Book Feature Loose Pucks and Ice Bags: How and Why the Game is Changing (by Dave King)

[Dave King]

About the Author:

Dave King is a Canadian hockey coach who has coached Canadian College, Major Junior, in the NHL, Canada's National/Olympic teams and coached in six countries.
Early in his career he coached Canada's World Junior team to its first gold medal leading to the success Canada has had since then. His U of S hockey team won the Canadian University CIS championship in 1982 and he coached Canada to a silver medal in the 1992 Winter Olympics and a bronze medal in the 2018 Winter Olympics. He also coached Canada's Mens Hockey team at the World Championships to three silver medals in 1989, 1991 and 2017. He became the first North American to coach in the Russian Super League and the Russian KHL going to the league semi-finals both times. He was awarded the Order of Canada in 1992 and the Order of Hockey in Canada with Mark Messier and Paul Henderson in 2012. King is considered to be one of the best teachers in the game and Dave Tippett, coach of the Edmonton Oiler's supports that with this comment. "To this day, I have not met a smarter hockey coach or a better mentor for coaches worldwide. Hockey has evolved over Dave's four decades of coaching and he has been at the forefront of that evolution"! Dave has written two books, the first one The King of Russia; A year in the Russian Super League in conjunction with Eric Duhatschek. This book is available on Amazon.ca and Amazon.com. The second book is Loose Pucks and Ice Bags also available on Amazon.ca and Amazon.com

About the Book:

Dave King has written a very interesting and entertaining book about hockey. It's a book that appeals to a hockey fan, a coach or a player. King has written it in such a way that a rather technical game is explained to the reader in a very concise yet simplistic way. The book is formatted in such a way that every chapter is short, to the point and followed up with points of wisdom. Reading the book allows one to watch this fast and exciting game with more understanding allowing the reader to gain more appreciation for the game of hockey. As Mike Babcock, Stanley Cup winning coach and 2 time Olympic Gold Medalist has said: "Kinger is one of the greatest hockey minds of all time. He has coached at every level and in numerous countries from Canada's National/Olympic team for 10 years, in the NHL for 15 years and abroad in four other countries. His experiences provided him with an unbelievable education that he has shared with many coaches and players improving the way the game is coached and played." As well, NHL Coach of the Year and Stanley Cup Champion Barry Trotz commented: "After reading the book, King's colorful anecdotes, years of wisdom and incredible grasp on present day coaching tactics makes this a must read for coaches, players and fans".

Link for book:

amazon.ca
amazon.com

Excerpt from the book:

Chapter 18 " Possession is 9/10's of the Law... What About Hockey?
Having the opportunity to coach Canada's National/Olympic team throughout the 80's and 90's gave me a real appreciation for the fact that ice surface size had an influence on the possession game. Playing on a larger European surface, the passer often had more time and the receiver had more available space to utilize to get open. On the smaller North American ice surface, it automatically created more congestion in every zone making passing and receiving the puck much more challenging.
Often, sports like hockey, basketball and soccer are referred to as possession games. However, in soccer you have a very large field which automatically helps possession. In basketball, the rules restricting a lot of physical play often gives the team with the ball a real advantage and in both sports, prolonged or quality possession exists a lot. In hockey, there are times when you have the puck but the opposition is close and physical. Therefore, you don't have quality or productive possession as they are controlling you!
This means in hockey, some situations recur in a game where possession is not an advantage, almost a disadvantage. This creates a " risk-reward" element to making decisions, as sometimes the risk to keep possession is far greater than the reward at that moment. It is smart puck management, not possession, that often is the most important. For this reason, there are situations when having the puck is like "holding a hand grenade with the pin pulled". It is better to give the opponent the puck. Just make sure you give it away where you want them to get it! There are also situations when the opposition plays a passive, compact style with numbers back so you have no choice but to use smart shoot-ins with a plan to get it back.
One must realize it is good to have extended, quality, productive possessions as this leads to success. However, in some games it is not always how long you possess the puck, but how many short, productive possessions you get in critical areas or at critical moments that make the difference!
In today's game, we all realize players are bigger, stronger and faster than ever before. This combined with a short shift philosophy has really increased the pace of the game. The need for coaches to continue to work on individual puck control skills and collective possession tactics is clearly evident. As well, coaches must continue to help young players learn to become smart risk manager's so they learn to develop into higher percentage decision makers with the puck.

