What happened to the Torpedo System?

[Yozhik v tumane]

Let me preface this thread with mentioning that I have a fairly basic understanding of hockey tactics, and I figure that the answer to my question might be as simple as “following the removal of the red line, more teams started applying variants of the torpedo system, but we tend to call it a 1-2-2 forecheck”.

Alright, here goes. In the late 90s and early 2000s, I frequently joined the standing audience of the Luleå HF home games. Djurgården were probably our dearest, most hated rivals at the time, as well as the most successful team in the league, and played a relentless brand of hockey called “torpedo hockey”. For me, being around 10 years old, I knew very little about hockey tactics. I figured, because Djurgården were such pricks and at least the games Luleå played against them got so damn violent and intense, that “torpedo” in this case refers to Djurgården basically playing like hired assassins.

So it was just recently that I read about it on Wikipedia, and realized that “torpedo hockey” (in this space in time*) rather was a system designed and utilized as an antidote to the neutral zone trap popular not just in the NHL, but also in the Swedish league as exemplified by Frölunda who had found recent success with it.

Apparently, Rickard Fagerlund who was then-head of the Swedish hockey federation loathed the neutral zone trap, which might explain the appointment of Djurgården’s coach—and pioneer of the torpedo system—Hardy Nilsson as head coach of the national team in 2000.

In 2002, Sweden shocked Canada by squarely beating them 5-2 in the round robin of the Olympics, utilizing the torpedo system. Around this time, as evidenced by the sources in the Wikipedia article, the hockey world seems to have taken note and begun to discuss “torpedo hockey” as a potential way out of the chokehold possessed by the trap on the NHL. The main obstacle, though, was likely the red line, as put by Slate.com:
“The NHL forbids a “two-line pass” (one that crosses both the blueline and the center redline), however, which means that the torpedoes’ abilities to stretch opposing defenses and thus open up the ice surface are limited; the stifling transition game played between the bluelines will remain.”

When the Olympic tournament reached the elimination stages, Sweden shocked the hockey world once more, by losing to Belarus in one of the most memorable Olympic upsets since the Miracle on Ice. Thus, the Olympic men’s hockey tournament became something entirely different from the triumph of the torpedo system that Hardy Nilsson had hoped for, and after failing to coach Sweden to any tournament gold medals, he was replaced by Bengt-Åke Gustafsson as head coach in 2005.

Alright, so what I’m wondering is basically everything about this and other hockey tactics, sorry about being everywhere with this: What do you know about and what happened to the torpedo system? What are the differences between the Hardy Nilsson/Djurgården brand of hockey and the 1-2-2 forecheck? Did we stop talking about torpedoes due to Nilsson’s Team Sweden constantly failing to win anything? Was the removal of the red line at all inspired by the displays of torpedo hockey by Swedish teams? I realize that rule changes after the lockout effectively made the trap, as well as clutching and grabbing, less efficient tactics, and that they opened for other viable options to teams. Finally, what are some of your personal recollections of torpedo hockey?

Here’s a May 2005 thread on the topic of Torpedo vs. Trap

* Sources note that the late 1950s Bruins originated the torpedo system, and that Tarasov’s Soviet national team utilized it.

 

[sr edler]

Looking at those Djurgården teams in 2000 & 2001 they just had a lot of depth from a domestic perspective and some occasional flair (Knutsen).

Tellqvist must have thought he was the new Patrick Roy.

Hardy's torpedo dreams probably went aground when he couldn't sink Belarus.

I never liked Hardy Nilsson, he came across as an uptight know-it-all.


Edit: Actually now when I think about it he (Hardy Nilsson) kinda looks a bit like Mike Babcock. Same type of faces.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

getting rid of the 2 line pass took away its purpose.

once a team could make stretch passes, that ended the trap and strategies designed solely to beat the trap

 

[plusandminus]

Looking at those Djurgården teams in 2000 & 2001 they just had a lot of depth from a domestic perspective and some occasional flair (Knutsen).

Tellqvist must have thought he was the new Patrick Roy.

Hardy's torpedo dreams probably went aground went he couldn't sink Belarus.

I never liked Hardy Nilsson, he came across as an uptight know-it-all.

