Youth evaluation

[bpmd210 0]

I'm involved in a meeting for re-vamping the evaluation process for our organization. Some coaches are looking to add timed drills, skating, stickhandling, passing, that would be scored and tallied, along with scimmaging. This would be for all age levels.

I'm not so sure. I think at the younger levels it would be a logistical nightmare trying to get all the kids to properly perform the drills in the alloted ice time. At any level, if only one time through is allowed, a simple mistake or the puck hitting some bad ice could skew results. Again would turn into a time problem allowing kids multiple times through for a fair eval. The ice would also get chewed up, allowing the earlier kids better ice. After this, they want to do 4 on 4 cross ice scrimmage.

I'm for more of a simple look at their skills, then full-ice scrimmage. I think this would give a much better look at the kid's overall ability: Ice sense, vision, positioning, tactics, cycling, endurance, knowing shift lengths and when to change, etc. Cross ice doesn't do this. Maybe for the youngest kids, peewees and up get full ice.

Several of the coaches pushing these changes are quite new to both coaching and hockey. Any thoughts or input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Dave

[furlanitalia 1]

I'm just going to assume these kids are 8 and under:

Fun needs to be the importance behind everything your association does. If you want to develop teams that win, creating a drill sergeant school of training and evaluating will only make the kids not want to come back. Second, last I checked 8 year olds don't win national championships. Give them 10 years to develop those skills.

IMO, in an hour time slot they should be put on the ice and run through some simple skill evaluations such as:

5 min warmup/stretch

5 min skating straight (forward and backward)

5 min cross overs (skating the circles)

5 min tight turns (easy slalom down the ice around every face off dot)

puck control (on the second day repeat the above drills but with a puck)

At this point I would stop them and divide them into teams, and send them to their respective ends to perform a half ice st louis drill. This will give you a look at their passing and shooting.

Then just let them play, and let them have fun. You will get a better understanding of their game skills and how they will play then if you just run them one on one. Find out which ones are conscious of off sides, passing, breakouts, etc.

Again just my opinion from working with kids in a one on one environment. They aren't always responsive (or learn well) from being barked at, but they always learn a lot when they have fun. (Not to mention they then want to come back, which is important to most associations)

[bpmd210 0]

Sorry, I guess I should have mentioned it goes from squirts to 18U. 2 nights for each age group

[furlanitalia 1]

Well, take the above for the young kids and as they start getting more serious then you can start taking the evaluations more seriously.

A great example would be too look at the Hockey Canada Development model. For novice (squirts) they recommend practices be divided up into 75% technical skills, 15% individual skills, and 10% team tactics. No strategy, no team plays (powerplay, etc).

For Midget (18u), they recommend 35% technical skills, 15% individual tactics, 20% team tactics, 15% team play, 10% strategy.

So when it comes to evaluating your kids, when novice and squirts should have the focus of their practices be on individual skills, it would be safe to assume testing them on this would provide useless statistics. Yes, some kids will be better, but the mindset and focus isn't there to understand this so let them have fun and you will see who is better quite easily.

The flipside is that midget kids, who should know the individual skills and need practice on team tactics and play should give you a good statistical analysis of their individual performance as they shouldn't have to focus on it as much. Spend 60-70% of your evaluations running skills drills, and the last bit on a scrimmage where you can see their "team play".

Again, it all comes down to the fact that if kids aren't enjoying it and having fun then they won't want to come back. For a 6-12 yr old, having fun is most likely just playing games. For a 13-18 yr old, it transitions to the practices where you can develop championship teams, but if you lose them before they get to that age then it's just a lost cause.

[frankie56 0]

Do some of the evaluation off-ice. 40yard sprint, agility cones, vert and horizontal jump, medicine ball throw, etc. These translate well to their speed/quickness/strength on the ice. Use the ice to evaluate hockey skill, smarts, and courage. Give them 4-4 or 3-3 half-ice time.

[Chadd 916]

Using timed drills to determine a hockey team is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. As for using 4 on 4 cross ice scrimmaging, why would you evaluate people doing something that doesn't happen in a game? It's great for developing skills and making players think/play more quickly but not as an evaluational venue.

