Save Selections for Advanced Rebound Control: Stick with Angle.

[harri1]

This is a continuation of the "Advanced Rebound Control" article. It has been controversial in the past but it has a ton of merit and works at any level. All of the goaltenders discussed in our Alumni update thread use the stick with angle approach to varying degrees with some very successful results. We stand by this approach for many reasons.

Save Selections for Advanced Rebound Control

Stick with Angle

The stick with angle approach takes the stick from the traditional six inches in front of the goaltender’s skates to one foot or more away from the skates depending on a goaltender’s stance and stick paddle length. Below is an example of the stick with angle approach from a ready stance.

Notice that a stick with angle also brings the hands forward
creating a more balanced ready stance.

A stick with angle from a standing position requires the goaltender rotate the blade of the stick in an arc without pulling the stick back in towards the feet.

By simply moving the stick in an arcing pattern the goaltender increases the chance of deflecting the puck over the glass and with greater stick control.

The true benefits of the stick with angle approach come when making a save from the down position whether using a butterfly or half butterfly save selection. When driving into a down save selection the goaltender will place more pressure on the back of the blade. **The goaltender will feel the pressure of the stick with the front of the forearm and wrist.** In order to place more pressure on the back of the blade the goaltender must keep the hands and stick forward. The goaltender must be sure to keep the stick forward with angle so as not to open the hole between the blocker and body. **The hands and stick forward will automatically close the holes between the arms and body without the goaltender squeezing the arms.** In the following examples the goaltender maintains strong stick with angle without compromising coverage of the five hole or holes by the body.

Notice the hands and stick are forward.
The stick with angle improves coverage and balance.
All that is required to deflect the puck high and into the corner is a simple arcing of the stick.
No wrist flip required which leaves the goaltender vulnerable to deflections or shots off the hip.

The stick with angle approach has many benefits. The first benefit is the closure of holes through or under the body. A compact save selection will make a goaltender more successful with greater chance of controlling the puck at the body. With the stick forward even a goaltender with a really wide butterfly will be more balanced; less likely to fall backwards. By arcing the stick rather than using a wrist flip to direct the puck to the corners the goaltender has kept the arms compact and eliminated a premature lifting of the stick thus reducing the amount of movement and reducing the chance of error. The most impressive benefit of the stick with angle is the consistency of being able to deflect the puck over the glass or into the torso.

Why would a goaltender want to deflect the puck up into the torso? By deflecting the puck up into the body the goaltender can then use a body cradle and glove hand trap to control the rebound at the body. Even if the puck does not ramp up the stick into the body the puck will still "give" leaving a rebound that is close to the body for an easy cover up. In some cases the rebound will automatically be deflected high into the corner without any stick movement. Coupled with the following the stick with angle approach the following rebound control tactics will help to increase goaltender success.

Give the approach a try and you will find rebound control improves as well as compactness through the body. Make sure the hands and stck are forward. The stick forward frees the blocker hand, as well, to move down into position to cover the space above the pad.

[jacksonh]

Originally Posted by harri1

The stick with angle improves coverage and balance.
All that is required to deflect the puck high and into the corner is a simple arcing of the stick.
No wrist flip required which leaves the goaltender vulnerable to deflections or shots off the hip.

uh oh.

[harri1]

jacksonh - I wanted to post this a second time round(it's been almost a year) because we feel this approach has a lot of merit and works very practically if done right.

[jacksonh]

Originally Posted by harri1

jacksonh - Explain... I wanted to post this a second time round(it's been almost a year) because we feel this approach has a lot of merit and works very practically if done right.

The stick forward in the butterfly thing has just been something heavily debated around here.

I personally think it has it's uses, but I know a lot of people around here don't like that technique. I use it when I am in a butterfly slide or backside push, but usually don't use it to make a save to my five hole. For that I like to use a narrow butterfly and either deflect the rebound to a quiet area with my stick, or accept the puck into my knees so there isn't a rebound.

[harri1]

I am well aware of the debate but even one of the latest editions of the goalieNEWS has paid homage to both approaches. I know some people poo-poo Ian Clarke, sometimes, but there is no denying how good of a goalie coach he is. I am finding that even he is acknowledging different approaches.

I think you hit on the key about the narrow butterfly and accepting the puck into the knee blocks. If you couple the narrow butterfly with stick with angle you increase the puck retention even more which is the first and safest priority in rebound control.

