Well, that was Disappointing...
by Hawerchuk on Feb 21, 2010 10:42 PM EST
17 comments
Down the bulk of the game, Canada outshot and outchanced the US by a factor of 2. Bad bounces, bad penalties and Martin Brodeur's crazy baseball swing made a Canadian win that much less likely.
Here are the shot totals:
| Team | Shots | Goals | Close | Goals |
| USA | 31 | 5 | 17 | 3 |
| CAN | 63 | 3 | 34 | 3 |
Again, "close" shots are from below the top of the face-off circles and between the face-off dots. Canada obviously owned the chances in the 1st and 3rd periods, but they were also playing from behind, so we would expect them to get more chances. The second period, which was mostly played tied, was much closer. The time spent tied and behind:
| Tied | -1 | -2 | |
| TOI/Score | 14.3 | 35.3 | 9.7 |
Both teams had trouble winning face-offs in their own end, likely when they were killing penalties:
| Canada | Def | Off |
| W | 5 | 17 |
| L | 11 | 8 |
Overall, Canada skaters played better than the US. But Ryan Miller had a great game, and Martin Brodeur...Well, I don't know what the hell he was doing back there. Did you ever have a coach who'd tell you to "go for a skate?" He wasn't talking to the goalie.
Some other random notes:
- Dustin Brown put a nice move on teammate Drew Doughty
- He wasn't the only one - Patrick Kane beat Doughty a couple of times, once cutting across from the right wing to go at Doughty on the left wing
- Joe Thornton looks invisible to me aside from winning a few pucks on the boards.
- I don't watch a lot of games in the Eastern time zone (they're over before I get home from work), so I don't get to see Sidney Crosby and Rick Nash very often. I have developed a new appreciation for their skills!
0 recs |
17 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Great game!
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Feb 21, 2010 10:48 PM EST reply actions
Give some credit to Ryan Miller. If there’s one person you can’t take away credit from (because I’m sure the story will be that Canada got screwed over), it’s the guy who turned aside those opportunities.
Bettman's Nightmare: A Blog Where Hockey Aficionados Dismantle That Mighty Empire, One Balsillie at a Time
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
by Bettman's Nightmare on Feb 21, 2010 10:54 PM EST reply actions
Well....
The end result is that Canada will have to face RUSSIA in the QFs…meaning one of the two won’t medal.
That’s gonna suck.
I’m fairly certain the “odds” answer to your poll question is 6th. I think it’s fair to assume that the Canadians beat Norway so for 6th one requires the 1st and 2nd seeds to win their quarterfinal games and Russia to beat Canada. Every other option requires a longer set of outcomes or a more unlikely set I’d think (I don’t think 5th is even possible). But if I had “4th or better” against “6th or worse” I would have taken the former!
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 22, 2010 12:42 AM EST reply actions
It’s irrational but I still like Canada for gold.
Well, not totally irrational, they’ve outchanced and outplayed every game so far although they’ve faced probably the weakest of the hockey superpowers (note: I don’t know if this claim is actually true). Little mistakes keep ending up as minuses, just frustrating as hell. It’s like watching a particularly bad losing streak during the NHL season.
Except all 3 are coming out of the same side of the draw. USA’s draw has Belarus/Switzerland, followed by Finland/Czechs. The best Russia/Canada/Sweden can do between them is get a gold and a bronze. They can’t get all 3, or even the top 2 medals anymore.
The odds of USA, Finland, or the Czechs winning gold has increased substantially just by the draw that they have to get to the Final.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
http://sports.betfair.com/?mi=100979982&ex=1
Betfair says ~28% for Canada(!), 22% for Rus, 17% for USA, 15% for Swe.
The US win simultaneously hammered both Canada’s and Russia’s chances.
The Americans scored on the first shift of the game, and then the first shift after the Canadians tied it at 1. Those are huge lapses in Canada’s concentration as much as luck. Plus, then taking penalties got them in trouble.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
It’s an interesting notion. Do you have anything quantitative to back up the loss of concentration? It seems to me that teams are equally likely to score on any shift (assuming evenly-matched lines) and so the US scoring then or any other time is no more or less due to concentration.
Now if you’re saying Martin Brodeur played like an unfocused primadonna douchebag, I’m with you.
Nothing quantative, just speculation. Maybe the line matching wasn’t right by Babcock, I don’t know. Crosby and Nash were -3 each that game. Canada had the game tied 3 times, but never once threatened to take the lead. The USA quickly answered any tying goal the Canadians had. That fact, more than anything, explains the shot differential.
Just one of those ‘little things’ type comments. Like how Kesler dove for the loose puck and empty netter, while Perry didn’t try and make a play on the puck whatsoever.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
