I'm loving this. What a fantastic hockey game last night as a plucky Swiss team gave Canada everything they could handle before falling in a shootout. And things will only get better as Canada will face a young US team on Sunday night, then on to the medal round. Note: Why that US game is not scheduled for Saturday, Canada's sacred hockey night, is beyond me. Especially after what we witnessed in the world juniors.
Canadians are looking for redemption after the Turin hockey results left a bad taste in most Canadians' mouths. The 2006 hockey experience congers up some bad memories for me as well but not for the same reasons as most Canadians.
Although I was upset by the early Canadian exit what really irked me was the way that Team Canada: the players, the coaching staff and the management staff, were thrown under the bus by fans and more importantly by the Canadian media. The same media that, through its mythical depiction of the 2002 gold medal team and its over enthusiasm regarding the prospects of the 2006 team, created unrealistic expectations in the minds of Canadian hockey fans.
I heard nothing but nonsense after the Turin games. Statements like the players didn't care or there was a general "malaise" on the team, or there was no leadership, or the line combinations were wrong. There was also scathing criticism of Wayne Gretzky and his management staff regarding the selection of players, in particular not including 18 year old Sydney Crosby in the lineup.
After the fact it certainly seemed like the omission of Crosby was a big mistake but what people forget is that a similar situation was present in 2002 when Joe Thornton was left off the team although generally considered one of the top players in the league by January of 2002. Of course there was not a mention of this omission during the gold medal celebrations.
With so much talent to chose from it is always easy pickings for the media, whenever things don't go as planned, to point to the players that were left off the team. I refuse to play that game.
Had the 2002 experiment gone awry the media would have been all over Gretzky for the Thornton exclusion. Remember, before the 2006 tournament began this same media, still giddy over the events of 2002, had nothing but praise for the 2006 edition. The reigning sentiment was, as one high profile Canadian hockey analyst put it, that Canada would "steamroll through the Olympic tournament".
Of course by tournament's end the revisionist historians came out of the woodwork. Rather than accepting that this is a highly competitive field they chose to denigrate the effort of the players and ridicule the decisions of the management and coaching staffs.
This will sound outrageous to some but in my opinion the 2002 team and 2006 team were almost identical; in make up and in performance.
As we all know the march to gold in 2002 has become lore in Canada. The story, as it has been recounted to us by the media, played out like a movie of the week.
The Canadian team starts off with an embarrassing loss to Sweden, struggles against Germany and Czech Republic and has the ire of the nation. Then a turning point, the Gretzky speech, which unites the team as they begin their triumphant march to glory, against all odds, culminating in this "invincible force" defeating the United states for Olympic gold.
It's a great storyline, but far from accurate in my opinion.
A more reasonable description of what happened in Salt Lake City is that things simply "fell into place" for Canada. The 2002 team struggled mightily in the prelims just like the 2006 team. In the quarter finals they had a hard fought 2 to 1 victory over the Finnish team. Canada was full marks for the victory but still it was a one goal game that could have gone either way. After all, the goaltending match up was Martin Brodeur vs Jani Hurme yet Canada won by a single goal?
Then things really fell into place. Canada was given a free pass to the finals. Well almost. Canada got Belarus in the semifinal, after their upset of the Swedes. Belarus, a country with fewer indoor ice rinks than the city of Ottawa. Much fewer!
See you in the finals.
And who did we get in the finals? Not one of the defensive minded European powers that Team Canada has struggled to score against since the pros began attending Olympic hockey in Nagano (see post on Canada's scoring woes). No, they got the Americans. Just what the doctor ordered.
I'm not saying Canada did not earn its gold medal in Salt Lake because you can only play the teams they put in front of you. But the way that team has been portrayed, as a group that, through the leadership of Lemieux and Yzerman, rose to a level of invincibility is hyperbole in its highest form.
What ended up being golden glory in 2002 could have easily been disaster had Canada met the Swedes in the semis or matched up against the Russians or Czechs in the quarterfinals rather than the Finns.
And what ended up being disaster in 2006 could easily have been a golden run had Canada gotten a bounce or two in what was essentially a one goal game against the Russians in the quarterfinals. A game, may I remind you, where a Team Canada was disallowed a goal that replays showed should not have been disallowed.
The fact is that at the elite level these hockey playing nations are extremely close. It's all gonna come down to a bounce here, a bad call there or an inopportune weak goal. I would still put Canada at the top of the list in terms of talent but the team that comes up on top at the end is going to need things to fall into place just right.
I believe Canada can get the job done but, as we saw last night, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that Canada could walk away empty handed, it's that close. So who knows?
But there's one thing that I know for sure. If Team Canada does win gold it will be portrayed as the team, through the leadership of Crosby and Iginla, that rose to a level of invincibility. On the other hand, if they loose they'll be labelled fat cat millionaires and thrown under the bus once again by fans and media alike.
Either way, the portrayal may not be completely accurate.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Canada's Olympic Scoring Woes
The Olympic hockey tournament is finally under way and once again Canada enters the games with the most heralded assembly of stars. But there is a significant difference in this year's competition from tournaments past. For the first time the Olympics will be played on an NHL sized ice surface, something that I think removes a significant disadvantage for the Canadian team.
The three Olympic hockey competitions since the NHL started sending NHLers in Nagano paint an interesting picture regarding the performance of Team Canada on the larger ice surface, particularly against the elite European countries, those being Russia, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic.
I'm not all that big on numbers but looking at it statistically the Canadian Olympic hockey record has been anything but dominant, posting a 3 win, 5 loss record against the aforementioned European opposition with 1 tie.