I used to have a very wide butterfly when I was playing college and CIS but did not use the stick with angle. After playing elite hockey I was able to incorporate the stick with angle and it helped my game tremendously. Now, I have a much narrower b-fly and the stick with angle saved my bacon many times this year. This past year I played against the top Senior hockey teams in Saskatchewan where teammates and even opposition commented on the decency of my rebound control(which still needs work, always needs work).

I just see too many rebounds, even in the NHL that are sent back out, flat on the ice leading to the easy second chances and tap in goals. The stick with angle is an easier and more efficient way to get elevation and works really well with body activation saves.

[jacksonh]

To be honest I don't think I have ever actually intentionally used the stick to ramp it up into my chest. I'll have to give it a try.

The narrow butterfly is great, but you do need to have your equipment setup properly or pucks will slip through. A lot of the little kids I coach have such bad pads that you can't really expect them to use it.

It's nice to absorb pucks but one benefit of using your stick to control rebounds is it really forces you to read the play and find the correct place to put the rebound.

[CubanPuckstoppr]

Originally Posted by jacksonh

To be honest I don't think I have ever actually intentionally used the stick to ramp it up into my chest. I'll have to give it a try.

I think I remember one of those debates .

Just to reframe things, I have no problem with a stick forward approach.

I still have issues with having the opportunity to take a shot and direct the rebound to a safe area with a high rate of success versus deflecting it into the torso, which should be in the vicinoty of the front of the net with a success rate that I cannot determine.

Is this approach for a broad range of students or just the top 1% (for the sake of debate).

Intuitively I have to believe the success rate drops the harder the shot (or the more rotation to the shot). If that is true, it puts another decision on the goalie, "Is this shot too hard to ramp up?" at a critical time.

[harri1]

CubanPuckstoppr - This is exactly the kind of focused questions I have been looking for in this debate. I have to go and pick up my son so I will answer your questions in a few hours after he is in bed. Thank you for the focused questioning and approach. I look forward to attempting to clarify some more ideas. Later fellow goalie enthusiasts.

[harri1]

I invite anyone who reads this or who has problems to ask questions with a clear focus no matter who it is or whether I have a sponsored forum or not. We are better off coming in with an open mind as am I. Well...this should be a long one. Here is my best shot.

Just to reframe things, I have no problem with a stick forward approach.

I am glad that is clarified. I will try to tackle a few of the issues and try to give you as many benefits to this approach as possible. As anything with goaltending I would only expect goaltenders to use this approach if they are comfortable with it. The key is to try it properly and see if it has merit for you. We do not force our students to adopt this but we do expect them to try it (as part of being coachable) and the conversion to this approach rarely takes more than one day in camp when our WHL, NCAA, AHL and NHL shooters can pick holes and generate rebounds at will.

I still have issues with having the opportunity to take a shot and direct the rebound to a safe area with a high rate of success versus deflecting it into the torso...

I need to ask which is the safer area: the torso(gut trap), the corners, or the front of the net? I would always rather the rebound come into the stomach than possibly stay in play where the opposition has a chance to recover the puck.

I would like to show one of the pics from the side again. Notice that once the puck ramps up the stick it will take a straight course into the gut rather than the chest. The laws of geometry and physics would back me up on this.

As long as the stick and hands are forward and the butterfly technique is strong with an upright body position the puck should not even get chest height. The only way the puck comes higher than the lower torso is if the old habit of bringing the stick back occurs or if the goaltender prematurely tries to collapse on the puck. Like the gut trap the body does not collapse until contact with the puck. As long as the hands are forward and stick is forward the goaltender is not in danger of injury(if goalies were getting hurt I would stop teaching it immediately).

...which should be in the vicinoty of the front of the net with a success rate that I cannot determine.

Myself and our students who use this across most levels of hockey find this provides a greater success rate for retention at the body which is the number one rebound priority. Again, I have seen NHL goalies down to Atom goalies who have given up too many goals because the stick was too tight to the pads or too upright only to have the rebound go to right back in front or to the open man back door for a rebound goal. The success rate when performed properly is just as high as the other approach if not a little higher.

