HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Canada-U.S. WJC Gold Medal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-05-2004, 07:23 AM
  #1
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Canada-U.S. WJC Gold Medal Game Updates

3rd Period - 4:00 Left

Canada 3 (Nigel Dawes 2, Stewart)

United States 4 (Danny Fritsche, O'Sullivan (2), Kessler)

Power Play

Canada 0/3

U.S. 0/3

Shots (my count, I will edit them as they talk about them)

Canada 16

U.S. 15

Listen to the game on www.fan590.com

Fleury makes possibly the stupidest play in WJC history to cost the Canadians the gold.


Last edited by dawgbone: 01-05-2004 at 09:56 AM.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 07:50 AM
  #2
Cerebral
Registered User
 
Cerebral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,687
vCash: 500
I hate to say it but the USA is playing a lot better than us right now.. the Canadian forechecking has not been nearly as strong as it needs to be and the American transition game has looked very good so far. I've been disapointed in Parise however.. after hearing the ovation he received on this board, he seemed a wee bit invisible in the first period.

Cerebral is online now  
Old
01-05-2004, 08:06 AM
  #3
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerebral
I hate to say it but the USA is playing a lot better than us right now.. the Canadian forechecking has not been nearly as strong as it needs to be and the American transition game has looked very good so far. I've been disapointed in Parise however.. after hearing the ovation he received on this board, he seemed a wee bit invisible in the first period.
Are the Americans still using only two lines and 4 D (at school, can't watch)? If so, I think the Canadians will really start to dominate as the game progresses.

The Rage is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 08:09 AM
  #4
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
By the way, thanks for the updates. I can't listen to www.fan590.com (like I said, I'm at school), so I greatly appreciate this.

The Rage is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 09:44 AM
  #5
elphy101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: City of Champions
Posts: 1,568
vCash: 500
Well that's disappointing, good game though. Exciting.

I can't help but wonder if having Brodziak might have been the difference. Tambellini, Dixon and Crosby's line wasn't very good in the tournament. Yet in the camp leading up to the tournament, Brodziak, Tambellini and Crosby might well have been the best line there.

elphy101 is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 10:17 AM
  #6
Hemsky4PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Billeting Ales
Posts: 6,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphy101
Well that's disappointing, good game though. Exciting.

I can't help but wonder if having Brodziak might have been the difference. Tambellini, Dixon and Crosby's line wasn't very good in the tournament. Yet in the camp leading up to the tournament, Brodziak, Tambellini and Crosby might well have been the best line there.
In my opinion Dixon looked the most out of place of anyone on the team. He wasn't physical and provided no offense to speak of.

I thought Brodziak would fit in much like Colliton did. As a guy willing to hit and a penalty killing specialist with a bit more offense than Dixon. I still feel this team was better selected than any Canadian WJC teams in a long time. Brodziak v. Dixon is splitting hairs. Eric Fehr might be the only other forward that was a questionable cut, but Dawes, Stewart, Richards, Carter, Getzlaf and Burns did well on the top lines.

As for Fleury, you can't make mistakes like the one he made at this level. I found him to be very cocky during this tournament and didn't back it up with his play. One thing Hockey Canada should look at is playing each goalie 2 times in round robin and then going with the hot hand in the elimination games. Harding didn't get a test in the round robin so there was no chance to see how he might play if Fleury stumbled.
IMO Fleury let in 3 soft goals this game (Fritsche, Kesler and O'Sullivan). Kesler's goal was also a complete defensive collapse. That goal made it 3-3, and I thought the team would call a time out to settle things down.

We'll get them next year. And much like Salt Lake, it will be on American soil.

Hemsky4PM is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 10:36 AM
  #7
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemsky4PM
I thought Brodziak would fit in much like Colliton did. As a guy willing to hit and a penalty killing specialist with a bit more offense than Dixon.
Just to nitpick a little. But from what I've seen of Kyle Brodziak, he's not all that much of a hitter. What he does do well is stay in the right position defensively and makes a good pass to start rushes. He started 2 offensive rushes that lead to goals in the camp that I saw.

momentai is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 10:57 AM
  #8
Oilers1*
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,020
vCash: 500
I can't see blaming Fleury for this loss AT ALL.

Yes, the first goal by Fritsche was very weak but he made up for that with two stellar saves in the second period including, IMO, the save of the year off a wide-open O'Sullivan.

He can't be blamed for the tying goal. Kesler was right on his doorstep and there wasn't a Canadian within ten feet of him. Fleury made one save and if the defense corps hadn't been sniffing glue between periods, someone would have been back to bat that puck out of the air.

Ditto with the winning goal. Just a bad, flukey bounce. One Canadian D allowed O'Sullivan to walk right around him and then Fleury had two choices; allow O'Sullivan to get control of the puck and deke him or play it out of his reach. He made the right play (how many times did Montoya make the same play en route to being named player of the game?) and it just took a bad bounce (although I would like to know what Coburn was doing; just standing there with his stick three feet off the ice, watching the puck roll into his net).

