Comments for Why Canada Lost at http://hockey.dobbersports.com , comment 1 to 30 out of 20 comments http://hockey.dobbersports.com Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:19:20 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3746 hate to burst your over analysis....but we lost because petriangelo was stopped on an odd man rush...and then carlson made a good shot. this was overtime of the gold medal game..ease up. - gmw Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:41:43 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3743 I don't see how the WJC is a higher injury risk than playing against men in the NHL. So I think borderline NHLers should go. There's no reason to send a guy like Stamkos who's already one of the best players on his NHL team, but I approve of the presence of guys like Carlson on the US and Pietrangelo for Canada. I also think Kane would probably have been better off going to the WJC too. Instead of playing 14 minutes a game for Atlanta and not really doing much of note, spend a couple weeks playing with the pressure that Team Canada brings with it, and he'd be better equipped to handle the playoffs when Atlanta gets there. As I said before, I think his risk of injury is lower against the smaller players at the WJC anyhow. Kane isn't the only one, either - I only mention him because he was brought up below. - Guy Incognito Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:08:25 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3742 Why I think Canada lost (ignoring NHL players - we knew that going into the tournament so this is why the group that was sent lost to the opponents that were sent), all IMO of course: 1. The Americans won. They were their match in every way aside from inexplicably just standing around for the tying goal. In hockey sometimes you need the bounces to win, and Canada has had a lot of near-losses in their 5-year run. Statistics even out in the long run and Canada was due to lose to a well-matched opponent. 2. The Americans were too fast. In the round robin this really affected things on those short-handed opportunities and the turnovers they forced all over the place, but despite Canada mostly cleaning that up, the US was still able to get plenty of chances on the rush again, resulting in several goals. 3. Canadian goaltending was pretty blah. Several past Canadian teams have won by giving up about as many goals as games played (admittedly largely through solid team defence - so I'll add that defensive play was pretty blah too - Americans were getting scoring opportunities that the likes of Ovechkin and Malkin never could when the Russians were supposed to win). This year's gold medal game goals against was like half a tournament's worth or more. A great American once said "sometimes you just need a ****ing save". Canadian goalies weren't terrible, but they didn't steal anything at any time. Every shot that should by all right have been a goal against, was. As were a few that shouldn't. There was no Pierre McGuire orgasm soundbyte ("Dustin Tokarski!") this time. 4. Out-coached. As mentioned by others before, a time-out or goalie change (like the Americans did) early in the game might have made all the difference. I think long-term coaching was also sketchy. For example, Cowen had a bad showing in the tournament but he was mishandled all the way through. His game against the US in the round robin was bad, but Ellis' same game was exponentially worse. Yet Ellis didn't see his playing time affected while Cowen basically disappeared from the team. I think the wise course of action would have been to get him in there against Switzerland to gain confidence building up to the final. It was a must-win game, sure, but a 6-1 win and Cowen doesn't play in his home town? Rough. And to top it off, that meant the late injury to Hamonic would have significant consequences for the finals: Cowen couldn't really jump into this game with blown confidence and not having played in the semis, so Canada was basically rolling 4 defencemen against one of the fastest teams the WJC have ever seen. I think they had two camps before selecting Cowen to the team, so they know he can play and put him on the team for a reason. Failing to use him properly was a mistake. 5. Trading 3-on-1s in OT. My memory may be off, but it seemed to me that the US tended to score off the rush, while Canada tended to score from sustained offensive zone pressure. Seems they got a bit excited in OT with the back-and-forth that ended it. Admittedly, I don't say this if Canada scores on their chance. :) Overall, one of the best games I've seen in a long time. We will be lucky if the pros bring the same kind of passion and intensity to the Olympics. - Guy Incognito Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:00:48 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3730 fair enough... i didn't necessarily think that your intent was malicious, but it's still just one of those sketchy things that can come off very wrong if the wrong person reads it and it can create... issues. Sarcasm and joking is often fairly difficult to portray via text online, so lots of times I guess i just leave well enough alone so there's no confusion. Anyways... i do see what you're saying, but like i say... it really is (as you say) just my opinion that Bugg would (or wouldn't) have written the article the same way had canada won. regardless... it is interesting to see what was written on the heels of this year's tourney as opposed to what was written on the heels of last year's tourney (nothing. nada. zilch)... I would've been interested to see such articles as "what russia should have done differently" or "why the united states wasn't quite good enough" or something along those lines last year... but hey, whatever. no biggy. Not trying to make waves, and i'm certainly not calling bugg a "poor loser" by any means... it's just something i noticed and found a little interesting is all. - lanky522 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:17:51 