Speaking of safe spots. With a stick forward approach the puck can hit the heel of the stick, without even moving the stick, and will automatically gain elevation towards the corner or over the boards which is safer than a rebound low. If the puck is shot off center the stick needs to only move half the distance without opening up holes through the arms where as the old stick flip can cause two major problems: holes through the body and an improperly timed flick may result in a goal if the on-ice seal is not tight. Again watch five hole goals in the NHL in slow motion and how many times do you see a wrist flip that is improperly timed. I know I am not just seeing things, I need to be analytical to be a good goalie coach.

I have had a couple of suggestions presented before. First, I remember a suggestion that the puck can possibly hit the stick and bounce off the pad to make the rebound unpredictable. This can happen with either stick approach. Depending on the placement of the puck. I have also heard someone say that one is at risk to ramp the puck into their own net. This will happen if we have a goalline goalie with bad angles. Bad angles will be the cause for way too many bad goals anyways and maybe that goalie needs to focus on movment and angles before save selection. I have seen and used the approach in tight to the goalline and not had problems or scored on myself(if I did so, I would stop).

When stopping shots off center the stick is backed by the pad and trapper/blocker. There should be no issues in this sense. This is good technique with either approach.

I will deal with the last part of CubanPuckstoppr's quandry and then I will give you all as many reasons as to why this approach is worth integrating and what game situations this will work in. I love the debate.

Is this approach for a broad range of students or just the top 1% (for the sake of debate).

We teach this approach to all of our students no matter whether they are beginner Atom goalies or our Top Prospect students(Midget "AAA" and higher). This approach works well for all levels as long as fundamentals are decent to excellent. Remember the shots an Atom goalie faces is relative to their level and so level does not matter. Just like anything we teach we expect our students to practice proper form so by helping them learn the proper technique they will be more likely to succeed. **MTN tries to teach our young goalies as many of the skills we teach our Top Prospect students as possible. Sure they may not be able to do something completely properly now, but it might click in another time. The skill can only click in another time if they have been exposed to them. Think of teaching a baby to speak. You do not stop speaking to them like an adult just because they don't know the language yet; you expose them to proper language and they eventually pick it up. Why hinder someone just because they are a certain age?**

Intuitively I have to believe the success rate drops the harder the shot (or the more rotation to the shot). If that is true, it puts another decision on the goalie, "Is this shot too hard to ramp up?" at a critical time.

What velocity of shot does this technique work best on? Quite honestly, the harder the shot the more predictable the trajectory. In our Top Prospects camp we have WHL, AHL and NHL shooters and not once have we had a goalie get injured or come close to injury due to this approach. Just like anything, the game must be automatic and the stick forward must be worked into the game (in practice or warmups to feel natural, like any other skill).

No shot is too hard for this approach. I have personally used this technique with success against current and former Junior "A", WHL, NCAA, AHL and NHL shooters and have seen many of our students handle a shot from Braydon Coburn without any detrimental effects. I actually, throughout my career, have always found the slower shots more unpredictable which makes rebound control tough anyways. Many goalies who move down into rec hockey from elite hockey would probably agree with me on this.

If the goalie chooses to use the butterfly and the stick has strong presence then there is less movement than if one brings the stick back for the flick. The less one does, the less likely they can mess up. Rarely does the flick not use the backing pad for leverage, unless you have monster arms like Chakal. More to come...

[dread]

Thanks for posting this. I use this technique situationally and teach it as part of a fully closed butterfly block. My comments/ questions are concerning the demonstration photos of the goalie in his up stance. Comments first,

- this is an extreme stick position.
- goalie is unbalanced, rt. side lower than left
- hips look overly flexed, weight forward
- if goalie pulled his stick back 8" most of these issues would disappear and his profile in the net would grow

My question actually is a little off topic but what the hell. Do you ever adjust the lie angle of your students sticks to optimize their stick positioning?

tim

[harri1]

I am powering down for the day so here is the best I've got.

Advantages of the Stick with Angle Approach

1. There is strong stick presence on any shots along the ice. One of the things that gets lost in the debate is that this approach and the one others support is that both sides adress the use of the stick for rebound control and its importance. We have a lot of common ground.

2. There is a greater chance of controlling rebounds in the top two rebound priorities; at the body or out of the play. The control at the body is an excellent way to control rebounds for a quick whistle if there are open players in front or right beside the goalie. Also, I strongly believe that an elevated rebound is far less dangerous than the low rebound.