I liked Hardy and found him humble. I rather thought the journalists gave him a hard time... especially Claes Åkesson/Runheim. Sort of like he did with Brolin. He seemed very critical towards Hardy, sometimes spending minutes asking again and again "Why did you lose?", as if they did it on purpose.

I thought Sweden played great during the three(?) first games, including the one against Canada. It was talked about as arguably the best game a Swedish team ever had performed. And Mats Sundin looked something like the best player in the World.

"'Big ice' hockey" was another name used for the style of play, wasn't it?

Sundin was quite great vs Belarus too. Mattias Öhlund, however, was weak on a couple of goals against. I don't think Sweden played very terrible (shots were 47-19), but things went very wrong, including the formerly reliable Salo allowing that long shot. Afterwards, I think Hardy was criticized for having been too passive.

(It was not a funny loss for us Swedes. Four years earlier we lost against Finland, in a game where Sweden had the late(?) shift, but players seemed to spend too much energy on figuring out when to play than paying focus on their own play. A major task the players had been given was to watch out for Teemu Selänne. 0-0 after two periods. Then Selänne scored two goals. With only a few minutes remaining of the game, Sweden finally came alive. Forsberg scored with 12 seconds left. But Sweden lost. A very disappointing loss. Shots were 17-19, meaning Sweden took only 17 shots on goal.)

Anyway... nice to see the torpedo system get its own thread. And hopefully someone (unlike me) can tell us more about its role in history.

 

[sr edler]

I liked Hardy and found him humble. I rather thought the journalists gave him a hard time... especially Claes Åkesson/Runheim. Sort of like he did with Brolin. He seemed very critical towards Hardy, sometimes spending minutes asking again and again "Why did you lose?", as if they did it on purpose.

Portions of the Swedish press acted outrageously after that game. It was disgusting. Even by already low tabloid standard. Remember that "TRAITORS" headline and a picture of every player? .... Like what ... the ... hell?

He might be a good guy, Hardy. I don't know. I was never a fan of Djurgården though and he always looked so grumpy.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Hardy's torpedo dreams probably went aground went he couldn't sink Belarus.

Yes, this was one of the things I realized now while trying to get my head around the torpedo system, that it had this brief glorious moment vs Canada, but that no one would talk about anything other than the Belarus fiasco after the tournament.

I rewatched the 2002 Canada-Sweden game, it’s on Youtube, and it was kind of interesting from a clash of ideology (torpedo vs. trap) perspective. The Swedes were putting relentless pressure on the Canadian players, and when they gained possession in the neutral or offensive zones, they managed prolonged dominant shifts, really having all time greats looking silly at times. It’s kind of disheartening watching the likes of Mario Lemieux playing trap defense, but also great seeing the system fail against a team poised to attack.

I never liked Hardy Nilsson, he came across as an uptight know-it-all.

I recall almost everyone being tired of and disliking him eventually, but I remember myself feeling bad for him, haha.

getting rid of the 2 line pass took away its purpose.

once a team could make stretch passes, that ended the trap and strategies designed solely to beat the trap

I’m not sure that the trap ever ended, though? I think you still find teams applying it in ways, and similarly do you see teams applying variations of the torpedo system, from my understanding of it. But perhaps hockey systems in general have become more dynamic than they were in the early 2000s?

"'Big ice' hockey" was another name used for the style of play, wasn't it?

I kind of recall hearing the phrase back then, but was it the same thing? Was it Hardy’s national team variation of it?

Sundin was quite great vs Belarus too. Mattias Öhlund, however, was weak on a couple of goals against. I don't think Sweden played very terrible (shots were 47-19), but things went very wrong, including the formerly reliable Salo allowing that long shot. Afterwards, I think Hardy was criticized for having been too passive.

Also remember Sundin as maybe the one guy you could give a pass for his performance in that horrendous game.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Four years earlier we lost against Finland, in a game where Sweden had the late(?) shift, but players seemed to spend too much energy on figuring out when to play than paying focus on their own play. A major task the players had been given was to watch out for Teemu Selänne. 0-0 after two periods. Then Selänne scored two goals. With only a few minutes remaining of the game, Sweden finally came alive. Forsberg scored with 12 seconds left. But Sweden lost. A very disappointing loss. Shots were 17-19, meaning Sweden took only 17 shots on goal.)

