My OperaIIHF 2011: Canada Loses Yet Again
Thursday, January 6, 2011 3:32:38 PM
In their second year in a row, team Canada loses the IIHF gold medal to bring home silver. While silver isn't a bad result overall, the drama that surrounded these past two years do not make it a satisfying result. Last year was the rivalry between the US and Canada in the gold medal game. While this was a hard fought game, the same could not be said this year.
Back in 2006, I wrote a three part series about why Hockey sucks today relating to the IIHF tournament and the NHL in general (the game still rocks if played correctly). Here are the links to that there parter.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
I've gotten a lot of criticism and some praise for these articles. While the game yesterday could be used as yet another confirmation of what I've been talking about 4 years ago, it's the contrast with the previous game against the US that really makes the point. In what commentators were stating was probably the most perfect game ever played at the IIHF, Canada ended up winning 4 to 1. What was remarkable about this game is that the players never dumped the puck in the corner unless they had to. On several occasions, a Canadian player would carry the puck across the blue line with two or three US players on him. While that may seem like an unwise move, it meant that the rest of the Canadian team was open and meant two less players on the US side to do anything. In short, those few occasions showed that the US needed several guys to stop a Canadian advance to the net.
Contrast that situation where a team goes directly at the net compared to dumping it in the corner. No better example of this was seen than the second goal. The first goal wasn't too bad either, but was a mistake by the US defense leaving a Canadian player open in front of the net. But still, that's what happens when you keep going at the net. The second was pure beauty. A pass from the goalie that leads to bringing the puck out of the Canadian zone. This is called mounting an attack. A rush by one player into the US zone with a nifty pass to the center for a deflected goal and what can only be described as the perfect play from one end of the rink to the other. This is all described in my three part article. It works. It's how all of us were taught hockey way back when. It was what we grew up seeing in the NHL from the hockey greats such as Gretzky, Lemieux, even as far back as Bobby Orr and Rocket Richard. The Rocket was known for going at the net. Tell any of your favourites of the past to shoot the puck in the corner instead of making a play at the goal! I can tell you they would not be remembered for the greatness that they are remembered for today.
What was perhaps more to the point is how the announcers on TSN could not describe WHY it was a perfect game. For me, seeing the revenge of the Canadian team on their opponent's own soil against the US team that had beaten them the year before meant certain gold as well as vindication. But it was not to be. Instead of playing like they had against the US, they went back to what I call loser hockey. They started dumping the puck in and chasing after it. Over the course of the first two periods, they were able to get a 3-0 lead. This is one of the things that happens with that kind of play. Other team makes a mistake or you get a lucky bounce and you get ahead. It happens. You keep playing the same thing over and over, eventually, you're gonna get lucky. But in the third period, the luck stopped. And Russia pounced in a five goal unanswered romp giving them the gold. Why Canada continued to dump the puck in and not play the style that had given them such a convincing win the game before is beyond me. It's clearly a coaching issue. Players don't change styles from game to game. If it's up to the players, they will go at the net every time.
One issue is that the NHL is too big. There aren't enough players to play the skills game required to go at the net. And don't mistake this for just going at the net without a game plan. It's all described in my three part articles. Every step of it. In any case, a single NHL team has very little chance of creating a team that has the required skills to play this kind of game, so they dump the puck. Dumping the puck requires no skill at all. Anyone in the crowd can do it. I can do it. The reader can do it. And even if it was a good play (in some alternate universe), it can't seriously be the only play in your play book. However, every now and then you DO get a good team that can play winning hockey (mounting an attack and going at the net). Buffalo a couple years back. Toronto around 2002 when they went to the semis (don't remember the exact year). But in each case, it's the coach that lost the series. It's always the coach when good players lose. At least in the past 20 years or so.
There has not been a single play so detrimental to the game of hockey as that of dumping the puck in. There is one final thing I want to note. The NHL had to change the rules to make this play viable. That's how bad this play is. But in the IIHF, that rule is not in effect. What is this rule? Well, if you don't get how it matters, then you're not alone because the French commentators on RDS didn't know what difference it did either. It's the rule that the goalie cannot go behind his net in the corners. He can go directly behind his net, but not in the corners. You can see the diagonal lines behind the goal line. That's what they're for. In the IIHF, that rule is not in effect and the goalie can grab the puck when the other team dumps it in. Get it? Understand why that rule is in effect in the NHL? People like Pierre McGuire, the one person who least understands hockey on the planet, has for ages pushed the idea of getting the puck deep. That's code for dumping the puck in. But in the IIHF, it doesn't work. It didn't work in the NHL either before the special goalie rule was put in place. And even with it, it still doesn't work. So can you imagine dumping the puck in without that rule in effect as is the case in the IIHF. That's the coach's fault who didn't know better.
