HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Hockey Talk by Country (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   Hitting hurts Canada's talent depth (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=647513)

Siberian 06-02-2009 12:44 PM

Hitting hurts Canada's talent depth
 
I spoke with a Canadian parent who had three kids who all play hockey. He basically said that a lot of kids like hockey but do not like hitting at svery young age and that's one of the main reasons they lose interest in the game, so they quit. In Russia hitting at young age basically is not accepted. The coaches want the kids to develop their skating, puck handling. In reality many Russian players see hitting when they start playing international tournaments when they are around 16 years old.

So a couple of things that is a big negative of the hitting-
1. The talented kids drop out before they are discovered by the local scouts.
2. The kids are slowed down in their development of real skills.

Blackjack 06-02-2009 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberian (Post 19772158)
I spoke with a Canadian parent who had three kids who all play hockey. He basically said that a lot of kids like hockey but do not like hitting at svery young age and that's one of the main reasons they lose interest in the game, so they quit. In Russia hitting at young age basically is not accepted. The coaches want the kids to develop their skating, puck handling. In reality many Russian players see hitting when they start playing international tournaments when they are around 16 years old.

So a couple of things that is a big negative of the hitting-
1. The talented kids drop out before they are discovered by the local scouts.
2. The kids are slowed down in their development of real skills.

Holy crap that explains a lot. :laugh:

No, seriously, I'm sure you lose some talented kids to this, but if you look at how gifted NHL players, it's hard to imagine many would have been discouraged by physical play at a young age.

Your other point I generally agree with. I think it's good for kids to learn some of the skills before they start getting pasted.

NobodysFaulkButMine 06-02-2009 06:11 PM

Talented players survive the hitting. Look at Canada's depth and tell me its suffering. Canada has a mix of players who can play a soft game utilizing their speed and puck handling, and other players that thrive on physical play. Good players don't need to adapt their play. If they excel at some part of the game, they will find a way to use it. If they can't, they're simply not professional hockey talent.

If they truly love the game, they'll put up with the hitting. I did, and I was undersized and got rocked all the time as a kid. I still love hockey and still love to play it, so one families opinion doesn't sum up every Canadian kids opinion. The kids discouraged from the physical play are houseleague/single-A kids. They often either will quit or drop down a level (Whether that be from AA to A or A to houseleague, so on) and will often dominate there. The kids with any real talent will show up eventually, whether that be in high school, university or other organized leagues. There isn't any real talent lost, simply houseleague level players who will never amount to play at any professional level.

Hitting doesn't hurt Canadian talent depth and never will. This is a ridiculous thread with no real basis. I think you fail to understand how much of an accomplishment it is to play at a professional level. Houseleague/single-A players don't become pro NHLers. If there are kids in the CHL who aren't good enough to make the NHL, let alone affect Canada's talent depth, what makes you think some 13 year old kid who quits houseleague because of the hitting will? Talent doesn't magically appear and if a kid wants to quit hockey because of the hitting, that kid never had the talent in the first place.

wjhl2009fan 06-02-2009 06:22 PM

I may be wrong but some those who may not like the hitting are house league or a.

jessebelanger 06-02-2009 07:47 PM

My experience was/continues to be that most kids are excited to start hitting asap.

Mr Kanadensisk 06-03-2009 01:54 AM

If anything it is fighting that turns some kids off, not hitting. Anyway Canada's depth is still unparalleled.

Siberian 06-03-2009 04:10 PM

Are there stats about injuries in the young age due to hitting? I have seen an article a while ago from a Canadian media outlet which suggested that the injuries at the young age in hockey are in high numbers and that the age when the players are allowed to hit should be raised but I couldn't find it again.

Talented kid or not, they are all kids and for kids it is hard to take the man's punishment. I do not think that hitting at the young age gives anything good for the development of players.

wjhl2009fan 06-03-2009 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberian (Post 19787282)
Are there stats about injuries in the young age due to hitting? I have seen an article a while ago from a Canadian media outlet which suggested that the injuries at the young age in hockey are in high numbers and that the age when the players are allowed to hit should be raised but I couldn't find it again.

