Shortening the bench?

[Hipster 5]

At what age/talent level do you guys think its appropriate for a coach to "shorten the bench" in a close game?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Have any of you guys been benched as squirts or pee wees in order for your teams best players to double shift?

[kosydar 0]

I was my first year in squirt. It was during a tournament. We had sucked all year long, and somehow we won the whole thing. It was my first year playing, so I really didn't care.

[Dangles 0]

Coach has to do what he has to do. Try not to take anything personally, if you're on either end of it.

[Chadd 916]

I always believed that in the last minute or two of a close game at any level is ok to make sure you have your best players on the ice. Sometimes it takes a little planning to make sure you have that though.

Coaching is all about putting players in a position to succeed. Throwing a bad player out in a situation where he will most likely fail doesn't benefit anyone.

[mack 44]

In midgets if we had the lead I wouldn't ever see the ice in the last 3 minutes it seemed.

[mik3 1]

When I coached I knew in my head at the end of the first who I wanted to rest towards the end of a game if I knew it was going to be close. This was even when I was coaching 12 year olds. If you have kids that can play say....7 out of a possible 10mins, and play it well, you play them.

[Hipster 5]

Yeah my philosophy at the squirt level is to play everyone in the first 2.75 periods.

If a kid was good ebnough to make my team, then I have a resposibility to teach him and play him. Overplaying the stars in the first two periods is risky anyway. They can easily empty out their tanks and not get you the goal you need.

I tend to look for match-ups. I'll play my most solid Defense with my weakest line and my second Defensive pair with my top line. I also pay close attention to the other team's line-up and never put my weak defense against their top forward line.

However, if the team can get us to the last 4 minutes and its close, then I'm taking a little more aggressive approach.

I asked the question because my son's head coach decided to shorten the bench to 2 lines and 2 sets of defense right off the bat, which I thought was wrong. It was wrong. Its too aggressive an approach for squirts, and its too risky as a strategy.

In my opinion, Its a coaching cop out.... a short cut. With a little extra planning and quick thinking, a coach can maximize his teams chances without benchinhing kids for long periods.

[Dan_The_Man_16 0]

I would say for house leage around 8-9 y.o. any level higher you should be able to do it at any time.

[kosydar 0]

Yeah my philosophy at the squirt level is to play everyone in the first 2.75 periods.

If a kid was good ebnough to make my team, then I have a resposibility to teach him and play him. Overplaying the stars in the first two periods is risky anyway. They can easily empty out their tanks and not get you the goal you need.

I tend to look for match-ups. I'll play my most solid Defense with my weakest line and my second Defensive pair with my top line. I also pay close attention to the other team's line-up and never put my weak defense against their top forward line.

However, if the team can get us to the last 4 minutes and its close, then I'm taking a little more aggressive approach.

I asked the question because my son's head coach decided to shorten the bench to 2 lines and 2 sets of defense right off the bat, which I thought was wrong. It was wrong. Its too aggressive an approach for squirts, and its too risky as a strategy.

In my opinion, Its a coaching cop out.... a short cut. With a little extra planning and quick thinking, a coach can maximize his teams chances without benchinhing kids for long periods.

Is it a travel or a rep team? If its a house team, I can't justify benching anyone, but if it is a travel team, then I think it is fine. I don't like benching them for the entire game, but then again I don't think they should always get equal shifts.

[Hipster 5]

Its a squirt travel team.

I think a coach should do everything in his power to play everyone evenly at that level. A coach should hold himself to very limited situations where he loads up a line with his stars. It just takes a feel for the flow of the game and the situation and the personel.

A coach should also have the balls to risk losing an important game, even if half the parents are telling him to do what he needs to do to win. If I know I can win a state title by shortening the bench to two lines and 2 sets of defense, but if I play everyone, its going to be really close and we might lose, then I play everyone and risk losing, because the win will be more satisfying if everyone played.

These boys won the state title in mites last year and we didn't bench or short shift anyone, even though the coach of the other team did. we had to come back in the 3rd period to do it, but they did it. All of them.

