What Happens Every Shift in a Hockey Game

Transition in Game Playing Roles

In a game the players are constantly transitioning between three situations, 0-Loose Puck 30%, 1-Offense 35%, 2-Defense 35%. On offense they are in one of two playing roles 1-Puck carrier, 2-Supporting the attack and on defense the two game playing roles are 3-check puck carrier, 4-cover away from the puck. (The video was prepared by Kai Katajalehto who coaches in Finland. )

http://www.hockeycoachingabcs.com/mediagallery/media.php?f=0&sort=0&s=20140409155804705

In one minute of playing time I counted 7 loose puck situations, 3 times Pittsburgh was on offenseand 7 times on defense and 7 times Detroit is on offense and 3 times on defense because they won the majority of loose puck situations.. This short clip is typical in a game and is a good example of the statement 'Hockey is a Game of Transition.'

Transition Examples from the 2015 IIHF World Championships

http://www.hockeycoachingabcs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=7239&topic=7450#7450
------------------------------

This posting is a follow up to the question.'What is Hockey' We had a great discussion on the topic.

The original post is below.

I think before we plan practice for skills or system it is important to define exactly what the game is. Here are some hockey facts.

What Is Hockey?

Three Game Situations

In a game between 2 equal teams with good skills you are on;

offense 35% of the time
defense 35% of the time
the puck is loose 30% of the time(not on someones stick) For low skilled teams the loose puck situation is much higher.

The average for someone to carry the puck is about 2.5".

The average for the team to have the puck is about 4.5".

Each team has possession and loses possession of the puck about 180 times during a game. That means the puck changes hands 6 times every minute.

So a hockey game is a constant transition between the 4 Game Playing Roles. Every player is always in one of these roles. There is never a time when a player has nothing to do.

Four Game Playing Roles

Role One: player has the puck.

Role Two: players supports the puck carrier, close player creating a 2-1 and farther away width and depth.

Role Three: player checks the puck carrier with either a pressure or contain decision..

Role Four: player gives either close or farther support to the first checker depending on whether the first checker pressured or contained.

If you look at the game in this manner then you realize that good habits like facing the puck, always having your stick on the ice, angling, moving to open ice quickly with the puck and again to open ice once you pass it are essential. It takes a team about 2" to get into good defending position after losing the puck, so quick transition to the attack is essential if you want to attack an unorganized defense as compared to an orgainized defense. Good technique at game speed are the tools you need.

The coach has to organize practices that not only work on one game playing role at a time but also on the constant transition between roles. Drills that work on one skill are fine for perfecting a technique but if you only do 1 on 1's in drills where the defender and attacker knows it is a 1 on 1 and after the shot they go back to the lineup then you are not practicing the reality of hockey which is a. both players read the situation. b. attack and defend with good technique. c. after the shot the attacker follow the shot for the rebound and defender deny a second shot. d. make a second play on offense or the defender start the breakout.

A coach who doesn't practice transition is missing the essence of the game.

Some other numbers to consider are:

1. A turnover in the offensive end followed by an attack the other way results in a scoring chance about 5% of the time.
2. Neutral zone turnovers give up scoring chances 7-10% of the time.
3. Defensive zone turnovers give up scoring chances about 25% of the time. In other words the farther the puck is from your net the more time you have to get back and defend. (so what is the point of the neutral zone trap being a teams only forecheck)

Also teams that play systems that are purely contain or totally aggressive also don't understand the game. The plan should be to pressure when possible (you are within a half stick and have a good angle) and contain when there is no chance for the closest player to get a stick on the puck and body on body.

So hockey is more like a tennis game than like basketball (pplays are similar to bball). i.e. hit the ball-offense, ball in the air - loose puck -get in defensive position to hit - defense. Constant changing of roles.

Our practices and our team play philosophy should reflect this.

T – Game Transitions Examples from World Championships
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh0SYNZiGwU&t=6s

Hi Paulie, good luck in your game today.

I think the key to beating a dump and chase team is a quick first pass. Your D has to get to the puck quick and drive the back of the net hard. When the defender is chasing hard do a reverse to the wing on the strong side or a D to D reverse, or a quick D to D bank or beat the forechecker around the net and up. The rim is also an option if there is no time.

I don't imaging the refs will allow one D to screen for the other.

If they don't move their feet and make the first play quickly the dump and chase works well.

This is a posting I made as an answer to a question on the old hockeycoach bulletin board. It was just before the Hockey Summit. I think the schools offering hockey has improved the ice usage and gives more quality instruction to young players, also practices are a little better but have we improved that much.

