Showing posts with label Joe Thornton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Thornton. Show all posts

Monday, February 22, 2010

Long time no blog--Olympic edition


Canada's international hockey supremacy seems to go through peaks and troughs, much like my blogging tendencies.

Prior to 2002, the men's Olympic team hadn't won a gold medal for fifty years. After that, the tournament titles and medals seemed to come with ease once again: the world cup in 2004, five straight world junior championship titles, world championship titles, world under-eighteens, women's world championships, the Spengler Cup--you name it, Canada won it. That all changed about two years ago, however. Canada lost back-to-back world championships to the Russians and women's world championships to the United States, and then there was this year's loss to the Americans in the gold medal game at the world juniors and other tournaments like the world under-eighteens in which Canada did not meet expectations.

Now, Canada finds themselves in sixth place at the Olympic tournament, on home ice, after falling to the Americans last night in a back-and-forth affair where mistakes proved to be too many and too costly. Despite out-shooting and out-chancing the Americans almost 2-1, uncharacteristic gaffes by veteran goaltender Martin Brodeur and defencemen Chris Pronger and Scott Niedermayer cost Canada the game, combined with Ryan Miller's other-worldly performance in the U.S. net. The stars seemed to be aligned for the United States: fifty years since they had last beaten Canada at the Olympics, and thirty years since the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" team won the country's only gold medal in men's hockey.

Canada is now left searching for answers after going 1-1-1-0 and accumulating just five of a possible nine points in the preliminary round. Much like four years ago in Turin, and eight years ago in Salt Lake City. Who plays with Crosby? Who starts in goal? What's wrong with the powerplay? We should've chosen Green/Bouwmeester/St. Louis/Lecavalier/Jordan Staal/Stamkos/Smyth/Insert-name-of-Canadian NHL-player-here!

Sure it can be argued that Canada was the victim of some bad bounces last night against the Americans, maybe even that they were subject to some questionable officiating, but for two games now their defensive game has looked shaky and they have been consistently out-worked in their own zone. It's nice to see Doughty, Keith, and Seabrook, and Weber rise to the occasion when Pronger and Niedermayer, and to some extent, Boyle, struggle, but it would be even nicer to have them all on their game, all on the same page.

Today's practice supposedly focused primarily on defence and special teams, an area of this team's game that has irked me, specifically the power play. In the final minutes of the game against Switzerland, Canada had a golden opportunity to take the lead and win the game on the powerplay, but Babcock deployed the "Sharks unit" instead of putting Crosby, arguably his best player, on the ice.

The Shark line and the powerplay unit made up of Heatley, Marleau, Thornton, and Boyle has been largely ineffective with the exception of Heatley's four goals and Marleau's one. Thornton has zero, and just one shot on goal in 48:38 of ice time. The purpose of all three of these players making the team was the supposed "instant chemistry" that is purportedly essential in a short tournament like the Olympics. Why not go back to the Getzlaf-Heatley-Nash line that has been so effective in the world championships? This line does not have to be kept together.

Another qualm I have with the line combinations is the constant rotation of wingers on Crosby's line, partially because it makes me feel like I'm watching a Flames game but also because I fail to see any real faults with the original combination of Nash-Crosby-Iginla. Iginla had a hat trick in the first game they played together while registering under ten minutes of ice time, and Nash has been one of Canada's best players through three games. Why change that? Kent points out the futility of chemistry in these games and in the sport altogether over at Five Hole Fanatics, so can we assume that there are just too many players on this team not playing well enough to create chances and score goals? Canada's highly-touted depth has not yet been much of a factor in this tournament, and it remains to be seen if it ever will be.

Finally, we have the goaltending conundrum that seems to have emerged after Brodeur's shaky performance in goal. During the game against Switzerland, he was the victim of a perfect shot and a deflection off of a teammate's skate, and was unbeatable the rest of the way; there was no question that he would start the game versus the Americans. Sunday night was the complete opposite.

