5 – How to shrink the rink

A primordial concept about offensive hockey involves using width and depth of attack. In other words, a three-player rush is most effective if the threesome spreads out across the rink to draw defenders out. Plus, the creation of an attack triangle – the depth part – creates more space and forces defenders to consider even further alternatives.

But width and depth are relative terms. Yes, we can get 11 year olds to use the width of the rink and form a triangle doing it. The problem isn’t conceptual. It’s geographical – and developmental. While they know what a triangle is and can easily form one, doing it while moving is an entirely different issue. Furthermore, creating the attack triangle while entering the offensive zone, with any kind of resistance, is problematic. If we add the further level of difficulty of using the rink width, the triangle either slows to a crawl or comes apart, or both. The other large fly in the ointment is that the further the triangle’s points are from each other, the more difficult it is to make a successful pass, let alone recognize that such a pass could be seen. Essentially, we’re asking the youngsters to execute the offensive tactic over a space they just can’t handle.

Then what space can they handle?

In this diagram, the traditional three lanes (2 outside and 1 between the dots) is replaced by four lanes. Rather than teaching tactics using the entire width, we should be using space that is more in line with what they can accomplish. The younger the child, the fewer lanes are used. For example, seven to nine year olds would likely use just lanes 1 and 2 for most things whereas lane 3 could be added for certain tactics or ages.

This isn’t so far removed from what kids do anyway. A standing joke among those who watch minor hockey (or soccer) is that the kids tend to gather in a blob around the puck. The blob travels while pieces of it splinter off from boredom or fatigue or just the inability to stay with the blob. The further the puck goes, the smaller the blob becomes till finally the blob is reduced to one puckcarrier and perhaps one chaser heading for the net. As kids get older, they see and understand more of the ice and their responsibilities. But that doesn’t mean they’re able to put these into practice. Indeed, some of the better skilled nine or ten year olds are able “to see” the width and depth of a rink, yet for them, there remains the problem of physically being able to cope with it.

Redrawing three lanes into four means the coach recognizes the obvious limitations of younger players. Even older players can benefit from seeing how “new” space is created to change the point of attack (if we’re talking about offensive play for starters) and where support can be created. A four lane approach fits perfectly with what younger players are physically able to handle. By chopping off an outside line, we shrink the width to about 3/4 of its size. This allows for the weaker passes and slower skating to make best use of the space. Plus, read and react skills develop better because there just isn’t as far to see. In a smaller space, there will be more successful passes and a greater chance of applying the fundamental principles such as support.

Teaching with four lanes doesn’t mean that the same lane will be excluded from the plan. It’s actually a type of sliding approach. You may teach your team how to break out of its zone using lanes 1-2-3 in one practice and lanes 2-3-4 in another. Similarly, forechecking can be taught this way.

Attack triangles serve as good examples of how to properly use the four lanes. A triangle across any three lanes of the four is easier to do and see than in the traditional approach. Support is visible and potential plays far more likely to succeed.

Of course, the four lane idea does force the coach to reconfigure the approach to teaching tactics. The far, or weak or non-puck, side in your own zone would seem to be excluded. Then again, why have a young player positioned where he can’t be of much use because it’s just too far to travel?

Another advantage is that you can make better use of practice ice when teaching tactics. Drills will take up less space, not that they need to use more to begin with. There’s also more opportunity to employ station teaching or circuits.

Here’s another consideration for shrinking the rink.

If we’re going to shrink space lengthwise, it makes sense then to do the same across the rink. These mini zones perhaps suggest where blue and red lines might be if we were able to change them. In some rinks where ringette is played, there’s a line across the tops of the circles, splitting the offensive zone into parts A and B then part C. This line, essentially a blueline for younger kids, is a great way to introduce them to concepts such as holding the line and pinching. As with the previous section, it’s more in tune with their size and abilities. It doesn’t make much sense to teach eight year olds to hold the blue line when, if  theyget the puck, their shots won’t reach the net.