Are we coaching hockey in practice or are we teaching drills? Are we using the ice efficiently? Are practices fun or drudgery which kid's will walk away from as teenagers? (in the 90"s 83% were quitting by 14. How many now?)

JC,
I agree with you that everything is becoming more and more structured, eapecially in the cities. Parents don't want their kid's to just play because they are afraid that something awful will happen to them if they aren't supervised. They can't just go to the park and play with friends. It is only when they are teenagers that they let them go out by themselves.

This has caused the kid's to only play when an adult is running the ice time and this means that if the practice is inefficient the kid's neither learn anything or have any fun.

In order to develop puck handling and game sense you need to play a lot of games where you get the puck a lot and you have to figure out where everyone is. If the kid's only get on the ice with adults who run drill type practices then they never get to develop these kind of skills.

The small places are still producing skilled players because there is less coaching and more free play. Unfortunately the bantam draft has them leavig town at young ages and they play junior where the practices are all team play and skill drills. This stops their development of creativity.

The Europeans allow much more game situation play during practice and that is why they are developing the creative players and good stickhanders. Canada and the US combined have one million registered players. Sweden, Finland, Czech, Slovakia, Germany, Latvia combined have a few hundred thousand and they are the ones who produce the imaginative players that we used to have in abundance.

It boggles my mind that we can't simply learn from the methods they use to produce good individual and team offensive skills and keep our methods for developing the defensive game.

I go to Europe 10 times and watch and talk to the top coaches. We write a book with a combination of the best from each continent. Then I go and try to talk about the method with the head of development for the CHA and I can't get past the lobby. I am told that our program is competition to the Nike skills program that they have developed.

It is a program with great drills and progressions. The only problem is that offensive skills and creativity aren't developed using drills.

Parents are so worried now about safety that they are burying volunteers with beuracracy. In our school we now have to get a signed letter every time the teams play an away game. This letter must tell everything about the trip. A season schedule used to suffice.

We have all of our players wearing every type of hockey protection possible and then don't call boarding or charging, and don't allow hitting until the hormones are raging.

Now the kid's go out to only hit, versus players who can't handle the puck and are only used to going around pylons. Kid's get hurt all of the time now. In past years hardly anyone got hurt. I played up to the minor league level (old U.S. league) and can't remember any teammate getting a separated shoulder from hockey. Stitches, broken noses, lost teeth but not blown shoulders and knees. In kid's hockey no one got hurt.

My bantam team played a tournament two weeks ago and three players got injured when a much larger team from Trail B.C. decided that it was unacceptable for this little A team to be beating their AAA team and they ran us. Three of their players were thrown out for hitting from behind.

Only one boy in my grade seven class of 28 plays hockey. About 10 boy's and girl's play soccer both indoor and outdoor.

The CHA has their big meeting in Toronto and gets people like Dryden, King, Kingston, etc. to talk and make recommendations. Some of them have never coached kid's hockey and the others have been away from it for over 20 years. They don't ask people like you and I who are in the trenches.

Now they want to have grade 10's play in the same league as grade 12's when anyone involved in the game knows that if you were born in 87 you should only be playing with kid's born in the same year. The size differnce from one year to another is huge.

Towns with small numbers could still combine ages.

I did a hockey school in Vierumaki Finland a few years ago. Teppo Numminem and Jerke Lumme were my assistant instructors. At the end of the school Lumme sais to me; "Tom if the kid's in Canada practiced this way then no one would be able to compete with them. They have so many rinks and so much talent there."

I just finished playing my Sunday morning shinny and when I came out of the dressing room there was a 10-11 year old team on the ice. They had been there for 30 minutes. They were only using one end and the ice was still shinning from the flood. They were doing a pretty good drill, but could't perform it well because they had hands of cement. Then they had to listen to instructions about the next drill. In 15 minutes each kid probably moved for 2 or 3. And the scary thing is that this practice was better than most.

Sorry for rambling on. I am just frustrated that we won't do the obvious and let the kid's play during practice and go away from running professional level practices with beginning level players.

Paulie,

I don't know exactly what you mean by a weak side lock. If it is to force the team all the way across the ice that seems pretty hard to do.

I would think it better to deny the middle lane and keep the puck on the outside.

I would use th e1-3-1 torpedo like I describe in a posting about a week ago. Forget about the stretch breakout but forecheck with the C and RW in an I and #1 force the puck wide, #2 read to double team, take the D to D or back pressure.

The left wing stay above their rw on the fast break and the rd stay above their lw. The ld play puck side.

This way you have pressure on the puck and deny the quick up to the wing. You have 3 above the puck so they won't outnumber you on the rush.

