2017 Women's World Championships

[OnMAA]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

I was surprised that they seemed to have more stamina than the Canadians in the later stages of the game. They must have trained very hard on their own in the weeks before the games got underway.

I think it is more about general speed than stamina. Me thinks the US team has much more overall speed, and the neutral zone check the canucks played to try and neutralize that speed was not sustainable for them, leading to the breakdowns in the third and OT. Several players on the Canadian team really struggled with the speed and transition of the US team as the game went on. They got hemmed into their own zone for long periods. And while they played good team D and collapsed to protect the net, they failed to get the puck out on many occasions, leading to breakdowns and tired players. That tends to catch up to you as the game drags on.

 

[ManBehindTheCurtain]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

The USA is just a better team and the only reason the game went to OT was Szabados.

For me it isn't that the Canada goaler was outstanding. Szabodos played well but great defense is team defense. I think Canada plays great team defense. If Canada holds USA scoring down I just don't think we should all be shouting how great the goaler played.

For example, on Carpenter's great chance for the USA in the third period the TSN team of Black and Pounder went all in with the idea that Szabados had made a great save. I thought that the D had squeezed down and left only a small path through on top of the crease, a path that Szabados was prepared to defend and which she very successfully did defend. Good save but I think the greater credit for that save goes to the other five Canadian players on the ice.

 

[Chaffron]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

I don't think that is a fair comment. MPP was clearly upset and emotional after the game. Having said that, I do agree that after a great second period, Canada really struggled with the speed of the Americans. The wide open flow in the OT was to the benefit of the faster US team. In the end a rookie mistake, taking a shot that gest blocked while you are the last D, is what cost them the winning goal.

there was no wide open flow in OT. It was played 5 on 5, not 4 on 4. aside from rookies and poulin, the rest of the team did not look as distraught and devastated than when they lost 2 years ago. losing is the new normal now.

also, there are seriously no good women's hockey writers in Canada. Donna Spencer of the Canadian Press is very misleading (i think she thinks we just started watching women's hockey in sochi), that or usually she spews out things we already know, or gets things wrong, and bloggers are usually the same. There are no good women's hockey writers in Canada that tell it like it is. This is a problem. There are no real journalists in women's hockey in Canada. Maybe in Quebec but few and far between.

 

[shelfit]

there was no wide open flow in OT. It was played 5 on 5, not 4 on 4. aside from rookies and poulin, the rest of the team did not look as distraught and devastated than when they lost 2 years ago. losing is the new normal now.

also, there are seriously no good women's hockey writers in Canada. Donna Spencer of the Canadian Press is very misleading (i think she thinks we just started watching women's hockey in sochi), that or usually she spews out things we already know, or gets things wrong, and bloggers are usually the same. There are no good women's hockey writers in Canada that tell it like it is. This is a problem. There are no real journalists in women's hockey in Canada. Maybe in Quebec but few and far between.

Well then it sounds like you should step up and fill that void, except you're too freaking abrasive. Maybe you should coach Team Canada for the next Olympics. Laura will be too busy losing games at Dartmouth. Speed is everything in women's hockey. USA has figured that out. Canada needs to overhaul their scouting and invitational approach to creating the National Team. If they don't they seriously risk losing Gold next February.

 

[D2D]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

I think it is more about general speed than stamina. Me thinks the US team has much more overall speed, and the neutral zone check the canucks played to try and neutralize that speed was not sustainable for them, leading to the breakdowns in the third and OT. Several players on the Canadian team really struggled with the speed and transition of the US team as the game went on. They got hemmed into their own zone for long periods. And while they played good team D and collapsed to protect the net, they failed to get the puck out on many occasions, leading to breakdowns and tired players. That tends to catch up to you as the game drags on.

I understand what you're saying, that the U.S. has much more overall team speed than their Canadian counterparts, but I thought it was surprising - and was impressed - that the U.S. could not only maintain but actually increase and take more advantage of their team speed in the 3rd period, and in the overtime. When you're tired because you're not in tip-top shape, generally speaking your quickness, speed and decision-making all suffer. That was clearly not an issue for the Americans, despite their team preparation time being shortened due to the ongoing negotiations with USA Hockey. I would have guessed that the longer the game went, the more the advantage would have swung to Canada, which didn't have any of these issues in preparing for the tournament.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

With the limited practice time they had leading up to the tournament, I was surprised that they seemed to have more stamina than the Canadians in the later stages of the game. They must have trained very hard on their own in the weeks before the games got underway.

The U.S. used its depth far more than the Canadians did, both tonight and over the whole week. The Americans rolled all four lines and four pairs of defensemen from beginning to end. The Canadian fourth line seemed like an afterthought. Playing five games in just over seven days, that made a difference.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

hiirikoski is great,.

You really should have stopped your post right there. Hiirikoski was fabulous over the span of the tournament, and logged a ridiculous number of minutes. She wasn't as good in the semi, but a lot of that is down to the Finns playing an extra game and looking very tired the second time around against Canada. (Yes, that says something about the quality of the German play in the bronze medal game.) I can't speak to the rest of the all-tournament team, as I don't know who else was named, but it would have been a crime if she hadn't been on it.