Talented kid or not, they are all kids and for kids it is hard to take the man's punishment. I do not think that hitting at the young age gives anything good for the development of players.

Then what age do you think it should be raised to.

NyQuil 06-03-2009 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberian (Post 19787282)
Are there stats about injuries in the young age due to hitting? I have seen an article a while ago from a Canadian media outlet which suggested that the injuries at the young age in hockey are in high numbers and that the age when the players are allowed to hit should be raised but I couldn't find it again.

Talented kid or not, they are all kids and for kids it is hard to take the man's punishment. I do not think that hitting at the young age gives anything good for the development of players.

Here's a study by Edmonton health authorities:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/175/2/155

"In 2002, Hockey Canada changed the age classifications for minor ice hockey. Previously, 10- and 11-year-old children played at the Atom level (no bodychecking), and 12- and 13-year-old children played at the Peewee level (bodychecking allowed). After the policy change, 11-year-old players were placed in the Peewee division with 12-year-old players; the Atom division included 9- and 10-year-old players. The objective of this study was to examine the effect that the policy change had on injuries to 11-year-old players and compare this information with injury trends among 10- and 12-year-old players."

"The rate of severe injuries was more than 2 times greater among 11-year-old Peewee players than among 11-year-old Atom players (RR 2.4, 95% CI 1.63.6). Injury rates among the 10-year-old players (bodychecking never allowed) and the 12-year-old players (bodychecking always allowed) changed little over the study period.

Interpretation: The introduction of bodychecking to 11-year-old players was associated with a large increase in injury rates. From a public health perspective, the age at which bodychecking is introduced in minor hockey should be raised."

I would probably raise it to 14 or more, personally.

The only issue I have with the study, and I assume it has been addressed, is the fact that you have 11 year olds playing with potentially larger 12 year olds, whereas before they were playing with 10 year olds.

Likely though, this had a negligible impact.

Siberian 06-03-2009 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NyQuil (Post 19787587)
Here's a study by Edmonton health authorities:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/175/2/155

"In 2002, Hockey Canada changed the age classifications for minor ice hockey. Previously, 10- and 11-year-old children played at the Atom level (no bodychecking), and 12- and 13-year-old children played at the Peewee level (bodychecking allowed). After the policy change, 11-year-old players were placed in the Peewee division with 12-year-old players; the Atom division included 9- and 10-year-old players. The objective of this study was to examine the effect that the policy change had on injuries to 11-year-old players and compare this information with injury trends among 10- and 12-year-old players."

"The rate of severe injuries was more than 2 times greater among 11-year-old Peewee players than among 11-year-old Atom players (RR 2.4, 95% CI 1.63.6). Injury rates among the 10-year-old players (bodychecking never allowed) and the 12-year-old players (bodychecking always allowed) changed little over the study period.

Interpretation: The introduction of bodychecking to 11-year-old players was associated with a large increase in injury rates. From a public health perspective, the age at which bodychecking is introduced in minor hockey should be raised."

I would probably raise it to 14 or more, personally.

The only issue I have with the study, and I assume it has been addressed, is the fact that you have 11 year olds playing with potentially larger 12 year olds, whereas before they were playing with 10 year olds.

Likely though, this had a negligible impact.

Thanks for an interesting information. I probably agree about the age 14. I do not see any benefits for the 12 year old kids hit each other instead of polishing puckhandling, takeaway and other skills. I do think Canadian hockey would have benefit a lot from it but I definitely do not wish for it.

wjhl2009fan 06-03-2009 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberian (Post 19787731)
Thanks for an interesting information. I probably agree about the age 14. I do not see any benefits for the 12 year old kids hit each other instead of polishing puckhandling, takeaway and other skills. I do think Canadian hockey would have benefit a lot from it but I definitely do not wish for it.

The issue would be at 14 is a year away untill some may go to junior.A year to learn how to hit and play physical is not alot of time and may result in injurys.Some players may take less then a year and be ready but some may take more time.Could hockey canada benefit from raising the age yes maybe a bit but the same could be said if they go with more practices less games.

Le Golie 06-04-2009 03:30 PM

Canada's downfall has always been it's depth.

