- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 32,052
- Bookie:
- $ 1,500.00
Brother read my posts before any of the games in this thread…
Four Nations Tournament
- Thread starter RP-29
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 32,052
- Bookie:
- $ 1,500.00
Yea, huge Lebron guy.
On that game winning overtime play, Auston Matthews lost the defensive zone draw to McDavid - not cleanly, they tied each other up, but McDavid ended up out-muscling Matthews on the puck and threw a shot on net from the dot that sailed wide. The wingers for the US were Hughes and Nelson. Hughes should've crashed the puck for faceoff support but didn't; he peeled back to cover the strongside D. Nelson peeled off to cover the weak side defense (Makar) - which is good, but he went too high and stayed too high.
As McDavid's faceoff shot wheeled around the weakside boards, Makar pinched in and flung the puck back around the boards to the faceoff strong side corner where Marner picked it up cleanly and uncontested. Brayden Pointe crashed the net and stayed on the weak side. Hanifin rightfully stuck with him and ensured he was tied up. When the puck wheeled around the boards, both Matthews and Fox chased the puck - pulling themselves out of proper defensive position and leaving McDavid wide open in the slot.
Ultimately, the US's first blunder came from Mike Sullivan putting the wrong personnel on the ice for that situation. Sullivan had last change, but CHOSE to match up against Canada's best scoring line and defensive pair in his defensive zone with his third D pair and a mashup of first line scoring center, third line wing (which is what Hughes was most of the game) and fourth line wing (Nelson - who was probably the slowest forward on his roster).
Hughes definitely should not have been one of those forwards; he's probably the weakest defensive forward on the US roster. Larkin is one of the best defensive forwards on the US roster and had been playing on Matthews line most of the night; not having Larkin there instead was a head scratcher to me. I'm completely confident that if Larkin was in Hughes' spot, he would've helped on that faceoff, kicked the puck to the strong side corner and tied up Marner in the corner and none of the rest of that shit would've happened.
As McDavid's faceoff shot wheeled around the weakside boards, Makar pinched in and flung the puck back around the boards to the faceoff strong side corner where Marner picked it up cleanly and uncontested. Brayden Pointe crashed the net and stayed on the weak side. Hanifin rightfully stuck with him and ensured he was tied up. When the puck wheeled around the boards, both Matthews and Fox chased the puck - pulling themselves out of proper defensive position and leaving McDavid wide open in the slot.
Ultimately, the US's first blunder came from Mike Sullivan putting the wrong personnel on the ice for that situation. Sullivan had last change, but CHOSE to match up against Canada's best scoring line and defensive pair in his defensive zone with his third D pair and a mashup of first line scoring center, third line wing (which is what Hughes was most of the game) and fourth line wing (Nelson - who was probably the slowest forward on his roster).
Hughes definitely should not have been one of those forwards; he's probably the weakest defensive forward on the US roster. Larkin is one of the best defensive forwards on the US roster and had been playing on Matthews line most of the night; not having Larkin there instead was a head scratcher to me. I'm completely confident that if Larkin was in Hughes' spot, he would've helped on that faceoff, kicked the puck to the strong side corner and tied up Marner in the corner and none of the rest of that shit would've happened.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2020
- Posts
- 9,889
- Reaction score
- 17,604
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
All of the talk about personnel seems invalid. Wasn't that defensive zone faceoff the result of an icing?
"Who screwed up on the winning goal?!?!?!" is really not the best way to analyze a loss. Give it some time first and then look at the whole thing.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 12,036
- Reaction score
- 14,501
- Bookie:
- $ 16,609.00
He hates international hockey competitions.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 32,052
- Bookie:
- $ 1,500.00
Not true at all. Big WJC guy.
Even the Olympics is fine, more tradition, more teams.
2 of the top 3 scorers in the league weren’t even in this tournament. The best big game goalie wasn’t in this tournament. Arguably this tournament was even more stupid than the thing the NBA does.
Last edited:
Was it? I don't remember that being the case; but would better explain why the US lines were so fucky for that situation.
The analysis was of that one play, not the entire loss."Who screwed up on the winning goal?!?!?!" is really not the best way to analyze a loss. Give it some time first and then look at the whole thing.
But if you're right that icing preceded that play, Sullivan is off the hook and the failure of that play falls more squarely on Hughes (for not helping on the faceoff), Matthews (for chasing the puck after his faceoff loss and not sticking to McDavid) and Fox (for chasing the puck behind the net and pulling himself completely out of the play).
