Love Means Not Having to Say "You Just Suck": Cornell at Harvard

We're wanting to beat them
We're willing to beat them
We're waiting to beat them

WHCU stream problems anyone?

Interesting the adverts are perfect, but Jason is indecipherable.

god forbid someone in the studio should notice there's a problem and try to correct it, or at least not broadcast unintelligible nonsense

sounds more like a beatboxing competition than a hockey broadcast

"Lynah East" shout out by the Harvard announcers.

Harvard PBP guy studied the rosters. Nice.

That was a terrible icing call

Jesus, what a siege. Win the faceoff here guys.

Unless Berard's went in...

This review is a blessing as long as we are okay.

Holy shit did we score?!

Nice redirect by Psenicka, 1-0.

I must be living in an alternate universe. WHCU is broadcasting its typical herp de derp stuff, and ESPN+ has no mention of Cornell-Harvard hockey. So keep me up to date on scores here, please.

The game is on ESPN+. Scroll to ice hockey - live game.

Coronato from Farrell. God I hate those guys.

Coronato is from my hometown.

ESPN+ link.

We have had several top notch looks, it will come.

Wow, that move by Bancroft late was such a great combo of muscle and skill. What a period; I'm tired.

THANK you I couldn’t find it anywhere!

Yes. Strong period except for about a three minute stretch right before the H goal.

Larry72
The game is on ESPN+. Scroll to ice hockey - live game.

Thanks - found it there. But weird that it wasn't under ECAC Hockey - that's where I usually see Cornell games.

I hate those guys.

Mitchell has to slide there

The WWE PA and idiot scoreboard is hilarious in this dead barn.

That's three goals against where Shane has been screened. Harvard's top two lines are talented but they're doing all the fundamental stuff, too

I believe this Cornell team is good enough to get back here. There is plenty of time and we have been putting good pressure on Gibson. Need a little puck luck and continued heart, and a couple goals to creep into Harvard's head.

Whcu stream back up. Jason sounds like he’s announcing from the bottom of a well.

Iceberg
That's three goals against where Shane has been screened. Harvard's top two lines are talented but they're doing all the fundamental stuff, too

On the PP Goal Maklinski was way too passive staying 3 feet off the guy that was screening Shane and never trying to move him off at all. I guess he was trying to look out for the cross ice pass to the back door. Glad he got the goal later though.

Shots now 30-23. Controlling this game everywhere but on the scoreboard.

The difference in raw skill is on display here. Some nights work rate isnt enough.

Cornell has moved up to 9th in PWR with out of town results... but clock's ticking.

Harvard’s five goals all scored by top-three-round draft picks. Maybe we can finally dispense with the notion that draft picks don’t matter and that Harvard doesn’t play up to its talent.

BearLover
Harvard’s five goals all scored by top-three-round draft picks. Maybe we can finally dispense with the notion that draft picks don’t matter and that Harvard doesn’t play up to its talent.

Only one of them was a snipe. The others were screens and a wide open net from a 2 on 1.

BearLover
Harvard’s five goals all scored by top-three-round draft picks. Maybe we can finally dispense with the notion that draft picks don’t matter and that Harvard doesn’t play up to its talent.

They should be running away with the league then. I don't get why you're so obsessed with this.

A loss is a loss is a loss. We'll be back out there to get 'em next week, and 5 of the next 6 are home cooking.

chimpfood

BearLover
Harvard’s five goals all scored by top-three-round draft picks. Maybe we can finally dispense with the notion that draft picks don’t matter and that Harvard doesn’t play up to its talent.

Only one of them was a snipe. The others were screens and a wide open net from a 2 on 1.

To be fair the 2 on 1 was perfectly executed

chimpfood

BearLover
Harvard’s five goals all scored by top-three-round draft picks. Maybe we can finally dispense with the notion that draft picks don’t matter and that Harvard doesn’t play up to its talent.

Only one of them was a snipe. The others were screens and a wide open net from a 2 on 1.

