I've been thinking about how unhappy I was with our lack of cohesiveness in the Olympics this year. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that you're bringing in a bunch of players from different teams into a coaching staff that is essentially several head coaches with no real time to become a cohesive unit.
Now, obviously going into 2010 we can't change the fact that the players are going to come into the olympics as a mish mash of players from several teams.
However, we can change the coaching situation.
I believe Canada should employ one of the following two strategies.
1)Use _one_ team's entire coaching staff. There's something to be said for the concept of a coaching staff as a team. The head coach is the leader, the motivator, the guy who sets the stage. However, the assistant coaches are detail guys who have specific roles and thrive doing so. There's a reason many assistant coaches don't become head coaches - because it takes a different type of personality. I think it's a poor strategy, in terms of coaching, to just throw together several head coaches with different views of the game and hope they can work together. If you have have one team's staff you at least know that those assitants work well with the head coach - they know each other, they know their roles, and they're comfortable with them.
So, if for example you want Gretz to coach the team, he comes with Barry Smith and Rick Bowness instead of Ken Hitchcock and Jacques Martin. Obviously I'm not saying Barry Smith and Bowness are better coaches than Hitchcock and Martin, but they work with Gretzky and they are a team.
Ideally you wouldn't take the coaching staff from a team that can't even make the playoffs
But there are other good examples.
The _other_ option though might even be more appealing.
2)Hockey Canada hires a coaching staff for a full year before the Olympics. Basically, they go out and recruit a head coach and two assistants who they believe would be the absolute best people available for drafting a game plan for an olympic tournament. They would start by creating that game plan, and planning for the summer camp in 2009. They would run that camp - played on OLYMPIC ICE, that's a key - and then they would review the hours of tape they have and tailer more of their game plan to guys they believe will be keys on the team. In the camp put units together and see where you can find chemistry. That kind of thing.
Finally, they are a part of the team selection group with whomever they name as the GM and his team. They don't get a veto or anything, but having run the camp and built the game plan, they can offer key insight to the selection group.
Then by the time we're coming up to the actual olympics we have a staff in place who have continued to scout their players - the opponents - and have their focus ENTIRELY on the olympics. The coaches we have now jump from the middle of a playoff run to "oh yeah the Olympics, hmm I guess we need to develop a plan now" and they're still getting their **** together at the same time the players are. That's no shot at the coaches, it's just a reality of the way the olympics work.
If we had a staff in advance whose only goal was to prepare for the olympics, they would be ready and waiting for the players the moment the olympic break started with a game plan and a mission - so at least when the players are still trying to gel, the coaches would provide that necessary focus.
What do you all think?
Now, obviously going into 2010 we can't change the fact that the players are going to come into the olympics as a mish mash of players from several teams.
However, we can change the coaching situation.
I believe Canada should employ one of the following two strategies.
1)Use _one_ team's entire coaching staff. There's something to be said for the concept of a coaching staff as a team. The head coach is the leader, the motivator, the guy who sets the stage. However, the assistant coaches are detail guys who have specific roles and thrive doing so. There's a reason many assistant coaches don't become head coaches - because it takes a different type of personality. I think it's a poor strategy, in terms of coaching, to just throw together several head coaches with different views of the game and hope they can work together. If you have have one team's staff you at least know that those assitants work well with the head coach - they know each other, they know their roles, and they're comfortable with them.
So, if for example you want Gretz to coach the team, he comes with Barry Smith and Rick Bowness instead of Ken Hitchcock and Jacques Martin. Obviously I'm not saying Barry Smith and Bowness are better coaches than Hitchcock and Martin, but they work with Gretzky and they are a team.
Ideally you wouldn't take the coaching staff from a team that can't even make the playoffs
But there are other good examples. The _other_ option though might even be more appealing.
2)Hockey Canada hires a coaching staff for a full year before the Olympics. Basically, they go out and recruit a head coach and two assistants who they believe would be the absolute best people available for drafting a game plan for an olympic tournament. They would start by creating that game plan, and planning for the summer camp in 2009. They would run that camp - played on OLYMPIC ICE, that's a key - and then they would review the hours of tape they have and tailer more of their game plan to guys they believe will be keys on the team. In the camp put units together and see where you can find chemistry. That kind of thing.
Finally, they are a part of the team selection group with whomever they name as the GM and his team. They don't get a veto or anything, but having run the camp and built the game plan, they can offer key insight to the selection group.
Then by the time we're coming up to the actual olympics we have a staff in place who have continued to scout their players - the opponents - and have their focus ENTIRELY on the olympics. The coaches we have now jump from the middle of a playoff run to "oh yeah the Olympics, hmm I guess we need to develop a plan now" and they're still getting their **** together at the same time the players are. That's no shot at the coaches, it's just a reality of the way the olympics work.
If we had a staff in advance whose only goal was to prepare for the olympics, they would be ready and waiting for the players the moment the olympic break started with a game plan and a mission - so at least when the players are still trying to gel, the coaches would provide that necessary focus.
What do you all think?
