Which is a big reason why most of our U20 coaches favor elder players. This group oozes raw skill, but that skill isn't doing them much if they lose the physical battles.
Well, I have seen certain posters pining after certain underagers because they're *big* underagers. To them I'd like to say that size does not equal physicality. A big body doesn't help a kid if he doesn't know how to use that body. If one does, you usually can expect to see them pretty high in mock drafts.
"Well, what about the intimidation factor?" have some asked. "When you see a big guy, you're far less likely to mess with them." To them I always say that said factor - while useful in avoiding those 2AM sausage stand fights - is actually more or less non-existent in hockey, at least in top-level hockey. It's a fast game where decisions are made in fractions of a second. Even if you're a smaller kid, but with the right attitude, you simply don't have the time to size up the opposing guy. If you do stop and take the time, you're not a very good player then. U20 elite division is pretty high-level and players that bad are not very common.
Might indeed be the case. Even in outdoor hockey. Lol. But that's maybe cuz the contact is nonexistent in there.
Yet, and by the same token referring to my previous posts, it is not only the "physicality" one can benefit from a big body/size but things like reach and protecting the puck which factors once again gave me also a certain advantage against enthusiastic buzzing junior and what not players in an outdoor rink tonight.
Too bad, my fitness level needs a few "rechecks" before I can enter the beast mode in those games. Lol
That's what one should be able to derive from the size advantage since an advantage it is. Some Otto Koivula or what was his name (and co.) could be a big factor in there if he used his body more consistently to protect the puck and make plays from there.
Also, the common "persjalkaisuus" among Finnish players is
eo ipso &
per se an unfortunate genetic fact and ethnic tendency/trait which in itself cuts off some of the flair from the traditional Finnish game compared to - I dunno -
almost any other nation! It is really mind-boggling when you think about it. I think the Finns are simply the most "persjalkainen" people of any western demographic group or nationality.
And since sports like basketball and volleyball harvest the majority of athletically oriented exceptions to the rule in Finland nowadays - the phenomenon keeps annoying me watching Finnish NTs buzzing on the ice even against inferior opponents like Latvia which exemplifies Baltic long strides with limbs of dimension in abundance among their squad rendering their movement more delightful to an aesthetic eye like mine.
You can be whatever opinion about this or - even and most likely - refrain from commenting which (an "awkward silence") only testifies about the validity of my point. And if you disagree or think it is irrelevant you are simply wrong on two counts: 1) the advantage gained via extra reach and better protection; 2) the grace and style of movement which point has also its relevance in the point 1: Better dangles and dekes are the one which have the "Lemieux esque flair" due to reach and style.
The next point of priority and emphasis in Finnish hockey junior program should be here. No kidding: Favour those players who have long limbs and light stride. And direct fast forward the "persjalkaiset" to a wrestling hall.
