Cornell/Sucks game thread - Cornell 0 Sucks 1 final

3:30, HU still making some (careful) rushes. Faceoff next to McKee.

nor have we heard a peep from the crimson crowd

Hynes draws a penalty late!!!!

Welch is a hack.

pp time lets score, RED!

Penalty on the hack, pp #3 coming up!

LGR!

Noah the hack taks a penalty.

2:56 to go; we must score. Now.

LGR!!!!!!!!!!

55 secs on the PP. <2 mins in the game

Harvard shorty chance.

pp over

:45

:20

Can't get it out. It's over.

@#$%^&!

meh...good game...could have gone either way. The streak couldn't go on forever...I'd rather it end now than in Albany.

crap
that blows
better now than in albany is right

shitttty...so where does that put us in the national playoff picture?

Tough loss...I'm not use to a game with only 8 penalties...McKee sounded awesome and we battled to the end...I'll definitetly be at Union and RPI...hope to see some of you there!

Cornell's offense never really got going. Harvard is outstanding defensively and equal to Cornell. Tough loss.

Back to where we were going into the weekend. Tied for 13th in the PWR, i.e right on the bubble.

But with a pair of road games disposed of that could have been a disaster. All in all, not a bad result.

Agreed. This was the toughest road trip of the season outside of the one to East Lansing. Last night's game was very encouraging, scoring 4 goals off of D'Alba. Harvard is an excellent team this year and has only lost once at home. If the Red can take care of business and get 4 points in the capital district next weekend, we'll be in very good shape.

union is gonna be a really tough and a really telling game

I'm sorry, Greg, but a weekend that ends with getting Shut Out by Harvard is somehow "not a bad result"??? Did we win the Beanpot on Friday and nobody told me?

I know the Faithful don't want to hear this but....
I thought the team looked extremely flat (really bad) the first two periods.
They were great the third period but too little too late and Harvard was clearly the better team for two out of the three periods.
I sat in the Harvard section and was amazed at how silent the Cornell contingent sounded from where I sat. Cornell Fans couldn't be heard, Harvard fans out cheered us and Harvard outplayed us.
All in all - not a great night but.. I'm sure we will bounce back.
However, one thing that seems set for a while is the fact that these Cornell teams will find it very tough to go beyond the ECAC with this horrible (my opinion) style of Hockey.
There isn't even ONE player on this team that can create a goal when you need one and playing to somehow chip in two goals and hoping your Goalie only lets in one, works only so long. BTW, Mckee is the real deal - I think he makes the defense look good versus the popular opinion that that the Defense makes him look good.
I always knew this but never wanted to say it out loud - Cornell plays a boring style of Hockey. If recruiting a big, slow defensive team is the only way to eke out a few Ivy and ECAc championships, then I guess I don't really care for the championships. I'd rather watch a team that can play entertaining Hockey.
All the new college rinks are getting bigger. Time for us to wake up.

[Q]Redscore Wrote:

I know the Faithful don't want to hear this but....
I thought the team looked extremely flat (really bad) the first two periods.
They were great the third period but too little too late and Harvard was clearly the better team for two out of the three periods.
I sat in the Harvard section and was amazed at how silent the Cornell contingent sounded from where I sat. Cornell Fans couldn't be heard, Harvard fans out cheered us and Harvard outplayed us.
All in all - not a great night but.. I'm sure we will bounce back.
However, one thing that seems set for a while is the fact that these Cornell teams will find it very tough to go beyond the ECAC with this horrible (my opinion) style of Hockey.
There isn't even ONE player on this team that can create a goal when you need one and playing to somehow chip in two goals and hoping your Goalie only lets in one, works only so long. BTW, Mckee is the real deal - I think he makes the defense look good versus the popular opinion that that the Defense makes him look good.
I always knew this but never wanted to say it out loud - Cornell plays a boring style of Hockey. If recruiting a big, slow defensive team is the only way to eke out a few Ivy and ECAc championships, then I guess I don't really care for the championships. I'd rather watch a team that can play entertaining Hockey.
All the new college rinks are getting bigger. Time for us to wake up.[/q]

Not sure how many games you've seen this year, but judging from your comments, you haven't seen that many. Based on how they played tonight, I can totally see how you think the things you do. But McKee played one of his best games of the season tonight and has been very ordinary the few games prior to tonight, including last night. Offense has sporadically been a problem, but you have to understand that Harvard is an outstanding defensive team, easily the best defensive team Cornell has faced this year. This was not in question even when Cornell beat them 2-0 earlier in the season. Cornell's style of hockey is not an issue and it is probably the number one reason attributing to Cornell's success in recent years. Tonight, they did not execute that style very well because Harvard played their system perfrectly, totally clogging up the neutral zone and the area in front of their own net. Offensively, Cornell has the potential to be outstanding, and they have shown that at times. Some nights, they just have nothing going for them offensively, however. This is obviously a problem, but saying there isn't one player on the team that can create a goal is a huge exaggeration. They do not have a superstar and they only have one pure goal scorer (Moulson). Against Brown and Maine, it sure looked like there were players that can create goals. Not sure what you mean by all the college rinks are getting bigger. There are a few teams in the NCAA that play on olympic sheets of ice, but none of this has changed in the ECAC the last few years so it isn't really a factor.
The term "boring hockey" is an oxymoron to me. If you think the team is boring then don't watch them. Nobody else seems to have a problem with their style of play as long as they are winning which they have done far more than they have lost in the last couple years. Go watch Clarkson if you want an entertaining, fire wagon team. Of course they're 10th in the conference.