What kind of hockey did Sweden play at this time? It’s the Kent Forsberg era, correct?

Finland has always seemed to utilize the most aggravatingly defensive of systems, boxing out and clenching their hinds hoping for an eventual odd man rush here and there, haha. I’ve appreciated Sweden for generally not tending to play to the weaknesses of their players, but to their strengths—however futile it sometimes has been.

In the aforementioned win over Canada in 2002, I saw loads of giveaways by the Swedes in the neutral and defensive zones, but the forechecking saved them several times. And when the better players were on, and they started finding the groove with their passing plays, the hockey was glorious.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not a Swede, not the most familiar guy in the world with the torpedo...but from what I understand of it, I can ramble aimlessly about it in what will surely not be a super popular topic here or anywhere because it's tactical...

I view the torpedo forecheck as 2-1-2, maybe even 2-2-1, the latter being super rare...I run a 2-1-2 generally because in a lot of the leagues that I have coached in, teams are built backwards...the best players play forward, when the best players should play defense...so you attack the weakness and force mistakes...

This torpedo deal definitely does that...it's a heavy pressure on the defense, defense will tend to go up the boards when they're in trouble, and those half backs or whatever the Swedes called them would shut the wall off...

So the forecheck got lost in its original (to my knowledge) form when d-men got comfortable and the league went on to use the once-forbidden middle lane to exit. I love middle lane exits to a swinging player, usually my center...opens up a lot of ice for me.

For visualization, I'm talking about something like this - video should start at 1:43.



You see Pittsburgh has that 2-1-2 split forecheck on, there is some torpedo shrapnel to that certainly, and you see Zibanejad swing through the middle after the D-to-D. That was once forbidden territory for most teams...hell, D-to-D passes really didn't start to become a thing until the 1970's in the NHL...

So, everyone is doing that now because the d-men are more talented, coaches have a little more confidence in that middle lane...the Penguins really went after that lane hard under Bylsma...I seem to recall Buffalo, right after the big sleep, was really big on the middle lane in the NZ...

That takes some of the starch out of your sails if you're getting beat back through the middle because of a 2-1-2 swing or stack that isn't properly formatted...

The outlet part of it probably had a chance early on after the lockout in the NHL, but it would have been short-lived. In my estimation, headmanning the puck died somewhere around 2013. The biggest stage I can recall it really getting killed on was the 2013 Eastern Conference Final - Pittsburgh-Boston.

I'm trying to quickly find examples that are even kind of relevant...but this Penguins team is lo-ho-ho-hoaded...it is stacked. They don't score any goals against Boston and get swept because Boston wasn't afraid of the transition game. They were used to having to babysit their defensive zone because of Tim Thomas's completely random nonsense that he was doing, so they already weren't up in the zone, they were already collapsing back, they already had to deal with just random rebounds, who knows what else...so they were comfortable.

Take a look at 12:47 of this video...



Engelland (5 white) goes back to retrieve. Now he'll move it lateral back to Paul Martin (7 white)...freeze it right there (12:52 of the video, 12:33 left 1st period). Where is everyone? Boston has layers over the top. There aren't any guys over center really...and that's because there's no Penguins to defend. For whatever reason, the Penguins tried to just send guys on either side of the ice, sometimes one solo, sometimes one up each wing to stretch teams and play this "island hockey"...my example is poor because Malkin and Neal work a little isolation play to enter the zone, more on that in a second...

But pucks were repeatedly just thrown ahead to Crosby and Malkin and Neal and Kunitz and Iginla and Sutter and all these guys...and they were largely isolated because of the layered defenses. It's tough to dump it into yourself because you had to probably had to break stride to catch such a long pass...these are 2 and 3 lines passes...so that's a no-go...and then when you get checked, there isn't any help for you because it's a stretch pass...so there's no one around for miles...so what happens? Well, you lose the puck and you don't score any goals, clearly...

