|
Thank you for your input. That may seem counter-intuitive on paper to not cater specifically for each line but it's interesting to know that you got good results with this approach, I'll try that at some point to toy around the idea.
To somewhat answer OP question so far I tend to try to have the maximum "great fit/good fit" on my unit line tactics, but also not to be too bothered if I have several "bad fit" players on a specific tactic as long as my tactic makes sense and have a good "flow" all over the ice (like for example not caring too much if my players were a "bad fit" as long as my 2-1-2 forecheck stayed coherent once arrived in the neutral zone, like trying to keep a similar "formation" all over the ice in order to keep a logical positioning while defending in order to have my team behaving as a "block" that stays in place while we backcheck to defense).
I have mixed results with this approach with great successes and great failures hahaha. I took the 2-1-2 forecheck as an example, but if I have not very physical players I try to forecheck less aggressively and more conservatively, as long as my team keeps the same "philosophy" all over the ice. Avoiding "terrible fit", but living with "bad fit" players that could still somehow have an impact in a cohesive team philosophy that flows all over the ice.
But I have to admit that sometimes even if I feel I'm doing something logical on paper it just doesn't work, I guess line combinations and roles also play a great if not a greater role in my unit tactics.
|