The Freedom to Change

This discussion actually began amid some Facebook comment exchanges with a long time UK friend.  Actually, it started innocently enough, with my friend offering something to the effect that, "A guy from Russia sent me a message saying they had beat the US, and now Canada is next."  Hmmmmm...

Just so readers know, I don't get riled by the rah-rah or flag waving stuff, but my blood does start to boil when I think I see wrong things happening within a given sport (especially if it's MY sport).  So, my immediate reply was that, "I figured it's only a matter of time before the Russians start dominating again..."  Between the lines, I meant that The Wall coming down had an unbelievably negative impact on Soviet sports for a time, and that it would take the new Russian program time to rebound, especially economically.  They would do it, though, sooner or later.

With that, my friend kinda added to my boil, noting, "The Japanese, Koreans and China all are making their way through the ranks.  By the next Olympics they will have made headway.  Now they are putting some money into the game and paying for the best coaches."

If I had to take issue with any of that, I might just have to qualify things a bit...  I mean, the old Soviets didn't do what they did with money -- or, at least with the kind of money many other hockey playing nations had.  And, although I'm all in for paying coaches well, I will suggest that it's "the right coaches" -- or those with the right mentality -- that will make the greatest impact on their countries.

Can the Japanese do it?  Can the Koreans or Chinese?  Well, I think those questions are partly answered in the previous paragraph.  As a matter of fact, I'll suggest that there might even be some other countries out there hiding in the weeds, and working their way toward worldclass hockey acceptance.

What really got me going is the probability that the two North American federations are sitting ducks because, as I told him, "I sense that the US and Canada are too trapped in their ways, and they can't easily break from them."  Top-heavy or bloated might be better ways to describe them, or they're like a train trying to catch a chicken.  Hence, too, my title, "The Freedom to Change", because some organizations have that ability, while some clearly don't.

That theory is talked about often in business circles...  Yes, the Fortune 500 companies might be able to bowl-over some smaller firms, but it's the smaller firms that have the ability to change course on a dime -- or chicken-like.  

I know I might be a bit hard on Hockey Canada here, and I think that country is ahead of the US in numerous ways (beyond the obvious).  All I've seen AHAUS and USA Hockey do over most of my 40-ish years in the game is copy Canada (and some other nations).  Maybe Lou Vairo got to lead for awhile long ago, and maybe Herb Brooks was left alone to lead for a couple of years.  For the rest of the time, though, it seems to me that our top-heavy federation has had trouble getting out of its own way, and basically just copied what someone else was doing.

Can any reader identify a playing style that might define hockey in the US?  For the most part, I think not.    

Then, remember this old saying:  "Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it"?  Ya, well... 

When the old Soviets decided to create a hockey program, and compete at an international level, they placed a man in charge who had never before seen a hockey game.  What they must have known, however, was that Anatoli Tarasov was a 24/7 kind of worker, a truly passionate guy, and also a very creative sort.  Make no mistake about it, that Tarasov and his new hockey program were under great pressure, because USSR leaders saw success in their sports programs as translating into worldwide propaganda for the Communist system and its way of life.  Snooze, you lose, and maybe you'll find yourself on the next train to Siberia.

I think it's well documented that "The Father of Soviet Hockey" studied the Canadians and Czechs, because they were the world powers when he took charge in Moscow.  Yet, Tarasov knew darn well that, "To follow someone else is to be only second best."  (Oh, if only someone in the USA Hockey hierarchy would tattoo that last statement on his or her forehead.)  Again, he wasn't encumbered, and he had the freedom to change, if and whenever he saw that need.

No, Tarasov didn't borrow his team's style or training methods from others, but instead he developed different methods that would cause some of the best coaches in the world many sleepless nights.  Virtually overnight, he built teams that could out-skate others, out-stickhandle others, out-pass others, and attack the net differently than anyone else. And, he ultimately developed tactics and strategies that other countries would eventually borrow from him.

A little later in that Facebook conversation, I mentioned to my UK friend about almost landing a job to oversee the development of a different old Eastern Bloc country.  I wasn't saying that to claim I'm the second coming of Tarasov, but I will say that I am an incessant worker -- when I'm into something I'm passionate about, and I'm as creative at what I do as anyone in the business.  Perhaps as importantly, I'm a student of history, and I try to learn from what has and hasn't worked.

Oh, ya, I'd take all the money a federation would throw my way.  Yet, I know I'd have achieved the necessary results, no matter what resources were available.  The right equipment gets a job done, but its shininess doesn't matter.  (Someday, I'll have to tell my readers about my long ago studies in the old USSR, and how that particular theory came to me.)  The right kind of training also matters, and that's why I suggested earlier to my UK friend that, it would take the right kind of coaches to truly get the job done.

Before closing, I have a couple more impressions concerning hockey development...

For the most part, Canada is loaded with players, and their system allows for those players to beat heck out of each other until some truly outstanding young guys emerge in the end.  Just think about it:  thousands and thousand of players climbing their hockey ladder, and only a handful being needed in the end.

