- Thread starter
- #1
Eddie_Shack
likes oatmeal lumpy
- 9,022
- 5
- 0
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Location
- burger king bathroom
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
For those of you who don't read Bucci's column, here's a pretty cool interview with USA Hockey's youth manager. Very interesting ideas on teaching the game to kids, and helping to grow the sport.
Bucci: Why don't you think there are more highly skilled American players in the NHL?
Rausch: I would say that the adult model has been superimposed on youth sports way too often in America. What I mean by that is winning is becoming more important at the young ages (10-14). It makes my skin crawl to hear coaches say to kids at that age, "Get it out!" or "Get it in!" We need to be teaching kids stick skills, how to make plays, how to be decisive and how to be aggressive on the puck.
Bucci: What are other countries doing differently to produce highly skilled hockey players?
Rausch: Even Canada is trying to make changes like USA Hockey is. Other countries foster the skill environment more and better. Brendan Morrison tells the story of him playing in Sweden during the lockout. The first time he turned the puck over and returned to the bench he was waiting to hear it from the coach. Nothing. Then another turnover later in the game. Still nothing from the coach. Their coaches, even at the young ages, are not only more tolerant; they are typically their better coaches. Their better coaches coach at the younger ages and want to develop skill and foster that environment where kids enjoy the game and want to come back and play more. As a result, their retention is better and they keep their better players longer.
Bucci: What do other countries specifically do to enhance and develop skill that you feel grassroots USA Hockey should be doing?
Rausch: The big thing is small area games. Most people refer to them as cross ice hockey that we are trying to refer to as "Red, White and Blue" hockey. We are trying to institute it until the age of 8. Over in Europe and most places, they do it until age 10 or 12. If you took the average adult player and asked him to skate the length of the ice, it would be 15 or 16 strides. If you took a Mite and asked him or her to skate crossboard to crossboard it would be about 15 to 16 strides. It's ludicrous that that little kid is playing full ice hockey.
We should be playing more stuff in small areas, teaching our kids to make decisions quicker, faster, protect more pucks and make more plays in traffic. If they can do it at age 8, 9 or 10, then they will be able to do it at 16, 17 and 18. We refer to Mite (8 and under) and Squirt (9 and 10) hockey as "breakaway hockey." The best player gets the puck at the blue line and skates 180 feet straight down the ice with no pressure on him and takes a shot on net. That's not real hockey.
Bucci: What is USA Hockey's philosophy on checking and how it develops skilled hockey players?
Rausch: I've just been a part of a subcommittee that is heavily involved in the checking issue. And my observation talking to medical people and hockey people is that more hockey contact should be introduced younger whereas full-out body checking should be delayed until Bantams (ages 13 and 14). When I say body contact, I mean, watch a women's Olympic hockey game -- it's pretty physical and there's a lot of contact involved. But, there is never that check that is intended to intimidate, blow a kid up, knock him off his skates or in football terms "de-cleat" someone. That is, unfortunately, what most kids and coaches start to associate checking with. And that's not checking. Checking is an art and science to separate a puck carrier from the puck. And if you start playing Red, White and Blue small area hockey at a younger age, people are going to bump into each other by accident because there is less room out there. The more they do that the more used to body contact they are going to get and as they get older, they will be fine when full body checking is introduced later. We don't want less contact. We want more contact but less violent contact.
Our biggest reason why we want to delay full checking is not just because of the medical issue, although safety is our No. 1 concern, but it's also the skill issue. What we have learned through long-term athletic development is that there are certain windows of trainability. At ages 10 to 12, the biggest window of trainability is skill acquisition and if a kid is either concerned only with hitting or avoiding being hit are we developing skill? Doctors have told us that an 11-year-old brain cannot fully comprehend how to avoid a check and make a play at the same time. So if they can't do that at 11, why are we having full checking?
Bucci: What advice would you give youth hockey coaches on running practices to develop skill?
Rausch: The more stuff you can do in a small area the better. Watch how the NHL is played today. Watch college. Watch how an NHL team practices. They don't do much full ice stuff, and they have way more players on the ice than a Squirt A or Pee Wee B team. Pee Wee teams that think they need full ice to practice with 14 kids is ludicrous. You are wasting half the ice if not more and kids are standing around for 75 percent of the practice. Kids who practice half ice or station based practices get way more activity compared to full ice practices. Station based practices result in close to 60 percent more touches, skating time, passes and shots. Do that over the course of a season and you are almost cramming two seasons into one as development goes.
Bucci: What is your forecast for USA Hockey over the next five to 10 years from grassroots to international to NHL?
Rausch: What we are seeing right now is that our retention rates are poor. Close to 60 percent of kids drop out of hockey by the time they are 14. The adult model superimposed on kids is putting too much pressure to win. I oversee a whole Pee Wee division, and I notice our house kids smile a whole lot more than our travel kids. They have more fun playing because there is less pressure. They don't get screamed at by the parents and they have more fun playing. So I think with the ADM being implemented across the country with Red, White and Blue hockey up until 8 years old and with small area practices, I think more kids will stay in the game longer. We preach "More, Better, Longer." I think that is going to happen, which in turn will be a great impact on our international success. The ADM is designed and backed monetarily by the NHL to develop elite players for the NHL. Twenty percent of the NHL is U.S. born. That's a sin when you look at the population of hockey players in the United States. We are second only to Canada and blow everyone else out of the water. For us to have only 20 percent is ludicrous. We should have 30-40 percent U.S. born players in the NHL. And hopefully, 10 years from now that will be the case.
