such as California, Florida, and Texas just now making the jump to the next level of hockey proficiency, the gap will begin to close rapidly on us if our hockey community chooses to be too complacent.

One-way too assure that the people who are responsible for training our players don’t continue down this path of mediocrity, is to establish a verifiable quality assurance program at the organizational level that can reassure both players and parents that they’re getting their money’s worth. Implementing a radically new change such as this will not be easy. The fiercest resistance won’t come from those programs that have been offering quality training throughout the years. The loudest cries will come from the organizations with something to hide and especially the coaches who have been bluffing their way through the years, offering substandard training while they feed their own egos and wallets.

A program such as this, if done well, could be a model for the future, for other areas of the country to follow. As far as I know, it’s never been done before. Why not try it and see what happens?  Would we be any worse off than we are today?

10. Establish a voluntary coaching organization to supplement the mandatory training provided by USA hockey

If Illinois youth hockey ever wants to improve the quality and consistency of its players, it is going to have to improve the quality and consistency of the coaches who train them. While we are all thankful for USA hockey’s coaches training efforts throughout the years, it just hasn’t been enough to attain a high level of overall hockey proficiency to gain any significant ground on the hockey powers such as Minnesota, Massachusetts and Michigan.

The only way to properly build our coaching resources, as well as maintaining them, is to establish a voluntary supplemental coaching organization that will provide quality on and off ice instruction on a regular basis, that can focus on the deficiencies and specific needs of our coaches here in the state of Illinois. USA hockey’s coach’s cookie-cutter, one size fits all training, does not even begin to scratch the surface of the training needs of our coaches. If we really care about the future of youth hockey in our state we are going to have to do nothing less than reinvent the hockey coaches training wheel.

For years we have all heard the complaints from every corner of our hockey community about the quality (or lack of quality) of just about everybody and anybody who’s involved with hockey in our state. But ultimately, the reason we will succeed or fail in the future as a hockey community won’t be because of our players athletic abilities, or the hard-working efforts of our governing body and hockey administrators; our ultimate success or failure will rest (as it always has in the past) squarely on the shoulders of our coaches’ ability to train and develop all of our hockey players, at every level, to the best of their abilities.

Currently underway, is a grass roots effort to establish a coaching organization that all of you will be hearing more about in the near future. For those of you who wish to be involved – now is the time! We can all sit back and do nothing, continuing to whine and complain about the state of youth hockey Illinois. Maybe I am just being naïve, but I truly believe that the vast majority of our hockey community is looking for a reason, maybe just like this, to change the status quo and create something better for all of us involved in youth hockey, especially those wide-eyed youngsters who dream of NHL and Olympic glory.

If you truly care about and are concerned with the current state of youth hockey in Illinois, let your voice be heard by emailing me at paul@neckuphockey.com or leaving a comment below this article, that will  post on my blog at neckuphockey.com

By Paul O’Donnell

Several months ago, during a conversation with a nationally respected hockey colleague concerning general youth hockey issues around the country, our talk eventually evolved into a discussion about the state of youth hockey in Illinois. With an impressive understanding and knowledge of youth hockey throughout the U.S. he began asking questions, trying to gain a deeper insight into the youth hockey of our state. His name is unimportant, but since our conversation there isn’t a significant period of time that goes by where one or two of his queries or insights about youth hockey in Illinois has failed to enter my thoughts.

During the course of our conversation he asked a very insightful question which could have been considered rhetorical if he hadn’t been looking for a response.  His question to me was this: “For the life of me I can’t understand, for as long as youth hockey has been around in Illinois, why it isn’t farther along than it is?”

For anyone who’s been around Illinois youth hockey since its early inception, this question probably isn’t very surprising. But, I’m sure for many others who have little knowledge of Illinois hockey’s history and how it has affected us through the years and possibly into the future it will probably require further explanation.

