Canada v. United States Post-Game: Doubleplusungood
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 21, 2010 10:30 PM MST
in International hockey
Email
PrintThis is not a disaster. Ceci n'est pas une pipe? No, really, this is not a disaster. Unless you're Martin Brodeur. In which case your tournament is likely done. A strange bat attempt on the second goal, swimming on the third and a puck through your stick and your wickets on the fourth. And where was he on that fifth goal! You're not going to save anything from the bench! We'll forgive that last one, and perhaps we should forgive them all. If we believed Brodeur should start when the tournament began we should believe in him now. I do, however, prefer Luongo.
But big picture. The Canadians controlled the game and looked good doing it. Ryan Miller was doubleplusgood, Martin Brodeur was plusungood and the US team took fewer unsmart penalties. That's it for American advantages until you look under the "goals" column. When we look at the fantastic shot chart from the BBC (if the NHL expands I can only hope it's to London - and I guess I should specify here, London ENGLAND - so that the BBC will start making these for NHL games) the Canadians held a "Fenwick" (Goals + Saved Shots + Missed Shots) advantage of 64-31. There were 25 faceoffs in the US zone compared to 16 in the Canadian end of the ice. Territorially, the Canadians had the advantage and it wasn't just visible in the numbers. My own damn eyes saw it too. But they couldn't cash and the fumbles in the defensive end (Pronger) along with some offensive zone penalties did them in. I still like this team going forward. They're surely one of the best teams in the tournament - better than the Americans who just claimed victory I dare say - and hopefully the wins will follow. They had better, because we're running out of time.
Now really big picture. The path to the gold medal is now a difficult one. The Canadians have Patrick Thoresen and Norway to take care of on Tuesday (Edit: It's actually Jochen Hecht and Germany) followed by a game against the Russians on Wednesday (should they beat the Norwegians for a second time). If they defeat Russia, they have the winner of the United States-Slovakia game (unless this Sweden-Finland game goes to OT). And then it's the final against Scandinavia or the Czechs. A tough road to hoe. It's single elimination now, no room for unexecution or plusunluck. As a famous Duck once said, "Let's get dangerous."
More detail-oriented game discussion after the jump.
Gabriel Desjardins is the man. He directed me to those BBC charts (although they're on the CTV Olympics website now too) and he's keeping track of all kinds of stuff for every game in these Olympics. Check him out. Nonetheless, I've continued keeping the play-by-play for the Canadian side and it's listed below. I'll give some opinion on it after the data. The players will be marked by their jersey numbers for ease of writing but I'll provide a legend first:
2 - Duncan Keith
6 - Shea Weber
7 - Brent Seabrook
8 - Drew Doughty
10 - Brenden Morrow
11 - Patrick Marleau
12 - Jarome Iginla
15 - Dany Heatley
16 - Jonathan Toews
18 - Mike Richards
19 - Joe Thornton
20 - Chris Pronger
21 - Eric Staal
22 - Dan Boyle
24 - Corey Perry
27 - Scott Niedermayer
37 - Patrice Bergeron
51 - Ryan Getzlaf
61 - Rick Nash
87 - Sidney Crosby
First Period
61-87-18 and 27-06 NZ FO
61-87-37 and 27-06 DZ FO ends in US GOAL
21-51-24 and 02-08 NZ FO
21-51-24 and 02-08 DZ FO (Icing)
10-16-12 and 20-22 OZ FO
15-19-11 and 07-08 DZ FO
15-19-11 and 27-06
61-87-18 and 27-06
21-51-24 and 02-08 ends in Cdn. penalty in OZ
10-37 and 06-27 DZ FO
16-18 and 06-27 NZ FO
10-37 and 02-08
16-18 and 02-08 NZ FO
61-11 and 20-22
10-37 and 20-22 DZ FO
16-11 and 20-22
10-37 and 06-27 penalty ends
10-37-51 and 06-27 ends in US penalty in (their) DZ
61-87-12 and 02-08 OZ FO
15-19-11 and 06-22
15-19-11 and 06-22 OZ FO
21-51-24 and 20-22 penalty ends
21-51-24 and 20-22
21-51-24 and 20-07
21-16-24 and 02-07 ends in Cdn. GOAL
61-87-18 and 02-08 NZ FO ends in US GOAL
21-51-24 and 27-06 NZ FO
15-19-11 and 02-07 OZ FO
61-87-18 and 06-08
10-16-12 and 20-22
10-16-12 and 20-22 DZ FO (Icing)
21-51-24 and 20-08
15-19-11 and 27-06
61-18-87 and 20-07 OZ FO with 18 taking FO
61-18-87 and 20-07 OZ FO with 18 taking FO
10-16-12 and 02-20
10-16-12 and 02-08 OZ FO
21-51-24 and 27-06
11-51-24 and 27-22
61-87-18 and 02-07
15-19-11 and 27-06
61-87-18 and 20-22 OZ FO (Icing)
10-16-12 and 20-22 NZ FO
19-16-12 and 02-08 DZ FO with 19 to bench on clear
10-16-12 and 02-08
21-51-24 and 27-06
15-19-51 and 27-06 OZ FO (Icing)
Second Period
10-16-12 and 27-06 NZ FO
21-51-24 and 02-08 DZ FO
61-87-18 and 20-22
15-19-11 and 07-08
15-19-11 and 07-08 NZ FO
15-16-11 and 27-06
15-16-10 and 27-06 ends in Cdn. GOAL
61-87-37 and 02-08 NZ FO
21-51-24 and 20-07
15-19-11 and 27-22 NZ FO
61-87-18 and 27-22
61-87-18 and 02-08 NZ FO
10-16-12 and 27-06
21-51-24 and 20-22
15-19-11 and 02-07 OZ FO
61-87-18 and 20-22
15-19-11 and 02-08 OZ FO (Icing)
21-51-24 and 22-20 NZ FO
21-51-24 and 02-08
10-51-12 and 02-08
10-37-16 and 27-06 DZ FO with 37 taking FO
10-37-16 and 27-06 DZ FO (Icing) with 37 taking FO, to bench on clear
10-16-12 and 27-06
61-87-18 and 20-07 OZ FO
61-87-18 and 22-08
15-19-11 and 22-08 NZ FO
61-87-18 and 27-20 OZ FO
37-16-12 and 02-06 DZ FO with 16 taking FO
21-51-24 and 22-20
61-87-18 and 22-20 DZ FO ends in US GOAL
10-16-12 and 02-08 NZ FO
15-19-11 and 27-06
21-51-24 and 20-07 DZ FO ends in Cdn. penalty in OZ
10-37 and 02-08 DZ FO
10-16 and 27-06
10-18 and 27-06
Third Period
10-16 and 27-06 NZ FO
18-16 and 27-06
18-37 and 02-08 penalty ends
21-37-18 and 02-08
61-87-12 and 02-08 ends in Cdn. penalty in OZ
10-37 and 27-06 DZ FO
18-16 and 02-08
10-37 and 02-08 NZ FO
18-16 and 27-20
11-19 and 27-20 penalty ends
87-19-11 and 27-20
15-19-11 and 27-20
15-19-11 and 27-06 OZ FO
15-51-21 and 27-06
21-51-24 and 27-06 ends in Cdn. penalty in DZ but 27 leaves for 2 during delay
18-16 and 02-08 DZ FO
10-37 and 06-20 ends in US GOAL
61-87-12 and 22-08 NZ FO
15-19-11 and 22-08
15-19-11 and 02-20 NZ FO
21-51-24 and 02-20
21-51-24 and 02-27
61-87-12 and 22-08 ends in US penalty in (their) DZ
15-19-11 and 22-06 OZ FO
15-19-11 and 22-06 OZ FO
87-51-24 and 20-08 penalty ends
87-51-24 and 20-08
61-19-12 and 02-06 OZ FO
21-16-18 and 27-08
15-19-11 and 02-22
15-19-11 and 02-22 OZ FO ends in US penalty in (their) OZ
15-19-11 and 06-08 OZ FO
61-87-12 and 02-22 OZ FO
61-87-12 and 02-22 OZ FO
61-87-12 and 02-22 OZ FO ends in Cdn. GOAL
21-51-24 and 27-08 NZ FO
61-87-12 and 02-08 OZ FO
15-19-11 and 27-06 NZ FO with 24 extra ends in US EN GOAL
15-19-11 and 02-08 NZ FO with 51 extra
61-87-12 and 02-08 OZ FO with 51 extra
End of Game
The defence again saw quite a bit of flux with regard to the pairings throughout. Brent Seabrook drew a lot of praise from the commentators in the second intermission but didn't get a single shift in the third period. Duncan Keith ended up instead mostly with Drew Doughty and the two looked pretty good together. Dan Boyle saw a lot of ice with a wide variety of partners, though mostly Chris Pronger which left Niedermayer and Shea Weber to team up for most of their shifts. When the game was on the line at the end the team turned to Weber, Doughty, Boyle, Niedermayer and Keith - Pronger's last shift came with about seven minutes to go.
Up front, Jarome Iginla started on a line with Brendan Morrow and Jonathan Toews but was moved up to play right wing with Crosby and Nash for the third period, taking the place of Mike Richards who had only one EV shift in the third period on a makeshift unit alongside Staal and Toews which also happened to be Toews' only shift of the period. And that was one more than Brendan Morrow who didn't have a single EV shift in the third, his place taken by the aforementioned Staal. Patrice Bergeron's role continued to shrink with only four EV shifts in the entire game, all of them for an extra center on an otherwise established line. And even that defensive role seemed to be slipping away when Joe Thornton was once put out as the extra-center-straight-to-bench man for a DZ draw in the first.
The other two lines rolled pretty much as usual, the only hiccup coming when Crosby took Staal's place for a shift with Getzlaf and Perry on the PP. Perry was also chosen as the extra attacker when the Canadians pulled the goalie, which I found a bit odd at first and infuriating once Ryan Kesler ate Perry's lunch to put home the empty-net marker. Ryan Smyth wouldn't have lollygagged back like that. I... can't... help... myself...
Did you know that Ryan Smyth is a natural winger? And that he knows how to make himself an outlet option in the defensive zone? And how to get the puck out? And how to play in front of the net when you're looking for dirty goals? And that he can PK pretty good (or at least he could when he was an Oiler, not a lot of evidence of it these last few years)? And that he cursed the Oilers when they sent him away? But we needed seven(teen if you prefer hyperbole) centers. And now we're cursed. Now the losing makes sense. Right Derek?
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Perry’s “effort” on that empty netter was just pathetic. Kesler’s on the other hand was outstanding. He made Perry look like the DB we all know he is. I know “he wanted it more” is a cliche, but … watch the replay. Kesler wanted it more.
I missed a chunk of the game including the 4-2 and 4-3 goals, but suffice to say it wasn’t Marty Brodeur’s shiningest hour. He was off his game right from the first sequence.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
That was pretty bad. I did not remember 24 being perry. Just after the sequence, I just stood up and shouted that I am going to hate whoever 24 is from now on!!! then i figured out it was perry, so !! That was soo dumb of him, All he had to do was sweep the puck in the corner and hence out of reach of Kesler. What a dumb player
One of the announcers (can’t recall which one, was concentrating on not throwing myself out the window at the time) said it was the best empty-net goal he’d ever seen, and I really have to agree. Great hustle and a nice sweeping move to get the puck at the net.
It was a great play by Kesler to reach around that big ole telephone pole and sweep the puck into the net. “Best empty net goal I’ve ever seen” is a bit of a stretch – I can think of a half dozen off the top of my head that impressed me more – but it was a nice play to be sure.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 22, 2010 12:49 PM MST up reply actions
Apparently I’ve misunderstood something along the way and the Canadians get Germany in their qualification game. The first “tie-breaker” is apparently your position in the group and not points. A big whoops by me on that one.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 21, 2010 11:45 PM MST reply actions
And yet… I still don’t get it. I was wrong about that but the Norwegians should still finish 10th. Both Norway and Germany finished fourth in their group and Norway has more points. But the TSN guys are advertising Germany. Should I just assume that they’re right? I’ll be interested to figure out why that’s the case.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 12:09 AM MST up reply actions
And my conversation with myself is complete! And it was all so simple… the sixth place finisher gets the eleventh place finisher. And Germany is eleventh. Problem solved!
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 12:50 AM MST up reply actions
Germany looked good in thaier game against the Swedes eh? So a bit of a harder road to gold.
Have to agree on the domination Scott, although I think the refs were fucking blind tonight as well.
Brodeur looked like he wanted to touch the puck all the time. That’s his game but man he should’ve just been a skater if he’s so hot for the puck.
Mostly agreed. In the GDT I identified Broduer’s puckhandling as a key to the game (correct) and presumed it to be a strength (not so much). Not sure if he was too amped up or what, but I’ve never seen him make so many poor decisions.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 22, 2010 12:52 PM MST up reply actions
Have to agree on the domination Scott, although I think the refs were fucking blind tonight as well.
The refs? You’re putting that one on the refs?
Eesh.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
These highlihgts are painful. I had forgotten about goal #3 but it was just one example of Brodeur making a stupid decision with the puck outside his crease.
And Miller was amazing and lucky too. Damn Iggy made a great shot in the high slot there but Miller got his glove up just in time.
Miller was really and truly good in this one. I’m sure there’s an element of luck and/or pucks hitting him, but the Canadians didn’t hit any posts that I recall so the guy was covering his spots. The Canadians have had the better goaltender once so far in this tournament. Let’s hope they let that guy start.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 12:52 AM MST up reply actions
I think Babcock has his mind set about certain players or that he is playing favorites. Here are a few things I did not understand:
Limited ice-time for Brent Seabrook. Seabrook looked really good out there. I know that he has always wanted to pair up seabrook with keith and Doughty has that on a lockdown, but Sbook did look very good out there, and a few shifts with some other defenseman ,like say Boyle will do him and Team Canada a lot of good.
Same story for johnathan Toews. the guy was on fire yesterday! buzing all over the ice. Sustained forecheck and high intensity shifts. I know he is a center and all but shouldnt a player playing that well deserve more ice time?
Also Babcock is using Morrow and bergeron very sparingly. These are two players who can be called ‘grinders’ on this team canada. They both are very smart players who play a gritty game. Also I am sure they are better than half the players playing in the Olympics. I think Babcock needs to trust these players more!!
There were some really nice plays made yesterday. the ones i remember right now!!
1>couple of times the way Keith kept the puck just inside the blueline.
2> In first period, crosby stole the puck and then made a beauty pass to nash
3>Dustin brown fooled doughty and almost got past him, but the young blueliner very smartly poked the puck away, that was some sweet recovery by Doughty!!
4> The sustained pressure by Toews was just sweet and that line deservedly got the goal
5>The spin-o-rama style dodge of a fore-checker and then got a shot off at miller
As a famous Duck once said, “Let’s get dangerous.”
Holy crap, a Darkwing Duck reference. You don’t see those every day.
I know; I had to pick my jaw off the floor.
Scott’s doing his part to make this a better world.
A posse ad esse.
The Copper & Blue|OilersNation|Hockey or Die!
Twitter: @JonathanWillis
Mail: jonathan.willis@live.ca
by Jonathan Willis on Feb 22, 2010 8:16 AM MST up reply actions
I hope that song is stuck in all kinds of heads this morning.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 9:59 AM MST up reply actions
I am the terror that flaps in the night.
I am the hero who comes back to haunt you.
I am… Darkwing Duck!
A posse ad esse.
The Copper & Blue|OilersNation|Hockey or Die!
Twitter: @JonathanWillis
Mail: jonathan.willis@live.ca
by Jonathan Willis on Feb 22, 2010 12:08 PM MST up reply actions
I thought I was watching a replay of the Swiss game. The one where Canada got outworked, outbounced and the guy between the pipes for us wasn’t that good. The problem was of course, the ending wasn’t the same.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 22, 2010 8:19 AM MST reply actions
I’m not convinced Canada was outworked in this one. They had control for long stretches and were winning their share of puck battles. The Swiss performed a lot better than I was expecting, especially in the second period. The Americans were about what I expected. I don’t think effort was to blame on this night (Major exception: Corey Perry).
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 10:00 AM MST up reply actions
I don’t know how anyone can have come to the conclusion that Canada got out worked or out played in either of their games up to this point.
Out bounced… I’m fully on board for that, but not the other 2.
With the Swiss game, I understand it. The Swiss team (outside of the goalie) actually performed better than I expected. In the second period of that game I thought the play was pretty even, and it cost the Canadians dearly. The other two periods Canada was clearly superior and got goalied. That’s going to happen, not much you can do. But against the Swiss, they should really be the clearly superior club three periods out of three.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 11:28 AM MST up reply actions
But we see it all the time… there are NHL games that happen where a clearly superior club has parts of a game where the other team out plays them.
As much as it would be nice to say the better team should be better the whole game, it’s simply not realistic.
And that period where the play was even, it was because neither team established anything, not because the Swiss were able to do more. The chances for both clubs were well down in terms of quality and quantity.
It’s going to happen, especially when one team really wants to play that style. It sucks the other team in.
I agree that we see that in NHL games all the time. But it shouldn’t happen in a best-on-best Switzerland-Canada game. The only area where the Swiss are quality is in goal. Everywhere else they’re significantly worse than any NHL team and the Canadian national team is much better than the best NHL squad. The gap in talent is enough that it shouldn’t happen in that context. I doubt very much that the Swiss chances were down in that period. They didn’t have many chances all game. They went from “being killed” to “about even” to “being killed.” If that’s the Canadians getting sucked in it’s a significant and avoidable error.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 2:16 PM MST up reply actions
Even still, do you think there is a bigger gap between the #1 hockey nation and the #8 one or the #1 NHL team and the #30 one?
I’d argue the latter, especially considering that I don’t think we brought the best possible team to this competition.
I really do think the gap between Washington Capitals – Edmonton Oilers (or whatever) is significantly smaller than Team Canada – Team Switzerland..
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 23, 2010 10:38 AM MST up reply actions
But Washington beat Edmonton 4-2 while Team Canada only beat Switzerland 3-2!!!! In a shootout !! ! 1 ! !
I’m kidding, of course. I’m with Scott 100% on this one. Canada’s 23rd best player is better than Switzerland’s 3rd best. Or something like that.
Let’s put it this way: if Washington could have their pick of players off of Edmonton to improve their team, how many would they take? At least a few, right? Now ask yourself the same question w.r.t. these Olympic rosters. Maybe you like Hiller better than, say, Fleury (some might say “Brodeur” today, but not me). Then maybe you would pick Streit ahead of, er, uh, who, exactly? Canada’s worst bloody defenders have a one-way ticket to the HHoF, and I have Every expectation both will step it up in the sudden death game format of the medal round. Up front Mats Zuccarello Aasen is a big talent, or should I say a small talent in that 5’7 frame, but he’s not half as good as Marty St. Louis who was, in the only opinion that mattered, not good enough to even make Team Canada. Or should I say, not big enough to make Team Canada.
