A "Wildcat" NHL
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 9:01 AM EDT
Email
PrintOkay, so it's not completely revolutionary, but I'm going to throw this out there and if you don't like it just throw it right on back. In general, I tend to think of hockey as a "free flow" sport, with a flexible sense of position and continual action. While more punctuated than soccer, there's still a feeling that we could go an entire game without a whistle.
Which makes it all the more interesting that the NHL, compared to professional soccer, has had such a rigid sense of position...
We've all seen it, been invigorated by it - Sergei Fedorov taking up a spot on the blue line, at first on the power-play but then as a sort of "flex" player in his latter years. The sense was that here was a guy so good, so fast that he could play both positions, so why not? In more recent years, it became a virtual gimmick, reserved for the power-play almost exclusively, with Dustin Byfuglien being a sort of bizarro-Fedorov exception.
What if we lost the "gimmick" label, and experimented with a 1-2-1-1 in the offensive zone? I'm talking about four forwards, one defensive defenseman. It would look like this:
The boxes are very rough markers of position. Essentially, your higher forwards are your two-way forwards, offensive defensemen, and "energy players" collapsed into one position, capable of taking a "midfield" role on the ice. They are given a spot very close to the high slot, thus putting two shooters near a high-percentage shooting position. They are also in a good place to disrupt breakouts, positioned between the wing on the boards and a streaking center, or a carrying center and a streaking winger (lot of streaking goin' on 'round here). Of course, each one of these positions isn't rigid; over the course of play, some could switch spots on the ice. By keeping one defenseman back in a virtual "sweeper" or football "safety" position, you have a player asked to not commit to plays at the blue line along the boards, an area where defensemen often get caught too far forward just for the sake of holding the line.
Having one defenseman takes away the awkward nature of the "one offensive defenseman - one defensive defenseman" formation, which inevitably causes a defenseman to move significantly out of their area of the ice to cover should things go awry.
Interestingly, on some occasions you'll actually see players naturally shift into this formation during the course of play. Almost on a reflex, though, the defenseman who has pushed forward will "right" him/herself to maintain the two on the blue line.
In the defensive zone:
You'll basically have a fluid, passive box with the defensive defenseman holding the front of the net. The key for the entire group is pushing out from the center of the ice, keeping shots to the periphery. The defenseman would be focused on the player most likely to hold position in the center, the opposing forward in the slot.
Similar variations of this formation have been suggested, and the rumor is that Guy Boucher's system in Tampa Bay is not far off the mark either. But those variations have always held an offensive defenseman as the player pushing up which, instead of maintaining one central defender, twists a box that needs to right itself at some point before the defensive zone. What I'm proposing is changing the way we think of positions, instituting a central defender, wings that are viewed as virtual midfielders, and two centers, one playmaking in the low areas of the offensive zone, another bigger, slot-controlling. With the relatively recent expansion of the offensive/defensive zones, I think this has become more feasible.
How would this change what we think of as "lines?" I could see three forward lines of four players, none distinctly different from the other talent-wise (if applicable, sorry bottom-tier teams), because I'm describing distinct roles across the lines rather than lines specifically defined as "shut-down." You'd have four, maybe five defensemen, with your reserve players available as a break for one or more of the wings.
For a game that is as flexible as hockey, it is somewhat surprising that we haven't strayed far from a "four forward lines, three defense pairings" format. That being said, I don't think positions have as sacred of a realm in the sport as does, say, fighting, or playing without facemasks, or many of the other "traditions" that stoke backlash if threatened. In a league that has been recently dominated by defensive systems, maybe it's time to experiment a little.
I should be a freakin' coach. Okay, now I just sound like a drunk fan.
P.S. There's a great set of questions and critiques below in the comments if you want to get into thinking about this formation a bit more. I also have a few comments about some of its finer functions.
50 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m not old enough to remember, but I seem to recall reading about Toronto using Bud Poile as a rover back in the day.
