Let me pose a question.
Dean posted how an American Football coach uses stats to justify never kicking off or punting because to go for the first down or the short kick is better percentage ball than giving the other team the ball a few yards farther down the field.
The Finnish study on scoring chances from various zones that Kai posted shows that you get a scoring chance about 22% of the time when you forecheck hard and cause a turn over in the offensive end. The defensive team gets a scoring chance about 5% of the time attacking from the defensive zone.
When you look at these stats what kind of forecheck do you think is most effective. Do you think that 17% rish/reward factor is worth taking advantage of.?
Some examples
1-4
1-3-1 passive
1-3-1 hard trap
2-2-1
2-1-2
2-1-2 pinch on the strong side
2-1-2 pinch on a wide rim
2-1-2 left wing lock
2-3
These are some common ones and I am sure there are many more.
I would like to read some opinions.
Tom / coaches,
Since I coach at skill academies (therefore no team!), I can't extrapolate the impact of the transition games in a team setting. But I have my suspicions... plus some experience back from when I was coaching a team!
I think that 'teaching the game through the game' philosophy using our Game Intelligence activities and Tom's ABC games are the most effective way to teach.
In my 8th year of teaching grade 7-12 in skill academies, the players really express their desire to play our Game Intelligence Training activities! Kids love to move; to compete; to play. They hate standing around, either listening to a coach talk, or do the same boring thing ad nauseum. I haven't used Tom's ABC games as much as I would like; I feel they are ideally suited if you have groups that are similar ages and skill levels - like on an age group team. In our academies, we have a very wide spread of skills and ages and levels - from immigrants first time on the ice; to learn to skate kids; to community house level; to ringette players; to girls hockey players; to division 1-9 community; to bantam AA and AAA / minor midget AAA / midget AA / midget AAA!
One of my Cochrane academies has a fairly homogenous group of midget players (depending on the semester, we average between 12 skaters / 2 goalies to 18 skaters, 3 goalies) and I have adapted some of Tom's ABC games there in the past with much success (Tom came out as a guest coach once last year). Primarily we use GIT and compete every day, keeping score throughout the semester.
My Cochrane kids have asked me to coach their midget AA team for the past several years after experiencing the 'different' methodology and the GIT! They don't 'like' their 'regular' style of coaching as much as they like my GIT approach. The teacher and principal are always commenting, "I don't know what you are doing in Sport Performance but the kids are always talking about it and looking forward to it..." to "The kids are getting to the rink 30 minutes earlier than they need to be with the hope that you will get there early too, so they can play more of your games" to "The kids are always chirping each other on the bus on the way back - celebrating who won the game today - and who 'sucked'... they sure have fun in your class!" I think that these frequent comments from the teachers and administration, along with the kids constantly asking me to coach their team, over a several year period, that there is more than a little something going on here... no?
This can also be said of all the players (and coaches) when I have given clinics. Using the 'normal, old-school boring drills way', everyone gets antsy, starts screwing around, not paying attention and very little opportunities for inspired, deliberate practice are provided. 'Coach Whisperer's' who provide a spark / ignition, need not apply... this is a 'De-training Mission!' For example, why do we ask kids to stand still and handle a puck for 2 - 5+ minutes - similar to a 'typical' hockey school / skills session? Their focus and attention span is about 10 seconds. Even the most dedicated ones can't do this. Try doing something like this yourself. Put a timer on and stick handle (or whatever) for 5 minutes. Did you do it? Did you keep perfect form? Did your mind wander? Were you bored to tears? How much of those 5 minutes do you think could be actually classified as 'deliberate practice'? Argh!
When I introduce our Game Intelligence Training and 'the game is the best teacher' (minimal talking on behalf of the coach - maximal competitive activity on behalf of the players), the players and coaches (when they participate as players) LOVE IT! It is such a positive change! I have done "old school' and GIT on players from U5 to U18. The feedback I ALWAYS receive is: "NO!" to old-school; "YES" to GIT!