[bpmd210 0]

Using timed drills to determine a hockey team is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. As for using 4 on 4 cross ice scrimmaging, why would you evaluate people doing something that doesn't happen in a game? It's great for developing skills and making players think/play more quickly but not as an evaluational venue.

Thanks Chadd, I completely agree. Unfortunately they want "objective data" along with the subjective scrimmaging. They're looking to have numbers to fall back on when a parent complains about where their kid is placed. I told them numbers won't matter, if a parent is gonna whine, they're gonna whine. Ain't nothin gonna stop them

[hoonking 0]

Thanks Chadd, I completely agree. Unfortunately they want "objective data" along with the subjective scrimmaging. They're looking to have numbers to fall back on when a parent complains about where their kid is placed. I told them numbers won't matter, if a parent is gonna whine, they're gonna whine. Ain't nothin gonna stop them

They should be confident enough in their decisions to stand up to a parent when they complain, because you're right; parents will complain. You don't always need "data" to place someone somewhere, its what the coaches evaluate when they see the kids play.

[Chadd 916]

Thanks Chadd, I completely agree. Unfortunately they want "objective data" along with the subjective scrimmaging. They're looking to have numbers to fall back on when a parent complains about where their kid is placed. I told them numbers won't matter, if a parent is gonna whine, they're gonna whine. Ain't nothin gonna stop them

On just about every good team you will find a guy that doesn't wouldn't put up great numbers and isn't the cleanest guy in drills but excels in game situations. Quite often, having those guys make or break teams.

[furlanitalia 1]

Or the flipside: I played with a guy that was untouchable in practice. Faster, stronger, smarter in any drill. But once he got in a game he was a dud. Couldn't put anything together. Numbers don't always tell the truth, and aren't always relatable to game situations.

[bpmd210 0]

Man I wish you guys were in this meeting with me. You're bringing up all my points

[frankie56 0]

As for using 4 on 4 cross ice scrimmaging, why would you evaluate people doing something that doesn't happen in a game?

In a one-hour tryout with 4 lines, full ice, demonstrating playmaking ability can be very dependent on who you are on the ice with, and how many opportunities you get. A player may have a great shot, or great vision, but never get the chance because of who they are on the ice with. Putting players in a smaller space and/or taking players off the ice reduces that effect. Each player has more puck touches per minute, and less time when they get the puck, with 3-3 or 4-4 half-ice, than in a 5-5 full-ice.

[Chadd 916]

As for using 4 on 4 cross ice scrimmaging, why would you evaluate people doing something that doesn't happen in a game?

In a one-hour tryout with 4 lines, full ice, demonstrating playmaking ability can be very dependent on who you are on the ice with, and how many opportunities you get. A player may have a great shot, or great vision, but never get the chance because of who they are on the ice with. Putting players in a smaller space and/or taking players off the ice reduces that effect. Each player has more puck touches per minute, and less time when they get the puck, with 3-3 or 4-4 half-ice, than in a 5-5 full-ice.

3-3 pr 4-4 cross ice tend to devolve into displays of individual talent and very little teamwork from what I have seen.

[jcp2 2]

3-3 pr 4-4 cross ice tend to devolve into displays of individual talent and very little teamwork from what I have seen.

Isn't that what coaches are looking for at the lower levels?

[Hockeyman11385 1]

I certainly hope not. Hockey is the definition of a "gamer" sport. You could look like complete crap in individual skills but then get thrown into a game and make all of the correct decisions and make your team much better. Timing a kid going through an obstacle course isn't going to show you who is willing to go into the corners and battle in front of the net. Basically it isn't going to show you what you need to have on your team to win.

Example A: Team Russia

This is what Chadd was getting at. Timing how fast someone skates only shows so much. If that were true Matt Lombardi would be one of the best players in the league, not a journeyman 3rd liner.

[coachbrad 0]

It seems like evaluations are a big topic in youth sports today. I have been doing evaluations for my team a couple of years now. I get nothing but positive feedback. Most coaches won't do them because they are afraid that the parents will get upset or players will take it negativly. But the truth is that parents are more then happy to see that you are taking the time to help improve their child and players get motivated by seeing what they need to improve on. Here are some tips on how to do a player evaluation. Hope it helps!! Hockey Evaluations

[spicolihere 0]

haha, I just started a topic on evaluations. Didn't realize there was already one started.