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.
Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
- Thread starter Runsub5
- Start date
I think the play has a chance of working if the two Maine players at the BC blue line were left undefended and Maine could have gained control of the puck. It was fun to watch if you were a BC fan.
Maine also played approx 6 minutes of the third period with their goalie pulled. 2 empty net goals were scored. They were 0-6 with the PP. what would give Lewis the thought that they would have success with an extra attacker by pulling the goalie?
Yes it can be called creative but it also can be interpreted differently. It could be viewed upon as gimicky. That can really deflate players when the EN goals add up.
Cherry pickers, for breakaways, oh boy. Have you ever watched middlebury men play? They have a fwd in nz high and high in the oz always. Beaney has done it forever. He's not sending a "cherry picker". He's spreading the ice to break out and utilize the size of the ice. Trying something new doesn't make you desperate. I'm pretty sure they weren't coming back. How do you know they haven't done it before or practiced it?
They did not pull the goalie, look at the box score.
Hux
Alfond to Ridder & rinks in between
Actually, it is called stretching the zone and is done to relieve pressure when you are struggling to get out of your own end.
Hux
Alfond to Ridder & rinks in between
Actually, it is called stretching the zone and is done to relieve pressure when you are struggling to get out of your own end.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
I think Cali may have been referring to ARM's post from last night.
This makes no sense. You're giving the stronger offensive team more space to work with and score. To me that's like a baseball team who can't get out of an inning dropping their outfielders along the wall to "relieve pressure" or something equally nonsensical.
Huh?? This = desperate.
See, now that would make sense. If BC spent all their practices having girls take turns standing on the blue line for minutes at a time, I bet BC would be 2-10 too.
Re: Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
I think Cali may have been referring to ARM's post from last night
Yeah, my mistake. I was referring to ARM's post and I mistakenly thought it was from the same game. I didn't look at the box score closely enough.
The gist of my post still remains. There is a fine line between creativity and gimicky.
I think Cali may have been referring to ARM's post from last night
Yeah, my mistake. I was referring to ARM's post and I mistakenly thought it was from the same game. I didn't look at the box score closely enough.
The gist of my post still remains. There is a fine line between creativity and gimicky.
Re: Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
I have often wondered why teams would defend so cautiously against this manouver, especially with 2 D back, covering both of the 2 floating forwards. You could cover them easily enough with one and bring the other D into the zone to create a 4-3. Something like 54% of all 4 on 3's result in a goal (NHL stats). If the defensive team does recover the puck then the second D that is in the offensive zone can easily retreat while the puck is being cleared and at worst will be back in a 2 on 2 the other way. The forwards that are "clearing the zone" can never accept the clearing pass while moving into the offensive zone. They will always have to come back to the puck to ensure possession, allowing the other D to get back into position. The floating player to me is a gift to the other team.
I have often wondered why teams would defend so cautiously against this manouver, especially with 2 D back, covering both of the 2 floating forwards. You could cover them easily enough with one and bring the other D into the zone to create a 4-3. Something like 54% of all 4 on 3's result in a goal (NHL stats). If the defensive team does recover the puck then the second D that is in the offensive zone can easily retreat while the puck is being cleared and at worst will be back in a 2 on 2 the other way. The forwards that are "clearing the zone" can never accept the clearing pass while moving into the offensive zone. They will always have to come back to the puck to ensure possession, allowing the other D to get back into position. The floating player to me is a gift to the other team.
Re: Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
There is a level of gimickness (is that a word?). I'm thinking that Lewis felt she had to try something to generate some offense. Playing a skilled team like BC makes it difficult to force a turnover or gain control of the puck and then get it down to the players at the blue line.
There is a level of gimickness (is that a word?). I'm thinking that Lewis felt she had to try something to generate some offense. Playing a skilled team like BC makes it difficult to force a turnover or gain control of the puck and then get it down to the players at the blue line.
Last edited:
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
We were talking about this during the game. I think the best answer is "you're up 7-0, why even take the chance?"
Re: Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
Did Maine use a "trap" defense in the neutral zone at all? It would seem to me that this tactic would be the better way to neutralize the skill of a BC team. Boring to watch, but can be effective.
