Canada v. Russia Post-Game: Unbelievable
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 24, 2010 10:14 PM PST
in International hockey
16 comments
It was supposed to be epic. It was supposed to be a classic. It was supposed to be close! Yes, it was supposed to be the tournament's two best teams, meeting unexpectedly in the quarterfinals, fighting tooth and nail to the bitter end to determine who would march on as favourites for gold and who would leave Vancouver with nothing. But after five minutes it was 1-0. After fifteen minutes, 3-1, and by the end of the first period, 4-1. Nervous giddiness spread through the crowd. A 4-1 lead is not insurmountable but it wouldn't be easy. Everyone knew it. Then less than five minutes into the second the Canadians led 6-1 and the party was on. Maxim Afinogenov's second Russian goal didn't stir the kind of fear you expected from a Russian goal before the game. It wasn't just the four-goal margin but also the way it had been built. The Canadians were physically dominant, hitting, winning battles along the boards and in open ice. The Russians couldn't break enough cycles, couldn't block enough shots, couldn't stop enough cross-ice passes. The goal didn't stir fear because the 6-2 score was a fair reflection of the play. The Russians were outscored 3:1 because, improbably, they were outchanced 3:1 and Evgeni Nabokov couldn't make the big save. Heck, he couldn't make the small save. Before the seventh goal entered the net he couldn't make any save at all, having been relegated to the bench.
And then it happened. "We Want Swe-Den! We Want Swe-Den! We Want Swe-Den!" With five minutes left the Russians were treated no different than the Germans - the Germans! - as the fans looked forward to the next game (for the record, I want Slovakia). They were as nothing, like a Barry Horowitz-level jobber, a mere stepping stone in a larger more important storyline. With five minutes left they were of no consequence. The Russians were of no consequence. The Alex Ovechkin, Evgeni Malkin, Ilya Kovalchuk, Pavel Datsyuk Russians. Unbelievable.
For more detail-oriented analysis on Canada-Russia, including play-by-play and line matching, it's after the jump.
Today I decided to pay a bit more attention to matchups but didn't think I'd be able to note everyone on both clubs, so I noted two (or three) of the Russian forwards that the Canadian line faced for most of their shift. It should at least give us some idea of what the coaches were doing. To make things easier on the eyes, the Canadians are marked by their jersey numbers and for the Russians I used their initials. I have a guide for both before the data.
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
AM - Alexei Morozov
AO - Alex Ovechkin
AR - Alex Radulov
AS - Alex Semin
DZ - Denis Zaripov
EM - Evgeni Malkin
IK - Ilya Kovalchuk
MA - Maxim Afinogenov
PD - Pavel Datsyuk
SF - Sergei Fedorov
SZ - Sergei Zinoviev
VK - Viktor Kozlov
First Period
61-16-18 and 27-06 NZ FO v. AO/EM/AS
61-16-18 and 27-06 NZ FO v. AO/EM
21-87-12 and 02-08 v. PD/IK/MA
15-19-11 and 20-07 OZ FO Icing v. AM/SZ/DZ
10-51-24 and 20-22 v. ??/?? ends in Cdn. GOAL
61-16-18 and 27-06 NZ FO v. AO/EM
21-87-12 and 02-08 v. PD/IK
15-19-11 and 20-07 v. AM/SZ
10-51-24 and 02-08 v. AR/SF/VK
10-51-24 and 27-06 DZ FO v. AR/SF
61-16-18 and 27-06 v. AO/EM
61-16-18 and 27-06 OZ FO v. AO/EM
21-87-12 and 02-08 v. PD/IK
15-19-11 and 02-08 v. PD/IK
21-87-12 and 20-07 OZ FO v. AM/SZ ends in Cdn. penalty in DZ
37-10 and 27-06 DZ FO
16-18 and 27-06 DZ FO
37-10 and 02-08
11-61 and 02-08
16-18 and 27-06 DZ FO
11-61 and 27-06
37-10 and 02-08 DZ FO penalty ends
21-87-37 and 20-22 DZ FO v. ??/??
21-87-27 and 20-22 DZ FO v. ??/?? with 37 to bench on clear
21-87-12 and 20-22 v. ??/?? ends in Rus. penalty in their DZ
21-87-12 and 02-08 OZ FO
15-19-11 and 02-08
15-19-11 and 22-06 ends in Cdn. GOAL
61-16-18 and 27-06 NZ FO v. AO/EM ends in Cdn. GOAL
21-87-12 and 02-08 NZ FO v. PD/IK
10-51-24 and 20-07 DZ FO v. ??/??