Basically the lw plays his side and lw in the offensive zone and ld in his zone, the rd plays like a rw in the offensive zone and rd in his zone. The ld stays on the strong side point on the attack but plays like the low F in his zone supporting on each side. (it may sound crazy but the Red Bulls won the Continental Cup for supremacy of club teams in Europe last month and are leading the semi's 3-1 and should be in the finals for the fourth year in a row) They play almost what I just described but the C plays low in the zone which I don't like myself.

If they are better than you then you have to create turnovers inside their zone and get shots and traffic at the net and if they breakout you have to back pressure the puck carrier while everyone else gets back hard and finds sticks in a tight box and one around your net.

I watched the Flames try to sit back vs Detroit last night and it was a sad sight to see them never touch the puck as they stood there saying "we are all back and standing here."

Here is quite recent analysis from international games it seem that the number of attacks have little decreased from 200 to 180

Kai

Side note. I'm a little nervous to post this. I agree with the creativity part and love the quote "are we teaching them hockey or are teaching them a drill?". In my area and even in my org I hear "we dont use any systems because I want the kids to be creative". I laugh when I hear that because these people that say this dont know systems and use that statement as an excuse or to validate them. You have to have some type of system in place so the kids know where to go. How can do you support someone who is all over the ice? I dont think we need to lock the down with systems but general understanding or philosophy has to be in place. Because to me executing the system or style of play is the creative part. There are still decisions to be made when executing a system. You have to be creative to support, to find that open ice.
Its fine line to walk and I agree we need coaches to allow the players to be creative. I just wanted to caution some coaches to still give guidance and not just a blank statement of "get out there and be creative". Because what does that mean? I bet if you asked the players they would all have different answers, so how can they execute?
To Toms point locking players into a system where kids sit back and wait is boring for the players and will end up quitting. Making plays is where the fun is at. Skating and being smart how you angle and steer is what I look for.

For the college team I coached we used the center drive to create odd man advantage but for the most part it was more about puck carrier and/or supporting player finding open ice. I found that to be useful because finding open ice provides time and space to make plays.

Defense zone is will over skill. We had one pass and out because our goalie was weak. Tried to limit our risk.
Neutral zone was all about speed. You get through the N Zone north and south. Never stop at blue lines, had a 6 foot rule. 3 feet on both sides of blue line you never stop. Just get through that area because stopping or drop passing and whatnot would create us to turn over the puck. Thats a transition area of the ice. Again that limits my risk but I felt if handled the N zone better than the opponent that would give us more scoring opportunities.
Offense zone. If on the rush would use center drive but for the most part it was about finding open ice with F3 high reading the play. I used the center drive because would give us a 2 on 1 in the high slot.
Forecheck- for the college team we used a couple. But for the younger teams its more about angling and steering opponents to the outside. I dont use the word "read" as in read the play. Read= anticipant. For younger kids they understand the word anticipant better than read. However we talk using both words because some players move on to other coaches and it?s my job to prepare them for the next year.

Thats it, I think thats a simple philosophy. Maybe Im wrong

Bjorn Kinding a well known Swedish coach gave at talk at one of the HC symposiums and stated that hockey is very similar to 'tennis' because there is constant change of possession. So if each team gets possession of the puck about 180 times in an average game that means that the puck changes possession 360 times or about 6 times per minute.

That is why good habits like face the puck, stick on the ice are so important. So we have to practice these things. Giving close support to the puck carrier and creating 2-1's both on offense and on defense also must be practiced. Constant changes of possession mean you are always going from offense to defense to racing for loose pucks and from puck carrier to getting open to checking the puck carrier to covering an opponent.

Practices have to reflect this reality.

Drills where players go through pylons carrying the puck in front of them instead of in the triple threat position are ok for beginners but they must progress into more complex situations that are game like if we want players to be effective in games.

Most hockey cultures outside of North America play cross ice games until the players are 9 years old. These cross ice games create tight situations and the average player gets 6 times more touches because of this.

There is nothing wrong with effective drills to learn technique when young and for warm up when the players are older. We can't keep using beginning drills all practice at every level and expect players to be successful in game situtations.

With the average drills practice a player moves between 7-11 minutes and stands around 49-53 minutes. It would be better to just eliminate practices and play only games. With 3 lines in a 75 min. ice time with a 5 min. warm up each player would get the 5 min. warm up and 23 minutes of playing time.

Just some thoughts in what should be considered when planning a practice. If it is just drills then the coach has forgotten the nature of the game. Instead do the drills but also do transition games, games, contests, shootouts.

More great comments from Tom and Kai. Where to start?

