By Karen Aney (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: November 16, 2011
The hockey world outside of our own little blue, green and white bubble is buzzing. In a recent game between the Philadelphia Flyers and the Tampa Bay Lightning, Chris Pronger and his team made headlines by standing still with the puck in their defensive zone. It drew jeers from the fans and criticism from the media. Here’s a closer look at why.
Tampa Bay plays a type of defence known as 1-3-1. This means that one player – the forechecker – hovers at the tip of a diamond, waiting to force the offenders to one side or another. The player with the puck is then trapped, usually fairly successfully, by the three players lined up behind the forechecker. The playing style achieves a few things. The first is that it clogs up the neutral zone: that hazy area between offensive and defensive that so often results in ugly turnovers and breakaways. The second aspect of this defensive style is that it creates odd man match-ups, forcing the opposing team to essentially score short-handed while one or more players are tied up.
This style of play draws much criticism. It was popular in the 90s, a time otherwise known as the “dead puck era”. Canucks fans remember that as a time of heartbreaking defeat – the first time we let the cup slip through our fingers. Statisticians with more level heads, however, look at that era as a time with low scores and lower fan interest. The 1-3-1 system tends to tie up the puck in the neutral zone, thus resulting in plenty of mid-ice play and dumping back and forth. The criticism is mostly that this makes for so-called “boring” hockey; apparently, goals are the only thing that makes watching hockey entertaining. Teams who currently play the 1-3-1 include Minnesota, Nashville, New Jersey and St. Louis. A more recent example of a team successfully employing this strategy is the Ducks, circa 2007. Yes, that’s the year they took home Lord Stanley.
Tampa Bay has been using this strategy since head coach Guy Boucher was hired in 2010. In the game in Tampa last Wednesday, Boucher’s counterpart Peter Laviolette coached his team into making a political stand against the playing style. Starting with Braydon Coburn, different members the Flyers would gain control of the puck, then hover just beyond the neutral zone, forcing a stalemate that ended with the referees blowing the play down. This action exposed the weakness in the 1-3-1 style of play: it could be called the “wait-and-see” style, and in this case Philadelphia showed just how long the waiting part of that equation can be.
The plays were blown down consistently, resulting in a defensive zone face-off for the Flyers. This has garnered criticism from some who say that Philadelphia wasn’t breaking any rules in standing still – especially on the second and third stand-still plays, where the player in question would stick handle the puck rather than letting it sit dormant on the ice. However, Rule 72.1 of the NHL official rule-book states that players must “enforce continuous action and both referees and linesmen should interpret and apply the rule to produce this result”. Further, there is some legitimacy to the claim that Philadelphia’s tactic was causing a delay of game, though the war-room in Toronto decided not to award any penalties to that effect.
Much of the criticism comes from the fact that what both teams did (in sticking to their playing plans) made for boring hockey. Speaking with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Chris Pronger stated: “It’s not hockey in my book, but whatever. The league is letting them do it. Would you pay money to watch that?” He continued to explain the thought process behind their game plan: “If they want to just stand there, why would I want to skate into it? It’s asinine to think so.” Tampa Bay has been mostly quiet on the topic, yet stated that they would continue their 1-3-1 style of play for the foreseeable future.
There are a few problems with this whole fiasco. First, does the 1-3-1 truly make for boring hockey? Sure, the scoreboards don’t get lit up as often, but it gives players the opportunity to demonstrate both offensive and defensive skills that just aren’t showcased with as much depth in regular defensive styles. If you’re looking for a home-grown comparison, put the Westcoast Express era next to today’s reign of the Sedins: yes, there are less hits. Does that make it less fun? Some might think so, but the fact is that the Sedin’s style of play doesn’t make them weak, as the cliché “Sedin sisters” taunt suggests. Instead, it demonstrates a more cerebral style of play, indicative of their European origins. In other words, they’re smart – so maybe the ‘sisters’ moniker isn’t so far off base (says the female writer).
The second issue at hand here is whether or not it’s something of concern for the NHL as a whole. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman stated his opinion speaking with NHL.com shortly after the game: “If this became too prevalent and too much of the game and too regular, then I think we’d have to deal with it, and we will.” In the mean time, fans can complain that they watched a boring game – but aren’t we still all talking about it? As the saying goes, any press is good press. Is the 1-3-1 a bad thing for hockey? No. Is the fact that Philadelphia chose to hover outside the neutral zone an affront to sports everywhere? No. Is any part of this story “boring”? Hell no. Keep watching, fans. This is sure to make for some interesting match-ups in the future.
