From what I've seen with two sons playing into peewee and bantam years is a player who doesn't have it in mites typically won't develop it.
That's what I've seen as well. The kids who were good as youths tend to go on to be the better players. This forum seems to get up in arms about that though saying how much it all changes in puberty...so I guess somehow the players who didn't stand out as mites/squirts go on to dominate once they hit puberty? Why?
If you look at any of the players today who are good and going places in hockey they were likely very good as mites/squirts. That said, I don't think all stand out mites/squirts will go on to be good.
As someone who experienced watching Bantam hockey for the first time I can say for a fact that Puberty is a big game changer. My son is tiny and has to battle against kids that may already be a full foot taller if not more. see how much your little guy wants to compete knowing he is getting smashed into the boards for the third time in a shift. kids that get bigger faster suddenly have tons of confidence. Not to mention longer strides close sthe gap onthe faster tiny kids. Smaller kids have to put that out of their head. You see the real compete level when hitting starts.
As someone who experienced watching Bantam hockey for the first time I can say for a fact that Puberty is a big game changer. My son is tiny and has to battle against kids that may already be a full foot taller if not more. see how much your little guy wants to compete knowing he is getting smashed into the boards for the third time in a shift. kids that get bigger faster suddenly have tons of confidence. Not to mention longer strides close sthe gap onthe faster tiny kids. Smaller kids have to put that out of their head. You see the real compete level when hitting starts.
From what I can see many of the good hockey players are not huge.
If your kid is tiny maybe he's not finished growing or you or your wife are tiny and you had to have known that he might be too. Genetics.
Compete level and talent are 2 very different things. I have a very talented daughter who is not quite Elite because her compete level is not consistent. Put her on the ice for drills and she stands out. During games she's good, but could be better if her competitiveness was better.
Wasn't talking about where my daughter belongs, just offering an opinion that there is a difference between talent and compete level. Her talent has taken her to to NEPSAC, since you brought it up. Not my choice to place her.
At what age should a player recognize they are not competing? My 2011 seems to be able to compete in certain situations during games but half the time can be considered lazy. In practice he looks to be working at 70%. Coaches have always been hard on him about competing, but it doesn't seem to stick. He is "on the bubble" again this year and I dont know if this is something that can be corrected at this point or how to correct it from a parent standpoint. Help is appreciated.
He is 11 years old. Not all 11 year olds are expected to compete like Crosby. Once he hits puberty, you will see a change. For now dont kill his love for the game by getting on him. In his mind he is doing the best he can.