Not much Cornell energy in the first half of the third period.
Richter's a good goaltender. Still, we should be able to manage more than 1 goal a game.
Definitely not a case of looking ahead to Saturday's game.
[edit add:] We also scored again on PP (1x4) and held Harvard scoreless (1x3) which is an improvement over the early games. Too bad we had no goals to show for the energetic second period.
Great effort and an exciting game.
-We lost the game in the 2nd period. I think it was our best period of the year--We outworked and outplayed them, but came away with nothing.
-We didn't respond well after the 2nd Harvard goal--lackluster PP, poor PK.
-That fourth line didn't see much ice time and I wish they could have seen less.
Edit: I'll add that I think the SOG totals are deceiving (read: not indicative of high quality scoring chances)... the VAST majority of Harvard's shots were from the perimeter.
[quote redhair34]Great effort and an exciting game.
-We lost the game in the 2nd period. I think it was our best period of the year--We outworked and outplayed them, but came away with nothing.
-We didn't respond well after the 2nd Harvard goal--lackluster PP, poor PK.
-That fourth line didn't see much ice time and I wish they could have seen less.
Edit: I'll add that I think the SOG totals are deceiving (read: not indicative of high quality scoring chances)... the VAST majority of Harvard's shots were from the perimeter.[/quote]
Agree on all counts. Team looked good much of first period and almost all of second. Good effort against a quality team, I thought. For a bunch of "roll" players and grinders::innocent:: they held their own against this supposed wonder team.
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote redhair34]Great effort and an exciting game.
-We lost the game in the 2nd period. I think it was our best period of the year--We outworked and outplayed them, but came away with nothing.
-We didn't respond well after the 2nd Harvard goal--lackluster PP, poor PK.
-That fourth line didn't see much ice time and I wish they could have seen less.
Edit: I'll add that I think the SOG totals are deceiving (read: not indicative of high quality scoring chances)... the VAST majority of Harvard's shots were from the perimeter.[/quote]
Agree on all counts. Team looked good much of first period and almost all of second. Good effort against a quality team, I thought. For a bunch of "roll" players and grinders::innocent:: they held their own against this supposed wonder team.[/quote]
Unfortunately the loss is disappointing, like a day-old tuna grinder, which, by some accounts, might qualify as a good meal in Hanover. ::yark::
Here's hoping they can put together as good an effort tomorrow and come away with two points.
LGR!
[quote Rita]
Here's hoping they can put together as good an effort tomorrow and come away with two points.
[/quote]
I'd like to be at Thompson for a Cornell win at least once before I wither away. I just hope that day is tomorrow (the win, not the withering).
Not about Harvard postgame, but didn't feel like starting a new thread.
I saw the dartmouth v. colgate tonight. Dekanich kept 'gate in the game with 42 saves. Devine looked so-so...nothing spectacular from him. Both defenses were below average, but Dartmouth's offense was very fast and that led to more scoring chances for them. The ref (i think it was Dell) swallowed his whistle after the first period, but it wasn't a very physical game anyway. The dartmouth team is young and got flustered early on when they were behind. If Cornell can get on them early and keep it physical, I think this might be the year they take one at Thompson.
[quote Rita]
Here's hoping they can put together as good an effort tomorrow and come away with two points.
LGR![/quote]
According to the front page of USCHO, we've managed to steal two points tonight with a win over Yale... I know we won last weekend but I didn't think it was so good a win that they would see fit to give us two more points for it :-}
[quote redhair34]I'd like to be at Thompson for a Cornell win at least once before I wither away. I just hope that day is tomorrow (the win, not the withering).[/quote](Trotsky posting from Anne's account):I am 8-1 at Thompson and I'll be there tonight.
If Kennedy's (?) second-period post-ringer had been an inch to the right, we might have won. OTOH, Scrivens got VERY lucky several times... we could easily have lost 4-1.
