3D outrage on wrong side of history
It’s been said that one of the tricky parts about running the Maple Leafs relates to the self-esteem of the team’s fan base: It’s high. Very high.
In a city that considers itself the centre of the hockey universe, in a country that has traditionally seen the game as a birthright, just about every Leaf fan is a would-be GM, or has a list of ideas for the actual GM.
Just about every Leaf fan is a could-be coach, or thinks coaching doesn’t seem so hard.
Which probably helps explain the reaction to my Sunday column in the Star, in which I profiled Jack Han, the exMarlies assistant coach, while outlining Han’s belief the Leafs might find success next season by occasionally icing three defencemen and two forwards, as opposed to the conventional two and three.
Along with enumerating his reasons for backing a threedefenceman deployment, Han, who recently wrapped up a three-season stint working for the Leafs organization, said he believes the probability is “pretty high” Leafs head coach Sheldon Keefe will use the tactic.
If that last bit in itself was newsworthy given Han recently worked alongside Keefe with the Marlies, it didn’t stop the social media mob from attacking the concept. It’s safe to say many among Toronto’s fan base seemed to consider Han’s outside-the-box idea the outrage of the century. Twitter dunked on it. Profanity was expelled upon it. GIFs mocked it — or, at least, mocked the attached internet headlines.
It’s possible a few people even read the whole article, in which Han made a compelling case for the strategy. Certainly there were readers who reached out with praise for Han’s thoughtprovoking insights. But, by and large, Leafland’s army of keyboard coaches and smartphone GMs seemed interested in halting the discussion before it began.
“Waiting for the day when people start saying that playing 2 goalies is a great idea, too,” wrote Carlo Colaiacovo, the former Leafs defenceman and TSN radio host, in an Instagram story that encapsulated the widespread disdain for the three-defenceman brainwave. “Keep the focus on playing the game and less about trying to reinvent it.”
Han, who lives in Montreal, said he saw plenty of similarly dismissive reactions to his concept.
“A lot of people thought it was dumb,” Han was saying over the phone Monday. “Which, on the surface, I would agree with.”
Indeed, on the surface, for the masses eager to make snap judgments, using three defencemen doesn’t make intuitive sense. Most of hockey’s best players still grow up playing forward. Most of the Leafs’ best players are forwards, whereas defence has long been seen as a weak spot. So why tip the manpower balance toward defence?
Again, Han has enumerated his reasons, both in the Star and in his Hockey Tactics newsletter. We won’t go over them again here.
Han, mind you, did address a frequent social media counterpoint. If a tactical sea change is in the offing, more than one critic argued, wouldn’t Toronto’s forward-heavy roster be better suited to using four forwards and one defenceman at five-on-five, just as most NHL teams already do on the power play? Han, for the record, is not a fan of the idea.
“It really kind of stifles what that one defenceman can do,” Han said.
It would take a considerable amount of coaching, he continued, to trust a four-forward deployment to play a defensively responsible style.
As for the merits of a threeman defence: Hockey author and historian Eric Zweig sent along an email pointing out the idea, if Han has recently made it his own, has a track record dating back more than a century.
“It is an ancient strategy, really,” Zweig said.
It was also, Zweig said, an effective strategy — so effective that more than one league made rules attempting to outlaw it. Until the early 1940s, the NHL, like its various predecessor leagues, was known to have an “anti-defence rule” that attempted to address the wont of some coaches to deploy three defencemen and two forwards.
“(The strategy) had enough success that the NHL chose to legislate against it,” Zweig said.
It was successful in the junior ranks, too. When the Regina Pats won the Memorial Cup in 1925, one of their best players, Syl Acaster, was described by the team as “our star centre.” According to an article in the Star at the time, Acaster wasn’t a centre forward. He was a centre defenceman who helped Regina beat Toronto’s Aura Lee hockey club for junior hockey’s big prize.
“(Regina’s) three-man defence with the two forwards backchecking closely had the Toronto kids flabbergasted,” went a report of the day.
And, much as fans of the Leafs largely turned up their nose to the idea, their beloved franchise was long ago known to use it. A recounting of a 1924 win by the local NHLers, then known as the St. Pats, mentioned a three-man backline deployment in which the centreman, Reg Noble, switched to defence to nurse a crucial 2-1 win over Hamilton.
“It’ll be interesting to see if this is a strategy that gains any traction in the future,” Zweig said. “But it certainly has in the past. And, when it did, they passed rules because it was too effective.”
Han said he wasn’t aware of the deployment’s considerable history. According to one newspaper account, the varsity hockey team at McGill University, Han’s alma mater, was noted for using three defencemen way back in 1914.
So, in some ways, Han’s not advocating for an innovation as much as he’s paying homage to history.
“I’m not surprised (it’s been tried before). I don’t really believe in new ideas,” Han said. “I believe in old ideas that have been forgotten about.”
Still, the 31-year-old from Montreal said he’s not discouraged by the social media negativity that’s met this particular idea. Pushback to an unfamiliar concept isn’t so much a problem with hockey’s conservative culture as a matter of human nature.
“We’re social creatures and we’ve got to look for consensus,” he said. “And, if something that we’re doing doesn’t fit in with the pack mentality, our safety’s at stake. It’s coded in the primal part of our brain and that’s never going to go away.”
Han said the article prompted a number of fellow coaches to contact him with stories about using a two-forward, threedefenceman approach in more recent times at various levels below the NHL. Some reported success.
“On one hand, people who say it’s not going to work, well, if they don’t work in hockey or they don’t coach in hockey, we don’t need to pay any attention to that,” Han said.
As for those who do coach in hockey, Han issued a challenge: Next time your team scrimmages, split up your players. Play one unit with two forwards and three defencemen against another with four forwards and one defenceman, just to see how it goes. In other words, never mind the pack mentality. Don’t dismiss it until you see it in action.
“At the end of the day, coaches are very pragmatic people. So, if it doesn’t work, it’s not going to fly,” Han said. “But, if it does work, no matter how silly it seems, if it does give them an advantage, I think you’ll see it spread quickly.”
History would suggest as much.