Brodeur created the bad bounces for himself by making bad decisions with the puck and finding himself out of position on more than one occasion, and now the job falls to Luongo who, although not tested against Norway, looked solid in the Canadian goal while the rest of the team struggled to find their legs. I'm usually the last person to support Roberto Luongo given my NHL allegiances, but Brodeur's performance last night in such an important game was unacceptable, and Luongo deserves an opportunity to better him; we all know he is more than capable, especially based on his stats leading up to the Olympic break versus Brodeur's numbers.

If Canada is to medal in men's hockey at these games, they have certainly taken the hard road there. This tournament was supposed to be about redemption. Canada was supposed to come into Vancouver, on home ice, and avenge a seventh place finish four years ago in Torino, and it'll likely be nothing short of a miracle if they manage a better result this time around. I don't know what it is going to take to get this team and this country back on top. They have the talent, without question, as do other countries in this tournament, but the desire and commitment seems to come in fits and starts, which perhaps explains the perplexing problem of Canada's wavering dominance at the international level.

Up Next: Canada takes on Germany in the qualification game on Tuesday, and will face Russia in the quarter-final on Wednesday, should they advance. I'll be over here crying into my pillow if you need me.

Go Canada.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

First rule of pessimism: Prepare for the worst and you'll never be disappointed


I didn't see any of the Flames' last game in Phoenix (thanks, Sportsnet...kissing the NFL's ass) but it doesn't seem like I missed much. This game sounds like it was almost an exact replica of the one played between the two clubs last time they met at the 'Dome in mid-November, only the Flames came out on the losing end of things this time around when Taylor Pyatt danced around Mark Giordano and put the winning goal five-hole on a confused Kiprusoff in the dying minutes of the game. Perhaps
all that praise was a little premature. We still love you Gio. Everyone's alllowed one fuck-up, that was yours. Losing to the Coyotes doesn't carry the same stigma as it once did, but the loss still stings after this team looked so good in their rout of the Predators earlier in the week.

Bourque led the team in shots on goal with four in his return from injury, which speaks volumes of the Flames' offensive effort on Thursday. His linemates Iginla and Jokinen registered one and three shots, respectively. Given the heroics of Kiprusoff in this game, the Flames probably deserved a better fate, but it's in the past now so let's suck it up and prepare to get blown out of the water by the Sharks.

First rule of pessimism: prepare for the worst and you'll never be disappointed.

Thinking about this game, against the best team in the league, in their building, against the best line in hockey, makes me feel physically sick. Memories of last season's January victory at the Shark Tank, San Jose's first home regulation loss of the season, which artificially cemented the Flames' status as a Western Conference elite come to mind. That might have also been the last time I was so nervous about a regular season game. I will be more than satisfied with an overtime loss, if the Flames are lucky enough to push the game into extra time.

Needless to say they will have to get off to a good start and capitalize on their opportunities; playing catch-up against a team of the Sharks' calibre on the road is not advisable. Kiprusoff and the Flames defence will surely be tested often, and need to be at the top of their respective games. The Flames held an optional skate this morning so it will be interesting to see if Sutter adjusts the defence pairings for the purpose of tonight's match-up. The forward lines appear unchanged.

One stat that jumps out when comparing these two teams is faceoff percentage. I have been whining about the Flames' ineptitude in the faceoff circle for quite some time now, and it doesn't seem to be improving--in fact, they now sit dead last in the league in faceoff percentage at 46.8% while the Sharks are first with a 56.3% success rate. The Flames' best option on the dot is Dustin Boyd--operating at 50.5%. While Sutter, a go-to faceoff man in his day, claims the team is working on faceoff strategies, this is quite the fall from grace for a squad that ranked eighth in the league in the same category last season.

By the way, Joe Thornton is on a ten-game point streak. Kill me now.

Game time is 8PM on CBC. Heatley is a game-time decision with flu-like symptoms.

Go Flames Go.

Search This Blog