Back to the zone entry...just flick over to 12:53 of the video, 12:32 left in the 1st...Paul Martin, very smart d-man, really good vision, ran a lot of multi-line carry plays himself in NJ despite not being a brilliant stickhandler or skater (not bad, just not what you'd expect from a guy who carried the puck so often in NJ...then again, a knock-kneed Scotty Gomez did too)...he's got the puck, he's looking ahead and see that hesitation? The puck is just sitting on his stick cocked and loaded...but he's like, "uhh...this is no good." But under Bylsma if you screwed up the breakout you got put in the press box, so he just does it...

But again, where is everyone? There are two Penguins waiting at the far blueline just standing still, one of which is a LHS on the right side, so he can't really accept a pass and be onside...you have Malkin providing some slash support through the middle, which is the only reason why this works at all is because there's a 40 goal scorer passing it to a HOFer...get to 12:55 of the video/12:30 left in the 1st...Neal makes the bump play to Malkin, and there's already three guys over the top of him...it's a suicide mission. Now again, not the best example, but I don't have all night re-live this nightmare unfortunately, but...

That play works like gangbusters if you have speed behind the puck...speed isn't useful if it just has to stop to avoid being offside. By having three guys up at the far blue line, you're basically coming out of a football huddle and going, "ok, here's what 3 of our wide receivers are gonna do...it's like 90% gonna be a pass play...we're not gonna tell you the rest though."

There's no threat from Engelland (well, ever) but there's no threat from the retriever because he doesn't join the play...there's no threat from Martin because his feet stop moving to make the pass ahead. There's no threat from Matt Cooke because he is on his wrong side stopped at the blueline. There's no threat from Neal (though, you do have to shade him because he's on his correct side to receive an onside zone entry pass) because he's standing in mud...there's no threat from Vokoun because he's also stationary back in his crease...so it's a solo mission for Malkin 1 on 3...it's bad planning by Pittsburgh meets great preparation by Boston...

So, after I got out of rehab after that series...I vowed never to coach headmanning the puck ever again. I adopted Tarasov-style teachings and very much love that...

Now, I will send guys...I will fly the zone, but they're decoys (or a free breakaway, but that's rare)...the nice thing about utilizing speed in space is that it's distracting. So from a controlled breakout, we'll have RHS on the left side start to fly the zone...so now I have attracted the attention of their RD, that backs him off the line...then as the play starts to develop, the LD now has to back off his line, when he does that, we send our original flier to cross his face and back him up as far as he can, preferably to his own blue line.

So right there, now we're 4 on 3 breaking out and the spacing that's available to us behind their forecheck into the neutral zone might as well be a soccer pitch (I'm trying to meet you Europeans halfway here haha)...bonus bucks, that RHS on the left is now on the right, which means he can be stationary and accept an onside pass or a drop pass inside the line. But moreover, now we have speed generated against all the wrong things for their team...their forecheck is coming at us, so skates are going south, we're going north. Then their defense is backed up to near their own blue line, so right as we're revving it up on the offensive runway that is the neutral zone, they're sitting on their heels stationary...then we enter with speed and can freely attack with four...

So that's my vague assessment of what happened to torepdo hockey and why I don't personally love it today...

 

[Filthy Dangles]

It seems like a slight variation of what you might typically see today. If I understand it correctly, the strongside halfback might typically be the Center who, like the center would swing toward the middle and be an option there while the weakside halfback would be the weakside D who you typically see advance up the ice a little and outside the dotline to get open for an option. If you're watching Sweden in thsoe games it's not like they were playing some crazy different brand of hockey.

On a smaller compact NHL rink with faster players, one of the issues I foresee would be reacting to a turnover with all those players spread out so far and in those weird layers.

The end goal is always to have 3 lanes occupied moving the up the ice.

I tried snipping some clips of Sweden breaking out against Canadians in '02 and combined them. You can sort of see the 'Torpedo' allignment in some of them, notably the last clip at 1:59. Beautiful touch pass play, didn't lead to much but a great play none the less. Also that Sweden team was probably underrated.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Not a Swede, not the most familiar guy in the world with the torpedo...but from what I understand of it, I can ramble aimlessly about it in what will surely not be a super popular topic here or anywhere because it's tactical...

Oh, I don’t care: love this!