A win tonight and they solidify an early-season position in the top half -- tending towards the top four. If Clarkson and Harvard are the top two but Cornell can play with anybody else in the league, no complaints.
[quote Anne 85](Trotsky posting from Anne's account)
A win tonight and they solidify an early-season position in the top half -- tending towards the top four. If Clarkson and Harvard are the top two but Cornell can play with anybody else in the league, no complaints.[/quote]
Actuaaly, I thought we showed that we could play with Harvard. Considering how Harvard played with Clarkson, and how Yale did with them, I'm optimistic that we can play with anyone. We certainly were not out skated and kept up with their speed last night. It was a loss, but you have to come away with a positive outlook.
And what's the problem, you don't want to give Anne the credit for your heady remarks.:-}
We're 3-3 now. For those who've seen the losses in person, or who paid close attention on the video feeds: How many of those games could we have won or tied? All of them? So we could be 6-0? 4-0-2? 4-1-1?
My sense from the dimly lit Harvard video (it's called Bright Arena to teach Cantabs the meaning of irony?) is that this was a game either team could have won and as others said pointedly, we lost the game in the second period when we didn't score once or even twice. It feels as if this game should have been a 2-2 tie; given how slugglishly we played to open the third, we deserved to give up the goal we gave up.
Forums such as eLynah are great places for coulda, woulda, shoulda discussions. Cheaper than psychiatry, safer over the long haul than Xanax.
[quote billhoward]We're 3-3 now. For those who've seen the losses in person, or who paid close attention on the video feeds: How many of those games could we have won or tied? All of them? So we could be 6-0? 4-0-2? 4-1-1?
My sense from the dimly lit Harvard video (it's called Bright Arena to teach Cantabs the meaning of irony?) is that this was a game either team could have won and as others said pointedly, we lost the game in the second period when we didn't score once or even twice. It feels as if this game should have been a 2-2 tie; given how slugglishly we played to open the third, we deserved to give up the goal we gave up.
Forums such as eLynah are great places for coulda, woulda, shoulda discussions. Cheaper than psychiatry, safer over the long haul than Xanax.[/quote]
Well, from my perspective of having seen all losses, we have gotten better with each weekend. This was certainly our "best' loss. After RIT I was hopeful we could improve to get good playoff position. After the P/Q weekend we at least knew we could play. Last weekend showed we could beat some OK teams. I think this loss shows we can play with the "best'. Now I'm hopeful for home ice, after a bye. So, we have a young team and we seem to be improving each week.
Talking with Al before the game he made the comment that if Harvard was that fast they should try and forecheck us like crazy and rely upon their speed to get back on defense. Yes they can forecheck, but we showed we can keep up with their speed. I think we were even with them, except I still don't feel that comfortable with Scrivens, especially when he starts skating to the puck. Considering our youth you've got to feel the best is yet to come.
[quote Jim Hyla] I still don't feel that comfortable with Scrivens, especially when he starts skating to the puck. Considering our youth you've got to feel the best is yet to come.[/quote]
You're right, it's a bad habit, and I'd be surprised if Schafer isn't getting on him about it. But look at these numbers: .930 2.02 3- 2- 0
We haven't seen these numbers, even briefly in the past two seasons. And for all the numbers McKee, Leneveu, etc. put up, they had solid defenses and outshot the opponent. Cornell is consistently getting outshot, and some the few goals Ben has let in have been shots where he was hung out to dry by the defense.
With consistently solid defense, his numbers could be over .950 to this point. We could not ask for him to be playing any better at this point!
Most of the time he's making the right play charging the puck. If you can beat the player skating in, that's always preferable to basically giving the other team a breakaway chance. The problem with Scrivens is how he handles the puck when he gets to it. The safe play is to dump it out of the zone, but he usually tries to handle it or feed it to a teammate, fumbles it and escapes disaster by the skin of his teeth. Good fundamentals, bad execution. I don't care what his numbers are. He never looks comfortable, goes down too early, is often caught way out of position, and it feels to me he's only achieved those stats through sheer luck. Davenport at least usually has good positioning and more composure. He puts himself in a position to make every save. Just lets a lot of soft ones through.