 

[vicb]

You missed the important qualifier that I put: CONSISTENTLY

You missed the most important qualifier that I put: DOMINANT. (2 NC$$ Titles).

Congrats to team USA

 

[thirdtime's . . .]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

THIS THIS and THIS to all the plaudits! (Amazing what a group of "whining," "choking" women can accomplish, isn't it?)


For those who might have missed Coyne to Knight:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/sports/hockey/womens-world-championship-usa-canada.html

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

I still haven't looked up who made the actual all-tournament team, but I'll offer mine. A few caveats, first:

1) I saw every game involving a Group A team except Russia's quarterfinal loss to Germany, but I didn't see as many Group B games. I only saw Sweden play once (the quarterfinal loss to Finland) because of scheduling conflicts, and I only watched one period of the Swiss, because that ****ing bell was giving me a headache. Outside of Muller and Stalder for the Swiss, though, I don't see anyone even worthy of consideration from Group B, and they loses out due to the lower quality of competition. The Russians got outscored 21-7 and showed no heart any time adversity struck. So I feel justified in drawing only from the medal winners;

2) It's hard to pick players from the American team, because they really won with depth. They not only rolled through all of the skaters, all four lines were dangerous, especially once they flipped Pelkey and JLam between the second and fourth lines before the semi. I'm sure plenty of them played well enough to merit selection, but it was really hard to stand out in the way you generally need to to make this sort of team. Indeed, it's easier to pick out the two players I didn't think looked great: at the risk of aggravating the Tiger, Megan Keller didn't have a good tournament, and I've never been impressed with MLam as a defenseman. That's it. If I were to list Honorable Mentions, it'd be half of the American team;

3) On the other hand, while the Finnish team was solid all around, they were really carried by a small number of players. In any game, they had 1.5-2 lines that were a threat, depending upon whether Susanna Tapani was put on the first line with Karvinen or whether she was helping Petra Nieminen try to provide some depth. They also get some bonus points, because I don't know what they did to anger the officiating gods, but, up until the bronze medal game, they were the subject of a torrent of bull**** calls all week, and their penalty kill was outstanding.

So:

G - Either Shannon Szabados or Nicole Hensley: the former had a harder job, but the latter gave up 40% as many goals doing hers.
D - Jenni Hiirikoski: I went over this
D - Kacey Bellamy: She was very good at both ends all week, and then scored twice in the gold medal game
F - Jenn Wakefield: Tried to put Canada on her back, only to have parts of the team reject the offer
F - Michelle Karvinen: Didn't put up a lot of points, but she was everywhere on the ice and was the key person on that penalty kill
F - Either Hillary Knight or Susanna Tapani: I'd be fine with either one. Knight was probably the better player, but Tapani was a more important to her team

 

[Eeyore]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

All parties can gain something tangible from a butt kicking. The winner undoubtedly will have some players who probably don't get to contribute all the time get to contribute and they can gain some valuable playing time and confidence. The loser will have some players who learn from the experience and the the viewer such as me has a fun time watching. The opposing team's viewers can see some great play by the winner.

Let's set aside the subjective discussion of adults who enjoy stealing candy from babies, and focus on the fact that games between badly mismatched teams are not actually good learning experiences for anyone. The key element of learning from experience is taking the things that you do that don't work against the competition and figuring out what does work. If you are a lot better than your opponent, there probably aren't very many things that you do that don't work, so you don't improve. And a lot of the confidence that you build can be confidence in things that won't work against a better opponent.

If you are a lot worse than your opponent, you have plenty of things that don't work, but you probably aren't capable of making the adjustments necessary to find things that do. Even your new ideas get stuffed back in your face. You don't learn how to be better that way. I suspect that the friend you played tennis with spent some of the time teaching you rather than just destroying you, which makes it a very different enterprise than a fully competitive game where your opponent has no interest in stopping to help you out.

This is true in all sorts of ways; I sometimes see it when involved in a writers' group that mixes published pros and those who just write fiction for fun. A lot of the time, the critiquing of the amateurs' stories is at a level that doesn't do them any good given where they are and what they are trying to do. I confess that I'm one of the ones who has a very hard time dialing things back when critiquing, which is why I don't participate in that sort of mixed group anymore.

In sports, the most obvious example is minor league baseball. It's set up with about seven levels of competition for a reason. One of the surest ways to ruin a prospect is to push him up to a level that he isn't ready for.* No one sends a kid drafted out of high school to AA for his first pro experience, because he won't even know what to do with the assortment of breaking balls he's going to see. If it turns out that he could have started at AA, it means you drafted Mike Trout.**

In order to provide a good learning experience, you have to put someone in a position where they're competing in a population of roughly comparable skill level.

