HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > International Tournaments
International Tournaments Discuss international tournaments such as the World Juniors, Olympic hockey, and Ice Hockey World Championships, as they take place; or discuss past tournaments.

lessons to be learned from the Americans

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-01-2010, 07:27 PM
  #1
thomasincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,668
vCash: 500
lessons to be learned from the Americans

I know we won gold and I'm proud of it but I can't help but think we could learn a thing or two about picking teams from Burke/Wilson. They created one heck of a hockey team from guys who on paper shouldn't have been all that close to Canada.

What I liked about the US team...

Speed - any time you pick a fast team you will cause problems and that's exactly what they did

Intensity - Kesler/Rafalski/Parise played like men possessed

Played better than they do in the NHL - A guy like Jack Johnson stands out to me - admittedly I always thought of him as a guy who didn't pan out as expected... and yet he sure seemed solid and dangerous in this tournament whereas more than a few of our guys seemed a lot slower and less effective than they do in the NHL (*cough* Thornton *cough*)


Anything I'm missing? Is it dumb to try and learn lessons here from a team we beat? Was there a fair bit of luck involved that this team gelled as well as it did or did Burke the evil mastermind know all along?

thomasincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 07:37 PM
  #2
ronnyweed
Registered User
 
ronnyweed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,606
vCash: 500
team chemistry starts and ends with the goaltender... shaky goaltending sucks confidence from a team.

Burke picking miller and wilson riding him was the best thing they did, Im not sure thomas in net would have yeilded the same on ice results.

the real lesson to be learned is to not pick the same kind of team for international ice, next olympics speed and skill will heavily outweigh defensive play and grinders on the bigger ice. look at 2006, both canada and USA tried to take the same style teams from 2002.

We cant afford to not take a stamkos type player or any other young and producing players when 2014 rolls around.

ronnyweed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 07:42 PM
  #3
Chicag Pride
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 236
vCash: 500
Burke did a great job. The Drury and Callahan picks were particularly inspired. Both those guys are great penalty killers. I thought every D-man pick worked with the exception of Whitney. Gleason in particular was a great find.

I thought Yzerman did a fine job though. Bergeron and Seabrook were really the only two picks that didn't work out.

Chicag Pride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 07:58 PM
  #4
Stanley Foobrick
Clockwork Blue
 
Stanley Foobrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fooville, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,396
vCash: 500
What I've learned from the last few Olympics and other tournaments in the last dozen or so years using the very best players is as follows;

Goaltending will always be key... In any, one game series, a goaltender can steal the game.

There are 6 or 7 countries that can win at any given tournament.

Stanley Foobrick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 08:21 PM
  #5
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
There is a reason players like Richards, Morrow, and Perry were picked over players like St. Louis, Lecavalier and Cammalleri.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 08:28 PM
  #6
86Habs
Registered User
 
86Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomasincanada View Post
I know we won gold and I'm proud of it but I can't help but think we could learn a thing or two about picking teams from Burke/Wilson. They created one heck of a hockey team from guys who on paper shouldn't have been all that close to Canada.

What I liked about the US team...

Speed - any time you pick a fast team you will cause problems and that's exactly what they did

Intensity - Kesler/Rafalski/Parise played like men possessed

Played better than they do in the NHL - A guy like Jack Johnson stands out to me - admittedly I always thought of him as a guy who didn't pan out as expected... and yet he sure seemed solid and dangerous in this tournament whereas more than a few of our guys seemed a lot slower and less effective than they do in the NHL (*cough* Thornton *cough*)


Anything I'm missing? Is it dumb to try and learn lessons here from a team we beat? Was there a fair bit of luck involved that this team gelled as well as it did or did Burke the evil mastermind know all along?
The part I bolded is IMO a very important point - the Olympics are a different game than the NHL. Deep down, I believe that Hockey Canada was hesitant to bring Thornton (maybe Marleau too), but he played his way onto the roster with a dominant first half. But, aside from Thornton, and arguably Crosby (that's a different debate) I think everyone performed up to expectations based on NHL performance. Some (Toews, maybe Doughty, Niedermayer in the gold medal game) exceeded it. Maybe a lesson to be learned in this regard, I'm not sure.

Goaltending is of course critical - but its one of this things that if you have it, great, if you don't, you're screwed.

We picked up our intensity substantially in the playoff round - the first period and a half against Russia was simply dominant. But, it seemed like we had a tendency to take our foot off the accelerator a bit when we were up (see: Slovakia and USA 3rd periods). Still, when we were down a goal against the US (in the first game), we generated some really good scoring chanced, but couldn't finish.

I think we may have lacked speed up front, but that was a conscious decision on Hockey Canada's part to go with a bigger, more physical team. It didn't hurt us, and we were really effective with the physical, puck posession cycling game. We took some hard lessons from 2006, which I liked - more mobility, speed, and puck-moving capacity on defense (I thought our defense was great overall), and pre-existing chemistry from NHL teams. They may have overdone it with Keith-Seabrook, but no harm done. Its difficult to throw 20 NHL stars onto the same team and expect them to mesh well.

86Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 08:46 PM
  #7
mobilus
Registered User
 
mobilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: high slot
Posts: 595
vCash: 500
1. Above average goaltending a necessity.

2. Speed kills. Skill at speed is murderous.

3. Physical control of the end boards and cycling a must in NHL sized rinks.

4. Chemistry in play and unison in purpose.

5. Flexible strategies and tactics.

6. Coach who can find and control all of the above.

mobilus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 09:50 PM
  #8
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,489
vCash: 500
Deleted a bunch of crap. If this infantile peeing match starts again, I will dish out infractions. The OP is starting an intelligent conversation. If that is too much to ask some of you, then simply clam up and move along. Thank you.

Mr. Canucklehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:53 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.