PDA

View Full Version : 2014 Team USA: More?? or Fewer Badgers?????



Pages : [1] 2

IceIsNice
02-25-2010, 08:35 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmm..........

dave1381
02-25-2010, 08:58 PM
Is this a catch-all second-guessing thread?

I was most disappointed with the 5-on-3 play. This was an exciting game, but it'd have been much more thrilling if they could have found a way to convert at some point in 3+ minutes. That's all I'll say.

IceIsNice
02-25-2010, 10:05 PM
Sure, use it as a catch all....but, I really had some questions about this roster going back to last fall, and now that they actually played an actual team, I think the weaknesses are obvious.

But, if such conversation happens to be "the elephant in the room" for now, so be it.....I just think it was THAT obvious.

NJCPolarBear
02-25-2010, 10:13 PM
The power play was terrible...just plain terrible. Bad puck movement, slow...lots of standing around...and NO TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF THE NET!! You were not going to beat that goalie when she could see every shot. That was the game right there [because for the most part, the US girls carried the play]....and Vetter played well, but just not as good as the girl at the other end of the ice.:confused:

IceIsNice
02-26-2010, 06:25 AM
Not only that but, the playmaking lacked any real creativity. Most shots were from the perimeter, only fueling the Canadian goalie's legendary status. Kudos to the Lam's, particularly Mo Lam and then also to Hilary Knight for "standout" performances. (it's all relative). Kudos also to Angela, another slight white light for the US.

Meanwhile, I know lots of folks have had the chance to browse this thread but not comment. Is that really indicative of the fact that y'all think the roster was just fine? No second guessing after the fact? Aside from the horrendous power play, I just think there is so much more that's fair game here!

LG4
02-26-2010, 07:11 AM
The power play was terrible...just plain terrible. Bad puck movement, slow...lots of standing around...and NO TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF THE NET!! You were not going to beat that goalie when she could see every shot. That was the game right there [because for the most part, the US girls carried the play]....and Vetter played well, but just not as good as the girl at the other end of the ice.:confused:

the goalie was great --but US carried the play ? I think you could see shifts in momentum . The shots were even (not the hockey canada count) Canada had 2 more penalty minutes and scored their goals even strength. seemed like canada blocked quite a few shots on pk --at least that's what my failing eyes seemed to see on my small screen . to me centralizing and playing vs maaa boys made them a bit more prepared .

brookyone
02-26-2010, 07:30 AM
Not only that but, the playmaking lacked any real creativity. Most shots were from the perimeter, only fueling the Canadian goalie's legendary status. Kudos to the Lam's, particularly Mo Lam and then also to Hilary Knight for "standout" performances. (it's all relative). Kudos also to Angela, another slight white light for the US.

Meanwhile, I know lots of folks have had the chance to browse this thread but not comment. Is that really indicative of the fact that y'all think the roster was just fine? No second guessing after the fact?
I questioned some of the picks a long time ago...around the time the initial roster was selected after the Blaine camp. I don't believe I posted my concerns, I don't see much point...the team is selected and that's your team. The last couple of cuts were as I expected. I'm pretty proud of the way the team played. Maybe my concerns way back were not legit. I'll say there were some players in Blaine that weren't on this team that should be next time around. A few I thought should have been on this team but...this team played with great heart and skill.

I agree with the lack of creativity and PP observations. Thought that lack of creativity was present in the preliminary games to a degree and anticipated that would be an issue v Canada.

The last couple of US Olympic teams seemed to have quite a bit of trouble scoring vs. tougher opponents. I don't quite understand that with the weapons available. I'd have to say some didn't contribute like you'd expect...or like they should have. Canada's 'tender was awesome, but any competitive Olympic team has to be able to score a few...no matter how good the goaltending.

scrambledlegs
02-26-2010, 08:30 AM
The last couple of US Olympic teams seemed to have quite a bit of trouble scoring vs. tougher opponents. I don't quite understand that with the weapons available. I'd have to say some didn't contribute like you'd expect...or like they should have. Canada's 'tender was awesome, but any competitive Olympic team has to be able to score a few...no matter how good the goaltending.

I agree, especially as another posted noted, the number of shots 1 on 1 from the perimeter, with no one else in the zone. The only thing that did was artificially inflate the shot total. I was also surprised by the number of dangles I saw attempted in the offensive zone. Really?? Against Canada?

