Coaches,

Since today is the opening day of the NHL I thought I would generate a discussion about Team Play and why some teams win and some lose. There are obviously many factors that can lead to success, but let’s center it around the game play and coaching. This discussion topic is more suited for Junior hockey to the Pro level where winning is a big priority compared to young levels where the priority is mostly skill development and fun.

At the pro level, NHL coaches talk about their philosophies and how they want their team to play and what areas they place the greatest importance. They have a belief system of what winning teams do well. A coach like Mike Babcock who has won a Stanley Cup and Olympic gold medal has a so-called method to his madness. Coach Guy Boucher just hired by Tampa Bay is known for his innovative coaching tactics and winning history (according to hall of famer Steve Yzerman). Do these guys see the game differently than other coaches? Have they discovered a winning formula in the tactics/systems and how the game should be played in order to win consistently? What do coaches on this discussion board believe are the keys to winning hockey games consistently? What is your team play philosophy? What areas of the game do you place the greatest importance on both offensively and defensively?

Hockey is the fastest and most transitional team sport in the world. It does not have set plays or predetermined paths like many other major sports. Players and teams must be aware of defensive and offensive responsibilities at all times. When two teams of equal talent and desire play one another, what typically separates who will win and who will lose? To some, the game is very erratic and chaotic and may appear to be won or lost on a lucky bounce… but to a high level coach he sees areas of the game that led his team to a win or a loss.

Aside from the important components of talented personnel (players + goalie) and work ethic/desire, what are the key factors that you as coaches think decides winning or losing when it comes to team play? Some coaches and commentators mention special teams, turnovers, FC, breakouts etc. All of these are important but do you believe there is a way to play and execute certain components over the course of a game that make the 'bigger' difference between a team that wins and a team that loses? What part of the game do you place your emphasis on? Are all team systems created equal or do some have greater significance as it pertains to winning and losing?

What is your theory on the game? Is it more a game of puck possession or is at a game of gaining territory? In football they talk about turnovers being a key statistic (fumbles & interceptions) yet in hockey there are hundreds of turnovers a game between two teams. On one play during a 2v2 play, an attacker beats his defender and scores a goal and it is thought of as genius and helps his team win; and in another game that player turns the puck over on the 2v2 and the opponent counterattacks for a goal and the player is benched for not getting the puck deep in the offensive zone and his team loses. What determines the correct play when you’re playing to win? Do you believe in playing not to lose (i mean that in a positive way) by playing in a disciplined fashion, patiently and methodically waiting for your chance to strike when your opponent breaks down or do you believe in taking more aggressive initiative and calculated risks that lead to big rewards but higher risks?

How important are statistics over the course of a game? What are the most important stats to look for? What statistic plays a bigger role? - Shots on goal or scoring chances? Some coaches want shots from all areas of the ice and have a team objective of 30+ shots per game while other coaches are happy with 20 shots if 10 come from high percentage scoring chances? What do you believe leads to more wins over the course of a season?

What key factors over the course of a game lead to winning? When you watch two teams of equal strength play each other what systems of play or team play factors lead you to believe one team will defeat the other? One team has more efficient breakouts and the other team is better at forechecking or perhaps stronger in its DZC - who do you bet on? The Detroit Red Wings are known for being built on puck possession and offense while the NJ Devils were known for years for its defense and traps. Both led to winning championships in the past. But with the new NHL and the new era of hockey is one style of play better suited for today’s game?

If you were to break down video of your team are there team play systems/principles on the offensive or defensive side of the puck that you concentrate on more when you review a game? Are there areas of the game that you want disciplined structure and other areas where you allow for more creativity?

Most of us go to games at Junior, College or Pro and watch games on TV of the NHL and 'see' it through our own eyes and interpretation. What is your interpretation and breakdown of the game and how winning teams play? Is there a winning formula in today’s game? I hope to get some dialogue from many coaches on this topic. Thank you for any feedback!

Coach Tex

10 years or 10,000 hours of deliberate practice also applies to coaching.


