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.

2022 Olympic Games

chickod said:
Not sure what you were watching...maybe you didn't see the entire game? Canada is clearly the best team...I don't get the sense the US held back so they could "ambush" them in the gold medal game. Also, these teams don't play a ton of games so it's hard to really change strategy much, but it was very clear that Canada was backing in and seemed to be content with letting the US shoot from the point, from where they are almost never going to score. On the other hand, Canada would drive to the net and outnumber the US. Regarding the "Angela" comments, the fact that US "outshot" Canada 2-1 is almost meaningless (see above re: where the shots were coming from). Her comment that it's a "tossup" is pretty good evidence that she is not very objective. And it also seems as though Canada has better goaltending, which obviously is often the determining factor.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you are too dim to have seen that my post was after the 1st period. Do try to keep up.

Agree that the majority of US shots were from the outside and very harmless. Desbiens was calm and poised in net and never seemed flustered. She was a pleasure to watch. The Canadians showed more grit and sacrificed their bodies to block shots more than the US. After the 1st period, I never got the sense that the US was going to win even when they went ahead briefly. Canada just seemed to want it more, like they have something tonprove and are on a mission after losing to US in 2018. Is that a case of their veteran Olympic experience vs the youth of the US?! We shall see!
 
shelfit said:
Canada just seemed to want it more, like they have something to prove and are on a mission after losing to US in 2018. Is that a case of their veteran Olympic experience vs the youth of the US?! We shall see!
Click to expand...

They always seem to want it more. It's a problem that has been evident for decades...starting with the US loss to the Soviets in basketball in Munich in 1972. It seems to be a cultural thing, and combined with the Canadians' pride about maintaining the upper hand in what they consider to be "their" sport, it's a bad combination for the US. And before anyone says "you're being critical of the effort," it's hard to explain. It's not "effort." But you can't just "turn it on" at will, either. It's just making the one EXTRA play at the right time...sometimes, even though you think you are giving your all, you have to go to another level and Canada always seems to be able to do that. We'll see...but I would be surprised to see the US win the gold.
 
chickod said:
They always seem to want it more. It's a problem that has been evident for decades...starting with the US loss to the Soviets in basketball in Munich in 1972. It seems to be a cultural thing, and combined with the Canadians' pride about maintaining the upper hand in what they consider to be "their" sport, it's a bad combination for the US. And before anyone says "you're being critical of the effort," it's hard to explain. It's not "effort." But you can't just "turn it on" at will, either. It's just making the one EXTRA play at the right time...sometimes, even though you think you are giving your all, you have to go to another level and Canada always seems to be able to do that. We'll see...but I would be surprised to see the US win the gold.
Click to expand...
The US will win gold. They may have to make a goalie change to do it however.
 
Couldn't believe the boneheaded move by Johnston to shoot on net after the whistle.

This was not an inconsequential game. With her experience stupidity like that should have earned her a benching after serving the penalty, as was experienced by the young US player after taking the first US penalty, whose name I can't recall.


https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/w...ysis-1.6343318
 
Last edited:
Blackbeard said:
Couldn't believe the boneheaded move by Johnston to shoot on net after the whistle.

This was not an inconsequential game. With her experience stupidity like that should have earned her a benching after serving the penalty, as was experienced by the young US player after taking the first US penalty, whose name I can't recall.


https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/w...ysis-1.6343318
Click to expand...

Wasn't Harvey the first US penalty?
 
FiveHoleFrenzy said:
I did not see the game. What was the penalty on Harvey and why did that get her benched?
Click to expand...

First period, puck down in the US zone corner, Harvey made a crosscheck. Not 'big', nothing nasty, but a good call. Whether that "got her benched" - as opposed to being the 18 year old #6 or #7 defenseman in a game vs Canada - is a matter of speculation.
 
robertearle said:
First period, puck down in the US zone corner, Harvey made a crosscheck. Not 'big', nothing nasty, but a good call. Whether that "got her benched" - as opposed to being the 18 year old #6 or #7 defenseman in a game vs Canada - is a matter of speculation.
Click to expand...

Ok...Thanks.

So is it "speculation" that she was taking shifts before the penalty and then didn't see the ice after that? Asking for a friend.
 
Last edited:
FiveHoleFrenzy said:
Ok...Thanks.

So is it "speculation" that she was taking shifts before the penalty and then didn't see the ice after that? Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...

As your "friend" could have found out for himself, her penalty came 13:34 into the first period, and she played only 44 seconds in the game. So, roughly a quarter of the way through the game, she was on her first or maybe second shift. That should tell you she wasn't going to get much playing time in the first place, even before taking the penalty. So, yeah, the penalty cost her the other two minutes of ice time she would otherwise have gotten. Maybe.
 
Last edited:
robertearle said:
Because ... of course she did...Britta Curl tested positive for COVID in LA and won't be going to Beijing.
Click to expand...

Talk about heartbreak city! Losing the chance of getting to play in the Olympics and being immortialzed on the walls of LaBahn due to a positive test of a virus she undoubtedly had no idea she had that is rather harmless compared to it's predecessors. On top of that the feeling of getting cut originally and losing out the chance to defend the Natty a few years ago...wow Watts a tough deal mentally.
 
robertearle said:
Because ... of course she did...

Britta Curl tested positive for COVID in LA and won't be going to Beijing.
Click to expand...

I blame this completely on USA Hockey for either being too arrogant or too cheap to bring a taxi squad of possible substitute players. What idiot at USA Hockey thought you could call somebody up on short notice who is back in the states and likely has not been isolating herself for the last two weeks on the off chance she might get called to Beijing? Whoever made this decision should be fired immediately after the Olympics!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top