ADM: Teaching Competitiveness – The Practice-to-Game Ratio

In my previous article on ADM, I asked the question “what is the objective of ADM?” Is it to improve our top end? (i.e. Better performance on the world stage; more NHL’ers; etc.), or is it to keep more kids in the game for longer. In that article I made the statement that those two objectives have vastly different courses of action.

You can check out the previous article here:

If the ADM is aiming to create a better top-end athlete, which will improve our performance on the world stage, then we need to be teaching competitiveness from a young age. In which case, there are four aspects of ADM that I feel need revamping:

  1. Practice to Game Ratio & Total Games per Season (addressed in this article)
  2. Travel Hockey Recommendations & Ages
  3. Coaching Education: The “Un-coaching” Approach
    1. Practice Structure
    2. Improper Use of Small Area Games
  4. Taking Games Seriously at Young Ages (keeping score, and having referees)

In this article I want to dive deep into the Practice-to-Game Ratio. We’ll hit the other topics, individually, in subsequent articles.

Practice-to-Game Ratio & Total Games per Season

The ADM recommends a 3:1 practice-to-game ratio for most age groups (see ADM Guide 2011 & ADM One Sheet), with the following recommendations for number of games per season:

  • U8: Maximum 20
  • U10: 20-25
  • U12: 30-35
  • 13-14: 35-45 (or 40 to 50 on the “accelerated track”)
  • 15-16: 35-45 (or 40 to 50 on the “accelerated track”)
  • U18: 40-50 (or 50 to 60 on the “accelerated track”)

Once again, “What is our objective?” Are we trying to prepare players for the world stage? If so, we need to evaluate what the top teams are doing on the world scene.

So, where do the top players on this year’s Gold Medal Canadian World Junior Team come from? All but two came from the Canadian major junior leagues. The two that didn’t… well, they were already in the NHL.

Click Here for the 2014-15 Team Canada Selection Camp Roster

I think it’s logical to say that if we want to be competitive on the world stage, our development has to be comparable to that of the top nations. So, how does our development stack up here in the States? Let’s take a look:

As I stated in the last article, hockey has a very young life span, and the ADM wastes early years by handcuffing development for the top-level kids, in the name of keeping a “level playing field” to allow late bloomers to stay in the game longer.

It doesn’t really matter that the science says male athletes don’t reach their physical peak until age 23. The NHL draft is age 18. The World Juniors are U20. The Major Junior drafts are 14-15. Which means you have to be functioning at a HIGH level by Bantam… not just getting started on the “accelerated track.”

Your average player begins hockey around age 5. If our goal is excellence on the world stage, or more NHL’ers from the USA, that means we have roughly 10 years to get a kid capable of being drafted major junior. This doesn’t necessarily mean they have to play major junior, but they have to be “major junior material” if they expect to compete with teams like Canada. If they’re not major junior material by the time they’re draft eligible, they’re probably not going to be World Junior or NHL material either. So the race is to age 15 in my mind.

I mentioned this in the previous article, but I think it warrants repeating: If a player isn’t major junior material by age 15, does that mean all is lost? Heavens no! There’s still college, Tier II Junior A, etc. And from there, a few of the “late bloomers” still find their way to the show.

“Major Junior Material”

So… what is major junior material? Let’s start from the top and work our way back down. As stated above, most major junior drafts happen at age 14 or 15. At that point a few of the top prospects play for the team they were drafted to, but most play a year or two in Tier II Junior A before making the jump.

Here’s a look at a typical major junior season from the OHL

  • 68 regular season games
  • Plus preseason
  • Plus playoffs (4 best of 7 rounds if they make the finals).

By the time all is said and done, you’re probably looking at somewhere between 80 to 100 games if your team goes deep into playoffs.

Click Here for OHL Season Report for 2011-12

How do you prepare a player to function at a high level for 80-100 games per season by the time they’re 15 years old?

BY PLAYING GAMES! Lots of games. From the time the kids are young.

