beaglehound

Didn't know Megyn was a VPD police officer.  Interesting tidbit.  Must tell her how impressed I was with her play in the Olympics should I ever get stopped by her. ;D

DAN38

  To me, the opposite of what Larouque did would be an American girl shoving her Gold Medal in the face of everyone and anyone. Both actions are rude and insulting. Both are selfish.

   All Laroque has to do is apologize, that's all.



   Going to watch the men play Germany. The Germans are a good team !
Si vis pacem... para bellum

If you think you can't when you can, you won't.
If you think you can when you can't, you just might.

DAN38

 To me, the opposite of what Larouque did would be an American girl shoving her Gold Medal in the face of everyone and anyone. Both actions are rude and insulting. Both are selfish.

   All Laroque has to do is apologize, that's all.



   Going to watch the men play Germany. The Germans are a good team !
  Just found out that Laroque apologized. To me that means she has admitted she was wrong and is sorry. Nuff said.

  Now if we can get the women's coach to apologize.  ;)


  Germany leading 2-0 in the second. Make that 3-0 !

Lyle B. Style

The Canadian Deadbeats (Mens Hockey team) showing why there's not a NHL player amongst them - totally undisciplined effort as they quickly realized the German men were clearly their superiors. . . . . not even close!

The disgrace of losing to Germany slightly tempered by the fact the Swedes would have disgraced our guys even more.

Poulin showing why he's never been called up.

Some of the Canadian frustration to be expected - cuz that's what inferior men do when their inferior hockey skills are exposed as fraudulent!

This group of deadbeat mopes shouldn't be close to a medal - they had a beautiful road map to the medal round, playing teams as poor or poorer than they (ie. without NHL stars)

Obviously Russia will destroy either the Germans or Canada but at least Canada would have earned an unexpected silver.

Now, 4th in the dog show looms.

And Craig Button proves to everyone what an insolvent hockey mind he possesses. (he said Germany would be a walk in the park for Canada__)
WAITING FOR A  MIRACLE - 28 YEARS, COUNTING!

Lyle B. Style

Perhaps I spoke too soon . . . . Germans are starting to unravel worse than Sarah Sanders in a bikini contest . . . . .

Taking some idiotic penalties as Canadian hustle draws the canucks to within 1, half-way thru the 3rd period.

Great beer league morning battle!

sambo42

"Would you agree that a good team improves every game on it's way to a championship ? I think you would." by Dan38

In theory that would be expected but in reality that isn't the case so no, actually I wouldn't agree.   Teams can suffer injuries to key players.     Players can fall into slumps.  A team can 'peak' at the wrong time.   How difficult the previous match was can factor in big time as well.   There are many reasons why a team does not necessarily 'improve' with each game on its way to the championship.  Case in point?  Calgary Stampeders.  Not just last year but the year before that as well.  Dominated the CFL in both seasons only to lose in the both Grey Cups against different opponents.

Another example?   Pro Tennis.  A player blows away his opponent 6-0 in the first set, only to drop the second set 1-6.  Why did he not repeat with another 6-0 set win?   It's a rhetorical question.  No response required.  

It would really be interesting to be a fly on the wall and hear what the players had to say about why they lost and what might have led to victory.  I wonder how many would point to the coach [if they could].  These teams were pretty evenly matched in my opinion with the U.S. having a slight edge.  Hungrier?  Perhaps.  Who knows.  But one mistake, like the break away the U.S. got with about 7 minutes remaining that led to the tying goal can be a game breaker.   Fear and doubt set in.  Mistakes are made.  

One thing I noticed is that instead of Canada promptly bringing the puck out of its own end some of the players tended to rag the puck as if killing a penalty.  They became magnets drawing the opposition in closer and ending up being stripped of the puck or making a terrible pass.
You know beagle, I believe the point Dan was trying to make is that good teams find ways to win, be it through slumps, injuries etc... it also applies to good players, a guy like Roger Federer may not always play his best, he just finds ways to win. Good teams, and great teams, along with good athletes, find ways to win, no matter if they are their best or not!

beaglehound

"Would you agree that a good team improves every game on it's way to a championship ? I think you would." by Dan38

In theory that would be expected but in reality that isn't the case so no, actually I wouldn't agree.   Teams can suffer injuries to key players.     Players can fall into slumps.  A team can 'peak' at the wrong time.   How difficult the previous match was can factor in big time as well.   There are many reasons why a team does not necessarily 'improve' with each game on its way to the championship.  Case in point?  Calgary Stampeders.  Not just last year but the year before that as well.  Dominated the CFL in both seasons only to lose in the both Grey Cups against different opponents.

Another example?   Pro Tennis.  A player blows away his opponent 6-0 in the first set, only to drop the second set 1-6.  Why did he not repeat with another 6-0 set win?   It's a rhetorical question.  No response required.  