10-51-24 and 20-07 OZ FO v. AR/SF ends in Rus. GOAL
61-16-18 and 27-06 NZ FO v. AO/EM
15-19-11 and 02-08 v. AO/PV
21-87-12 and 02-08 OZ FO v. PD/IK
10-51-24 and 27-06 OZ FO v. AO/EM and Cdn. make immediate change with wrong match
61-16-18 and 27-06 v. AO/EM
10-51-24 and 02-22 v. AM/SZ ends in Cdn. GOAL
15-19-11 and 20-07 NZ FO v. AR/SF
21-87-12 and 27-06 v. PD/IK
21-87-12 and 27-06 OZ FO v. PD/IK
61-16-18 and 27-06 v. PD/IK
19-16-18 and 02-08 DZ FO v. AO/EM with 16 taking faceoff
Second Period
61-16-18 and 27-06 NZ FO v. AO/EM
21-87-12 and 02-08 DZ FO v. PD/IK
15-19-11 and 02-08 v. PD/IK
15-19-11 and 02-08 DZ FO Icing v. AM/SZ
15-19-11 and 20-22 v. AM/SZ
10-51-24 and 02-07 v. AR/SF ends in Cdn. GOAL
61-16-18 and 27-06 NZ FO v. AO/EM
12-87-16 and 27-06 v. AO/EM ends in Cdn. GOAL
21-87-12 and 02-08 NZ FP v. PD/IK ends in Rus. GOAL (19 on for 87 in bad change)
15-19-11 and 20-22 NZ FO v. AM/SZ
10-51-24 and 02-07 v. EM/VK/AR
61-16-18 and 27-06 OZ FO v. AO/SF/AS
21-87-12 and 02-08 NZ FO v. AO/SF/AS
61-16-18 and 02-08 v. PD/IK
15-19-11 and 20-22 v. PD/IK
10-51-24 and 02-07 NZ FO v. AM/SZ
21-51-24 and 02-07 v. AM/SZ
21-87-12 and 20-22 NZ FO v. EM/AR
61-16-18 and 27-06 v. AO/SF ends in Cdn. penalty in DZ
37-18 and 27-06 DZ FO ends in Rus. GOAL
61-16-18 and 27-06 NZ FO v. AO/SF
21-87-12 and 02-08 OZ FO Icing v. AO/SF
15-19-11 and 02-08 v. ??/?? ends in Rus. penalty in their DZ
15-19-11 and 22-06 OZ FO
21-87-12 and 02-08
10-87-12 and 02-08 penalty ends
10-51-61 and 20-07 v. PD/IK
61-16-18 and 27-06 v. AO/??
15-19-11 and 27-06 v. AO/IK
15-19-11 and 02-22 NZ FO v. AO/SF
21-87-12 and 20-22 v. VK/EM
10-51-24 and 02-08 v. PD/IK
10-51-24 and 02-08 DZ FO Icing v. PD/IK ends in Cdn. penalty in DZ
16-18 and 27-06 DZ FO
37-10 and 27-06 DZ FO
Third Period
16-18 and 27-06 NZ FO
37-10 and 27-20
37-18 and 20-08
87-61 and 27-06 DZ FO penalty ends
21-87-12 and 02-07 OZ FO v. ??/??
61-16-18 and 27-?? NZ FO v. AO/SF/EM ends in Rus. penalty in their DZ
51-87-12 and 02-08 OZ FO with 51 replacing 12 who left ice injured on previous shift
15-19-11 and 22-06 NZ FO
10-51-24 and 20-22 penalty ends
61-16-18 and 27-08 v. AO/SF/EM
21-87-12 and 27-08 v. AM/SZ ends in Rus. penalty in NZ
61-51-24 and 20-27 OZ FO
61-87-24 and 20-27
15-19-11 and 02-08 penalty ends
61-16-18 and 27-06 OZ FO v. PD/IK
21-87-12 and 20-08 NZ FO v. AO/EM
21-87-12 and 20-08 OZ FO Icing v. AO/EM
10-51-24 and 02-07 v. SZ/AM
15-19-11 and 22-08 v. PD/IK
61-16-18 and 20-07 v. AS/AR
21-87-12 and 27-06 DZ FO v. AS/AR/VK
61-16-18 and 02-08 DZ FO v. AO/EM
10-51-24 and 20-?? DZ FO v. PD/IK
10-51-24 and 27-06 DZ FO v. PD/IK
15-19-11 and 27-06 v. PD/IK
15-19-11 and 02-08 NZ FO v. AS/AR/VK
15-19-11 and 02-20 v. AS/AR/VK ends in Cdn. penalty in DZ
37-10 and 27-06 DZ FO
16-18 and 27-06
16-10 and 27-06
37-10 and 02-08 DZ FO
11-61 and 02-08 penalty ends
21-87-12 and 27-22 v. AR/AS/VK ends in both Rus. and Cdn. penalties
19-11 and 02-08 NZ FO
19-11 and 02-08 NZ FO
16-61 and 27-20
87-21 and 27-20 NZ FO
37-10 and 27-06 penalty ends
10-37-24 and 02-06 v. ??/??
15-19-11 and 02-08 DZ FO v. ??/??
End of Game
For the second straight game, it seems to me the most relevant data for how the Canadian coaches will act going forward comes from the first period. Both coaches seemed to feel comfortable with the same matchups at first. Crosby was kept away from Ovechkin and Ovechkin was kept away from Crosby. Instead of Crosby Babcock chose to go with the Nash-Toews-Richards group and they were very effective in that "checking" role, especially considering the two guys with Ovechkin to start the game were Semin and Malkin. That line (along with the revamped Ducks line) were put together at the end of the German game and looked good. I thought they might start this game together so I'll just give myself a hearty pat on the back for getting that one right. I get enough wrong that it's gratifying. On paper, these guys are probably the softest match so I can understand (despite Pierre McGuire's incessant protest) why the Russian coach persisted for so long. If you need to avoid this match, who the hell are you going to go after? The question was answered once when the Russian coach put Ovechkin-Malkin-Semin against Getzlaf's unit with the Ducks out for an OZ draw. Babcock got those guys the hell off the ice in a hurry which leads me to believe he doesn't think too much of their defensive chops. Either that or the match he had was working so he wanted to just keep it going.
Crosby's line, meanwhile, generally went up against Pavel Datsyuk, Ilya Kovalchuk and Maxim Afinogenov. Not your traditional checking line but Datsyuk is Russia's best defensive forward so giving him the Crosby match makes sense. I was surprised the Russian coach gave him those two wingers but it's not like there are a lot of soft matchups to exploit against the Canadians, so maybe it makes some sense to have some counter-punch on the line and make Crosby think about playing defence.
That left the Sharks line and the Ducks line with easier pickings. The all-KHL line probably wasn't the strongest unit to begin with and considering Zinoviev's injury they were very exploitable. Sergei Fedorov, meanwhile, did not look very good in this game. He's fine enough against most teams in this tournament on the fourth line but the Canadians had enough depth to make him look bad. The Ducks line did a better job of making things happen than the Sharks group for the first time in the tournament. Good timing for them.
Much like last game Bergeron was a faceoff/PK specialist which is fine. You'd almost rather they bring in an actual specialist for the role but I guess Bergeron is a good enough player that he can fill in if there's an injury without a huge dropoff (depending on which player he needs to fill in for of course).
On defence they continued to go with the Niedermayer-Weber and Keith-Doughty pairings through the first. They seem to have settled on Pronger-Seabrook as the third pairing and were rotating Dan Boyle (who had his best game by far) into the lineup here and there. That looks pretty good to me and at this point those top two pairings might even be getting comfortable with one another. That said, Niedermayer allowed another breakaway in this game. He just doesn't seem aware of guys getting behind him without the puck. A disturbing trend. But on the whole he and Weber did a good job of playing "shut-down" against Ovechkin and co.
I introduced the day as a great day for hockey, and it certainly was that! The four-line game is working well and I don't expect any significant changes two days from now.
0 recs |
16 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Honestly I don’t know if it matters who we play next. Neither Halak or Lunquist look good tonight, and even if they did, if Canada played like they did tonight, they would get steam rolled anyways
Well I get my wish. Slovakia! I really hope they win a medal. That group of players deserves an Olympic triumph of some sort. At this point, I can only hope it’s bronze.
As for the semi, we can’t get arrogant here. The Canadians are obviously favourites and played very well tonight, but they played very well against the Swiss and Americans and didn’t get the results. If Bryzgalov plays that whole game I think we’re looking at a much closer result. Frankly, we’re looking at a totally different game. And Halak can shut a team down. Even if Halak didn’t look great tonight, he could still look great in two days. Hiller, for instance, didn’t look so good against Belarus but was huge today against the US. You never know.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 24, 2010 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
I look at this a lot like the Swiss game. The Slovaks are going to try to play tight defensive hockey and score on the counter attack. But I would be willing to bet that if we play hard and fight for pucks in the offensive end, like we did tonight, we can break down Slovakia’s defense and get a few past Halak. The Slovaks haven’t had to face anything like the physicality the Canadian team can bring, and much like the Russians I have my doubts about if they can handle them.
I would doubt Babcock lets this team get too ahead of themselves, Slovakia has shown themselves to be giant killers, we shouldn’t (and probably wont) make the same mistakes Russia, and Sweden made.
