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.

Post-game party: Flames 6, Blue Jackets 3

I have learnt two things about the Flames since their season began three weeks ago: 1) It ain't over till it's over and 2) Never get excited about a Flames lead, no matter how big, especially in the first period.

The Flames jumped out to a quick two-goal lead just four minutes into the first period Tuesday evening against the Blue Jackets. Ahh the early lead, we've seen this beast before. It didn't take long for Columbus to put a dent in the Flames' two goal cushion, as Rick Nash did something involving a break away on a Flames 5-on-3 which caused my father and I to simultaneously throw up in out mouths a little bit. He berated Kiprusoff for not making the save (former goalie) while I prattled on about Dion Phaneuf's poor defensive positioning and how he should have hauled Nash down and risked taking a penalty on the play.

The Flames, however, weren't fazed by Nash's slick moves, and restored their two-goal lead shortly thereafter on a goal that bounced in off a Columbus d-man but was credited to Bouwmeester, sporting the shiner (above) for his first as a Flame. I think it looks good on him, makes him look tough. Shortly after the aforementioned Bouwmeester had endeared himself to the Calgary faithful, he began what would prove to be a long parade to the penalty box for the home side.

It all began with a simple play, I believe it was the fourth line of Boyd-Prust-McGrattan on the ice, when they failed to get the puck deep into the offensive zone and turned it over, resulting in unnecessary time spent in their own zone and subsequent penalty trouble. It is plays such as these that separate a guy like Boyd from second or first line duty, although he did see some powerplay time in this game. That puck gets chipped in and if you don't sustain some pressure, at least the other team is forced to go back and retrieve it. What was once an 11-3 advantage in shots for our boys evaporated to a slim 11-10 advantage, as they spent the last four minutes of the period on the penalty kill as a result of some questionable officiating (see: Kerry Fraser).

It was at this point that I decided I had seen enough and knew exactly what was about to happen. I stuck around for a bit when the second period started, but decided to save myself the anger and frustration that would surely follow Daymond Langkow's trip to the sin bin to give CBJ the 5-0n-3. This is what mind-numbing reality TV is good for. I tuned into The Hills (don't judge me, it's a guilty pleasure) for a few minutes, and low and behold, Columbus had squared the affair at three with two goals forty-eight seconds apart. Like I said before, never get too excited about a Flames lead, because it can disappear so very quickly. Again, I simply don't understand this. It has to be a psychological thing. Every time they allow a goal, is Brent Sutter supposed to call a time-out and remind them not to allow another one in the next thirty-seconds? This frustrates me to no end.

The Flames failed to register a shot on goal for the first ten minutes of the period, even though they had a powerplay two and a half minutes in, and were putting the Saddledome crowd to sleep until Dion Phaneuf, pressured back into his own zone by the Blue Jackets, retreated behind the Flames net with the puck and skated through centre ice, untouched, to fire a shot past Steve Mason from just inside the offensive blueline. Easy as pie. Flames lead 4-3 to end the second, despite getting outshot 10-4. To be fair, it is hard to get shots on goal when playing shorthanded for most of the period, but this team had been extraordinarily lucky that they have scored as many goals as they have given their average shots for per game, which I believe is hovering somewhere around 23. I am pleasantly surprised by how much this team is scoring and how they're doing it, but it won't continue if they don't start getting more pucks to the net.

Our boys managed to settle things down and suddenly remembered how to kill penalties in the third, resulting in a much more even period. It was at some point in the final frame when either Loubardias or Millions said, "nice back-checking by Jokinen," and I just about choked on my tea. Olli was +3, and if he's going to make up for not scoring by being solid defensively, that's fine by me. Well, not exactly, but I'll live with it.

Phaneuf's goal would stand up as the game winner, but Jarome Iginla would add some insurance and cap off a three point night with a perfect shot from the top (or bottom? I never know) of the faceoff circle which beat Mason top shelf. Vintage Iggy. I'm not the first to say this, but it makes me sad that we are now referring to exceptional goals or games from the captain as "vintage." Many people have pointed out, including myself, that we probably won't see another fifty-goal season from Jarome, and that at thirty-two, his best days are likely behind him. I'm feeling nostalgic for the Iggy of old just typing this, but if entering the final phase of his career means another thirty-five goal, eighty-nine point season, even against weaker competition, so be it.

After Flames fans were treated to their first real display of dominance from the captain, Fredrik Sjostrom topped it all off with this beauty of a goal:

Goal of the year. Suck it, Ovechkin.

Second period mini-meltdown and shorthanded goal aside, the Flames played very well at even strength, especially in the third period, where they did a great job of staying disciplined and defending the lead. I was impressed with the way they battled through their penalty troubles and stayed calm. They stuck with it and took advantage of their opportunities, and were rewarded with two points.

Special teams were indeed special, and not in a good way. These long breaks between games seem to be taking their toll on the PP and PK, but the Flames were up against the #1 penalty killing unit in the Blue Jackets, so I'm not overly concerned with their lack of production on the powerplay. The Flames won the faceoff battle at 55% in the circle, and again no player registered a negative +/- rating. Dion Phaneuf finished the game +2 while Jokinen, Iginla, and Regehr each earned +3 ratings. JBo was also +3 while Aaron Johnson was even in his debut with the Flames in eighteen minutes of ice time. Kiprusoff was very good, especially in the second and third periods, and was by far the Flames' best penalty killer, making multiple great stops to keep his team in the game when it was tied and to preserve the lead.

We saw some good things from this team last night in what looked like their best game as a team thus far--here's hoping we see more of it, more often.

Up Next: BOA Round 3, Saturday at the 'Dome (8 PM). With the Oilers lineup ravaged by a bout of the flu, though not of the Swine variety, we could see a repeat of the infamous "Flu Game" between the Leafs and Senators in 2004. Catching the flu from a member of the Oilers would just be like a double-whammy, wouldn't it?