Reason for man-to-man

[Clown Fiesta]

One of the flaws of the man to man is the confusion on who covers who.
Here is a sample, this is from the the 1/21 Islanders game, the 2nd islander goal by Hickey.

Vanek is Girardi's man, Hickey is Stepan's man.
Hickey skates around both Girardi and Vanek, Stepan stops, Vanek has a clear path to the crease.
Although the blown coverage appears to be Girardi's, it is really not. There must be some communication between Stepan and Girardi to switch or Stepan should have cutoff his man instead of stopping.
The other interesting here is why is McDonagh following JT behind the net? JT can use the net to create separation and have a free stick. That should be either a brain fart of a flaw that needs to be corrected. If he stops and waits for JT to come around, the pass doesn't come through the vacant crease.
This is something to look for in the game Friday by the islanders.

Good example, think it had to have been a brain fart. I've never met a coach at any level that wanted his players to follow someone behind the net if the puck wasn't there. Especially in a situation like that where no one is covering the slot.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

man to man in hockey is almost always stupid. it asks so much out of the dmen, specifically with their skating and positioning and that's the hardest part about playing D to begin with.

 

[JohnC]

man to man in hockey is almost always stupid. it asks so much out of the dmen, specifically with their skating and positioning and that's the hardest part about playing D to begin with.

If John Tortorella had his team playing man to man you'd praise it as the greatest thing to ever happen to the sport

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

man to man in hockey is almost always stupid. it asks so much out of the dmen, specifically with their skating and positioning and that's the hardest part about playing D to begin with.

Good thing we don't play straight man-on-man, then!

 

[SlingshotVv]

I can't believe how many people don't understand how a system that they watch every other night impacts a game.

Man-to-man does not increase the ability to create turnovers and therefore help the transition game! It does the exact opposite. Man to man is a high pressure system, where the guy with the puck is never in a dead zone with time to think. He's always under pressure to make a play. The thought process is that if it takes 4 good hockey plays to score a goal (puck retrieval/clean entry into offensive zone, good first pass, clean reception with time and space, good shot), putting heavy pressure on each link in that chain reduces the likelihood that a line will pull that all off in a continuous string. It also keeps all 5 players active on the ice in the defensive zone. Assignments are obvious, and it forces all your big strong players to actually play physical in their own zone, every shift.

Zone and hybrids are far more efficient at getting turnovers and leading transition. Zone is read-and-react. Much like a corner back, defenders have opportunities to anticipate the play, and can jump in and make a turnover play. However, it also leads to many situations where players stand around on defense and worry about their zone more than being solid right about against someone and making plays.

 

[Tawnos]

All true slingshot, but you can't deny the point about having numbers available after you force the turnover through the pressure you mentioned. Look at the Rangers breakout many times. Close off the puck along the wall, regain it, and move it to the high forward in the middle. That forward is there because his man is at the opposite point.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

If John Tortorella had his team playing man to man you'd praise it as the greatest thing to ever happen to the sport

Nope. Change your name to the strawman, because you love going with the strawman.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Good thing we don't play straight man-on-man, then!

Didn't say we did. The OP asked about reasons for "man-to-man". I said there really generally are none. I think you're looking for an agenda where there wasn't one this time.

Really, regardless of who is doing it or not doing it, man-on-man D coverage in ice hockey is generally a bad strategy and that's why you see almost no one doing it. Momentum in ice hockey is way too important to ask someone to go up in man coverage. Man coverage is tough enough on foot on solid ground, it's insanely difficult on skates on ice. In the entire NFL there's maybe three guys who can generally win most battles when they man up. It's way too easy to beat strict man coverage.

Specifically our system, I wouldn't even want to comment yet because I don't think it's clear what it is. I can't tell yet if AV is adapting away from the stupidity of the original plan, or if it's just guys not executing the bad original plan and AV not getting all upset about it because it's working better this way anyway.

 

[Calad]

Because breakouts are super important and man to man D makes for a very fast transition

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I dont see a profound difference in the results of the transition game, but this almost always has to do with some sort of flubbing going on across the red line. Its undeniable that the team has more speed coming out of the zone.

