Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I have zero issue with poking at the strategy or mental toughness of the team ... or even the willingness to go to the tough areas.
I just cringe when I see "mailed it in", "Don't give AF", "out worked" ... rarely the case.
|
Yup. Results are part of the story, but people's perception swings far too wildly based on wins and losses. 90% of the "mental" narratives after game 2 were also true after game 1. Both teams played incredibly similar games in both, there were very few style or system adjustments on either side, outside of the Jets having to draw 3 new players in.
The bounces didn't go our way as much/went against us more than in game 1, but a most of the issues were there in game 1, and most of what helped us win game 1 was there in game 2, same for Winnipeg. People complain about the zone entry on the powerplay, for example, but it worked plenty in game 1, didn't work as well in game 2. Did Winnipeg do anything different? Nope, same effort, same system trying to shut down the zone entry, it just worked more often in game 2.
Random events largely dictate how we evaluate hockey, and we rarely ever chalk those things up to random events, instead we say "well the pass worked yesterday but didn't work today, it must mean he cares less/the Jets figured us out." Small adjustments do help as you get used to player habits, but it's not like game 1 was the first time these teams have seen or played against each other. It's not new.