To better understand how this State’s hockey has gotten to where it is today one has to go back to its earliest roots, which extend over four decades, just after the National Hockey League doubled in size during the late 1960s.  Back then Chicago, like any other ravenous NHL city at that time, was caught up in a hockey feeding frenzy of the greatest hockey boom in our country’s history.

For almost a decade, beginning in 1967, fledgling youth hockey organizations began springing-up in every area of the country where an NHL television broadcast could be received.  In the early days of the boom Chicagoland wasn’t much different from other NHL cities that had successful franchises. All of these metropolitan areas were experiencing similar growing pains and infrastructure problems during this time period, trying to keep pace with hockey enrollments and ice time demands. However since other, more traditional hockey states, had a longer history of club programs and sanctioned high school teams than Illinois, the integration of youth hockey was much smoother for “them” during this crucial of development.

In the late 70s, supply was beginning to catch up to demand. New hockey rinks were popping up all over Chicago providing ice to new or growing youth hockey and high school organizations. But, the boom turned to bust when the supply of ice increased so much that rinks began running after hockey clubs, offering cut rate prices to organizations that agreed to “house” their program with them.  Rather than growing the sport, these rinks were merely taking from Peter to feed Paul, all the while driving down ice prices.  Yes, it was great for the clubs, but in the late ‘70s the “Great Hockey Boom” turned to bust when rinks couldn’t meet their mortgages because a lack of demand for their ice.  Coupled with a recession and OPEC’s oil embargo numerous rinks closed their doors, leaving organizations with no place to play.

While other hockey states had similar issues it didn’t have the same effect that it had on Chicagoland because in states like Massachusetts hockey at the junior high school, high school  and college levels was a sanctioned sport completely paid for at taxpayer expense. Hockey parents there didn’t have the burden of worrying about expenses like, ice time, coach’s salaries, uniforms, bus travel and even hockey sticks.  Indeed, that still is the case to this date.

It wasn’t until the early 1980s when youth hockey in Chicago and elsewhere began to get back on track.  The economy began to improve and youth hockey was gaining popularity again as a result of a re-energized Chicago Blackhawks team. Armed with players like Dennis Savard, Al Secord and Steve Larmer in 1982-83 the Blackhawks had an excellent season, coming in first place in their division and making it to the conference finals. Unfortunately, the Blackhawks success didn’t rub off on youth hockey.  While hockey was reestablishing its footing in our area, the taxpayer funded states were climbing to even higher levels of success.

Another important reason for the surge in states such as Michigan, Massachusetts and Minnesota, was that more  than a decade earlier progressive thinking hockey areas of the country’ began taking a radical turn in their methods of training.  After the legendary ”Summit Series” between the Canadian NHL All-Stars and the Soviet Union National Team in September of 1972, many forward thinking coaches immediately understood the significance of this new hockey style.  Hockey administrators and coaches in these hockey rich states began reinventing the youth hockey training wheel that resulted in a much greater emphasis on Russian theory and methods of training, systems and tactics; something Chicago youth hockey organizations were not in a position to consider at that time

Training players in what we now know as the European method required more highly skilled coaches who could demonstrate the more difficult edge and balance training and who also had a command of the nuances of the game that Chicago, to a large extent, didn’t have.   The inability, during those early years, to recognize the changing hockey landscape allowed us a limited ability to exploit the renewed and growing popularity of the game.

It’s been almost 30 years since then and although the overall competency of our players and coaches has improved over the years, so has everyone else’s. While making progress, our youth hockey programs continue to lag behind in cultivating experienced Illinois coaching talent.

In some respects, Illinois is still a first-generation hockey state because of this disparity. By that I mean, even though we have a long history hockey in our area, the vast majority of our hockey players are children of parents who have little or no playing experience.

If Illinois really wants to be a serious player at the national youth hockey level, we are going to have to radically change the way we train the coaches who teach our children. The USA hockey coaches’ training methods that we currently use today don’t even begin to scratch the surface that can satisfy our own needs. While their cookie-cutter coaching, one-size-fits-all method of instruction may be fine for some areas of the country, in states like Illinois we need to find better ways of coaching, which will be more tailored to our needs.