A lot of things go into a goal. Maintaining possession and prolonged o-zone time are two things that Harvard’s top lines (six draft picks) did very well tonight.

Exactly. The magic is in the finishing. We don’t have the talent level. To win, we have to airtight and Shane has to be great.

All the work without the magic doesn’t get you a lot of goals. In any event we drop to 11 in the pair wise. Not so bad.

You can’t just look at how the puck went in to determine the level of skill that goes into a goal. Harvard’s top two lines (especially its top line) had Cornell pinned its own end on a number of shifts. Cornell played fine when Harvard’s top line wasn’t on the ice, except in transition, where Harvard killed Cornell. Yes, Cornell had a few more shots, but Harvard had at least three times as many odd man chances as Cornell did. Part of that may be Cornell having to press due to being down three goals, but even before Cornell was behind, Harvard was outskating Cornell and beating them in transition. I’d rather play Quinnipiac than Harvard going forward.

Also, what’s the point of pulling your goalie with 2 minutes left when you’re down by 3? Either try to win and pull Shane with like 6 minutes left or don’t pull him at all.

BearLover
Harvard’s five goals all scored by top-three-round draft picks. Maybe we can finally dispense with the notion that draft picks don’t matter and that Harvard doesn’t play up to its talent.

I think everyone knows Harvard's top two lines are great and that's been the case the whole season. One key factor that hasn't been mentioned is that Harvard defenders other than Thrun decided to show up tonight. For much of 2023 thus far, that wasn't the case, but not this game. Cornell's forwards were being pressured and outmuscled at certain points, in fact.

BearLover
Harvard’s five goals all scored by top-three-round draft picks. Maybe we can finally dispense with the notion that draft picks don’t matter and that Harvard doesn’t play up to its talent.

Harvard doesn't play up to its talent.

Let's discuss this again after the Beanpot.

There should probably be a moratorium on declarations about the team's general ability for 24 hours following either a big win or a big loss.

This is a very good Cornell team. We'll see how good when the chips are down in the post-season. They are still statistically quite good. Despite the score, they carried the play for large parts of tonight's game.

We are where we were last season after 21 games: (13-5-3, 8-3-3) in 2022; (13-7-1, 10-4-0) in 2023. In each case, coming off a huge upset of #1 Quinnipiac followed by a disappointing performance against Harvard.

Here is what happened over the next couple weeks last season:

22. #11 L NR Colgate
23. #11 T NR Colgate
24. #16 L NR RPI
25. #16 W NR Union
26. #18 L NR SLU

Here is what we have coming up (current poll position):

22. #11   NR RPI
23. #11   NR Union
24. #11   NR Colgate
25. #11   NR Colgate
26. #11   NR Clarkson

So. Let's not do that again.

scoop85

chimpfood

BearLover
Harvard’s five goals all scored by top-three-round draft picks. Maybe we can finally dispense with the notion that draft picks don’t matter and that Harvard doesn’t play up to its talent.

Only one of them was a snipe. The others were screens and a wide open net from a 2 on 1.

To be fair the 2 on 1 was perfectly executed

Yeah. We had a 2 on 1 and blew it.

too bad they had such bad cameras on the over head of the first non goal.. you can see the puck go across the line slightly but not much more than that and who knows what it really did in the missing frames.

Am I the only one who felt like he was watching a different Cornell team in the third period last night? Yes, Harvard is talented, especially that first line - but it was almost as if Schafer sat the boys down during second intermission and said, "Okay, just slow down a bit, and forget how to pass to each other." It drives me absolutely crazy to watch our team underperform when I know they're capable of better. Losing to a better team when we do our best is a shame - losing to a better team when we don't do our best is aggravating as @#$%.

I felt they played wary of Coronato, Farrell, & Leferriere and were always stepping back from the attack when they were on the ice. Those guys carved us up like St. Louis & Perrin or Oates & Carter or Juneau & Coles once did, so it wasn't an idle worry. But I'm sure coach is telling them they need to play their game and push, and trust the trailing defender to cut off the pass and Shane to stop the shot.