For most younger age groups, the zone is best split into two parts: either A+B and C, or just A and B. Zone C, for many ages and levels, is just too far away to be concerned with. In the same way that soccer progressively reduces its field size, hockey can do the same, though it’s a bit tougher to see on the ice.

Defensive zone coverage, for instance, is much simpler to both teach and execute using these spaces. If kids learn early that areas A and B are the ones to focus on, they will know as they get older the importance of sagging to cover prime scoring areas. In the meantime, so-called point coverage has been shrunk to shorter space. Even if the opposition chooses to have its defencemen standing at the blueline, they won’t pose much of a threat. Again, it’s because they’re just too far away. This is true in fact for some levels up to about age 13. Recreational level players often don’t have the shooting or skating tools to be effective at the offensive blueline. You need to wonder therefore at how important it might be to cover them closely, as a junior team would.

As for the neutral zone, areas D or E can demarcate zones to illustrate support, regroup, and transition principles. Older teams will use the entire zone, practically ignoring the centre line. However that line serves as a valuable teaching tool. Which brings us to the next installment…

Next: Reference points as teaching tools

4 – Shrinking the rink

Hockey did not develop from a child’s game. The first official hockey games were played in the 19th century on so-called artificial surfaces like Montreal’s Victoria skating rink. Since the game evolved from sports played and designed by adults, the rinks were adult-sized, too. As rink markings were added in the early 20th century, these also were painted with the adult in mind.

Essentially, hockey rink designs are what they were 100 years ago. If anything, they’re larger. Certainly the painted lines, with only a few modifications, are unchanged. Alterations to the faceoff circle’s lines, for instance, have been made as per requests from the professionals. They’ve made perfect sense for big people, none for everyone else.

Whether or not it’s feasible or practical to build smaller rinks or offer different ice lines is a different debate. Yet minor hockey has made virtually no modifications to its playing surface, nets, or rules to account for the obvious differences between adults and kids or teens. Thus today’s minor hockey coach is faced with the challenge of having to adjust teaching to an envirnoment that is hardly kid-friendly. The result is a top-down approach that attempts to miniaturize what we see from the big boys. It’s an easy trap to fall into since a coach can always just say he’s stuck with the space. Might as well not bother then with adaptations in drills and tactics.

There are many obvious problems with our adult-sized rinks and these are especially acute as we move down the age ladder to the youngest players. The boards are too high to clamber over; the nets are as large as what the pros use, the only team sport which does this; offsides and icings are the same, too (except for touch icing in the NHL); distances for a skill or tactic are proportionately greater than for any non-adult; line markings used for reference teaching points are neither kid-length nor adjustable.

The implications for teaching are considerable. A drill used for older adolescents or adults then for kids is asking them to perform at a greater distance, thus over a longer period of time, yet maintain a consistent effort with some proficiency. It’s tantamount to asking ten year olds to write a two hour exam like their college elders.

Let’s investigate one simple example. You see the local junior club perform a terrific passing drill. It’s a full ice flow activity that has each player doing three give-and-go passes while curling at right angles to the passer. It finishes with a shot on net. There are no defenders or similar resistance challenges.

Your pee wee team also has a full sheet to work with. However, not all the kids can turn both ways and they don’t really understand yet the idea of being at the proper angle to receive a pass. Therefore they tend to skate a straight line when they’re supposed to curl because it’s shorter and easier. They’re also slower than the juniors which means it takes them longer to travel the same distance. This drastically slows the drill, leaving more kids waiting longer. It no longer flows. Their passes are weak , let alone having the required zip at the distance the drill expects. As well, passing on the go (and receiving) requires multi-tasking many aren’t able to do well. Perhaps they could for one or two passes, but anything more grinds down the drill.

Juniors finished the drill by receiving a pass inside the blueline and getting away a good shot that tests the goalie. The pee wees often miss the last pass. When they do get the puck, it takes them longer to ready themselves for a shot and are practically on top of the goalie when about to release the puck.

Perhaps the drill had too many things going on for this level. Plus, the larger space required placed extra burdens on the kids in terms of their skill level and ability to apply the concepts. This kind of drill done inside a blueline with just two give and go passes would be more consistent with their needs and abilities.

