USA Hockey Debates The Need For A National Style Of Play

from USA Hockey Magazine

By Al Bloomer

The United States of America has often been called the melting pot. Over many years, we have welcomed people from many different countries with many different cultures to our shores.

It’s this melting pot of diverse ethnic backgrounds that makes it difficult to pigeonhole exactly who we are as a nation and as a people.

The same holds true for our style of hockey. With various philosophies from Massachusetts to Minnesota, what is the USA Hockey style of play? Do we even have a national style of play?

When we think of Canadian hockey, we think of a gritty, physical style of play. They are very good around the net and display a great sense of national pride.

Finns and Swedes are great skaters with outstanding puck skills. They are also at times inconsistent and reluctant to take risks.

The Soviets are well-conditioned athletes. Their game is one of puck control, creativity, flow and finesse.

The Czechs are similar to the Soviets. They are very good in the offensive zone, and transition very well. They also have a history of great goaltending.

I think we can safely say that USA Hockey, at the international level, is a hybrid of other countries’ styles. U.S. teams are very competitive and typically have a gritty physical style of play. In recent years our players have demonstrated the skills and skating abilities to rival anyone in the world.

As USA Hockey’s Lou Vairo states, “It is getting harder to differentiate the various national styles because they have copied from each other.”

Many coaches have studied the various hockey federations and have adopted what they think will work for them. In our youth programs, coaches are currently free to adopt whatever philosophy they choose.

On the one hand, we encourage coaches to be creative and visionary. On the other hand, do we really want our youth-level programs to be game and result driven?

We also recognize the possibility that the conceptual, technical and tactical philosophies of player development may or may not be currently in sync with the expectations of many of our customers, which are our players and parents.

Perhaps the diverse approach of our youth programs is acceptable and the “skill development” proponents are trying to manage the un-manageable.

Relative to skill and technical development, has U.S. hockey become a game of labels? Labels that have no national standard of definition. “Recreational,” “house,” “travel,” “competitive,” “select” and “elite” are categories used to describe programs, as well as players. We also use Tier I, Tier II, AAA, AA, A, B, etc.

Even the most experienced coaches have difficulty determining what these labels mean because they mean different things to different organizations depending where in the country they are located. How confusing can this be for parents and players?

People a lot smarter than me have tried to come up with a national definition of Tier II youth hockey. The definition currently varies from District to District. For clarity, consistency and competitive fairness, shouldn’t we attempt to have standards of classification from one District/Affiliate to another?

Clearly, most programs in USA Hockey have individual players that may fit into a number of different categories. The problem comes when, for competitive fairness or balance, we need to classify teams or programs in their entirety. Just because a program is recreational, does that mean that it cannot be competitive? It is a competitive game at all levels.

Currently, too many USA Hockey youth programs are predominately game driven. The practice-to-game ratio is often 2-to-1, or less. We have 10 &
Under teams traveling great distances and playing 60-70 game schedules. We teach a structured game with emphasis on systems and short-term outcomes and not on long-term development of skills and concepts. Practices are predominately too controlled and structured.

The ice is not fully utilized because we do not have multiple teams practicing together. We emphasize defensive hockey at very young ages and do not encourage offensive skills and creativity as much as we should.

Are we coaching to win or are we coaching to teach?

We recognize that there are coaches and associations within USA Hockey that encourage skill development, puck possession, creativity and concepts. However, based on my travels and discussions with other coaches-in-chief, these coaches/associations are in the minority.

As Bob O’Connor, the long-time national coach-in-chief, likes to say, “The enjoyment and development of skills will outlast the wins.”

Kids have fun doing things they are good at. Should our mission be to help players become as good as they can be? Players develop at different rates and ages. For these reasons, I believe that development of skills (not game outcomes) should be the priority at all levels of youth hockey.

Don Lucia, head coach at the University of Minnesota, noted in a speech to a Minnesota Hockey gathering that his team spends more time on skill development and small games than most youth programs.

I can think of several examples where players have not made the jump into select or elite programs until they were well into their teens. Further statistics indicate that less than 15 percent of our membership will end up playing Tier I or Tier II Junior hockey, or beyond.

Studies have shown that the number one reason why kids drop out of our great game is because they are not having fun.

If we could establish a style of play that coaches and administrators would accept, what would it be? Is USA Hockey membership so diverse that having a national philosophy of play is unreasonable?

When kids enter into USA Hockey should they be schooled under a national philosophy of development like several of the leading European nations? As they move from one level or age classification to another, should there be some level of consistency?

Coaches and associations have the resources to teach and emphasize skill development. Do we need to develop a better framework for the utilization of these resources?

When the USA Hockey board of directors reviews and votes on rule changes and policies that impact the game, should it have a policy of national skill development on which to base its decisions?

USA Hockey’s Youth Council and the Player Development Committee have had discussions regarding the preparation of model program templates. But what is a model program? Is it one that retains the greatest number of players, or one that develops world class players? Can it be both?

Perhaps the way we are currently developing players is as good as it gets. On the other hand, could we or should we do a better job emphasizing skill development, creativity and offense? What role should the leadership of USA Hockey play in developing a national style of play or philosophy of player development?

I believe if we de-emphasize games and winning at the youth level, and emphasize skill development, players would have more fun. Drop out rates would decrease and the game would grow. Perhaps if travel was reduced and we put multiple teams on practice ice, a side benefit would be that cost per player would go down and the game would be more affordable.

While I don’t have the answers, I do think we need meaningful discussions about the “USA Hockey Way,” emphasizing speed, athleticism, and heart. We should also emphasize a puck possession game when developing youth players.

In a recent presentation, Tim Taylor, former head coach at Yale University, stated, “To be an effective puck possession team, ALL players must improve puckhandling, passing and receiving skills.”

Many of USA Hockey’s recent decisions revolve around the emphasis on and the development of skills, including the new playing rules standard of enforcement, the blue puck, immediate offsides, 8 & Under cross-ice program, Small Games Handbook and USA Hockey Skills & Drills DVD.

USA Hockey’s Coaching Education Program will continue to emphasize skill development at each level of a coach’s certification.

We are trying to do the right thing for our players, coaches and the growth of the game. The first step is to continue this dialogue and then act accordingly.

Al Bloomer is USA Hockey’s National coach-in-chief.