In the United States, USA hockey’s coaching certifications range from levels 1 through 5 with five being the highest possible coaching achievement in our country. In our country, a level I certification requires an eight hour class; in Finland to get a diploma as an instructor, a coach is required complete 100 hours of mandatory study.

To obtain a level V coaching certification in Finland, the applicant is required to have a college degree from the Department of physical education-in the study of hockey. Our own, USA hockey’s’ level V certification, consists of a five day seminar, that usually, takes place once every other year and a 15 page thesis. While I do believe Finland’s level V certification is somewhat extreme and probably unworkable, for most of our hockey coaches in our country, I hope I’ve made my point.

Much to do has been made of the recently instituted American Developmental Model of training.  Yet, while excellent in concept (although European in origin), its execution leaves much to be desired.  Requiring coaches to go onto the internet and teach themselves the model lacks a realistic view of how one learns.  Who, for example, is available to immediately answer a question a coach might have when reviewing the internet material?  How does one monitor the learning or whether, in fact, a busy volunteer coach even has peeked at the material on the web?  I’ll leave it to your imagination to think of other problems that unmonitored, hands off approach to coach’s training might present.

If there was ever a time during Illinois’ 40 year youth hockey history that is better suited to a complete overhaul of training methods it’s now! With the resurrection of the Chicago Blackhawks over the past few years it is quite possible that the State’s youth hockey ranks will expand tremendously.  With greater enrollment will come a need for more trained coaches.   And with USA Hockey’s proclaimed goal of developing more great ice hockey players, it is incumbent upon someone to step up and fill the training void so that our present coaches and down the road, potential coaching talent will be able to do just that.

I read somewhere that the difference between a complainer and a problem solver is that the latter will suggest answers.  I am not a complainer and to that end I’ll provide my common sense solutions to our coaching dilemma in a Part II to be in the next issue.

Hockey stop would like to know what you think. We would like your opinions on the State of Illinois Hockey and will be posting some your comments in our next edition. You can make your voice heard in the comments section of this article at www. neckuphockey.com.

By Paul O’Donnell

If your thirst for hockey knowledge is anything like my own, you’re probably as unimpressed by the lack of pertinent coaching information available to the average coaching Joe. While part of my purpose for writing this column is to emphasize the importance of the mental game of hockey, the other reason is to share helpful, but more importantly, useful information with my readers.

Every now and then, you come across a tidbit of hockey knowledge that peaks your interest. This was my experience after reading an obscure passage about forechecking in Red Gendron’s book “Coaching Hockey Successfully” several years ago. To help reinforce his explanation for the proper reading and reacting technique on the forecheck Coach Gendron included are obscure hockey concept called “The Three Principles of Puck Possession”.

Since initially finding this little hockey coaching gem I have made significant additions to the basic principles, customizing and tweaking the original concept considerably. During a phone conversation with Coach Gendron I explained my revamped version with him and, with his blessing, I would like to share it with all of you for the very first-time. I call it “The Three Levels of Control” and I hope you will find it as useful as I have in communicating to players how to effectively read the play while on defense.

The three levels of a control revolve around the following hypothesis:

Any player whose stick, skate or body is in physical contact with the puck or by his actions directs or redirects the puck to an area of the ice surface with a reasonable expectation of maintaining control, is considered to be in one of three basic levels of possession.

These levels of control act as a checklist that quickly and simply assists the defensive player to help decide when a puck carrier is more or less vulnerable to attack. For the puck carrier, this knowledge is of little or no consequence; but for the opposing forechecker or defender this knowledge can be crucial in deciding when to be active or passive.

