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.

Harvard 2021-22: Back to Work

Couldn't believe my eyes......

When Princeton went in all alone from a blue line interception and Glover broke it up with a brilliant diving effort, I started counting and....why do we only have four players on the ice??????

Then when our foursome clear the puck, there's Jovanovich way beyond the red line, apparently coming off the bench????

When I got home I looked it up on espn.com and sure enough, at about 10:45 left in the third period, you'll see it. Four Crimson players on the ice. And the announcers say Jovanovich is coming off the bench. Only time I remember seeing anything like it was during a Winsor-Andover JV field hockey game decades ago. What if the Princeton player had scored during our voluntary 5-on-4?
 
Skate79 said:
There's no sugar coating it.
Click to expand...


Don’t forget that Harvard is skating without their fastest, smoothest puck possessor, who has been known to eat D for breakfast. This series would not be the cliff-hanger that it is if Dominique Petrie were on the ice. (Surprise! The Booth Boys have not uttered her name once all weekend, while they have plenty of time to tell you the name of a Princeton player’s brother who was drafted in the third round by the Vegas Golden Knights. So, no consideration given at all to the relative havoc that Petrie’s absence has played with forward lines, special teams and the overall rhythm of Harvard’s play.) Hers is a giant absence in this series.
 
thirdtime's . . . said:
Don’t forget that Harvard is skating without their fastest, smoothest puck possessor, who has been known to eat D for breakfast. This series would not be the cliff-hanger that it is if Dominique Petrie were on the ice. (Surprise! The Booth Boys have not uttered her name once all weekend, while they have plenty of time to tell you the name of a Princeton player’s brother who was drafted in the third round by the Vegas Golden Knights. So, no consideration given at all to the relative havoc that Petrie’s absence has played with forward lines, special teams and the overall rhythm of Harvard’s play.) Hers is a giant absence in this series.
Click to expand...

I don't think playing without one player should make that significant a difference when you are playing a #8 seed. Yes, Petrie is special, but they got Keeley Moy back from the Olympics, so the drop-off isn't huge. And frankly the makeshift line of Jovanovich, Hyland and Hollands played very well. I expect that to continue today.
 
Prinny 3 Harvard 2 First time in the ECAC history that the #8 seed has eliminated the #1 seed.
Yale 3 SLU 2

Yale gets to host the ECAC semi and finals

Prinny vs Yale
Quinny vs Colgate
 
Bad matchup for Harvard with Princeton finally having some time with few injuries or COVID cases which plagued them for most of the season. Have to wonder if one of SLU, Cornell, or Clarkson was really the 8th best team in the conference.
 
TitleIXHockey said:
Bad matchup for Harvard with Princeton finally having some time with few injuries or COVID cases which plagued them for most of the season. Have to wonder if one of SLU, Cornell, or Clarkson was really the 8th best team in the conference.
Click to expand...
The gap between #1 and #8 in terms of ability/potential was likely as small as it has been for any conference in any season.
 
For Harvard to make the NC$$ tourney, either Northeastern is the WHE Champ or someone other than Princeton is the ECAC Champ.
For Clarkson to make the NC$$ tourney, Northeastern must win WHE Champ and someone other than Princeton is the ECAC Champ.
 
vicb said:
For Harvard to make the NC$$ tourney, either Northeastern is the WHE Champ or someone other than Princeton is the ECAC Champ.
For Clarkson to make the NC$$ tourney, Northeastern must win WHE Champ and someone other than Princeton is the ECAC Champ.[/QUOTE

Both results seem pretty likely; and the tourney will be better served with Clarkson and Harvard than with Princeton and some miscellaneous HE team. Pitting two top ten teams against each other in the initial round of a conference playoff was really bad luck. So best of luck to both schools!
Click to expand...
 
ARM said:
The gap between #1 and #8 in terms of ability/potential was likely as small as it has been for any conference in any season.
Click to expand...

It's like the squash coach making the team's #1 through #9 ladder through challenge matches: Alison defeats Briony, Briony defeats Clarissa, Clarissa defeats Daisy, Daisy defeats Ellie, Ellie defeats Felicity, Felicity defeats Grace, Grace defeats Hailey, Hailey defeats Ivy, everything's in perfect order #1 through #9 except....oops, you guessed it, Ivy challenges and defeats Alison....what do you do with the ladder now?