The Canadian braintrust were watching the game. I bet Babcock’s going to be hammering home the point that the Slovaks have defeated the other two gold-medal favourites, so we’re going to need to maintain the level we had against Russia and mind the breakdowns.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Funny, but even at 7-3, I found myself a little critical of some of the things the Canadians were doing, instead of just enjoying the utter meltdown of the Russians.
Let’s hope they keep playing this way for the next 2 games.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 25, 2010 6:14 AM PST reply actions
Just fantastic analysis Scott, you blow the MSM out of the water here.
The Canadians had another great game but really they were doing pretty much the exact same things they did against Norway, Switzerland, the US and Germany. Forwards hard on the puck in every zone while the defence was suspect on occasion.
Good catch on the Getzlaf line, I didn’t notice that shift where they went off that quickly. I saw 61 vs. 8 for good stretches and while I noticed this most on faceoffs (so it was clear the Russians preferred it, contrary to Muscular Thighs McGuire), it was clear that Babcock was okay with it too since he allowed Nash and company to move the puck past the Canadian blue line.
Btw, I notice you don’t drop by LT much but there is some comedy gold going on there. Some choice comments about Doughty being better than Crosby/Ovechkin, and even more laughably, comparisons between Doughty and Orr. Now I like Doughty a lot less than most and even I can admit that the guy is playing minutes that would kill his peers in his age range, he’s got a ton of potential.
But damn, even the biggest Doughty fans, if they possessed an ounce of rationality, could admit that the guy isn’t and may never be half as good as Crosby or Ovechkin. And even if the guy does turn into, say, Lidstrom, is Lidstrom vs. Crosby a clear cut decision in favor of Lidstrom? I certainly don’t think so.
About Slovakia: great break for the Canadians. The Slovaks are still dangerous at the top end but not half as deep as Sweden. And it makes me happy that no Sedin will touch gold this time around.
Also I like Finland more than the Czechs although I’m not sure how the bookies feel about it. Anything that tilts the percentages away from the cheating-mccheatersons-who-cheat that are the U.S. is fine by me.
Lidstrom vs. Crosby is apple vs. orange. Not interested in even discussing it.
Kid’s surprised the hell out of me. I didn’t think he belonged, but clearly he does.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
“Kid” being Doughty, because that’s not immediately clear. Incidentally, not interested in talking Doughty vs. Crosby, either.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Also, damn, I remember clearly two defensive zone shifts for Nash against Ovie in the first period but I can’t find them in the shift chart above. They could have been the NZ faceoffs where Nash and co. were forced back but then moved the puck up again but I thought one was a DZ faceoff for sure. One of these shifts Nash and co. moved in on a transition but the play died on Richards stick. Do you remember that shift, Scott?
I admit that I do not the shift but I believe whole-heartedly that it happened. And I may have just missed a DZ draw for them, though obviously I think I’ve got it right. As for the match, Babcock wanted that match for sure, went out of his way for it. I just don’t know what you’d turn to if you’re the Russians. If you can’t expose that group, maybe you go after Getzlaf but really, you’re in trouble.
Thanks for the comments up top by the way.
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 25, 2010 9:15 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, I know a lot of people were questioning maybe why Mike Richards was on this team, but him pick pocketing Malkin last night, feeding the puck to Toews and then on to Nash was a thing of beauty and literally opened the floodgates.
That line was definitely effective last night against AO.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 25, 2010 7:16 AM PST reply actions
The first period of that game was probably the most fun I’ve had watching a game since the ‘06 playoffs. The tension, the buildup, the early goal for the good guys, then pure joy as they took control of the game. Of course it wasn’t over until late in the third, if there’s any team in the world that can rattle off four quick goals it’s the Russians, but the tension was relieved and it was great to see such a great collection of talent finally decide they wanted to win the game more than the other team.
yow
I’m sorry but it isn’t really that unbelievable. These kinds of meltdowns are the Russian hockey MO. I still clearly remember how the measly Finns undressed the Russians even worse with a 4-0 score..
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on The Copper & Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Oilers Schedule
Next 5 Games
Calgary
|
Thu 10/07 | 7:00 PM PDT |
|
Florida
|
Sun 10/10 | 5:00 PM PDT |
|
@
Minnesota
|
Thu 10/14 | 5:30 PM PDT |
|
@
Calgary
|
Sat 10/16 | 7:00 PM PDT |
|
Minnesota
|
Thu 10/21 | 6:00 PM PDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Anaheim
|
Sun 04/11 | L 2 - 7 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Sat 04/10 | SO - W 4 - 3 |
|
Colorado
|
Wed 04/07 | OT - W 5 - 4 |
|
Minnesota
|
Mon 04/05 | W 4 - 1 |
|
@
Phoenix
|
Sat 04/03 | SO - L 2 - 3 |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