Tex... wow, where should I start? You ask many questions that challenge and stimulate my mind, so thanks for that. I might have to answer this in parts (think about it and come back to it later.)

Recognize that if I had THE ULTIMATE ANSWER to your questions about Life, the Universe and Everything (you Douglas Admas fans will know the answer to that question!), the entrepreneur in me wouldn't be sharing it on Tom's FREE website (donations to Tom, please!!!) for free... I would offer to sell it to you and everybody else! Wink

You say that you want to centre the conversation around team play and coaching, so here goes...

(1) Team Play.

I believe an expert coach (10 years or 10,000 hours of deliberate practice) analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of each of his individuals on the team (mental, physical, skills, Decision-Making / Game Sense, etc.); taking into account the dimensions and any peculiarities of his home rink; the most often visited opponent rinks; the typical systems and styles played by his opponents; any tendencies of the opposing coaching staff(s) and opponent player tendencies (much of which is facilitated at the pro level by video and advance scouting!); statistical tendencies in all three zones (0-1-2 situations) which are correlated to teams being successful in the standings AND the playoffs (GF / GA Ratio, possession after face-offs, turnovers, PP, PK, scoring chances for and against (off the rush, 4check, face-off, special teams) - too much to get into here!); schedule (travel and nutrition, fitness and recovery - Yearly Training Plan); any nuances in rules in your particular league. Think about how you can "use" the rules to your advantage (like Roger Neilson... he was a creative genius ahead of his time!)

You should also have a firm grip on your own and your coaching staff abilities (SWOT analysis) to help design their respective job descriptions.

Make a decision to exploit your individual player and overall team strengths while camouflaging your weaknesses. Decisions are also based on risk - reward continuum depending on the time if the game and the score.

So this amounts to a large degree of organization, research, problem-solving, knowledge, experience and wisdom as you work through a very thorough (and usually, fluid) checklist.

(2) Coaching.

The coach is responsible to set up a culture of winning and hold himself, the staff and players accountable. At the pro level, it becomes more about managing egos and personalities; rather than 'coaching.' Plus the hectic schedule (travel, public appearances, media, etc.) conspire against meaningful teaching practices once the season starts. After training camp, 90% of the time is all about maintenance and recovery.

Players (and coaches, GM's, scouts) are nervous creatures, always looking over their shoulders for the next threat - the hungry up-and-comer who is looking for a position in hockey. The ever-increasing money and profile of the game have done this. There is a real lack of trust at the pro level... it is pressure-filled and results-based. You lose too much, or don't perform as well as you should, or become too expensive, and you are gone... or traded, or sent down, or waived, etc. It is a cutthroat BUSINESS. You can't hide in an office cubicle and collect a pay cheque (or not - like Milton in Office Space!)

Overall, I believe good / great players make coaches look good / great... so make your players capable / great! Coaches, you picked them, so make them better... don't *censormode* about how their previous coach(es) didn't do their job!

I remember an older coach who was leading a pure 16 year old team in the Midget AA league (back then it was a 16-17 year old league.) I was coaching a minor bantam team that year (I was only 2 years into my coaching career.) He played the role of the jolly old grandpa... maybe even played a bit 'dumb' (in hindsight, I think he was sly like a fox.) I watched many of his practices that year and all he did was scrimmage - he played A TON of 5 on 5. I don't remember seeing any actual teaching - there certainly weren't any systems practiced (i imagine he told the guys what he wanted them to do?) He also played lots of 5 on 4, 5 on 3, 4 on 3, 4 on 4. Everything was done like a game. I, along with lots of others, thought, "Well, everybody knows he's no coach... he's just a deluded old fool babysitting some snotty-nosed 16-year-olds!" Guess what - his team was the best team that year! He won Minor Hockey Week, the city league, and the provincials. Three of his players played one year of Midget AAA then went straight to Div 1 teams (Ivy league) in the US. This was unheard of back then! Most of the other kids went on to Midget AAA as 17-year-olds and most played Junior A, Major Junior and beyond.

