How important is the Strike?

How important is it to gain possession of the puck on the inital strike?

It seems at various times and various teams spend a unproportional amount of time devising plays for the strike, then on top of that a huge amount of energy sprinting 3 or 5 players out there only to have the puck get pushed over the the wall and stall with no clear possession either way. So in your vaired opinions how important is gaining possession? I'm talking generally here there are always exceptions down by 1 goal 1 minute left something llike that, but i'm talking in MOST cases.

In '98 the aussie men came out about 2/3 of the way to the puck and dropped 5 guys in a wall, basically saying you take the puck but good luck doing anything with it. Fairly effective, and was my introduction to Jason Mesies hip the one time I got past that wall, him being the 6th man.
ANYWAY...
So other than '98 Aussie Men most teams seem to put a whole lotta effort into the initial strike... but to what end?

Opinions please.

There are not many Kick-off’s in a game, and thus you cannot afford to mess up one….all are important. If there were five KO’s and you mess one up. You already messed 20% of the KO’s

It is normally the best to win the KO’s as it enables you to regain/take possession. Once you have it there must be a plan to “hit” the opponent out off there closed formation and let them react to you.

If you have the puck you can “hit” the opponent in concentrated form or draw them to one site and then go to the other or draw them wide open and thus create more space and possibilities or go around them fast and etc…

But there are many ways to have a kick off. And how to “win” those. Some teams want take the puck. Some teams want the opponent take the puck and then block/absorb them and then counter. Its depending how the team play’s and what sorts off talents are in the team. If you have a team with most off all offensive players It is the best way to win the KO’s and go offensive. If you have most off all defensive players. It can be an idea/possibilities to play on the counter and so spare your few offensive players till you can counter the play and so have fresh offencive players left for that. But iff you do. you need a very strong defence. or you will lose it all.

Remeber. If playing only defensive you can not win. So an offensive tactic is important if you want to win. And you can only go to the offensive if you have the puck in possession off you team.

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

I don't think it necessary matters if you win the strike or not, it's how you handle the result. (Ie. if you won it, you make ground and maintain possession; if you lost it, you get possession back)

My thoughts: I think the strike is fairly important. It forms a pivotal point in the game both strategically and psychologically. Obviously it comes after a break in play - a moment where teams either re-group or react to the play immediately preceeding it.

Winning a strike can be used as a "weapon" in the "psychological warfare" between two teams; it can intimidate the opposition, it can expose a distracted or disorganised opposition.

"Winning" the strike is more than being the first player to touch the puck, it comes from developing and controlling momentum through possession of the puck which then influences the direction of the play.

From my experience a successful strike is one where the entire team is committed to an agreed and organised strategy.

Belle, remember my premonition in Perth - that was freaky but awesome

__________________
i [heart] porridge

...i don't think possession is awfully important from the strike.

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

most of the strikes i see, it just goes into a huge jumble of bodies and eventually spills out the side

it's what you do with it when it spills out that's important i recon

In the men's division the strike means diddly. It doesn't matter how many of them there are or how many you win or lose. Two things matter -- who caused the strike to happen and don't let them make progress. Once the play gets established you're back into what decides games.

If you look at video from the last several world's, and probably further back, unless someone has blazing speed and will get the puck no matter who they go against, the puck ends up in a battle back and forth within 3-4M of the center point. Inevitibly it goes to the wall. It's rare that anyone makes big progress and when they do it is usually because the other team overcommitted someone or got a bad jump.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

i see you've been watching closely duck. i dont think you watched ALL the games though.

...or you might have noticed that the stronger teams generally do a lot of damage off the strike.

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

I assume the question is posed for equal teams in which case winning the strike does nothing. When the 'stronger' teams do damage off the strike it is more than likely they would do it whether or not the won the strike.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

I'll rewatch the NZ Japan game though so I can see what you're talking about....

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.