It would really be interesting to be a fly on the wall and hear what the players had to say about why they lost and what might have led to victory.  I wonder how many would point to the coach [if they could].  These teams were pretty evenly matched in my opinion with the U.S. having a slight edge.  Hungrier?  Perhaps.  Who knows.  But one mistake, like the break away the U.S. got with about 7 minutes remaining that led to the tying goal can be a game breaker.   Fear and doubt set in.  Mistakes are made.  

One thing I noticed is that instead of Canada promptly bringing the puck out of its own end some of the players tended to rag the puck as if killing a penalty.  They became magnets drawing the opposition in closer and ending up being stripped of the puck or making a terrible pass.
You know beagle, I believe the point Dan was trying to make is that good teams find ways to win, be it through slumps, injuries etc... it also applies to good players, a guy like Roger Federer may not always play his best, he just finds ways to win. Good teams, and great teams, along with good athletes, find ways to win, no matter if they are their best or not!
I don't think he was saying that at all.  His point was how the women lost the game.  His point is that it was because of lousy coaching by the head coach.  

But back to your point Sambo....

Good teams find ways to win for sure, I get that, but sometimes even a good team will lose a crucial game.  Does that mean they are not a good team?  I hope that is not what you are suggesting. 
Failure is not an option worked for the Apollo 13 team but in sports it is a different ball game.    If one follows your reasoning to its logical conclusion it implies that if the team loses the crucial championship game it is not a good team.  I don't agree with that.  
I don't think many would say the Calgary Stampeders are not a good team.

Dan's issue is how the Womens hockey team lost and why he thinks they lost.  It is his opinion it was because the coach was inept and did a poor coaching job.  Maybe he is right and poor coaching decisions such as too many line changes contributed to the outcome.  I'm not disagreeing with him on that.  I respect his opinion.  In my opinion I believe there were other factors as well.  

In Roger Federer's case?  Yes, he finds ways to win matches that seem out of reach but he'll be the first to admit when he has been crushed by some of his opponents.

"Good teams, and great teams, along with good athletes, find ways to win, no matter if they are their best or not!"

I wish that were reality but it isn't.  At best I would agree that good teams and great teams will try to find ways to win while other teams may give up and throw in the towel.  Everyone likes grit and tenacity.  But the reality is that even great teams have found ways of blowing championships.  Great athletes have been beaten by lesser opponents though they've tried every possible way to win.  

At best, some teams and some athletes, whether they are at their best or short of their best manage to dig down deep enough and still find something.  Some are not willing to do that.      

sambo42

 Beagle... in the 3rd period and OT of the women's gold medal game, time and time again they dumped the puck in and went for a line change... one person is not going to beat 4 or 5 defenders... that is poor coaching, for sure. If team Canada had not been caught on a bad change its entirely possible that the Americans don't tie the game, and Canada wins, and that is bad coaching... Canada took their foot of the gas pedal, they should at least have tried mount an offence... they didn't, it came  back to burn them. 

 I do agree that great teams and athletes will at some point have bad stretches... but what makes them great is that they will overcome that... and get back to their winning ways. The true dynasties did that... the Habs of the late 50s, the Celtics in the 60s, the Habs of the late 70s, the Islanders, Oilers... they were not great every game, but still found ways to win when they weren't at their best. The other common theme for those teams is that were very well coached, with the possible exception the Oilers. The Habs for the late 50 had Toe Blake, the Celtics had Red Auerbach, with Scotty Bowman, Al Arbour and Glen Sather(he rode the coattails of Gretzky, Messier, etc) respectively. I don't believe any of those coaches would have won with the Canadian women's coach strategy, dump and change.  

beaglehound

"Beagle... in the 3rd period and OT of the women's gold medal game, time and time again they dumped the puck in and went for a line change..."

I saw that too.  But what was the reason Sambo.  Was the coach trying to keep the players fresh as possible so no one would get beaten.   Why do you think she did that?

"One person is not going to beat 4 or 5 defenders... that is poor coaching, for sure. If team Canada had not been caught on a bad change its entirely possible that the Americans don't tie the game, and Canada wins, and that is bad coaching... Canada took their foot of the gas pedal, they should at least have tried mount an offence... they didn't, it came  back to burn them."

Agreed.  It came back to burn them. But two questions: Did they have any gas left in the tank and secondly why was the coach making so many line changes towards the end?

I do agree that great teams and athletes will at some point have bad stretches... but what makes them great is that they will overcome that... and get back to their winning ways. The true dynasties did that... the Habs of the late 50s, the Celtics in the 60s, the Habs of the late 70s, the Islanders, Oilers... they were not great every game, but still found ways to win when they weren't at their best. The other common theme for those teams is that were very well coached, with the possible exception the Oilers. The Habs for the late 50 had Toe Blake, the Celtics had Red Auerbach, with Scotty Bowman, Al Arbour and Glen Sather(he rode the coattails of Gretzky, Messier, etc) respectively. I don't believe any of those coaches would have won with the Canadian women's coach strategy, dump and change.  