Did Maine use a "trap" defense in the neutral zone at all? It would seem to me that this tactic would be the better way to neutralize the skill of a BC team. Boring to watch, but can be effective.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
I honestly didn't notice; BC was set up in the offensive zone so often that there weren't many opportunities to tell.
Re: Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
I would agree that BC did the right thing in this instance. It bodes the bigger question...Why did Maine try this? There is no real upside. If you are getting drubbed, coach the little victories, 1 on 1 battles, effective breakout, strong backcheck, defensive zone coverage etc. The more I think of it, this is a weak coaching tactic, especially from a National team coach.
I would agree that BC did the right thing in this instance. It bodes the bigger question...Why did Maine try this? There is no real upside. If you are getting drubbed, coach the little victories, 1 on 1 battles, effective breakout, strong backcheck, defensive zone coverage etc. The more I think of it, this is a weak coaching tactic, especially from a National team coach.
Re: Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
I'll ask her this weekend when Maine plays Dartmouth.
Honestly, I am trying to come up with a good reason.
I'll ask her this weekend when Maine plays Dartmouth.
Honestly, I am trying to come up with a good reason.Re: Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
Might as well quit trying because there isn't a logical reason. Her maneuver falls into the category of "what we're doing isn't working, so let's try something radically different".
There are only two possible explanations, and both are flawed:
1. She was trying to relieve the pressure in the defensive zone, and floating two forwards in the neutral zone would make it easier for her team to clear the puck out.
But, as others have pointed out, having three players back to defend against three highly skilled oppostion forwards only gives them more room to make plays and get clean shots off on your goaltender.
2. Getting the puck to one of your two floating forwards will lead to good scoring chances at the other end.
Highly unlikely against two capable D if one of the floating forwards receives a pass while pretty much standing still. Best case scenario in that instance is a two on three (including the opposition goaltender) which does not give you good odds.
If there is a third possibility that I'm not thinking of I'd like to hear it.
P.S. You would think that if this really is an effective tactic at the higher levels of hockey we'd have seen a lot more of it.
I'll ask her this weekend when Maine plays Dartmouth.
Might as well quit trying because there isn't a logical reason. Her maneuver falls into the category of "what we're doing isn't working, so let's try something radically different".
There are only two possible explanations, and both are flawed:
1. She was trying to relieve the pressure in the defensive zone, and floating two forwards in the neutral zone would make it easier for her team to clear the puck out.
But, as others have pointed out, having three players back to defend against three highly skilled oppostion forwards only gives them more room to make plays and get clean shots off on your goaltender.
2. Getting the puck to one of your two floating forwards will lead to good scoring chances at the other end.
Highly unlikely against two capable D if one of the floating forwards receives a pass while pretty much standing still. Best case scenario in that instance is a two on three (including the opposition goaltender) which does not give you good odds.
If there is a third possibility that I'm not thinking of I'd like to hear it.
P.S. You would think that if this really is an effective tactic at the higher levels of hockey we'd have seen a lot more of it.
Re: Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
Why not try something out of the norm! They were in tough against a superior team, not sure what the score was at that point but it shows a willingness to 1) try something new or 2) what we have been doing isn't working so 'why not!". If it worked we would all be sitting back saying "hey, that was cool...at least they tried something...but still got defeated by a very good team! I do like the thought of BC in that instance only leaving one D back to defend and having a 4 on 3 by activating one of the D on offense - although they obviously didn't need too!
Why not try something out of the norm! They were in tough against a superior team, not sure what the score was at that point but it shows a willingness to 1) try something new or 2) what we have been doing isn't working so 'why not!". If it worked we would all be sitting back saying "hey, that was cool...at least they tried something...but still got defeated by a very good team! I do like the thought of BC in that instance only leaving one D back to defend and having a 4 on 3 by activating one of the D on offense - although they obviously didn't need too!
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Maine Black Bears 2012 - 2013
This logic is so flawed. "If it worked..." Look they could have tried having 4 players stand in the neutral zone while BC buzzed around on a 5 on 1 and if that worked it would have been pretty cool too. But it wasn't going to work.
It was 7-0 at the time.
This logic is so flawed. "If it worked..." Look they could have tried having 4 players stand in the neutral zone while BC buzzed around on a 5 on 1 and if that worked it would have been pretty cool too. But it wasn't going to work.