The “rover” is an interesting position, a holdover from a much earlier time when they had more players on the ice. When I think of the rover, I think of a player with almost no position, kind of like an extra attacker. That could work if the player a.) had a lot of energy, and b.) could play both sides of the puck.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
i often think about this topic when i’m bored at work. i like your suggestion, although i think it introduces some logistical difficulties for coaches, and would certainly require a lot of work on the part of the players to break old habits.
nevertheless, i think there is a potential here for some enterprising coach to introduce a radical new system. a 1-1-2, as you propose, seems logical enough. i, personally, have been thinking about just switching it up to 3-2 (3 defencemen, 2 forwards). but basically, in the offensive zone at least, this would blend into your suggestion and would require two quite mobile defencemen anyhow.
cool idea. you should be a coach.
I was thinking about the 3-2 also, and I think I moved towards having the one D in part because of existing personnel. I’ve never been too impressed with the idea of having four forward lines, and offensive defensemen seem to do almost as much harm as good. If nothing else, it’s just fun to bat these ideas around.
Completely agreed on the “breaking old habits.” You would have to instill a different breakout pattern, especially.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Your offensive zone diagram is essentially the Gretzky Oilers with Coffey on the ice.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
This makes me think a bit about a few things…what brings down the Oilers’ use of a formation like this? You could certainly suggest personnel, as Coffey leaves and they simply never have as dynamic an offensive defenseman ever again. Compound that with losing an ideal playmaker for behind the net (Gretzky), and it only gets worse. It would be interesting to see the Coffey/Gretzky Oilers against a “trap” team from the late 1990s.
Also, Coffey would be perfect for this kind of system as a wing, and could definitely have eclipsed 50 goals. But he also wouldn’t really qualify for the Norris. The way the awards would play out would definitely be interesting.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
“It would be interesting to see the Coffey/Gretzky Oilers against a "trap" team from the late 1990s.”
I’m not sure if that would be relevant if you’re just referring to your diagram. You’re illustrating an offensive zone set-up when the trap has nothing to do with that, but it’s meant to prevent the zone penetration.
by Corey Pronman on Oct 26, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, it was more just a tangential thought brought about by Derek, not meant to be related to my diagram. Sorry about that.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
You would need some skilled dmen in order to execute this, however when you limit yourself to just 3 maybe 4 dmen on a team, your resources can be allocated more so to the position than beforehand.
I say this because the defender is going to have to be fast and skilled to cover all ends of the ice on one side, and be able to get back when the flow goes the other way. He also has to be physically gifted to clear the net and keep out high % shots.
You would also need one hell of a forward playing behind the net (no pun), because that’s a lot of ground to cover and an area where a forward can get erased quite easily. Just saw Derek post something about Gretzky and while maybe not that extreme, it would have to be a hell of a player.
In essence, you would need a very particular roster to execute this, but I personally am in favor of adjusting your coaching strategy to your roster, and not the other way around.
I’m a little conflicted on whether the guy behind the net would need to be a speedy playmaker or a combination speed/physical player (for the board plays). I do think that this system can be flexible to accommodate previous positions a player has held, but it would take a devoted period of study and practice.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well in terms of behind the net, there’s a few question marks.
Firstly, are we working on a rotation or firm positioning? If the puck ends up in a corner and the forward behind the net gets it, does the off-wing forward rotate down low? Is the rotation full-circle for all positions? How conservative or aggressive do you want your off-side winger to be? Does he retreat at the first sense of danger or does he stand his ground? On the back-check who covers F1, F2 and F3 from the opposition?
Any new strategy requires a lot of this kind of questioning so not dissing it, just need to get a lot of the details figured out.
by Corey Pronman on Oct 26, 2010 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
These are good questions that I’ve been thinking about quite a bit. I’ll just answer them one after the other:
1. The forwards will rotate if a carry or major activity takes one forward to a different position on the ice. In general, the most rotation would be between your behind-the-net center and your wings (similar to the “cycle” pattern you see now).
2. The off-wing forward in that situation should rarely rotate low, as it removes a potential (though risky) passing lane. The player in front of the net or the wing up the boards would be the ideal passing targets, or the center can try to carry it.
3. In general, the rotation should be left for the behind-the-net center and the wings. I’m not going to say the defenseman or slot center would never move from their positions, but they shouldn’t seek to engage too much of the activity along the boards that might trap them away from the play.
4. Off-side wingers should be conservative…as I mentioned before, by getting too low they’d actually be collapsing their passing lane into the slot center and the traffic in front. Also, they will be pivotal if there’s a transition and there needs to be a backcheck.
