Rookie Coach, http://www.hockeycoachingabcs.com/filemgmt/index.php?id=102 is a link to the third period of the second game of the series. We were behind 3-4 and tied it with the goalie out in the last minute and won in OT.
Lines:
LW C RW
7 8 12
14 15 9
5 6
LD RD
18 11
4 2
16 10
We had a left wing out with a concussion.
I want the LW and RD to be part of the forecheck on the attack. The LD is always on the strong side. Usually the C plays low in the dzone with the two D using man on and a box behind. If the LW ends up back there they switch after the initial rush. I also want back pressure all of the time.
The video has a lot of pp and pk but you can see the 5-5.
My truth of hockey is.
Forecheck
- 2 in deep
- only pinch on the strong side when positive you will get the puck.
- lock the strong side boards on breakouts with the LW on one side and the RD on the other.
- 3 forecheck on the strong side. L the lw, c, rw and Right the C-RW and RD.
- Backpressure all the way to the net.
- always tight gaps.
- angle off the back shoulder with the stick on the puck.
- check from the dside always.
- always 4 on the attack.
- tight 3 man triangle and a D high on the rush to the net.
- shoot when inside top of circles unless someone is wide open.
- always give the puck to someone in better position than you and keep it if you are in the best position.
Lots more but those are the main points I try to ingrain over a season.
RookieCoach
Thanks Tom. That is the way I understood it. Just the Sky drive PDF had the LW and D as middies. Slightly different from the video session with your team. Congratulations on the win also. Good luck the rest of the way..
If the opposition have their skates pointing up ice already on the breakout , do you go more to a 1-3-1 formation ?
Thanks
RK
RookieCoach
Thanks Rookie Coach. We just pulled a big upset and knocked off the first place team in our division 2-1 today and won the series 3-1.
We now are more aggressive than when I coached college. Pierre Page was using the same system but the LW and RD were part of the 3 player forecheck when the puck is on their side. We try to do this and I like them to be the F3 mirroring in the mid slot for a shot and only go in deep if they are sure they will get the puck.
When the opposition has the toe caps up Ice I want the C and RW to go man on man with each D and the RD or LW lock the strong side wall. It is more of a 2-2-1 than a 1-3-1. So 2 in deep and a high inverte triangle with the LD behind supporting on the strong side. Your LD's end up with most of the 1-1's. The C and RW come back hard through the middle.
So it isn't the Cougar Pounce anymore. Just the Pounce.
Tom, Dean other coaches,
Question for everyone and thoughts. The team that I help in practice's or in the semi finals now. They are behind in the series 2-1.
The team that we are playing have one very dominant player who is big allot of skill and has scored 95% of all goals and points. If you take him out of the picture it would be two equal teams. Even with him playing we can play with them until he scores and then you can see the confidence level drop off of our team.
I can only make suggestions as the coach will come to me for advice .
How would other coaches deal with this situation ?
Would you put a man on him all times , leaving it a four on four ? (man on man )
They go with two lines we have three lines.
At this point you have to try something in my opinion. I would rather fail trying something , than not making changes.
Thanks in advance guys...
RK
------------------------------
Our team had the same situation in our first playoff series. The leagues top goal scorer played for that team. We focused on having strong D out against her and really back pressured to create a defensive 2-1. She only got two goals in three games and both were off one timers on the face off. Never scored on a rush.
RK
RK,
I agree with Tom. I prefer trying to get a strong D pairing out against someone like this; along with placing emphasis on strong backpressure. This way, you can keep your 'team integrity' so far as systems go.
Everyone needs to be aware when this person is on the ice and work that much harder to prevent scoring chances against. You might not eliminate all their chances (then again, you might...!) but you need to manage them as best as possible.
If your team is running three lines and their team is running two, it also involves a philosophical debate for the coach - does he 'shorten his bench' or double-shift his best D pairing and hardest back checkers (still trying to get all three lines out there in some form of rotation)?
This debate must also factor in the age and skill level of the players. Obviously, Tom is operating at a Midget AAA level and this type of decision is expected at this highest level of minor hockey. It has probably already happened thoughout the year - no 'surprises' at the end of the year.
However, if this is an Novice to PeeWee team (house to AA), perspective must be kept... will these kids remember they 'almost' beat a better player / team in the playoffs at the expense of #6 through #17's ice time? Or they win? Or they get blown out - even though the coach double-shifted his top 5? I know I don't remember much about minor hockey outcomes; just the people and the highlights and lowlights.
At the end of the day, how will this decision impact the kids NOW (if it works and if it doesn't - you must consider both outcomes) and their memories about this year in the FUTURE?
These comments come from the voice of experience. I know I had ice time taken away from me in the playoffs as a minor hockey player, and I still have a sour taste in my mouth towards that coach and the entire year because of it. It came out of nowhere in the finals - so nothing like this had occured to anybody on the team during the season - and I really started to dislike hockey because of that incident.