Knowing when to be active (aggressive) or passive is an essential aspect of the defensive game, because it will “always” be the first decision a player will make during any defensive read. The lower the level (levels 1-3), the more vulnerable the puck carrier becomes to attacks by his opponents. Conversely, a puck carrier moving with purpose up the middle of the ice surface, with multiple passing options and significant time and space should be a signal to a would-be forechecker to be extremely passive and restrained in his tactics.

Which level of control the puck carrier is in will depend on the following three objective factors at the time of the read:

• The location, movement and direction of the puck.
• The location movement and direction of the actual or potential puck carrier.
• The time and space between the combatants.

The First Level of Puck Control

The lowest level of puck control and the most vulnerable for any puck carrier is Level 1. A player is considered to be in level 1 possession when the following criteria exist at the time of the read:

• The player is in contact with the puck, but does not have firm control of it.
• While the player may or may not be in motion, the puck carrier will have little or no view of the ice surface or his teammates.
• He will have limited or no passing options.

The typical puck carrier in level 1 control will be attempting to gain control of a puck that is tight against the Boards, usually facing the glass or moving along the wall attempting to corral an uncooperative puck. Puck carriers in this situation will have virtually no offensive options and are at their most vulnerable during this time.

Opponents who recognize this and believe they can close the gap before the opponent can move into a higher level of puck control should take advantage of these situations when the opportunity presents itself. The most useful application for this read is on the forecheck, during a dump and chase situation.

Level Two Puck Control

As in level one, the puck carrier may or may not be moving and will have a poor view of the ice surface as well as passing options. The only real difference between levels 1 and 2 puck control is that the puck carrier is in firm control the puck. But, just the fact that the puckcarrier is in solid control of the puck, makes level 2 the most subjective and difficult of the three basic principles to read.This is because intangible factors such as the opposing puck carrier’s physical hockey skills, quickness and visual acuity all need to be factored before a proper read can be taken.

I will discuss  the complexities of level 2 puck control, later on in this article. I think this radically new  hockey concept can be more easily understood by delving into the simpler upper range of The Three Levels of Puck Control, Level 3, first.

Level Three Puck Control

A player is considered to be in level 3 puck control when the defender witnesses the following during their reading process:

1. 1. The player is moving with purpose up the middle of the ice, either in his own zone or the neutral zone.
2. 2. The puck carrier has an excellent view of the ice surface, with multiple passing options, to his right or left side of the ice.
3. 3. He has more than adequate time and space to move freely or pass the puck.

For the “hockey smart” player (especially, with respect to the lead forechecker) the logical read would be to slow down their pace. The lead forechecker should begin to adjust his attack on the puck carrier to an inside-out angle and begin steering him to a weaker passing position on the outside of the ice surface while his teammates attempt to take away potential passing outlets. While it may seem obvious that level 3 puck control has limited uses, its importance to the overall concept cannot be ignored.

This is because levels 1 and 3 puck control, set a measurable upper and lower range for the defensive player to reference during the reading process. It is these two simple aspects to the overall concept that makes The Three Levels of Puck Control so useful as a coaching tool and easy to learn.

The thought process needed for the correct reads are very straightforward and objective. For this reason, both levels 1 and 3 can be taught to a wide variety hockey ages and skill groups. If introduced correctly, I am confident that some aspects of this concept could be taught to players as young as peewee or even squirt age groups.

In situations such as zone defense, for example, where it is very easy for young players to become confused about whether to be aggressive and pursue puck carriers in the corner and along the boards, or whether to contain and hold the ground. Just by telling young players to be more aggressive when the opposing puck carrier is facing the boards and less aggressive when the puck carrier faces them, sets a foundation for the player to build on while they begin to understand the reading and reacting process.

The three levels of puck control is like a “tell” used by poker players to outguess their opponents. By observing their opponents body language correctly a good poker player can properly gauge whether the other player has a good hand or is bluffing. Their success will depend on their knowledge and understanding of the game, as well as their experience -not unlike hockey players.

