I frequently strap my pads back on to play pick-up hockey and practice with the local Bantam team and Midget teams. I enjoy watching the stunned look on a cocky teenager when they realize the comparative skill inequity. Although close to 20 years have elapsed since I played for a living, it gives the youngins a glimpse of what a pro can do at the advanced age of 40.
This brings me to a pet peeve I have as it relates to typical practices at all levels. I have written many articles addressing pet peeves but this one needs to be addressed immediately: realism.
You have heard many times that you “play how you practice” and “perfect practice makes practice perfect” or something to that effect.
From Tyke to the NHL, two-on-none’s, three-on-none’s, and machine gun rapid fire breakaways must be banned permanently from the coaches’ drill database. Once in a very blue moon they could be deployed as drills in practice but not every practice. Here is a revolutionary thought. Why don’t we match the frequency of the event in the games with the frequency we spend time addressing it in practice?
Would it make sense to have a basketball teamwork on buzzer beaters from mid-court for 40 per cent of a given practice? Would it make sense for a tennis coach to spend 30 per cent of every practice on a fade away between the legs return with your back to the net?
Would it make sense for a football team to practice a quadruple handoff play for half of their practice time every week?
Recently, while tending goal at a youth practice I faced two-on-nones for about 30 minutes without a break. As a result of a combination of pride and immaturity, I battled on every puck coming close to the proverbial “ big one;” the myocardial infraction.
I’m in great shape for a 40-year-old. I have less than 10 per cent body fat, four-to-six pack abs depending on the day, and a resting heart rate that matches my age. My conditioning is not the issue, rather the realism of the drills.
What possible purpose is addressed by delivering these no-defence drills? Here are the negatives:
1) With time and space on their side, players execute unrealistic and composed attacks a goalie will never see in a game. To compensate, goalies will begin to cheat on passes and create a bad habit.
2) Without pressure, these attacking players are fine in practice but seize up in games at the hint of duress, squandering many bankable chances.
3) Using drills like these are no-brainers for coaches and keep many players active in the drills. Coaches need to be accountable by having no more than 10 per cent of practice time devoted to brainless drivel drills. It is a coaching cop out.
4) The risk for the goaltender is massively increased when they must do full repetitive, full explosion, lateral movements. Back door passes until you die drills will only risk your goaltender’s health.
By observing any hockey practice I can tell within 10 minutes whether the coach is goalie friendly or a direct relative of Eddie Shore.
Coaches please make a commitment to realism and design your drills proportionally to mirror the situations faced in the game with proper time and space pressures.
|