Nope, blaming Fleury is the easy way out for Canadian hockey fans. For the THIRD straight world junior final in a row, Canada took a lead into the third and absolutely choked.

Oilers1* is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 11:55 AM
  #9
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
I don't understand why Fleury thinks he is Martin Brodeur with the puck. I guess he was trying to imitate Montoya (who made several similar plays).

Fleury needs to wake up and realize he needs to play to his strengths. There was no reason for him to try and put the puck towards the middle of the ice like he did. He should have smothered it, or played it off to the side.

Just a very stupid decision.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 12:00 PM
  #10
Yosemite Sam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,386
vCash: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I don't understand why Fleury thinks he is Martin Brodeur with the puck. I guess he was trying to imitate Montoya (who made several similar plays).

Fleury needs to wake up and realize he needs to play to his strengths. There was no reason for him to try and put the puck towards the middle of the ice like he did. He should have smothered it, or played it off to the side.

Just a very stupid decision.
Agreed. Laraque27, is Fleury related to you or something? That was a very bad play at a very bad time.

Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 12:50 PM
  #11
USC Trojans
I have a plan.
 
USC Trojans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA Oiler fan
Posts: 11,691
vCash: 500
I have heard from several reports that Montoya has just been rock solid during the whole tournament.
Does anyone who have seen him play think that we should give him a try in this summer's draft?

USC Trojans is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 12:51 PM
  #12
creative giant*
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I don't understand why Fleury thinks he is Martin Brodeur with the puck. I guess he was trying to imitate Montoya (who made several similar plays).

Fleury needs to wake up and realize he needs to play to his strengths. There was no reason for him to try and put the puck towards the middle of the ice like he did. He should have smothered it, or played it off to the side.

Just a very stupid decision.
or at least NOT SHOOT IT RIGHT AT HIS OWN DEFENSEMAN. what he was thinking we probably will never know, but what drove him to do that is beyond me. Even if it had alluded coburn, there's a good chance it would have been picked off by an american anyways.

Oh well, at least MAF will have given a good lesson to several generations of goalies coming up in the system right now who saw him totally slap his country in the face with a play even peewees know not to make

creative giant* is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 12:52 PM
  #13
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by USC Trojans
I have heard from several reports that Montoya has just been rock solid during the whole tournament.
Does anyone who have seen him play think that we should give him a try in this summer's draft?
Much like Fleury last year, Montoya's stock absolutely sky rocketed because of this tournament.

I doubt he'll be available.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 01:07 PM
  #14
Hemsky4PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Billeting Ales
Posts: 6,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Much like Fleury last year, Montoya's stock absolutely sky rocketed because of this tournament.

I doubt he'll be available.
From what I saw, Montoya keeps his glove hand down a little too much. He has phenomenal reflexes and a great sense of where the puck is at all times. The goal by Stewart was a little weak, but he'll be a good goaltender for sure. He outplayed Fleury, plain and simple. I could see Montoya going in the top 10. I would think that Minnesota would be ideal for him, work under Fernandez for a bit then take over.

Odd that when our goalie outplays the other in the big games (Fleury in WJC 03, and Oulette in 02, and Luongo in 99) we lose the game. I was hoping Fleury would be the positive difference this time around, but it just didn't happen for him or the team.

As far as Fleury's big save goes, it's big if the team wins. Because the USA won, Montoya's big saves turned out to be much more important. And Montoya made more big saves down the stretch than MAF.

Hemsky4PM is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 01:12 PM
  #15
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Much like Fleury last year, Montoya's stock absolutely sky rocketed because of this tournament.

I doubt he'll be available.
That could be good for the Oilers, though. The more goalies who go high, the better chance they can get a Cam Barker or a Lauri Tukonen.

And as for the Oilers G needs, there's several goalies available of a high calibre this year, so the Flyer #1 may well see them take a goalie.

Anyway, congrats to the Americans, good on them. I still don't like the way this team was put together, and would suggest that the entire selection process should be reviewed.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 04:10 PM
  #16
RaoulDuke
Registered User
 
RaoulDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 47
vCash: 500
Yeah I don't see the point in blaming Fleury either. We were outplayed for the majority of the game, period. Our forwards weren't punishing enough, and the Americans just skated way better. One flukey goal alone didn't cause the loss today...MAF is a very good goalie - just because he didn't stand out like last year doesn't change that.

RaoulDuke is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 04:13 PM
  #17
Oilers1*
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam
Agreed. Laraque27, is Fleury related to you or something? That was a very bad play at a very bad time.
So what play would you have him make? If he doesn't chase that puck down, its a breakaway. What choice did he have? There was no way he could backhand it at that angle, so its either throw it out of O'Sullivan's reach or lay down in front of it, in which case O'Sullivan can still snare it and walk around him or it could bounce over him and then there's a live puck in front of the net and a goalie doing snow angles at the hash marks. Every goalie in the game would make that same play 10 times out of 10.