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3729 If I could just weigh in here - I think the article is fantastic. I expected to find it to have an "air of sore loser" to it, and I expected it to come down hard on Canada and was pleasantly surprised to see that it was a very well-thought out article and actually right on the mark in a lot of ways. Very thought provoking. I think Lanky, you seem to want to be argumentative. And Shoeless, in his one line, strikes a similar chord. "What the IIHF Must Do Differently" - Bugg added that part after I read what was a great article. That may be what rubbed some people the wrong way. But what he suggests throughout this piece is great for discussion. I think it's great that USA won and frankly I hope they win two or three times over the next five years. It would be great for hockey and great for this tournament. I think Bugg agrees. This is not "poor loser", this is just analyzing - and aptly so - Team Canada. Yes, it wasn't done in the past, but no other team won five in a row. If Russia won the last five golds, perhaps a piece would have been done on why they finished sixth. - Dobber Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:05:03 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3724 Matt, Your artical is very indepth yet completly misses the obvious???the real reason canada loses in this tourny is that we do to good of a job in devoleping our young tallent so much so that the very best junior age players are often "stuck" in the NHL they have progressed so much that the NHL teams are relying on these guys and although other teams have the occasional guy in the same situation the canadians are far ahead on the true tallent curve Stamkos-Tavaras-Duchane Gagner-E.Kane-Benn o'reilly-Boychuk-Hodgeson(although hurt probally not available if healthy) Doughty-Del Zotto Myers-L.Schenn On this team Tourny MVP Eberle is a fourth Liner!! so the next time some one questions why the tallent on team canada is not good enough to beat the rest of the world Just remind them that Our Junior Talent is In the NHL!! Disclaimer All these players are 19 and younger there may be a b-day cutoff that I'm unaware of but I think I made my point! Bailey Turis - Oilers rock 99 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:37:03 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3723 No need to get all politically correct Lanky...I think you know how I intended my comments to come across, and if you don't then you really need to take a step back and breathe into a paper bag or something, there is no need for you step on your soapbox and defend those who are on some form of medication. I quite enjoy your posts, and happen to agree with you most of the time, I just took issue with how you took Bugg's comments and turned them into a Canada vs. US rant. For you to suggest that Bugg would have written the article differently had Canada won is your opinion, and nothing more. He was stating what he felt would make this a better tournament, and I don't see how who won makes a difference. Can the IIHF make it better? Of course they can, they are always looking at the product and trying to improve it, there is nothing wrong with that. If you were cheering for Canada last night, you most certainly were not happy with outcome, but I haven't heard anyone saying the US didn't deserve it, or that Canada was robbed. Whenever your team loses, you look at why they lost, and how they can be better next time. That is what Bugg was doing, and that led to how the tournament could make also make changes. The point is, if you feel strongly enough about your point, I am not going to change you mind, and we can agree to disagree, but in future, don't take things so personal, my points were made in a joking manner, and that is what makes these boards so great, that I don't have to write a retraction for something I didn't even write. It was not a personal attack, and hopefully you can see that. Cheers, Puck - Puckhead Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:32:59 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3722 Some very good points have been made by Bugg. I do think the tournament should drop the number of teams to 8. And we needn't "pick them out of a hat" as one responder suggested we would have to. Teams would be relegated and promoted just as they are now. Perhaps only one team down and up each year instead of two. Although, I've heard that the Latvians and Austrians would never agree to such a change as they don't mind getting blown out 10-0 or worse as the players are exposed to NHL scouts and it's probably the only time in their lives that they get to play in front of 15,000 plus fans (if they play Canada). One thing that definitely could not be changed, is the time of the year of the tournament. The tournament is only as popular as it is now because of when it is held. There are so many non-hockey fans who end up watching a couple of games only because they are off on vacation with family, and the commitment to becoming a fan of the team is so short term. You would probably lose 20 Canadian fans for every other fan you'd gain if you moved it. My one question to the Canadian management team: We all saw how influential Taylor Hall was in this year's tournament (not the best, but definitely one of Canada's top 6 forwards), so I don't understand how they could not have taken Tyler Seguin or other high ranking undrafted players, in place of some of the less-talented roll players? I really do feel "roll players" have a very minor influence in a tournament format versus the long haul of a season. The chemistry issue will always be a factor, because I doubt even the Jr. clubs would allow for substantially longer training camps / prep-tournaments, and I'd rather have 10-11 studs put in the pot to mix, versus 5-6 just because we need a tough, experienced 19 yr old. Congrats to both the Americans and the Canadians - TOCanadafan Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:09:26 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3721 Firstly. I don't think that it's appropriate to suggest that someone (who you've never met, don't know on a personal level, and know nothing about) is off of their medication. I don't personally take any drugs, recreational or prescribed... but if i did, i'd hardly consider it a funny thing for you to say. It's actually fairly insulting to joke about, especially for those who are actually on medication. Secondly. All i said in my post was that the article had an "air of 'poor loser' to it." I didn't say that bugg was a poor loser. It is just very interesting to me that at no point in the last 5 years (when canada was winning) did anyone suggest "What the IIHF Must Do Differently" or that there was an issue with "A Lack of NHL Co-Operation." 2/5 of the article detailed changes that should be made on the highest of levels. If the article left it at things that canada should do, I wouldn't have suggested bias of any kind. I hardly think that I'm "off my meds" for suggesting that an article detailing sweeping changes (on the international level) immediately following a championship loss has an "air of 'poor loser.'" Let's ask this: If canada had won, would Bugg have suggested that changes needed to me made in the IIHF's scheme? I think not. So yes... an "air of 'poor loser.'" Sorry. - lanky522 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:27:28 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3720 I'm glad the USA won since I am American as well. But I know one thng, watching the two USA-Canada games were two of the most exciting games I have ever watched. Hopefully, The US will continue to improve so we can try for five golds in a row. This tournament has got to be the best tournament to watch in the world. Congrats to the two teams (oh and to Sweden for bronze). - Ron Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:24:55 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3718 I don't see how Bugg's article sounds like 'poor loser', but clearly Lanky does. The point to the article, as can be grasped in the title, 'why Canada lost?' was to focus on exactly that, and I think he did a fantastic job bringing a lot of different points to light. Lanky, the fact is, it was an amaziing game, that quite frankly could have gone to either team. In my books, the US are full marks for the win. They played their asses off, and deserved the Gold. You really need to relax on the I am a US fan, and the world is against me menttality. The US have been seeing major strides in their NTDP, as the Americans won the Under 18 last year, and the U-17, and U-20 this year. Sore losers would lean heavily on the crutch that is the amount of top level talent not eligible for the U-20's, because of their NHL teams not willing to let them go. When you look at that list, it would not even be worth having this tourney, because it would be a cake walk for the Canadians. Nobody is suggesting the Americans didn't deserve it, and with Canada going for an unprecedented 6th straight Gold, the talk of how good the US team was going in, was heavily overshadowed, but, with the tourney in Canada, what did you expect? Congrats to the US, on what was quite easily the best WJC game I have ever had the pleasure of watching, but don't forget to take your meds...Cheers! - Puckhead Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:22:30 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3716 Also, I'd like to say that it's pretty shifty that you're suggesting cutting teams and changing the IIHF's setup on the heels of Canada losing... You ask me and it's just poor sportsmanship following a defeat... Let's blame the system... Let's blame the IIHF's setup... That's clearly the reason the championship was STLOEN from Canada this year... Give me a break. Sure you pointed out chemistry, and seasoning which can sort of be blamed on Canada, but for much of your article you pointed elsewhere, and quite frankly, it had an air of "poor loser" to it all... Instead of suggesting solutions that would make the WJC better... You suggested solutions which would make it easier for Canada to dominate... Which truth be told, is amazingly not the intent or the WJC or the IIHF. So I guess I'm glad you're not the one making the strategic decisions behind this event. - lanky522 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:14:14 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3715 John and repenttokyo make crucial points that call into light the major flaw in your suggestion of making NHL players more available. The NHL is paying these kids sometimes millions of dollars, and if they blow a knee or something at the WJC it's a SIGNIFICANT loss short and long term. Heavy rehab will be requred, the knee may be more susceptable to future injuries, etc. It's a big deal. What do the Canadian junior teams really have to lose? They'll get a fresh new crop of youth each year, and it's well known that the older players will move on. Since most players selected for the WJC are older, they likely only have one year of eligibility left for junior hockey, whereas guys like tavares have possibly 20 years or more to play for the NHL. HUGE DIFFERENCE. -------------------- Regarding the teams being reduced from 10 to 8... That sounds like a great idea... We're talking about removing Canada and sweden or Canada and Russia right? If not, I'm afraid you're guilty of the same thing many themselves are guilty of: thinking that they somewhat "deserve" to be in the tourney more than other countries. Is not the point of this whole thing so that players from the weaker countries can compete against the super powers? How exactly are the "weaker" countries ever going to get better if they don't play against the best? Should the olympics cut out the Germans? Or austrians? Just because it'd be convienient? That's crap dude I'm sorry. Unless you'd be willing to throw all 10 names in a hat, and pick 8 to stay (leaving Canada exposed to exile) I think this suggestion is completely unfair and in utter disgusting contrast to what the whole IIHF is about. -------------------- If you really want