Another example. From a tactical standpoint, the rink poses challenges even to bantam and midget players. Consider a power play in which you want your team to be able to pass to someone on his off wing for a one-timer shot. At the pro or junior level, this is a standard skill. They have the training, strength, and coordination to accomplish it successfully most times. However, placing an adolescent in the same spot and expecting similar results is asking a lot. They obviously have few of the attributes of juniors or pros yet are hoped to be a scoring threat from the same distance. Does that make sense?

Just as drills and activities need to be adapted in terms of time spent or progressions taught, so, too, must they be presented in a space appropriate to the level. This also applies to tactical instruction. While all coaches would hope to have their youngsters moving the puck across the full width of the rink and using each zone to its fullest, this isn’t practical for most age groups. The answer is to shrink the rink.

Generally, hockey works with three zones and three lanes. Nearly everything coaches do is expressed in those terms. Why? Partly because of tradition, partly because of the rink markings, and partly because it’s expedient to do so. Alternative  approaches are either unknown or deemed too complicated to consider. However, in light of what we know about learning styles, progressions, and growth and development, it behooves coaches to at least examine these alternatives. It’s possible they may make sense.

Next: How to shrink the rink

3 – The kids and tactics conundrum

The word “tactics” has become “a puzzlement.”  It’s misconstrued, abused, sometimes ignored, and suffers from exaggerated importance. It’s over-used, under-used, poorly explained, and as with so many things in minor hockey, has a one-size-fits-all definition.

Now if you were asked whether or not you’d want your players to learn how to think on the ice, you’d jump on it. Of course, all coaches want their players to think. Imagine a team of kids who can anticipate and force the opposition to do what it doesn’t want or is not prepared to do. What fun to have youngsters who understand how to apply their own incomplete skill sets to some fundamental principles of what the game entails. This isn’t fantasy. It can be done.

Let’s back up a bit first. From their first steps on the ice, children make decisions. They determine whether or not ice is a surface on which they feel confident traveling. They choose to go at a speed conducive to their skill and if falling on this cold surface is in some way connected. If it is, does it hurt much? When we engulf them in hockey equipment and expect them to propel an object around the ice, everything is more complicated. Do I share the puck? Why? If I don’t have one, how do I get one? If I smack it really hard and miss, will I hurt myself? Do I really want to go around those pylons, because every time I cross my feet with these pads on, I corkscrew my way down to the ice? Has Mom got my chocolate milk?

The physical application of these thoughts are what coaches see as skills. But every skill requires a decision. The more skills a child has and the more competent they become at them, the more decisions they can make and, in fact, are forced to make. The seven year old in a first year hockey team environment will not need to make as many or as complex decisions as the 12 year old playing on even a recreational level team. Furthermore, the younger child’s decision are simpler, more closely related to the beginning skater mentioned earlier. There are just too many other things for the seven year old to figure out before the multi-tasking problems associated with learning a game.

As we know, children pass through a series of stages in acquiring new skills. But these same stages apply to tactics as well. That’s because tactics are mental skills. They are accomplished in consort with physical ones and neither acting alone would produce much of a hockey player. Coaches of younger children seem to want to teach tactics early on, understanding their importance to the game. Yet they misapply them. Some coaches are steadfast “technical teachers” and thus forego any tactical instruction. These coaches might not see that any decision-making by kids is a form of tactics.

For instance, to get kids to think on the ice, they need to be placed in situations where they can make decisions. This doesn’t happen by accident. Pre-determined drill routes have their place, but one can’t expect the youngsters to think when all they have to do is skate the same route repeatedly. When the coach also orders whose turn it is or when/where to stop, even more decisions are removed from the child. Hockey is a fluid game where nearly instantaneous decisions are made every moment. Coaches need to expose kids to a variety of such moments to give them a taste of the game environment. Even pure skill drills can help to accomplish this.