More telling though is that, with the likes of Gretzky, Lemieux, Sakic, Yzerman in the lineup, Team Canada is averaging an anaemic 1.77 goals over those 9 games and has yet to score more than 3 goals in a single game; hard to believe with that amount of hockey talent assembled on one team.
Over those same 9 games they’ve given up an average of 2.5 goals per game. And these stats don’t even include lacklustre Olympic performances against lesser European teams such as the 2-0 loss to Switzerland in 2006 and the narrow 3-2 escape against Germany in 2002.
Compare those numbers with those of the last two World Cup of Hockey competitions (played on North American sized ice surface) and you see a whole different story. Over those tournaments Team Canada had 5 wins and no losses against the same elite European competition, scoring a more respectable 3.5 goals for per game.
Are these numbers just a coincidence, the result of less motivated European teams in World Cup play or possibly the result of a small sample size? Perhaps all of the above. The Olympic hockey competition has been low scoring in general, but if you analyze Team Canada’s performance subjectively over the last 3 Olympiads you can’t help but conclude that none of these Canadian teams really met the offensive expectations that existed on paper, including the fabled gold medal team from the Salt Lake City Games of 2002.
That team was spanked by Sweden 5 to 2 in its tournament opener, managed a 3-3 tie with the Czech republic to end the preliminary round and eked out a narrow 2 to 1 win against Finland in the quarterfinals. Thankfully for Canada they did not have to face the Czech Republic, Finland or Russia on their way to the gold medal or the results may well have been quite different.
How teams with the wealth of talent like the past three Canadian Olympic squads can produce such modest offensive numbers is mind boggling. I think a major part of the problem is the Canadian style and how it translates to the larger ice surface.
The straight line, take it wide or dump it into the corner offensive style does not seem as effective against elite European competition on large ice. It seems more difficult to sustain pressure down low and to maintain a physical presence with so much room to cover below the goal line. And the idea of taking it wide plays right into the hand of the European defenders who are content to keep the play outside the circles.
Not by any means am I suggesting that Canada is incapable of winning on the big ice. World Juniors and World Championship success suggest otherwise. But against the world's best I think the evidence is there that the switch to NHL ice is a significant one.
Will the smaller ice surface make a difference in Vancouver? Time will tell. My guess is yes. I think it will be the catalyst in allowing Canada to play their physical and grinding down low style that will eventually result in more scoring chances and hopefully more victories.
I'm not saying that small ice will guarantee a victory for Canada, the competition is just too evenly matched to jump to that conclusion. But I think it will eliminate one major disadvantage and might be just the thing to put Canada over the top this time around.
The three Olympic hockey competitions since the NHL started sending NHLers in Nagano paint an interesting picture regarding the performance of Team Canada on the larger ice surface, particularly against the elite European countries, those being Russia, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic.
I'm not all that big on numbers but looking at it statistically the Canadian Olympic hockey record has been anything but dominant, posting a 3 win, 5 loss record against the aforementioned European opposition with 1 tie.
More telling though is that, with the likes of Gretzky, Lemieux, Sakic, Yzerman in the lineup, Team Canada is averaging an anaemic 1.77 goals over those 9 games and has yet to score more than 3 goals in a single game; hard to believe with that amount of hockey talent assembled on one team.
Over those same 9 games they’ve given up an average of 2.5 goals per game. And these stats don’t even include lacklustre Olympic performances against lesser European teams such as the 2-0 loss to Switzerland in 2006 and the narrow 3-2 escape against Germany in 2002.
Compare those numbers with those of the last two World Cup of Hockey competitions (played on North American sized ice surface) and you see a whole different story. Over those tournaments Team Canada had 5 wins and no losses against the same elite European competition, scoring a more respectable 3.5 goals for per game.
Are these numbers just a coincidence, the result of less motivated European teams in World Cup play or possibly the result of a small sample size? Perhaps all of the above. The Olympic hockey competition has been low scoring in general, but if you analyze Team Canada’s performance subjectively over the last 3 Olympiads you can’t help but conclude that none of these Canadian teams really met the offensive expectations that existed on paper, including the fabled gold medal team from the Salt Lake City Games of 2002.
That team was spanked by Sweden 5 to 2 in its tournament opener, managed a 3-3 tie with the Czech republic to end the preliminary round and eked out a narrow 2 to 1 win against Finland in the quarterfinals. Thankfully for Canada they did not have to face the Czech Republic, Finland or Russia on their way to the gold medal or the results may well have been quite different.
How teams with the wealth of talent like the past three Canadian Olympic squads can produce such modest offensive numbers is mind boggling. I think a major part of the problem is the Canadian style and how it translates to the larger ice surface.
The straight line, take it wide or dump it into the corner offensive style does not seem as effective against elite European competition on large ice. It seems more difficult to sustain pressure down low and to maintain a physical presence with so much room to cover below the goal line. And the idea of taking it wide plays right into the hand of the European defenders who are content to keep the play outside the circles.
Not by any means am I suggesting that Canada is incapable of winning on the big ice. World Juniors and World Championship success suggest otherwise. But against the world's best I think the evidence is there that the switch to NHL ice is a significant one.
Will the smaller ice surface make a difference in Vancouver? Time will tell. My guess is yes. I think it will be the catalyst in allowing Canada to play their physical and grinding down low style that will eventually result in more scoring chances and hopefully more victories.
I'm not saying that small ice will guarantee a victory for Canada, the competition is just too evenly matched to jump to that conclusion. But I think it will eliminate one major disadvantage and might be just the thing to put Canada over the top this time around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)