I'm starting this post with the idea of shedding a new light on small game training by renaming them Tactical Awareness Games TAGs. This idea of renaming the games TAGs came from a conversation with Amherst College Women's Coach Jim Plumer. We both felt that the name Small Games in some ways didn't capture what this model has evolved into and that many coaches need a more precise picture of what these games bring to player development. As much as the Tactical Awareness Games model has taken off in the world of hockey training, there are still many coaches that have been unable to recognize the great potential this tool can bring to their teams. It's probably understandable, in that, many coaches were themselves taught in the old-school regimented, synchronized-skating approach to the game. Many of these coaches, if they have been exposed to TAGsl, tend to throw in a game or two at the end of a practice as a kind of afterthought or reward in their training. Viewing these games as something the players seem to enjoy doing, but not really a place for true hockey learning. Unfortunately, just the opposite is the case, as a coach who understands how to use small tactical games can think of no better environment for teaching.
Without a full grasp of the TAGs model the less-knowledgeable coach misses out on using the great teachable moments that they could of add to games and the moments where the players are actually figuring out the game for themselves. That last line, is in reality the dividing line of where the great TAGs teachers and the rest are separated. Add to that the ability and the coach's understanding on how to articulate effectively when players do break through with a new understanding and it becomes more and more obvious that the major challenge for coaches is figuring out a progression of what and how players learn to become effective players. That ability to sense when the player or players are starting to figure out the various solutions or when the coach needs to step in and bring the group together and steer them into finding answers to problems is crucial. The coaches that have that ability, will tell you, by using this model, the players will often come up with solutions to problems or new ways to be successful that they themselves didn't consider. Or even come up with twists to games or new games to make the environment for growth even better. Could you possibly come up with a better learning model than one that has the students being such active learners that they are proposing the next questions or adding insights on how the group should go forward.
Think of it this way. We all learn by doing, making mistakes and making adjustments. Drills that have numerous repetitions of the same pattern occurring are a great way to memorize basic structure and many line drills do just that. The down side of this type of training is that without real pressure from an opponent, those patterns rarely occur as practiced. Yes, the basic structure is a good starting point and there will always be a need for drills to learn these structural patterns, but the big jump to adaptability to these patterns is where the TAGs model teaches players to think or sense the concepts themselves, rather than memorize it.
Another way of comparing the TAGs model to the typical line drill models is to take any drill or concept you can think of and stand is next to a TAG way of training for this. On the simple end, think of a basic 2 v 1 drill going from end to end. In this drill you have 2 players skating a long distance to eventually confront the lone defender. Three players moving the rest standing. There is learning that goes on, but compare this to a small game with 6 players moving, with back-checkers chasing the play down and situational conditions changing rapidly. A game in a smaller space where things are happening faster, that creates 2 v 1 from many different angles and more often. It's sort of like comparing comparing time trials on Friday at Nascar to the actual racing on Sundays. From what environment would you expect the most skill drivers to come from. The same is true with the effective use of Tactical Awareness Games.
TAGs, through the innovation of numerous coaches have continued to add converts as more and more games have been and continue to be developed that allow for teaching not only situations and concepts, but also to teach most of all the system tactics your teams may use. Where as, at the younger levels, a small number of games can be used to instruct the players effectively in learning concepts, the older and more experienced players needs for advanced tactics can also be implemented with specialized games that address these. Players are also able to continue developing their creative and skilled approaches to learning in these advanced games. They face constantly changing conditions that ingrain an understanding of the specific tactic being worked on. Besides the players loving to train in this manner, coaches find themselves equally excited as they find themselves creating their own games to address their team needs, at that time. Once you start viewing these games as mini-sections of the larger game you start to seeing the areas your team needs more work on and creatively try to apply a tactical game to address that need.
Part of the struggle for the TAGs model not being promoted more or understood at a higher level is that the governing bodies in the US and Canada have not exactly helped spread the gospel. Both groups have recently been pushing this model, but both seem to think that the benefits of using this model should be limited to the youngest levels. What both groups and slowly NHL coaches are realizing is that effectively using TAGs can be the single greatest teaching tool they have in their arsenal. Tactical Awareness Games, in and of themselves, are not the catch-all to train your players, but when it comes to best teaching players to think and play the game with a greater sense of feel or purpose there has simply never been a greater tool for accomplishing these goals. Many may find it hard to believe, but there are numerous very successful coaches at the US collegiate level and below using TAGs for well over 50% of every practice. Highly successful, Middlebury men's coach, Bill Beaney, whom many consider to be the godfather of the small games model, credits this model for being the biggest reason for his player's development. Recent two-time national champion Amherst College women's coach Jim Plumer is another example of a coach that uses this model to great advantage. Plumer, like Beaney, both have taken it to the next level of competitiveness in slightly different ways by having many if not all their games charted for outcomes where there are standings and rewards for the winners at different intervals. Both these coaches have won National Championships in overtime games and credit this to their players being very comfortable in overtime because their tactical games tournaments often created a similar environment. Many of Beaney's former players have been quoted that" winning their teams small game championship, in many ways, was a fonder memory that their national championships". When hearing that viewpoint, it got my attention.
Another way to evaluate the potential of TAGs is to think about the past and present day great players like Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretsky, Sidney Crosby, Nicholas Lidstrom, Alexander Ovechkin. Besides the great skill level these players possessed, their game sense, anticipation and hockey savvy are what truly separates them from the rest of their peers. These attributes are exactly the benefits that a TAGs model can instill in players with a knowledgeable coach steering the ship. Even with a not-so-great TAGs model in place, many of these benefits can be with-in grasp, as players have the opportunity to figure out the game for themselves, to improve their adaptability to changing conditions and even on the simple end, train in an environment that is faster and more like actual game conditions than traditional line drills. Bobby Orr himself has actually said he never would have developed into the player he did if he had been forced to play and train in the restrictive system based models of today.
If you do some research on small games (TAGs) for hockey you'll turn up all kinds of similar thoughts and ideas, like more time on task, more time with puck on your stick, faster pace to practice, minimal need for fitness training on ice, which denies valuable learning opportunities, etc. All of this information is useful, but more than that, the simple fact that the players, with positive direction, can be guided to be on ice problem solvers, the single biggest determining factor between players with similar skill sets. Tactical Awareness Games, besides being a great way to learn concepts at the younger levels, can be equally beneficial at all levels, as they can be used to teach all the tactics of the game, such as breakouts, regroups, cycling, Dzone, powerplay, pkill, etc. All taught in an environment that is forcing players to think creatively and in a constant competitive environment that is a blast to train in and have your players excited to be at practice. Many an X-player that is exposed to a talented coach using this model is immediately envious that they missed out on the opportunity to train this way and are also usually astonished on the level of improvement the players are making by training this way.
If you have any thoughts, questions, critiques or experiences you would like to share about TAGs, please join in discussions on this blog. To assist in your understanding of these game, I will be posting a Tactical Awareness Game of the month and explain the benefits and how to teach it, starting in August 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment