Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
It’s one thing to praise the Dallas defence, which was pretty good.
It’s another thing to praise the Dallas defence, which was clearly second best of the night, while not mentioning the Flames defence at all.
It’s yet another thing to praise only the defence of a team that was trailing for 55 minutes of the game.
|
It's a frustratingly omissive piece, as like has been mentioned, if you didn't know the score you would have thought the Stars completely outplayed the Flames.
Summed up, the article is basically "World baffled as Flames win game in spite of Dallas being the best defensively!"
Like it mentions how good Oettinger was while saying Markstrom wasn't very busy. Then how does that make Dallas better defensively?!
Flames limited to 26 shots and no chances off the rush, but skips by the fact that Dallas went the first half of the first period and the last half of the last period without a shot, and kept to just 16 total. How does THAT make Dallas better defensively?!
No mention of how the top line (which as mentioned clearly in the article Dallas shut down in tremendous fashion) managed to lock Oettinger in his net for the last minute of play, keeping Dallas from even getting the 6th man on the ice, let alone being set up.
Dallas maybe was a lucky bounce or a bad breakdown away from tying the game, but the Flames were the better team, period. And a few of those saves Oettinger made could easily have been goals and then it's a whole different game with Dallas down 2 or 3 to nothing. I just can't get over the bias in the sports media.