Click to read more...

 

[sr edler]

Hi Dave, what's your opinion on early to mid 90s hockey compared to early 00s hockey (DPE), how the NHL game changed? Which "era" was most challenging to coach in?

 

[Theokritos]

Thank you very much for joining us!

A book that has the Game as its subject? You don't get that very often. Did the idea to write about this occur over time as a byproduct of your coaching work in different countries and over different eras, or is there a specific trigger that made you to want to discuss the state of the game in public now?

 

[BadgerBruce]

Yes, thank you so much for joining us!

I Just ordered your book on Amazon and look forward to reading it.

Quick question: my recollection of the 1999 Open Ice Summit (I attended) is that you were a key advocate for focusing more on skill development and less on games for Canadian youth players. It’s been well over 20 years since that gathering … and its dozen recommendations. In your view, has hockey at the youth level in Canada changed for the better over the last two decades?

 

[Fenway]

Hi @Dave King and welcome

It seems as though the IIHF has decided that 200 x 85 should be the standard rink size going forward.

Can you share any background on why Europe and North America could not agree to a uniform rink size until now?

 

[Dave King]

Hi Dave, what's your opinion on early to mid 90s hockey compared to early 00s hockey (DPE), how the NHL game changed? Which "era" was most challenging to coach in?

Good question!!
All thru the 80's and 90's, clutching and grabbing, hooking and holding were much more prevalent and it made the game for the skilled player very difficult. In the 1999-2000 season when the NHL brought in zero tolerance, two referees, and other new rules, it reduced this interference. So at this point, the skill player now had more advantage and skill was allowed to make more of a difference than physical play. Prior to these rule changes in the early 2000's, it was very common particularly in the playoffs in a 7 game series for physical intimidation to play more of a role in the outcome of the series. For the hockey purists, the rule changes and skill being allowed to make the difference was applauded.
I think now it is more difficult to coach than before because you now have 4 to 5 man coaching staffs, you have great use of computer video interactive systems, we have game analyst's that provide us with lots and lots of statistics and analytics. All of this is being done to attempt to gain an advantage and it certainly represents a sophisticated approach to game preparation.Every coaching staff is so thorough that its difficult to gain this advantage through coaching. It still comes down to which ever coaching staff can provide the best playing environment that often creates the most success.

 

[Dave King]

Thank you very much for joining us!

A book that has the Game as its subject? You don't get that very often. Did the idea to write about this occur over time as a byproduct of your coaching work in different countries and over different eras, or is there a specific trigger that made you to want to discuss the state of the game in public now?

Prior to coaching I was a teacher so I've always taken the approach that my players will perform better if they understand why we're doing something. Throughout my coaching career, I've always tried to facilitate my players and assistant coaches to learn more about the game. During my coaching career, I have done over a couple of hundred coaching seminars and clinics. Trying to help others in coaching has been something I've done for a long time. Having the opportunity to coach Internationally early in my career in the early 80's exposed me to many new ideas and different methods . I felt an obligation to share this information with others as every Canadian wants our game to evolve, improve and provide participants with a better experience. While With Hockey Canada we created the Center of Excellence which was designed to provide coaches access to International hockey, video and written material.

 

[Dave King]

Yes, thank you so much for joining us!

I Just ordered your book on Amazon and look forward to reading it.

Quick question: my recollection of the 1999 Open Ice Summit (I attended) is that you were a key advocate for focusing more on skill development and less on games for Canadian youth players. It’s been well over 20 years since that gathering … and its dozen recommendations. In your view, has hockey at the youth level in Canada changed for the better over the last two decades?

