[GDT] Latvia vs. Canada, Mens Hockey at 10:00 AM Mountain

[automaton 3]

Too bad that Giroux had such a rough start to the year, he's been on fire since and IMO should have made the team.

[CaptainYooh]

I get really worried about Team Canada when a small team, like Latvia, can pose such a formidable threat in a quarter-final game. This game was way too close for comfort. Babcock better takes notes.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by habernac

Not an Ovie fan, but I tip my hat to him as he was the only one who met the press after the game.

Duhatschek said that Markov and Datsyuk answered media questions immediately after the game.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I get really worried about Team Canada when a small team, like Latvia, can pose such a formidable threat in a quarter-final game. This game was way too close for comfort. Babcock better takes notes.

Canada never plays small teams well in these things. Didn't we barely beat the Germans in 2002, lost the the swiss in 2006, beat the swiss in a shootout in 2010 and now this. Canada only smooth sailing Olympic tournament really was 1998. Crushed everyone until the they ran into Hasek.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Canada never plays small teams well in these things. Didn't we barely beat the Germans in 2002, lost the the swiss in 2006, beat the swiss in a shootout in 2010 and now this. Canada only smooth sailing Olympic tournament really was 1998. Crushed everyone until the they ran into Hasek.

I believe it's more than just "the way it is". I played lots of competitive volleyball in my younger years and there was no way in hell a weak team in any tournament had any chance to win against the strong team, ever. Stronger teams simply murder the weaker teams on the court. This is not what we're seeing in today's international hockey. If obviously weak teams can win, this means our coaches are not doing a good job.

NHL players and coaches always like to say "we just want/need to play our game". Babcock said this same phrase a day or two ago. I have a fundamental disagreement with this statement. In order to win, the team must play the most effective game against the other team. And if "your game" is not it, then you better adjust the game plan and tailor it specifically against the opponent's style of play. Which is exactly what Ted Nolan did and Babcock did not.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I don't like the Canadians chances against Team USA...much more potent offense in this tournament.

Originally Posted by zamler

For good reason. The U.S. has their game figured out.

Honestly, is anyone at all surprised? Team USA looks like gangbusters in every Olympic tournament. It happened in 2002, and again in 2010, only to see the US lose to Canada each time when it counted most. The Salt Lake City games were a long time ago now, but if you will recall the US outscored their opposition 24–5 in three games leading up to the gold medal game.

On paper, Team Canada should win. They hold the edge in depth and skill at every position except in goal.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I get really worried about Team Canada when a small team, like Latvia, can pose such a formidable threat in a quarter-final game. This game was way too close for comfort. Babcock better takes notes.

Canada always does this. In every Olympic tournament they play these tight games with inferior opponents. I think most of that has to do with the respect level of the other teams for how good Canada always is more than anything Team Canada is doing wrong.

They will be fine. I watched from the beginning of the second period, and never once felt that there was any doubt about the outcome. The best thing about today's game was to see Canada continuing to press, and actually amp up the pressure as time wore on. They didn't get flustered or deviate away from their game plan, despite finding themselves on the wrong side of some ridiculous puck-luck. The team looked to me like they were improving as time passed.

I would be worried if they looked like they were getting flustered (see the overtime loss to Czech in 1998), or if they were having difficulty penetrating the zone or breaking down Latvia's defense (see the elimination game v. Suisse in 2006), but that didn't happen. On the contrary, it was nothing short of a miracle that Latvia kept the score as close as they did.

[agulati]

That score was much closer than it should have been. Good game by Latvia, especially their goalie

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I believe it's more than just "the way it is". I played lots of competitive volleyball in my younger years and there was no way in hell a weak team in any tournament had any chance to win against the strong team, ever. Stronger teams simply murder the weaker teams on the court. This is not what we're seeing in today's international hockey. If obviously weak teams can win, this means our coaches are not doing a good job.

NHL players and coaches always like to say "we just want/need to play our game". Babcock said this same phrase a day or two ago. I have a fundamental disagreement with this statement. In order to win, the team must play the most effective game against the other team. And if "your game" is not it, then you better adjust the game plan and tailor it specifically against the opponent's style of play. Which is exactly what Ted Nolan did and Babcock did not.

Sorry but volleyball does not equal hockey in this sentiment.

How many times have you seen a goalie steal a game for an underdog? Answer: Plenty. It's not something that is new either, it has been happening for years.

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Too bad that Giroux had such a rough start to the year, he's been on fire since and IMO should have made the team.

Not only that, Giroux has the 3rd most points of any player in the NHL over the past 3 seasons (198). 1 point behind Kessel and 2 behind Malkin.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

...Stronger teams simply murder the weaker teams on the court. This is not what we're seeing in today's international hockey. If obviously weak teams can win, this means our coaches are not doing a good job.

Except Latvia DIDN'T win, and never looked like a threat to win at any point past scoring their single goal on a single mistake in the game. I might take you seriously if you could point to some specific problems in today's game that the coaches could have anticipated and corrected. In actual fact, it is very, VERY difficult to structure and execute penetration against a team that collapses like Latvia did around their own goal. What more should Canada have done? What more could they have done?

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

NHL players and coaches always like to say "we just want/need to play our game". Babcock said this same phrase a day or two ago. I have a fundamental disagreement with this statement. In order to win, the team must play the most effective game against the other team. And if "your game" is not it, then you better adjust the game plan and tailor it specifically against the opponent's style of play. Which is exactly what Ted Nolan did and Babcock did not.

Babcock did not?! His team outshot their opponent by a 4 : 1 margin! This was not a coaching breakdown. Nolan had his team playing the ONLY game they could to win, and they kept the score close. Babcock's response is precisely what it should have been: to maintain possession and zone pressure, and to basically wear out the other team, who was practically playing like their lives depended on it.

I would be interested to hear what you expect the Canadian coaches should have done differently, and how it would have helped. For my part, I think Team Canada played very well, despite the score.

[19Yzerman19]

I would be interested to hear what you expect the Canadian coaches should have done differently

They could have dressed Duchene, dammit.

I would also have suggested putting more pucks into feet rather than trying to go shelf all the time. May have resulted in a dirty goal here or there off a skate, or a loose puck to whack at. Frequently, our blue liners were content to dump pucks into the corner, which just resulted in a lot of good puck possession along the wall to very little effect.

[djsFlames]

Although the offense has been meh, Canada hasn't allowed more than 1 goal in any of its games. Which I think people need to take into account.

Also the US will be playing NA style hockey, and not this swarm, rope-a-dope weird stuff that these euro teams have been trying to exercise on us. We can feast on them because we have the better roster, plain and simple.

The one thing I'd give them is that I think they have a slight edge in size and grit. But we've got a clear advantage in skill. Really wish we could've had Stamkos going into this, though..

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

...

I would be interested to hear what you expect the Canadian coaches should have done differently, and how it would have helped. For my part, I think Team Canada played very well, despite the score.

Latvia did not win, yes, but they could have by one lucky bounce/shot/breakaway. My point is that this is too close. How do you explain that Latvia can do it with all the incomparably inferior talent and resources they've got? Canadian team has everything better than Latvian, you cannot argue that. I can only explain it by better coaching.

"How would you have done it?" - is not a fair question to a layperson. I am not a coach. All of the factors you've provided as a proof of Babcock's doing it right could be considered wrong just as well. Why bother amplifying all of the things that don't work well in a given situation instead of making some adjustments that might work better? What are the effective ways of splitting the defending players collapsed in front of the net? How do you make PP more effective? For every weapon there should be a counter-weapon.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

They could have dressed Duchene, dammit.

I would also have suggested putting more pucks into feet rather than trying to go shelf all the time. May have resulted in a dirty goal here or there off a skate, or a loose puck to whack at. Frequently, our blue liners were content to dump pucks into the corner, which just resulted in a lot of good puck possession along the wall to very little effect.

Holy crap! I didnt realize that Duchene was the best player in the world who scored goals at will, with or without the help of his teammates or the interference of pesky opposition players!!!

If we had such a colossus available its insane that we didnt use him! Coach Babcock must be keeping him reserve for far greater battles! The Great Duchene mustn't be wasted against such vastly inferior opposition!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

They could have dressed Duchene, dammit.

I would also have suggested putting more pucks into feet rather than trying to go shelf all the time. May have resulted in a dirty goal here or there off a skate, or a loose puck to whack at. Frequently, our blue liners were content to dump pucks into the corner, which just resulted in a lot of good puck possession along the wall to very little effect.

Duchene helps, but I don't think he makes this game a blow out. I agree about puck-placement, but is that really a coaching problem? I think that is more on the players. Besides, some of these issues appeared to me to be diminishing as the game wore on. I thought Canada looked much, much better in the third period.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Latvia did not win, yes, but they could have by one lucky bounce/shot/breakaway. My point is that this is too close. How do you explain that Latvia can do it with all the incomparably inferior talent and resources they've got? Canadian team has everything better than Latvian, you cannot argue that. I can only explain it by better coaching.

You're right, it had nothing to do with their goalie.

[CaptainYooh]

I am sure it has something to do with their goalie playing a good game, but it should not have mattered for the offensive power we have. How can you argue against that?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Latvia did not win, yes, but they could have by one lucky bounce/shot/breakaway. My point is that this is too close. How do you explain that Latvia can do it with all the incomparably inferior talent and resources they've got? Canadian team has everything better than Latvian, you cannot argue that. I can only explain it by better coaching.

Latvian players collapsed en masse in front of their own goal, and absorbed shots and disrupted scoring chances. That in itself—if it is the only thing the team is really committed to—is not terribly difficult to do. Beating that sort of defensive barricade is another matter, since, it is so difficult to get penetration in the slot when there are five opposition players defending it. Again, there really wasn't much more that the coaches could have done..

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

"How would you have done it?" - is not a fair question to a layperson. I am not a coach...

And yet you have no problem suggesting that the problem was coaching. Go figure.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I am sure it has something to do with their goalie playing a good game, but it should not have mattered for the offensive power we have. How can you argue against that?

Only with countless years of precedent I guess.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

...Beating that sort of defensive barricade is another matter, since, it is so difficult to get penetration in the slot when there are five opposition players defending it. ....

Then the problem of Calgary's next Stanley Cup could be solved just this easy. Who needs a pair of top-10 shutdown defensemen? Just collapse in front of the net and absorb the shots. I'd like to see how long would any NHL coach doing this last.