Strange how my opinion of the coach changed so drastically from one game to another. How do you go from playing a perfect game one day to playing losing hockey the next game? Did the coach tell himself, "This works too damn good. Let's play something else."
Back in 2006, I wrote a three part series about why Hockey sucks today relating to the IIHF tournament and the NHL in general (the game still rocks if played correctly). Here are the links to that there parter.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
I've gotten a lot of criticism and some praise for these articles. While the game yesterday could be used as yet another confirmation of what I've been talking about 4 years ago, it's the contrast with the previous game against the US that really makes the point. In what commentators were stating was probably the most perfect game ever played at the IIHF, Canada ended up winning 4 to 1. What was remarkable about this game is that the players never dumped the puck in the corner unless they had to. On several occasions, a Canadian player would carry the puck across the blue line with two or three US players on him. While that may seem like an unwise move, it meant that the rest of the Canadian team was open and meant two less players on the US side to do anything. In short, those few occasions showed that the US needed several guys to stop a Canadian advance to the net.
Contrast that situation where a team goes directly at the net compared to dumping it in the corner. No better example of this was seen than the second goal. The first goal wasn't too bad either, but was a mistake by the US defense leaving a Canadian player open in front of the net. But still, that's what happens when you keep going at the net. The second was pure beauty. A pass from the goalie that leads to bringing the puck out of the Canadian zone. This is called mounting an attack. A rush by one player into the US zone with a nifty pass to the center for a deflected goal and what can only be described as the perfect play from one end of the rink to the other. This is all described in my three part article. It works. It's how all of us were taught hockey way back when. It was what we grew up seeing in the NHL from the hockey greats such as Gretzky, Lemieux, even as far back as Bobby Orr and Rocket Richard. The Rocket was known for going at the net. Tell any of your favourites of the past to shoot the puck in the corner instead of making a play at the goal! I can tell you they would not be remembered for the greatness that they are remembered for today.
What was perhaps more to the point is how the announcers on TSN could not describe WHY it was a perfect game. For me, seeing the revenge of the Canadian team on their opponent's own soil against the US team that had beaten them the year before meant certain gold as well as vindication. But it was not to be. Instead of playing like they had against the US, they went back to what I call loser hockey. They started dumping the puck in and chasing after it. Over the course of the first two periods, they were able to get a 3-0 lead. This is one of the things that happens with that kind of play. Other team makes a mistake or you get a lucky bounce and you get ahead. It happens. You keep playing the same thing over and over, eventually, you're gonna get lucky. But in the third period, the luck stopped. And Russia pounced in a five goal unanswered romp giving them the gold. Why Canada continued to dump the puck in and not play the style that had given them such a convincing win the game before is beyond me. It's clearly a coaching issue. Players don't change styles from game to game. If it's up to the players, they will go at the net every time.
One issue is that the NHL is too big. There aren't enough players to play the skills game required to go at the net. And don't mistake this for just going at the net without a game plan. It's all described in my three part articles. Every step of it. In any case, a single NHL team has very little chance of creating a team that has the required skills to play this kind of game, so they dump the puck. Dumping the puck requires no skill at all. Anyone in the crowd can do it. I can do it. The reader can do it. And even if it was a good play (in some alternate universe), it can't seriously be the only play in your play book. However, every now and then you DO get a good team that can play winning hockey (mounting an attack and going at the net). Buffalo a couple years back. Toronto around 2002 when they went to the semis (don't remember the exact year). But in each case, it's the coach that lost the series. It's always the coach when good players lose. At least in the past 20 years or so.
There has not been a single play so detrimental to the game of hockey as that of dumping the puck in. There is one final thing I want to note. The NHL had to change the rules to make this play viable. That's how bad this play is. But in the IIHF, that rule is not in effect. What is this rule? Well, if you don't get how it matters, then you're not alone because the French commentators on RDS didn't know what difference it did either. It's the rule that the goalie cannot go behind his net in the corners. He can go directly behind his net, but not in the corners. You can see the diagonal lines behind the goal line. That's what they're for. In the IIHF, that rule is not in effect and the goalie can grab the puck when the other team dumps it in. Get it? Understand why that rule is in effect in the NHL? People like Pierre McGuire, the one person who least understands hockey on the planet, has for ages pushed the idea of getting the puck deep. That's code for dumping the puck in. But in the IIHF, it doesn't work. It didn't work in the NHL either before the special goalie rule was put in place. And even with it, it still doesn't work. So can you imagine dumping the puck in without that rule in effect as is the case in the IIHF. That's the coach's fault who didn't know better.
Strange how my opinion of the coach changed so drastically from one game to another. How do you go from playing a perfect game one day to playing losing hockey the next game? Did the coach tell himself, "This works too damn good. Let's play something else."