Tom's comments about the number of transitions in hockey (like tennis), show the critical importance of improving one's decision making abilities when dealing with transitions (0-1-2 situations). How does one do this? By practicing situations involving transitions... mimic game like situations, let the kids 'play' within them, and guess what? They will get better.

(I think coaches might have an idea of what they want to improve, but don't know 'how' so they go to the fall-back position of trying to use drills - which consist of discrete stop and start points as decided upon by the coach - further removing decision making from the athlete. Performing drills is not the best way to learn 'the game'!

Great observations like using the triple threat position while carrying the puck, the difference in the primary use of cross ice games between Europe and N.A. and the subsequent amount of 'more' touches when playing these SAG's, and Tom is certainly right when he says games are better than practices (if they practices are too drill oriented) based on activity time.

Kids need opportunities to improve skills. This does include some use of drills, but in conversations with Tom, it seems I prefer to put them into competitive situations earlier than Tom does and I always try to hold them accountable to their performance - there is always a scoreboard / scorecard involved!

I use a 'skill drill' or two at the start of practice as a N-M warmup and a fun, competitive activity at the end. (As the athlete gets older, I might also keep time at the end for individuals to deliberately practice skills when they are more mature - not screw around!) I try to make these situations fun and competitive, appealing to the players' inner passion. If they show they can't handle the responsibility, I have a coach provide structure and supervision for those players in a separate area while the others 'work independently.'

I am definitely of the philosophy that I am a 'games guy'... I believe that by putting the kids into a game and they will learn the requisite applicable skills (and begin to better understand the connection / need to improve those skills outside of the 'games' so they can bring them back into the games) under realistic situations. Practicing skills in isolation only makes them better in isolation - they need to do it under pressure, during competition - that's what counts. That's why we play games. (We only have 'skills competitions' once a year at the most!) There is a lot of research that supports this Contextual Interference model. Daniel Coyle provides many examples about skills in isolation vs. applied skills' under game like conditions.

Guys like Sean Skinner - the stick handling guy - dazzle in static and contrived 1 on 1 situations, but put him into a 'real game situation', and those skills in isolation won't be nearly as dominant as he isn't used to playing in traffic, with a scoreboard, etc. Watching Alexi Kovalev in his skills video, I think he is even more skilled than Skinner, but Kovalev could execute amazing moves in a game (when he chose to!)

Learning skills are critical - don't get me wrong. However, I believe we need to incorporate them into reality (games) as soon as possible; even if the pure skills don't look as 'polished' by playing in games. Trust me, the long term learning is still there and over time, those skills will actually be better demonstrated than performing skills in isolation!

To quote Wikipedia, concerning 'Varied Practice': "The theoretical underpinnings of the varied practice approach stem primarily from a behavioral phenomenon discussed in the skill acquisition literature called contextual interference (Shea & Morgan, 1979). Contextual interference refers to a learning benefit observed when the items to be learned are randomly intermixed across training blocks rather than repeated in blocks (for a review, see Magill and Hall, 1990). That is, when identical items are blocked together during training, post-training performance is worse than when different items are intermixed. Although primarily studied with motor skill learning task, contextual interference was originally reported in a verbal paired associates task (Battig, 1966, 1972) and has been observed in other nonmotor tasks (e.g., Carlson et al., 1989). Intriguingly, the benefits of mixed-item blocks are apparent only some period of time after practice, indicating that the effects are primarily long-term."

Kai, your comments about systems that 'develop' the player vs. systems that 'kill' the player... not really sure what you mean? Do you mean some systems allow kids to make mistakes and learn vs. some systems require the kids to adhere to a strict structure / system or else get benched?

I totally agree that it takes years to properly develop a player; however, it can take five seconds to ruin them forever. I have seen it happen myself. I am amazed at how many kids absolutely 'puff up' and show their confidence if the coach complements them genuinely (not 'blowing smoke') when they deserve it - consistently. And when they make mistakes, the coaches handle this properly too - don't castigate and embarrass them. Ask them and guide them towards a better way - don't tell them the 'right' way!

I really like the quote: "If you're not making mistakes, then you're not doing anything. I'm positive that a doer makes mistakes." - John Wooden

We learn by making mistakes and succeeding. Both are critical to learning. That's evolution. I see it as my kids grow and especially when I coach / teach U4-U8 kids. The most successful people make lots of mistakes, don't take them personally, learn from them and move forward. That's the best way to succeed - through belief in self (stay open minded, knowing one can always improve) and with perseverance!

Personally, I make a ton of mistakes but I try to learn from them. If you are truly motivated, the learning will be quick. If not... it may take a few more mistakes...!

