not posting (unless unduly provoked)
It turns out that the most unduly provocative post on this threadbare thread this year was the first one, where some bozo said that Harvard would outperform whatever its pre-season pick in the conference would be (8). Well, I’ve come back to turn myself in.
In celebrating the physical and emotional stamina of last year’s team, playing under the tabloid spotlights, I was too quick to assume that surviving that onslaught would result in an energized core, ready to play some kick-ass underdog hockey. Instead, the results seem to point to a collective PTSD-like funk that crippled any hope of moving forward. In the defensive zone the team played non-stop PK, even at full strength, as if shot-blocking were an end in itself; in the neutral zone they played hot potato, instantly throwing the puck in the general direction of a friendly jersey, whatever the distance; in the offensive zone . . . . . well, there was so little real time spent there that it’s hard to say what the issues might have been. In a word: no confidence.
Bellamy stepped into the hardest role in women’s hockey right now, and rookie coaches maybe deserve a critical pass in the best of times. Nonetheless it was hard to see an ex-UMD assistant presiding over such wretched special teams. She also took to platooning goalies later in the season, which no doubt rested the ever defenseless junior captain Pellicci (her senior co-captain chose to lead from the box), but also led to starting her in goal for the inevitable February loss to Clarkson rather than having her start the rematch against a St. Lawrence team she had shut out with 52 saves earlier in the season. Very puzzling. (Davidson, a budding Pellicci, took the 4-2 loss that night with 36 saves.) Pellicci is our prime asset. She has to be treated well and used wisely.
If not now, when? This was the season to move beyond business-as-usual and go for some on-air candor, but we had to wait for the last game and a Q guy to say that Harvard “couldn’t hit the barn.” (A lot of people under the age of forty-five, say, don’t really know familiar expressions but they get the drift.) He also used the name “Stone” and the word “controversy” in the same sentence, only once and fleetingly, but there it was! How about some of our local guys addressing our barn problems with some talk about discipline, schemes, line play, shot selection, etc., and maybe even occasionally nod to the Stone controversy as something that has a half-life of more than six months? I realize there’s a payroll involved, but as the women’s collegiate game is wending its way toward becoming quasi semi-pro, let’s get real about what's going on, on-ice and off.* You can be honest without being nasty. Calling Tony Romo!
* The PR print guys, of course, are in a league of their own, with some game recaps that lean toward self-parody. For example this, from the first game against Q (L, 1-7):
The Crimson controlled the face-offs in period one . . . Despite the effort the Bobcats escaped the period with a 4-0 lead. ——-- Oh, those crafty Bobcat escape artists!