Bothman, is that you? Why don't you go post on the Harvard hockey website This "horrible" style of hockey got us to the FF in 03 and has propelled us to be consistently nationally ranked. If you don't like it, then go root for Western Michigan.

We probably were flat tonight (thanks for explaining what flat is)...after Harvard was dominated by Colgate and we cruised against Brown, a natural let down was brewing. I didn't see the game but it sounded like Bright was rocking like it has never rocked (Harvard fans did a cheer other than let's go Harvard, which is impressive, and they were cheering before the third period) and the Harvard players obviously fed off of the energy that they rarely get to see.

So Harvard beat us at Bright. Big f'in deal. They are supposed to beat us in their shack. Any they shut us out. How many goals did Harvard score against us this season? Remember when we embarrassed Brown and Harvard in our house? This weekend we scored four goals against a goalie that hadn't been beaten. We have become spoiled--it seems some have forgotten what it is like to lose to Harvard.

Bottom line: We are well positioned to finish in the top three after playing only eight league games.

[Q]atb9 Wrote:

Bothman, is that you? [/q]

LOL. Cmon, be fair, it could also be veritas65 or fastskate.

[Q]JohnnieAg'99 Wrote:
I'm sorry, Greg, but a weekend that ends with getting Shut Out by Harvard is somehow "not a bad result"??? Did we win the Beanpot on Friday and nobody told me? [/q]Sigh. Obviously it's disappointing, but "bad" in the sense of underperforming -- that it isn't. As folks have said, it could have gone either way, and 50% of the time (well, 40%, with ties as a push) that means it won't end in smiles. As for it being a shut out, you may as well say it was outstanding that we only gave up 1 goal -- context matters. What it was was a 1-goal loss against a ranked opponent on the road. A win would have been really nice, but, especially since they beat a hot team and a hot goalie on the road the previous night, I'm not going to gorge out over it.

you can't complain about both the skill level and the style of hockey. i'm not the most knowledgeable hockey guy but having watched a couple of cu games (loss to mich st and win vs princeton) and a few u of mn gopher games this year, it's clear that while the red are one of the better teams in the country, the talent and speed of the two teams don't compare. i suspect that our less exciting style of play makes us more competitive given the talent vs trying to play a more wide-open game. perhaps not the best example, but a bit like princeton basketball vs ucla/georgetown. that said, the gophers did get totally manhandled by colorado college yesterday

I was at the game last night, and if Cornell was the boring team, then Harvard was coma inducing. I will credit them with a very agressive forecheck often putting 4 men in the offensive zone when were trying to bring the puck out (coach appeared to make an in game adjustment in the 2nd period (new breakout using 4 players on the end line) and that is when Cornell started to control the flow better). I agree the team looked flat, I didnt really notice it until right after the Harvard goal,the next two shifts came out screaming and the difference was VERY noticable. But particularly in the 3rd Cornell was displayting all the creativity in the offensive zone and through neutral ice (you can cycle the corner and still have offensive creativity despite what some would argue). We lost 1-0, with a hit post in the 3rd that they probably heard on the street I look forward to the opportunity to play them in Albany

I'm not Bothman, veritas65 or fastskate or anybody other than a longtime Big Red fan. I was clearly frustrated after yesterday's game and probably should have stayed away from the boring comment. Point taken bern - I agree that one can't complain about the style and the talent in the same sentence. I can however be a bit dissapointed that the team showed up with no jump for the first two periods. I've only seen them twice this year (BC on TV and yesterday) and I've been surprised that both BC and Harvard actually outworked us at the start of the game. That never happens to a Cornell team. The BC game we corrected it after period 1, but last night took a lot longer and we paid the price. I will end this by looking at the positive side - the third period yesterday was terrific. I wish we had woken up earlier!

The last time I can remember Cornell being clearly outworked by the opponent was the '02 Final. Generally, Mike gets more out of his players pound-for-pound than any other coach, and since Cornell usually also outweighs their opponent, you know where that gets them...

Fair enough...You just made comments similar to a Harvard fan over on USCHO. The difference is he combined the comments with other comments that came right out of his bung hole. And I can understand the comments if you've only seen road games! We have come out slow during the first five minutes of a lot of road games this year and one can point to our youth for the explanation. As a result, we don't have a very good record outside of Lynah. Try to see the Jan 28 Cornell-Clarkson game on CSTV.

Getting two points isn't what a lot of us would like--I'd love it if they won every game--but it is a decent result for a tough weekend and even better when you consider that we put ourselves in a position to take 3 or even 4 points.

I agree that Cornell has been slow to start games on the road this season. We used to be able to draw a penalty early in the game, convert on the power play, and ride the momentum for most of the game. I don't know if that's still the intended strategy, but it was a strategy that worked. I guess we just need more players like Hornby who would be able to hit hard (usually legally) early in the game and force the other team to retaliate.

[Q]French Rage Wrote:

atb9 Wrote:

Bothman, is that you? [/Q]
LOL. Cmon, be fair, it could also be veritas65 or fastskate.
[/q]

Free HankWP!

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]