Siberian 06-04-2009 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Golie (Post 19797070)
Canada's downfall has always been it's depth.

Checking depth may I correct.

Gooch 06-04-2009 05:42 PM

Getting used to playing hockey where hitting is a possibility is a good thing. Kids play football at those ages and theres hitting for that. You do things and handle the puck completely differently when you're playing in a league without hitting, why get bad habits implanted in kids heads? I would venture to guess that starting them off hitting so young generally leads to safer hockey down the road.

Siberian 06-04-2009 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooch (Post 19798389)
Getting used to playing hockey where hitting is a possibility is a good thing. Kids play football at those ages and theres hitting for that. You do things and handle the puck completely differently when you're playing in a league without hitting, why get bad habits implanted in kids heads? I would venture to guess that starting them off hitting so young generally leads to safer hockey down the road.

I understand that hitting in Canada is considered an important skill and it is significant, it is one of the reasons Canada is superior to other countries at the U-20 level, but it is not really that significant at the higher level. It doesn't take relatively long to learn how to hit and take hits.

Look at many NHL players who had to end their career prematurely. Majority of these guys are Canadian. The problem is that if you get concussed two or three times in junior you already are rattled. One more concussion at senior level and the doctors may tell you you are done. Also, after concussions players are usually not the same, so that takes away talent in a way as well. Starting hitting at the age of 14 is a great idea. The kids will learn quickly.

NyQuil 06-05-2009 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberian (Post 19801146)
Look at many NHL players who had to end their career prematurely. Majority of these guys are Canadian.

Umm, the majority of NHL players are Canadian.

So naturally, the majority of guys whose careers have ended prematurely, particularly historically, are Canadian.

wjhl2009fan 06-05-2009 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberian (Post 19801146)
I understand that hitting in Canada is considered an important skill and it is significant, it is one of the reasons Canada is superior to other countries at the U-20 level, but it is not really that significant at the higher level. It doesn't take relatively long to learn how to hit and take hits.

Look at many NHL players who had to end their career prematurely. Majority of these guys are Canadian. The problem is that if you get concussed two or three times in junior you already are rattled. One more concussion at senior level and the doctors may tell you you are done. Also, after concussions players are usually not the same, so that takes away talent in a way as well. Starting hitting at the age of 14 is a great idea. The kids will learn quickly.

A year to learn how to hit and how to handle hits is not alot of time this could lead to injurys for those that have trouble with hitting.You aslo have to keep in mind its not a matter of tossing your eight around there are way and way not to hit.For a player to pay 13 years with no contact and then all of a sudden to have contact may not be a good thing.The other issue is players are not use to physical play and once they turn 14 then its all physical that may effect there game.

NyQuil 06-05-2009 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan (Post 19805040)
A year to learn how to hit and how to handle hits is not alot of time this could lead to injurys for those that have trouble with hitting.You aslo have to keep in mind its not a matter of tossing your eight around there are way and way not to hit.For a player to pay 13 years with no contact and then all of a sudden to have contact may not be a good thing.The other issue is players are not use to physical play and once they turn 14 then its all physical that may effect there game.

I wish they would do an experiment on a fairly large basis to see what would happen.

It's not just the fact that Europeans DON'T hit as much as it is that it isn't part of their culture.

Even when I was playing House league, where hitting was not allowed, I was still aware of and encouraged the physical part of the game because it's there. It's not like Cam Neely was irrelevant to me because I wasn't allowed to hit. I watched him every week laying guys out. It's not quite the same in Europe, where they don't idolize the physical part of the game in the same way.

Just like fighting is virtually non-existent before Junior (on a regular basis), that doesn't mean that young kids don't know anything about fighting.

To look at your argument a different way, if there's this massive adaption that has to take place, then why don't they LOWER the hitting age?

When I played in Germany, we had full-contact when I was six years old. You could argue that this would make me even BETTER prepared as I got older, but I don't see it that way, and I actually went through it.

Personally, I think we could still improve our skills to a certain extent and the emphasis on hitting tends to lead to an emphasis on larger or bigger players, even today (where the new rules on clutching and grabbing have allowed smaller players to compete at the highest level).

