Free pucks

Okay, 2 points:

1) The concept of a player not being able to move faster than the puck is a fallacy. Do some training. Yes, I'm willing to prove it any time you like.

2) If the opposition forwards have any brains (whether they're top ranked or not) they're not going to rush at you, the man with the puck. They're going to rush at your options. i.e. the people you can pass to, and cut them off. So by the time someone is pressuring you to pass, your passing options are gone.


P.S. Can your players really all flick 'much more distance' than 3.5 meters? Are you sure you have the right tape measure out?

__________________
It's not whether you win or lose - but whether I win or lose.
www.BentFishDesign.com

Did you play in 2000 at hobart-australie in the wolds?
The game at that time NZ against Netherlands ended in 1-1
But the netherlands used Something that looks like a part off this consept tactick is uses agaist you.
And as far as i now. NZ was 6th and the Netherlands 5th.

this one is used at hobart.
THe mean diferents is that by this one (the hobart worlds 2000 tactic)you can see before the beginning were the puck will go. Because the first player is not in the midle he/she can only go to 1 side.

But the basic is the same. Flick the puck to the wing or to the back and he/she can flick it to the wing. Another differents is. By this tactick swims the first offender not forwards but to the side. So he/she can not see the opponents comming to him.


And like you see on this diagram(this first in this discussion) With this one all sides a open to choose.
And this variation workt against a former top rank team with the lowest team at that time in competition.
Also we did see it by an Englisch team by an international toernament.

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..

Actually the game was 1-0. That's why they came 5th.

And the result had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of their free pucks...

However, the tactic outlined is much better, because it is based on deception and controlling the opposition. Yes, everybody knows which direction you're going, but they all mistake how you're going to get there. Which means you can draw opposition players into poor positions and get around them. It also sets up a much stronger structure when the move is complete, with both offensive and defensive options. Nice.

__________________
It's not whether you win or lose - but whether I win or lose.
www.BentFishDesign.com

lots of points in this thread, it's great.

i'm just going to attempt to move things along my making a little example. yes sven, in theory your player may have a slight speed advantage BUT in reality, the fact is that straight speed beats a turning opposition only when the straight swimmer is already at pace. in this play i'm afraid both players are pretty much starting static, so the fact one has to turn slightly more is irrelevant.

it's a good ploy to attempt to go around the outside sven... but i can tell you from experience that in a game between 2 reasonably matched teams that play would result in your team being shadowed to the wall immediately, and the defending team would feel it had got the best of the situation.

if i were the defender on the side and benson were the attacking forward running after the pass, despite the fact he is far faster than me in both straight speed and acceleration, i guarantee i could still force him to the wall. this is because he has to swim an arc around me and has to cover more ground.

the fact that you are using a lefthander to shield the puck is slightly relevant... but hanging the puck back at his side to protect it while swimming around will slow the player even more due to the lack of streamlining involved, PLUS the fact that he's pushing the puck which will slow him still further.

your play is a good one if you want to go straight to the wall with most of your formation still behind you.

it's possible the same play might still work if you set your players flat to either side and when the puck is passed either way have another player swimming wider to receive a pass outside the widest opponent if your puck receiver can draw him first. personally i think drawing opposition and passing laterally is a better bet to actually make some progress around the outside of a team.

sorry, no diagram from me this time, maybe next time.

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

haha! sorry missed that post. yes sven in fact i did play in that game, did you? the netherlands certainly didn't use the freepuck we have been discussing. in fact they had a very simple but effective strike, scored from it, and spent the rest of the game trying to keep the puck in their own defensive corner.

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

liam wins

it's not a competition its just a lively debate! we seem to be veering away from the original play, but yes sven benson and i both played against holland twice in that tourney and a fair few other posters in this forum did too.

quite apart from that the tactics in the dutch playbook are fairly standard sensible type ploys, variations of which most teams have used, so most players in these forums have had experience carrying out and responding to these type of tactics.

on with the debate! sorry i'm still bushed right now, i dont have time to draw out a diagram with my earlier suggestion, will try to later.

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

from the tactics thread, duly noted carl, sorry.

in the spirit of sharing here is a play we tried in 2000, which was reasonable in theory and just made the same old mess in practice...

basically the premise is to pound the puck with 6 guys behind it but as the bin is the target the wedge forms up directly in front of the target and the puck is thrown to the central attacker, the player taking the puck then joining his side of the wedge. theoretically its a shorter route to the goal, and maybe if the opposition dont realign to mark the players it puts the focus of the wedge on the flank of the opposition rather then the middle where they are organised to defend usually.

Attached Images

setplay.JPG (16.1 KB, 28 views)

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

in upper case i f i was a L front or L back, i would ask myself. what am i doing here, in the corner ?

__________________
kurac pička govno sisa RASMC
http://www.phljubljana.si/pictures/razno/uwh_gloves.htm
http://forum.phljubljana.si

...you would be sitting as wide as the widest man on your side marking him, as any sane wing player would. cos if you weren't, a player could swim up the wing unopposed on the corner side and biff a pass into the mess that might if your unlucky just go straight in the goal.

but in any case, i have already stated that the play was about centralising the drive, and only secondarily about hitting an opposition weak spot. duh.

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench