__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Everyone said 3 on 3 was dumb before the overtime began. It would have been the case no matter who won. The same applies for the women's game. Best on best shouldn't end in a mini game/skills competition.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to trackercowe For This Useful Post:
Scoring a bad angle goal isn't really the evidence you think it is. I think Bedard's footspeed would have been a liability in this tournament. Look at how little Tkachuk did - same reason.
The point is that they had 41 shots, and if Connor Bedard is taking them, any one of those shots is dangerous, no matter where it's from or how many defenders are between him and the net.
Lack of footspeed didn't prevent them from bringing Stone, and Bedard isn't slow.
Here, here's a hat trick. Look at all 3 of these goals and the situations he's scoring from. If you don't think he gets these types of looks repeatedly in this tournament... well I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Complaining about the rules and structure of OT is not a good look. Everyone knew the setup going into it. Had we won, would you be doing the same saying while we're happy, it just doesn't feel as satisfying winning this way?
Yes. Especially if Canada had clearly been the lesser team all game.
Complaining about the rules and structure of OT is not a good look. Everyone knew the setup going into it. Had we won, would you be doing the same saying while we're happy, it just doesn't feel as satisfying winning this way?
I don't think people are complaining about it as a function of the loss. It's just not as good entertainment. And this is the entertainment business.
There are a few things on the coaches. First, they are partly to blame for selection, and not having Bedard on this team makes a difference. Do they score on a the 5v3 with him out there? How about the late power play? Does he pot one of those 41 shots as the best pure finisher available to put on this team? Who knows, but the team spent the entire medal round hunting for a goal in the third period and this time they came up empty.
Second, line combos. I'm beating a dead horse but the McDavid / MacKinnon / Celebrini line is just not what you should be doing, especially without Crosby. 97 and 29 at center on different lines is more than half a hockey game with guys who should be decisively winning their minutes, and when you play them with lesser (but still all-star calibre) linemates, they know what to do - they take charge and don't wait and pass off or defer. Celebrini was the only guy who seemed to really want to shoot the puck with those 3 out there.
There are other more minor questionable decisions - one clear one for me is that after Crosby gets hurt you absolutely have to have Bo Horvat on PP1 to take the draw. He's arguably the best bumper spot guy in the league and he gets you possession off the faceoff more often than not. Failing to use Marner in the top 6 for most of the tournament, especially given how good he looked in terms of chance creation, was also a clear miss.
The coaching is not blameless here by a long stretch.
Even if Bedard is there I doubt he's out on PP1.
But I agree on the big line thing. We had 6-7 game breaking forwards and the rest are obviously still elite. It felt like the rest of the team were just playing to set up the big line. And no matter how much of a team player you are, it's gotta get a little old to so rarely get an O-zone faceoff.
__________________
The UCP are trampling on our rights and freedoms. Donate $200 to Alberta NDP and get $150 back on your taxes
The point is that they had 41 shots, and if Connor Bedard is taking them, any one of those shots is dangerous, no matter where it's from or how many defenders are between him and the net.
Lack of footspeed didn't prevent them from bringing Stone, and Bedard isn't slow.
Here, here's a hat trick. Look at all 3 of these goals and the situations he's scoring from. If you don't think he gets these types of looks repeatedly in this tournament... well I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
They had enough scoring. They got unlucky (with one of the best scorers in the league) and then played 3 on 3.
It was weird to me how many times the panel made reference to 4 Nations and spoke about it as if it's on the Olympic level. It was literally a series of well-played all-star games... with only 4 countries.
Exactly. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed watching it. But it didn't matter. Nobody remembers the world Cup in 2016 either
Last edited by btimbit; 02-22-2026 at 10:56 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
Ratings! Gotta get some sort of Ratings on the last day. What else was there today , let's see bobsleigh and woman's freestyle ski. Not exactly events that draw alot of eyeballs.
you're right, but that could be figured out as well.
Everyone said 3 on 3 was dumb before the overtime began. It would have been the case no matter who won. The same applies for the women's game. Best on best shouldn't end in a mini game/skills competition.
Most of us have said it for years...who wants it in the playoffs?
I'm not too torn up. I'm happy with how Canada showed up and after regulation, I just thought, "we won't get to see the real ending to this game". Same as in the NHL.
Some players made a few mistakes but this loss isn't on anyone. The hitting, forechecking, scoring chances, and even a few saves were all worthy of a world class team.
The future of Canada hockey is bright; can't wait to see what the World Cup (or whatever it's called) looks like in '28.
They had enough scoring. They got unlucky (with one of the best scorers in the league) and then played 3 on 3.
First, they clearly didn't. They averaged 2 goals in regulation the entire medal round.
Second, anyone who uses the phrase "we have enough scoring" should not be anywhere near the selection committee. There is no such thing as "enough scoring", especially in a single elimination tournament where time is so scarce and chances are so few as a result - you don't have 7 games. You need as many guys who can convert those chances as you can bring.
Third, yes, they played 3 on 3. You know who might have helped in that situation? A guy who is a better than even chance to beat a goalie clean through a defenseman on a shot from the high slot.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
