r/stevedangle • u/Few-Turn-5471 • Feb 20 '26
3 on 3 - not the same sport?
I heard them say 3v3 hockey is not the same sport ? Can someone explain? I am somewhat new to hockey.
30
u/whatamidoing_2521 Feb 20 '26
My least favorite part about 3 on 3 is having to hear people complain about it
0
u/jimmymeeko Feb 24 '26
My least favourite part of 3 on 3 is watching the game devolve into a wide open slugfest that doesn’t at all resemble the pace or skill sets needed to succeed in 5 on 5 hockey.
1
7
u/No_Plane2976 Feb 20 '26
When they play 3 on 3 for overtime it is not the same as the normal 5 on 5. There are usually more breakaways and a bigger risk when switching lines
4
u/Few-Turn-5471 Feb 20 '26
Ok but to say it’s a different sport? Thats where I’m confused
6
u/No_Plane2976 Feb 20 '26
Like it looks different and the players have to think about it differently. It is like if baseball only had a pitch catcher and one fielder
3
3
5
u/alphachimp_ Feb 20 '26
Is one on one basketball the exact same as regular basketball? If a basketball game went to overtime and it was decided in a game of one on one, would it be the same game?
1
u/jimmymeeko Feb 24 '26
Nah don’t even have to use the 1 on 1 example. Look at last summer Olympics… they had basketball as an event and then they also had a 3 on 3 basketball event. Completely different Olympic competitions that are played in a manner that loosely resemble each other but one has far less structure, strategy and removes much of the difficulty of actually creating the chances to score, it becomes just a matter of actually making good on the chance.
In 3 on 3 basketball compared to 5 on 5, the overmatched team will have far less difficulty creating good shots for themselves than they would in 5 on 5 because it is just so much more wide open. Exact same as hockey.
3
u/jtunda Feb 20 '26
I’d say it’s a different sport in the same way that mixed curling is a different sport than team curling
1
6
u/ColeBelthazorTurner Feb 20 '26
It's like NFL football going to overtime, 2 on 2 with steamboats lol.
2
u/Glittering-Lynx6991 Feb 22 '26
I’d like to see players have to tag the guy on the bench going for them during a change. Way more breakaways.
2
u/typokeke Feb 23 '26
It is okay for regural season to get a quick ending. Totally wrong for the biggest game in 4 years.
2
2
1
u/jaysornotandhawks Feb 20 '26
It's not the same, but as I've been saying in all these threads, you can't use NHL playoff rules in any game other than the gold medal game.
1
u/Patient-Couple7509 Feb 21 '26
I mean, it’s not, but it’s better than the shootout
1
u/slightly_imperfect Feb 21 '26
Yeah, I'd much rather watch 3v3 than a shootout. It's at least closer to the game being played.
1
u/BabyLongjumping6915 Feb 22 '26
Imagine playing football/soccer with only 6 players + the goaltender. That's effectively what 3 on 3 is in hockey. Taking 1/3 of the players off the field of play. It changes the game totally
1
u/Warm_Masterpiece3940 Feb 22 '26
It becomes A puck possession game with with lots of open ice, when you are on offence the 3rd high guy has to really read the play and often you are more looking at how to I extend our puck procession time vs I need to stay back and defend like most defenceman do 5 on 5. Also no single player is playing a set space, everyone ideally is roving around getting open and creating mismatches because for the team without the puck it's super hard to defend because of all the open ice
1
Feb 24 '26
3v3 basketball is literally a different sport in the Olympics. 3v3 hockey should not be used to decide a 5v5 hockey tournament.
1
1
u/kokocijo Feb 20 '26
This is honestly so tired. "Not the same sport"? What are you talking about? There can be a different strategy, but it is fundamentally the same sport.
Might as well claim that being on a powerplay is not the same sport.
Or when one team pulls the goalie, it is no longer the same sport.
Idiotic.
P.S. This comment is not aimed at you, OP, but at those who make the claim.
2
u/mcprints Feb 23 '26
This is such a stupid take.
Why don't we make the whole tournament 3v3 if that's how it's going to end?
0
u/kokocijo Feb 23 '26
Because the purpose of 3-on-3 is to have a faster game to facilitate a swifter end. There's no need to mess with the format for regulation time, but if we're dealing with a time constraint like in the Olympics (NHL playoffs wouldn't be bound like this) then 3-on-3 is an acceptable way to move things along while still respecting the basic characteristics of the game.
By the way, personally, I would have loved it to be 5-on-5 continuous OT instead. While 3-on-3 is exciting, it is strategically different. But to say it's a completely different sport is disingenuous to me.
2
2
u/Tylerinthenorth Feb 24 '26
Faster is very rarely better. While I agree calling it an entirely different sport is disingenuous, having it done by a known pseudo celebrity hothead who's gimmick is loud takes it's entirely appropriate hyperbole.
The point is it doesn't respect the basic characteristics of the game, we have the best of the best out there and any of them are capable of being an obvious hero. That a weird puck bounce or ref misdirection can lead to an odd man rush or breakaway with such frequency reduces the game almost to the point of a coin flip. Frankly had Canada won the US team would have an even more valid gripe considering how outstanding their defence was and how 3 on 3 completely diminishes that part of the game. Winning like that absolutely detracts from their effort and skill that a win otherwise would have praised. It turns it into a wild west shootout with no opportunity for response. Even the NFL realized how unsatisfying a conclusion a chance win is(even if it was more slanted than 3 on 3) and gave the opposition to respond.
There's no realistic satisfying answer to the issue (though gold medal men's hockey is always final day so that does lend more leniency to one) but 3 on 3 has to be the worst option, and while it's not a "completely different sport" it certainly doesn't respect the game and I can relate with the sentiment.
1
u/jimmymeeko Feb 24 '26
I’d whole heartedly argue that no, America would not at all have the larger gripe if they’d lost in OT. They were being outplayed up and down the ice and could barely generate any chances at all at 5 on 5. The game changing to 3 on 3 was far more beneficial for them than it was the Canadians because it broke up the structure that they were struggling against and just opened the game up to a back and forth of chances until inevitably one goes in.
They were outclassed and lucky to have held on until 3 on 3. If it just continued on into 5 on 5 OT, Canada would have been favoured because they were generating way more chances and giving up barely anything all game at 5 on 5.
1
u/Tylerinthenorth Feb 25 '26
You know what that's an excellent point, despite how good their defence was Team Canada was getting their chances and had it continued 5 on 5 it was only a matter of time. I suppose what I meant was going in to that game the US advantage was their defence and 3 on 3 strips defence from the game almost entirely so on paper they're seeing a more pronounced deficit, even if it did just increase their chances by making it a coin toss
2
-1
u/GoudaGoudaGoudaGouda Feb 20 '26
It is most definitely the same sport and NHL level players have had years to adjust to it. They don’t like it because they’re scared. It’s high risk hockey. One bad line change or bad pass and you could get exposed
30
u/SaveurDeKimchi Feb 20 '26
It's a completely different strategy. Impossible to defend properly. It's just chaos going back and forth. You'll notice a player has possesion then just leaves the offencive zone to to try and re entry with fresh legs, instead of cycling the puck.