The Role of a Centerman, Winger and Defenseman

The Role of a Centerman, Winger and Defenseman in Hockey
By Dennis Chighisola

I get asked about the above a lot – I mean, how I perceive the role of a hockey playing centerman, a winger or a defenseman.  Oh, as most CoachChic.com members probably know, I’m hardly ever at a loss for words (or for an answer to any hockey related question).  But, defining those terms presents a real challenge.  And, here’s why…

Until one gets into the real X’s and O’s of our game, he or she might believe that there is some generic way of playing.  In other words, every centerman – Mites to Pros – is asked to do the same things, both offensive and defensively.  And every winger and blueliner also plays close to the same game at every level.  Aaaaah, far from it…  In fact, teams that are well coached might even require players at similar positions to play very different roles.  (In other words, you know your local NHL team has a star forward who is probably given plenty of latitude to “do his thing”.  At the same time, there’s probably a “checking line” forward at the same position who has to perform an extremely different role.)

As an aside here, I recall having one member of the Esposito-Hodge-Cashman line (from Boston Bruins fame) visit my hockey school eons ago.  And, during a discussion session with all our campers, the guy told about how the trio began sharing the load according to what they each did best.  In other words, one guy was extremely good at digging in the corners, another was an awesome playmaker, and another could shoot like crazy.  So, they figured, why have guys worrying too much about their weaknesses, when playing mostly according to their strengths would make them very hard to contend with.

*

I tell this story because I noticed a lot of youth teams in those years following suit – or at least trying to, despite the kind of talent they possessed.

Really, I don’t have a problem with a coach teaching very young kids something like I describe in “Implementing a Simple Forecheck – the L”.  As you’ll discover in the video, it’s a little like the way that old Bruin described his line’s distributing of the workload.  There is one exception, however, in that most amateur teams ask their players to share the load a little more evenly.  In other words – and like in my video, roles are filled according to which player can get the job done the quickest.  (Said yet another way, I’m not going to designate my left winger to go into the left offensive corner all the time; after all, sometimes he might be the furthest player from that area, and we just can’t wait for him.)

Now, I don’t mean to send you all over this website chasing different videos.  However, if the above video gave you a sense that THAT forecheck is the only one, take a look at a drastically different scheme I recommend to coaches of older teams…  For, “The 2-1-2 Forecheck” deploys players in totally different ways, and it has totally different objectives from the “L”.

Actually, there are countless forechecking systems, among them ones you’ve probably heard mentioned during NHL game telecasts – like, the “leftwing lock” and the “neutral zone trap”.  I might also mention that every coach on the planet tends to make subtle adjustments to whatever system he or she employs, so that something like Coach Smith’s “2-1-2 Forecheck” works a little (or a lot) differently than the one used by Old Coach Chic.

Then, just so those at the younger levels know, most fairly good high schools and then just about all junior, college and pro teams can use a different system for each game/opponent, or even several different forechecks within a given game.  (Down the road, I’m going to ultimately share a concept with the coaches of older teams, whereby adjustments are even made within each shift, so that decisions are made – according to certain criteria – as to which forecheck should be used.)

Okay, so I’ve mainly talked about forechecking here.  However, teams can also cover enemy rushes in different ways, and they can also assign players differently in their own end of the ice when their opponents control the puck there.  (Actually, if you want to know more about these different playing options, I invite you to go through a series of videos on the subject of team defense, beginning with “Checking – The Real Definition”.)

Now, there’s another reason I told that earlier story about the old Boston Bruins.  Because, for the longest time, it seems that Boston area youth teams also followed suit by slotting kids with certain skills into certain forward positions.  Ya, there always needed to be a sniper (or shooter) on one side, a mucker (or digger) on the other side, and then a fancy, play-making guy in the middle.

In most instances, I think a lot of higher level coaches now look at player roles quite differently.  I, for one, prefer to have a pretty strong guy playing the middle, mainly because he so often joins our defensemen to battle enemy attackers down low in our end.  (In other words, I usually look at my centermen as our third “D” out there.)  And, if you have some speed, I’m most likely going to get your wheels out into the wide open spaces (and make you a winger).

As another aside…  I perceive my purposes with a team mainly aimed at getting them to the next level.  So, I’m looking at a junior high kid and trying to figure how a high school coach will see him.  And, I’m looking at my best high school players and attempting to plot a way for them to continue playing into juniors or college.  Sometimes that requires a position change a kid’s previous coaches didn’t think about.  Again, though, that’s my (actually OUR) job.

Oh, before leaving the forward positions, let me also mention one other thing…  How fair do you think it is to ask a given player to work deep in his (or her) own zone – like helping the “D”, and then require him (or her) to be one of the first players down-ice to pressure the puck in an offensive corner?  Not very, huh?  I appreciate that problem in advance, and sort of expect that my centerman at least might frequently be one of the last guys into the offensive zone.  That’s also why my forechecking systems have forwards filling roles according to how quickly they can do each given job.

Funny that I should build some of this piece around the old “Big, Bad Bruins”.  For, when it comes to talking about defensemen, I think everyone will agree that Bobby Orr totally revolutionized that position.

