Could four-on-four action inject excitement into the National Hockey League?

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      For years there have been cries from all corners of the hockey world that in order to increase the sport’s offence—and, in turn, provide more entertainment for the paying customers—the National Hockey League should seriously consider removing a player from each team.

      The suggestion to go with four skaters per side from the opening face-off stems from the notion that today’s players are so big and the defensive systems employed by many teams are so stifling that there is no room on the ice for any kind of creativity.

      On a lot of nights, particularly in the Western Conference, the argument is difficult to refute. Yet if four-on-four hockey was truly the way to go, NHL overtime would be a dizzying display of speed and skill, producing end-to-end action that brings the spectators to their feet.

      But it’s not.

      Eleven times in this shortened season, the Vancouver Canucks have been to overtime, and only two of those games have been settled. That’s almost 55 minutes of additional hockey with just two goals scored. Nine of the 11 overtimes have been nothing more than a continuation of the plodding that took place during regulation time, with the games then proceeding to a shootout.

      So the Canucks are well above this season’s NHL average, which has seen about six in 10 overtime games advancing to a shootout. The number is slightly higher, overall, in the Western Conference, where games this year have been low-scoring and more tightly contested.

      In years past, the Canucks were a team that feasted on opponents in four-on-four action (20 overtime goals in the most recent four seasons). This year, they’ve managed to score just one overtime winner: when defenceman Chris Tanev ended a February 4 game in Edmonton, giving the Canucks a 3-2 victory.

      Despite removing two skaters from the playing surface, NHL overtime on most nights looks and feels like the 60 minutes that preceded it. Instead of getting teams to open things up and trade chances, overtime is often dumbed down to dump-and-chase hockey, with players encouraged to battle for pucks on the end boards instead of skating them into the zone and trying to generate good scoring opportunities.

      Even the most gifted offensive players in the world have had it drilled into them that going for broke in overtime isn’t the way to play.

      “You know if you try to create something four-on-four, but if you miss, it’s going to result in a three-on-one the other way, so it’s one of those things where you can’t be too offensive,” Canucks captain Henrik Sedin tells the Straight in a recent interview at Rogers Arena. “It’s like anything. You can change the rules, but then you wait two or three years and everyone is going to figure out ways to limit the other teams’ scoring chances. And even if you went to three-on-three, there are still coaches who will figure that out, too.”

      With more room to roam in overtime, you’d think the best players in the game would have more time and space to be creative—and perhaps more of an opportunity to build up the kind of speed that might force defenders to take penalties. But rarely are penalties called in the extra sessions, with officials ignoring the hooking and holding that has crept back into the game after a league-wide crackdown coming out of the lost season in 2005.

      With star players adding to their already heavy workloads and playing on choppy ice at the end of the night, it all contributes to teams grinding their way through overtime.

      “I think if you look around the league, there haven’t been a lot of goals—it’s weird,” Daniel Sedin says. “There should be more open ice. But right now, every point is so important that no one is taking any chances. If you’re going to score, you’re going to beat four guys. That’s the way it is.”

      The fact that some teams are taking a cautious approach to overtime and playing for the chance to win games in a shootout is understandable. But it doesn’t make sense for all teams to play that way. Teams that struggle in what amount to game-deciding skills competitions should be pulling out all the stops to do whatever they can to end games in overtime rather than subjecting themselves to shootouts. But for some reason, that sense of urgency doesn’t seem to exist.

      Perhaps it’s because the lockout’s aftermath—with teams playing all of their games within their conference, against the teams they’re battling for playoff spots—has raised the importance of coming away with two points in any way possible.

      “Sometimes, when you were playing an Eastern Conference team, you’d throw three forwards out and go chance-for-chance until it was decided,” Canucks associate coach Rick Bowness says, noting that losing the bonus point up for grabs to an out-of-conference opponent wouldn’t hurt in the standings. “Now some teams know they’re very good in the shootout, so they’ll tighten it up, and not everyone’s going for it as much. And sometimes it’s as simple as the goaltending.”

      It’s true that no position in North American professional sports has developed more in the past 25 years than NHL goaltending. And no matter how many skaters are taken off the ice, every team still has a goalie capable of making a difference on any given night. So even when teams are generating offence in overtime, they still have to solve the guy in all the gear—and that’s not always an easy thing.

      So the games go on.

      This is not to say that the NHL shouldn’t explore ways to inject more excitement into its product. But based on the way many teams are approaching overtime, reducing the number of skaters for the entire game doesn’t appear to be the answer.

      Comments

      3 Comments

      John-Albert Eadie`

      Apr 2, 2013 at 4:00pm

      These suggestions are made by people who do not enjoy hockey as it has been historically played, and still is played in many places. Typically, the proposers will not be Canadians, or will be new Canadians. Hockey is a good game. I myself prefer the International style of hockey, don't like to see enforcement as tactic / strategy, but it is still a good game. 4-on-4 is stupid. It is ever proposed .. simply because the folks who propose it have never appreciated the Hockey game per se.

      0 0Rating: 0

      A Good Idea

      Apr 2, 2013 at 6:47pm

      If a game is tied after 60 minutes then Yah go to overtime, right!

      For the first 4 minutes it's 5 on 5, for the next 4 minutes it's 4 on 4, the next 4 minutes it's 3 on 3, the next 4 minutes 2 on 2 and the 1 on 1 for the last 4 minutes.

      If it's still tied, Yah just start over again with 5 on 5 for 4 minutes and so on.

      This is something that would make overtime exciting as HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      0 0Rating: 0

      twointhebox

      Apr 2, 2013 at 8:03pm

      The answer is in the article.
      4 on 4 right from the puck drop, not in overtime when the stakes are higher and defence even more important is the solution. Oh yes, less injuries from blindside hits and collisions too.
      Less players to pay for owners. Percentage of high skilled players goes up. Goals scored goes up.
      Also consider smaller goalie equipment and allow him to roam more.

      0 0Rating: 0