Many times, the adults make adult decisions based on their age and logic and the philosophy it is all about winning. I think they should try to put on the 'kid's hat' more often and consider that perspective...
Au contraire Dean. No one lost any ice time. We changed to the Pounce to counter this RW scoring threat. Now there was always coverage on their breakout and our best 3 defensive defenders play LD. So she was always under pressure and we simply had the first back checker give hard back pressure.
If RK has 3 lines and 2 sets of D then it is easy to make sure your top D play vs the top line on the other team. With 5 D go with your two best on one side and 3 on the other.
Quote by: hockeygod
However, if this is an Novice to PeeWee team (house to AA), perspective must be kept... will these kids remember they 'almost' beat a better player / team in the playoffs at the expense of #6 through #17's ice time? Or they win? Or they get blown out - even though the coach double-shifted his top 5? I know I don't remember much about minor hockey outcomes; just the people and the highlights and lowlights.
At the end of the day, how will this decision impact the kids NOW (if it works and if it doesn't - you must consider both outcomes) and their memories about this year in the FUTURE?
These comments come from the voice of experience. I know I had ice time taken away from me in the playoffs as a minor hockey player, and I still have a sour taste in my mouth towards that coach and the entire year because of it. It came out of nowhere in the finals - so nothing like this had occured to anybody on the team during the season - and I really started to dislike hockey because of that incident.
Many times, the adults make adult decisions based on their age and logic and the philosophy it is all about winning. I think they should try to put on the 'kid's hat' more often and consider that perspective...
With Peewee team they are 11-12 years, right?. LTPD and playing just to win are not good pair. Is it all about the result? or is it what we do and how we do it? How much effect one winning season has compared to the hard work of that season in LTPD?
1) Tom - I was referring to RK's question - not knowing the age or level or gender of RK's friends team; and referring to RK's question about what to do against a strong player - nothing to do with the Pounce or your team, so apologies if you took it that way.
2) Kai - PeeWee is 11-12. Agreed - LTAD stages should take precedence over winning.
Stage 3: Learn to Train (girls 8-11, boys 9-12)
Stage 4: Train to Train (girls 11-15, boys 12-16)
Guys, this conversation has completely veered away from the original topic. Perhaps we should start another thread to help Tom keep things organized?
Dean, no appology needed. I didn't take it as a negative at all.
I am saying that the coach can devise a style of play to counter what the 'Star' on the other team is doing. Adjust so that he/she is attacking vs an outnumber situation. Don't so much worry about the forwards matching up but match up the defense and have the forwards come back hard to the net and always back pressure. If your team is in the same league then you should have more than one D who is capable of playing on the defensive side.
I watched a player on my grandsons team last season score about 130 goals and most were scored because the other team skated right at him. He would make a move and be gone (we play full ice with everyone here) and the teams would watch him skate down and score. Simply staying between him and the net would have prevented half his goals.
Back checking and playing D side cures most defensive problems.
My team is 15-16-17 years old and we have players who play even strength, pp, pk and some who play even and pk and a couple who play only even strength. When I coach younger kid's I simply roll lines.
This is a good place for this conversation as the system or style of play should reflect the needs of the team. 'If it doesn't matter who wins or loses then why keep score."
Tom , Dean , Kai,
I'm am talking about Bantam age group Rep ( Major , Minor combined) Not AAA.
Thanks for the advice. I agree with what you have said.
Again , I am not the coach just help out at practices and kind of mentor the coach. I don't make it to all the games for this team.
The game that I went to they lost . There was a lack of pressure on the puck , poor D coverage , and giving this player too much time and space. Played on back their heels Not on their toes..Propper defensive side positioning , stick on stick , stick in the passing lanes all are small fundamentals that are exposed playing good hockey teams. It shows your weaknesses.
I only asked the question for other opinions and how they would handle this situation. I have coached shortening the bench before and playing everyone fairly giving each line a role. The outcome was the same or playing everyone evenly sometimes sparked the team and gave all players confidence with their role.
You have mentioned before that in an average game-3 game phases
0 Game - loose puck 30% of the time.
1 Game - Offence 35% of the time.
2 Game - Defence 35% of the time.
If a team could take advantage of the 0 Game - loose puck situations by pressuring the puck, winning puck battles, it will give a puck possession advantage and lead to more scoring chances.
All the statistics that have been posted on this site have been very helpful on how you look at a game and how you teach the game.
RK
Coaches,
Tom has talked about the Cougars Pounce. I think I understand it but just want clarification to make sure.
- C , RW are the forecheckers both sides.
- LW stays on his side and is a LD ?
- LD is a middie ad slides accross on both sides if needed.
- RD pinches on right side for pinch and Lm moves across as support , and left LW ( called LD) is on blue line on his side.
A different roles from video and from Skydrive pdf.
Can you forecheck this way and play a traditional Defensive zone coverage .?
Thanks
RK