Kids up to about Atoms should be playing on reduced size surfaces (ie half-ice, or side-to-side instead of end-to-end).
Not even a question in my mind, and in countries like Sweden and Denmark (who IMO have the top youth development programs in the world) it's taken for granted that kids who can barely skate are just wasting their time chugging up and down a 200ft surface. Little kids are going to miss a 50ft cross-ice pass to a moving target about 90% of the time, and then waste more time chasing the errant puck down the ice. And if you're going to tell them not to make those long passes, or not to chase the puck 200ft, then you've just validated the whole point of using a smaller surface.
The kids get more puck time, and their skating improves faster with constant stopping and starting than it does by skating end to end and back.
Tighter spaces also levels the playing field, so the kids who are good can't just skate the puck wide and around everyone, and the kids who suck can at least challenge for the puck by virtue of being able to get within reach of the puck carrier.
I've also taught a lot of adults who were new to hockey how to play, and have definitely seen better results teaching them the basics on a 3vs3 sized surface.
Edited to add:
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentree
Practices yes, games no. Let 'em skate.
|
Yeah, that's fine too. Makes the games seem like more of a big deal to the kids.