Typical Canadian Upbringing

I grew up in Toronto, which is a good hockey town. I would say my upbringing from age 5-14 (before I moved to the States) was fairly typical of what you’d see among the Canadian World Junior roster. I played house league my first year, then house and select my second year. Then I played two years of underage hockey at “AA” since tiered programs didn’t start until Novice. At age 9, I began playing “AAA” in what was then called the Metro Toronto Hockey League (MTHL). Here’s what a typical season would look like for me:

Our regular season had roughly 30 games. Our team was among the top teams, so we’d usually go pretty deep into playoffs. Let’s say an additional 15 games there. We’d usually hit 4 tournaments or so during the season, so let’s call that another 20 games.

That’s roughly 65 games. On top of that, many of us would hit a tournament or two during the summer to stay sharp, and to have some fun with other guys we didn’t play with during the regular season. So it’s very realistic to assume most of these players are getting 70-80 games per season, from the time they’re 9 years old. And that number generally increases as players get older. This usually ended up as a 1:1 or 2:3 practice-to-game ratio.

Under our ADM recommendations we don’t even come close until the U18 accelerated track, which recommends 50-60 games. Look at what that does for total games from ages 9 to 15:

  • Elite USA Hockey player who follows a TEXTBOOK implementation of ADM: 290 games (max) from ages 9-15
  • Elite Canadian player following a typical schedule as described above, not adjusting for more games as players get older: 560 games (or more) from ages 9-15

So by the time our American kids are 15, their Canadian counterparts have played nearly double the number of games over their lifetime! Furthermore, the QUALITY of the Canadian players’ games will have been higher, because USA Hockey has begun to discourage travel hockey until Bantam.

Game Maturity

There is something to be said for game maturity. Game maturity can only be acquired through real games. I coached an ACHA college team for a few years. Skill for skill, we were competitive with most teams. We had speed, decent hands, competitive passing abilities, etc. We’d look great in practice, but we lost a lot of games. A LOT of games! As smooth as we’d look in practice, our systems would fall apart in games. We’d make stupid mistakes at critical times. We’d take costly penalties. Our transitions were slow, and we were slow to anticipate. We were immature compared to the teams we were playing against.

At one point I compared our roster to the roster of one of our competitors. Because of a few factors beyond our control, our roster mostly consisted of players from Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and other Western States. Our competition’s roster was mostly filled with aged-out Canadian Junior players who hadn’t gone NCAA. I talked to a few of our top players, ran the numbers, and determined that our top players had probably played about 1/3 the lifetime games as our competitor’s top players. It’s no wonder we had a hard time competing!

Too Many Games?

Even as I write this, I can already hear many folks exclaiming “65 games is too many for a 9 year old!”

My response: “Is it?”

I loved playing hockey. So did most of my teammates. Practices were ok, but GAMES WERE FUN. Competing was fun. Winning was fun! The kids who loved hockey and played for their own enjoyment had no problem playing lots of hockey without burning out. In fact, most of us loved it so much we played street hockey and roller hockey when we weren’t on the ice! And when we couldn’t play on the ice or in the street, we were playing mini sticks in the house, or in the hotel hallways, or hockey on our Segas (NHL ’95 – for those old enough to remember!). The players who didn’t love it as much, or played because their parents made them, did burn out.

This is a concept that holds true on ANY pastime. If you haven’t read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, I suggest you check it out. Gladwell talks about the 10,000 hour rule. In a nutshell, the idea is that it takes roughly 10,000 hours to become “world class” at anything. Whether it be a classical music composer, computer programmer, painter, dancer, musician, or athlete, the great ones don’t burn out. They love what they do. Hard work is fun for them. And they spend time at it whether or not there’s someone there to make them do it.

If our kids are enjoying themselves, why not let them “log more hours,” so to speak? I still believe in multiple sports to develop athleticism, but I don’t agree with a blanket capping of hockey participation for a kid who isn’t burned out. Let the parents and players decide for themselves how seriously they want to take the game, and then select a program that fits their objectives.

