différence entre hockey europeen et nord américan

[rookie coach 13]

http://www.smarthockey.com/philosophy.p ... 0840244105

 

Site qui explique certaines choses tel que la différence de coaching, certaines stats etc.

 

ex; In 1982, nearly 83% of the players in the NHL were Canadian, approximately 11% were American

 

In 1992, 66% of the players in the NHL were Canadian, approximately 13% were American and 21% were European.

 

In 2002, 54% of the players in the NHL were Canadian, 13% were American and 33% were European.

 

The Czech Republic, Finland, Russia, Slovakia, and Sweden account for less

than 18% of the total number of players in the world, but in the 2001-2002

season 36% of the NHL’s top 50-point scorers were comprised of players

from these 5 countries.

 

In the 2003 All-Star Game, 6 of the top 12 starters (50%) were European,

3 were American and 3 were Canadian.

et aussi sur le coaching

In the following section, Smarthockey presents its case and its solution.

 

 

 

The North American Coaching Dilemma

European coaches have access to clearly outlined skills development systems adopted from proven Russian training techniques, which they use to systematically teach and monitor their players’ individual development. European coaches employ a 5:1 practice to game ratio, which enables them to focus on both their players’ skills development and on their team systems.

 

On the other hand, North American coaches do not have access to clearly outlined skills development programs. And worse, for the most part, North American amateur youth hockey leagues have adopted a 2:3 practice to game ratio.

 

It’s Smarthockey’s contention that most North American coaches don’t “coach to develop skills” because, one, they don’t know how and, two, they don’t have enough practice time with their players.

 

 

 

Due to league imposed practice to game ratios, North American coaches at all levels are forced to choose between teaching players individual skills development or teaching them team systems – known as the “Coaching to Win” versus the “Coaching to Develop Skills” dilemma.

 

A coach who is “coaching to win”, focuses on team systems like breakouts, forechecking, neutral zone positioning, power plays, man-down, etc. The coach assesses the ability of his athletes and then uses his players like chess pieces in a well orchestrated and rehearsed strategy to beat the coaches of other teams.

 

On the other hand, a coach who is “coaching to develop skills” is only concerned about making his players better by concentrating specifically on their individual skills like basic puck control, dynamic puck control, basic skating, dynamic skating, shooting, dekes, one-timers, passing and one-on-ones. The coach assesses the playing ability of his players and then follows linear skills development systems teaching his players how to be fundamentally skilled players who can be placed in and excel in any team system.

 

The “Coaching to win” philosophy works and is acceptable at only the highest levels of the game. Professional, collegiate and junior level coaches are hired to win. At these levels a coach’s job depends on his winning percentage, and by this time his players should have received enough individual skills development instruction throughout their careers to be competent players.

 

Inversely, coaches at any other level of the game, whether it is High School, Midget, Bantam, Pee Wee, Squirt, Mite, or Mini-Mite, should only be concerned with how to most effectively develop the individual skills of their players so that their players can ultimately perform in any team system at any level. Team systems at the lower levels should be basic and winning percentages should be an afterthought.

 

The reality is that if a coach is a good teacher, his players’ relatively superior individual skills inserted into simple team systems will ultimately win games against teams with less skilled players. Unfortunately, the majority of North American coaches don’t subscribe to the “coaching to develop skills” philosophy, and if they do, most coaches don’t know how to implement it. As a result, more and more North America players are being taught how to be position players who rely on size and physical play to dominate their opponents

but for the most part don’t have any skills.

[GAULOISAA 0]

cela vient juste confirmer ce que j'ai toujours décrier

 

trop de tournoi , trop de game , trop d'honneur trop rapidement

au lieu de pratiquer

encore une fois , je le répète

 

une game devrait être perçue comme un cadeau , pour permettre

 

de mettre en pratique , ce que les jeunes apprennet dans leurs

P R A T I Q U E S

[hockeymineur 0]

Intéressant Rookie,

 

C'est exactement le point que j'ai écrit hier dans ma réponse à Gros nounours dans le post sur le sujet : le hockey mineur est malade au québec...dans la section comment améliorer le hockey.

 

Je persiste à dire, que le développement en bas age fait toute la différence...