The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Three-on-three hockey in some ways is similar to a drop-dead gorgeous person. Everything looks great on the surface until you examine the inside, and realize it's not what you really want or thought it would be. I watched some games at the Whitney Forum for the Pee Wee three-on-three tournament that just ended and it was exciting. It had speed, hitting, goals and clutch saves. Following the final game, I interviewed six players and asked them which they preferred. The result was split with that group, but organizer Todd Quinn knows the majority prefer the three-on-three after speaking to all the players. This was the first time this style was played in the area. As much as I liked watching the action with less players, I have to stick to five skaters a side. This could be because I consider myself a traditionalist, but here are my reasons for not preferring three-on-three. This style leads to individual play for a sport that is reliant on team work. With so much room, players have time to attempt solo efforts, while with the extra two players, it becomes a challenge to create Mario Lemieux-like moves. Brennan Quinn said one of the reasons he likes three-on-three is because it's more challenging. There's no disagreement here that having less players to work with isn't challenging, yet, you can still have it with five players. The individual play comes out because the puck carrier wants to try it himself or his two linemates are trying to catch up to the play. With two extra players on the ice, options are available. I think that Brennan's reasoning makes the individual factor stand out. The next reason is the speed factor. That's likely the main reason this style is exciting because when you watch players with speed, it's incredible what they can do. What was visible is there are players who had trouble keeping up. This can be discouraging for those who can't skate fast. On the Steelworkers team, credit goes to the coaches for assembling their lines with players with equal ability because the players with size played together while the little rockets buzzed the ice. If you ignore the inside problems discussed, it's possible the exposure to that style can help the players hone their skills. One thing I completely agree with that Quinn said during an interview, was that all the players are given equal ice-time. This eliminates players rotting on the bench waiting for their chance to contribute. This may be a problem in regular hockey, but that's another topic on its own. The most important thing when it comes to three-on-three is that the players had fun. If the players are also able to improve, then it's a win-win situation. The one thing that was good about three-on-three is it's refreshing to watch. So, after examining the drop-dead gorgeous person, do you still prefer that to the overall package of traditional five-on-five?
