2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

[OnMAA]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Probably had something to do with her election (8 year term) to the IOC as an Athlete Representative.

It was indeed about the IOC election. The other person was a Cross Country Skier from Norway.

There was a mention on the CBC broadcast that Wickenheiser and the Norwegian Skier were replacing two other Canadian Cross Country Skier, Becky Scott and Saku Koivu. Apparently they do this every Olympics.

Was the Ruggiero role with the IOC the same ?.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

It was indeed about the IOC election. The other person was a Cross Country Skier from Norway.

There was a mention on the CBC broadcast that Wickenheiser and the Norwegian Skier were replacing two other Canadian Cross Country Skier, Becky Scott and Saku Koivu. Apparently they do this every Olympics.

Was the Ruggiero role with the IOC the same ?.

Answering my own question: http://www.olympic.org/athletes-commission?tab=composition

Ruggiero is the Vice Chair of that 12 member comittee that Wick is now part of.

 

[brookyone]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Fair warning...I suspect some will be less than impressed, possibly even contentious of this writers take. This is Tom Powers from the St. Paul Pioneer Press. A columnist known for a somewhat negative disposition.

http://dfm.twincities.com/article/t...embarrassing/a499b2a03b493ab1aa26962181a1c657

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Fair warning...I suspect some will be less than impressed, possibly even contentious of this writers take. This is Tom Powers from the St. Paul Pioneer Press. A columnist known for a somewhat negative disposition.

http://dfm.twincities.com/article/t...embarrassing/a499b2a03b493ab1aa26962181a1c657

Yawn, now that the threats to the sport are officially dead, what else were the hacks going to write about?

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Interview with McGuire the day after on TSN Radio. Very good listen. (Canadian slant).

Pick the one from Feb 21: http://autopod.ca/chum/22/podcasts/

NHL ideology, oh please. He did a good job, but the idea that any of this is unique to men's hockey is demeaning.

 

[Trillium]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

NHL ideology, oh please. He did a good job, but the idea that any of this is unique to men's hockey is demeaning.

Based on player comments, it seemed to be quite new to this group of athletes anyway. It doesn't surprise me at all...I've talked to a great many women's players over the years from across a majority of the NCAA programs. The overall sentiment is that the coaching in D1 was a disappointment and nowhere near as strong as a whole versus what they had expected from "professional coaches". Many, from the greater Toronto area at least (given the luxury of a very strong local competitive player and coaching pool), found they had some much better coaches prior to college, in either their involvement in the boys rep or girls junior hockey ranks.

The key reasons for this are two-fold. Most of the best male coaches, with previous men's junior, college, or NHL experience, unfortunately have little interest in the women's game, believing it inferior. They tend to pursue the opportunities on the boys/mens side, except perhaps in the event they had girls of their own in the game. Most top female players played boys rep hockey until at least the peewee level here in Ontario. Given the huge strides made in the skill of women's hockey over the past 5-10 years, most of the female coaches typically played the game when it wasn't yet terribly sophisticated or competitive even at the highest levels. That's starting to change.

With the profile of the women's games at these Olympics and the involvement of Dineen, perhaps these perceptions among male coaches will change somewhat. Certainly, as more recent female players begin join the coaching ranks, they will have much more to offer as well.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Trillium - you make a number of good points. At the same time, I'm reminded of the discussions on this board 10 years ago when so many coaches were moving from men's D-I assistant positions to women's head coaching positions, and these guys, with their amazing men's hockey knowledge, were supposed to uniformly dominate the sport and make the old regime of D-I women's college coaches completely irrelevant.

