Originally posted by obserbear
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Nescac 2011-2012
Collapse
X
-
Re: Nescac 2011-2012
Originally posted by YankeeZulu View PostWow! When was the last time the Colby women beat Bowdoin?
Comment
-
Re: Nescac 2011-2012
Midd completes sweep of Trin, but Pujols looks daunting in net and was ready to steal both games if the Bantams could have put more points on the board.
Trinity is dynamic in digging the puck away from the opposition on the boards and didn't let Midd play as open as they'd like. Trinity is missing some offensive punch with Coleman-McGaw apparently out and that breakaway homerun pass offense not connecting much as a result. Midd came through on their power plays when Trinity took some untimely penalties and on even strength, Midd wore Trinity down with their depth running out line after line of talent. Midd split Pinsent and Jones in net for the two games and both saw limited chances. Pinsent denied a clean breakaway and Jones held firm too. Greer stepped in smoothly with points on each night, picking up where she left off last year. Melberg and Styrbicki looked none the worse for the wear with a point or two also.
Trinity is defensively strong enough to win with just that 1 or 2 goals.Last edited by Phil D. Stands; 12-03-2011, 09:50 PM."The great State of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!"
-- Thank You For Smoking
Comment
-
Re: Nescac 2011-2012
I only saw the first game (Friday night). When it was 1-1 through the second and well into the third, Trin was packing it in and playing for the tie. Midd was buzzing but not getting real good looks. Only Trin scoring attempts came on the stretch play up the middle. Once Midd pushed in the PP goal to go ahead, Trinity started moving aggressively forward and started to create a lot more pressure in Midd's end. Seems to me that Trinity was playing better when they were trying to score than when they were playing not to lose. Midd's speed and depth was a factor late in the game. They seemed to be changing personnel every time the puck went past the bench. Trin had the size advantage, but Middlebury's speed, quickness and depth made the difference when the game was on the line. Home ice helps too.
Comment
-
Re: Nescac 2011-2012
Trinity showing strong communication skills on the ice and their breakout was good as a result, and the highlight of the weekend had to be in the third period of the second game when an offensive player took the puck deep into the zone while the rest of the line shifted off, and former teammate from highschool (now on the opposing squad) called for the puck (by name) and was rewarded with a picture-perfect feed onto their stick -- it was priceless -- maybe not sporting according to the queen's rules, but by NASCAR standards this beat monkeying with the resistor plates --- a fine definition of "sneaky good" -- keep it in your playbook, gals (but for just when you need it most)!"The great State of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!"
-- Thank You For Smoking
Comment
-
Re: Nescac 2011-2012
Originally posted by obserbear View PostSo did anyone see either the Bowdoin-Colby, Midd-Trinity or the Hamilton-Conn game?
Was Wheeler injured during the 2nd period or just having an off night?
Can anyone explain: Williams beats Utica; Utica neats Hamilton; Hamilton shuts out Conn?
Nice to see Styrbicki and Melberg were in the lineup for Midd and that Greer is back on the ice; Jones is 9/10 and her saves % goes down to .977.
I watched a nice, workwoman-like 8-0 Lord Jeff win in Middletown. Amherst had some nice net play from Murphy when they needed it early and just keeps putting quality team players out shift after shift."The great State of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!"
-- Thank You For Smoking
Comment
-
Re: Nescac 2011-2012
Originally posted by Phil D. Stands View PostO'bear -- can you explain the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty against Amh on the bench? Certainly coach plumer wasn't beefing, I would imagine. I just am wondering -- Salve v. St Mikes Friday night also saw an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty assessed against the Salve bench and since that coincided with a St Mikes goal by a delay of about 10-12 seconds then it would appear a coach wasn't letting go of a goal call against his/her team, but I wonder if the refs are enforcing something more stringently this year with coach's beefing?
Comment
-
Re: Nescac 2011-2012
Originally posted by obserbear View PostI honestly do not know exactly what caused the call. The penalty followed one of the few times the puck was in the Amherst D zone and play was whistled with the puck coming out of a scrum on the boards to Russell's gloveside. It was possible to say the officals, to that point, were letting Wesleyan get by with physical play which typically would result in interference or checking being called, and when the ref's arm went up, my first thought was the penalty was on the Cardinals. There was then some on ice confusion and officals visited both benches. I did not think to ask about it after the game, as it hardly made much difference, but I did have the impression that at least one Lord Jeff forward was surprised the Cardinals were not called more for the clutching and grabbing."The great State of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!"
-- Thank You For Smoking
Comment
-
Originally posted by Phil D. Stands View PostO'bear -- can you explain the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty against Amh on the bench? Certainly coach plumer wasn't beefing, I would imagine.
Comment
-
Re: Nescac 2011-2012
Originally posted by dontyelldad View PostYes, let's hope so. You watching today?
That said...GO U (freaking) BEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just a frustrating night against Salve (glad not to have predicted anything...I probably was 0 for the evening).
Comment
Comment