The AAA's Defence

Previously I've written a bit about the Big Three on defence for the Montreal Winged Wheelers of the 1880s and early 1890s, a defensively dominant team: goaltender Tom Paton, point James Stewart and cover-point Allan Cameron. We know that Paton excelled not only at stopping the puck but especially at clearing it after a save; we known that Cameron was noted both for his transition game and his aggressive defence; and we know that while Stewart was less celebrated than the other two, he was still known as a top defender. However, we also saw a quote which called Stewart out for leaving his position in front of the goal too much, for not playing as a point should.

But it doesn't make much sense that this team, with a point that played out of position so often, would be able to prevent goals as well as they did. The point was the second-most important defensive position on the ice, and if he abandoned his position so much, that would cost his team goals. Unless, of course, leaving his post actually helped his team keep the puck out of the net...

I believe that Stewart's aggressiveness, relative to how the point position was "supposed" to be played at the time, was in fact a tactical choice, and one that was very effective. Cameron was known to challenge opponents, instead of waiting for them to come to him, and I suggest that Stewart did the same to great effect. This is from a game report in the March 8, 1892 edition of the Montreal Gazette:

Paton had many stops to make, nevertheless, but they were of the free and easy order and he cleverly drove the puck out of his territory. Stewart and Cameron swooped around after the puck in admirable style.

So both Cameron and Stewart went after the enemy puck-carriers (something points especially were not really expected to do). They did not play passively, allowing the opponents time to enter the zone and set up a combination play. I believe this is one of the main reasons the Winged Wheelers were so good at preventing goals: Cameron and Stewart were able to play aggressively, stripping the puck from opponents before they could make a play. Not everyone could do this, of course; you'd need the instincts and ability to pull it off.

This style of play, done effectively, was especially beneficial in the era that Stewart and Cameron played in. Why? Because there was no forward passing. When making an offensive rush, you had to stay behind the puck carrier to be eligible to receive a pass. So rushes were akin to what you see in rugby, with a line of forwards skating ahead. This is why the point played behind the cover-point rather than side-by-side like modern blueliners do; opponents came in using individual rushes, because they were not allowed to pass the puck ahead.

I believe this is also what allowed Cameron and Stewart to be so effective by being aggressive. If you challenged an enemy puck carrier, you were not in as much danger of getting into a bad position as you would be in the modern game, because if the opponent passed the puck before you get to him, he could at best do it laterally, and it will often be behind him. As such, if you could read the play quickly enough (which Cameron and Stewart surely could), when the opponent passed the puck you were be able to adjust your trajectory to intercept that player instead, because he simply could not be behind you.

As such, I think Cameron and especially Stewart were simply ahead of their time, realizing the advantage on defence that playing aggressively could bring. While some other defences waiting for puck carriers to come to them, the Winged Wheelers focused on stopping the opponents advances as soon as they could. And this is one reason they were so very good at keeping the puck out of the net.

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.