Evolution of Hockey Positions

If you're reading this blog, chances are that you know what rovers, points and cover-points are. Or were. They're part of the history of the game; before defencemen we had points and cover-points (or simply covers), the former playing close to the goalkeeper, and the latter being a conduit between the defence and the forwards. The rover was phased out of eastern hockey around 1911/12, while the point/cover positions morphed into side-by-side defenders soon thereafter.

But that's not all there is to the story of positional changes in hockey. If you go far back enough, specifically to 1875 when the first organized, indoor games between two opposing clubs took place in Montreal, there were typically nine men on the ice for either side, rather than the seven we're used to dealing with in early hockey history. They played four forwards as we're used to from the rover era, but had two extra men on defence. Not only that, but the defensive positions were not yet called point and cover, they were back and half-back, a clear indication of the fact that the rules of the game were adapted from football.

I can't be 100% of how the players typically lined up, but I think the following makes sense. The goalkeeper is marked with GK, the backs with B, the half-backs with HB, and the forwards with F.

The first big change in hockey positions came around 1880, when two men were dropped from the standard lineup. I'm not sure of the impetus for this change. The number nine had basically been chosen to fit the practical limits of the Victoria Skating Rink (which bequeathed its 200' by 85' rink size to North American hockey); when played outdoors hockey was played with more men than that. At some point they may have simply decided that 18 men on the ice made it a bit too crowded, and reduced it to 7-on-7.

However, they did not immediately adopt the seven-with-a-rover lineup. They dropped a back and a forward, still playing with two half-backs, thusly:

This standard seems to have lasted about a decade, after which one of the half-backs transmogrified into a fourth forward (the rover), and the other became the cover-point (CP), while the back was now called the point (P). This change from four defenders and three forwards to three defenders and four forwards probably had some effect on goal-scoring, which did uptick at this time, as we'll be looking at in the near future.

This was the standard in eastern hockey for about 20 years, when the decision was made, at least at the game's highest level, to eliminate the rover (as discussed here). That opened the ice up a bit, and brings us close to the setup we're used to today:

It took only another season or so before the point/cover-point setup gave way to the modern lineup, which we still have today...

...which, I think it's safe to say, is not going to change any time soon. It's worked well for almost a century now.

The usual caveats for this sort of general discussion apply, of course. The years mentioned may not be entirely precise, and it's unlikely that every team adopted the same lineup at the same time. Each change would have taken a bit of time to become standard.

James Stewart, Point

Having already looked at 19th Century Montreal AAA goaltender Tom Paton, we now move one position out to discuss their great point man, James Stewart. Stewart is a name that has basically lost to time, and the internet only knows that he played for the Winged Wheelers. First, let's attach a face to the name:

I don't know about you, but he reminds me of Rance Mulliniks, the unassuming Blue Jays third baseman who looked more like a schoolteacher than an athlete. You don't need to be a muscle-bound brute to be an effective hockey player, of course.

Ultimate Hockey recognizes Stewart as "Best Shot-Blocker" of the 19th Century, saying he "was Allan Cameron's defensive conscience and the first in modern terms, to act as a second goalie. He held the point position as like a rock on those celebrated Montreal AAA squads..." I'd say this is overly simplistic. For one thing, as we'll see when we look at Allan Cameron, that man did not need a defensive conscience (unlike, perhaps, their Montreal Vics contemporary Jack Campbell).

For another, if you read the game reports for the Winged Wheelers, it's rare to see Stewart singled out for his performance. Praise directed his way was almost always in conjunction with Cameron, for example in the January 14, 1888 edition of the Montreal Gazette which stated "...the Crystals tried to reduce the odds against them, but owing to the grand defence of Cameron and Stewart their efforts were unavailing." 

Indeed, in the February 16, 1888 edition of that paper, a writer admonished that "Stewart should not forget that his position is point, he has a disposition to get too far away from his place, he should keep further back to give the goalkeeper a little more assistance." In due time I'm going to make an argument that this comment has more to do with the defensive style of the mighty Winged Wheelers, than with a failing on Stewart's part, who played a very important defensive position for some exceptionally good defensive teams.

