Evolution of defensive systems.

[jarek]

So I have an open question to anyone who may have knowledge about this. In the days when guys were used as shadows for certain players, was this done as an answer to guys like Howe and Richard who were several steps above everyone else? Because if the wingers were used to contain other wingers, and defensemen were standing near the net, would that not have left the pointmen wide open for point shots and passes?

As I understand it, this type of play has all but gone extinct, in favour of more positional play, with wingers blocking pass attempts to the point and the center and defensemen with the large bulk of the defensive responsibilities. Obviously some other systems exist (left wing lock, trap, etc.), but the most successful teams, at least as far as I know, employ the model I described in this paragraph.

Click to read more...

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think the term "shadow" has been misinterpreted over the years. I highly doubt - short of multiple instances of video evidence to the contrary - that one player followed another player around the ice in totality. Coaches may have matched lines like we see, players may have stuck their guy in an annoying fashion out high and just kind of hung on him in the NZ when plays were developing. But the idea of playing straight man on the best player on the other side (and no one else) doesn't make sense from a coaching standpoint tactically or even from a man-on-man matchup standpoint. As a defensive forward, you want help. Your whole goal is to provide back pressure and force your mark into your defense so that a) that player isn't the one that beats you b) you get the puck back with good support, proper triangle/structure.

Like I said, you can have your match. That's not uncommon in any day. But at some point, you have to pass that guy off or you will lose. At some point, John Madden or Jay Pandolfo had to let Jagr go into Scott Stevens and pick up Hatcher at that point. It really can't make sense any other way. So I think "shadow" is, roughly, just the term for line matching at the time...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shadow

I think the term "shadow" has been misinterpreted over the years. I highly doubt - short of multiple instances of video evidence to the contrary - that one player followed another player around the ice in totality. Coaches may have matched lines like we see, players may have stuck their guy in an annoying fashion out high and just kind of hung on him in the NZ when plays were developing. But the idea of playing straight man on the best player on the other side (and no one else) doesn't make sense from a coaching standpoint tactically or even from a man-on-man matchup standpoint. As a defensive forward, you want help. Your whole goal is to provide back pressure and force your mark into your defense so that a) that player isn't the one that beats you b) you get the puck back with good support, proper triangle/structure.

Like I said, you can have your match. That's not uncommon in any day. But at some point, you have to pass that guy off or you will lose. At some point, John Madden or Jay Pandolfo had to let Jagr go into Scott Stevens and pick up Hatcher at that point. It really can't make sense any other way. So I think "shadow" is, roughly, just the term for line matching at the time...

Correct. Misunderstood and the analogy misinterpreted. In everyday life a shadow may be short medium or long depending on the position of the sun.

Likewise defensively in hockey. A long shadow or a medium shadow are the most effective - cover the greatest passing access to the defended player.

Over the years defensive hockey has changed due to roster size and the elimination of the Red Line in the offside equation.

Roster size. Assigninging one player or line to check another became difficult when NHL hockey went from three to four lines. Team playing either rotation risked playing out of rotation to attain their goal. A team would either have to extend or shorten the ice time of players to accomplish their defensive objectives and there were other ways to accomplish the same end.

Red Line. When the red line could determine an offside, it was an extra defender since breaking players on the transition would have to slow down or cut across before the red line to stay onside. So a covering winger working in tandem with the defending center pressuring the first pas d-man did not have to stay with the breaking winger.All he had to do would be eliminate the two passing lanes.

 

[jarek]

When you think about it as well, like I said earlier, if a winger for example follows another winger deep into their own zone, that leaves the point man wide open right? I would think that how it would mostly work is that the defensive winger would follow his check until near the icing line, at which point he'd let the defenseman go from there.

 

[billybudd]

I think the term "shadow" has been misinterpreted over the years. I highly doubt - short of multiple instances of video evidence to the contrary - that one player followed another player around the ice in totality. Coaches may have matched lines like we see, players may have stuck their guy in an annoying fashion out high and just kind of hung on him in the NZ when plays were developing. But the idea of playing straight man on the best player on the other side (and no one else) doesn't make sense from a coaching standpoint tactically or even from a man-on-man matchup standpoint. As a defensive forward, you want help. Your whole goal is to provide back pressure and force your mark into your defense so that a) that player isn't the one that beats you b) you get the puck back with good support, proper triangle/structure.

Like I said, you can have your match. That's not uncommon in any day. But at some point, you have to pass that guy off or you will lose. At some point, John Madden or Jay Pandolfo had to let Jagr go into Scott Stevens and pick up Hatcher at that point. It really can't make sense any other way. So I think "shadow" is, roughly, just the term for line matching at the time...

It's rare, this was a while ago and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Alain Vigneault play Zarley Zalapski at wing and tell him to literally follow Jagr everywhere he went on the ice in a playoff series one year?

I thought for sure that it happened. 18 years can play tricks on the memory, though.

There was another situation when Bowman was here where I want to say he told Lemieux to skate out to center ice and the shadow actually followed him while the team scored a 4 on 4 goal.