There was such parity in the regular season ECAC standings, and now I suppose somebody can construct revised cumulative standings as if tournament games were regular season games; but my heart's not in it.
 
Watson Rink said:
vicb said:
For Harvard to make the NC$$ tourney, either Northeastern is the WHE Champ or someone other than Princeton is the ECAC Champ.
For Clarkson to make the NC$$ tourney, Northeastern must win WHE Champ and someone other than Princeton is the ECAC Champ.[/QUOTE

Both results seem pretty likely; and the tourney will be better served with Clarkson and Harvard than with Princeton and some miscellaneous HE team. Pitting two top ten teams against each other in the initial round of a conference playoff was really bad luck. So best of luck to both schools!
Click to expand...

Oh no....just realized that having 11 teams in the tourney implies that the top 5 teams should get byes while the bottom 6 should compete in a play-in round, which means that all of the 5 ECAC teams might have to participate in the play-in round with a maximum of 3 advancing to the quarterfinals? Yikes!
Click to expand...
 
ARM said:
The gap between #1 and #8 in terms of ability/potential was likely as small as it has been for any conference in any season.
Click to expand...

I disagree. This had more to do with Harvard simply thinking it had this series won before stepping out on the ice for Game 1. They did nothing to counteract Princeton's defensive scheme and were lazy and sloppy in their own zone. Never got their feet moving to put pressure on Princeton's D. The first line never really showed up and it cost them.

If you want to make the argument that there's very little in the way of skill difference between 1 and 5, then yes, I'll agree. But Harvard should have taken this series and didn't get the requisite performances from their key people including their goalie.
 
I meant the eight teams in total, rather than just Harvard and Princeton or a single series. Usually, the team in 8th in the ECAC has been some squad that was battling down to the wire just to make the postseason at all. That Yale had to go down to the wire to eliminate SLU as well is another sign that there wasn't the distance that you'd see in other years in the ECAC or other leagues this year. The fact that your series came down to such a small margin and the winning goal was a bit unlucky Reed suggests that we could easily have seen a different result.
 
We're all geezers here: 76 and still playing squash (well, doubles). Hence the references to Hum2 (taken in '63-'64) and other ancient history
 
Skate79 said:
I disagree. This had more to do with Harvard simply thinking it had this series won before stepping out on the ice for Game 1. They did nothing to counteract Princeton's defensive scheme and were lazy and sloppy in their own zone. Never got their feet moving to put pressure on Princeton's D. The first line never really showed up and it cost them.

If you want to make the argument that there's very little in the way of skill difference between 1 and 5, then yes, I'll agree. But Harvard should have taken this series and didn't get the requisite performances from their key people including their goalie.
Click to expand...


Have to wonder about Harvard's motivation. In the past few years we've seen them:

Get knocked out of the tournament with a loss to Brown
Let Union take them into the third 1-0 in a game for the top seed that they would lose if they went to OT at all
Came out in the 3rd of a do or die game and let Princeton go on a 10-1 shots run
 
Skate79 said:
I disagree. This had more to do with Harvard simply thinking it had this series won before stepping out on the ice for Game 1. They did nothing to counteract Princeton's defensive scheme and were lazy and sloppy in their own zone. Never got their feet moving to put pressure on Princeton's D. The first line never really showed up and it cost them.

If you want to make the argument that there's very little in the way of skill difference between 1 and 5, then yes, I'll agree. But Harvard should have taken this series and didn't get the requisite performances from their key people including their goalie.
Click to expand...

Like Harvard’s D last Sunday, I’m a little late to respond, but . . . SAY WHAT?

What does it really mean to say that H thought it had the series won before stepping out on the ice? Do you mean this team forgot that Princeton had taken them to the max twice within the previous thirty-plus days, denying them dominance in every aspect of play? There may well be questions about decisions made behind the bench this whole series, and many questions about decisions made on the ice, but a team doesn’t have to be “lazy” to simply get outplayed by a talented and determined opponent. A loss does not make the team reprehensible.

Btw, it would not be a stretch to see the Connors and the McQuigge and the defense that Harvard faced, however unevenly, lead the Tigers to the ECAC tournament crown. An upset, to be sure, but not a total stretch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top