In part one, while referring to the basic concept, the only difference between levels 1 and 2 is that a player in level 2 puck control has firm control of the puck, while the level 1 puckhandler, does not. While this may seem insignificant, for the defensive player, at the time of the read, this will change a purely objective read into a more subjective read, with varying degrees of difficulty.

By objective and subjective I am referring to the type of input the player is viewing at the time of the defensive read. The objective read is simply observing what the opposing puckhandler is physically doing at the time of the read, while the subjective view is how the upcoming battle will be affected by the opposition’s movement and location on the ice at the time of the read; but more importantly, the puckcarrier’s individual skill level.

Level 2 Puck Control

A player is considered to be in level 2 or the second level of puck control when the following conditions exist or are observed by the opposing defense player at the time of the read:

• The puck carrier must have solid control of the puck on their hockey stick or directing it with their skate or body to a location on the ice surface with a reasonable expectation of maintaining control.
• The puck handler may or may not be in motion at the time of the read.
• The puck carrier may or may not have multiple passing options or have an adequate view of the ice surface.

Due to the wide range and sheer volume of level 2 puck handling situations which could arise during the average hockey game, I have divided this level in the two subcategories: level 2(high) and level 2(low).This was necessary because: just because a player is in control of the puck doesn’t necessarily mean – they’re a threat! It’s the level of threat that is present when a player is in level 2 puck control, which is so often misread by the average young or inexperienced player.

How active or passive a defender should be, will depend on the following factors:

The Objective Read

• Location- At the time of the read, where is the puck carrier located on the ice surface?
• Momentum – How fast is the opponent moving at that time? Is he accelerating to maximum    speed, slowing down or maintaining speed?
• Direction – which way is the puck carrier traveling; towards you, away from you, horizontally or diagonally?
• Time and space – how close are you or your teammates to the puck carrier at that point in the read?
• Forehand vs. backhand – Is the puck carrier on their forehand or backhand at that time?

Location

The first read during a defenders check-down should be the location of the puck handler at that time. Opposition puckhandlers in the middle of the ice are in a much stronger position than those closer to the boards. This is because, a puckcarrier in the middle of the ice, has 360° of possible passing options, while the player along the half wall or in the corner have their available passing range restricted to a mere 180° and 90°, respectively.

Momentum

Speed kills in ice hockey; and nothing will kill your chances of winning faster, than a couple of opposing players with speed-to-burn. Whether it’s the gazelle like defenseman with end to end speed or the short stocky grinder with explosive speed from a dead-start, not knowing who you’re defending against can be disastrous.

Another thing to keep in mind is, just because a puckcarrier is standing still, doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re not dangerous. Nothing is more embarrassing for a defender than being fooled by a puckhandler, standing in the corner, who appears to be easy-pickings, but whom  in reality, is just waiting to suck their opponent in, close enough, before making a strong move to the net while blowing the defender’s doors-off in an explosive burst of speed.

Finally, remember that a puck carrier’s momentum can shift from low to high, or high to low speeds, in the blink of an eye.  While it’s important to properly gauge the opponents speed at the time of the initial read, it’s more important to continuously anticipate their momentum as the defender closes the gap between them and their prey.

Direction

Generally, puckhandlers moving up-ice, toward their opposition, are usually more of a threat than a players moving away laterally or towards their own net. Vision and passing options are very important when you’re talking about a puckhandler’s direction.  Players retreating away from the play will have a poor view of available passing outlets. But don’t be fooled into thinking that these puckhandlers are helpless. More than once, I have seen overaggressive forechecker’s, left searching for their cup, after a wily defenseman deked their opponent one-way while escaping in the other direction, leaving them in the dust!

Another thing to remember is that puckhandlers who are moving horizontally or diagonally on the ice will always be more dangerous when they’re on their forehand than on their backhand. Remember that the active and passive rules change depending upon the location and zone of the puckhandler at the time.