I can’t argue with the (long-standing?) concept of pairing an offensive-minded defender with a defensive-minder one.  Do note that “minded” part, though.  I mean, some guys (or gals) just have something ticking inside of them that makes them love to lug the puck up-ice, while some tend to be a lot more conservative by nature.  So, pairing two players who might cover for each other seems a pretty smart thing to do.

That said, however, please don’t ever think ANY blueliner can play our game without REALLY good offensive skills.  I’m not necessarily talking about scoring potential here, or shooting ability, although both would be a plus.  What I am getting at is the need for ANY defenseman to be able to handle the puck under pressure – with his or her eyes up, and to be able to avoid enemy checkers, hit open teammates with good passes, or carry the puck up-ice when necessary.

As an aside to the thing about a defenseman’s offensive capabilities…  On a few occasions, I’ve needed to deal with a roster emergency by playing a forward at “D”.  And, much to my surprise, the forward often played as well as (or maybe even better than) some of our experienced defensemen.  Hmmmmm…

*

I think one reason is the fact that a lot of young “D” are raised according to some really old (barbaric?) training methods.

*

For example, did you know that the Czechs long ago did a study to discover just how often a defenseman skates backwards during a game?  And, while I can’t remember all the stats from that study, I can tell you that the “D” don’t skate backwards all that often.  Truth.  What I will suggest is that a defender mostly skates backwards at critical times.  So, while their lives aren’t spent back-pedaling, they may live or die on being able to handle 1 against 1 attacks pretty well.

*

And this brings me back to the idea of a forward oftentimes being able to do very well in a defenseman’s role.  My thinking?  It’s because his puck-toting abilities are often far better than the defense-only-trained kids, and he is forever getting us (or the puck) out of trouble and out of our end of the ice.

Speaking of playing various numerical rushes…  There are and aren’t some generic ways to defend against them.  I say there are, because some time-tested methods suggest handling 1 on 1’s , 2 on 2’s or 3 on 3’s in certain ways.  However, there are really differing opinions on how to cover rushes like 2 on 1’s or 3 on 2’s – due to a coach’s preference, or maybe because an experienced player has a preference.  (I’ve even talked to an NHL defenseman who suggested that certain star opponents would cause him – and teammates – to play a given rush differently than normal.)

One final aside…  If you compared the two forechecks I’ve shown in the videos, you’ve likely noticed that I ask my defensemen to perform drastically different roles from one system to the other.  In the case of my older kids playing the 2-1-2, I’ve intentionally given them that system and encouraged them to pinch a lot.  Again, I’m thinking of the future for these kids, and I know it’s going to be easier for a future coach to rein-in an aggressive “D” as opposed to getting an inhibited kid to open-up and suddenly become aggressive.

Okay, so you stopped by this page for some answers, and all I’ve likely done is dump more questions into your lap.  Sorry ‘bout that.  If you’re a player or parent, what you should have discovered from the above is that the role of a given positional player is pretty much dictated by his or her coach.  Then, if you’re a coach, let me share a few more ideas…

- Within these pages you might see some articles and videos about my ‘09-‘10 Mighty Mites.  These kids had never played prior to coming together last fall, so I have NOT given them any type of “system”.  What I have noticed, however, is that these kids have oftentimes solved problems on their own.  I mean, I’ve watched them learn to spread-out, and I’ve noticed a bunch of the kids gaining their own sense of where the puck might be going next.  (It really has been a learning experience for this old coach to see those things come about.)  On rare occasions, I’ve suggested something to the kids, but we’ve never had the opportunity to practice team-type stuff.  (My kids only practice within the skills session known as my Learn-to-play clinic.)

- I am just completing tryouts for my Bandits AAA Mite Major team, and I’m still wrestling about what I’ll do in the way of a system for them next season.  For sure, I owe them some structure to play within.  So, while I have plenty of time to think further on this, here’s what I’m considering right now…  I will probably make it a requirement that parents and players study that series of “checking” videos together.  I can’t see a better of way for them to all gain a really firm grasp of the game’s basic defensive principles.  From there, I am wrestling between the “L” and the “2-1-2”.  And, I just might have to give you a further update once I’ve decided.

- My NEHI junior high school kids played two different systems this past winter.  The “2-1-2” is sort of a staple for my teams, mainly because most of their high school coaches will use some variation of that.  The other forecheck was an extremely conservative one (my own version of a 1-4) that actually shut-down some really powerful teams.  The only reason I used that, by the way, was so the kids could discover other forechecks exist, and so they also get the chance to think the game a little bit differently.  (A lot of what I call “pond skaters” are going to be going to the same tryouts my kids will, and those pond skaters usually can’t skate and think at the same time.)

- My High School Prep squad likewise used the “2-1-2” (for the reason stated above), and they also used a more conservative “1-2-2”.

- Then, for laughs, I ought to tell you that my last college teams played a system I borrowed from the old Soviets.  The rough idea of that system actually has been — over the past few years — the rage in international play, and dubbed the “Torpedo”.  I don’t have the space to go into that at this time.  But, if we return to the original theme for this article, you can imagine how “un-generic” playing roles must have been if I had only two forwards – a #1-man and a #2-man, two halfbacks, and then a middle (or “stopper”) “D”. 

Ya, let me say it again…  There really is no generic way to play our game.