I'd also suggest that Stewart's relative lack of fanfare also has to do with the nature of the point position. Mike Grant, the Hall of Fame Vics cover-point, described the position's responsibilities in Arthur Farrell's Hockey: Canada's Royal Winter Game:

The point and cover-point should play as if they were one man in two positions. The position of the point should be determined by that of the cover-point. If the cover-point is on one side, the point should be on the other to such an extent only, though, that each may have an equally good view of the play, and that a forward who advances towards their goals will have two distinct men to pass, instead of two men, one directly and close, behind the other.

When two forwards approach their goals, the cover-point should devote his attention to the man who has the puck and block him as well as he may, and the point should advance slightly to meet the other, and, incidentally, to intercept any pass that may be attempted.

The position of the point man is essentially defensive. The distance between him and the goaler is determined by the proximity of the play. He should not stray too far from his place, because oftentimes he is practically a second goal-minder, able, through the practice that his position gives him, to stop almost equally well as the latter, but although he should remain close to his goal-keeper, he should never obstruct that man's view of the puck. Whenever it becomes necessary for the goaler to leave his place, it is the duty of the point man immediately to fill it, and remain there until the latter returns.

So according to Grant, a point man is basically a second cover-point and a second goaltender, without having a real identity of his own. Stewart played an "in-between" position, having characteristics of two other positions, but none all to its own. It is therefore no wonder that he would be less praised than his two better-known teammates; he was less of a defender than Cameron, and less of a goaltender than Paton. But perhaps he was their better on the whole. That's something we'll explore in the future, but I'm getting ahead of myself now. As ever, stay tuned for more on the 19th Century AAAs.

Do kids still say "stay tuned" these days?

The Fine Art of Lifting

One of the barriers to entry, so to speak, of interest in early hockey is some of the terminology in use during the early years of the game's development. Some of these are the result in simple changes in terminology (such as "bully" for faceoff, or "game" for goal), but some instead have to do with changes in the strategy and tactics used on the ice. Plays and tactics no longer relevant to the modern game result in archaic terminology that is unfamiliar to current fans of the game. If you're reading a game report from the 1890s, for example, you'll probably come across some terms you've not seen before.

Some of these differences you might already be aware of, such as the names for the positions. Rather than two defencemen, there was a point and a cover-point, and there was a fourth forward called a rover. This is pretty simple stuff, and doesn't by itself shed much light on how the game was played.

One of the most important archaic term in this respect is probably the "lift". When you read about a game featuring the Montreal or Winnipeg Victorias (basically every city had a club with that moniker, as a tribute to the Queen), you'll see references to players, typically the defence, lifting the puck down the ice. The meaning of this phrase is fairly self-evident: it is quite literally a player using wrist action to flip the puck high up into the air, and down into the opponent's end. What is not immediately obvious is the tactical implications of this maneuver.

Lifting the puck was not simply a matter of clearing the puck out of your end, though it was certainly used for that purpose. More important, however, was the interaction of this tactic with the rules of the day, specifically the offside rule. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, there was no forward passing allowed in hockey. Passes were often made laterally, as in rugby. You could pass the puck forward to an extent, as long as the recipient of the pass was not ahead of you when the pass was made. You could not simply pass the puck ahead to a waiting teammate to clear your end. If you weren't able to carry the puck out, you had to clear it in another manner. But if you simply shot the puck down the ice, it was an easy matter for the opponents to corral the puck and begin another attack.

Lifting the puck, however, provided several advantages. It took longer for the puck to travel down the ice, giving your side more time to regroup. More importantly, the hard rubber puck bounced when it hit the ice, making it more difficult for the opponents to predict where it would go and organize their counterattack. Indeed, sometimes the bounce was so unpredictable that a long lift could result in a goal being scored, if the rubber skipped past the goalkeeper. This unpredictability, in fact, allowed the lift to be used offensively as well as defensively. Think of an onside kick in American football - the opponents would often have difficulty in gaining possession of the puck, allowing a teammate to rush in and take the rubber away and begin an attack of his own.

This is why the lift was so important, tactically. In some sense it was a pseudo-forward pass in a game that did not allow forward passing. It was useful both for offence and defence, and the points and cover-points of the day were expected to be able to execute the maneuver well, both to fulfill their duties on defence and to move the play ahead to their forwards. Sometimes matches would have periods referred to as "lifting battles", where the teams exchanged lifts back and forth for a time. Although this does not sound exciting, and was certainly criticized as such at the time, it does illustrate that the play was seen as an effective one, if teams were willing to indulge in it with such aplomb.