Playing not to lose never ends well.

I did find myself wishing for a little bit of 2003 hockey. The firm of CF&L would have been a little less sprightly had they gone through the cement mixer for 60 minutes. But, for better or worse (mostly better) those days are gone.

there were stretches where both teams who ever got the puck in deep the other team could not do much.. Clearly Harvard has the more dynamic skaters. But given all that we out shot them, and we lost on the PP/PK even with many chances. The score does not really reflect how the play went.

We have 8 games left.. play well and at worst 6-2 to 8-0 and Harvard if they lose to Quin we could have 2 games in hand after next weekend and be tied for 2nd.

Cornell 6-2 gives us 49 pts
Harvard 5-1 gives them 49.

I do think we need to put the body to them as much as possible, though. I’m not sure we’re playing as physical as we can. Of course, a missed hip check or two can very well be a puck in the net.

Yet Harvard’s rink, at 204 x 87 with lots of room behind the nets, makes that difficult. So you have to tire them out through cycling, which, as you say, the 2003 team would’ve been able to do.

It was a particular defensive miscue that really let the game get away from us. Rego went for a pinch at the wrong time against the wrong player, and Andreev got sucked down lower than he should’ve been and then didn’t realize who had released early for the break. Really, a pretty boneheaded play by the both of them, and Harvard makes you pay.

Also, I know he was screened on a few of the goals, but Shane was not having a good night. Particularly on that Thrun goal, he was trying to see through the screen by standing and gawking instead of being in a good goaltending position. A goalie who isn’t “wide” leaves an awful lot of net to shoot at.

Scersk '97
I do think we need to put the body to them as much as possible, though. I’m not sure we’re playing as physical as we can. Of course, a missed hip check or two can very well be a puck in the net.

Yet Harvard’s rink, at 204 x 87 with lots of room behind the nets, makes that difficult. So you have to tire them out through cycling, which, as you say, the 2003 team would’ve been able to do.

It was a particular defensive miscue that really let the game get away from us. Rego went for a pinch at the wrong time against the wrong player, and Andreev got sucked down lower than he should’ve been and then didn’t realize who had released early for the break. Really, a pretty boneheaded play by the both of them, and Harvard makes you pay.

Also, I know he was screened on a few of the goals, but Shane was not having a good night. Particularly on that Thrun goal, he was trying to see through the screen by standing and gawking instead of being in a good goaltending position. A goalie who isn’t “wide” leaves an awful lot of net to shoot at.

Yeah, one thing about Shane is that to my eye he looks solid—he lets up very few obviously “soft” goals. And he even stops a high percentage of odd-man rushes from opponents. But his save %, at .912, is well below what we would hope for from a great Cornell goalie (in the ballpark of .930%). Let’s see where it ends up once we complete our stretch run against weaker teams. The lower number suggests some goals are going in that shouldn’t.

Also, I don’t think Cornell forgot how to pass—I think Harvard’s speed allows them to defend very aggressively and force Cornell to have to make split-second decisions on offense, which Cornell does not excel at.

Scersk '97
I do think we need to put the body to them as much as possible, though. I’m not sure we’re playing as physical as we can. Of course, a missed hip check or two can very well be a puck in the net.

Yet Harvard’s rink, at 204 x 87 with lots of room behind the nets, makes that difficult. So you have to tire them out through cycling, which, as you say, the 2003 team would’ve been able to do.

It was a particular defensive miscue that really let the game get away from us. Rego went for a pinch at the wrong time against the wrong player, and Andreev got sucked down lower than he should’ve been and then didn’t realize who had released early for the break. Really, a pretty boneheaded play by the both of them, and Harvard makes you pay.

Also, I know he was screened on a few of the goals, but Shane was not having a good night. Particularly on that Thrun goal, he was trying to see through the screen by standing and gawking instead of being in a good goaltending position. A goalie who isn’t “wide” leaves an awful lot of net to shoot at.

Also, IIRC, during the 3rd period, when we were skating with an extra man, one of our forwards blindly passed back to the point, but instead of being there, the defensemen were somewhere on the other side of center ice. How could this happen?

(I'm one of those who watched the game after it was over. So, I was falling asleep when I watched this. I'll have to rewatch to add names, numbers, and a more intelligent account of what was going on.)

Swampy

Scersk '97
I do think we need to put the body to them as much as possible, though. I’m not sure we’re playing as physical as we can. Of course, a missed hip check or two can very well be a puck in the net.

Yet Harvard’s rink, at 204 x 87 with lots of room behind the nets, makes that difficult. So you have to tire them out through cycling, which, as you say, the 2003 team would’ve been able to do.

It was a particular defensive miscue that really let the game get away from us. Rego went for a pinch at the wrong time against the wrong player, and Andreev got sucked down lower than he should’ve been and then didn’t realize who had released early for the break. Really, a pretty boneheaded play by the both of them, and Harvard makes you pay.

Also, I know he was screened on a few of the goals, but Shane was not having a good night. Particularly on that Thrun goal, he was trying to see through the screen by standing and gawking instead of being in a good goaltending position. A goalie who isn’t “wide” leaves an awful lot of net to shoot at.

Also, IIRC, during the 3rd period, when we were skating with an extra man, one of our forwards blindly passed back to the point, but instead of being there, the defensemen were somewhere on the other side of center ice. How could this happen?

(I'm one of those who watched the game after it was over. So, I was falling asleep when I watched this. I'll have to rewatch to add names, numbers, and a more intelligent account of what was going on.)

That basically happened on the 5th Harvard goal. Seger threw the puck away in the offensive zone to a vacant point and it led to a Harvard rush. The team seemed to panic at points in the game. But as others have said, this isn't the end of the world

You have to go back to the 2006-07 season to find a Cornell team with a save percentage close to as low as ours this season. Note that the below include empty net goals, so each season’s save % should be a few points higher. For example, Cornell’s save % in 2018 with a goalie in net was actually .939.

Cornell’s save % by season:

2007: .898
2008: .924
2009: .923
2010: .932
2011: .915
2012: .917
2013: .909
2014: .916
2015: .921
2016: .919
2017: .916
2018: .937
2019: .917
2020: .932
2022: .911
2023: .897

upprdeck
there were stretches where both teams who ever got the puck in deep the other team could not do much.. Clearly Harvard has the more dynamic skaters. But given all that we out shot them, and we lost on the PP/PK even with many chances. The score does not really reflect how the play went.

We have 8 games left.. play well and at worst 6-2 to 8-0 and Harvard if they lose to Quin we could have 2 games in hand after next weekend and be tied for 2nd.

Cornell 6-2 gives us 49 pts
Harvard 5-1 gives them 49.

Second place or third doesn’t matter all that much. We end up playing them in a semi faunal either way.

Colgate has been playing well and our home and home series against them in two weeks will most likely determine whether we finish third or fourth.

Since I was at the game in person, I never got an explanation for the first review, which came after an icing in the first period which never should have been called an icing. First, we thought the icing was being reviewed, but then we realized that's probably not a reviewable play. We then decided it must have been our shot off the crossbar a few minutes earlier which was under review to see if we had scored. But if that's the case, who had asked for the review? If we had, then Cornell would have lost its timeout when the play was ruled no goal. But that didn't happen, since we lost our timeout after a review later in the game.

dbilmes
Since I was at the game in person, I never got an explanation for the first review, which came after an icing in the first period which never should have been called an icing. First, we thought the icing was being reviewed, but then we realized that's probably not a reviewable play. We then decided it must have been our shot off the crossbar a few minutes earlier which was under review to see if we had scored. But if that's the case, who had asked for the review? If we had, then Cornell would have lost its timeout when the play was ruled no goal. But that didn't happen, since we lost our timeout after a review later in the game.

