I still believe that sport ‘anticipation’ is a huge determinant of success. Some don’t like Hockey IQ as a term to define that, but some have it -Taz(Stanky) has it big time. And some don’t -Guri never had it, indecision ruled his game.
The players on the ice are like a flock of birds, or a school of fish. Mostly reacting and changing directions at about the same pace, the average. Some lag behind the flock. But the superior ‘anticipators’ get to the puck, or open areas for passes, 2 steps ahead of the flock.
Good point about small area drills teaching/improving skills, but not teaching big-ice anticipation, ‘where is the puck going to be?’
Thus speed is good… but anticipation is better!!! Finish is BEST!
We talk about hockey IQ and chemistry like they are two separate things. When you have a line or power play unit that is really working well together, they all anticipate where their teammates will be. Is that structure, chemistry, IQ, or just experience? If a league has teams that focus on structure first and skills second, it probably works to move players around in the lineup. In a fast, individual skills first league that you discuss here, does that make putting lines in a blender hoping to find chemistry a worse choice for a coach now than it might have been in the past? Just a thought. Mixing up the lines mid-game drives a lot of fans a bit crazy. I guess I am hoping there is some logic and reasoning that can support my desire to switch things up only when necessary, and maybe practice differently instead of hoping messing around with pairings will be a magical solution.
I still believe that sport ‘anticipation’ is a huge determinant of success. Some don’t like Hockey IQ as a term to define that, but some have it -Taz(Stanky) has it big time. And some don’t -Guri never had it, indecision ruled his game.
The players on the ice are like a flock of birds, or a school of fish. Mostly reacting and changing directions at about the same pace, the average. Some lag behind the flock. But the superior ‘anticipators’ get to the puck, or open areas for passes, 2 steps ahead of the flock.
Good point about small area drills teaching/improving skills, but not teaching big-ice anticipation, ‘where is the puck going to be?’
Thus speed is good… but anticipation is better!!! Finish is BEST!
We talk about hockey IQ and chemistry like they are two separate things. When you have a line or power play unit that is really working well together, they all anticipate where their teammates will be. Is that structure, chemistry, IQ, or just experience? If a league has teams that focus on structure first and skills second, it probably works to move players around in the lineup. In a fast, individual skills first league that you discuss here, does that make putting lines in a blender hoping to find chemistry a worse choice for a coach now than it might have been in the past? Just a thought. Mixing up the lines mid-game drives a lot of fans a bit crazy. I guess I am hoping there is some logic and reasoning that can support my desire to switch things up only when necessary, and maybe practice differently instead of hoping messing around with pairings will be a magical solution.
these are great points, and something I'd like to bring up with some other coaches on the blender vs non blender approach.
And with the hockey IQ and chemistry, I feel like it's probably closer to a Venn diagram of cross over.