Yes, I think hockey development has changed over the last two decades. It is not easy to overcome some of the traditional ways of developing players and no one is advocating that. There is however new ideas being developed by many different countries and federations and globally one would say the game is making significant improvement in the development process. For example, the use of small area games in practice to teach skill and some introductory concepts to playing hockey are a good idea for youngsters. I think the Hockey Academies now available all over Canada which are partially based on the European model of combining education along with hockey development is now very popular with players and coaches. One of the critical factors in the development process is how so many of our top NHL and professional coaches are so willing to share their ideas with coaches in their development stages. The key however, is the coach who is working with youngsters must always be aware of what is appropriate and applicable to the age group he or she is coaching.

 

[Dave King]

Hi @Dave King and welcome

It seems as though the IIHF has decided that 200 x 85 should be the standard rink size going forward.

Can you share any background on why Europe and North America could not agree to a uniform rink size until now?

In North America, since the advent of the game, it pretty much was standard that ice surfaces would be 85 by 200 and it's exactly the same in Europe except they chose to play on a larger ice surface 100 by 200 probably because they played a sport called Bandy before they played ice hockey. Bandy was played on a frozen soccer field so when they started to play hockey they realized to enclose an area that great was going to be very difficult so they chose to reduce the size of the surface to 100 x 200. The IIHF has mandated that all World Ice Hockey Championships must be hosted by countries or cities that can provide the 85 by 200 ice surface. The experts appear to feel the the game is more focused to the net and is therefore more exciting and entertaining when played on the smaller surface. It is still very interesting in the KHL, there are three different ice size surfaces being used. There is the North American 85 x 200, the European 100 x 200 and the "hybrid" Finnish size which is 90 x 200. So as you can see for leagues there is still not a standardized ice surface but for IIHF championships and Olympics, there is.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Dear Mr. King, congratulations on authoring a book and thank you for joining us! I have a general question: People often talk about how modern players are superior than those of the past; First, do you think it's also true for the elite players, and secondly, is there anything that top players of the past were better at than modern players?

Thank you, will make sure to read your book. The technical aspects of the game are fascinating.

 

[DaveG]

Hey Dave, really looking forward to picking up your book and seeing your thoughts on the game and its evolution over the years.

One of the things I've noticed in my decades following the sport is a move toward a far more possession based game since the elimination of the two-line pass rule following the 04-05 lockout. How much of an effect do you think rule changes such as this and the crack down on obstruction, combined with more skills focused training like we're seeing with the USNTDP, have had on how the game is played and coached currently? Is the product we're seeing now a natural evolution of the game that was accelerated by rules that opened up the game, or is it a matter of how players, coaches, and management teams have adapted to the way the game is officiated?

 

[Theokritos]

Yes, I think hockey development has changed over the last two decades. It is not easy to overcome some of the traditional ways of developing players and no one is advocating that. There is however new ideas being developed by many different countries and federations and globally one would say the game is making significant improvement in the development process. For example, the use of small area games in practice to teach skill and some introductory concepts to playing hockey are a good idea for youngsters. I think the Hockey Academies now available all over Canada which are partially based on the European model of combining education along with hockey development is now very popular with players and coaches. One of the critical factors in the development process is how so many of our top NHL and professional coaches are so willing to share their ideas with coaches in their development stages. The key however, is the coach who is working with youngsters must always be aware of what is appropriate and applicable to the age group he or she is coaching.

Thanks for the information.

I think now it is more difficult to coach than before because you now have 4 to 5 man coaching staffs, you have great use of computer video interactive systems, we have game analyst's that provide us with lots and lots of statistics and analytics. All of this is being done to attempt to gain an advantage and it certainly represents a sophisticated approach to game preparation.Every coaching staff is so thorough that its difficult to gain this advantage through coaching. It still comes down to which ever coaching staff can provide the best playing environment that often creates the most success.

That's an interesting point.

Dave, you have coached a great variety of different teams over the decades. How big of a change was it to go from coaching North American teams to coaching European teams (tactics, mentality), in particular a Russian club like Magnitogorsk without any North Americans on the roster?

