Conditioning Camps and Tryouts
- Thread starter Slats432
- Start date
Yukon Joe
Registered User
Well you had to know I was going to latch on to this one @Slats432
I'd love to know which club/association you're affiliated with if you'd care to share since we're both YEG residents (probably through PM), but if you don't I totally understand.
First a comment, then a couple of questions. Both of my hockey kids did a conditioning camp run through our local club. It... was fine. But they also did camps through a couple of other outfits and I liked those a lot better. I felt like at the club-run camp there was just a lot of kids and subsequently a lot of kids standing around. But I felt like we had to do that camp in order for my kids to start to (hopefully) make an impression on the coaches as you say.
So my questions:
1. When it comes to camps, how can you tell what is a good one vs. a not-so-good one? To my not-a-coach-but-I've-been-around I like to see a low instructor/player ratio, and to try to maximize the amount of time doing drills (or receiving instruction) versus standing around. But am I wrong?
2. When it comes to tryouts - if you can, how do you score and rank the kids when they're out on the ice? As a parent in the stands I can ID a handful of kids that are really great, and I can ID a handful of kids who don't belong, but for the majority of the kids in the middle - how do you evaluate them? And if possible I don't mean a list of things to look for (effort, hard skating, that kind of thing) but physically how do you rank the kids when there's 10 skaters on the ice at any given time?
3. This might be sensitive so if you want to skip this one feel free. But how much does "who you know" affect tryouts and evaluations? That can extend from "hey this kid played for us before so I know he's a hard worker" to "this kid's brother played for us so I'm sure this kid will be good" to "this kid's parents sit on the board and donate lots of time and money". Because a lot of parents talk and will often chalk up various decisions down to those kind of political intangibles when things don't go their kid's way. And on the one hand I think it's a lot of parents just looking for someone/something to blame, but I do see some decisions that seem questionable from time to time.
I have mixed feelings about the "good/bad impression" on coaches. And this extends well beyond the world of hockey. I know in my own profession (law) they often talk about "fit" with an organization. Which to a certain extent makes perfect sense - nobody wants to work with a lazy asshole! No coach wants a "drill killer" on their team either. But there's always the risk that it shifts into "I want hire people I like for various intangible reasons that have nothing to do with the job". That's where I can bring hockey and law together. I remember a certain law firm that was infamous for hiring a lot of former hockey players (not in Edmonton BTW). Many of the partners had played hockey, so they felt comfortable and familiar with new hires from similar backgrounds. But are you really ensuring you're getting the best talent by hiring that way?
And please - none of this is me moaning. We play the political game (my wife better than I). I don't sit on any boards, but we volunteer lots, my kids are always early, always do lots of fundraising. But I always worry if there's some kid who is native, or the son of immigrants, who might make a bad impression on coaches through no real fault of the kid just because they don't know the "right" way to act to impress coaches.
OK - this kind of got away from me. Respond to as much or as little as you'd like. I appreciate any effort to let us hockey parents peak behind the curtain to any extent.
(and full disclosure: my U15 kid didn't make the cut for AAA, now hoping to make it onto an AA team. My U13 kid starts tryouts in a couple of day for AAs. So these topics are on my mind. If neither make it they will go play association hockey without any complaint from me)
I'd love to know which club/association you're affiliated with if you'd care to share since we're both YEG residents (probably through PM), but if you don't I totally understand.
First a comment, then a couple of questions. Both of my hockey kids did a conditioning camp run through our local club. It... was fine. But they also did camps through a couple of other outfits and I liked those a lot better. I felt like at the club-run camp there was just a lot of kids and subsequently a lot of kids standing around. But I felt like we had to do that camp in order for my kids to start to (hopefully) make an impression on the coaches as you say.
So my questions:
1. When it comes to camps, how can you tell what is a good one vs. a not-so-good one? To my not-a-coach-but-I've-been-around I like to see a low instructor/player ratio, and to try to maximize the amount of time doing drills (or receiving instruction) versus standing around. But am I wrong?
2. When it comes to tryouts - if you can, how do you score and rank the kids when they're out on the ice? As a parent in the stands I can ID a handful of kids that are really great, and I can ID a handful of kids who don't belong, but for the majority of the kids in the middle - how do you evaluate them? And if possible I don't mean a list of things to look for (effort, hard skating, that kind of thing) but physically how do you rank the kids when there's 10 skaters on the ice at any given time?
3. This might be sensitive so if you want to skip this one feel free. But how much does "who you know" affect tryouts and evaluations? That can extend from "hey this kid played for us before so I know he's a hard worker" to "this kid's brother played for us so I'm sure this kid will be good" to "this kid's parents sit on the board and donate lots of time and money". Because a lot of parents talk and will often chalk up various decisions down to those kind of political intangibles when things don't go their kid's way. And on the one hand I think it's a lot of parents just looking for someone/something to blame, but I do see some decisions that seem questionable from time to time.
I have mixed feelings about the "good/bad impression" on coaches. And this extends well beyond the world of hockey. I know in my own profession (law) they often talk about "fit" with an organization. Which to a certain extent makes perfect sense - nobody wants to work with a lazy asshole! No coach wants a "drill killer" on their team either. But there's always the risk that it shifts into "I want hire people I like for various intangible reasons that have nothing to do with the job". That's where I can bring hockey and law together. I remember a certain law firm that was infamous for hiring a lot of former hockey players (not in Edmonton BTW). Many of the partners had played hockey, so they felt comfortable and familiar with new hires from similar backgrounds. But are you really ensuring you're getting the best talent by hiring that way?