In reality, some of those new coaches have been successful in the long run, some have been less successful, some of the old regime did become irrelevant, but many are still going strong -- which is pretty much what usually happens in any case. So from my perspective, the demise of the old regime has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[spike]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Fair warning...I suspect some will be less than impressed, possibly even contentious of this writers take. This is Tom Powers from the St. Paul Pioneer Press. A columnist known for a somewhat negative disposition.

http://dfm.twincities.com/article/t...embarrassing/a499b2a03b493ab1aa26962181a1c657

I tend to agree with his opinion as to the women's team playing not to lose. I disagree with his indictment of the mens team. I thought the US men played to win right up to the point where Finland scored their 3rd goal on the PP. With the way Rask was shutting them down the 3rd goal really deflated the team. In the meantime, we know that on the women's side it is always a two horse race so silver is last place. On the mens side the US is one of 5 teams that is good enough to win gold, so while a 4th place finish is not what we would want, it isn't a shocker either.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

I tend to agree with his opinion as to the women's team playing not to lose. I disagree with his indictment of the mens team. I thought the US men played to win right up to the point where Finland scored their 3rd goal on the PP. With the way Rask was shutting them down the 3rd goal really deflated the team. In the meantime, we know that on the women's side it is always a two horse race so silver is last place. On the mens side the US is one of 5 teams that is good enough to win gold, so while a 4th place finish is not what we would want, it isn't a shocker either.

Everyone should stop being surprised when Finland wins the bronze. When it happens four times in six Olympics, it's not a surprise.

 

[Trillium]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Trillium - you make a number of good points. At the same time, I'm reminded of the discussions on this board 10 years ago when so many coaches were moving from men's D-I assistant positions to women's head coaching positions, and these guys, with their amazing men's hockey knowledge, were supposed to uniformly dominate the sport and make the old regime of D-I women's college coaches completely irrelevant.

In reality, some of those new coaches have been successful in the long run, some have been less successful, some of the old regime did become irrelevant, but many are still going strong -- which is pretty much what usually happens in any case. So from my perspective, the demise of the old regime has been greatly exaggerated.

It's not at all surprising either that many male coaches are not successful transitioning to the women's game. Having spoken to many strong hockey coaches who have coached both males and females, they unanimously agreed that it really is much different in the way you need to interact and communicate with players to be successful. Some can't, or choose not to make the needed adjustments. The "old school" approach you can use with men just doesn't tend to work. Interestingly, most who've coached both, generally prefer working with females once they learn how to change their approach. Apparently females tend to be much more open and willing to listen and learn, although they also need to be treated with much more sensitivity and more communication and encouragement. Also, since females watch significantly less hockey, more patience is needed in teaching complex systems and where to be without the puck.

Though Dineen had no previous experience with elite women's hockey coaching, he did at least have some insight into the female mind with two college-aged daughters in competitive sports. Many male coaches don't have that important knowledge and/or soft skills to make a successful transition.

 

[osualum86]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Fair warning...I suspect some will be less than impressed, possibly even contentious of this writers take. This is Tom Powers from the St. Paul Pioneer Press. A columnist known for a somewhat negative disposition.

http://dfm.twincities.com/article/t...embarrassing/a499b2a03b493ab1aa26962181a1c657

I don't necessarily disagree with him regarding the women's team. Katey Stone decided to go to the prevent defense in the third period and it cost us dearly. I don't think there is any disputing that. Why we didn't keep our foot on the gas is beyond me. Until the US women finally break through and win gold, we'll continue to see articles like this one.

 

[OneTimer]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Interview with McGuire the day after on TSN Radio. Very good listen. (Canadian slant).

Pick the one from Feb 21: http://autopod.ca/chum/22/podcasts/

This is a fantastic interview and exactly accurate comments particularly when Pierre comments on how many games/reps NHL level coaches get. They are so deep into the sport and the seemingly infinite details that are crucial. There is absolutely no comparison to the amount of hockey an NHL/AHL person does vs any NCAA coach.. It is not just simply a 2:1 ratio of NHL vs NCAA games played. It is more like 5:1 or 6:1 ratio of hockey consumption. This is why I made earlier comments about a decisive advantage.

And Pierre went to high school in northern NJ so he is a hockey patriot first (hint of sarcasm here) and has dual citizenship.

 

[dave1381]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

I don't necessarily disagree with him regarding the women's team. Katey Stone decided to go to the prevent defense in the third period and it cost us dearly. I don't think there is any disputing that.

I think there is.