With a line of kids waiting to do a drill, for example, the coach instructs them to watch the player ahead. When he arrives at a certain spot on the ice, the next child starts. This forces the kids to read what’s happening and react accordingly. In other words, read and react, the very foundation of tactics. Similarly,  the tendency in a passing drill is to make the next player in line be involved in the passing play. Why not alter the drill so that it’s the last player in line? When kids complete a turn in a drill and go to the end of a line, they turn off their brains. No need to think anymore. They’re done. Show them they’re not done by keeping them involved not just a while longer but also when the natural urge is to stop.

Those are simple examples of teaching tactics. They’re not the tactics from a manual or on a diagram. But they are forcing kids into thinking about their participation in an activity.

Is this limited to young ones? Not at all. In a peculiar irony, coaches of older kids often run drills with a heavy tactical bent, yet they tell the players when to go, when to stop, where to skate, how many passes to make, etc. It’s tantamount to creating a 2 on 1 attack drill from the neutral zone with restrictions:

- do one give and go pass with your partner – skate to the blueline, do a 2 foot stop, while your partner does the same, make another pass (stay onside!) – attack the defenceman from the left wing – use the drop pass play – go for the rebound – return to the next line but switch roles

The drill may be great on paper and flow nicely. But how much independent thinking are the players permitted? Is the drill about following directions or practicing the drop pass play? Can the coach’s drop pass play be developed elsewhere in the attack zone? In a game it will occur in various spots. Indeed, there is something to be said for repeating the attack in one area multiple times. However, does the coach need to stifle player creativity and thinking by having such a dogmatic approach?

The answer is not at all. Part of the game’s beauty is that it is so fluid and so many decisions need to be made almost with each stride. The more times we put kids in similar situations, the more they will learn not only to handle them but how to predict them and adapt to new ones.

The reason why we even have a tactics conundrum is because coaches seem to fear using the word. If a coach were to suggest that a LOG used with six year olds introduces tactics, he could be accused of pedagogical heresy. But consider the simple game of Tag. The kids who are “it” aren’t just chasing other kids to touch. They’re making decisions on when to chase, who can be caught, when to rest, and even how to angle properly. The players avoiding the tag need to keep their heads up and eyes open for the chasers and determine the paths that will help them escape. And if they seem doomed to be caught, some will come up with novel ways to escape.

Let’s take the example of a 1 against 1 mini game where a stick is placed on the ice as the net or target. The objective for the two players is to hit the target with a puck. Both youngsters are playing offensive and defensive positions. They are learning angling and stick checking skills in addition to the basic offensive tactics of puck protection, driving outside and others. Whether this mini game is played with little ones or teens, the tactics remain the same.

In both Tag and the 1 against 1 game, not much instruction is required. Even if the coach has done little or no teaching of formal puckhandling or turning, the kids figure it out anyway. These are examples of activities that highlight tactics (and skills) and place  kids in the precise situations where they are forced to practice them without knowing they’re doing it. This is, as mentioned before, one of the secrets of good coaching: To get the players to learn and not realize they’re being taught. It’s more fun that way.

As players get older and/or better skilled, the coach needs to add elements of instruction to these kinds of activities. This makes sense. The skills toolbox has more components, confidence is greater, physical and mental maturation continues apace. The players are beyond the exploration and discovery stages of basic tactics. So the 1 against 1 drill described earlier, when used with 13 year olds, could include some body contact and application of previously taught skills such as inside/outside moves. Defenders can apply gap control, a vital tactic to learn however a difficult one to teach since it requires judgments that only develop over time.

The formal teaching of tactics has to be approached much like skills. You begin with allowing the youngsters to “play” with activities which highlight the tactic. Then as they get older and better, you build on these. As with a skills inventory, there needs to be a tactics inventory. This doesn’t mean listing the right age to teach one style of forecheck system versus another. Forechecking relies heavily on understanding gap, angling, pressure or containment, and other principles.

At what point in a season is it feasible and appropriate to introduce some of these? In what stages would you do it? How do you incorporate these ideas into skill drills or even LOGs? Which SAGs (small area games) match up with the principles you want the kids to learn?