And please - none of this is me moaning. We play the political game (my wife better than I). I don't sit on any boards, but we volunteer lots, my kids are always early, always do lots of fundraising. But I always worry if there's some kid who is native, or the son of immigrants, who might make a bad impression on coaches through no real fault of the kid just because they don't know the "right" way to act to impress coaches.
OK - this kind of got away from me. Respond to as much or as little as you'd like. I appreciate any effort to let us hockey parents peak behind the curtain to any extent.
(and full disclosure: my U15 kid didn't make the cut for AAA, now hoping to make it onto an AA team. My U13 kid starts tryouts in a couple of day for AAs. So these topics are on my mind. If neither make it they will go play association hockey without any complaint from me)
Slats432
Registered User
Certainly.
I coach U16AA for SSAC. I have coached U18AA for both SSAC and KC, and was a director at CAC a few years ago.
Answers.
1. If you watch a camp, the strongest coaches design all their drills based on number of kids, and how to maximize their movement. We tried to give the first couple drills in the room so the kids could go out and start quickly. The only time we did it was with large groups. (30 plus) It would be to problematic to move 30 kids into one room for the preview. If you are talking what private camps you should do, alot of that is going to be trial and error. There are tons of good ones in YEG so if you ever want suggestions or to run one by me, PM is good.
2. I was a paid evaluator for many years. We did large groups (A few years we evaluated the entire St. Albert minor system (all non Raiders players)) and one thing I can tell you is if you are in tryouts, you can't be vanilla. The one thing you can do is follow some key principles. (Always backcheck, never give up on a puck or a play, don't show visible frustration on the ice, if there is hitting, finish every check, do the little things (if a player makes a nice play, tap him, show sportsmanship when you can,) A high level guy gave me the advice once, you have to do something to be noticed every shift because you never know when the evaluator is looking at you.
3. That depends on the coach. I believe in a meritocracy. The kids that make my team are the best players at tryouts. That said, to beat an incumbent you can't be just as good as an incumbent. (If trying out for a multi year age group) You have to be better. And remember, all coaches have differing philosophies of team make up. You might have the 4th best puck moving dman and the coach wants 3 puck movers and 3 physical guys. Two years ago, I drafted my team with as much skill as possible. We had a good season but because I overlooked some grit, I think we left some wins on the table. Every coach I coach with seems to have a similar philosophy. Part of what can factor in is familiarity. If a coach knows kids that have played with the 2009s for the last 5 years, and they know what they are getting with a certain player, they might give some preference to a kid they know exactly how he will play for him. Some might see that is some kind of nepotism and in most cases I would suggest it is comfort.
Most tryouts are scrimmage and then once the cuts get down to the last 5 or 6 you might get practice evaluations. So drill killers usually won't be good enough to get to the final cuts since their hockey sense isn't high enough. In our conditioning camp there is a mix of skill. We have tier kids playing with U18AAA players. Both of those sets get weeded out quickly to either end of the spectrum.
I coach U16AA for SSAC. I have coached U18AA for both SSAC and KC, and was a director at CAC a few years ago.
Answers.
1. If you watch a camp, the strongest coaches design all their drills based on number of kids, and how to maximize their movement. We tried to give the first couple drills in the room so the kids could go out and start quickly. The only time we did it was with large groups. (30 plus) It would be to problematic to move 30 kids into one room for the preview. If you are talking what private camps you should do, alot of that is going to be trial and error. There are tons of good ones in YEG so if you ever want suggestions or to run one by me, PM is good.
2. I was a paid evaluator for many years. We did large groups (A few years we evaluated the entire St. Albert minor system (all non Raiders players)) and one thing I can tell you is if you are in tryouts, you can't be vanilla. The one thing you can do is follow some key principles. (Always backcheck, never give up on a puck or a play, don't show visible frustration on the ice, if there is hitting, finish every check, do the little things (if a player makes a nice play, tap him, show sportsmanship when you can,) A high level guy gave me the advice once, you have to do something to be noticed every shift because you never know when the evaluator is looking at you.
3. That depends on the coach. I believe in a meritocracy. The kids that make my team are the best players at tryouts. That said, to beat an incumbent you can't be just as good as an incumbent. (If trying out for a multi year age group) You have to be better. And remember, all coaches have differing philosophies of team make up. You might have the 4th best puck moving dman and the coach wants 3 puck movers and 3 physical guys. Two years ago, I drafted my team with as much skill as possible. We had a good season but because I overlooked some grit, I think we left some wins on the table. Every coach I coach with seems to have a similar philosophy. Part of what can factor in is familiarity. If a coach knows kids that have played with the 2009s for the last 5 years, and they know what they are getting with a certain player, they might give some preference to a kid they know exactly how he will play for him. Some might see that is some kind of nepotism and in most cases I would suggest it is comfort.
Most tryouts are scrimmage and then once the cuts get down to the last 5 or 6 you might get practice evaluations. So drill killers usually won't be good enough to get to the final cuts since their hockey sense isn't high enough. In our conditioning camp there is a mix of skill. We have tier kids playing with U18AAA players. Both of those sets get weeded out quickly to either end of the spectrum.