Pierre said it well -- Canada played better, and the U.S. initially stepped back a bit. As others have said, the playing styles are such that it's somewhat inevitable Canada would have an edge in the third. But when Canada did step up, maybe midway through the third, the US defended well. And then maybe between 5-10 minutes remaining I thought they had adjusted well and had some decent shots on net and getting clean changes -- A.J. around the 5 minute mark said Canada was getting absolutely nothing going. And then you had the fluke goal. Then I don't think there was any "poor strategy" just Canada keeping the puck in the U.S. zone with a 6-on-5 and what I thought was a bad icing in the second-to-last minute and then some poor execution.

Blaming the U.S. for not keeping its foot on the gas makes for a popular morality tale but it's way overstated.

 

[osualum86]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

I think there is.

Pierre said it well -- Canada played better, and the U.S. initially stepped back a bit. As others have said, the playing styles are such that it's somewhat inevitable Canada would have an edge in the third. But when Canada did step up, maybe midway through the third, the US defended well. And then maybe between 5-10 minutes remaining I thought they had adjusted well and had some decent shots on net and getting clean changes -- A.J. around the 5 minute mark said Canada was getting absolutely nothing going. And then you had the fluke goal. Then I don't think there was any "poor strategy" just Canada keeping the puck in the U.S. zone with a 6-on-5 and what I thought was a bad icing in the second-to-last minute and then some poor execution.

Blaming the U.S. for not keeping its foot on the gas makes for a popular morality tale but it's way overstated.

We can just agree to disagree on this one. When a team is just dumping the puck, then going for line changes the entire last five or six minutes of the game, as the US did, to me that's taking your foot off the gas. I certainly respect your opinion, but you might be in the minority on this one as I am not the only one questioning strategy and/or coaching decisions in the last five minutes of that third period.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

We can just agree to disagree on this one. When a team is just dumping the puck, then going for line changes the entire last five or six minutes of the game, as the US did, to me that's taking your foot off the gas. I certainly respect your opinion, but you might be in the minority on this one as I am not the only one questioning strategy and/or coaching decisions in the last five minutes of that third period.

Last night I watched the third period and the OT again. Trying to keep an open mind because of now knowing how it was going to end it did not seem to me that the US had collapsed into a defensive shell at all in the third period until Canada scored its first goal with about 3 1/2 minutes left in the period. And "collapsing" would not be any accurate description, it seemed a lot more gradual to me.

But as I mentioned previously, with so little time remaining the change in perceived momentum in both team's minds would tend to be counter-intuitively amplified, as opposed to, say, if Canada's first goal had occurred 10 or 15 minutes earlier, especially since Canada hadn't scored until that point. And Canada's becoming more aggressive and the US becoming more defensive would just seem to be normal human emotional responses to that type of situation regardless of the wisdom in the adage that "the best defence is a good offense" (for the US at that point).

And if you watch the first couple of minutes of the OT it was obvious that the US was stomping on the pedal and could have scored on a number of opportunities and then the conversation would be different.

What I did find interesting was that in the 3 on 3 Canada sent out 2 forwards and 1 defenceman and the US sent out 1 forward and 2 defencemen. Maybe that was more telling of each coach's mind set at that point from a strategic point of view or maybe it just confirms that they are human as well and are "guilty" of the normal human emotional response to that situation as I mentioned above.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Last night I watched the third period and the OT again. Trying to keep an open mind because of now knowing how it was going to end it did not seem to me that the US had collapsed into a defensive shell at all in the third period until Canada scored its first goal with about 3 1/2 minutes left in the period. And "collapsing" would not be any accurate description, it seemed a lot more gradual to me.

But as I mentioned previously, with so little time remaining the change in perceived momentum in both team's minds would tend to be counter-intuitively amplified, as opposed to, say, if Canada's first goal had occurred 10 or 15 minutes earlier, especially since Canada hadn't scored until that point. And Canada's becoming more aggressive and the US becoming more defensive would just seem to be normal human emotional responses to that type of situation regardless of the wisdom in the adage that "the best defence is a good offense" (for the US at that point).

