Why are you dismissing my valid points? I find it extremely rude. I'll explain again since apparently I didn't even "slightly prove" simple forechecking concepts.
At the start of the video:
- No puck pressure
- an open D partner
- an open center
Was that where "everyone was properly covered" as you claim? I want to understand if we're talking about the right time/spots in the posted video. Just the lack of pressure already proves (not an opinion but objective proof) that the forecheck failed. A forecheck requires pressure to work. We're already at a numbers advantage based on what we have to work with on the video because they have a dman starting the breakout uncontested with 2 options which means what should be Winnipeg's forechecking numbers are at a 1 to 3 disadvantage. 1 to 3, is that a sign of "proper" coverage? If we were playing football, would a trips formation be countered by 1 defensive back? that's proper coverage? I think we can safely say 1 to 3 objectively proves the coverage did not meet the required criteria to be considered "proper."
Another 3-5 seconds goes by (IRL they'd already be on the back leg of their 2-on-1 WPG just gave them freely) and we see:
- Two forecheckers at evenish depth around the tops of the circle - I assume this means a 1-2-2 "something" was being executed
- We see the middle forward of the "2" pressuring the puck while being inside the puck
- We see the defender inside the puck with little to no momentum
So again, this is objective proof that we have failed as an offense to put the defense into a spot that's ideal for a turnover. We lack a force, our original force side was broken, we still lack puck pressure, carrier still has options, we have also now given a free clear up the boards. Objectively, we can say the coverage did not meet the required criteria to be considered "proper" once again.
Again, a reminder of universally established and accepted rules of a 1-2-2 forecheck assuming the goal is to force the puck strong-side which this scenario is clearly an example of:
- F1 turns the play strong-side by cutting behind the net off
- F2 (strong-side - this would be WPG #81 in this video) is covering the boards pass/lane
- F3 (WPG #13 in the video) is covering middle lane/center pass.
- F2 and F3 are by design not supposed to take depth as it leads to easy boards passes and outs. As soon as you take depth (go towards the net) you give the defender a better angle to make a chip pass/board pass.
- If F1 gets beat clean, you're now switching into some sort of NZ concept, with at least
Now, return to your clip...
- Where is F1? I dont see him
- Puck moving left to right initially tells me F1 forced the play left, puck went back right.
So now, everything else is moot about "forechecking positioning" as the forecheck was broken. This is "mayday maday, abandon ship" territory.
Unfortunately we get huge defensive blunders by Winnipeg that Toronto failed to capitalize on:
- F3 applies pressure to puck
- This results in what we can also assume is:
- F1 beat and out of position (not in the video)
- F3 is now too deep, provides easy boards clear which means the whole ice is now open after a simple boards pass
- This means we now have 2 players completely out of the play and not in position...but we're not done yet!
- As Weakside D remains in the direct passing late flat-footed while failing to cutoff the boards outlet.
- This now means one pass on the boards is going to beat the following players while we assume there's two Maple Leafs in the NZ:
- F1
- F2
- F3
- D1
- So, not a math guy...but if the puck is beating 4 players on a single uncontested pass and they have two players above the 4 players I've mentioned, this means it's a very easy 2-on-1 up the ice, no?
- 5-4 = 1
- 5 - 3= 2
- I think did that right
And so now after all that "proper positioning" I'm seeing that one board pass would've lead to the most dangerous rush in hockey that all coaches fear. Did I explain that well enough? Feel free to add your own commentary if any of my observations are misguided. Again, you didn't provide any context to this scenario so I can only work with what I have in the video.