Practices and Puck Touches

Another concern many people have stems from the Kingston Study in 1971 where Former Canadian National Team and NHL coach George Kingston stated that the average North American youth hockey player handled the puck less than one minute per game.

According to Kingston, in Europe there are typically two to five practices for each game played. Kingston goes on to say that in order to get one hour of quality work in the practicing of basic skills of puck control, approximately 180 games would have to played, compared to a quality one hour practice.

(Quoted from USA Hockey Small Area Games Book)

The stats are interesting. But what’s the real question? What are we trying to accomplish?

The real question is “what can we do to improve our stickhandling, while teaching proper positioning, competitive drive, and the other aspects of the game, so that we are more competitive in games?”

Once you understand the objective, you can formulate the game plan. The objective isn’t more puck touches. The objective is better puck control in games!

The answer isn’t to adjust the practice to game ratio. The answer is to improve our practices, and encourage at-home training. And we do this by improving the quality of our coaches.

Furthermore, why do we care what the European practice to game ratio is? The reason Europe’s practice-to-game ratio is so high is because their top-level hockey isn’t consolidated enough to play a large number of high-level games without having to travel, so they focus their efforts on practices. Meaning, in a place like Toronto, it’s was easy to play 65 games per season, all at a “AAA” caliber, without having to drive more than 45 minutes from home. In Europe, it’s not as easy or cost effective, so they don’t.

In his study, Kingston looked at skill development in Sweden, Finland, the former Czechoslovakia, and the former Soviet Union. In my mind, only one of these programs (Russia/USSR) is worth considering modeling, based on performance on the world stage.

Canada and Russia/USSR each have more than 4 times the gold medals of the next closest European team (Finland) at the World Junior Championships.

Click Here for the WJHC Medal Count

Is it great to learn from other nations? YES! Are Europeans known for their smooth skills? YES! Do they win on the world scene? NO. Why not? Because there is more to winning championships than silky hands.

Small Area Games & IntelliGym

In a roundabout way, USA Hockey seems to recognize the value that playing games brings to development, because in the same breath that they’re promoting a 3:1 practice to game ratio, they’re also heavily promoting Small Area Games and IntelliGym. So, the message becomes “practice more, play less, and supplement your lack of games with small area games and a subscription to our IntelliGym software for $39/mo”


We’ll cover small area games in more depth another day, but let me just say this: There’s nothing wrong with small area games, and there’s nothing wrong with the IntelliGym. I think both can be effective tools in their own right. But they can’t teach the grit that comes with real game maturity. They can’t teach you to “will” a goal when you’re down 3-2 with 1:15 left in the game. They can’t teach you to overcome a bad ref. They can’t teach you to rise above a volatile crowd when you’re the visiting team against your biggest rival. And they, most definitely, are not a substitute for good coaching. You get the point.

Lastly, you will never play with the same intensity against your own team as you do against another team, no matter how hard you’re working. The difference isn’t physical, it’s psychological. It has to to with developing the “controlled crazy” mindset that makes top athletes so effective. You’d be considered a bad teammate if you were to really get yourself into that mode during a small area game drill.


Under a textbook implementation of ADM, we put a ceiling on our kids’ development by limiting the number of games. We set our kids up so that by the time they’re 15 years old, they’ve only played roughly half as many games as their Canadian counterparts. If we expect to be competitive on the world stage, we need to develop at the same pace as the best teams.

In watching the World Junior Hockey Championships the past few years, I’m convinced that skills aren’t what’s keeping Team USA out of the medal rounds.  The grit that comes with real game maturity is lacking. I’ve quietly watched the conversations on social media, interested to see what people were saying. A comment that came up a few times was “just wait until ADM sets in… then, watch out!”

I hate to break it to these folks, but we are beginning to see the results of ADM right now. And USA’s results on the world stage will continue to get worse until we correct our course. The practice to game ratio is only one piece of the deficiency. Combine this with some of the other areas I’ll point out over the next few articles, and you’ll see that if we have ANY success in hockey as a nation, it will be IN SPITE of ADM, not because of it.

