Nine Year Old Kelowna Boy Explains Leaving Hockey Team

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Were you a better hockey player the next year because of it?

I have no problem with the last couple minutes putting your best players out, particularly if it's a selects thing, but anyone under 15 should never end up playing less than 8-10 min unless they did something to deserve that bench in game (stupid penalties, being disrespectful, whatever your teams rules are). But if you're a select team, and you have a kid you can only play that much because he's that far below the other players, you should've picked a different kid. You picked the team, you have to live with it. Don't punish the kid for it.



There's a difference between having a crappy attitude because you have to miss a few shifts for whatever reason (yeah, I don't play that kid either) and a child being sad because they're not being included. If it's a constant problem, youre not helping that kid by crushing his confidence every time he comes to the rink. And I would suspect he doesn't get much extra attention in practice either. We're talking about 9 year olds. Not 15 year olds.

Impossible to say. But the opposite question: was I a worse player the next year? is more important, and just as unanswerable.

Suggesting every kid deserves at least 8 minutes is just arbitrary, and thus pretty empty, IMO.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There's a difference between having a crappy attitude because you have to miss a few shifts for whatever reason (yeah, I don't play that kid either) and a child being sad because they're not being included. If it's a constant problem, youre not helping that kid by crushing his confidence every time he comes to the rink. And I would suspect he doesn't get much extra attention in practice either. We're talking about 9 year olds. Not 15 year olds.

Bang on.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Always Earned, Never Given surely applies here and shouldn't be age exclusive. Think of this as a life lesson for a 9 year old kid.

If you've ever been to Kelowna you would know it's 20% rich families and 80% wealthy families. I'm sure it's easy to develop a sense of entitlement being raised in such surroundings. Just having a better attitude on the bench would likely be noticed by even the nastiest of coaches.

[Murph]

You wanna know what 9 year old kids should be doing in the spring if as a nation we want to develop better hockey players? Playing soccer. The national sporting associations drove the focus towards early age, single sport athletes for a long time, and now they are starting to figure out (after lots of research) that's not the best way do develop top level athletes.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Impossible to say. But the opposite question: was I a worse player the next year? is more important, and just as unanswerable.

Suggesting every kid deserves at least 8 minutes is just arbitrary, and thus pretty empty, IMO.

Ok, then I will say equal time.


Roll the lines, next players up hit the ice.

The shortening of a bench at the atom level, is in my mind lazy coaching.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Murph

You wanna know what 9 year old kids should be doing in the spring if as a nation we want to develop better hockey players? Playing soccer. The national sporting associations drove the focus towards early age, single sport athletes for a long time, and now they are starting to figure out (after lots of research) that's not the best way do develop top level athletes.

Rugby, Lacrosse, Baseball, Basketball, BMX Riding, hell anything that requries the athlete to develop motorskills.


But, not soccer, for the love of god no.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Ok, then I will say equal time.


Roll the lines, next players up hit the ice.

The shortening of a bench at the atom level, is in my mind lazy coaching.

Based on what? Your opinion, or something substantive?

[Benched]

Everyone wants to win. I can see giving the better players a little more ice time at the end of the game if it's tight.

But at that age group....let the kids play. The first goal is love the game. Hard to love it on the bench, not being included.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Benched

Everyone wants to win. I can see giving the better players a little more ice time at the end of the game if it's tight.

But at that age group....let the kids play. The first goal is love the game. Hard to love it on the bench, not being included.

When I was young, we got all the ice-time we wanted at the outdoor, open rink. We played shinny for hours at a time, pretty much every day.

When we played for a competitive team, we accepted the ice-time that we got as earned.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Based on what? Your opinion, or something substantive?

My opinion is that at the atom level (9-10) even peewee the coach needs to ensure his players are taught how to play in different situations. If you don't play the "bottom end" players in those situations you don't have to take the time/effort to teach them how to play in those situations. I view that as lazy, you are avoiding the work needed to teach players how to play and then allowing them to play.


Substantive? Well I posted Hockey Alberta's Long Term Player Development Model earlier. For this age group it very clearly states equal playing time. The LTPD comes down from Hockey Canda.

What are you basing your views on?

[Murph]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Rugby, Lacrosse, Baseball, Basketball, BMX Riding, hell anything that requries the athlete to develop motorskills.


But, not soccer, for the love of god no.

Point conceded.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

My opinion is that at the atom level (9-10) even peewee the coach needs to ensure his players are taught how to play in different situations. If you don't play the "bottom end" players in those situations you don't have to take the time/effort to teach them how to play in those situations. I view that as lazy, you are avoiding the work needed to teach players how to play and then allowing them to play.


Substantive? Well I posted Hockey Alberta's Long Term Player Development Model earlier. For this age group it very clearly states equal playing time. The LTPD comes down from Hockey Canda.

What are you basing your views on?

I have simply stated my experiences. You were stating what you thought coaches should do - that is why I asked what you were basing your comments on.

Wasn't crapping on you, was simply asking the question. And you gave the reasoning for your view. All good.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

When I was young, we got all the ice-time we wanted at the outdoor, open rink. We played shinny for hours at a time, pretty much every day.

When we played for a competitive team, we accepted the ice-time that we got as earned.

Still think at a young age, there is room for everyone on the team.

When you want to be more competitive and work the ice time etc. it's time to have different tiers, so kids that still want to exercise/play but don't have the talent have a place to play, and kids with talent/drive/skill have the opportunity to enhance their skills.