There is no right or wrong age to present tactics. It’s a matter of how. No, faceoffs need not be taught to nine year olds. Yes, nine year olds can learn how to outnumber the opposition around the puck. No, it doesn’t matter what type of forechecking pee wees are taught so long as they understand the concepts of support and angling. No, it isn’t advantageous to have seven year olds learn to defend 1 on 1s. In fact, it’s silly. But yes, they can be put in 1 against 1 activities and experiment with being both the attacker and defender.

Learning how to play any game, even a board game like Monopoly, involves an element of tactics. The coach’s very important task then is to create a tactics continuum that overlaps with the skills one. This requires a surprising amount of planning because often simple tactics are assumed to exist and don’t need to be taught or re-enforced. The so-called tactics conundrum instead is no longer IF but how.

Next: Shrinking the rink

2 – What creative coaches do

Somewhere sits a graduate student mulling how his thesis project will expose the secrets of coaching. Eureka! So this is what makes them great. Now give me my degree.

It is no more possible to determine how great coaches do it than it is to explain why gas prices fluctuate three times in a day, even though the tanker is still in port. But we can come close.

In “Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking,” author Malcolm Gladwell describes research studies used to determine the impact of preconceived notions. The studies suggest that people can be “primed” to think a certain way. In one instance, a series of word jumble puzzles containing specific suggestive words actually made its participants walk away from the tests somewhat hunched over and acting “old.” In another, black students did poorer on tests when they had to first indicate on a form what their race was. Of course, they would deny its effect, he says, yet admit that perhaps they weren’t smart enough to be there.

Gladwell writes, “…what we think is free will is largely an illusion: much of the time, we are simply operating on automatic pilot, and the way we think and act-and how well we think and act on the spur of the moment- are a lot more susceptible to outside influences than we realize.”

Perhaps coaches “succeed” by suggesting behaviours and attitudes and “willing” top performances from their athletes. It just can’t be as simple as choosing the right drills and having interesting practices. Then again, why not? A drill is right because the kids learn and improve from it. How did the coach know it would work? As for practices, plenty of coaches run good ones. They have flow and variety and are largely fun. The youngsters leave these practices better than when they arrived. What made this particular set of activities produce the desired result?

We tend to call it instinct, itself an amalgam of experience, knowledge and that certain “je ne sais quoi” no one is able to put a finger on. It’s the same intangible scouts use. There are the obvious signs of talent: size, speed, agility, strength, stats, etc. And there are the not-so-obvious ones: effort, attitude, intuitiveness, vision, teamwork, anticipation, etc. Explain how three people can sit in the stands to evaluate a young hockey player and come up with different views of the player’s potential. When picking a team, a coach is doing that very thing, attempting to predict how the youngster, in a formative time of life, will pan out six months ahead and where, even if, this child might fit in a team concept.

There are coaches in minor who will favour “dark horses,” the kids who either never made it before or did from time to time, consistent only in their inconsistency. Some coaches, perhaps most, believe they can draw something from the child that previous coaches could not. When you consider the massive changes that can happen to kids between seasons, they may be right. The bantam coach who just couldn’t get anywhere with this young forward sees him graduate to midget. Over the spring and summer, the child gets turned on by fitness training, happens to grow three inches and 15 pounds, attends a great hockey school, and learns to enjoy the new-found energy of high school. Suddenly, the average bantam becomes a darned good midget age player and his new coach looks brilliant for selecting him. Sorry, midget coach, but that was less prescience and far more natural biology. In nature, young things grow and mature. The trick to coaching is determining where one is on that growth curve and how to make the best of both the good times and tough ones. That same bantam child has more high school pressures to contend with along with uncertainties related to a host of basic functions.

The great coaches seem to understand where the pressure points are on the growth curve. They know which buttons to push. They have a sense of when to back off and when to demand more. Their players respond positively not because of needing to fulfill performance objectives but rather because they want to. Want, like caring, is a powerful emotion. They have a compunction to perform as best they can. They want to play for that coach that day, that year. Their individual goals haven’t been set aside. Instead, they begin to see that by playing for this coach, they are more likely to meet those goals. They are both comfortable in the environment yet uncomfortable enough to want to get more comfortable. They are at ease with a coach who senses their frustrations but treats them respectfully. The coach who empathizes may not be one to confide in with an issue, but would certainly understand if one did.