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2020
- Posts
- 9,889
- Reaction score
- 17,604
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Yes it was. No line change permitted.
I think it just seemed to me like the analysis of that "one play" was done so that you could figure out which individuals to point fingers at for the "entire loss"
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 32,052
- Bookie:
- $ 1,500.00
All Americans have become Don Cherry for the last 8 days. Give it 36 hours and no one will remember hockey is a thing.Yes it was. No line change permitted.
I think it just seemed to me like the analysis of that "one play" was done so that you could figure out which individuals to point fingers at for the "entire loss"
Well then I appreciate the clarification. Your memory is apparently better than mine.
I think it just seemed to me like the analysis of that "one play" was done so that you could figure out which individuals to point fingers at for the "entire loss"
Nah. The unasked question was "how the fuck did McDavid - of all people - wind up wide open in the slot?", so I answered it with detail and provided a little personal strategic commentary along with it.
Careful with that "all Americans" shit. I'm the American that started this thread back in June.
You've been shitting on the tourney since the beginning, so you gotta stick to your guns to save face and keep shitting on it - even though you know damn well that the tourney was some good fun hockey from start to finish.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 32,052
- Bookie:
- $ 1,500.00
…have I stopped shitting on it?Well then I appreciate the clarification. Your memory is apparently better than mine.
Nah. The unasked question was "how the fuck did McDavid - of all people - wind up wide open in the slot?", so I answered it with detail and provided a little personal strategic commentary along with it.
Careful with that "all Americans" shit. I'm the American that started this thread back in June.
You've been shitting on the tourney since the beginning, so you gotta stick to your guns to save face and keep shitting on it - even though you know damn well that the tourney was some good fun hockey from start to finish.
I didn’t watch one second of the tournament spare some GIFs I stumbled upon of the fake fights and the Benny save. This was a tournament for casuals, it did its job. It got people to talk about hockey for 8 days.
…have I stopped shitting on it?
I didn’t watch one second of the tournament spare some GIFs I stumbled upon of the fake fights and the Benny save. This was a tournament for casuals, it did its job. It got people to talk about hockey for 8 days.
You paid attention to this tournament from the first puck drop and the proof is in post #29 of this thread.
You're right that it DREW casuals, but it wasn't FOR casuals. This tournament happened to occur in an elevated-politically-charged climate and the general population was starving for a release of national pride. You're right that most of those casuals that latched on will go back to mindlessly scrolling through social media evenings instead of continuing watching hockey. The tournament was originally for hockey fans starved for best-on-best international competition but happened to grow into something bigger when the skates hit the ice.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 32,052
- Bookie:
- $ 1,500.00
lol, “paid attention”. Again, I saw two GIFs.
Unless you consider the fact I open up the ESPN app to read about a bunch of sports and saw some scores from the tournament. I guess I also “pay attention” to the Illinois Ballerinas and Boston Motorboats of the WNBA too since their scores also show up on the ESPN app.
Also lol at giving Trumpdaddy credit for making this some sort of Cold War shit.
Again, if you think it was great hockey to have 66% of the leagues top scorers not even participating, that’s cool. If you think it’s awesome that Shea Theodore broke his wrist for some fake tournament, that’s cool too.
lol @ "I saw two GIFs" - despite having posted in this thread at least a dozen or two times.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 32,052
- Bookie:
- $ 1,500.00
Uhhhhhhh, yes?
And now it’s actually 3 GIFs. Just saw Benny get his medal and noticed a trophy behind him. The top 33% of scorers were playing for a trophy AND medals?! Wowiewowowoowoowwo
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 32,052
- Bookie:
- $ 1,500.00
John Scott ASG >>>>>> SomedecentnonRussianplayers Cup
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2020
- Posts
- 9,889
- Reaction score
- 17,604
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
I missed this before. From what I've read it is my understanding that Hughes had still not been physically cleared to participate anyway (remember he is coming off of an injury) and so him not being/playing in Boston had little/nothing to do with the NHL's rules for the event.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 5,162
- Reaction score
- 13,357
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
- Location
- CANADA! Home of hockey and beer!
All in all, I thought is was a pretty good tournament, but I question it's sustainability. They were parading around the cup trophy like it was a 100 year old Stanley Cup, which was a bit cringe. There is only ONE cup. What about when Russia decides to behave? Does it then become the "Five" nation cup? Wherever it lands, hockey is hockey and always good, except that cartoon show Spangler Cup!!
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 32,052
- Bookie:
- $ 1,500.00