Hoping for two on two

Re: How Not To Improve Hockey, Kelly McParland, June 25; Here’s What’s Wrong With Tie Games, Colby Cosh, June 26. Three on three hockey? Yes, finally. Overall, Kelly McParland has it dead wrong. Though generally supportive, Colby Cosh thinks it will look “unnatural at first.” My son used to play in a league in which overtime began with four on four, went down to three on three, and ended with two on two. These were kids and the excitement was incredible. The game changes dramatically as each move is magnified in importance and there’s real strategy in the choice of players selected by a coach. I was hoping for this when the National Hockey League first sought to reduce the number of ties and was deeply disappointed with its choice of the shootout.

McParland is right when he says — in the abstract — that there’s nothing wrong with a tie. Cosh is correct in pointing out that in today’s game there would be an overabundance of ties. Neither recognizes that — unlike the shootout — three on three play is hockey boiled down and thick with athleticism and strategy. It’s too much for an entire game, but for a few sweet minutes it’s incredible fun. Now if we could just get to two on two.

Mark Boughan, Cambridge, Ont.