Hanging a Forechecker on the Net While Initiating a Breakout

vlcsnap-2015-04-22-10h04m07s145Initiating a breakout is one of those situations that happens multiple times every singe game. It’s important to “arm” our defensemen with the tools they’ll need to be successful in these recurring patterns.

One such tool is the tactic of hanging the forechecker up on the net, as shown in the clip above. This tactic involves two steps:

  1. “Baiting” the forechecker into thinking he’s got a chance at catching you
  2. Cutting tight behind the net, at an angle that makes it so he can’t stay with you

When used properly, this will open up time and space, and make the other team have to make decisions––which is what we’re all about. As the defenseman skated up ice, other players will have to leave their coverage to pick him up. Then it becomes a numbers game; the idea is to draw players to you, then beat them with a pass. This turns a 5 on 5 into a 5 on 4, then into a 4 on 3, and so on until you’ve got an odd-man scoring attempt.


ADM: What is Our Objective?


ADM: What is Our Objective?

I have been thinking about this series of posts for almost four years now. The reason it has taken me this long to write it, is that I wanted to be sure I understood my own position, and that I could properly articulate why I felt the way I did. I also wanted to see if my intuition turned out to be right, or if I’d be proven wrong over a few years.

This will be the first in a series of articles about the ADM program. If you’re not familiar with ADM, it stands for American Development Model. In USA Hockey’s own words:

“The ADM is USA Hockey’s nationwide player-development program for youth hockey associations. It’s based on age-appropriate, age-specific competition and training for boys and girls, beginning with their first steps onto the ice and carrying them through age 18 and beyond. The ADM places a heightened emphasis on skill development and long-term athlete development principles, providing a blueprint for the best possible youth hockey experience. Put simply, it’s doing what’s best for kids.”

ADM One Sheet Document PDF

Sounds great, right? Who wouldn’t want the things listed in the above statement? The problem is, there are a lot of things about ADM that sound great on paper, but that do not translate well when put into action. This series will dive deep into these short-comings, with the hopes of sparking some debate, and encouraging better coaching, better programming, and better development for our youngsters.

This article’s main purpose is to ask the question “What is Our Objective?” The next articles will address the following topics:

  • ADM: Teaching Competitiveness – The Practice-to-Game Ratio
  • ADM: Teaching Competitiveness – Travel Hockey Recommendations and Ages
  • ADM Coaching Education: The “Uncoaching” Approach – Part 1
  • ADM Coaching Education: The “Uncoaching” Approach – Part 2
  • Taking games seriously at young ages (keeping score, and having refs)

“Textbook” vs “Local” Implementation

Before I go any further with this, I would like to draw a distinction between what I call “textbook” and “local” ADM implementation.

I have had a number of discussions with folks who argue in favor of ADM, but then when I bring up certain aspects of the program I have problems with, they say “well ya, we don’t do that part of it in our local program.” To which I say “then you aren’t really running ADM…”

For example, I was discussing ADM with a parent who was a big fan of the program. I said “One of the things I have problems with is that ADM discourages “travel” or “elite” teams until age 13, so what are we supposed to do with our elite athletes until then?” The parent said “well in my area those top kids go to ‘such-and-such’ team, and they play against the other top teams. But they all run ADM too, and are having a great time with it.”

Apparently the message isn’t being made clear. If your program is running something contrary to ADM’s guidelines, then they aren’t really running ADM. Maybe they’re running bits and pieces of ADM, but according to the literature (which you can download below), their program is not fully in line with ADM’s recommendations:


My opinions in this series of articles are based on the idea of a TEXTBOOK implementation of ADM. Meaning, let’s theoretically take your youngster from Mite through Junior, following the ADM recommendations to a T, and pick apart what works and what doesn’t. After all… USA Hockey claims to have finally developed “a program that will provide a better future for all. All ages. All talent levels. All organizations. All of hockey.” (ADM Guide, 2011, page 1)

Is a “one-size-fits-ALL” model really possible? Let’s put it to the test and see!

