Re: Harvard Crimson 2016-2017: Restoring the Karma Part II
I’m posting this in an effort to bring the Harvard brush fire over here, where it belongs, and away from the poor Union people, who have suffered enough coaching debates.
I wrote this before seeing Skates’ post last night (in reply to Trillium) and have left it unedited. I agree that coaching numbers and records, historically, speak for themselves and also that on ice this year there are some woeful gaps in skill. I don’t agree that injuries have been negligible v-a-v results, since surely with Heffernan and Zarzecki we would not be 0-7 in OT. (That must be, or approach, an NCAA record.) But Trillium, whatever his allegiance and despite any supposed animus, has brought interesting data to the field and has prompted what may well prove to be a lively discussion. My own bottom line remains what it is, below . . .
---------------------
ARM, who is not known for either his irony or sarcasm, encapsulated Harvard’s season brilliantly in last week’s Wednesday’s Women column on the USCHO site when he referred to their “convincing loss” to RPI, which came before the next day’s game with Union (Harvard’s 7th OT loss this year!). Said (written) with the straightest of faces, the unusual usage pointed perfectly to the outlier reactions of the most seasoned of fans to this most outlier of seasons for Harvard: i.e., we still had to be convinced that this is a losing team!
Outlier? Or harbinger of things to come? Crimson fans who don’t habitually browse the forum should check out the Union thread for Trillium’s post (# 56) on the talent/development conundrum at Harvard. I am not enough of a student of the game to seriously challenge some of his assumptions (recruit’s resumé = recruit’s D1 talent; there are few, if any, diamonds in the rough, etc.) but it is a thorough, provocative takedown of any “woe-is-me, where did this come from?” reaction to the Crimson’s shambles of a season. The most/least that can be said is that, given their history, this has been a bizarre year.
It seems to me that this year’s senior class provides fodder for both sides. Given (assuming) that they all arrived with talent, 50% grew rather nicely, while 50% stood relatively still, IMHO. Maybe that’s not a bad record as these things go, but it certainly hurt the composition/play of this year’s team.
The importance of chemistry and motivation, both items on Trillium’s list of musts, is certainly something Maura Crowell (ah, Maura, we hardly knew ye!) knows about. And it is most interesting to note that she took with her two assistants who, while greener than green, I suspect were excellent team leaders. We also have to remember that both Bellamy and Reber grew considerably and came a long way themselves in their Bright careers.
Conclusion: conundrum.
