Reply To: Diary of a Season 2011-2012: The Plan

[Robert Mattson]

What is the age of mites?

1) I find your comment about "I would prefer the luxury of picking the team in September, but that is the nature of our organization" interesting. In Calgary, we pick our hockey teams at the end of summer (start tryouts maybe late in August to mid-September) with the elite teams (obviously) finishing their selections first (choose the best first and then the trickle-down effect happens) by late September; but all teams are done by early October. My friend Anthony in Hamilton ON coaches rep or AA / AAA and they choose their teams in May I believe – then they train throughout the summer and start playing exhibition games in September. From my perspective (late choosing teams), it would be neat to try the early way; and for you, it would probably be neat to try it later. Then compare notes to see which is the best way. I am sure there are pros and cons to each. Not sure which is best without experiencing both – and it would be different depending upon the age of the athletes (where they are on the LTAD spectrum).

An early start gives you more time to learn your players personalities / strengths / weaknesses – build team chemistry and gives you a longer time to practice / develop. A later start time allows for individual growth spurts and maturity changes – perhaps this would change the outcome of the team selection process (early vs. late maturers?)

2) I imagine you are using a subjective / anecdotal analysis regarding your determination of who improved more at skating (and which 'elements' of skating are you talking about)? In this case, you are saying the gap is widening between the best and the not so good's… Do you run a battery of timed tests at the start to establish a baseline; then mid-way through the season; then at the end to definitively back this up? (If you don't perhaps consider it this year to see what the results are. Prior to going in, rank your kids from top to bottom – best skater to weakest skater – then run the baseline, midpoint and final tests, then see how the scores compare to your earliest impressions. If you want some ideas / protocol for tests, ask me and I can help you.)

Not saying it doesn't happen or isn't happening; maybe your perception is misleading you? Or maybe the better skaters see they are more successful, so their motivation and self-confidence is greater – leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy? (Could the opposite could be said of the not so good's?) I don't know… you would know best. Just looking for clarification.

The reason I am curious about your statement is because of something called the 'Ceiling Effect' which says that the more proficient one gets, the tougher it is to make progress or the longer it takes to make that progress (experience more plateau's) as we have a 'Ceiling' where we can't ultimately can't get any better / faster / stronger (or it is pretty imperceptible – physiological limitations.) Those who are really bad, stand to have more room to improve, so if they practice the same amount with the same intensity as the better players, they should improve 'more' over the same time period.

3) I like your philosophy on player selection. Prioritize a couple of things you feel are key to 'playing the style' of hockey you believe will lead to success.

How will you evaluate (a) skating ability and (b) individual performance in small area games… and thereby rank players? Curious to hear your thoughts on evaluation. I have been working on this idea for years and would love to hear your insights! Do tell…!!

Remember my mantra: "Execute skills – with the head / eyes up (peripheral vision) – at game speed (use overspeed to go beyond failure so one breaks through their comfort zone) – under pressure (time / score / checking, etc… reward the winners and hold the losers accountable to ensure healthy competition) – consistently (no difference in outlook or performance from practice to games. Compete everywhere, all the time.)"

4) Haven't looked for the checklists. I moved last May and I still have 20 banker's boxes of binders to unpack (actually, I will probably recycle them), but even if I found them, I would have to scan them. My wife has been on my ass to get this done; I must admit, it ain't even on ANY of my numerous lists at this point. Perhaps Tom has a copy that is more readily at hand? (Not to say I won't EVENTUALLY get around to it, but I am swamped right now with 'real life' stuff!!!! If I do, you will be the second to know – my wife will be the first as a guy can always use Brownie Points!)

Thanks for the reply and comments. Mites are 7-8 y.o.'s (the same as Canadian novice), which is a important piece of context that I left out of my post.

1. Given the young age and other interests/sports, we do not begin training until the third week of August. (This season, I plan to throw in some off ice training sessions including some floorball and some simple routines for practicing stickhandling and shooting on their own.) So, in general the advantage of picking early, in my opinion, is lost to some extent on kids this young. It would be interesting though to try each, though, as you point out, to experience the pros-cons of both. I suspect that the kids would attend more camps and spend more time shooting pucks in the garage over the summer if the tryouts were later. Also, there is the maturing factor that you point out.

2. That's very perceptive — Yes, I am relying on subjective / anecdotal analysis, and I had already planned to test whether my perceptions had any basis in fact by getting a baseline at tryouts, testing again during team photo day, and again at the end of the season. Basically, there were certain skills that some of the players just couldn't perform, like a two-foot hockey stops on both sides, pivoting from forward to backwards both directions, or skating backwards proficiently. Subjectively speaking, the most agile players at the beginning of the season seemed to improve the most throughout. I don't think the ceiling effect came into play because I think all of them still have a massive capacity for improvement. I think the better athletes/skaters were more comfortable and willing to push themselves to the edge of the envelope and beyond in practice, whereas the lesser skaters were more tentative, perhaps worried about their peers and parents seeing them fall. Also, note that I qualified my statement with skaters that already had a few year's experience — some of the less good's only had one year of hockey experience but still had huge gains.

As for a battery of tests, I would love to have your suggestions.

3. For the evaluations — and keep in mind that I have only coached for three years — I will basically be looking at who the puck tends to gravitate to (SAGs seem to amplify the tendency for the best players to end up with the puck) and who is able to make moves / pass the puck (no one can pass the puck well unless they have the presence of mind to look up). We did a lot of full-ice scrimmaging last year for evals, but it wasn't so helpful as no one plays their position and everyone tries to make end-to-end rushes. Any suggestions or pointers you have would be appreciated. Your mantra / the ABCs made the 2010-11 season a great success. I got a lot of complements from parents and opposing coaches how my players would settle the puck and look before they passed — something I attribute to a lot of SAGs with modified rules.

I eagerly await your advice on the battery of tests, but I was thinking along the lines of timed skate from goal line to blue line (timed), hockey stop on both sides (subjective), and cross-overs around the circles (timed).

4. No worries. At my wife's urging I finally threw away bankers boxes that had been unopened for three moves.