The man to man D has also led to some ghastly missed assignments this season, although those are happening less and less. Id rather a D man get scoring opportunities from 60 feet vs. the best forwards in the world getting chances in the slot.

Overall a net negative.

 

[BwayBshirt]

I dont see a profound difference in the results of the transition game, but this almost always has to do with some sort of flubbing going on across the red line. Its undeniable that the team has more speed coming out of the zone.

The man to man D has also led to some ghastly missed assignments this season, although those are happening less and less. Id rather a D man get scoring opportunities from 60 feet vs. the best forwards in the world getting chances in the slot.

Overall a net negative.

But would you rather see a team spend/waste unnecessary time getting hemmed in its own zone or getting the puck out quicker and spending that extra time trying to score?

I think the Isles' game tonight is kinda sorta a glimpse of the importance of what this change can do.

In the most recent past(not just under Torts but even going back to Renney), after the awful play in the 2nd that the Rangers had, I dunno if they would have had the gas to not only step up, but dominate the 3rd the way they did if they were just sitting back all the time.

Plus, those 2 goals in the 3rd were transition goals. And transition hockey requires some fresher legs than what we saw prior to this season.

It's riskier hockey for sure though which I know was the point you were making.

 

[Mikos87]

There is a change in the system, it isn't straight man on man all the time like earlier in the season. The Rangers are dynamic enough now where they employ different tactics.

I see more man on man if the opposition zone entry is with a puck carrier, and more overloads when it's a dump in. You can't play straight man on cross corner dumps all night without losing puck races. The Rangers are much more solid one reading zone entries now and reacting accordingly.

The more experienced defensemen, or those that are multi-systems oriented were quicker to catch on. While it took others longer. But yes the Rangers do play man on man, when ever you see 2 defensemen on the same side, or both below the red line, it's man on man.

With that said, the biggest caveat of man on man D is if one guy loses a battle, or race, and the second guy loses his matchup, there is a very good chance it ends up in the back of your net in the NHL as mistakes will snowball. Sometimes this is one bad read. Del Zotto making a mistake on his zone entry read on the Kucherov goal is an example of this. He was 3 feet wide, and that forced him to turn to defend when he should have been manning up, and 3 seconds later, its in the net.

 

[aufheben]

I dont see a profound difference in the results of the transition game, but this almost always has to do with some sort of flubbing going on across the red line. Its undeniable that the team has more speed coming out of the zone.

The man to man D has also led to some ghastly missed assignments this season, although those are happening less and less. Id rather a D man get scoring opportunities from 60 feet vs. the best forwards in the world getting chances in the slot.

Overall a net negative.

Really? I think our transition game looks a lot better, relatively. Though you did say not a profound difference. I wouldn't call it a net negative just yet, the season isn't near over, and things have been improving.

Personally, I think an NHL coach deserves at least full season before people tie a noose (not you). We've also just acquired Klein, so I'm curious to see how the defense plays out the rest of the season.

 

[Off Sides]

They still play zone on the PK

Last year under Torts version of zone, they were basically playing the PK even 5 on 5. Letting the other team have certain parts of the O-zone ice.

This led to too much time in that zone, players get tired, start to collapse, leaves the points wide open. Boston used that to work the puck down low then send the puck up high where Krug, Chara, Boychuk all have very good point presence.

This "man to man" way of playing is more risky, both in turnovers in the neutral zone in dangerous parts of the ice and in when it breaks down there is going to be a good scoring chance,but overall I'll take this style over what was going on.

The net positive is the Rangers can now score more than two goals per game and they do not look like they are standing around hoping to block every shot that comes through while trying to win a game 2 to 1.

Another positive is the Rangers are now more comfortable breaking up ice and it leads to a better power play as they can gain the O-zone on the power play more efficiently and make some good scoring plays off the rush.

Net Negative, they are going to run into to teams who play this same sort of hybrid system better than they do mostly because those teams have been doing it longer and have been built to play it.