I think a better comparison is between the Washington Capitals and Montreal Canadiens. As in, the expansion Caps of ’74-75 and the dynasty Habs of ’76-77. If they play 80 games against each other la Suisse may steal 10 or 12 maybe, mostly because they got a good goalie.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 23, 2010 11:04 AM MST up reply actions
Even still, if we accept that it happens in the NHL (and happens often enough), why should we be at all surprised that it happens in a one off game in a tournament? Even if the gap is slight larger, the swiss have been doing it to many teams at various competitions in the last few years.
I don’t think the difference is small. I think the gap is much, much larger at the NHL level. More like the Washington Capitals against an ECHL roster. I would expect the Caps to control every period in that situation because the talent gap is so large.
As for the Swiss doing well in past best-on-best situations. Did they outplay the Canadians and Czechs for extended periods in 2006? I don’t remember to be completely honest. I don’t think the gap in talent is nearly as big in the World Championships so don’t really see that as a viable comparison.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 23, 2010 3:21 PM MST up reply actions
Maybe Canada just isn't that good
It’s not just the players on the ice that are on the team. There’s also the coaches, the management, the trainers, etc. I find it hard to believe Canada, overall, doesn’t have the best players in the world. But the right players have to be picked for the team, they have to paired with the right linemates and they have to be put on the ice at the right time.
In this kind of a tournament, there is not enough games for the team with the best players to eventually rise to the top. Almost every game is hyper critical; every mistake is magnified. Coaches and management cannot make a mistake.
Maybe Canada doesn’t have the best hockey minds in the world. Maybe that’s where we’re losing these games – behind the benches and between the ears.
(Of course, if we come back and win this tournament then I’ll ask to have this post deleted)
I don’t think they’re losing these games because of team selection. It’s fun to complain about and to say what we would have done differently but Canada’s team is still really good. Replacing Corey Perry with Martin St. Louis makes the team better IMO but I doubt it increases their odds of winning the tournament by more than 1%.
They lost last night because they’re not that much better than the Americans to begin with. On talent they probably deserve to win 6 or 7 times against the American team and they probably would. But sometimes the 30-40% chance happens. Just does.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 11:33 AM MST up reply actions
The brackets
Actually, Canada is in a brutal bracket now. They would have to beat Russia and then Sweden to get to the Gold Medal game. Possible, yes. Really difficult, yes! That’s assuming the Swedes beat Slovakia of course. I’ll assume Canada beats up Germany real bad tomorrow night.
The other bracket is USA, Finland and Czech Republic battling it out (assuming no upsets).
I thought Toews was the best Canadian on the ice in period 2, and then he never played in 3. I can’t get my head around Babcock’s forward use.
I barely saw the third due to other commitments. They gonged Toews? Why on earth? Unlike Corey F. Perry, the guy can win a puck battle. Also, and not being very scientific, Toews has the je ne sais quoi that rises to an occasion. I wish we could say that about, say, Team Canada’s Sharks players.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 22, 2010 1:04 PM MST up reply actions
The Team Canada Sharks unit has been pretty effective. By my eye they’ve badly outchanced their opposition and they are up on the score sheet as well (despite not producing much in the blowout game).
If we are pointing fingers at a lack of production, that Staal-Perry-Getlzaf line has done dick all and Mike Richards has been a complete anchor on every line he’s played on.
The Crosby line and Thornton line have alternated games in terms of which one has been Canada’s best line.
I agree with this. The Sharks line has been very good in all three games I think. And Crosby’s line has done well, particularly with Iginla. Getzlaf’s group has been disappointing and the “fourth” line has been on too much of a rotation to really tell.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 2:18 PM MST up reply actions
So which fourth liner plays the Stephen Stills role next game? Or will Babcock wise up and put Iginla back there?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Love the one(s) you’re with
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 22, 2010 8:33 PM MST up reply actions
Yeah Iginla looks good beside Crosby and Nash even though personally I thought he’d drag down the top line, I thought Babcock had rightly demoted him going into the Games.
You’d think that just about anyone can plug in on the right side and mostly that’s true because Crosby and Nash were able to outchance even with Richards or Toews but Iginla in his short spurts has looked the best.