These minor hockey coaches are also teachers in the non-technical sense. It doesn’t matter whether they’re guides from the side or sages on the stage. Successful coaches are able to slide from one role to the other imperceptibly. The kids don’t really see there’s been a switch in roles. All they see is that the coach is doing what the coach does well and probably has good reason for it. They trust him. They respect him.

Is this being creative? In other words, do some coaches consciously take on a role as a situation warrants? It’s not quite so simple. You don’t say to yourself halfway through a wonky practice, “Time to get tough with the kids because they’re not working.” Not all drills go well, nor do all practices. Indeed, why aren’t they working? The self-analysis coaches need to do is an integral part of the creative process because it’s an innate attempt to improve. If the coach improves, the child will benefit. Let’s not confuse this with being self-critical, although it’s a subset. Creative coaches sub-consciously dissect what they do and say then seek better ways. The next step is figuring out from where to get the better ways. Yes, often, it will be scribbles on a notepad. More likely, these coaches store the information in a brain folder labelled “Fix this stuff” and dip into it from time to time to check on what’s been done.

Is it this constant reflection by the creative coach that results in teams doing well? Is there something to be said for Gladwell’s point about behaviour and, in this case, performance, being “suggested”?

If there’s some truth to the theory, we could conclude that creative coaches who work at improving their craft and the lot of their athletes do so in a fishbowl. Their efforts are plainly visible. Deliberate or not, the coach’s comportment and approach are observed by players. They will take their cues from the coach. This explains why it is so often said that a team takes on the personality of its coach. More accurately, the kids will take on those characteristics of the coach that they can see or are expected to see.

All minor coaches have expectations of their players and they really don’t vary that much, even when comparing highly competitive players with those who play once a week for nothing other than the love of the game. Winning is a component. But let’s face it, as soon as the scoreboard turns on, everyone wants to win. The manner in which coaches go about it is another story. The kids also have expectations. As soon as they meet up with a coach whose goals and approach clash with their own, trouble ensues.

Here’s another place where creative coaches seem to hit the mark. They’re willing to adapt their expectations to make it feasible for players to want to play. This doesn’t mean lower expectations. You can have high expectations of a group and successfully massage these into the framework of a season. Because the coach appears to be flexible, the kids’ trust in and respect for him increase. Remember that coaching minor hockey does not have the same connotation of the classroom teacher nor parent nor favourite relative. Often trust and respect for those others is either inherent in their roles or develops over long periods of time. Minor hockey coaches have no such luxury. A house league coach who sees the team for 3-4 hours per week hardly has the facility to easily build a strong relationship with players. So it needs to be more like instant coffee than a lovingly brewed pot.

Top notch minor hockey coaches understand this and their players feel it. You can see it in the dressing room, on the ice in practice, and on the bench during games. It’s a positive atmosphere even when things go poorly, as they will in sport.

Are creative coaches synonymous with successful ones? Over the long haul, yes. Any coach who’s been in the game for a few years and has worked with different levels knows the need to adapt. This requires work. The teams respond accordingly. Even teams that aren’t especially skilled or are over-matched at their levels will show the fruits of the coach’s labour long after he’s left the scene. We tend to put a lot of stock, for instance in junior players reaching their destinations because of the midget coach. But it was the novice, atom, pee wee and bantam coaches who created the tools for the midget coach to apply. The grade 11 student understands “Hamlet” because he was taught the meaning of words in elementary school. It began with Dr. Seuss, not Hemingway.

Creative coaches may have some inherently creative qualities that others don’t. While they can’t paint a fresco, they do analyze behaviour rather than productivity. They work at improving themselves and increasing their knowledge. They challenge kids and expect the kids to develop the desire to challenge themselves. This is where the idea of preconceived or suggested actions appears again. In their hockey environment, the youngsters feel they are part of a process. It’s fun, intriguing and rewarding because the coach has made it so. As a result, they behave and perform accordingly. How simple is that?