 

[Dave King]

Dear Mr. King, congratulations on authoring a book and thank you for joining us! I have a general question: People often talk about how modern players are superior than those of the past; First, do you think it's also true for the elite players, and secondly, is there anything that top players of the past were better at than modern players?

Thank you, will make sure to read your book. The technical aspects of the game are fascinating.

Very interesting question and onc I have often asked some of the players of the past to comment on. Most hockey people believe the so called "average" player is better now than the average player was in previous decades. They are simply bigger, faster and stronger and more skilled than "average" players of the past. However, the top players in every era were exceptional players. For example, Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr would be great players in almost any era. The game has changed so much in terms of tempo and speed that it does make it difficult to compare today's players to players in past eras. We must always remember that the top players in every era were very dedicated to their game and played with lots of pride so in my opinion if they were to play in today's game, those attitudinal factors would drive them to be as good as today's top players are.

To stop or reduce the effectiveness of a top player in previous eras, physical intimidation was often the solution so these players had to play under tough conditions that no longer exist in todays hockey. In today's game, if anything, our top player are protected by the referees and rules and aren't "targets" like they were in the past.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Very interesting question and onc I have often asked some of the players of the past to comment on. Most hockey people believe the so called "average" player is better now than the average player was in previous decades. They are simply bigger, faster and stronger and more skilled than "average" players of the past. However, the top players in every era were exceptional players. For example, Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr would be great players in almost any era. The game has changed so much in terms of tempo and speed that it does make it difficult to compare today's players to players in past eras. We must always remember that the top players in every era were very dedicated to their game and played with lots of pride so in my opinion if they were to play in today's game, those attitudinal factors would drive them to be as good as today's top players are.

To stop or reduce the effectiveness of a top player in previous eras, physical intimidation was often the solution so these players had to play under tough conditions that no longer exist in todays hockey. In today's game, if anything, our top player are protected by the referees and rules and aren't "targets" like they were in the past.

Thanks a lot! Your answer is very interesting and confirms what I had been suspecting as a younger fan; that top players would be top players regardless of eras, and that the league required more toughness back in the days. I like your analytical way of thinking, can't wait to read your book!

 

[Dave King]

Thanks for the information.



That's an interesting point.

Dave, you have coached a great variety of different teams over the decades. How big of a change was it to go from coaching North American teams to coaching European teams (tactics, mentality), in particular a Russian club like Magnitogorsk without any North Americans on the roster?

I really enjoyed the opportunity to coach in so many different countries because the game and the culture around the game in each country are different. When I coached in Europe and Russia, I decided to use video to evaluate and assess games and many of the players had not had very much of that and I found the feedback from the players was very positive to bringing in this North American aspect for them.In terms of defensive play I always tried to bring in some of our North American tactics and this was a real adjustment for many players in those countries. However, with time they realized the "North American" style of defending was very effective. I didn't want to bring change to every aspect of the game when I coached overseas so I basically tried to encourage them to play their own offensive style that was instinctive to them. This meant that my teams overseas played a kind of hybrid style using North American defensive tactics combined with their instinctive offensive tactics. I think doing this made the players realize that I wasn't coming in to change everything and that I respected their game as well.

 

[Dave King]

Hey Dave, really looking forward to picking up your book and seeing your thoughts on the game and its evolution over the years.

One of the things I've noticed in my decades following the sport is a move toward a far more possession based game since the elimination of the two-line pass rule following the 04-05 lockout. How much of an effect do you think rule changes such as this and the crack down on obstruction, combined with more skills focused training like we're seeing with the USNTDP, have had on how the game is played and coached currently? Is the product we're seeing now a natural evolution of the game that was accelerated by rules that opened up the game, or is it a matter of how players, an to improve the game offensively.