Also, I may have taken this the wrong way, but I was a little surprised by Darwitz's comments after the game (I didn't see the press conference, just the quick interview after the medal ceremony). For her to blame it on the inexperience/youth of the team when the "older" players didn't get it done either was a little uncalled for from a captain.

IceIsNice
02-26-2010, 08:45 AM
Also, I may have taken this the wrong way, but I was a little surprised by Darwitz's comments after the game (I didn't see the press conference, just the quick interview after the medal ceremony). For her to blame it on the inexperience/youth of the team when the "older" players didn't get it done either was a little uncalled for from a captain.
I agree....I mean, if only we had experienced players like Poulin, right? :rolleyes:

LG4
02-26-2010, 08:53 AM
I agree, especially as another posted noted, the number of shots 1 on 1 from the perimeter, with no one else in the zone. The only thing that did was artificially inflate the shot total. I was also surprised by the number of dangles I saw attempted in the offensive zone. Really?? Against Canada?

Also, I may have taken this the wrong way, but I was a little surprised by Darwitz's comments after the game (I didn't see the press conference, just the quick interview after the medal ceremony). For her to blame it on the inexperience/youth of the team when the "older" players didn't get it done either was a little uncalled for from a captain.

Now that's something-- actually the Canadian commentator in between periods said that Darwitz needs to be more of a presence ( or something to that effect)

DC78-82
02-26-2010, 08:56 AM
Did anyone else (besides Hux) notice that some of USA's players looked like their skates were bad? Cahow looked like she was on roller blades at times - pushing hard to no avail. USA spent a lot of time on falling and diving too - sure at times desperate attempts to block passes or clear pucks, but it seemed like something was affecting their skating.

I don't have any real issues with the roster - there will always be some debate, but unless it's among the coaching staff, it's just more wasted breath.

I think if I were at the helm, I'd have spent the first break looking at film from the first period (maybe they did). There were a lot of unforced turnovers - long distance tekegraphed passes, and chums up the middle of the defensive zone to the awaiting Mapleleaf, and faceoffs lost (This may just be my perception, as I haven't seen the stats).

The PK was extrememly passive, and although they didn't give up goals, they didn't keep Canada on their toes and threaten counterattck, as they have done successfully in the past. All in all reflective of a very conservatively played USA game.

Ruggerio impressed me yesterday, as did Marvin. It seemed however, like the shifts were WAY too long, and the bench too short in the third, when all those players have proven capable at theis level. Especially with all the special teams, it's too bad the same players were on the ice constantly in the third.

I have to agree that Canada's playing in the men's league gave them an advantage - they didn't waste time looking for a perfect shot or pass- they took what they had and made it work. And it did.

I think there is still a strong nucleus of players that will be reappearing in 2014. The Lamy's, Duggan, Knight, Lawler, Stack, Marvin, Weiland, Chesson, Engstrom, Bellamy are all young and had a solid series.

In addition, Coyne will be 4 years better, as well as Kessel and some of the other soon to be unleashed on the college ranks up and comers. That's just to name a few, and I haven't mentioned current college players - Buesser, Horn, Bozek, Cardella, Dempsey, et al, as well as the crop that comes up through the U-18 system.

Four years is an eternity.

D2D
02-26-2010, 09:03 AM
Just a couple of additional thoughts:

The score was 2-0, and Poulin scored both. The first one, any mens team would be proud of. A great pass and one timer, a tremendous blast that Vetter had no chance on. The second one, a lost faceoff, a bit of a lucky bounce, and another very quick and accurate release. I'm sure Vetter thinks she could have played that one differently, but she made plenty of other great saves that most goalies wouldn't have made. You certainly can't blame the goaltending for the defeat.

Coming into the game I was a bit worried about the USA's defense, specifically turnovers and not being able to make good outlet passes or even clear the zone when facing the kind of pressure the Canadians would surely mount. But I was pleasantly surprised with their overall defensive play. Again, Canada's goals came on a tremendous pass and one-time blast, and a lost faceoff (which for the most part WAS a problem for the Americans throughout the game).

In addition to the already-mentioned ineffective power play, the main issues, in my opinion, were poor shot selection and shooting accuracy. USA's hardest and best shots missed the net, and far too many other good chances went high on the glove side, leaving no chance for a rebound. On several occasions when they able to work the puck around for a close-in opportunity, a forward would take too long to get the shot off, allowing the goaltender to get square to the puck. Kudos to her, but to me it looked like the majority of the shots the USA took made her job easier than it should have been. To win you need to find ways to create goals, which in this game the USA was unable to do.