What is Our Objective?

The first question that needs to be addressed is “What is Our Objective?” What is USA Hockey attempting to accomplish with the ADM program?

  • Is the goal to have more success on the world stage? (i.e. More NHL’ers, World Championships, World Junior Championships, Olympic Medals, etc.)
  • Is the goal to keep more kids playing hockey for longer?
  • Or is the goal something completely different?

I think it goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyways) that each of these objectives requires a VERY different course of action, even from a young age. I don’t see a “textbook” implementation of ADM producing greatness in world competition. However, I do see it potentially keeping more kids playing hockey for longer––at a lukewarm level of skill and commitment.

USA Hockey is very concerned with drop out, which is great. However, I feel ADM’s recommendations often work to the detriment of the more talented players, who are capable of more, and who WANT more. An example of this is the discouragement of select & travel teams until age 13. Here’s a quote from the ADM Guide 2011 pamphlet:

“Once a player has reached the Bantam level, he or she can take part in an accelerated track. This track is designed to get them more ice time, which means more time can be devoted to specific skill development. It is a more rigorous track, but it is also one that provides talented skaters with more opportunity to hone their craft.”

In a TEXTBOOK implementation of ADM, the path is essentially the same for every player UNTIL Bantam.

There are a number of problems with this (assuming you’re looking to produce high-quality players), but here’s the biggest one in my mind:

Hockey has a very young life span, and the ADM wastes early years by handcuffing development for the top-level kids, in the name of keeping a “level playing field” to allow late bloomers to stay in the game longer.

It doesn’t really matter that the science says male athletes don’t reach their physical peak until age 23. The NHL draft is age 18. The World Juniors are U20. The Major Junior drafts are 14-15. Which means you have to be functioning at a HIGH level by Bantam… not just getting started on the “accelerated track.”

Your average player begins hockey around age 5. If our goal is excellence on the world stage, or more NHL’ers from the USA, that means we have roughly 10 years to get a kid capable of being drafted major junior. If they’re not major junior material by the time they’re draft eligible, they’re probably not going to be World Junior or NHL material either. So the race is to age 15 in my mind.

Now, if a player isn’t major junior material by age 15, does that mean all is lost? Heavens no! There’s still college, Tier II Junior A, etc. And from there, a few of the “late bloomers” still find their way to the show.

You might say, “well ya… but realistically, how many of these kids will go to the show?” That’s a very true point. The percentage is miniscule. But does that mean we CATER to the lower-end athletes, or to the lower-end goal? I say we should still treat every player’s development as if he or she is “NHL Material,” and let him or her progress at the fastest pace they’re capable of progressing. The better kids can progress in the better leagues, while the kids who aren’t quite ready yet can keep progressing at lower-level leagues.

Big Market vs Small Market Debate

One of USA Hockey’s selling points for the ADM program centers around the question of “What are the small-market countries doing to produce ‘so many’ NHL’ers per per capita?” USA Hockey supposedly studied the training methodologies of these small-market countries, then pieced various aspects of their programs together to form ADM.

Before moving forward, let me be clear on one thing: I LOVE THE IDEA OF LEARNING FROM OTHER PROGRAMS. In fact, I believe you can learn something from just about ANY coach if you’re truly a student of the game. I have picked up countless drills and techniques from my European colleagues, and it has truly enhanced my coaching game.

However, I think USA Hockey has missed the mark on this question. When you divide the world into regions, making each Canadian Province and American State a region, and each European country a region, we realize that Saskatchewan is producing nearly double the NHL’ers per capita as the next best region, which is Manitoba (talk about small markets!), and 9 TIMES more NHL’ers per capita than the top European country, which is Sweden. So why are we so enchanted by the European methodologies?

