Cornell 2 at Yale 3+ENG (postgame)

Our 4-2 loss at Yale (including the ENG) was a game either team could have won. It's not frustrating like last year against Yale, where you didn't have as much hope the next encounter would turn out in Cornell's favor. This time, you've got to like Cornell's chances in a rematch. We've got to solve the little defensive miscues such as giving up the home run pass and maybe have Scrivens fitted for distance glasses. Yale's faster, we're bigger and tougher. Greening and Nash are playing on a different level from most of the rest of the league.

So, Ben Scrivens misplayed - misjudged the trajectory of? - a soft shot from the blue line. It shouldn't have happened but statistically it's going to happen to a good goalie every couple years. We beat Harvard once in OT where it was a hard dump-in shot from outside the blue line.

We were not sharp at least in this regard: On the attack, lots of Cornell passes back to the point, and Yale's attempted clears, dribbled past our guys and into the neutral zone, including on power play. At the other end, Yale was impressive in the ability of the defensemen to be in the right place to get to attempted Cornell clears and keep them in the attacking zone.

If there was an unstar of the game, it was either the seniors / first power play line that couldn't get it done late in the game, or the coach who went with them too much, too long, and without enough rest, and since they didn't score his judgment didn't look sound, whereas as if we had scored, he'd have been the wily genius again. (Greening was part of the PP unit that didn't get the job done late, but he certainly did in the first with the goal (PP) and assist.) On the 5x3 for three minutes in the third, the first line had been out for the 1-up PP part for a minute, Schafer pulled them when the second penalty was called, then took the 60-second timeout before the faceoof, and you had to wonder how much gas was left in their tanks after a 90-second breather. It also seemed that the PP unit was in the 2008-2009 mode of diddling around to set up the perfect shot knowing we had three long minutes here. Yale gets credit for a pretty vigorous 5x4 and 5x3 defense, too, holding us to 1x6.

The Family Nash was a two-man crime wave in New Haven with half our eight penalties. When you saw Riley wheel around and lash out at the Yale player with his stick in the third to draw the follow-on (double) minor, you knew Riley was the victim of an uncalled penalty. The refs saw the Nash retaliation only (penalty #1), and once Riley understood only he was going away for 2, in frustration ("stupid" would be a good word, too) made the mark of Zorro on his opponent, and so got called for a slash as well (it's a cross check on the scoresheet). He lost a $200 graphite stick in the process when it shattered and maybe some respect for not playing smart hockey. (Easy to say when you're not the victim.) I thought he was going to be gone for the game. Maybe the referees, pooling their collective wisdom, realized the only reason Nash went bonkers was because of something they messed up and didn't want to toss him.

Maybe our tiredness also led to that too-many-men called against Cornell midway through the third. Yale took some stupid penalties, too, to wipe out PP advantages and to go two men down. There was an amazingly boneheaded play by Yale's Tom Dignard, 30 seconds into a Yale PP, with the score at 2-2 late in the second, in the attacking zone, where he took about five steps directly at a Cornell player (and got off a nice hit, I must confess, more of less lifting him off hs feet), but it was a charge nobody at Yale argued.

The stats had the first period shots 22-8 in Yale's favor. They must be breaking in a new kid who misunderstood shots-at for shots-on goal.

Ingalls Rink is way better now for the fan after the renovations of the past two years, especially more bathrooms (one level down), and moving some of the concession carts to allow for more standing room. Lynah faithful will rebel, but some people think seatbacks and more legroom are a good thing, not bad. Comfort vs. urban density. The acoustics still suck. I missed the Cornell pep band. The word was that Cornell-Yale hockey conflicted with the Columbia football game. (One's a competitive sport; the other's a wake.) Aren't there band alumni who still have a trumpet in the closet? Playing at Ingalls is like singing in the shower: Acoustics distort good music and improve crappy music. Fortunately we had the Yale band for the latter.

So much for fears of getting shut out on tickets: Standing room was available at gametime, as it has been virtually every year, every game at Ingalls with the exception of last winter's Cornell game.

Is it always crappy weather at the Yale hockey game? Last year it rained and I remember getting pretty wet standing outside for 15 minutes trying to score a couple tickets. This year there was the edge of whatever is the current tropical storm (Ida?). That and messed up traffic took us 4-1/2 hours to go around 110 miles from NJ, causing us to miss dinner at Pepe's, but fortunately our friends, the Blumenthals, brought in a small box to the game with a couple slices.

billhoward
Our 4-2 loss at Yale (including the ENG) was a game either team could have won. It's not frustrating like last year against Yale, where you didn't have as much hope the next encounter would turn out in Cornell's favor. This time, you've got to like Cornell's chances in a rematch. We've got to solve the little defensive miscues such as giving up the home run pass and maybe have Scrivens fitted for distance glasses. Yale's faster, we're bigger and tougher. Greening and Nash are playing on a different level from most of the rest of the league.

