- 48 kids per first session
- Junior A / Junior B
- Goaltending & Defensive player → Dedicated sessions
USA ADM Recommendations
The below screenshot has four main rows, Ice Touches per week, Season for how many in a calendar season, Training sessions in the year, and Games in the year. Training and Games add up to the Season amounts. These are guidelines and not to be taken as mandatory, they suggest what a good minimum and maximum amount is for the USA, which may not precisely apply to Australia. That said, the aspiration and desire to be on the ice 6 times a week for u18’s may not exist and we completely accept that.
Half Dozen Stations – 48 juniors per session
In reviewing the experience of players in the Ice Hockey ACT Junior Program, in particular the u10’s, one training planning method which increases the amount of touches and time that a player gets with the puck is through station based training. Stations can be run in up to 1/6th of the ice, which divides neatly into “half thirds” on the sheet and gives each player a chance to focus on one particular skill for a sixth of the hour. This isolation but variety of skills is recommended by USA Hockey through their ADM Kids Program.
The cost to each participant for a 30 player session, as was in 2022, without any inducement for coaching is at a cost recovery amount, $15 each per hour. Ice time costs us $450 which divided over 30 participants is on a cost recovery model, $15. The other factor in running a quality training session is the quality of coaching, which for us is principally attracting and retaining coaches, the coaching knowledge is excellent, it is the ask to have someone volunteer every single week for two days per week that becomes hard to deliver on.
Option #1
First format staying at 60 minutes with the same player numbers. First option is to do nothing and accept the issues as detailed above. Cost still factors out to approximately $15 per hour.
Option #2
Moving to a “CBR Optimal” that takes recommendations from USA Hockey for kids per training based on rink size.
- Head Coach would be tasked with planning and overseeing the whole program
- Minimum level 1 for 2 years or international equivalent. Level 2 prioritised for role.
- Working With Vulnerable People Card
- Child Protection Training education from Sport Integrity Australia
- Instructor Coach tasked to run stations and coach in line with attributes of that age and skill bracket
- Level 1 coaching accreditation or planning to attend next session
- Working With Vulnerable People Card
- Child Protection Training education from Sport Integrity Australia
To attract the same coaches each week, one solution is to attach some form of value to the task of coaching. For a six station program that requires six coaches, attaching value of $20 per instructor coach and $50 to the head coach and adding on the ice time comes to a grand total of $600. $600 / 48 = $12.50 per hour. The outcome of this is a slightly cheaper session for a better experience, there are no losses here. The other governance aspect to attaching value to a coaching role is the expectation of performance, the ability to remove for poor performance is much easier to do.
Option #3
Or, if sticking with $15 per session over 48 juniors, the session could be dragged out to 1:15hr. This may not work for younger ages but may be more productive for older ages who have more focus and endurance.
Coaching contra
The money directed to coaches would not be able to be taken out as cash, but would be used to contra off ice fees for either the coach or their child. The money stays within the four walls of Ice Hockey ACT and is used to lessen the cost of something else for someone willing to put forward hours of coaching.
Junior A / Junior B / Junior C / Junior D
Ice Hockey ACT has only 109 Juniors. This poses a problem for games when played along age based divisions only exacerbates the problem of lopsided games and kids who dominate in particular age brackets. It is suggested to reform the Sunday junior leagues into Junior A / B / C etc so that juniors are assigned a grade and are then selected out into teams. This format has been proven to work at IceHQ in Melbourne.
Checking Junior A/B/C would be for the most part non-checking hockey as this is another factor that turns kids away, getting hurt. To introduce checking hockey would require a complete overhaul from the youngest age brackets to introduce the style of play at an early age to avoid injuries and make it another part of the game that players grow up with. That, or we run checking intensives to skill up players to be prepared for the skill in in-house games and also for any future national tournaments. It would be negligent to send kids into a checking game without any form of proper instruction on how to play to that format.
Expectation Management Communicating to juniors that they are in a particular grade is to assist in their development. The point is that we don’t want them to struggle so bad that they give up, or conversely, get so bored with being above average that they walk away from the sport. To place the positive incentive of playing in a high division should keep some of those kids in the sport much longer. We have so few juniors that we can’t afford to lose a single one. Some may even be more than happy to be an older kid in a grade they have fun in, not everybody has either the skill or desire to be the top of the tree.
Scheduling wise, to follow along the school terms of no more than 9 weeks of games in a block. With the chance of being upgraded/downgraded mid-season, any issues around being in the wrong grade can be remedied with a shift up or down mid-year. Perhaps even a trialling format of potential juniors to come up a grade when space allows is a good onboarding method. With 3 teams to a division, each team would play the other two teams each week making games relatively short and sharp.
Coaching / Officiating this offers a good opportunity for any of the older juniors who might have an interest in coaching. Also for older juniors who might be interested in officiating, this is a great chance to give them that opportunity.
Team Balancing within each grade would be done via the coaching panel when drafting teams for a league. A rough ordering of players skill into the top 3, next 3, next 3, etc Then allows for all of the teams to be as best balanced as possible with an even distribution of players skill.
Game Format to be changed based on the skill level and assumed skating pace of each bracket.
Cohorts
Junior A = 33 players, 3 x (10 skaters + 1 goalie) on a full sheet.
Junior B = 33 players, 3 x (10 skaters + 1 goalie) on a full sheet.
Junior C = 21 players, 3 x (6 skaters + 1 rotating goalie) on either 1/3rd or 2/3rds.
Junior D = 21 players, 3 x (6 skaters + 1 rotating goalie) on either 1/3rd or 2/3rds (alternates with Junior C for sheet)
Junior A → 3 Teams of ten players plus goaltender each. Played over 90 minutes each Sunday, 3 games so that each team plays the other two teams in their division once. Each game is 2 x 14min halves which over two games adds up to 56 minutes and with only 10 per team, each player should be on the ice for 28 minutes each.
Junior B → Same structure and layout as Junior A, but aimed at allowing late starters, early developers and kids in and about the u15 age bracket a place to play with a view to jumping up to the top division by the time they age out.
Junior C → First of the alternating sheets between cross ice and 2/3rds ice. The format of the sheets is to develop different skills. Junior C is positioned to be around the 9 to 12 age bracket traditionally, but will fluctuate based on grading.
Junior D → Second of the alternating sheet formats, aimed at entry level ages and focus is on participation and playing on different sheets of ice.
Maximum Age
A hard maximum of 18 years of age for playing in Junior grades should be reconsidered. Many other sports do not follow the strict cut off from age 18, instead raise the maximum age up to 23 to allow for that window of development. If this keeps juniors engaged in the sport and helps them gradually transfer out into senior grades then it should be taken as a serious consideration.
Golf has “Colts” and Cycling has “Espoirs” (particularly in Europe) that go up to under 23. As the Junior grades currently are non checking, there presents no real greater physical threat than any junior filling in to a Senior grade.
Goaltending + Defensive Player training
A dedicated hour each week to be allocated for a combination of goaltending specific training and defensive player intensive training. Aim is to give a competitive advantage to juniors who want to play representative for the ACT, or senior players who want to move up a grade. With a compression of Tuesday training, there is opportunity to put goaltending on in the third hour in conjunction with the Phoenix training. Goaltending is almost an entirely different game, thus for the best in development it requires dedicated skills training and not to have goalies used as target practice for skaters.
Weekly Scheduling
It is envisaged that there will be no changes to the rink schedule, which in winter last year was roughly:
- Tuesday → Training. 1st hour u10’s, 2nd hour 12u and 15u, 3rd hour u18 and Phoenix.
- Friday → Phoenix play in C grade as per grade schedule.
- Sunday → Games from 3:45 till late providing there is no clash with a Brave sunday home game.
Options of playing away from Sunday are limited. Any extra training could potentially happen on Thursday morning, but this has issues around getting to school on time etc.
Dryland as an extra day?
Alternatively an option to run dryland inside a gymnasium offers a great halfway point for getting extra skills and games in without displacing other rink users. Notably the cost to run dryland is far less than on ice and it allows an almost complete focus on skating to occur at rink sessions, how to handle a stick can be taught in sandshoes. Dryland work also removes the complicating factor of skating ability and levels out in a ball hockey game (everybody can run) which brings advanced skaters back to the pack and encourages kids struggling on blades to get involved in a game. Many coaches have experimented with this format to great effect. The only issue is around the perception that it’s not “Ice Hockey” training, which in reality it’s some of the best training for skills available.