My own comments one the one game that I've seen this year compared to the same one game I saw last year:
I like our D. Last year I thought we were untypically Cornellian - too much offense too little Defense. It wasn't the team I'm used to and I figured I wouldn't turn up well. This year the D was much more solid, which gives me more hope.
With the exception of the beginning of the third period where they broke down. There were a few mistakes one after another before that second goal. And on that one, or defender (I couldn't see the name) totally left the goalie out to dry.
Hopefully Schafer will clean these rough spots as the season progresses.
On another note: The crowd was horrible. The place had a lot of empty seats. I was really surprised how ineffective Cornell was in filling up their arena compared to years past.
[quote kaelistus]On another note: The crowd was horrible. The place had a lot of empty seats. I was really surprised how ineffective Cornell was in filling up their arena compared to years past.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure those empty seats were season ticket holders who decided to go to New Haven instead and didn't/couldn't sell their seats.
[quote Tub(a)][quote kaelistus]On another note: The crowd was horrible. The place had a lot of empty seats. I was really surprised how ineffective Cornell was in filling up their arena compared to years past.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure those empty seats were season ticket holders who decided to go to New Haven instead and didn't/couldn't sell their seats.[/quote]
That's my take as well. Jim Hyla said they put up for sale the section normally occupied by the Harvard band, and those seats were just about filled.
Anyone think there's a slight chance we see Davenport in goal tonight?
I would think, given the low goal totals over the past few games and (IMO) the importance of establishing a no.1 goalie, that Scrivens will start.
[quote kaelistus]On another note: The crowd was horrible. The place had a lot of empty seats. I was really surprised how ineffective Cornell was in filling up their arena compared to years past.[/quote]
Another thing to consider is that this is a rare year where the Harvard game isn't the "destination game" circled on the calendar for many fans in the Northeast. That one apparently comes next week. I didn't see the same number of CU fans outside asking for extras I normally do.
We played with confidence and spirit...very aggresive. I thought we were going to win, and easily could have. Both teams played very well and clean. I was a fun game to watch.
Break-out: big improvement. We only stumbled a few times but generally moved the puck with confidence. We penetrated their trap towards game-end pretty handily;
PP: showed improvement, some real solid moments;
PK: up and down, but sound overall;
There were at least 3 times when we didn't finish prime scoring chances. Harvard missed one or two also.
Scrivens: the 1st goal was back-door...we was hung out. Second goal resulted from confusion to Scrivens' right. I had a perfect view from behind the shot. After our inability to control the puck in front, the puck squirted out to the shooter in Scrivens' right face-off circle who beat Ben stick-side over his blocker...another short-side goal. The shot was about 20 feet, and Ben should have had a good look at it. I felt this goal was weak, as once again faulty positioning resulted in a short-side goal. He still does not inspire a great deal of confidence, but neither does Troy.
[quote Townie]He [Scrivens] still does not inspire a great deal of confidence, but neither does Troy.[/quote]
In this decade, seeing All-America goalies Underhill, Leneveu and McKee, a good goalie will seem average and an average-for-the-upper-reaches-of-D1 goalie will seem subpar.
And we're still wrestling with those issues of whether it was great goaltending or great defense in front of the goalies.
[quote billhoward][quote Townie]He [Scrivens] still does not inspire a great deal of confidence, but neither does Troy.[/quote]
In this decade, seeing All-America goalies Underhill, Leneveu and McKee, a good goalie will seem average and an average-for-the-upper-reaches-of-D1 goalie will seem subpar.