Really, it's a question of whether emphasizing shooting and hitting at the expense of puck skills and skating is worth it in the long run. We like to think that it is, because Canada has been relatively successful as a hockey nation. But can we be even better? I'd like to think so.

Zine 06-05-2009 11:44 AM

I think it hinders skill development but Canada produces more than enough players to compensate. If anything it helps them produce the most number of well-rounded players.

Analyzer 06-05-2009 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zine (Post 19806469)
I think it hinders skill development but Canada produces more than enough players to compensate. If anything it helps them produce the most number of well-rounded players.

True, but imo hitting is why you don't see many Canadians with blistering speed like the russians do. Since everyone will try and hit, everyone wants to be a bit bigger, so they sacrifice their speed.

Siberian 06-05-2009 02:31 PM

As you can see in the Stanley Cup finals the hitting is a very low factor in this series. With the speed of the game the players are really hard to nail and takeaways are 10 times more valuable than hits. To me undoubtfully Malkin has been the best takeaway player and Datsyuk is probably the second best. All the swedes are really great at it, some Canadians are decent but I think that as a skill it is missed by Canadians a little because at the junior level thay are trained to hit the player more instead of attempting a clean takeaway.

Siberian 06-05-2009 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zine (Post 19806469)
I think it hinders skill development but Canada produces more than enough players to compensate. If anything it helps them produce the most number of well-rounded players.

I think that as of right now Canada does not produce enough of elite talent. If you look past Crosby there are no supreme offensive players coming from Canada and it is surprising considering the amount of young players playing hockey in this country.

wjhl2009fan 06-05-2009 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberian (Post 19808455)
I think that as of right now Canada does not produce enough of elite talent. If you look past Crosby there are no supreme offensive players coming from Canada and it is surprising considering the amount of young players playing hockey in this country.

Really canada does not produce enough elite talent.
2005-2010 Prospects
John Tavares
Matt Duchene
Bryaden Schenn
Evander Kane
Nazem Kadri
MIcheal Del Zotto
Taylor Hall
Ryan Ellis
Jared Cowen
Zack Kassian
Simon Glennie
Matthew Hackett
Oliver Roy
Edwards Pasquale
Alex Pietrangelo
Glaude Giroux
Cody Hodgson
Thomas Hickey
Chet Pickard
Logan Couture
Shawn Matthias
Jordan Eberle
Tyler Cuma
Brandon Sutter
Steve Stamkos
Drew Doughty
Zack Boychuck
Jared Stall
Kyle Turis
Karl Alzner
San Gagner
Jonathan Tows
Bryan Little

Yes some of these have yet to be drafted and maybe some won't do well in the nhl.They may aslo be fine and have good nhl careers.As for the ones drafted a good number of them already are having good nhl careers.

Siberian 06-05-2009 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan (Post 19809571)
Really canada does not produce enough elite talent.
2005-2010 Prospects
John Tavares
Matt Duchene
Bryaden Schenn
Evander Kane
Nazem Kadri
MIcheal Del Zotto
Taylor Hall
Ryan Ellis
Jared Cowen
Zack Kassian
Simon Glennie
Matthew Hackett
Oliver Roy
Edwards Pasquale
Alex Pietrangelo
Glaude Giroux
Cody Hodgson
Thomas Hickey
Chet Pickard
Logan Couture
Shawn Matthias
Jordan Eberle
Tyler Cuma
Brandon Sutter
Steve Stamkos
Drew Doughty
Zack Boychuck
Jared Stall
Kyle Turis
Karl Alzner
San Gagner
Jonathan Tows
Bryan Little

Yes some of these have yet to be drafted and maybe some won't do well in the nhl.They may aslo be fine and have good nhl careers.As for the ones drafted a good number of them already are having good nhl careers.

You're kidding, right. Which of these players is a proven elite player?

wjhl2009fan 06-05-2009 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberian (Post 19809682)
You're kidding, right. Which of these players is a proven elite player?

A good number of them are elite major jr players.Some may not be in the nhl but some maybe.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:14 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.