*Why, yes, I did take Mike Zunino with the first pick in my fantasy league's 2012 draft, only to watch the Mariners screw him up completely. Thanks for asking.

**On the other hand, I also took Trout with the tenth pick in 2009, and I'm still feeling pretty smug about that.

 

[ne7minder]

The team canada women (besides the rookies) don't even look as devastated or distraught anymore compared to the last 2 world championship losses. Losing is the new normal.

You obviously were not watching the same game we were at. There were a lot of tears on the ice. Maybe it would help if you could belittle them more.

 

[ne7minder]

For me it isn't that the Canada goaler was outstanding. Szabodos played well but great defense is team defense. I think Canada plays great team defense. If Canada holds USA scoring down I just don't think we should all be shouting how great the goaler played.

For example, on Carpenter's great chance for the USA in the third period the TSN team of Black and Pounder went all in with the idea that Szabados had made a great save. I thought that the D had squeezed down and left only a small path through on top of the crease, a path that Szabados was prepared to defend and which she very successfully did defend. Good save but I think the greater credit for that save goes to the other five Canadian players on the ice.

That is an excellent take and spot on.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

THIS THIS and THIS to all the plaudits! (Amazing what a group of "whining," "choking" women can accomplish, isn't it?)


For those who might have missed Coyne to Knight:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/sports/hockey/womens-world-championship-usa-canada.html

This goes to the comment I made last night about this story over the last month or so and the win last night being good for the sport.

The rhubarb between the Team US players and USA Hockey in the weeks leading up to the tournament provided lots of high profile and FREE PR....this New York Times article is part of the proof...(as a comparison, when UMD won the FF with 34.6 seconds left on the clock in triple OT in 2010, (so 2 full games), making them the first team to win 5 FF Championships, there was a three line mention of it in the New York Times (among many other US newspapers) and that was a big deal at the time…so, now, check out the posted New York Times article for size and graphics seven years later…My point, again, is that the rhubarb and Team USA’s win last night are good for the sport…very good.

 

[Leather helmet]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

I still haven't looked up who made the actual all-tournament team, but I'll offer mine. A few caveats, first:

Eeyore, this is an excellent breakdown of the tournament. I watched only a handful of games, and those mostly online, so I appreciate your perspective as one who saw most of the games. For the games that I did see, I completely agree with your assessments.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

This goes to the comment I made last night about this story over the last month or so and the win last night being good for the sport.

The rhubarb between the Team US players and USA Hockey in the weeks leading up to the tournament provided lots of high profile and FREE PR....this New York Times article is part of the proof...(as a comparison, when UMD won the FF with 34.6 seconds left on the clock in triple OT in 2010, (so 2 full games), making them the first team to win 5 FF Championships, there was a three line mention of it in the New York Times (among many other US newspapers) and that was a big deal at the time…so, now, check out the posted New York Times article for size and graphics seven years later…My point, again, is that the rhubarb and Team USA’s win last night are good for the sport…very good.

And when Clarkson won the NCAA title this season, the LA Times ran this:

https://twitter.com/bradwphoto/status/846077013098201094/photo/1

 

[Leather helmet]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

A question for those who are more familiar with the Canadian program than i:

The general agreement on this board is that the US' team speed was the decisive factor, and that has been true for several years. My question is, does the Canadian selection process tilt toward more experienced (and presumably, less mobile) players, or is the Canadian system lacking in the kind of speed that the Americans possess?

Obviously, speed isn't everything, but I think we learned that lack of speed isn't everything, either. Fast, skilled players seem to be preferable to medium-fast, skilled players. Is Canada hiding a bunch of rocket-fueled 16-year-olds? Or, will they have to train generations of teams to play a neutral zone trap?

 

[RStarr]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

(second) best day ever! #murica

 

[shelfit]

Eeyore, "published pros" or "published prose"?!

 

[OnMAA]

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

A question for those who are more familiar with the Canadian program than i:

The general agreement on this board is that the US' team speed was the decisive factor, and that has been true for several years. My question is, does the Canadian selection process tilt toward more experienced (and presumably, less mobile) players, or is the Canadian system lacking in the kind of speed that the Americans possess?

Obviously, speed isn't everything, but I think we learned that lack of speed isn't everything, either. Fast, skilled players seem to be preferable to medium-fast, skilled players. Is Canada hiding a bunch of rocket-fueled 16-year-olds? Or, will they have to train generations of teams to play a neutral zone trap?

I think part of the answer to your question is the development program/philosophy. The US program puts more of an emphasis on skating, and that shows up in both the Man and Womens National and U18/U20 teams. Speed alone is not the be all endall, but the US has more of it due to their development strategy compared to Canada. The US has won several world Juniors and Many Womens worlds partly as a result of that. I don't think Canada has a lot of "rocket fuelled" hidden gems hidden in their ranks. The total talent pool between the two countries is similar in size, (that changed a lot compared to 10-15 years ago when the Canadian pool was much deeper), just the development approach is different. That is visible in both the Womens and also in the Men's Junior programs (U18 and U20).