I tried to explain it away because he had good players. I didn't see him do 'regular drills' that taught players, so he must have been delusional. This explanation made me feel good and I took great comfort in it. (After all, that let me off the hook - justifying me using my traditional coaching methods.)The old man got lucky... right time, right place, inherited a good team, coincidence... (Yeah, right... as time and hindsight would lead me to believe...!) This story will come into play later...
-----


I have continually evolved in my coaching knowledge and my style is a byproduct of who coached me, how my parents raised me, and who I looked up to as role models. I am OPEN-MINDED (critical to success in anything, in my opinion! Read Carol S. Dweck's book: "Mindset" ) and have made a commitment to lifelong curiosity and learning. This has evolved as I matured as a person, because like most young people, I was full of piss and vinegar and saw the coaching world more in black and white. I knew I had to learn, but I was a lot more brash back then. Plus I developed a fondness for Crown Royal / Coke and microbrews - see my avatar (me drinking a big-ass beer in the Hofbräuhaus after making like Lance and riding my mountain bike across the Trans-Alps route in the summer of 2004) - based on my undergraduate studies on creativity, I believe it truly helps with my creative processes!

Back to a more serious vein. For the first 10 years of my coaching / teaching career, I was pretty much finding myself and I coached using the traditional "Whole-Part-Whole" method as that is the only way I knew. When I attended graduate Kinesiology classes and then attended the National Coaching Institute in 1995, one of my profs, Dr. Joan Vickers, really opened my eyes to a 'new' way of coaching and it completely challenged my beliefs. I wasn't as open minded then... what the Hell did an older female prof (who never played hockey) know about coaching? Although my interest in her teachings was piqued, I discounted her methodology because, like 99.9% of the population, IT WAS OUTSIDE MY COMFORT ZONE! I felt I was finally fine-tuning my "traditional" coaching methods, so I filed her coaching effectiveness stuff (based on neuro-motor psychology, quiet eye movements, gaze control and ultimately, Decision-Making) into the back of my mind. (I actually worked as a research instructor for Joan for a year or two after I took her class and learned a ton of stuff that although I doubted that much of it would translate into the "real world" of sports (not a lab setting) at the time, this would become a critical factor in my personal methodological tipping point another 10 years later...)

Another 10 years go by... I had the privilege of working with numerous professional coaches: Dave King, Rob Cookson, Tom Renney, Pierre Page, Dany Dube, Slava Lener, Erkka Westerlund, Mike Johnston, Pat Quinn, Andy Murray, Glen Hanlon, Al Tuer, Tim Bothwell, Willie Desjardins, Joel Otto, etc... so shouldn't I be an expert coach by now? I must be a slow learner as this is now at the end of year 20... ! I still hadn't found the Holy Grail of coaching methodologies... although I had experienced some level of success (numerous playoff appearances, but never won a league championship - I was the "first loser" a few times!) Via introspection, I chalked my success to date up to perseverance, ongoing PD opportunities (good coaches are good thieves!), good players, and a bit of luck! Why couldn't I win consistently like John Wooden?

Fast forward to about 2003 when circumstances conspired to shift me into university level female hockey for three years where I met the person who I now acknowledge as my most important mentor, and now one of my best friends. Nobody in hockey has probably heard of him, but his name is John. He is a Spanish-speaking Colombian who moved to Montreal at 16 and learned French, fell in love with the game of hockey, taught himself how to skate, handle a puck and shoot in one short year, made a Midget AA team by year 2 at 17, then went on to coach at McGill as a goalie coach. He moved west in the later 1990's, learned English and watched the Canadian male and female National Teams train daily prior to the 1998 Olympics. John was / still is a National Level soccer coach but he joined me with the women's hockey team and gradually shared with me his 30 years of coaching experience.

John totally changed my coaching style and all the stuff that I had learned from Dr. Joan Vickers clicked in. I am still in the process of evolving, but it is hard for me to think in "old school methodology" of D-R-I-L-L-S (that's a dirty word for me now!)



To Be Continued...