First of all, led by the NHL, all leagues were encouraged to apply the present rules more stringently. Secondly, not only did they enforce the rules better but they also brought in new rules to give offensive hockey an advantage over defensive hockey. For example, rules such as zero tolerance, removal of the red line, trapezoid rule for goalies, a minor penalty for clearing the puck over the glass, no line changes allowed on icing are some of the rules that the Bettman regime brought to our game. These rules now allowed smaller, faster players to be able to play in our game more effectively so NHL teams identification and scouting philosophies changed to simply not focus on size and strength but on skill and hockey sense. Coaches started to adapt to these rule changes and forecheck more aggressively and allowing defensemen to participate in the offense much more and so our game changed. All this was done in an attempt to improve the game for the spectator: to hopefully make it more offensive and promote more goal scoring. Stats would tell us that offensive scoring has marginally improved but the style of game does allow the top offensive players more time and space to entertain. The only aspect of the adaptation to these rules that gives me some concern is the fact that often now we get prolonged offensive shifts where one team does possess the puck for sometimes well over a minute and nothing is generated to the net. I don't believe this style is very entertaining as defenders simply give the attacking team outside space and the defending team packs the inside to prevent at times, few penetration or plays to the net.

 

[Theokritos]

I really enjoyed the opportunity to coach in so many different countries because the game and the culture around the game in each country are different. When I coached in Europe and Russia, I decided to use video to evaluate and assess games and many of the players had not had very much of that and I found the feedback from the players was very positive to bringing in this North American aspect for them.In terms of defensive play I always tried to bring in some of our North American tactics and this was a real adjustment for many players in those countries. However, with time they realized the "North American" style of defending was very effective. I didn't want to bring change to every aspect of the game when I coached overseas so I basically tried to encourage them to play their own offensive style that was instinctive to them. This meant that my teams overseas played a kind of hybrid style using North American defensive tactics combined with their instinctive offensive tactics. I think doing this made the players realize that I wasn't coming in to change everything and that I respected their game as well.

Thanks for the insight.

Another aspect I'm interested in: the difference between coaching a team full-time over a season (e.g. a club team) and preparing a team short-term for a single tournament (e.g. the Olympic Games or Spengler Cup). A famous soccer coach, Johan Cruyff, once said he never wanted to coach a national team instead of a club team because he felt the need to work with his team on a daily basis. How much influence can you effectively take on a team that is assembled for only a short tournament and you don't get to coach for that long?

 

[Dave King]

Thanks for the insight.

Another aspect I'm interested in: the difference between coaching a team full-time over a season (e.g. a club team) and preparing a team short-term for a single tournament (e.g. the Olympic Games or Spengler Cup). A famous soccer coach, Johan Cruyff, once said he never wanted to coach a national team instead of a club team because he felt the need to work with his team on a daily basis. How much influence can you effectively take on a team that is assembled for only a short tournament and you don't get to coach for that long?

Without a doubt, having a chance to coach a team over a full season allows one to really coach and make adjustments and implement quite detailed systems. With short term competition such as the Spengler Cup and the IIHF World Championships, you have so little preparation time that your system of play must be simplified and usually is a system that most players are familiar with. In short term competition representing Canada, you have to rely on the emotional factor working in your favor. Playing for Canada is an honor and players generally come to these events really thinking "team first". They know there's little preparation time so they readily buy in to whatever the coaching staff feels is appropriate and when one looks at the results Canada has achieved at World championships,Spengler Cups and the Winter Olympics, you can see this works.

 

[Theokritos]

Without a doubt, having a chance to coach a team over a full season allows one to really coach and make adjustments and implement quite detailed systems. With short term competition such as the Spengler Cup and the IIHF World Championships, you have so little preparation time that your system of play must be simplified and usually is a system that most players are familiar with. In short term competition representing Canada, you have to rely on the emotional factor working in your favor. Playing for Canada is an honor and players generally come to these events really thinking "team first". They know there's little preparation time so they readily buy in to whatever the coaching staff feels is appropriate and when one looks at the results Canada has achieved at World championships,Spengler Cups and the Winter Olympics, you can see this works.

Thank you very much for your answers. Much appreciated.

 

[Theokritos]