If there is only 1 division, then it's for everyone, and everyone should get to play.

And I loved outdoor rinks too...but it's not the same as an organized league, team practices, game prep, game day, etc.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have simply stated my experiences. You were stating what you thought coaches should do - that is why I asked what you were basing your comments on.

Wasn't crapping on you, was simply asking the question. And you gave the reasoning for your view. All good.

Yeah, that read snarky, it wasn't meant to be.


I just get ticked at this type of topic. The is so much research and evidence to support just allowing kids to play, every kids develops at a different rate.

Cheers

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Benched

Still think at a young age, there is room for everyone on the team.

When you want to be more competitive and work the ice time etc. it's time to have different tiers, so kids that still want to exercise/play but don't have the talent have a place to play, and kids with talent/drive/skill have the opportunity to enhance their skills.

If there is only 1 division, then it's for everyone, and everyone should get to play.

Absolutely. The ice-time issue only applied to the competitive team - there were several tiers for everyone else, and everyone got equal playing time at those levels.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

My opinion is that at the atom level (9-10) even peewee the coach needs to ensure his players are taught how to play in different situations. If you don't play the "bottom end" players in those situations you don't have to take the time/effort to teach them how to play in those situations. I view that as lazy, you are avoiding the work needed to teach players how to play and then allowing them to play.


Substantive? Well I posted Hockey Alberta's Long Term Player Development Model earlier. For this age group it very clearly states equal playing time. The LTPD comes down from Hockey Canda.

What are you basing your views on?

Where else would HA stand on this though? They could never come out and say "play to win", "shorten the bench". Not matter what team you are on though, playing two shifts a game is complete BS.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Absolutely. The ice-time issue only applied to the competitive team - there were several tiers for everyone else, and everyone got equal playing time at those levels.

competitive level, all bets are off. You can park it there the whole game if the coach so chooses. That's sports (and life).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

This is not predatory. Now we need to protect grown adults from where they spend their money? Give me a break.

And how does linking an article where a player made it who did not play spring hockey have any barring on this?

#1. Players in general did not play year round, etc 25 years ago. So it's not comparing similar circumstances. Plus he talks about how he practiced all summer.
#2. You don't believe that a player who practices and plays more is going to be better then a player who doesn't in a large sample size? Now of course they could play another summer sport and stay in good shape and develop other skillsets. However at the end of the day kids who play year round will be better in the long run on the average.

Hey Jason14h, thanks for engaging.

I am basing my comments/position on a number of things. One is a discussion with a family friend that is a scout for an NHL team. He is of the belief that kids should develop into well rounded athletes.

There is also this (sadly I couldn't find a link to the Edmonton Journal article, it like the Oilers is No Good):

http://activeforlife.com/brent-sutte...ockey-players/

“You just don’t have as many players today that are as good athletes as they used to be,” Sutter said recently. “Too much today, especially in young players, is focused on hockey 12 months a year. They don’t play soccer, they don’t play baseball or tennis or the other things that people used to do.”

“You really notice the guys who are true athletes and the ones who are not,” he said. “The ones you can take … and play baseball or soccer with them and they get it. This is noticeable even at the NHL level. The true athletes are a little bit further ahead........

I can't find a link to the interview, but this winter Joe Nieuwendyk was on the Fan. The topic of spring hockey came up, actually Lacrosse came up. He said that he felt lacross made him a better hockey player, the skills he learnt in lacrosse transferred over to hockey.

However at the end of the day kids who play year round will be better in the long run on the average

I don't agree, and I am not the only one.

[edn88]

My son has played 2 years of Novice hockey in Springbank, and in that time have talked to lots of parents both in our association, as well as the other ones. Although there are always concerns about how teams are selected (both valid and not) I have not heard anyone complain that their kid was not getting played enough. My kid was in Novice 5 then Novice 2 (fairly competitive hockey, but not top level). My son was in the lower end of the skill level on his Novice 2 team, and all players got equal ice time. All players had equal chance to play goal as well.

Our Novice 5 coach was quite competitive, and would engineer games so the best forward/defense combos (and goaltender) would face hardest teams, and when we played weaker teams he would have it the other way around. In game, he would sometimes make an adjustment of moving a forward to d, or switching up lines, but all kids got same ice time.

I think quitting hockey outright because of lack of playing time is wrong, there are always other avenues (lower tiers, grass roots hockey, etc) and I think as a parent you need to understand the level of competition that you are putting your kid into, and if they have the mental makeup to thrive in that situation. But quitting a team because you don't get to play at that level of hockey is fair (and if this is just a spring development league - then shame on the coaches - our spring 3 on 3 hockey is first in first out, and if one team is ahead of the other by a lot, we move players onto the other team to even things out.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Impossible to say. But the opposite question: was I a worse player the next year? is more important, and just as unanswerable.

Suggesting every kid deserves at least 8 minutes is just arbitrary, and thus pretty empty, IMO.

It's better that you're not worse than to feel that you improved? I don't know if I agree with that. And it's most definitely not impossible to say. In this last year that I coached, I can honestly (and proudly) say that each and every kid improved. And I attribute that to making everyone feel enough a part of the team that they came and had fun working hard for/with each other every day.

I agree, I pulled 8 mins out of my butt. I've never tracked TOI for kids. The point is it should be relatively even, leaving room for PP PK (mostly those offset each other) and end-game situations.