1-2-2 Forecheck
For a bit of a change of pace, instead of looking at what happened in over the past week in Oiler games I’m going to switch focus and talk about the forecheck in general.
The primary goal of the forecheck isn’t to necessarily force a turnover, but rather disrupt the opposition’s breakout. Aside from various formation types (1-2-2, 2-1-2, 1-3-1, etc...), the other main aspect of the forecheck are your pressure points. Simply put, these refer to the areas of the ice where you want to apply pressure on the puck carrier.
The important thing to consider when deciding on your formation and pressure points is that the further into the zone that you designate your pressure points and the more forecheckers you send, the more potential open there is behind your forecheckers.
As a matter of preference, I typically prefer the 1-2-2. It’s an easy concept to grasp for most hockey players ( even down as young as 10 years old), and it allows you to have (in my opinion) a lot more variety in terms of where you want your pressure points to be. For instance, you can press further down into the zone or you can back right off to the neutral zone. It all depends on your game situation.
The basic premise behind the 1-2-2 is that you are trying to apply pressure with your first forward and cut off outlets outside the zone with the 2 high forwards. This forecheck can be ran from either side, but for these purposes we’ll apply them all from the LW side (simply reverse for the RW).
The basic setup has the LW chasing low for the puck, the centre providing backup behind him on that wall and the RW covering both the middle and the right side. It’s important for the RW to remain in the middle because if he’s out too wide, it’s an easy outlet through the middle. He has ample time to move the RW boards if the situation calls for it.
From here, the opposition basically has 3 options, try and go up the LW side with it (pass or carry), carry it around the net to try and go up the right wing side, or pass it behind the net for someone else to take it up the right side.
LW Pass/Carry
If the puck carrier tries to go up the LW side, he’s generally going to try a chip past the first forechecker and to one of his teammates. In that instance, the C is going to press right away and the LD is going to try and hold the line. The RW is going to remain high and in the middle, but he wants to be closer to the LW boards.
RW Carry
If the puck carrier tries to carry the puck around the net, the LW will chase and the other 4 skaters are going to rotate over the left and the RW is going to apply additional pressure as the puck carrier comes up the wall while the LW is going to chase behind.
RW Pass
If the puck carrier decides to pass the puck, it’s going to move to the open area a lot quicker so this forecheck sees a slight adjustment. Instead of the LW chasing, he heads back up high and to the middle of the ice while the C and RW rotate.
If you notice, all of these result in the same thing. There’s a triangle of your players near the top of the zone on the same side as the puck. This provides extra pressure and puck support and allows you to potentially out man the opposition. The drawback is that you are susceptible to passes that go back across as you are rotating. For instance, in the final example we’ll add another forward who is on the half wall. As the puck goes behind the net to the other player, he’s going to cut back immediately into the open area for the pass. The initial passer will also jump into the play as an outlet on the right side.
The good thing is, you have enough players high that you can recover from this and not sacrifice anything defensively. So while it’s beatable, it’s a both an effective pressure forecheck, as well as a relatively safe one.
8 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Shh! I felt that, too. I think it’ll pass….
by eddy the lip on Nov 30, 2011 4:40 PM MST up reply actions
Excellent as always.
What if the puck-carrier’s team moves a couple of players into the neutral zone to try and receive passes? If the team manages to create a hole in the forecheck with the short, quick passes you describe, they could pass to one of those players to create a 1-on-1 or, if they’re lucky, even a 2-on-1. Even if they don’t, it seems like they would force the defenders to fall back to cover for that possibility.
Loyal fan of the Edmonton Oilers. Don't you judge me.
Are you talking about initially or during the course of the forecheck?
If they have players outside the zone when they first get the puck, your defenseman isn’t going to pinch in and the triangle at the top has an opening and you’ve got your high forward and 2 defensemen still up high.
Generally what happens though is that once your forwards press, their high forwards will also drop down in support allowing your defenseman to come in as well.
Once the puck is along the wall, you’ve got 3 players along that side to try and keep the puck in. The high forwards job is to look for openings that the opposition is trying to create and plug them (which includes dropping back).
It also goes back to the pinch article of last week (http://www.coppernblue.com/2011/11/26/2582795/oil-observations-from-week-6) the defensemen doesn’t try and hold the line or pinch in low unless the play is there.
Basically, with proper execution you should have 2 players back and a 3rd close by in the chase. In an absolute worst case scenario you at least have 1 forward back with potentially 2 coming back as well.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Thank you. This is great!
I tried to get to the pinch article by clicking on your link above but there is some thing wrong.
This might work.
http://www.coppernblue.com/2011/11/26/2582795/oil-observations-from-week-6
The bracket got automatically absorbed into the URL. Auto-URL-ing is imperfect.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
it’s because there is no extension at the end I think.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98

by 
