Maybe its my age, but I'm just not willing to bench a squirt player in order to win. There's just too many ways a smart coach can utilize a kid, even if he's not a goal scorer. In my mind, a coach who has to bench squirts isn't much of a coach either in developing skills, or in implementing strategy.

I was a squirt once and I don't remember jack about the games or the scores, but I remember being benched. And I remember hating the coach.

[LetsGoWings13 0]

I think all travel levels but in house I dont think till squirt at the earliest.

[Hipster 5]

So if your child is on a travel team and you are going to a big tournament 500 miles away and your going to have to drop between $500 and $1000 on the trip, are you gonna support the coach when you're kid plays 120 seconds? That's almost 10 dollars per second.

Parents want to see their kid play more than they want to see the team win, regardless of what they say. I know from experience.

And who is to say the coach is even making the right decision about who plays and who sits?

I still say that a coach with balls will find a way to win with all his players. Its more challenging that way.

[Chadd 916]

So if your child is on a travel team and you are going to a big tournament 500 miles away and your going to have to drop between $500 and $1000 on the trip, are you gonna support the coach when you're kid plays 120 seconds? That's almost 10 dollars per second.

Parents want to see their kid play more than they want to see the team win, regardless of what they say. I know from experience.

And who is to say the coach is even making the right decision about who plays and who sits?

I still say that a coach with balls will find a way to win with all his players. Its more challenging that way.

The parents of the betetr kids all want to see thier kid on the ice more often because they think they deserve it and that will make the team win. The parents of the kids with less talent want fair ice time, this usually causes conflict over the course of the season.

Honestly, it's up to the coach to improve his less talented players and make them better. By not playing them, he is admitting that he failed to improve the players. Like I said, I understand juggling the lines to achieve a level of comfort in a close game, but not having some kid sit on the bench.

[Hipster 5]

Honestly, it's up to the coach to improve his less talented players and make them better. By not playing them, he is admitting that he failed to improve the players. Like I said, I understand juggling the lines to achieve a level of comfort in a close game, but not having some kid sit on the bench

That's my opinion too. I also try to find a role for a kid that he can succeed at and then praise him for fulfilling the role.

A kid may never be a scoring wizard, but you may be able to teach him to muck around in the corners like a champ. Or you may be able to teach him to back check and clog up the slot.

That kind of stuff wins hockey games just as much goals. A good coach will find a role or make a role for every player and teach them to fulfill it.

Any Dad with little or no knowledge can just throw out his five fastest skaters. Its not a very sophisticated coaching approach.

I think most youth coaches over estimate the value of shortening the bench. It doesn't always work.

In fact I've coached against coaches who regularly shorten their bench, and if you can withstand the first 2 shifts where they double up the stars, you can tire them out and bury them when the stars have nothing left.

As I said, I understand a coach loading up a line or two in certain situations, but I don't have much respect for the technique if a coach sits half his team for more than half a period in non tournament games.

[hitz14 0]

im at the bantam major level and i personally think that this is the age that coaches should be able to shorten the bench

[Hipster 5]

im at the bantam major level and i personally think that this is the age that coaches should be able to shorten the bench

im at the bantam major level and i personally think that this is the age that coaches should be able to shorten the bench

Probably a good age. At that age, the players are young men rather than little boys, and the kids who are playing are all pretty serious about it at that point.

Nice Napolean Dynamite quote, BTW.

[hip check 0]

When did it become all about winning and not letting the kids PLAY the GAME? Parents shell out huge amounts of money for a season to have their kid enjoy playing the game of hockey. Let the kids play and develop their skills. If a 3rd or 4th line kid never gets to play in a pressure situation, they'll never know how to handle one.

House league shouldn't have any player sit a shift. Ever. Everyone pays, everyone plays. It's a more recreational style of play. Skill development and enjoying the game is what it's about. Travel teams (at young ages) should still be about developing the skills, just at a higher level of competition.

Once you get into bantam ages - draftable ages - you can start putting the better players on the ice a bit more. Kids know who the better players are, and can understand why they get put on the ice more in close games. By the way, no games are so close in the first and second periods that everyone can't play. That's poor planning and game management by the coaching staff.