Oilers1* is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 04:23 PM
  #18
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laraque27
So what play would you have him make? If he doesn't chase that puck down, its a breakaway. What choice did he have? There was no way he could backhand it at that angle, so its either throw it out of O'Sullivan's reach or lay down in front of it, in which case O'Sullivan can still snare it and walk around him or it could bounce over him and then there's a live puck in front of the net and a goalie doing snow angles at the hash marks. Every goalie in the game would make that same play 10 times out of 10.
Smother it or play it off to the side... not up the middle.

Fleury played like he thought he was Brodeur all week long the way he tried to handle the puck. That isn't his game, and he should know that by know.

He had more than enough time to smother it... O'Sullivan's stick was still at least 3 feet away when Fleury touched the puck.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 04:26 PM
  #19
Funkymoses
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by USC Trojans
I have heard from several reports that Montoya has just been rock solid during the whole tournament.
Does anyone who have seen him play think that we should give him a try in this summer's draft?
cut and paste from my post in the 2004 draft thread:

Yes, apparently Good Al showed up for the WJCs. He's been just okay this year for Michigan but last year in the playoffs he had two outstanding, outstanding games against Maine and Colorado College... followed by the Minnesota game where he let in a soft one in OT.

He's inconsistent right now. But he moves really well, both in the crease and puckhandling behind the net. He's not always square to the puck and sometimes gives up bad rebounds. But he does have an awful, awful lot of talent. And that Turco-like puckhandling will always be there for him.

I might use the Philly pick on him if he was there. If JDD doesn't pan out, and there's always that chance with goalies, the Oilers would be in trouble. I don't know if I'd use a pick around 10-15 on him.

I made a prediction earlier that one of two things would happen with Al at the WJC: he would either play really well or really badly and then subsequently be taken too high or too low in the draft. Looks like the former.

PS: uh, yeah, nice game in the Rose Bowl. Couldn't believe all the pressure you guys got on Navarre. Oh, and that ridiculous Colbert catch.

Funkymoses is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 03:33 AM
  #20
Yosemite Sam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,386
vCash: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laraque27
So what play would you have him make? If he doesn't chase that puck down, its a breakaway. What choice did he have? There was no way he could backhand it at that angle, so its either throw it out of O'Sullivan's reach or lay down in front of it, in which case O'Sullivan can still snare it and walk around him or it could bounce over him and then there's a live puck in front of the net and a goalie doing snow angles at the hash marks. Every goalie in the game would make that same play 10 times out of 10.
Ummm... Gee... Let me think. Smother the damn puck, maybe send it to the corner. I coach a midget house league team and even our goalies know better than trying to shoot the puck up the ice through TWO guys in such a situation. I like Fleury and all but it was a terrible play.

It's official then. You guys are related.

Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 07:56 AM
  #21
Larry Fisher
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,449
vCash: 500
...

Yosemite Sam brings about a very valid point. Fleury had more than the two previously mentioned options. The smartest and safest would obviously be to jump on the biscuit and hold it for a face-off. But on the other hand Fleury was likely somewhat rattled from the quick comeback and momentum shift and he basically had to make a split second decision and by trying to do too much he cost his country a GOAL...not a GOLD medal.

Fleury cannot be held solely responsible for yesterday's loss but if he managed to stock that bouncing puck and the Canadians bounced back and won 4-3...i don't think Fleury should have been praised for his play in the tournament either. He seemed to have problems with rebound control throughout the tourny and it was definitely affecting his confidence level.

SILVER just suits us better i guess.

Larry Fisher is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 08:24 AM
  #22
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowetide
That could be good for the Oilers, though. The more goalies who go high, the better chance they can get a Cam Barker or a Lauri Tukonen.

And as for the Oilers G needs, there's several goalies available of a high calibre this year, so the Flyer #1 may well see them take a goalie.

Anyway, congrats to the Americans, good on them. I still don't like the way this team was put together, and would suggest that the entire selection process should be reviewed.
We are on the same page there Lain. If we wanted a goalie and Dubnyk, Montoya and Schwartz go, there is a solid number 4 guy in David Brown.
http://und.ocsn.com/sports/m-hockey/...n_david00.html

I doubt we will see 4 goalies selected in the first round before the Philly pick but you could see Montoya, Schwarz and Dubnyk go. Redline has been harping about Brown for two years.(And the numbers seem to back them up.)

So we can take Barker or Tukonen with number 1 and with Philly 1 we can take a goalie. Excellent strategy and I am all for it. I also heard good things about Lisin, that he skates like the wind....

Slats432 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:49 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.