Now when coaches participate at clinics as coaches, sometimes it takes time to educate them on the 'new ways' and it can be frustrating for them; particularly if they are not open minded and / or experienced. That is why I like to run my clinics with the coaches PARTICIPATING as players - FIRST in dryland and THEN on ice - AS I help educate them on the theory. This absolutely sells the methodology and the games to them! THEN I have them coach their age group kids using the same stuff they experienced (from a participant's eyes) and mentor them.
I think I am at about a 99% success rate / buy in from the coaches if I do these things first. If I do only theory (sit and take notes / classroom session) or start trying to teach them 'how to coach' this way, my positive feedback and success rate drops significantly. It might go as low as 50% or less. "I hear, I see, I do"...
Now some comments from when I was coaching...
When I took over the U of C Dinos (girls) at the end of the year, at John's prodding, we started training in the gymnasium 5 times per week for 1.5 hours and we used our Smart Transitional Games. We saw an immediate increase in competitiveness and intensity. We did a few of these on the ice the next two years (I was still a 'drill coach' at this point - starting to evolve, thanks to John!) and I really thought they prepared the players for a 'real game'. We continued to do our Smart Transitional Games in the gym three days per week right after morning practice, for 1 hour. I wish we had video footage... truly these were magical times as the players drastically improved their understanding of the game (as did I!)
As Tom will attest, we had a pretty poorly skilled team in the first two years I was there. We had inherited some absolutely excellent people, but their skill sets did not allow us to compete at the level required... so in my last (third) year, we made wholesale changes because I recruited like crazy. The rookies had better skill sets than the vets, so I think we only kept 1 skater and 1 or 2 goalies that third year. It was one of the toughest things to have to cut some people you went to battle with for the previous two years; but in the interest of improving the program, I had to 'take the harder right'. So we were really young (avg age -18) and lacked leadership depth (our returning vet, Beth, was excellent) but our performance really picked up. We closed the goal differential (for and against), competed much harder and started winning. Larry Hofmann, another fellow I coached against for those three years said we steadily improved our skill set and by the third year; he hated playing us because we always competed so damn hard... his girls weren't used to our intensity. Just shows you what these games will do (primarily off-ice in this example because I was still more of a Neanderthal coach, but if we would have used them more often on ice, I think we would have had even better results.)
If I had to do it all again, with an average-to-good group (ie: relatively open mindset) of college players, I would really embrace these activities / style of coaching full-time on and off-ice and I believe the players would seen the benefits too! At the university / pro categories, one would need to 'take the temperature in the room', identify the leadership core and make sure they understood that this approach will make them individually better; which in turn will make the team collectively better. It is up to the coach to make sure they approach it / sell it the 'right' way.
Now that I have had several years to experiment with our Game Intelligence Training and philosophy and Tom's ABC activities in the skill academy / coaching clinic / private coach mentoring settings, etc, I see how quickly and significantly they can make a positive difference.
Aside form the philosophy and activities, the aspect that makes the biggest difference is coaching experience. From this I mean that you, Tom, are personally highly experienced as an educator and specifically, with your ABC games; thus you can tailor individual activities from the book to suit your age, skill level, number of athletes, etc. on the fly. Just because someone reads your book, doesn't mean they will be able to run your activities as successfully as you... they won't have the same gut feel, eye for detail; nor the ability to know how to fine-tune them to make them work the best. This comes with experience. Same as with our Game Intelligence Training.
But I encourage coaches to try this philosophy ("let the game teach the game") and these activities; but have patience! Keep notes and challenge yourself and your other coaches. John and I are constantly learning every day, "How can we fine-tune our games?" Once we think we have one mastered, something surprises us and we tweak it. The day you stop learning is the day you need to get out of coaching and do something else!
Dean
M.Ed (Coaching)
Ch.P.C. (Chartered Professional Coach)
Game Intelligence Training
"Great education depends on great teaching."