So, Ben Scrivens misplayed - misjudged the trajectory of? - a soft shot from the blue line. It shouldn't have happened but statistically it's going to happen to a good goalie every couple years. We beat Harvard once in OT where it was a hard dump-in shot from outside the blue line.

We were not sharp at least in this regard: On the attack, lots of Cornell passes back to the point, and Yale's attempted clears, dribbled past our guys and into the neutral zone, including on power play. At the other end, Yale was impressive in the ability of the defensemen to be in the right place to get to attempted Cornell clears and keep them in the attacking zone.

If there was an unstar of the game, it was either the seniors / first power play line that couldn't get it done late in the game, or the coach who went with them too much, too long, and without enough rest, and since they didn't score his judgment didn't look sound, whereas as if we had scored, he'd have been the wily genius again. (Greening was part of the PP unit that didn't get the job done late, but he certainly did in the first with the goal (PP) and assist.) On the 5x3 for three minutes in the third, the first line had been out for the 1-up PP part for a minute, Schafer pulled them when the second penalty was called, then took the 60-second timeout before the faceoof, and you had to wonder how much gas was left in their tanks after a 90-second breather. It also seemed that the PP unit was in the 2008-2009 mode of diddling around to set up the perfect shot knowing we had three long minutes here. Yale gets credit for a pretty vigorous 5x4 and 5x3 defense, too, holding us to 1x6.

The Family Nash was a two-man crime wave in New Haven with half our eight penalties. When you saw Riley wheel around and lash out at the Yale player with his stick in the third to draw the follow-on (double) minor, you knew Riley was the victim of an uncalled penalty. The refs saw the Nash retaliation only (penalty #1), and once Riley understood only he was going away for 2, in frustration ("stupid" would be a good word, too) made the mark of Zorro on his opponent, and so got called for a slash as well (it's a cross check on the scoresheet). He lost a $200 graphite stick in the process when it shattered and maybe some respect for not playing smart hockey. (Easy to say when you're not the victim.) I thought he was going to be gone for the game. Maybe the referees, pooling their collective wisdom, realized the only reason Nash went bonkers was because of something they messed up and didn't want to toss him.

Maybe our tiredness also led to that too-many-men called against Cornell midway through the third. Yale took some stupid penalties, too, to wipe out PP advantages and to go two men down. There was an amazingly boneheaded play by Yale's Tom Dignard, 30 seconds into a Yale PP, with the score at 2-2 late in the second, in the attacking zone, where he took about five steps directly at a Cornell player (and got off a nice hit, I must confess, more of less lifting him off hs feet), but it was a charge nobody at Yale argued.

The stats had the first period shots 22-8 in Yale's favor. They must be breaking in a new kid who misunderstood shots-at for shots-on goal.

Ingalls Rink is way better now for the fan after the renovations of the past two years, especially more bathrooms (one level down), and moving some of the concession carts to allow for more standing room. Lynah faithful will rebel, but some people think seatbacks and more legroom are a good thing, not bad. Comfort vs. urban density. The acoustics still suck. I missed the Cornell pep band. The word was that Cornell-Yale hockey conflicted with the Columbia football game. (One's a competitive sport; the other's a wake.) Aren't there band alumni who still have a trumpet in the closet? Playing at Ingalls is like singing in the shower: Acoustics distort good music and improve crappy music. Fortunately we had the Yale band for the latter.

So much for fears of getting shut out on tickets: Standing room was available at gametime, as it has been virtually every year, every game at Ingalls with the exception of last winter's Cornell game.

Is it always crappy weather at the Yale hockey game? Last year it rained and I remember getting pretty wet standing outside for 15 minutes trying to score a couple tickets. This year there was the edge of whatever is the current tropical storm (Ida?). That and messed up traffic took us 4-1/2 hours to go around 110 miles from NJ, causing us to miss dinner at Pepe's, but fortunately our friends, the Blumenthals, brought in a small box to the game with a couple slices.

Thanks for this. Gotta love a meaty postgame recap. One thing, though: when would a PP unit ever get more than a 90-second breather?