And if you watch the first couple of minutes of the OT it was obvious that the US was stomping on the pedal and could have scored on a number of opportunities and then the conversation would be different.

What I did find interesting was that in the 3 on 3 Canada sent out 2 forwards and 1 defenceman and the US sent out 1 forward and 2 defencemen. Maybe that was more telling of each coach's mind set at that point from a strategic point of view or maybe it just confirms that they are human as well and are "guilty" of the normal human emotional response to that situation as I mentioned above.

Agree. Several posters have made great comments and given a variety of opinions. Many of them have merits.

For the most part, the US outplayed the Canadians in this game, and they had some glorious chances to put it away, both in regulation and early in the OT. Long story short, IMHO the difference was in the Tending. While you cannot fault Vetter much on two of the three goals, Szabados made some out of this world saves, both in regulation and OT to keep Canada in the game. Overall US had many more quality scoring chances than the Canadians. Would be interesting to get an actual "real scoring chances" count.

This game had many turning points AND potential turning points.

1 - The US in control after scoring the PP goal to go up 2-0 (Canada Blown defensive cover on the back door)
2 - The Canadian gain momentum on a bit of a lucky bounce goal. (Yes they drove the net, but it was still a fortuitous deflection)
3 - Ref gets in the way during the 6 on 5 allowing US to try for the open net.
4 - The US missed the open net and hit the goal post to negate the icing.
6 - Canada scored the equalizer in last minute to tie game 2-2 (USA blown defensive cover in front of the net)
7 - Early in OT USA got several glorious chances only to be denied by Szabados.
8 - Canada takes over control of play during rest of OT.
9 - The penalties near the end of the game were a key factor in determining the final outcome.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

And if you watch the first couple of minutes of the OT it was obvious that the US was stomping on the pedal and could have scored on a number of opportunities and then the conversation would be different.

This. This game was razor close and drawing any sort of big picture conclusions that depend upon who won is stupid. If you want to examine decisions within the game independently of the outcome, fine. Personally I thought the U.S. did get too defensive at times but I'd think that no matter what had happened in the overtime or even if Canada hadn't managed to tie it up.

But you just can't go from the fact that Canada one to any meaningful distinctions in who was tougher or better coached or anything. If you would be drawing entirely different conclusions about those sorts of things had that empty net chance been four inches to the right then the conclusions you are drawing now are worthless. No one should base any sort of long term thinking upon them.

What I did find interesting was that in the 3 on 3 Canada sent out 2 forwards and 1 defenceman and the US sent out 1 forward and 2 defencemen. Maybe that was more telling of each coach's mind set at that point from a strategic point of view or maybe it just confirms that they are human as well and are "guilty" of the normal human emotional response to that situation as I mentioned above.

Or maybe it says more about how they thought individual personnel were playing. Or maybe it's all about what they had practiced in the previous weeks. Or maybe any number of other things. Maybe Katey Stone's approach was better and it just didn't work out. Who knows.

 

[mattj711]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

... drawing any sort of big picture conclusions that depend upon who won is stupid ....

Agreed with the only major exception being go to Cornell if you want a gold medal and Harvard if you are satisfied with a silver ...

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

Or maybe it says more about how they thought individual personnel were playing. Or maybe it's all about what they had practiced in the previous weeks. Or maybe any number of other things. Maybe Katey Stone's approach was better and it just didn't work out. Who knows.

Maybe. And "who knows?" is right, which is why these conversations occur.

 

[monsoonweather]

Re: 2014 Sochi Olympic Games Women's Ice Hockey Tournament

What I did find interesting was that in the 3 on 3 Canada sent out 2 forwards and 1 defenceman and the US sent out 1 forward and 2 defencemen. Maybe that was more telling of each coach's mind set at that point from a strategic point of view or maybe it just confirms that they are human as well and are "guilty" of the normal human emotional response to that situation as I mentioned above.

Anne Schleper is one of the best offensive blueliners (IMO as good as any on the US defense); she is very offensive in her play so I think it was a smart decision.

I wonder what Shannon Miller would have brought to this US team.