For the opposing puckhandler breaking out of his own zone while on his forehand, the defender will want to be more passive. When that defender is playing defense in their own zone, and that same player comes out of the cycle at the half wall on his forehand, attempting to make a strong move towards the deep slot, the defender must challenge him aggressively to prevent him from reaching his objective.

Time and Space

There are two important decisions that will factor in to the defenders calculations on whether to be active or passive; (1) is there enough time and space to close the gap on the puck carrier before they can move from a low level of puck control to a high level of puck control; (2) can the closest forechecker and his teammates close off the passing lanes before the puckcarrier and his support can position themselves for a successful play up the ice.

Unfortunately, all of this information will be meaningless if the first defender doesn’t have the hockey-sense to know when to attack and when to retreat. During any forecheck, the key player is always the closest defender to the puck. All of the other defenders should be taking their cues from this forechecker.

Forehand vs. Backhand

One of the most important factors that many defenders fail to take in consideration during their read check-down is whether the puckcarrier is on his forehand or backhand. This is crucial, not only because, stickhandlers on their backhands are always less accurate than when they’re on their forehands; but just as important, is that their vision more limited as well. This makes the puck carrier more vulnerable to attack when the forechecker or defender has the knowledge and wherewithal to recognize weakness in that instant.

Anytime a puck carrier is moving up-ice tight against the wall, with his backhand facing the middle of the ice surface he should be considered to be in a level 2 (low) puckhandling situation. They become even more vulnerable when they’re moving back towards their own goal line.  These carriers are only left with a backhand passing option and an inability to escape their defenders, due to their proximity of the boards; these puckcarriers are perfectly suited for aggressive action.

Conversely, any puckcarrier moving up-ice along the along the boards, with his forehand facing the middle of the ice surface, should be respected and considered to be in the strongest level 2 (high) stickhandling position. This is true for two reasons; (1) being on the forehand in this situation, gives puckhandlers a much better view of the ice surface, than on their backhand; (2) players are always more confident and have better range and accuracy passing on their forehands, opposed to their backhands. Defenders should consider being much more passive in the situation. Even players moving toward their own goal lines, while on their forehands, should be considered somewhat dangerous. If stickhandlers are allowed to wheel towards the middle of the ice surface, on their forehands, they can be very dangerous.

Again, how active or passive you’ll need to be, will be affected by the zone you’re defending as well as other factors, such as penalty and power play situations, score differential, clock time and the skills of the combatants at that time.

The Subjective Read

• How skilled is the puck handler?
• Knowing your own strengths and limitations as well as knowing the correct course of action to win this particular battle?

Acquiring the subjective awareness to gain proficiency will only come with experience. With every new practice drill or game situation, knowledge and experience will grow. This information is only a template to help establish a knowledge base, which hopefully, young players will build on, to better understand the mental side of hockey.

Whether it’s a dump and chase situation or a zone defense, the ability to gain proficiency on the defensive concepts of the hockey will be a major factor for all young and inexperienced hockey players to confront, if they hope to reach their full potential.

By Paul O’Donnell

One of the things I enjoy most about writing this new hockey column is the ability to acknowledge excellence whenever it presents itself; but, when that excellence is performed by one of Chicagoland’s local hockey success stories, it’s even better.  For Forest Park native Tim Stapleton, his Game Changing moment came during a power-play, while his team was down a goal, late in the third period.

Usually a forward during even-man situations, Tim wears a second hat as an effective point man on the Wolves’ power play. As the current number three point producer for the Wolves this year, with 50 points, Tim is a formidable opponent during any game situation; but it’s Stapleton’s game awareness, combined with his Bobby Orr like rushing ability that makes him such a valuable asset to have on the Wolves’ top power play line.

The game changing moment begins late in the third period following a rink long puck clearing effort by the man-down Bulldogs, which travels deep into the Wolves’ end.  As the puck takes a hard bounce off the back wall in Tim’s general direction, he quickly angles towards the puck and gains control.  Curling towards the middle of the ice, Stapleton begins to gather his speed. Even before he completes his turn he realizes he can easily beat the only opposition forechecker and accelerates out of the zone at maximum speed.