Of course deployment affects that too, as you noted Iggy’s getting a ton of offensive forays. But Iggy does have skill and occasionally he will look five years younger, this happes to be one of those occasions apparently.
The Sharks get all sorts of close shots and close looks, some chances are a bit off-angle but that’s a minor quibble because they’ve done their duty (outchance).
Bruce, back in the Swiss game everyone was saying the Sharks line was the only one that showed up.
That was pure bullshit at the time, just about every forward contributied to badly outchancing the Swiss. The Sharks line just got the goals.
Now it’s the Sharks who didn’t show up? Naw man, they got glorious chance after glorious chance up close.
I liked Perry’s positioning on the Kesler goal actually, he did majorly brainfart in not being harder on the puck but he didn’t just dog it back either, he actually beat Kesler to the puck and if we’re going to credit Kesler for being super intense and energetic, then can’t we at least say that Perry was even more intense and energetic since he beat Kesler to the puck?
He just made a terrible decision imo, nothing lazy or soft about the play, just a bad decision.
My throwaway comment about the Sharks players was about rising to an occasion, which they don’t have a very good record of doing. They played OK last night (I missed 1/3 of the game and maybe they dominated the part I missed), but the only goal they were involved in was Heatley’s off a line change. ’Twould be nice to see Jumbo Joe in the middle of some actual, you know, Goals.
Of course Perry beat Kesler to the puck, he was way closer to it, that had nothing to do with intensity. But when he got to it, he did nothing, while Kesler made the hero play and beat him. A very bad decision, at best.
All that said, take everything I say with a grain of salt cuz I’m no fan of the Sharks or the Ducks. Esp. Corey Perry.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 22, 2010 8:41 PM MST up reply actions
I’ve got to agree with Bruce here about Perry beating Kesler to the puck. He certainly should have! He had a huge head start!
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 11:04 PM MST up reply actions
My problem with Perry was that he had such a head start to the puck.
Yes he did a good job protecting the puck (which is why Kesler had to dive), but the problem was he never actually made a play on the puck. He looked like he was bracing for contact that wasn’t coming.
You have an empty net and you have an opposition player chasing you down… make the play on the puck and get it to your teammates. Perry did the right thing initially, then completely ignored the puck.
I guess my contention is I didn’t think the play was soft, just stupid. I don’t forgive Perry, he should have had possession and he was unbelievably stupid in not getting the puck.
But I guess for me soft is a really awful quality for a player, saved for guys who bail on an oppsoing hit or flamingo or dive. There’s a whole whackload of plays that look soft because one guy appears harder on the puck but really it just ends up being a bad decision by the opposing player.
Would it help if I specified that I think Perry is only soft in the head?
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 23, 2010 9:02 AM MST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Oilers Schedule
Next 5 Games
Toronto
|
Wed 02/15 | 8:00 PM MST |
|
Colorado
|
Fri 02/17 | 7:30 PM MST |
|
Vancouver
|
Sun 02/19 | 7:00 PM MST |
|
@
Calgary
|
Tue 02/21 | 7:00 PM MST |
|
Philadelphia
|
Thu 02/23 | 7:30 PM MST |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Ottawa
|
Sat 02/11 | OT - W 4 - 3 |
|
@
Detroit
|
Wed 02/08 | L 2 - 4 |
|
@
Toronto
|
Mon 02/06 | L 3 - 6 |
|
Detroit
|
Sat 02/04 | SO - W 5 - 4 |
|
Chicago
|
Thu 02/02 | W 8 - 4 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- According to NHL, here’s why Dominic Moore escaped suspension for Fedotenko hit
- How Mats Sundin’s no-trade clause controversy made fans reconsider loyalty in NHL
- Nordiques Nation invades Hockey Day in Canada
- Youth hockey coach, parents clash over alleged tirade over 9-year old’s 200th goal puck
- Friday’s Three Stars: Blackhawks lose seventh straight; Wings win nineteenth straight at home
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
