Where would you say each major national team is in cyclical terms.
View Single Post
12-13-2012, 11:25 AM
Join Date: May 2005
Originally Posted by
It's not a play vs practice time allocation issue, it's about how we approach play and practice and what elements within each we put importance on. As the game has grown the attitude of our hockey community has changed. As Kenny Rausch said, its gotten too professional. Too much emphasis is put on winning and not learning. As a parent who has 3 kids in hockey it's noticeable compared to when I played. There's more politics, parents have less appreciation for the game, kids don't seem to have as much fun and hot shot talents frequently aren't told what they're doing wrong.
We had a similar situation in Sweden. An overemphasis on winning with systems superseded skill development. As a consequence the skills of a generation of players evaporated. I'd also hesitate to call that a dip in the natural cycle.
Obviously there are differences in philosophy in how to teach hockey (or any other sport) as you move from place to place but I think it is too easily overstated how effective one can be vs another. The primary driver behind how many top level pro's a place produces is the overall number of people they have participating in the sport. Sure some developmental systems will be better than others. A good system may produce 15% more pro's per enrolled players than a bad one. A great system may produce 20% more. But if anyone tries to tell me that their system is so much better that they produce +300% more elite players per capita then I would say they are 100% full of crap.
View Public Profile
Mr Kanadensisk's albums
Find More Posts by Mr Kanadensisk