Since I am sitting here at work late waiting for someone to do something I
decided to weigh in on the coaching debate.  I do not think the coaches job
is to motivate the players.  If they can, that is a bonus, but really, all
the motivation they should need is to win a championship.  If stepping on
the ice in front of 9000+ people doesn't get the player going, nothing
will.
 
My other point in this is, how does anyone know whether or not the team was
motivated?  Because they lost?  Or were outplayed?  Maybe the other team
was just better that particular day.  A team can look really bad in losing
a game, but that doesn't mean they were trying any less than in a game that
they won by 5 goals.
 
And finally,  I know when I play (and I am under no illusion that the N.E.
Senior League is the NHL) there are days that I am at my best, and others
that I just suck.  And it usually has nothing to do with how much I want to
win, because I always want to win.  But I am not a professional hockey
player and other things that matter can sometimes get in the way.  These
players aren't professionals either and have other concerns as well.  They
all have to know that except for a few players on each team, most of them
will not be making their livings playing hockey, so all the problems that
any other student may have, they have to worry about as well, in addition
to whether or not the people in the crowds screaming at them like how well
they played.
 
So, I guess my bottom line is, the coach can try all he wants, but the game
is still won or lost by the people on the ice, and in the end, they decide
how well they perform and how hard they are going to try.
 
Dave
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.