And we're still wrestling with those issues of whether it was great goaltending or great defense in front of the goalies.[/quote]
I believe great defenses allowed the two Daves to break records. However, there will always be times when a goalie is tested, the result of which may determine game momentum. Leneveu and the sophomore McKee did that consistently, and were fundamentally sound. What I'm seeing now is faulty positioning resulting in weak/short-side goals, ugly rebounds resulting in scoring chances, questionable puck-handling....basic goaltending. On the up side, I think Ben is improving steadily, and should continue as The Starter.
The team "personality" is beginning to emerge with the right ingredients to be a legitimate ECAC contender: gifted offensive players with an effective combination of size, speed, brute strength and hockey sense; a solid corps of defensemen with a good combination of size and speed/skill (Davenport has stepped up nicely); depth (two key starters are out); heart and sound leadership (best since Knoepfli). They continue to improve with game experience. IMO, the one element lacking to be competitive at the next level is tight goaltending. My hope is Ben (or Troy) will have the upside to be that goalie, because I don't believe he's there yet.
First game I've been able to get to this season.
My main impressions:
- Harvard played a different style than I'm used to seeing. I'm used to seeing more set plays and backdoor passes. Friday there was a lot more crashing the net and hoping to score amid chaos. In the third Dufault got open on the back post a few times but never got the puck. Usually they have guys like him camped there whenever they are setup in the offensive zone.
- Richter was solid but unspectacular. He made 2-3 key saves and Cornell missed the net by inches a bunch of times.
- Scrivens was frantic but effective. He won't get away with juggling the puck like that all the time. Reminds me a little of young Underhill who was fond of covering the puck with his stick hand for a few years.
- Berk was was in over his head.
- Riley Nash is a model of composure with the puck everywhere on the ice.
- A lot of penalties went uncalled both ways. I'm perfectly fine with that. The game flowed well and neither team was particularly disadvantaged.
- It's fun to watch people watch RichH shout stuff.
- Boo the band for not playing love story at the start of the second.
- Boo Harvard for beating Yale.
[quote redhair34]
-That fourth line didn't see much ice time and I wish they could have seen less.
[/quote]
They made up for it last night:-)
[quote Chris '03]- Boo the band for not playing love story at the start of the second.[/quote]The band played Love Story prior to the opening lineups. Isn't then when they always play it?
Not much to say that hasn't been said already, but I'll echo some things that I saw out there.
A 1-1 tie coming out of the first period and on the road was a good start for this Cornell team.
The second period definitely showed the team's ability to play and skate with any team in the ECAC.
The third period was a disappointing effort, especially with the late PP chance producing next to nothing.
As a side note, I also thought Biega's most noticeable play on the night was his leg on leg trip of M. Kennedy(?).
Special kudos to the band for playing Pinball Wizard after the game ended.
Cornell fans,
Good game on Friday night. It really could have gone either way and I think the biggest difference is that Richter > Scrivens. Been a long time since Harvard could say that its goalie is better than Cornell's, but I think this may very well be the case.
On that note and looking to the future, it will be interesting to see how the Matt Hoyle vs Mike Garman match up pans out. Two heralded goalies - both moreso than Richter and Scrivens / Davenport.
Good luck the rest of the way and see you in Albany.
The RinkRat has a pretty nice entry about the Faithful, Lynah East, and Schafer's weight loss. Nice pics too.
http://slog.cstv.com/rinkrat/2007/11/the_beasts_of_lynah_east.html
[quote bothman]Good luck the rest of the way and see you in Albany.[/quote]Likewise. I like this edition of the Crimson. They hit.
[quote bothman]Cornell fans,
Good game on Friday night. It really could have gone either way and I think the biggest difference is that Richter > Scrivens. Been a long time since Harvard could say that its goalie is better than Cornell's, but I think this may very well be the case.
On that note and looking to the future, it will be interesting to see how the Matt Hoyle vs Mike Garman match up pans out. Two heralded goalies - both moreso than Richter and Scrivens / Davenport.
Good luck the rest of the way and see you in Albany.[/quote]
Not if we see you first ;-)