Next: The kids and tactics conundrum

Here we go: ICH – Volume II

“Inside Coaching Hockey” has been made available as a free PDF download at www.odha.com

Like any book, it’s next to impossible to gauge reader opinion. Those emails I’ve received have been entirely positive. If you’re a glass half-empty type of person, you could conclude that those who have not emailed me thought the work was a crock and figured it best to keep me in the dark. I’ll never know. Still, I forge on. The aim with Volume II is to delve more deeply into such topics as creativity, discipline, team control, specialty teams, game analysis, problem-solving, and more.

And as before, no drills. No recipes. No quick and dirty answers. It’s a bit – no, a lot – like parenting that way. When my son was born, I was writing a column for a Montreal weekly. As the first day dawned in my new overwhelming role as a father, I suddenly realized there were no manuals, guides, or rulebooks to guide me. I had to figure it out as I went along, as we all have for millenia. Rather disconcerting actually.

Such is coaching minor hockey. Figure it out. Why? Because you can.

1 – Being Creative

The stunned silence of a group of relatively new hockey coaches can be disarming. Do they think the speaker is nuts? Or delusional? Or has oodles of time on his hands? Does he obsessively file drills from 30 years back for future use? Is this a form of mental self-flagellation? Or, back to the first notion, is he nuts?

The challenge issued is this: Can you go the entire season without ever doing the same drill the same way twice? The answer is yes, you can. Anyone is able to do it. But are you willing to do it? And why?

So the silence in a room at a coaching clinic when the question is posed is often followed with its own pointed rebuttals in the form of questions. Isn’t there something to be said for repetition? Who has the time to do that? Kids love some drills; why change them? I love some drills: why change them? The parents love some drills; why change them? Who else advocates such a thing and why spend the time to do it? Won’t I dedicate more time to worrying about creating a new drill rather than what’s really important, the kids’ learning and enjoying themselves?

The points are valid. This from individuals who are used to routine, are comfortable with routine and may view teaching hockey as more or less a collection of drills that often bear repeating. Indeed, time plays a role. Of course, some drills will be loved. No question it’s easier to repeat drills than alter them.

First, the big picture.

Coaching and creativity coincide. Almost everything a coach does requires dealing with other people, be they players, parents, board members, etc. Most of the time, there aren’t even shades of grey. Just one wide swathe of it. The onus is on you, the coach, to come up with something that will help educate a youngster and provide the child with a valuable, fun experience.

Books, videos and the like help, a great deal in many instances. But as discussed in Volume I, it will still come down to adapting, molding and seeking solutions to provide those experiences. Even the worst minor hockey coaches know that autocratic approaches don’t cut it most times. The more bullheaded the coach, the less creative the solutions, the more trouble there is.

It’s probably not fair to pigeon-hole minor hockey coaches as being good or bad, smart or thick, creative or not. Each is a myriad of these characteristics rolled up into a giant galvanized rubber ball. If we were to apply the principles espoused by American researcher Howard Gardner from his work on multiple intelligences, we might conclude that minor hockey coaches all had criteria for each type of so-called “coaching” intelligence. Yet some categories would be higher. Creativity would be one.

My own best guess would be that we’d find a strong correlation between creativity and success, even though evidence would be anecdotal and subjective as to who has been successful. Then, too, what would constitute success in minor hockey? Championships? First place finishes? Most playoff appearances? Cleanest dressing rooms? Happiest players? Happiest parents?

Professional, junior or college hockey probably need to quantify coaching success. Jobs are at stake, money on the line. The opposite is true in minor hockey where goals are, or should be, altruistic. Woe be the hockey association whose performance objectives for youngsters are at the root of its definition of success.

Next: What creative coaches do

Inside Coaching Hockey on ODHA web site

Please go to:

http://www.odha.com/Pages/development/coaching_resources.php