Jon,I'm curious what you think was the biggest downfall of this team?Turnovers?Lack of speed?Shaky goaltending?Lack of 'team' chemistry?Bad choice of Captain?Typically in games when you fall behind you rely on your Captain to boost morale and lead by example - I didn't see much of that throughout the entire tournament from Cormier, but saw loads of it from a handful of others.This also begs the question...where was Eakin? How good would his speed have been in this tournament? Makes you wonder if Nemisz and Henrique made the team on merrit, or on their statistics this year playing beside Mr. Hall. Should there really have been 4 Spitfires on this team?To me, Canada didn't have a component this year that they have almost every other year, and I think the tournament was lost before it even started when #28 was given the 'C'. Curious what your thoughts are.
You know me, I'm pro WHL. I would have liked to see one of our guys with the "C". For all intensive purposes Eberle was the captain of this group. But winning cures all the ails and these are questions that wouldn't even be asked had Canada mustered the OT winner.But you're right, everything you speak of was a problem at times I think.When you live by the sword you die by the sword...Canada set themselves up for this. There's not way you can continually have the dramatic storybook ending when you're trailing in the third.Eakin would have helped but wasn't the answer. The Americans were good. This was such a high calibre game. The pace of play was unreal.With that said our D didn't really keep up and were beat all over the ice.We will chat about this more when I see you...jon
If choosing who our captain was is a big downfall, all of hockey Canada is in trouble. How many of these guys wear a letter on their junior clubs? I imagine most of these kids are considered leaders on their respective teams. With teams like these a C or A is more of a token respect thing from the coach rather than a leader. At the end of the day a combo of individualism, turnovers, slow defenseman/fast Americans, weak tending, and questionable decisions/risks all factored into the loss. With that said it isn't the end of the world, I think by losing next years tournament suddenly gets better just because we are not on top (something the rest of the world should enjoy too).
Goaltending wasn't Great.Yes, I agree with poor choice of captain.To be honest, watching the pre-tournament game the team seemed to be missing something.Even against the lousy teams, they looked good on occassion but lazy at others.Wasn't a big surprise that we lost. The US outplayed us for 5 of 6 periods.
"Kadri is the most skilled forward Team Canada has. Give your head a shake."I got "chirped" at the start of the tournament because I wasn't sold on this guy. I think we might need to acknowledge that Eberle was the most skilled player Team Canada had. Kadri was OK but no where near Eberle, Hall, or even MacMillan.I agree that Eakin was not the answer but his skill and speed would have been an asset and at the end of the day I would have trouble not taking one of the top scorers in the WHL. Not having Hamonic was significant as well. The Americans have a real good team, they brought everything (little things like getting in the lanes and blocking shots) last night and are deserving to be champions. End of story. SCMC
A couple of things that I noticed. First they had no answer for the USA speed, that team can fly. Secondly, Jake Allen was awful last night, Blais outcoached Willie because he had the balls to put his better goalie in when the game was tied. Personally, I don't think that game gets to OT if Campbell is in net the entire game. Third, the schedule/pool killed them. Their only meaningful game was NYE vs the USA and the Americans were the better team in that game even though Canada won. And finally, it seemed like they played like a bunch of individuals rather than a team. Lots of individual efforts, trying to do it all themselves rather than using their linemates.
Glad i am not a Leafs fan. Kadri is terrible. Here is a guy that can't/refuses to pass, can't stay on his feet (no balance/diving), and has no real drive (the guy is a floater). Heck, if you can't one time a shot you are in trouble.
The "C" is a token thing in this tournament, but it should still be given to the best leader on the team. Unless Cormier was a good Captain in the room behind closed doors, nothing I saw warranted him having the "C". He was a bottom three forward all tournament.Kadri played some games like a Russian, often dropping passes to nobody and floating passes that were easy intercepts for the opposition. I yelled at the TV multiple times when he had the puck and lost it unnecessarily. He tried to be a one man show at times and it didn't work out for him on many instances.That being said, Kadri has oodles of skill. The bad decisions can be remedied once he turns pro, but at least he has the skill to justify his being picked so high by the Leafs. He has some grit, good hands, and a great shot...he'll be a good pro, just had a bad tournament in my eyes...a very bad tournament.Props to the US. They played, as their coach said, Canadian hockey and were more skilled at doing it. Fowler impressed me all tournament. He and Campbell both are incredibly composed for their age. Schroeder was also a stud. It's not very often you have teams that make Canada look slow, but kudos to the US for doing just that.
I screamed at the TV over and over regarding "Hall's" inability to pass - he is a selfish player and was really sick of McGuire pumping him up.
I think everyone saw what the weakness of the Canadians was, and that was the speedy forwards picking apart slower Canadian defensemen pinching.... It worked when you had a Thomas Hickey back there. But Canada did not have a guy like that back there this year. Can't lean too much on goaltending when you are giving up numerous odd man rushes to skilled forwards who can burn you.... I think the answer for the original comment is speed and chemistry.
Post a Comment