Adults (coaches) seem to think that we must avoid letting kids make mistakes at all costs - to accelerate the learning and give us adults a better chance at winning (ego gratification / keep our minor hockey jobs???!!!) so we tell / yell 'what to do' to our players instantly and constantly - a barrage of explicit, immediate feedback.

Maybe we all secretly desire to be 'play by play' announcers??!! Shut up and leave it to the pro announcers!

The best long-term learning is random, delayed and implicit - the kids figure it out for themselves based on their Knowledge of Results. (According to Dr. Joan Vickers research on Decision Training.) I can't find an electronic copy to provide, but search “Decision Training: the effects of complex instruction, variable practice and reduced, delayed feedback on the acquisition and transfer of a motor skill.” May 1999. Authors: Dr. Joan N. Vickers, Lori S. Livingston, Sheri Umerus-Bonart and Dean T. Holden. (Journal of Sport Science.)

Abstract:

"Novice, intermediate and advanced baseball hitters followed a 7-week training programme, in which they received either behavioural training or decision training. Participants in the behavioural training group received simple-to-complex instruction, variable practice and an abundance of feedback throughout the acquisition period; the decision training group received complex instruction, variable practice and reduced delayed feedback. As predicted, the intermediate and advanced hitters who received decision training hit at a lower level (%) during acquisition but at a higher level during a transfer test in week 7. Novices in the behavioural training group were better than novices in the decision training group over both acquisition and transfer trials."

I believe we coaches should merely present the parameters of the activity and police it for rule infractions. (Watch individuals for skill deficits to determine who needs to work on what). Have the athletes keep score (you might have to help them or do it for them, depending on age and their responsibility level) and hold them accountable to it. In the meantime, SHUT UP while watching! Make mental notes to question the kids after the game is over to bring the purpose of practice into focus - ask questions about time, space or risk as it relates to your theme. (Occasionally you might choose to stop the activity and step in at a point in time where you see the same 'poor decision' happening again and again / or when you see something brilliant happen! But don't keep interrupting the game every time. You can talk to the players on the bench / while waiting for another 'shift' too; instead of stopping things entirely.)

Kai, I love your parting question about how to define creativity in hockey or team sport. Perhaps that will be fodder for more posts? What do you guys think about that question?

Thanks for your opinions Tom and Kai! You have helped spur my accident-injured brain into thought! Looking forward to hearing more from you guys and other coaches out there during the dog days of summer...!

Quote by: Kai K

There are systems that develop players and then there are systems that "kills" the player. Why are we coaching kids or youth players? Is it just to win a game or a championship? You don't make a player in one season but you can ruin a player in shorter time than that.

"If you're not making mistakes, then you're not doing anything. I'm positive that a doer makes mistakes." - John Wooden

Maybe we can win some games by playing system that reduces mistakes but in a long run, is it wise when we want to develop players?

Of course a team sport needs a structure but does your system challenge your players to develop or just avoid mistakes?

I think that first we should determine what is creativity in hockey or in team sports generally.

Kai,

Thinking about your post regarding systems either 'developing' or 'killing' the player, I started doing some more reading. I found this article online. During the past couple of years, I have come to realize the importance (and weight) of the coach's words / feedback / communication. We should be cognizant of the power of our words and actions and aim to positively inspire people to greater heights.

-----

The effect of different corrective feedback methods on the outcome and self confidence of young athletes

George Tzetzis 1, Evandros Votsis 1 and Thomas Kourtessis 2
1 Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Greece
2 Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece

http://www.jssm.org/vol7/n3/9/v7n3-9pdf.pdf

Conclusion

The conclusions may be important for instructors concerning the use of corrective feedback and reward in skill learning. Instructions focusing on the correct cues or errors increase participants’ performance of easy skills. Instructions should be addressed for both the correct and the errors of the execution of difficult skills. Positive feedback or correction cues increase self-confidence of easy skills but only the combination of error and correction cues increase self confidence of difficult skills. This study is limited by the feedback models used for semi experienced participants in badminton. It is not appropriate to make any generalizations that go beyond the scope of this research. Since feedback plays a powerful role in guiding the performance future studies should view the interaction of feedback with factors such as the availability of intrinsic feedback, the learners’ level of experience and the degree to which feedback influence psychological mood of the participants. It is clear that much research is needed if we want to come to a more complete understanding of the role of feedback in the learning process.

The pdf. has photo's of the covers of the Finnish, Austrian and English ABC manusl plus some pictures of coaching cards that we presented at the IIHF symposium during the World Championships.

Good post.