Agree with most of the above analysis. (Especially with the traffic on I-95 sucking part)
Yale played a very fast and well skated game, quickly capitalizing on many neutral zone turnovers and peppering Scrivens with shots (22 alone in the first period - agreed they we're not shots on net). However, that said the game could have gotten out of hand early had a few more of those chances (because many did miss the net) had gone in.
I don't think Cornell did a good enough job of rotating through all of our lines. Thus relying a little too much on Nash/Greening. But I definately saw good play out of Jillson, Scali, and Roeszler. These guys stepped up their play in the third after looking a little tired and getting out played in the 2nd period.
R. Nash did just miss finishing on a 2-1 shortie chance during the 2nd.
Yale did a good job a clogging up the middle on the PK late in the game, especially during the CU 5-3. However, it did appear as though the PP was trying to get to fine, looking for the perfect cross-ice back-door open-net one-timer instead of just blasting good hard shots from the point and cashing in on the rebounds.
Let's hope the guys rebound tonight and get 2 points in Brown.

HockeyMan
Thanks for this. Gotta love a meaty postgame recap. One thing, though: when would a PP unit ever get more than a 90-second breather?

Good point. Except usually it's just one PP then you go back to even strength. Here Cornell had 3 minutes of overlapping PP and they were out for the first 2 minute (approx) broken up by the 60-second timeout. They score, Schafer's a genius for sticking with the guys who've been getting it done all year (all 3 games) on PP; they don't, he didn't realize how much he'd overplayed his first line.

I forgot to add that I was a little uncomfortable with us being #3 after 3 games. Top ten seems right to get attention. This should solve that problem.

MattShaf
Yale played a very fast and well skated game, quickly capitalizing on many neutral zone turnovers and peppering Scrivens with shots (22 alone in the first period - agreed they we're not shots on net). However, that said the game could have gotten out of hand early had a few more of those chances (because many did miss the net) had gone in.

I think the shots they report are actual shots on goal - they result in either a save or a goal. I agree that not all of them were good shots with a decent chance of going in, and I also strongly agree that the last two powerplays were way too soft.

Those at the rink agreed Yale outshot us in the first period but we doubt it was by 22-8 or whatever. (When we got our second goal, that was our third SOG, I believe the scoreboard said.) It felt as if the stats were being kept by a Yale chauvinist, someone who needed work-study, not a student of the game. I mean chauvinist in the original sense.

billhoward
Those at the rink agreed Yale outshot us in the first period but we doubt it was by 22-8 or whatever. (When we got our second goal, that was our third SOG, I believe the scoreboard said.) It felt as if the stats were being kept by a Yale chauvinist, someone who needed work-study, not a student of the game. I mean chauvinist in the original sense.

Shots, shmots.

Yale had a huge territorial and scoring chances edge in that period. They looked like a Harkness-coached Cornell team the way they swarmed over everyone with or close to the puck. If Cornell didn't give up that awful sleeper goal in the last minute, it would have been huge to come out of that period ahead.

Yale is really good at these fast transition goals.

lynah80
Yale is really good at these fast transition goals.

That's a crap goal. Scrivens should be able to stop a wrister from the point. I would chalk that up to a mistake on Scrivens' part rather than some amazing ability of the Yale offense. They scored some much better goals that night.

Kyle Rose

lynah80
Yale is really good at these fast transition goals.

That's a crap goal. Scrivens should be able to stop a wrister from the point. I would chalk that up to a mistake on Scrivens' part rather than some amazing ability of the Yale offense. They scored some much better goals that night.

Did it go off Krueger's stick? It looks like it came up at a sharper angle, I hear a second sound than just the shot, and Krueger stood looking at Scrivens after the goal.

Jim Hyla
Did it go off Krueger's stick? It looks like it came up at a sharper angle, I hear a second sound than just the shot, and Krueger stood looking at Scrivens after the goal.

Possibly. Significantly, I was listening to it with the sound off due to my sound chipset's inability to do hardware mixing.

the grassy knoll theory

bernie
the grassy knoll theory

good one.

Did it go off Krueger's stick? It looks like it came up at a sharper angle, I hear a second sound than just the shot, and Krueger stood looking at Scrivens after the goal.

I heard the same thing. That would make sense as any deflection will make an easy shot difficult to stop.

tretiak

Did it go off Krueger's stick? It looks like it came up at a sharper angle, I hear a second sound than just the shot, and Krueger stood looking at Scrivens after the goal.

I heard the same thing. That would make sense as any deflection will make an easy shot difficult to stop.

Thanks, at least I know I'm not totally crazy.

From the Yale Ice Hockey website is Mason's version of what happened:

"It was the end of our shift. O'Neill cut across and drew two defenders to him. The two defensemen crossed each other and gave me more space," said Mason. "I fired a quick shot that caught Scrivens by surprise."