5. The defenseman will shift to F1, but try to hold center as the off-wing backchecks to F2. Puckside wing or slot center (whomever is closest) will take F3, as the two can change position in the defensive zone rather easily.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
1. I would need to see a draw-up on this. Point was in your diagram you have one F covering the entire area under the goal line. This would not constitute taking a player to a different position per your diagram.
2. What is this forward’s role then? He’s not likely getting passes (since its considered risky), he’s not supporting down low, and he’s going to be a partial liability on the back-check due to starting several feet up.
5. This is likely the most pressing issue, because while if executed properly the defending team will be more conservative, I find it very unlikely under a normal attack scheme for the opposition, that a player starting from the slot or a winger in deep can properly check an incoming F3.
by Corey Pronman on Oct 27, 2010 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
The defenseman will shift to F1, but try to hold center as the off-wing backchecks to F2. Puckside wing or slot center (whomever is closest) will take F3, as the two can change position in the defensive zone rather easily.
Bolded for my emphasis.
I’m not sure who is F1, F2, and F3. However, it is not the case that players can switch positions rather easily. Your “center” guy could switch quite easily and effectively with one forward, but not so much with the other. Similarly for the defencemen – he could switch quite easily with one forward, but not the other.
This hints at my biggest concern with this formation – the assumption of interchangeability. In a standard 2-3 formation, only one player ever really needs to switch from side-to-side (the center) and seldom do people have to switch from forward to D. In this formation, there are three guys that are switching from side to side and 2 guys that seem to switch from forward to D roles in the defensive zone. That’s a lot of flexibility required from your players. How many teams have one forward they feel comfortable playing the back-end on a power play, let alone two for every shift?
For the switching sides thing … in the 70s, guys like Espo could switch between their forehand and backhand with and without the puck with few problems. That’s not the case anymore with curved sticks and the emphasis from youth on forehand shots / passes. As such, being on your off-hand is not nearly as effective. That’s why most teams that adopt something like your formation do more of a 1-3-1 with a D hopping up on the side. The formation is not symmetrical as you imply, but more of a rotation.
For the guys switching with the D on the back-end, that part has me really concerned. With you wanting your D to stay stationary in front of the night, it indicates that you also have concerns with people able to play the back-end. I don’t consider that an effective way to handle someone coming out of the corner and also doesn’t capture how you defend against a rush up the ice.
Esposito didn’t have a curved stick?
I don’t think you interpret today’s game correctly if you think that centers are the only players that switch from one side to the other, or that forwards don’t rotate to a defenseman position.
I really need to be treated like a five-year old when it comes to your last paragraph. You say “effective” like you think that aggressive defense is the only way to play.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 27, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Esposito didn’t have a curved stick?
So it was the summit series that I specifically had in mind.
If you watch the series, you’ll notice that a lot of the time on offense that he stick handles as a lefty, but then, as he gets forced towards the boards, he’ll switch hands and stick handle as a lefty using the off-hand to guide the puck. I’ve got the summit series on DVD, so can’t post an image, but it’s something I always remember from watching it. First time it happens is a few minutes in to the first game, so if you find have the DVDs, you’ll see it pretty quickly.
I don’t think you interpret today’s game correctly if you think that centers are the only players that switch from one side to the other, or that forwards don’t rotate to a defenseman position.
I believe you’re overinterpreting how often this actually happens.
For some demonstration that teams are uncomfortable switching forwards back … How many teams have one forward they feel comfortable playing the back-end on a power play, let alone two for every shift? When you state that it’s important for your D to just stay in front of the net in your own end, even you are stating that forwards are not as effective at playing defensive positions.
If you watch the series, you’ll notice that a lot of the time on offense that he stick handles as a lefty, but then, as he gets forced towards the boards, he’ll switch hands and stick handle as a lefty using the off-hand to guide the puck.
I’m sorry. he starts as a lefty and then switches to righty.
Give me the quote where I say forwards are not as effective at playing defensive positions. I don’t remember that one.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 27, 2010 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions
My quote … For the guys switching with the D on the back-end, that part has me really concerned. With you wanting your D to stay stationary in front of the night, it indicates that you also have concerns with people able to play the back-end. I don’t consider that an effective way to handle someone coming out of the corner and also doesn’t capture how you defend against a rush up the ice.