Bucci: Why don't you think there are more highly skilled American players in the NHL?
Rausch: I would say that the adult model has been superimposed on youth sports way too often in America. What I mean by that is winning is becoming more important at the young ages (10-14). It makes my skin crawl to hear coaches say to kids at that age, "Get it out!" or "Get it in!" We need to be teaching kids stick skills, how to make plays, how to be decisive and how to be aggressive on the puck.
Bucci: What are other countries doing differently to produce highly skilled hockey players?
Rausch: Even Canada is trying to make changes like USA Hockey is. Other countries foster the skill environment more and better. Brendan Morrison tells the story of him playing in Sweden during the lockout. The first time he turned the puck over and returned to the bench he was waiting to hear it from the coach. Nothing. Then another turnover later in the game. Still nothing from the coach. Their coaches, even at the young ages, are not only more tolerant; they are typically their better coaches. Their better coaches coach at the younger ages and want to develop skill and foster that environment where kids enjoy the game and want to come back and play more. As a result, their retention is better and they keep their better players longer.
Bucci: What do other countries specifically do to enhance and develop skill that you feel grassroots USA Hockey should be doing?
Rausch: The big thing is small area games. Most people refer to them as cross ice hockey that we are trying to refer to as "Red, White and Blue" hockey. We are trying to institute it until the age of 8. Over in Europe and most places, they do it until age 10 or 12. If you took the average adult player and asked him to skate the length of the ice, it would be 15 or 16 strides. If you took a Mite and asked him or her to skate crossboard to crossboard it would be about 15 to 16 strides. It's ludicrous that that little kid is playing full ice hockey.
We should be playing more stuff in small areas, teaching our kids to make decisions quicker, faster, protect more pucks and make more plays in traffic. If they can do it at age 8, 9 or 10, then they will be able to do it at 16, 17 and 18. We refer to Mite (8 and under) and Squirt (9 and 10) hockey as "breakaway hockey." The best player gets the puck at the blue line and skates 180 feet straight down the ice with no pressure on him and takes a shot on net. That's not real hockey.
Bucci: What is USA Hockey's philosophy on checking and how it develops skilled hockey players?
Rausch: I've just been a part of a subcommittee that is heavily involved in the checking issue. And my observation talking to medical people and hockey people is that more hockey contact should be introduced younger whereas full-out body checking should be delayed until Bantams (ages 13 and 14). When I say body contact, I mean, watch a women's Olympic hockey game -- it's pretty physical and there's a lot of contact involved. But, there is never that check that is intended to intimidate, blow a kid up, knock him off his skates or in football terms "de-cleat" someone. That is, unfortunately, what most kids and coaches start to associate checking with. And that's not checking. Checking is an art and science to separate a puck carrier from the puck. And if you start playing Red, White and Blue small area hockey at a younger age, people are going to bump into each other by accident because there is less room out there. The more they do that the more used to body contact they are going to get and as they get older, they will be fine when full body checking is introduced later. We don't want less contact. We want more contact but less violent contact.
Our biggest reason why we want to delay full checking is not just because of the medical issue, although safety is our No. 1 concern, but it's also the skill issue. What we have learned through long-term athletic development is that there are certain windows of trainability. At ages 10 to 12, the biggest window of trainability is skill acquisition and if a kid is either concerned only with hitting or avoiding being hit are we developing skill? Doctors have told us that an 11-year-old brain cannot fully comprehend how to avoid a check and make a play at the same time. So if they can't do that at 11, why are we having full checking?
Bucci: What advice would you give youth hockey coaches on running practices to develop skill?
Rausch: The more stuff you can do in a small area the better. Watch how the NHL is played today. Watch college. Watch how an NHL team practices. They don't do much full ice stuff, and they have way more players on the ice than a Squirt A or Pee Wee B team. Pee Wee teams that think they need full ice to practice with 14 kids is ludicrous. You are wasting half the ice if not more and kids are standing around for 75 percent of the practice. Kids who practice half ice or station based practices get way more activity compared to full ice practices. Station based practices result in close to 60 percent more touches, skating time, passes and shots. Do that over the course of a season and you are almost cramming two seasons into one as development goes.
Bucci: What is your forecast for USA Hockey over the next five to 10 years from grassroots to international to NHL?
Rausch: What we are seeing right now is that our retention rates are poor. Close to 60 percent of kids drop out of hockey by the time they are 14. The adult model superimposed on kids is putting too much pressure to win. I oversee a whole Pee Wee division, and I notice our house kids smile a whole lot more than our travel kids. They have more fun playing because there is less pressure. They don't get screamed at by the parents and they have more fun playing. So I think with the ADM being implemented across the country with Red, White and Blue hockey up until 8 years old and with small area practices, I think more kids will stay in the game longer. We preach "More, Better, Longer." I think that is going to happen, which in turn will be a great impact on our international success. The ADM is designed and backed monetarily by the NHL to develop elite players for the NHL. Twenty percent of the NHL is U.S. born. That's a sin when you look at the population of hockey players in the United States. We are second only to Canada and blow everyone else out of the water. For us to have only 20 percent is ludicrous. We should have 30-40 percent U.S. born players in the NHL. And hopefully, 10 years from now that will be the case.
