Smarter Player or Athleticly better Player

[hocckey77 0]

Which would you pick. I didn't make my High School's Varsity team this spring(nothing special) but I know I'm smarter than almost everyone on the team.

I'm probably not even going to play because I'll miss half the games for my better team.

[Modo22 0]

I assume it had more to do with Politics then anything. I hate Highschool politics!! I am not looking forward to putting up with it when my kids play.

I would rather have a smater player than a better player. As long as you know the gmae you can put your self in that position to be/look good. How dont care how fast you skate or how many goals you score, as long as you are understand and play the game with team in mind not "I", then I'll play you.

[Eazy_b97 1]

Thats weird, there was very little politics on my High School hockey team. Sometimes "smart play" can be difficult for coaches to determine. Most look at skills and aren't able to even judge who is a "smart" player. It seems like coaches always come up to me after the season and say "Wow, I didn't know you were that good". It can be difficult for them to see "smart play" and even then some people never can get past the raw skill.

[hocckey77 0]

The funny thing is that there's only like < 40 people in the club.

[hocckey77 0]

Thats weird, there was very little politics on my High School hockey team. Sometimes "smart play" can be difficult for coaches to determine. Most look at skills and aren't able to even judge who is a "smart" player. It seems like coaches always come up to me after the season and say "Wow, I didn't know you were that good". It can be difficult for them to see "smart play" and even then some people never can get past the raw skill.

Yeah, most of the people don't know what I know since they never played travel so they never open up to a pass, curl on breakouts( I play defense), ect...

[Chadd 916]

You would be surprised how many coaches don't recognize smart plays. There are also a lot of coaches who convince themselves they can teach the bigger, faster, etc.. players how to play with their head.

[freq019 0]

I think its a tough question to answer, because you can't teach god-given athletic ability, you would hope you could teach them the game and allow them to grow into a smart player, but that doesn't always happen. At the same time a smart player may not have the physical tools to compete. I think hockey is different from a lot of sports in that a smart player with out the physical gifts can compete where in football for example speed and size trump ability most of the time. Also I would be hesistant to consider all smart players team players and vice versa.

[SB39 2]

Sorry guys, but it's a pretty clear case to me. It takes a much shorter time to develop athletically, ie people can get in great shape (given they're weren't obese to begin with) in 6-8 months, and it takes longer than that to develop the cool, intelligent, unemotional head to make smart plays.

Granted, if someone makes a similar, ironclad committment to improve either their game or their physical shape and works at it for a couple hours a day, both areas will vastly improve in 6-8 months, but it's much easier to make a body composition change than an equal improvement in game smarts and skills, since both coordination (neural pathways to the muscles themselves) and understanding the game must improve simultaneously.

I'll take the smarter kid any day and then throw his ass in the gym

[MDE3 0]

Generally there has to be a basic talent level..ie the player belongs at the level they are playing....based on certain fundamental skills. Then the smarter player can become an easier choice. However a smart player who cannot get to the puck first in his own zone is not too much use, unless he also happens to have unbelivable hands which allow him to regain possession by stealing pucks or knocking passes down.....but then you are back to choosing skills at the same time. I have seen lot's of kids who almost always make the right plays, but cannot execute them fast enough, who thus end up being a detriment at a certain level...and others who have good skills, but who think their skills are actually better than they really are, and thus end up making "dumb" plays......trapped by their own ego.

If the player is smart enough to play at a high level, he has probably figured out that certain skill levels are a prerequisite, and worked to achieve this.....so the question becomes a bit of a self fullfilling prophecy.

It also depends a great deal whether the team is being chosen for developmental reasons, or to be competitive "right out of the box"....If a coach has the time, he may choose either type, figuring he has time to develop the missing elements for both.

When choosing a team, it usually becomes a question of getting the right mix, needed to execute the kind of hockey the coach believes should be played. It may often appear unfair when it comes down to comparing who made the team and who didn't.

One coach may feel that the best team for his approach puts 3 steady but heady players with one flashy but less reliable speedster as the best mix for how he wants to play(inline)(controlled defensive game, with the ability to capitalize on a one man rush from turnovers). Another may feel that one "heady" player can quarterback three flashier but less "reliable" players in a run and gun type game...So obviously the chosen mix can vary...To say one is wrong...well a lot depends on the strength of the coaching..and what they feel they are best at developing in their players, as well as their personal philosophy of the game.