With more than enough time and space to weigh his options as he approaches the redline, number 23 quickly scans the three remaining penalty killers in front of him and starts angling towards the weakest link in the chain, Bulldog forward Ryan Russell.

As our Game Changer begins his approach on the outmatched forward, he chooses to attack his adversary at the best possible offensive zone entry point (just inside the neutral zone face-off dot) that will give him the most offensive options following his move on Russell. Immediately inside his enemies’ blue line, Tim quickly turns-the-corner on Russell with a quick deke to the outside and accelerates around his weaker opponent while shielding the puck on his backhand. Unfortunately for Stapleton his one-handed pass towards the slot is deflected before it reaches its intended target.

Tim quickly skates back to his temporary position of right side point man, while the Wolves top power play unit begins to hammer the man-down Bulldogs, deep in their own zone.

Eight seconds after his errant passing attempt, Stapleton receives a pass back to the point from the right corner..  As soon as he gets control of the puck, he immediately starts paralleling the blueline towards the middle of the ice. Before reaching the prime shooting areas just inside the blueline our temporary defenseman spins around and begins dragging the puck backwards, looking for a clean shot on net; at the same time taking notice of his defensive partner Nathan Oystrick changing places with him on the point.

Noticing that his defensive partner was moving into good position for a one-timer Tim pulls-up on the shot, spins to his right and places the perfect setup pass that Oystrick crushes into the back of the net.

Stapleton’s view of the play

“Hamilton likes to play a 1-3 defense on their penalty kill. But, because they bring that first guy down so low (into our zone) I’ll usually fake, like I’m just going to just pick up the puck; but most of the time , with teams that play this type of defense, I can usually take a quick first-step and be past him before I’ve reached the top of the face-off circle.”

“After I had beaten that first guy, it was just me and the three guys standing-up at the blueline. If I can see all three guys ahead if me I’ll always pick whichever side the forward is on and try to abuse that side of the ice, taking advantage of the mismatch, knowing that they aren’t as good at pivoting or taking-the-angle, the way normal defensemen can.”

“When I knew it was Russell (a forward) I was going up against I got really excited because I always believe I can take it to the net in situations like this. Unfortunately, he backed into the zone a little too deeply and by the time I got around him the only option I had was to no-look-it (the puck) into the middle knowing that some of our guys would be going to the net. Nothing really came of it so I just went back to my position on the point.”

“When the puck came back to me at the point, I remember dragging it (to the middle) and faking the shot. It was Russell again, in front of me and I froze him and maybe the goaltender as well. But it was Oystrick who had a big part in the play. When I backed up and we switched he was able to get open in a shooting lane. I don’t think he (Russell) was even in the right shooting lane when Oystrick finally took the shot.”

Coach Wilson’s taken the play

“Tim does everything well: he’s on the power play, he’s on the penalty kill and he’s on one of our top lines. He also has NHL speed as well as a great shot. When Hamilton let us walk across the top (by the blueline), we took what they gave us. Tim moved across (towards the middle) and Oystrick switched with him. Oystrick has a heck of a one-timer.  They gave it to us, so we took. We did a good job of getting the screen during that play, but they did a great job, all game, of getting in front of the shooting lanes.”

Tim Stapleton’s advice to young players

“Try to do everything with your head up. When you see a guy like Nicklas Lidstrom, dragging the puck to the middle and shooting, without ever looking down at the puck, it’s amazing.

Coach Wilson’s advice to young players

You want to take what they (the defense) give you. Earlier in the game we were trying to go down low in their zone and they were clogging the slot. When it’s not there, why force it? You want to go to your strength and Oystrick has a big shot. Good luck to anyone who wants to stand in front of that.

Understanding Hockey From the Neck up article

By Paul O’Donnell