NHL'ers Per Capita with 5+ Players

NHL’ers Per Capita: Regions with 5 or More NHL Players. Stats from http://www.quanthockey.com/

Do the Europeans produce good players? Yes! Can we learn from them? Yes! But there are two points I think we’re overlooking:

  1. USA is not a “small-market” country. We have the second highest number of U20 participants in the world, second only to Canada (see 2014 IIHF survey stats here). As a large market country, we have training advantages many other countries lack. We should use them.
  2. Canada and Russia/USSR are by far the most dominant countries on the world scene. If we’re going to borrow from other countries, why not pattern our development models after theirs?

I know some folks will be saying to themselves “Yes, but per capita isn’t fair, because Canada has many more PLAYERS per capita, so it skews the numbers.” This is true, but isn’t “growing the game” one of our objectives in the first place? Growing the game should be, and is, part of the development model.

The real question should be how has Canada been able to have such a high volume of participants in the sport for so many years? Personal experience tells me it hasn’t been by limiting opportunities for the elite players to play top-caliber hockey. We must make hockey a bigger part of the American culture, and this is done by striving for excellence, and catering to the development of the elite athletes. As the saying goes, “high tide raises all ships.”

Moving Forward

We’ll dive much deeper into these topics in the next few articles, but the main takeaways for this first article are as follows:

  • USA Hockey needs to clarify it’s objective for the ADM.
  • ADM administered in textbook fashion will not produce the type of elite players USA needs to be competitive in world competition
  • If the objective is to be more competitive on the world scene, then changes need to be made to the ADM
  • If the objective is to maintain a larger number of lukewarm participants for a longer number of years, then the current program will do just that (although you’ll have a lot of frustrated elite players, along with their parents)
  • If you want to be the best at something, model your programming after the BEST countries, not the 3rd or 4th in line. Canada and Russia have each finished in the top 3 in the World Junior Championships 18 times since 1995. Sweden is next best with 8. (Click here for U20 medal counts)

As you’ll see in the subsequent articles, there are many aspects of ADM that sound good on paper, but that just don’t work when put into practice. The closer a program gets to “textbook” ADM, the less sense it makes when you see it in action.

Pressure v. Contain 1 on 1

Pressure v. Contain 1 on 1

Good drill from the PIJE drill collection over at DrillDraw

pressure v contain 1 on 1Pressure v. Contain 1 on 1:
1. Form groups of two around the rink.
2. In each group, there is one forward (carrier) and one defense (forechecker).
3. The forechecker tries to prevent the carrier to move toward the center: A) the forward does not have control of the puck (pressure situation), then, B) the carrier has full control of the puck (contain situation).
4. Reverse the roles for each sequence.


1 on 1 Strategy

Strategy and Tactics for Playing a 1 on 1 Properly

Last week, I showed a clip from the World Junior Hockey Championships, which demonstrated a Well-Executed 1 on 1. In that post, I also made the following statement:

Excellent defensive play is more about making the right pass, shot selection, managing gap, body positioning, controlling the front of the net, reading forechecking pressure, etc. These are all mental skills, and these are the skills that make for a great defenseman!

1 on 1 StrategyIn this video I show the X’s and O’s behind 1 on 1 strategy, and highlight a few errors that are commonly made among young defensemen (and older ones too!). Here are the main key points discussed in the video:

  1. Defenseman should quickly put some distance between him/herself and the breaking forward
  2. Manage the gap through the neutral zone, looking for tight gap (2 stick lengths) by the time he/she is crossing the blue line
  3. Stick lengths are measured north & south, defenseman maintains direct route to the near post
  4. Let the forward make the first move. Defenseman doesn’t have to go anywhere if he/she maintains a proper gap, and proper route back to the post. The forward will have to come to the defenseman eventually if he/she wants a shot
  5. If the defenseman gets beat wide, he/she should pivot, and skate straight back to the post. DON’T CHASE THE FORWARD!


 Page 1 of 50  1  2  3  4  5 » ...  Last » 
Hide me
Sign up below to receive our FREE Drills of the Week!
Show me