Your response …
You say "effective" like you think that aggressive defense is the only way to play.
Picking up a man as he drives to the net from the corner is not playing aggressive D.
Situation … puck is in your end their forward beats your back winger out of the corner and comes towards the net. I believe you stated below that you wanted your D to stay ultra-conservative and in the center of the ice in this situation and not commit. As such, you’re giving the forward with the puck a free ride to the front of the net.
I admit, I may be getting just as confused about your statements as you are on mine as it’s very difficult to follow who is where (it’s hard enough for me to write it, so I can’t imagine how difficult it is for others to follow).
What you are calling “picking up a man” is called man-to-man defense, which is a more aggressive form of defense.
I believe you stated below that you wanted your D to stay ultra-conservative and in the center of the ice in this situation and not commit. As such, you’re giving the forward with the puck a free ride to the front of the net.
Aren’t those contradictory statements? It sounds like you’re saying that a player gets a free ride to the front of the net right after noting that that is where the D would be located.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 27, 2010 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions
1. It has a lot to do with position of the puck. As the play moves to one side, the player below the goal line moves with it. Think of the entire diagram as a grouping of players that shift from side-to-side with the puck. If that forward starts to chase a puck along the boards out of the corner, the wing will rotate to become the player behind the net.
2. It doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be a passing target at all; in fact, just being a potential target either draws coverage or provides a one-time opportunity. Read #4 for more clarification on his/her defensive responsibility. They aren’t going to be so low that they can’t backcheck effectively.
3. Remember, F3 would very likely be the same forward with which that third forechecker was initially engaged.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 27, 2010 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Further spitballing
Being a Canucks fan who’s watched Dustin Byfuglien terrorize Roberto Luongo two years running (they talk about a player getting “in the head” of another player—I think Buff is in Canucks fans’ heads more than he ever will be Luongo’s), I’ve become mildly obsessed with the area just in front of the net. I’ve been thinking that, theoretically, the skills needed to play defense in front of the net, and the skills needed to play forward/offence in front of the net, are largely similar: a general awareness of where the play is, and where you should position yourself to cause the most ruckus; the strength/balance/tenacity/leverage/what-have-you to beat your opponent for that space; and the quickness to get rebounds.
Since that combo represents a fairly rare skillset throughout the league, I’ve been wondering if it wouldn’t make sense for teams to try and land, say, three players that could do it at both ends of the rink; basically a “designated front-of-net guy” for each line, regardless of zone. I think some teams already sort of do this—I’m pretty sure Boston will occassionally put Chara in front of the opp. net on the PP, and Byfuglien came up as a Dman before the Hawks realized that holyfuckhe’shuge.
You know, I’ve seen that too. The front of the net is an interesting place, and there always seems to be a few guys who know how to use it to their advantage. For the front of the net player in the offensive zone, I actually envision a Byfuglien-type, even though Byfuglien is just as valuable for his big slapshot as anything else.
The center has traditionally been important to the slot areas, but more recently the bigger wings have taken than responsibility.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
You know, I’ve seen that too. The front of the net is an interesting place, and there always seems to be a few guys who know how to use it to their advantage. For the front of the net player in the offensive zone, I actually envision a Byfuglien-type, even though Byfuglien is just as valuable for his big slapshot as anything else.
The center has traditionally been important to the slot areas, but more recently the bigger wings have taken than responsibility.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 2:40 PM EDT reply actions
*stop double posting, jerk
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
The Blackhawks actually morph into a version of your o-zone setup fairly frequently
It’s made possible because Duncan Keith is such a dynamic defenseman and Brent Seabrook is solid in his own zone. The Hawks like to send a forward to the net and plant him there (a la Byfuglien), then let the others shoot around him. Often Kane or Toews (who, in the 2-2-1, are down on the half-boards when the first line is on the ice) will hop in behind the net and Keith will drift down toward the circle to cover the spot of whichever one is presently occupied behind the goalie. Seabrook then shifts toward the middle of the rink, much as though he was playing the PP point, and covers keeping the puck in the zone and watching for potential breakaways.