Now, parents who push their kids to be the next Gretzky or Crosby, that's a whole new rant. ;)

[kosydar 0]

When did it become all about winning and not letting the kids PLAY the GAME? Parents shell out huge amounts of money for a season to have their kid enjoy playing the game of hockey. Let the kids play and develop their skills. If a 3rd or 4th line kid never gets to play in a pressure situation, they'll never know how to handle one.

I agree....as long as we're talking about house leagues. When it is a travel or a rep team, its a whole different scenario. If you have to try out for the team, then you had to earn your spot on the roster. Similarly, you should have to earn your shifts on the ice. However, that should only be held to some extent. A kid shouldn't be benched the entire game just because they aren't good enough to play. As the coach, if a kid isn't good enough to get a regular shift on the ice, regardless of the situation of the game, you should reevaluate why you even have him on your roster. The older the kids get, the less I agree with this though. When it comes to bantams and midgets, it is completely different. Kids are more aware of what is happening, and they know (hopefully) the kind of situation they are getting themselves into by joining that team. Four kids from my team last year moved on to play at higher levels. Three went to play Jr. B and one moved to Michigan and is playing AAA. Of the four of them, one of the kids got regular shifts this year. The other three were either healthy scratches or fourth liners. Do I feel bad for them? No, they knew what they were getting themselves into, and at this age, there is nothing wrong with sitting players.

[Langenbrunner15 0]

Travel- Mites(A and up) and big time shortening at the peewee A level and up

House- Squirt or Peewee

[hockechamp14 0]

I think at any level below the NHL the coach is really cheating his players of development as a whole player. Weather it is the powerplay, penalty kill, or overtime.

However, I do understand why coaches at NCAA, CHL, USHL, NAHL, and other leagues where the goal is to put people in the seats.

[bobbyorio 0]

So if your child is on a travel team and you are going to a big tournament 500 miles away and your going to have to drop between $500 and $1000 on the trip, are you gonna support the coach when you're kid plays 120 seconds? That's almost 10 dollars per second.

Parents want to see their kid play more than they want to see the team win, regardless of what they say. I know from experience.

And who is to say the coach is even making the right decision about who plays and who sits?

I still say that a coach with balls will find a way to win with all his players. Its more challenging that way.

The parents of the betetr kids all want to see thier kid on the ice more often because they think they deserve it and that will make the team win. The parents of the kids with less talent want fair ice time, this usually causes conflict over the course of the season.

Honestly, it's up to the coach to improve his less talented players and make them better. By not playing them, he is admitting that he failed to improve the players. Like I said, I understand juggling the lines to achieve a level of comfort in a close game, but not having some kid sit on the bench.

In a perfect world I'd agree.

But no harm in deciding for the last shift or two to have your better players out there. It happens and kids should be able to deal with it as its all part of playing competitive sport. Same in basketball and most sports.

[biff44 0]

I would say top midgets or certainly junior level is where they should be shortening the bench. By that age, the players have to realize that how hard they work is going to impress or PO the coach. If a player is working hard in practice, first on the ice and last off the ice, and always working on his aerobic conditioning so he can skate at top speed and not make silly mistakes at the end of the game, most coaches will reward him with more ICE time. If they kid has some skills but is not really progressing, is winded at the end of the game, etc then bad things happen instead.

If you start shortening the bench at peewee or even bantam, you are doing so at an age level that the players have not matured enough to decide if they really want to work at hockey or instead just do it for recreation. You run the risk of turning off a kid that might have become the next Orr or Gretzky!

[Nick23 0]

At any age if you don't get on you will never be able to step up when you do get on. Im 15 and on my team if its close there are kids who wont see ice for periods if not sit the whole game, which i dont agree with fairness wise, im not one of those people and im not going to refuse ice time, but it is harsh. But for those players it would do one of 2 things, crush them compleltely and give up, or make then strive to become a better player. And i hate to say it but i think the first is more likely

[tuzzifan44 0]

This is why hockey parents are crazy, all the money invested, they sure as hell dont want to see junior sit, neither would I want to see my kid sit all the time with all the money involved, espicially in travel leagues.

[Langenbrunner15 0]

If you join travel, that means your making a commitment to win, not for just fun and games....