DC78-82
02-26-2010, 09:13 AM
Also, I may have taken this the wrong way, but I was a little surprised by Darwitz's comments after the game (I didn't see the press conference, just the quick interview after the medal ceremony). For her to blame it on the inexperience/youth of the team when the "older" players didn't get it done either was a little uncalled for from a captain.

I thought her comments were spot on. Yes, they have a young team, and yes, it was important for the experienced players to step up, be a calming force, and lead. She stated that they made the goaltender look even better than she is by shooting high, wide, or slow.

The game from the 30 minute mark on reminded me of the old saying "The hurrieder I go, the hurrieder I get."

WIrinkrat
02-26-2010, 09:34 AM
Also, I may have taken this the wrong way, but I was a little surprised by Darwitz's comments after the game (I didn't see the press conference, just the quick interview after the medal ceremony). For her to blame it on the inexperience/youth of the team when the "older" players didn't get it done either was a little uncalled for from a captain.

I did not see or hear this, so I'm only going off what you have said here....but it does seem fairly inappropriate, especially since I'm pretty sure (though I could be wrong) that she is the one who didnt lock on and lost track of Poulin on the 2nd goal.

What is it they say about those who live in glass houses...

nbound
02-26-2010, 09:44 AM
Hmmmmmmmmmm..........

COME ON REALLY??????
You should be ashamed of yourself for even starting a topic like this. The 2010 team is a great team. Ask yourself one question. "Would I have started this topic if we had won the gold" Congratulations to a great USA team, and hats off to Canada on their victory

ARM
02-26-2010, 09:55 AM
I think there is still a strong nucleus of players that will be reappearing in 2014. The Lamy's, Duggan, Knight, Lawler, Stack, Marvin, Weiland, Chesson, Engstrom, Bellamy are all young and had a solid series.Turning 30 later this year, Weiland is actually on the older end of this team.


I did not see or hear this, so I'm only going off what you have said here....but it does seem fairly inappropriate, especially since I'm pretty sure (though I could be wrong) that she is the one who didnt lock on and lost track of Poulin on the 2nd goal.That's true, and she wasn't really covering anyone (unfortunately, neither were most of her teammates on the ice) on the first goal either. It wasn't Nat's best game. She was correct in saying that they played hard, but just didn't execute, and I took it to mean that she was including herself as well.

dave1381
02-26-2010, 10:08 AM
Yup, Botterill skated right by Darwitz to set up the pass. But it's silly to focus too much on one mistake in a game.

Here are the relevant quotes from the interview:


"I just don't think we executed too well tonight. Power play was a big factor, and I thought we made her look good tonight. We didn't make her move side to side and kind of rushed our shots a bit and panicked. We played hard but we just didn't execute."

Q: Was your team nervous, blahblah

"We have a young team and at times I felt we played that way. We weren't really making safe passes. We were working hard and not getting a lot done. It's disappointing. We had high expectations for ourselves. It sucks to win silver."

Nothing in this interview raised a red flag for me when I heard it live. There's a big difference between saying "we played like a young team" which is fine (and accurate) vs. "our younger players didn't execute" and pointing figures.

LIFT
02-26-2010, 10:12 AM
To many Badgers...the Badgers did win the NCAA tourney three times in recent memory but I struggle to belive that 14 of the 20 best women's hockey players in the USA were playing for Mark at UW. People were left out that should have gone and a few should have stayed home. I wonder what could have been if the team that won the World Championships last year would have been our Olympic team as well.

It was a lot of fun watching these ladies come together and play together for the last few months. Congrats to them a silver medal is nothing to be ashamed of!

WIrinkrat
02-26-2010, 10:23 AM
Yup, Botterill skated right by Darwitz to set up the pass. But it's silly to focus too much on one mistake in a game.

Here are the relevant quotes from the interview:



Nothing in this interview raised a red flag for me when I heard it live. There's a big difference between saying "we played like a young team" which is fine (and accurate) vs. "our younger players didn't execute" and pointing figures.


Based on this, I agree.

ScoobyDoo
02-26-2010, 10:34 AM
From what I heard Mark Johnson put his eggs in the getting an early lead basket by shortening his bench (I honestly don't get an All-Star Olympic Team needing to shorten its bench, but whatever). When they did not get the lead things fell apart cause he had exhausted his two top lines.

Sounds like a coaching blunder to me. I don't think it has to do with who was on the team, although the self congratulatory aspect of putting a lot of Badgers on the team is evident.