What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2014 USA Olympic Hockey

Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

northeastern said:
Bit of divine justice there.. because the lines(wo)man completely interfered with the Canadian D at the point on that play.. she's not there.. there is no shot towards that empty net..
Click to expand...

I would have loved to hear the Canadian wailing if the puck would have gone in.

The US was gassed and disorganized the last 4 minutes. We were chasing the puck way too much and got way out of position. It is too bad.
 
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

The men better get some mother ****ing payback tomorrow...or else I may just have to drive up to International Falls and hurl some rather nasty insults across the border.

And with all this snow we are getting, I really don't want to have to travel.
 
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

chickod said:
You just made my point. It was an incredible effort, but they lost to a more talented team.
Click to expand...
If the Canadian team was indeed more talented, the difference was negligible. And no matter, the US was up 2-0 with 3 and a half minutes to go. Had the US coughed up a lead like that in 1980 against the Soviets you might be able to make the "more talented team" argument stick. Maybe. Just play the final 10 minutes like you played the first 50 and the US wins that game.
 
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

mnstate0fhockey said:
Brooks was a master of getting players to buy into his systems though, too. Have heard lots of his ex players discuss his coaching style and many have said he always knew what buttons to push to motivate each individual. Some guys resonded to tough love, and some guys would respond to less direct approach. Not many of his players understood him, and many didn't like him at the time, but all respected him.

IMO it takes a lot of balls to leave some of the best players at your disposal at home, and it can really back-fire on you if you don't get players to buy into your system.

Not saying that's what happened here with Stone, but this team clearly lacked some grit against Canada and the Canadians completely dictated style of play in both games we played them. We didn't adjust at all to their physical play and the lack of time and space they gave us. Not sure if that was just poor coaching, wrong mix of players, or what.

Water under the bridge now, but I just hope USA Hockey learns from this. This wasn't the first Olympic games we've gotten beat on the boards and dominated in the paint against Canada.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to the Russian disappointment in hockey on the mens team. Sometimes you have too many stars and not enough role players to complement each other
 
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

mnstate0fhockey said:
That's not really what I said, and is certainly not what I believe.

The US had just as much talent, but not the right mix and were out coached.

Big difference.
Click to expand...

I really don't want to get into an argument. I think most of your comments have been right on and I agree with most of them. But to me, the definition of "better" is when you win most of the important games. It doesn't matter HOW they get it done, but they always seem to win these games. We'll see what happens today, but I'm betting that Canada wins again. I guess it's a hard thing to "quantify" and it is inadequate to try to do so. It's an intangible thing and I think everyone is taking it the wrong way. But I don't see how anyone can argue that they are not "better" when they almost always win. And winning is part of "talent." You can't say we're "just as talented" if you never beat them.
 
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

WeAreNDHockey said:
If the Canadian team was indeed more talented, the difference was negligible. And no matter, the US was up 2-0 with 3 and a half minutes to go. Had the US coughed up a lead like that in 1980 against the Soviets you might be able to make the "more talented team" argument stick. Maybe. Just play the final 10 minutes like you played the first 50 and the US wins that game.
Click to expand...

But they didn't...and almost never do. That's the point. "Almost" doesn't count. You have to WIN to be considered better, and you have to win more than zero times in three of the last four Olympics (one win was against Sweden) to say that you are "equally matched." Sorry, this isn't youth soccer where nobody keeps score because the little babies' egos will be hurt if they don't win. Because we can't have any "losers" in the US....everyone's kid is a winner and superstar.

Why is everyone so sensitive? All I said was that they lost to a more talented team. Canada has won 20 Olympic games in a row. What do you call it? When the US basketball team had NEVER LOST A GAME until 1972 (when they got jobbed by the refs), did you say they were lucky? Did you say the other teams had "caught up" or that it was "bad coaching" or that they never got any "breaks?" WINNING is part of talent. Players that can maintain their composure and perform under pressure is what sports is all about. That's why the "great" players are given that status.
 
Last edited:
chickod said:
I really don't want to get into an argument. I think most of your comments have been right on and I agree with most of them. But to me, the definition of "better" is when you win most of the important games. It doesn't matter HOW they get it done, but they always seem to win these games. We'll see what happens today, but I'm betting that Canada wins again. I guess it's a hard thing to "quantify" and it is inadequate to try to do so. It's an intangible thing and I think everyone is taking it the wrong way. But I don't see how anyone can argue that they are not "better" when they almost always win. And winning is part of "talent." You can't say we're "just as talented" if you never beat them.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that Canada played better. IMO a big part of that was coaching and right mix of players though. I don't think players were put in the best position to win.