3. Balance is improved with the stick and hands forward especially if a goalie has a wide butterfly. When the hands stay in front and do not pull back there is less likelihood of falling on ones butt in the butterfly.

4. Compactness is improved. By bringing the stick and hands forward there are very minimal holes through the body. If one takes a look at the goalie from the puck's perspective, which is the only perspective that matters, there are minimal holes through the body forcing the shooter to shoot around the body. This is the true definiton of playing big: being in proper position and offering minimal holes through the body. You may look bigger to the shooter but their perspective is much different than the puck's. If you are letting shots through the body you have effectively made yourself very small. If the body is one big unit that is playing big!

5. Closing holes is easier by bringing the hands and stick forward. The arms automatically close the 6 and 7 holes comfortably. The arms do not need to be in a locked position like a celtic dancer.

6. You only have one direction to move. Remember the Roberto Luongo After Hours mini-clinic? Even Luongo talked about knowing the glove needs to only move one direction when it is forward and compact. I think a lot of goalies (possibly the majority) find it easier to move the glove up rather than down.

7. On plays in close there are no holes through the body if executed properly. When we do our camps and are working on lateral/staggered feeds in tight I can usually snipe on a goaltender who has a hole under the blocker or through the body if the stick is pulled back. If I show that opening to our high level shooters they can exploit it without problems. If I can exploit it, the pro guys can really victimize a goalie. Most goals scored in close still go through the goalie's body unit.

8. The stick with angle enables active stick pull backs for rebound control at the body. If the puck is shot above the stick and hits the pads or knee blocks we have seen countless times that the puck will seemingly end up behind the stick for an easy pull back and cover. Rather than reaching over the puck and making an extra movement half of the work is done.

9. Arcing the stick to one side or another requires less movement than a stick flip or a pulled in approach. Due to proximity to the puck and the length of the paddle the stick may only need to move a couple of inches in either direction to get elevation over the glass or high into the corner. This simple arc is smooth and commands a stronger stick presence on the ice. There is less likelihood of improper timing.

10. The stick forward coupled with body activation(or moving the entire puck into the trajectory of a shot) on deflection situations or screen shots reduces the risk of a deflection through the body. If the stick stays in front and the goaltender slides onto the new angle of the deflection there is less chance of the puck being deflected to a position the stick has vacated or an open hole under the trapper or through the blocker arm due to unnecessary stick movement. On tip-ins on shots off the ice the puck is usually deflected down which is a problem if a hole is open through the body. **Remember, the point of the deflection constitutes a new shot which requires the goaltender to move the body into position thus body activation is a very strong tool that will not open holes as opposed to making an extended limb save.**

11. The stick with angle allows the goaltender to more easily move the blocker down into the tough to reach spot just above the blocker side pad or just off the hip. With the stick forward there is less interference with downward movement of the blocker because the stick blade just continues to slide forward. Ian Clarke describes the issues for blocker usage is the extra weight of the stick and the fact that a stick can impede downward movement of the blocker. A stick with angle allows the hand to move down with greater ease thus eliminating the 1 foot high shot just above the pad as a weak spot.

Words of caution...puck tracking and reading the release of the shot dictates proper butterfly use. The hands should be able to react to the puck when the puck is in an area that the goalie can react. Do not just blindly block unless the puck is in tight or there is a chance of deflection. This approach does work well in an automatic block situation. Other than that make sure proper save selections/tactics are used.

I think these pros are very strong reasons as to why MTN teaches this approach. The basic fact is both sides of the argument are providing a tool that gets the stick more involved in save selection which we can all agree is a dying art.

[harri1]

dread - I need to address a few things. First the goalie in the stance is myself. I have always stood with a deep flexion but am able to move with a lot of power. That stance has worked for me at the Junior "A", ACAC, CIS and Senior hockey levels I have always liked this position and it works for me. I almost never have issues with balance, in any direction. I think a lot goalies have an unbalanced look with the trapper being positioned higher than the blocker. I thought this was pretty balanced.

You brought up a key misconception about my profile in the net which is the only perspective that matters is the puck's, not the shooter's. If you look at the attached pics the ones that the goaltender looks small in is taken from six feet high, right above the puck as well as a right handed and left handed shooter's view. The other pic, where the goalie looks huge, is the same goalie who has not moved forwards or back or side to side from the angle with the puck. The goalie is on angle with the puck only, just because the shooter changes sides does not mean I move if the puck hasn't. In both cases the goalie is located just outside the crease on a puck between the hash marks. Even when I am down there is little movment needed to cover the corners and no shot, ever in this position would beat me over the shoulders. By looking at these pics and the differences in perspective you can see that what the puck sees is the only thing that matters.