That play works like gangbusters if you have speed behind the puck...speed isn't useful if it just has to stop to avoid being offside. By having three guys up at the far blue line, you're basically coming out of a football huddle and going, "ok, here's what 3 of our wide receivers are gonna do...it's like 90% gonna be a pass play...we're not gonna tell you the rest though."

I take your word for gospel on the usage and eventual demise of the torpedo, I thought it was a very interesting and insightful read. However, were the torpedoes supposed to just sit at the offensive blue line like that, in the original system? Of course breaking in with speed makes a lot more sense. I feel as if the ‘02 Swedes were skating and moving the puck a lot more in the NZ, trying to win an extra feet of ice to break in with some speed. I think that was another one of the criticisms against the torpedo, that there are only so many players with the ability, most teams would not be able to ice two lines as skilled to be successful, and you’re still likely to lose the puck a lot, and it’s a hustle.

Back to your example, I guess that the Bruins’ 1-3-1 works well in curtailing the Penguins’ torpedo? From my understanding, the trap is different in that it shifts the defending team towards the play, which the half backs could exploit by extending the puck along the boards to the nearest torpedo who’s ahead of the trap. Hope I make sense!

So that's my vague assessment of what happened to torepdo hockey and why I don't personally love it today...

Thank you!

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

It seems like a slight variation of what you might typically see today. If I understand it correctly, the strongside halfback might typically be the Center who, like the center would swing toward the middle and be an option there while the weakside halfback would be the weakside D who you typically see advance up the ice a little and outside the dotline to get open for an option. If you're watching Sweden in thsoe games it's not like they were playing some crazy different brand of hockey.

I agree, the hockey looks rather modern, doesn’t it? If not for Tommy Salo’s conspicuous standing hybrid, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s later than 2002.

On a smaller compact NHL rink with faster players, one of the issues I foresee would be reacting to a turnover with all those players spread out so far and in those weird layers.

Yeah, I think maybe that there are better, easier-to-handle systems than the torpedo. But, I should add, I checked and the Salt Lake rink was apparently not Olympic sized, but not NHL sized either: it was a hybrid, somewhere right in-between. Ken Hitchcock said they’d measured it and its corners was similar to the NHL rinks.

 

[Michael Farkas]

However, were the torpedoes supposed to just sit at the offensive blue line like that, in the original system? Of course breaking in with speed makes a lot more sense.

No, good point, they were not - in my estimation. They were meant to be hit on the fly. But that requires a lot of skill (on both sides, the pass, the vision, the route running, the pass acceptance, etc.), it requires a pass to get through a F1 and then the F2-F3 layer of a 1-2-2. Then you still have to account for that last line of defenders are. But think about what happens when you don't hit the torpedoes with the initial pass...they're exactly where the Penguins are sitting in that example, standing still at the blueline, right? Where else can you go? If you just skated all that way out of the zone, chances are you're not going to circle back through the middle...but if you do, that's plenty enough time to come back over the top (much like the Bruins do in their passive, low 1-2-2 in the example I highlighted).

That's the nature of long passing plays really in any sport, right? There's just not a ton of room for error all things considered (unless there's no defense around for miles, of course). So you either hit perfectly, or you're gonna get figured out. I tend to bank on support triangles in relatively concentrated areas because short passes are easier and chances are all three of you won't screw it up at the same time (1980's Islanders model vs the 1980's Oilers model which focused more on long passing plays and top speed)

In the NFL, even the best quarterbacks aren't necessarily the best deep ball throwers...Tom Brady was all about that short game, like Joe Montana was...according to scouts (and my eye as well, for whatever its worth) Brady was barely an average deep ball thrower, and he had a coach that utilized him in a way to bring out his strengths and they won about two zillion championships...Peyton Manning, Dan Fouts, these guys played in much more vertical offenses - it's a bigger strain on the talent and requires its own set of precision. Last thing on football, you look at the adaptation of someone like Drew Brees or Phillip Rivers - guys that used to be able to really push the ball down the field, now really don't have that arm talent. I'd wager that Brees probably throws the ball to shorter targets than any QB in the NFL right now...that's a coach preserving his player and putting him in the best position to succeed. No surprise that Brees has been the completion percentage god for the last few years, IIRC...