The system works, but only if your forwards are preached defense from day one of training camp (because odd-man rushes in the other direction can happen very quickly, so you need a solid backcheck), and the offensive d-man who essentially functions as the fourth forward is both fast and hockey smart. The Hawks go there occasionally when Keith and Seabrook are on the ice, but there aren’t many D-pairings like that in the league.
As for your musings in comments about whether a speedster or combination physical/fast player is better behind the net, both can work. Kane is the Hawks’ speedster, and when they try this formation you’ll see him carrying the puck from behind the net out to just outside the post and stuffing it, but it requires the ability to deke the pants off the opposing team’s defense. Toews is more the combo player who battles along the boards, and he’s more likely to head from behind the net towards one of the corners, than toss it to the guy who’s been planted in front of the goalie.
by spokeinthebandwagon on Oct 26, 2010 7:01 PM EDT reply actions
Tell you what, if you ever doubt a defenseman can dominate in today’s NHL, just watch Keith operate from the high slot. It’s a thing of beauty.
I will definitely be trying to catch some Blackhawks games in the near future.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 26, 2010 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Sort of the opposite of the left-wing lock
The unbalanced positioning seems to make it very easy for the opponents to put you in bad positions and dictate things to their advantage.
For instance, on a rush, if it’s not an odd-man rush, then dump it in to the corner of the traditional defenceman. You now have someone covering the front of the net who likely isn’t as skilled in this area.
Similarly, and what made me think of the left wing lock, but the other team has a pretty easy way to get the puck out of their own end – on half the ice, your D is on his offside. The left wing lock was so effective because it was designed to create these type of situations (opposing center against the boards on his off-hand, specifically) – this just makes it easier for your opponent to do that to you. Especially when you’ve got one forward skating back and forth behind the net – anything come up your right wing in the offensive zone is likely to have three opponents on their forehand (left wing, center, and left D), with your D on his backhand (left shot against the right boards), and a forehand winger with minimal support (the back of the net guy and the front of the net guy are way out of the zone).
I can see a fluid 1-3-1 working, but you need 3 forwards and 2 D to make it work in your own end and the positioning in each end would look a lot different.
Admittedly, the defensive end still has me stumped; I worked outward from the offensive zone. I still think the offensive zone works…you would only see a left D, left wing, and center converging on one player if you were running a collapse defense. The player behind the net is a safety valve for the winger dumping it off the glass or along the boards, and if three players are caught collapsing on the wing it basically leaves the opposite side of the ice for the taking. Now, if you were seeing left D + left wing pressure, and the center occupying the D, you still have the dump scenario. If the D decides to cheat over to cut off the pass up the boards, you float one on net, or even consider beating the wing.
The key for that defenseman is to maintain the center, rarely if ever committing, and in general not being the focal point in the offensive zone. While the off-wing would be conservative, the defenseman is ultra-conservative, preferring to leave close plays at the blue line to backchecking wingers. You have a really good point on the one-on-one situation, where the forward dumps to the corner. My inclination is to say hold center and wait for support (as outrageous as that sounds) because I don’t really think a one-on-one coming out from the corner is particularly advantageous as the backchecker will have had time to catch up. The defensive zone should be focused center-out constantly. I think my diagram spread the players out more than I really think they should be.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 27, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Damnit … responded to half your post in the wrong spot. Sorry about that.
You have a really good point on the one-on-one situation, where the forward dumps to the corner.
I was actually thinking two-on-two type of situations. Dump the puck in the corner of the traditional defencemen. If you have him staying in the middle of the net, you’ve now got two guys there guarding one forward. They’ve now got you outmanned 4-3 around the rest of the ice and passing lanes should really open up. It’s great to clog the front of the net, but you’ve just given them power play type of positioning / freedom around your offensive zone.
I don’t really think a one-on-one coming out from the corner is particularly advantageous as the backchecker will have had time to catch up.
Just trying to walk through this … 2-on-2 is probably one of the most standard ways that teams come down the ice. Your formation has a D and a F back. They either take advantage of the F not being as comfortable defending in this situation or dump it in on the side of the ice your D is on. You now have your F trying to cut through the D (i.e. pick your own player) or have to switch up players that cover the opposing forward. Similarly, once the guy gets the puck in the corner, you want him to walk out unchecked.