I think they reviewed both. Whether a guy touched it on the icing and then whether the shot went in.

coaches can ask for a review and that does not cost a TO if the refs agree

upprdeck
coaches can ask for a review and that does not cost a TO if the refs agree

Isn't it true that the refs can decide to review without a request?

Dafatone

BearLover
Harvard’s five goals all scored by top-three-round draft picks. Maybe we can finally dispense with the notion that draft picks don’t matter and that Harvard doesn’t play up to its talent.

Harvard doesn't play up to its talent.

Let's discuss this again after the Beanpot.

The fair thing to say is that historically, Harvard has seldom lived up to their talent over the course of a season.

One top shelf game doesn't prove or disprove anything

Scersk '97
I do think we need to put the body to them as much as possible, though. I’m not sure we’re playing as physical as we can. Of course, a missed hip check or two can very well be a puck in the net.

Yet Harvard’s rink, at 204 x 87 with lots of room behind the nets, makes that difficult. So you have to tire them out through cycling, which, as you say, the 2003 team would’ve been able to do.

It was a particular defensive miscue that really let the game get away from us. Rego went for a pinch at the wrong time against the wrong player, and Andreev got sucked down lower than he should’ve been and then didn’t realize who had released early for the break. Really, a pretty boneheaded play by the both of them, and Harvard makes you pay.

Also, I know he was screened on a few of the goals, but Shane was not having a good night. Particularly on that Thrun goal, he was trying to see through the screen by standing and gawking instead of being in a good goaltending position. A goalie who isn’t “wide” leaves an awful lot of net to shoot at.

Scersk '97
I do think we need to put the body to them as much as possible, though. I’m not sure we’re playing as physical as we can. Of course, a missed hip check or two can very well be a puck in the net.

Yet Harvard’s rink, at 204 x 87 with lots of room behind the nets, makes that difficult. So you have to tire them out through cycling, which, as you say, the 2003 team would’ve been able to do.

It was a particular defensive miscue that really let the game get away from us. Rego went for a pinch at the wrong time against the wrong player, and Andreev got sucked down lower than he should’ve been and then didn’t realize who had released early for the break. Really, a pretty boneheaded play by the both of them, and Harvard makes you pay.

Also, I know he was screened on a few of the goals, but Shane was not having a good night. Particularly on that Thrun goal, he was trying to see through the screen by standing and gawking instead of being in a good goaltending position. A goalie who isn’t “wide” leaves an awful lot of net to shoot at.

Skersk, in this case it didn't matter where Shane covered. He had to make a choice when he lost track of Thrun. Looking from the behind the goal camera, Thrun intentionally moves to the right, to make use of the screen. He takes his sweet time there as you can see Shane looking for him.

If Shane slid wide right, Thurn just as likely beats him to the other side. Thurn just waited until he had his lane and knew where Shane was not; Shane had no chance unless Thrun shot it off his Melon.

(And why does the server think I'm a bot and rejecting my post. Arg. I'm not oso...

abmarks
(And why does the server think I'm a bot and rejecting my post. Arg. I'm not oso...

Because you're using an Android phone?

upprdeck
We have 8 games left.. play well and at worst 6-2 to 8-0

We will have 1 or 2 off-nights during that stretch, like Sacred Heart and AIC II. When we play well, we may have a few pucks bounce the wrong way, or have the opponent also play well. We could wind up with 4 or 5 losses despite good process. It happens.

Starting 10-4 means even then we finish 14-8 or 13-9, collapsing derp point variance. This year, that is a lock for top 5. It is very likely a bye out of the first round Thunder Dome.

arugula
Second place or third doesn’t matter all that much. We end up playing them in a semi faunal either way.

I would really like last change against those guys.

Fair though I’m not sure how much matching that line will matter. We won tons of faceoff had tons of possession and still all they need is an opening.

arugula
Fair though I’m not sure how much matching that line will matter.

The evidence we have so far is an overtime loss vs a 4-goal loss. SSS, but still.