Do we want to look big to the shooter or big to the puck? The puck's perspective is the only one that matters. If the shooter thinks I look small but the puck's perspective shows the shooter would have to make a perfect shot, who has the advantage. I am 6'1" and you have essentially called me small but the puck's eyes tell the true story. Rarely, do I get beat high in a game because I understand the puck's perspective and the vertical and horizontal angles the puck requires to enter the net. I have been referred to even with this stance(wink,wink)as "that big bastard."

**HINT: Next time you are on the ice have a goalie go into the net and look at him from a left and right handed shooter's perspective. Then lay down flat on the ice and look at what the puck would see if it had eyes. How come the perspectives are so different if the goalie did not move? Try this with the goalie in a proper butterfly, of course, staying on angle. Even a 5'6" tall goalie at the top of the crease cannot be beaten over the shoulders. Now, try this with the hands and stick forward and then with the stick pulled back into traditional butterfly position and you will see a significant difference in compactness. Try this exercise from different puck placements around the zone to get an idea of how important this idea can be.**

I will answer the question about the stick another night. I am offically done.

[CubanPuckstoppr]

Harri,

It wil take me the weekend to read all you've posted. I must say that you have put a great deal of effort into your repsonses.

I was going to add some jpg's of the semi final goalies to discuss






This on looks like a picture you would take

[harri1]

Cuban - I will respond another time this weekend(I spent too much time on this thread last night and need to pull back a little, for now). Thanks for adding to the discussion.

dread - In terms of suggesting a change in the lie of a stick we rarely make suggestions that way since most new sticks with a rockered heel are classified 13/14 depending on stance. What we do see often are young goaltenders who are using a junior sized sticks that are too small. If a young goalie cannot keep there stick on the ice there are usually two factors: a lack of knee flexion and/or the stick is too short. Often when we go to camps I bring 2-3 extra sticks to lend or give to the students who need a taller stick. Although, I am 6'1" I have always played my best with a 25" paddle (which are becoming rare). If a goalie needs a taller stick I usually give them one of mine. I believe through many, many minor hockey camps that stick companies should not even make a stick that is shorter than a 24" paddle.

The other switches we have made was moving a goalie from a 26/27" paddle into a 25" or we have the goalie give the stick more angle. Often, when goalies move into a taller paddle (often inadvertently) there are two common problems, again: either the stick blade is not flat with the toe off the ice, in an attempt to keep the blocker at the same level it is used to being, or the stance becomes too tall where the goalie's legs have lost flexion, thus losing power and explosiveness. We have one student who uses the stick forward/with angle very well with a 27" paddle even though he could use a 25" quite comfortably. He likes the extra reach with the stick forward/with angle. To sum up we make more adjustments with paddle size rather than lie. It all depends on the goaltender in question.

That is all for tonight. Have a good one all!

[harri1]

CubanPuckstoppr - I want to clarify that the traditional way of using the stick in the butterfly is very strong as it always has been. Like any other approach to goaltending there are pros and cons to all approaches. Most of the goalies in the NHL use a traditional stick approach, most of the time, but NHL goalies also used to cling to the idea of the stand-up goalie as well. I think that the stick with angle approach has just as much merit as the old approach as, I think, I have clearly identified. Again, all we ask is for goalies to give it a shot and maybe come back with some honest feedback. If the approach works, integrate it, if not throw it to the side. P.S. The Biron pic is good accept the stick is not forward. If the stick was forward it is easier to keep the blade flat on the ice. When the stick is pulled back and hands lowered you get only the heel touching the ice. Close to a pic I would use but not quite.

Just for fun I will post my own photo evidence from the NHL. Let's keep in mind that still photos of game action do not always show an accurate picture of how the play happened due to timing of the photo and angle the picture is taken. I know I have seen the stick with angle used by a few NHL guys:

The stick with angle approach helps eliminate this problem as well.

There is a lot of problems using game pics but it looks like the pros do it as well, maybe not consistently, but this approach is used. Although, one never knows the full context of the situation. I will try to get my video evidence ready this weekend.