Some examples: Not putting Knight in for key faceoffs late, not putting Kessel on the ice for 4x4 and 3x3, double shifting too much at the end and wearing players out, etc... I also think we emphasized speed too much in our roster selection at the sacrifice of grit.

Canada was clearly the better team yesterday IMO, but I don't think it was the result of a talent gap.
 
chickod said:
Why is everyone so sensitive? All I said was that they lost to a more talented team. Canada has won 20 Olympic games in a row. What do you call it? When the US basketball team had NEVER LOST A GAME until 1972 (when they got jobbed by the refs), did you say they were lucky? Did you say the other teams had "caught up" or that it was "bad coaching" or that they never got any "breaks?" WINNING is part of talent. Players that can maintain their composure and perform under pressure is what sports is all about. That's why the "great" players are given that status.
Click to expand...

Because there is a big difference between playing better and being more talented. If there was a talent gap as you are suggesting the US wouldn't have defeated Canada four times in a row leading up to the Olympics.

Factors other than talent can influence whether you win or lose.
 
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

AnchorsAway said:
Is it just me or is anybody else laughing their tails off at how badly Russia botched this Olympic tournament? There have been so many head-shaking decisions; starting Varlamov over a superior Bobrovsky against Finland who was coming off of a shutout against Norway? Using your once in a century chance of hosting a home Winter Olympics as a propaganda piece for trying (and failing) to prove that KHL players are equal to your NHL players?
Click to expand...
Seems like both the Russian and Czech mens' teams were destroyed by politics. The Russians I couldn't care less (although it is a shame we have lost their mesmerizing skill play) but this was a tourney the Czechs could have won and it's disappointing to see how that went down.
 
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

mnstate0fhockey said:
If there was a talent gap as you are suggesting the US wouldn't have defeated Canada four times in a row leading up to the Olympics.
Click to expand...

In exhibition games that don't mean anything...

mnstate0fhockey said:
Factors other than talent can influence whether you win or lose.
Click to expand...

That's sort of my point...those factors are PART OF talent. The best teams always control those factors so that they slant the outcome in their favor. But we're starting to talk semantics here. My objective is not to disparage the US team. This has turned into a monster. So I'll just go back to the beginning and leave it at that. Canada has won 20 straight games and 4 straight Olympic gold medals. They're better.
 
chickod said:
That's sort of my point...those factors are PART OF talent..
Click to expand...

No, it's really not. Unless you count coaching and administration as "talent", it's not the same thing. And if you do consider coaching part of talent, conversing with you is pointless.

By the way, I stopped reading at that point. Should have stopped when you inferred that four straight wins over Canada was meaningless. Ask the players, all games between those teams are meaningful (hence the brawls and bad blood).
 
Last edited:
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

chickod said:
Why is everyone so sensitive?
Click to expand...

I don't think everyone is so sensitive as much as everyone is just annoyed that you keep blurting out the same drivel "but it's Canada, don't you guys get it?!" Have you ever seen Road Trip when the skinny kid says "it's not cheating, cause it's YOUR dog!"

This was as big of a choke as you'll see. End of discussion.
 
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

We've beaten Canada in four of the last five World Championships, including the most recent in 2011. We've beaten them in two of the last three Nation Cups. Then we beat them 3-2-1 (or 4-2 depending on how you see it), during the exhibition series before the Olympics. Is Canada the better team? Yes. Are they so much better we should resign to the excuse that "the better team won"? No. There is not enough of a talent gap to ignore how big of a choke job this was. It's not the United States against the Soviets, or Latvia-Canada. It's the only two teams relevant in women's hockey, who have been going back and forth for years.

The rankings are much closer to 1A and 1B than they are to 1 and 2. It's just 1A has been able to win one more game (two if you count 2006) than 1B in a tournament. Like someone else posted already, "THEY WERE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE..." And boy, did we let them off the hook. It was pretty much destined to happen after that post shot though, wasn't it?
 
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

so are we the home team or not? emrick said at least once that canada got the last change
 
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey

I think in International play dark jerseys are home, so I would assume from that that Canada is home. Which makes no sense since we're second seed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top