> The game on 200 x 100 ice is simply quite a bit different than on
>200 x 85 ice. When I said this two years ago after watching all three
>ECAC teams get blown away in the first round of the regionals -- after
>spending the weekend before at Lake Placid -- not many people bought into
>that theory. But I still respectfully disagree. It had a lot to do with
>it.
After thinking about this for quite awhile, I find myself in nearly full
agreement. I think that size MAY (depending on team strengths) make a dramatic
difference. Here is some rationale to support that:
In the WCHA, CC and DU are particularly (maybe a better word is dramatically)
adept when playing on large surfaces. For example, DU sweeps Minn at home (I
believe this is only the 2nd time for that in five years - both on the
new Mariucci surface). The Minnensota team simply hasn't been built to match
that style (speed and passing) and has difficulty with it. St. Cloud, takes
three out of four points from Wisconsin two weekends ago. Miami, which had
two remarkable victories last weekend, finds it very difficult to win one game
this weekend. Many other examples exist, but that sort of conveys the idea.
I'd predict that next year in the WCHA you'll find CC (in the new rink), DU,
and St. Cloud (remember the coaches forecasted them to be first this year) at
the top. Minn. and Wisconsin (as the perennial best of the old style)
struggling in the middle, and the rest bunched (as per this year) in the
remaining slots. It will (with minor variations) remain that way until the
other conference teams change their style of play.
The why is rather simple I think. The big ice takes stronger, more mature, and
higher skilled players. It's going to become tougher to go straight from high
school to college varsity play. Also, I think that physical play can be (if
the game is played that way) rougher on the large sheets.
I do think that hockey teams are built to play either the small rink style or
the larger rink style. Also, I think that there are a few teams which have the
right mix of personnel and can play either game successfully (DU might be an
example).
Much of this opinion comes from observing the WCHA teams as compared to a
local Senior Men's Team (composed of ex-college players including, for the
Easterners, Maine & Harvard players, some ex-CCHA players with most of the
WCHA schools represented). Although all of these players (except maybe one)
have rather recently been processed through Div. I College Hockey programs,
they are very successful (current National Champions) in playing any style of
hockey on any size sheet. I don't see this with the college teams so one must
conclude that this capability either depends on strength, skill, maturity,
early hockey training, coaching technique, or a combination of these. Since we
often see a WCHA team on Saturday and this team on Sunday, the differences are
very vivid.
One wonders why we don't adjust rink size to player age (it's rather silly to
see 6 year olds trying to run up and down a full size ice sheet [as we often
do between periods]). Something like the Little League does. In any case, my
observations would strongly confirm the original premise that ice size does
make a major difference, and I would suspect much more so in the future.
By the way, we're trying to play the small game on the big ice and you know
where that has gotten us. Due to the nature of the conference, the strategy
has focused on defense, however that has eliminated offense (a by-product of
the bigger ice), and we could do better if we played all of our games on
smaller rinks. I think that it's very difficult to find players with the
endurance to effectively play both on a large sheet! Maybe not in terms of
individuals, but to collectively find a whole team of such people. Lastly, I
have watched a player through all four college years, and then watched them at
the Senior Men's level. The transformation (after they get out of school) is
simply amazing! Thus, I don't think that it's a skill or training issue.
Lowell King
Go SeaWolves (96)
|