to solve the "problems" you suggest exist... What you should suggest is that the WJC take place in MAY-JULY... Basically have the selections made in April, and every kid could practice with their national team exclusively for a couple of months before the tourney began (concluding each year just before the NHL draft). This would solve chemistry issues (every country would practice with the national team exclusively for a couple of months), it would solve most NHL player lending problems (the injury risk would still be there, but only major injuries received - the 2-3 month variety - would have any effect on the NHL team), and it would be great for reasons not mentioned above as well. 1) it would give young players, who are likely going pro, a "longer" season. It will prepare them better for the 82 game schedule than the current setup does (as most rookies in the NHL seem to sputter out by the 60 game mark). 2) culminating right before the draft, it would give NHL teams a lasting and final impression on players that they might look to draft or avoid. 3) it would give Canada and the other countries something to look forward to. Instead of Stanley cup, blah blah, draft... It would be Stanley cup, WJC, draft, pre-season, season, post-season ... Repeat. It'd be a whole year of hockey... Excitement around the WJC would also probably be heightened because it wouldn't be overshadowed by any other hockey related events... -------------------- I don't know man... Just my 2cents... Seems to work out perfectly to me. - lanky522 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:02:43 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3712 It's up to the NHL team to release the player to play, I don't believe it is a blanket decision to keep them on their rosters. Last season, the Los Angeles Kings released Oscar Moller to play in the WJC for his home team of Sweden, and at the time, Moller was playing some significant top-six minutes. He then got injured in the tournament (He had a shoulder injury and i'm pretty sure it was sustained in the WJC, but I might be wrong) and hasn't been given a scoring role since. - John Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:52:13 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3711 I too thought they wouldve pulled Allen earlier- looked suspect on all the goals. Was surprised the US didnt start Campbell-wasnt impressed with Lee in earlier games. Della Rovere did play in control-a sign of maturity perhaps, the same couldnt be said of Kadri, whose selfish play doesnt payoff vs talented teams like the US. Pietrangelo looked great,too bad he missed half the game (bad call IMO). Eberle was fantastic, but the powerplay wasnt very effective,yes the US played great positionally on the PK,but Canada had no net presence,no big man infront. Eberle's goal was off a broken play and great pass from Pietrangelo that the US dman almost intercepted. Great tournie- the best hockey of the year- even if my team didnt win. :'( - Larry Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:43:27 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3709 to clarify what I meant in my comment...while I still think Canada had their version of Carlson, I do not disagree that Canada has, without question, the worlds best U20 players. There are about 8-10 NHLers that if able to play, would result in half of the current team not making it, and one boring tournament. - Garbage Goal Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:31:12 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3707 Gormley would have been quite a bit more responsible defensively AND he can contribute offensively. We'll get a confirmation of that next year, trust me. In retrospect, the Spitfire boys (except Hall , of course, who I hope to see there next year)were a waste of two forward spots... Glad to see Della Rovere under control for the whole tournament, he played well enough. - Francois LeBlanc Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:47:25 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3705 They lost because they depended on Ryan Ellis (i.e- a gremlin) as their 3rd dman. And because they couldn't stop coughing up the puck in the neutral zone. - Ben Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:59:22 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3703 Obviously every NHL club is different. I do not think Canada is at a disadvantage because of they are missing NHL guys. Guys like Tavares, Stamkos, and other do not belong in this tournament once they've established their NHL careers. There may be a case made for E. Kane but there is a huge difference between 14 min TOI in the NHL and being a regular in the AHL. I dont buy the John Carlson argument/point either. Pietrangelo has played 18 professional games and over 150 in the OHL. Carlson's played in essentially 1 season the lesser, but good, USHL, 1 season on the OHL, and 1 in the AHL. Pietrangelo scored a pretty big goal for Canada in the RR play the first time they faced eachother...so it seems Carlson equals or SHOULD have been less effective. Sounds like sour grapes but its understandable. Lastly, would it be completely wrong to make it a late spring or early summer event? That would completely change the nostalgia of it all but think of the hockey starved cities that would eat that up during this period. Also, it would alleviate the NHL club argument that players will miss games if they are allowed to attend. Wont ever happen but just a thought for discussion. Great article and 2 great games. - Garbage Goal Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:57:00 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/matt-bugg/2480-why-canada-lost#comment-3701 Great job by Team USA but unfortunately we were out coached. Allen should have pulled after the 3rd or 4th goal or at least call a time out. Also Gormley and Seguin would have been better options than Cowen and Nemisz imo since Team Canada has only 5 returnees next yr. - Jimmy Crack Corn Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:13:02 +0100