Cardiff Devils v MK Lightning - Sat 30 Dec 2017 - League - FO 7pm - Chat/Updates
- Thread starter Nott Simpson
- Start date
I found this interesting post about the different North American style vs European style, it also mentions injuries too a bit wordy but worth a read.
There is a plethora of differences between the North American and European style of playing the game of hockey. The most obvious difference, when comparing the two styles is ice surface dimensions. North American standard rinks are 200 x 85 feet, while European ice sheets are “Olympic-sized” at 200 x 100 feet. It may not seem like much of a difference, but when you consider square-footage, we’re talking about a 3000 square-foot difference! That’s a nice chunk of extra real estate to dangle around in.
With extra space, we see a lot of relative differences in the style of play. More room breeds differing strategies on both, how to attack and how to defend. While North American hockey systems—on the offensive side—focus on “staying in lanes” and “playing in traffic”, the European game focuses on maintaining puck possession and generating speed and momentum, especially through the neutral zone.
On the defensive side of the puck, the North American game is a science. Every piece of real estate is tracked and sectioned off. The infusion of hi-tech video analysis allows teams to find effective ways to “cut the ice” and force opponents into smaller, low-risk areas. The most prominent example of North American defensive strategy is the “Neutral-Zone Trap”, first employed by the Montreal Canadiens during the 1970s, but made infamous by the New Jersey Devils during the mid-90s. The “Trap” focuses on using manpower to angle and force attacking players into highly-congested areas of the ice, forcing a higher percentage of turnovers and counter-attacks. On smaller rinks, this is a much easier and effective defensive strategy to employ.
Conversely, European hockey focuses its defensive efforts on using speed to force turnovers. Where North Americans are told to “Always finish your check”, Europeans rely heavily on angling and stick-checking, as to ensure that they are able to recover quicker to the center of the ice, where they will quickly re-attack. This is why you tend to see less physicality in the European-style game. There is simply too much ground to cover and you don’t want to catch yourself out of position.
The European game also tends to be a bit more on the cutting edge when it comes to rule changes. For example, when I was playing in Europe, early on in my pro career, there were a couple of rules that I had to learn the hard way. The first rule was the “Head Checking” rule, which was instituted in Europe far before it made its way over to North America. Every time I delivered what I thought was a textbook, hard, clean hit, I was given a 2-minute minor for “Contact to the Head”, accompanied by a 10-minute misconduct. After about five of these penalties in my first three games, I just stopped hitting players hard and spent more time just “getting in their way”. Although I was frustrated about not be able to plaster guys, it did reduce the amount of devastating contact in the game, ultimately leading to a faster pace and less injuries over the course of a season.
There is a plethora of differences between the North American and European style of playing the game of hockey. The most obvious difference, when comparing the two styles is ice surface dimensions. North American standard rinks are 200 x 85 feet, while European ice sheets are “Olympic-sized” at 200 x 100 feet. It may not seem like much of a difference, but when you consider square-footage, we’re talking about a 3000 square-foot difference! That’s a nice chunk of extra real estate to dangle around in.
With extra space, we see a lot of relative differences in the style of play. More room breeds differing strategies on both, how to attack and how to defend. While North American hockey systems—on the offensive side—focus on “staying in lanes” and “playing in traffic”, the European game focuses on maintaining puck possession and generating speed and momentum, especially through the neutral zone.
On the defensive side of the puck, the North American game is a science. Every piece of real estate is tracked and sectioned off. The infusion of hi-tech video analysis allows teams to find effective ways to “cut the ice” and force opponents into smaller, low-risk areas. The most prominent example of North American defensive strategy is the “Neutral-Zone Trap”, first employed by the Montreal Canadiens during the 1970s, but made infamous by the New Jersey Devils during the mid-90s. The “Trap” focuses on using manpower to angle and force attacking players into highly-congested areas of the ice, forcing a higher percentage of turnovers and counter-attacks. On smaller rinks, this is a much easier and effective defensive strategy to employ.
Conversely, European hockey focuses its defensive efforts on using speed to force turnovers. Where North Americans are told to “Always finish your check”, Europeans rely heavily on angling and stick-checking, as to ensure that they are able to recover quicker to the center of the ice, where they will quickly re-attack. This is why you tend to see less physicality in the European-style game. There is simply too much ground to cover and you don’t want to catch yourself out of position.
The European game also tends to be a bit more on the cutting edge when it comes to rule changes. For example, when I was playing in Europe, early on in my pro career, there were a couple of rules that I had to learn the hard way. The first rule was the “Head Checking” rule, which was instituted in Europe far before it made its way over to North America. Every time I delivered what I thought was a textbook, hard, clean hit, I was given a 2-minute minor for “Contact to the Head”, accompanied by a 10-minute misconduct. After about five of these penalties in my first three games, I just stopped hitting players hard and spent more time just “getting in their way”. Although I was frustrated about not be able to plaster guys, it did reduce the amount of devastating contact in the game, ultimately leading to a faster pace and less injuries over the course of a season.
