It is very common to hear among mite hockey parents that their players need more full ice hockey games. The myth of 7-year-olds playing full ice 5v5 being anything resembling hockey finds a way to survive. And at first glance, playing full ice might seem necessary. You need to learn what all the lines on the ice mean, how to stay onsides, and generally how to play the game on a full sheet. The more you look into the value of full ice hockey, in particular for the youngest players, the more the harms and disadvantages become clear. Ultimately, full ice hockey presents us with a massive opportunity cost – one that most would not be in favor of taking if they saw the data and research.
Small area games provide athletes with significantly more passing and shot attempts than full ice hockey. Players shoot the puck up to 5x more with small games and passing attempts are increased by up to 2.5x. This does not factor in the qualitative improvement of the passes and shots. In full ice hockey, the player has more time to shoot and pass. That extra time and space will quickly be diminished as the athlete rises through the youth hockey ranks and beyond.
Parents of the best athletes should demand small area games so that their players develop skills that’ll translate to the next level. Athletes can differ significantly in terms of their biological age. Two 12-year-old athletes can be very different physiologically – one might look more like a 10-year-old, the other more like a 14-year-old. Who do you think is faster and stronger? When we neglect to shrink the ice, the best players have more time and space than they’ll ever have at the high school, college, or professional ranks. They can manipulate the game with their size and speed. When their size and speed advantages shrink, then what? How do they score goals or make plays? Too often, very talented athletes struggle to adapt their game to the next level.
Parents of lesser skilled athletes should demand small area games so their athletes can develop too! In mite full ice hockey, most of the players are skating glorified herbies. They go up and down the ice and rarely touch the puck or make any significant plays. How is that benefiting them? By shrinking the ice, size and speed differentials are diminished, allowing more players to touch the puck and be involved in plays. A late bloomer who is just small and slower because they haven’t grown yet gets strong skill development. When their maturation process puts them on a level playing field with their peers, they can harness the skills they’ve developed to excel.
Understanding offsides and tactical considerations that are inherent to full ice hockey can be quickly taught later in an athlete’s career and with much less frustration. The earlier you try to introduce complex strategies, the harder it will be for athletes to understand them. And more complexity often creates a restrictive playing environment that makes it difficult for athletes to implicitly learn the game. Take a fourth grader who can skate and has good skills but has never been told about offsides – let’s say they just played pond hockey. How long would it take to teach them? Now imagine trying to cram the concept into the brain of a first grader. Sometimes it is just best to be patient. It’s more important to teach a 4th grader how to play creatively and instinctually than it is to teach them the concept of offsides.
Finally, if you’re not convinced of the need for small area games, please go watch a college, pro, or even good high school hockey game. Look at the tactics used, the time and space the athletes have. Then go watch a mite full ice hockey. Is it even possible to suggest the two are the same sport?