I’m not really seeing your first part, but the second is clearer. When a player dumps the puck, they are essentially slowing their play down. If they dump it to the D side, the D holds and the F leaves his man and moves to the puck, which will have to be picked up and turned around. The forward he was covering will either move to the net, hold position high (where the passing lane is blocked by the first backchecking forward), move behind the net on the opposite side (a good pass to make, but will then give time for the remaining forwards to return), or swing up high along the boards where a riskier pass would have to be made.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 27, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
If they dump it to the D side, the D holds and the F leaves his man and moves to the puck, which will have to be picked up and turned around.
So they likely get possession. Your guy closest to the puck abandons it and their closest guy goes for it with momentum (skating forward versus turning). They likely win the race.
The forward he was covering will either move to the net
So the offensive team gets possession (above).
The other offensive player drives to the net (as you state)
The defensive player covering the guy driving to the net leaves his man (as you state).
That does not sound like a good way to cover 2 on 2s.
The minute the player dumps the puck they are eliminating the 2 on 2, though. They are also allowing time for the remaining players to get back. It takes time to retrieve a puck that’s been dumped into the corner.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 27, 2010 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I still think the offensive zone works…you would only see a left D, left wing, and center converging on one player if you were running a collapse defense.
It’s not the converging on one player, it’s battling for possession along the zone.
If there is a scrum, your first man of support on the left-hand side is either a defencemen on his backhand or a forward who is way away from the action because he is behind the net. For the other team, they’ll have three people, likely on their forehand, in the area. Think about it – if there is a scrum between your right and their left D at the half board. Somebody chips the puck towards the blueline – now you’ve got your off-hand D and their left winger in a battle. Advantage to their forward.
Conversely, somebody chips the puck towards the corner. Now they’ve got a floating C likely between your deep forward and the puck if they poke it back. Both cases, your guy on the half board, in a scrum, has no where to go.
I think the “off-hand D” issue is exaggerated in this case, because the offense doesn’t rely on the D playing a large role in puck movement.
I’m having trouble seeing three defensive players being involved in a play on the puck without converging. Usually, battles for possession might involve one or two defensive players and perhaps one in support. In times of crisis the play is always to try and send it behind the net, but the high defensemen could be a safety valve if the center has pulled over. In general, the defenseman might have a position in the center but will float a bit to either side as play dictates.
I’m not seeing a “floating center” in support like you describe; I’m thinking that guy’s usually a D that far deep.
I’m thinking of those two high forwards as less of a group of muckers and more of a possession, containing pair just above the high slot.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 27, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
’m having trouble seeing three defensive players being involved in a play on the puck without converging.
I apologize if my explanation was confusing.
Here is the situation: The puck is on the boards. You have your halfboard guy against one of theirs.
Stage 2: Two potential outcomes generally. The puck gets chipped forwards or backwards. One additional player gets involved in the battle as a result. However, it can be one of two different support players.
Option 1: The puck can get chipped deeper in the end: your winger and their floating C (I have their D battling your half board forward).
Option 2: The puck gets chipped towards the blue line: your D and their winger.
Three different players from each team can get involved in this, but they’re not all involved at once.
I think the "off-hand D" issue is exaggerated in this case, because the offense doesn’t rely on the D playing a large role in puck movement.
It’s not puck movement that’s the issue – it’s battling for puck possession that’s the concern.
I’m not seeing a "floating center" in support like you describe; I’m thinking that guy’s usually a D that far deep.
Depends on who is tying up the guy on the half wall. I had their D battling for the puck with your half-wall forward. Their winger is just in front and the C is floating back. You could swap players quite likely depending on how the play developed.
I’m thinking of those two high forwards as less of a group of muckers and more of a possession, containing pair just above the high slot.
How do you actually get possession in this formation? The high forwards don’t muck things up. The D doesn’t get involved. One guy is parked in front of the net. Is the forward behind the net supposed to be the main guy in every free puck battle?
I’ll just handle it in sections…
1. What happens to the opposing wing on option 1? I’m thinking the puck-side wing handles puck-side wing, “floating center” watches the defenseman or clogs the passing lane to the opposite wing. I think what you’re saying is their wing would park behind my wing, but that would put him out of defensive position. For option 2, their winger re-emerges, but I’m not sure where he/she came from. Did he/she drive right past my winger, was hiding back there all along, or were they an off-wing that came across the ice?
2. The D should not be battling for puck possession along the boards. They actually play even more conservatively than current defensemen, and hold center as much as possible.
3. I see the play you have in mind, and I’m still thinking the wing tries to put it high off the glass towards the player behind the net. The D should be wary at this point, not jumping in unless they have a clear opportunity to swat the puck down deep or even control it and float one at net (even a soft backhander goes a long way).
4. The forward behind the net is the focal point. Play heads his/her way more often than not, and if 3 players commit to a wing they are either going to leave the guy behind the net open, the guy up front (not likely), or the off-wing.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 27, 2010 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions
A lot of this sounds like a good argument from Bourque, but for me I need to see some of this on a whiteboard because I’m having trouble visualizing this. Maybe it’s just because I’m a visual learner.
I agree on both counts.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 27, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t this similar to the ‘Torpedo’ system used in Europe in the past? In essence, like the suggestion here, there is a strictly defensive player, two two-way players and two forwards.
Similar, though the front-most forwards in mine have roles on a front-of-the-net/behind-the-net axis rather than left-side/right-side. I’m also employing less double entendre.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 28, 2010 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions
I did LOL with that comment.
I’m not trying to poke holes in your argument, but isn’t left/right vs front/back just nomenclature? L wingers end up in the right corner and centers end up behind the net today.
Regardless, I certainly think there could be a lot done with advancing strategies in hockey. In soccer, the chosen formations have changed dramatically and may even be returning to a system similar that found in the earliest days of the game.
That’s a good point, and I think whenever you have a “system” in hockey you always allow that the course of play will pull players into different areas of the ice you may not have intended. It’s more about where you’d like them to gravitate.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 29, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
As a Flames fan this setup looks promising yet terrifying. I can just imagine dozens of odd-man rushes being given up if the wrong guys are being used.
^ what he said
I posted something a long time ago similar to this and figured out, after reading the comments, the Canucks would inevitably be screwed but it would make for great entertainment.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Oct 29, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
It builds a conundrum, the more I think about it. Enough good players make new systems work, but the same team would probably perform well enough to have little incentive to change the existing approach. A team that has done poorly, with fewer good players, would have the incentive to try a new approach but perhaps not enough personnel. Any team that would try a new system should probably have had an influx of what they perceive as good players (maybe even just the “right” players for the new system) to give it a chance at working. I think I just described the last five years of Tampa Bay Lightning hockey.
I try to take the shakiness out by putting in place fewer “moving parts.” That D is the most conservative D you can imagine, almost completely refusing to leave the center of the ice alone. In the offensive zone, the center in front of the net should not be moving much of anywhere, either. What looks like removing defensemen is actually a kind of childish math, splitting defensive responsibility among two “midfielding” wings. The wings are the best two-way players on the ice. Christian Ehrhoff would be a wing, as would Daniel Sedin, Raymond, and Edler. Guys like Alberts and probably Ballard on D, Kesler (can’t afford to lose his faceoff ability) and Henrik Sedin as behind-the-net playmakers, maybe Malhotra, Burrows as front-of-the-net centers.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 29, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
this is the most brilliant thing ever
i’ve long been frustrated with how rigidly standardized hockey roles and positions are, given the obvious fluidity of the game itself. i think the standardization is a response to the fluidity, though, in that it takes a lot of discipline (not in the sense of self-control, but in the sense of repeated practice of particular habits) to overcome basic human instincts and turn them into good hockey instincts. the current structure is drilled into players from a young age as the framework for figuring out what you should and shouldn’t do. there’s probably players all over the nhl capable of playing as well or even better in a role that doesn’t exist in the current system, but the number of guys who could adapt as adults to this kind of totally new structure… might not be very many. i feel like it would break down a lot under pressure, as guys revert to the instincts they came up with.
it’d take a coach with some serious vision, a strong commitment to retraining, and some very smart players to do it well.
Very smart, and very willing players. I definitely think the whole thing would be compromised if a player didn’t like their role within it.
Thanks for the high praise…at first I thought you might just be drunker than I (given the day and time of the comment, in addition to the enthusiasm), but then you followed it with a coherent comment. Rock on.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Oct 30, 2010 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Arctic Ice Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