What I think happened Sambo is the coach had to make a decision.  And it was a difficult one.  Does she keep her players on the ice or get fresh legs out there?  That is the choice she made I believe but in doing this Canada had to give up the puck and try to get it back.    The problem with that is that the U.S. team had very little difficulty bringing the puck out of its own end when this happened.  Was the Canadian coach aware of this?  I think she was but was hoping her girls could stop the Americans before they got into the Canadian end.  

Maybe the line changes should have been executed faster so the U.S. team would not have gotten that break-away.  What I'm asking is, if the girls were out of gas, what else do you do?

Lyle B. Style

Great points made by all on this thread - superb insights and thoughts.

Everyone agrees Schuler isn't really a great coach - perhaps a good one in the Ontario Pro Womens league or college hockey but NOT this level.

However, her team had a 2-1 lead over superior trained and coached athletes - the USA seemed to have all the gas in the world in their tank - WE Didn't

so perhaps it was a conditioning problem where the Canadian players had inferior training and endurance leading up to this tournament. Why?

Getting back to the 2-1 Canada lead. I'm thinking the Americans opened up the game - hoping against hope that with under 5 minutes left they could generate opportunities if they gave the Canadians some chances of their own. When Canada had a 3 on 1 break that was the turning point - obviously the chances of scoring on a hot goalie (the USA goalie got hotter as the game progressed) is nigh on impossible. . . . . but to shoot wide and be caught with 3 players deep is TOTALLY UNFORGIVEABLE. . . . . and it lead to an American goal on the return rush break-a-way! That's not skill - that's poor coaching!

5 minutes to play - you have every right to go into "Kitty bar the Door Mode" and hope your goalie and exhausted defenders can go into a 1/2 court defensive shell consisting of freezing pucks on the boards, icing the puck, shooting it off the boards into neutral territory and perhaps sending 1 player to chase pucks in the USA zone. The Canadian play was exactly opposite to what common sense and basic hockey strategy dictated! THATS WHAT STINGS!  We had a superior group of athletes nailed to the wall - and let them off the hook!

everyman

Personally I think if we define great teams as only those that win the championship in a given year is missing out on the enjoyment and value of the sport. In my mind Buffalo was a great NFL team that made the SB for 4 consecutive years. An amazing feat. And I consider Marv Levy to be a great coach. Wide right was not on the team...or the coach...not even on Norwood. It's too bad that missed kick ruined him for life. Just like that missed grounder on a bad hop at first base destroyed Bucknor's  tremendous career...2800hits.....290 average
A bunch of old guys who have never played a meaningful game in their lives had a field day with those mistakes.

And I don't think you can remotely compare a single player sport like tennis to a team sport.
Federer has one guy he's playing against and is responsible for one player only.. himself.

A team has dozens playing, at intervals, and the outcome is dependent on many many performances, health, skill, fitness etc stc outside of one players control. Like comparing a duel to a war or a stand-up comic to an ensemble movie.

Four periods of play.
7 shoot-out shots
Only one team wins
And one team loses.
Speed kills and USA was much faster.
Canada wore down
USA wins by the slimmest margin possible.

Hank01


 It may also be good for women's hockey for it to play out like it did ; having two teams dominate but only one win all the time is not exactly good way to grow the sport .

 It was almost on the Olympic chopping block a few years back because other than the US and Canada everyone else were a full tier or two below . At least it was a little more competitive this time even though it's the same countries again .

DAN38

   The Germans could have easily lost today with stupid 'too many men' penalties. They got caught for two but I saw three more and so did Ferraro. They were very lucky on the other three. Guess what causes a 'too many men' penalty ? You got it, bad line changes. These were all single men line changes. I never saw Germany or Canada try any 3 or 4 men at the same time line changes. Probably because they went after the puck down deep but what do I know ?

beaglehound


And I don't think you can remotely compare a single player sport like tennis to a team sport.
Federer has one guy he's playing against and is responsible for one player only.. himself.

A team has dozens playing, at intervals, and the outcome is dependent on many many performances, health, skill, fitness etc stc outside of one players control. 
The pro tennis comparison was made, everyman, to make the point that whether it is a team working its way to the championship and getting better as each game goes on hopefully culminating in a championship or a singles sport the same thing can happen regardless.  We see this in every sport. And as I've used numerous times, the most emphatic example are the Calgary Stampeders of 2016 and 2017.

I'm not disagreeing that more than go wrong  where several players have to be in sync. That is very true.  I' m only saying that a team doesn't necessarily get better with each and every game and even if it did, how 'good' the team is should not be defined  by whether or not it wins the championship, which I believe is what you said. 

I agree with Dan on the line change critique but I would like to know why he believes the coach used that strategy.  So far all he I have read is that the coach was incompetent.   That is not a reason in my opinion. 

DAN38

  I can't give you a logical reason for incompetence.
 


Users Online

62 Guests, 6 Users (16 Spiders, 3 Hidden)

Users active in past 15 minutes:
TeddyFay, Slomojo2005, Rick16, Google (AdSense) (5), Google (11)

Most Online Today: 125. Most Online Ever: 489 (Nov 26 2017, 08:38 PM)