Maybe USA Hockey would like to do the same, but their numbers aren't nearly as deep, and their system isn't nearly as effective (which is why I draw a comparison to the way Tarasov did things).  It's also been said often by others that, "USA Hockey is a glorified insurance company," and I've waited in vain for our federation to prove them wrong.  I think private coaches and gyms do more for American kids' development through their early years, with USA Hockey capturing those kids later on for National Teams, as if they're their own home grown pride and joy.  I may not live to tell anyone "I told you so," but my guess is that the bottom could fall out for US hockey when the current crop of cross-ice and small area games trained kids reach their teens and twenties.

Again, the old Soviet system wasn't nearly as haphazard as current day North American federations.  No, Tarasov and company arrived at a plan for developing thousands upon thousands of young players -- from beginner to The Big Red Machine, with plenty of science being employed along the way.  (I'd actually seen the likes of over-speed training and plyometrics back in Moscow some 15-ish years before such things would become common knowledge in North America.)

One other thing...  I don't think the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese and most other countries are driven crazy with political correctness, so their sports programs can just go about training their athletes.  At the same time, PC Police are everywhere in North America, and trying to destroy the very foundations of our sports programs.

Lastly, as I've intimated throughout this piece, I don't think we're going to see everything happen in a hurry.  The Russians may or may not win this year's World Juniors, but the arrow is likely pointing up for them, as well as for a lot of other countries.  Which way is it pointing for the North American programs?  You be the judge.  As for me, I think the freedom to change whenever necessary -- and not blindly following others -- will make the biggest difference in the end.

Are People Really THIS Dumb?

This being only a few weeks after the polls closed for midterm elections in the United States, I'm wondering how many readers are glad to see all the political ads gone.  Ugh.  I had to endure them from my newer home in Florida for a time, and then had to return to my old home in Massachusetts to experience even more.  The airways in both states were filled with those ads -- or should I say polluted, with most of them being pretty questionable in integrity.

In trying to be honest here, I felt that candidates from both major political parties were lying, or at least stretching the truth quite a bit.  And, while I lean towards the Conservatives in my later life, I am admitting that most of them could use some truth serum, too.

Anyway, while you might be spared for a couple of years, I and my hockey friends evidently can't escape more political ads.

What I'm talking about is a YouTube.com video that keeps getting recycled and recycled, with no relief in sight.

Actually, if one would check the comments listed below that video, he or she would discover that most hockey folks don't like its message.  At the same time, there's always someone seemingly swayed the other way by it, which has them posting it to one social media site or another.  (Did I say "Ugh" yet?)

With that, I'm going to show my readers that video, and then provide my own feelings right after.  Or, as the late Paul Harvey always said, I'll later tell you "the rest of that story"... 

Okay, here's the politics of that video...

America's governing body, USA Hockey, produced the video, mainly trying to promote their belief that little ones are better off playing on a smaller, scaled down ice surface.

If there's an initial thing rotten in Denmark, though, it's that USA Hockey has already forced that idea on its membership.  In other words, their youngest members are going to play on the smaller surface, whether anyone -- including member parents, coaches and administrators -- like it or not.  So, this being after-the-fact, all I can guess is that USA Hockey is trying to do damage control, or maybe continue to influence members that they're doing the right thing.

Now, as an aside here, my Minor Degree studies were in Instructional Media, which included a number of Radio & TV Production courses.  That was on purpose, because I planned to combine my Physical Education & Coaching Major with those skills to do a lot with video, including producing my own instructional videos (the analogue-type back through the 1980's, and digital versions for the years thereafter).  I say this because I know all the tricks when it comes to things like talent selection, scripting, and clever editing.  Ya, I know that stuff...
     

• As for the talent selection, I'm hoping no one is dumb enough to believe that the group of players in that video just happened to be skating on a local pond when the camera crew arrived.  Geeeeeeeze...  They were handpicked.  Actually, I haven't been able to get an answer about whether they were either compensated or at least members of USA Hockey.  (Oh, someone might want to shoot my accusations down, just because I could be wrong on the latter.  But being wrong about that one point doesn't in any way negate everything I'll have to say here.)

• Then, the scripting...  Give me a dawgone break.  The guys in that video may not have been given word-for-word scripts, but I can assure you there weren't going to be any anti-USA Hockey comments saved to tape.  As a matter of fact, if you go watch that video again, after hearing me out, perhaps you'll get the same sense as I, in that the commentary is as phoney as it can get. 

• Lastly, no matter what took place on the day of the shoot, I can tell you that absolute miracles can be achieved in the studio.  In other words, if the idea of the final video was to give all the right testimony for forcing little ones onto smaller ice surfaces, that could be accomplished in the final edit.

Why do I go to such lengths here -- about the talent, the scripting, and the editing?  It's to liken that video to exactly what we've spent months viewing in those political ads.  Pure propaganda, I mean, with as much truth in that video as there was in either the MA or FL governor's races.

Non-hockey readers might like to know that I'm not going to go off too much about the hockey part of this, because that's not the idea behind my Diary.  So, while I could provide plenty of reasons why USA Hockey might rethink things -- from a learning-the-game standpoint, I'll only suggest here that most of their members don't like the idea.  Of course, this isn't the first time they've crammed unpopular rule changes down their members' throats -- since the body-checking issue is still fresh in my mind.

Lastly, though, I still have to ask my title question, wondering "are people really THAT dumb" -- to believe that video, and to keep posting it to their Facebook walls or elsewhere?  The answer, I guess, is "evidently so".