 

[The Panther]

I think the logic of dispatching a 'shadow' is faulty when used against talented teams. It doesn't work, in principle, because it makes a 5-on-5 situation become a 4-on-4. So, if you assigned a shadow against Montreal in 1977, Edmonton in 1985, or Pittsburgh in 1992, it's not going to work (in theory) because you've essentially created more open ice for talented players on the opposition.

However, in the case of a very talented team trying to stop one star player on another less talented team, I could see where a shadow might be quite effective.

 

[Killion]

However, in the case of a very talented team trying to stop one star player on another less talented team, I could see where a shadow might be quite effective.

Good example of that is Rejean Houle of Montreal who was assigned to shadow Bobby Hull (who I do believe is sometimes under-rated & forgotten on this board) in the 71 SC Finals, taking up where Claude Provost had left off through the 60's. Hull was a combination of speed & power, noted for his stamina, double & even triple shifting at times, most teams assigning an individual or at minimum their best defensive forwards & blue line pairing out there whenever he was on the ice. Interestingly in that series while Houle did a magnificent job in minimizing the damage Hull was capable of, the series did go the full 7 games. If not for Drydens's heroic's and Hall's epic failure in letting in a Lemaire slapshot from Center late in game 7 with Montreal then down & out (2-0), wouldve been Chicago's Cup. Montreal was beaten at that point, Hull ringing one off the crossbar and out rather than in the net prior to Hall whiffing on Lemaires shot & had it gone in, 3-0 and that likely wouldve been it for the Hab's. Lemaires goal giving them the lift & life they needed to come storming back & win.... Hull has often said that had he scored that goal that went off the crossbar, gone in, 3-0 and Chicago had won the Stanley Cup, he probably never would have jumped to the WHA, history of the game entirely different.

 

[jarek]

Good example of that is Rejean Houle of Montreal who was assigned to shadow Bobby Hull (who I do believe is sometimes under-rated & forgotten on this board) in the 71 SC Finals, taking up where Claude Provost had left off through the 60's. Hull was a combination of speed & power, noted for his stamina, double & even triple shifting at times, most teams assigning an individual or at minimum their best defensive forwards & blue line pairing out there whenever he was on the ice. Interestingly in that series while Houle did a magnificent job in minimizing the damage Hull was capable of, the series did go the full 7 games. If not for Drydens's heroic's and Hall's epic failure in letting in a Lemaire slapshot from Center late in game 7 with Montreal then down & out (2-0), wouldve been Chicago's Cup. Montreal was beaten at that point, Hull ringing one off the crossbar and out rather than in the net prior to Hall whiffing on Lemaires shot & had it gone in, 3-0 and that likely wouldve been it for the Hab's. Lemaires goal giving them the lift & life they needed to come storming back & win.... Hull has often said that had he scored that goal that went off the crossbar, gone in, 3-0 and Chicago had won the Stanley Cup, he probably never would have jumped to the WHA, history of the game entirely different.

That's an interesting story. You have to wonder how different things would be if Hull stayed in the NHL.

I guess that also applies to Roy's treatment after getting shellacked as well.

 

[pvr]

Good example of that is Rejean Houle of Montreal who was assigned to shadow Bobby Hull (who I do believe is sometimes under-rated & forgotten on this board) in the 71 SC Finals, taking up where Claude Provost had left off through the 60's. Hull was a combination of speed & power, noted for his stamina, double & even triple shifting at times, most teams assigning an individual or at minimum their best defensive forwards & blue line pairing out there whenever he was on the ice. Interestingly in that series while Houle did a magnificent job in minimizing the damage Hull was capable of, the series did go the full 7 games. If not for Drydens's heroic's and Hall's epic failure in letting in a Lemaire slapshot from Center late in game 7 with Montreal then down & out (2-0), wouldve been Chicago's Cup. Montreal was beaten at that point, Hull ringing one off the crossbar and out rather than in the net prior to Hall whiffing on Lemaires shot & had it gone in, 3-0 and that likely wouldve been it for the Hab's. Lemaires goal giving them the lift & life they needed to come storming back & win.... Hull has often said that had he scored that goal that went off the crossbar, gone in, 3-0 and Chicago had won the Stanley Cup, he probably never would have jumped to the WHA, history of the game entirely different.

I still have nightmares about that Lemaire goal. On Tony Esposito rather than Glenn Hall, though.

 

[BadgerBruce]

In "Searching for Bobby Orr," Stephen Brunt recounts Scott Bowman using Jimmy Roberts to shadow Orr for a few games. Harry Sinden was shocked -- he'd not encountered the tactic used against a defenceman before. A few pages can be found here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=N9...#v=onepage&q=Orr shadowed by St louis&f=false

I vaguely recall reading about this story before, possibly in Derek Sanderson's "I've Got to Be Me." Apparently, Orr decided that the best counter-tactic was to shadow a Blues' player, which would have created a "Roberts shadows Orr who shadows Berenson," or something similar.