Squareness, Shooting Lane, and Depth

[Cubanpuckstopper]

I’ve discussed this on a number of occasions at other venues, but I am honestly interested in the feedback from this community.

I’ve worked on this with Yona during his summer clinics, who I believe in turn, has worked on it with Ale during spring clinics. I’ll make the broad assumption that is it the same Ale that is a member here.

From the graphic below, two theories are shown for positioning.

Scenario 1 (top half of page)
This shows, squareness 1st, movement to the shooting lane 2nd, and lastly acquiring the proper depth.

I have found a great deal of success with this, especially when a one-timer shot is eminent, and the results are even better with larger goalies.



Scenario 2 (bottom half of page)
The other method in the graphic shows, taking away shooting lane and gaining depth in one movement along a single path. Because of the path of the movement the goalie might not be totally square.

To pose some questions,

1) Is one method preferred when the shooter has less time and space, conversely is there a benefit to one method when time and space is available.

2) In Scenario 1, do we believe that two smaller open net areas are better/worse for the shooter to look at as they release their shot?

3 In Scenario 2, even though there might be a little more open net, and it appears in a larger continuous area, does that fact that the goalie only has to defend one side of the net provide an advantage in anticipating where the shooter will shoot?

I beleive it is best to present both scenarios, and see which works best for goalies given their individual skills, strnghts, etc.

[Jani]

This is an interesting detail you just raised here. In my opinion, when a time is not an issue then Scenario 1 becomes attractive as the goalie will first retain a centered position on the crease and only then gain the desired depth to cover more net horizontally. In Scenario 1 the shorter lateral movements required for the goalie provide and will help maintain a more balanced stance, hence more net will be covered and more easy it will be for the goalie to switch directions should an additional pass occur. Also in terms of anticipation the shoot will be directed to.

On the other hand, should the time be more limited then Scenario 2 may outperform of the two as the goalie will eventually cover more net by gaining more depth as fast as possible relative to the shooter. The greater momentum created by the goalie will certainly make it more difficult to rapidly change direction the goalie is moving towards. This is something an experienced shooter is aware of and can potentially use to direct the puck and shoot a goal. Nevertheless, I think that the more open net area available in Scenario 2 will be less of an issue because the goalie is moving towards the front corner, and will be able to follow and react for the shots by using his catcher etc.

Having said this, I firmly believe that each scenario has its advantages and disadvantages, thus the goalie should have both options available but only make his final choice in a few milliseconds after his judgement for game situation, and in case his physique and skills allows not to rely on just a single option.

[juha]

This lateral movement on one-timers or close to goal lateral passes is tricky and in most cases there is very little time to move and get square. I would say that using just one single method instead of two methods would be benefitial in the long run. That way the movement would always be "same" and come from the muscle memory, that way the goalie would not "think" how to move and use valuable time in thinking instead of moving. We are talking only few millions of a second, but in the long run it could mean 1 or 2 less goals scored behind the goalie.

In the situation Cubanpckstopper refered above I would use the option 1. where you first move laterally and make your self square to the puck and then adjust your dept. That way you are always keeping the odds on your side. In close up situation you might not have time to come out that much but having net to shoot at on both sides of you the shooter has to make decision to shoot on one of those two open spots, when the actual shot is fired the open spot is 50% smaller on the 1st scenario compared to the 2nd. Less net to shoot means bigger chance of wide shot or shot directly at the goalie since the shooter has to shoot more accurately while seeing only little net it might be that the shot is never released.

My thoughts are based on the odds, since honestly most likely the goalie has no time to react to the shot which means you should just cover as much net as possible. If there is time the goalie can adjust his dept and the shooter has nothing to shoot at.


-juha-

[Jukka Ropponen]

Just to add to this that this is also a personal preference issue as well as skill issue. I have learned over the years that some players work well with method 1 (this is also what I always recommend to teach to young goalies), but especially more advanced and experienced pro's find more success by moving directly out at proper depth, this also gets them there faster and in fast pro hockey you have to cut out all extra movements.

Jukka

[Cubanpuckstopper]

From the following video

http://www.nhl.tv/team/console.jsp?hlg= ... vent=CGY19

Some points to debate

- There is no time to gain depth

- The degree of difficulty for this save is high difficult save, and will be a "hit me" save at best

- And is a prime example of when I think a golie should move into the lane and/or cover the center of the next leaving more smaller openings, even thogu it seem unnnatural not to move towards the top of the crease.

I am looking for a slow motion replay, to confirm that it appears the push with the right foot was forward (difficult to see full speed) the NHL makes less and less slow motion replay avaialable. In no way is this intended to speak negatively of an NHL goalie, rather it should foster conversations from which to learn.