Nice statement to make with your season opener, a shutout on the road at a (theoretically) top ten team.
Top 4 players 1.Scrivens 2.Mugford 3.Barlow 4.Seminoff
I was going to say the same thing except "consensus pick to finish first" instead of "(theoretically) top ten". Either way and any way you slice it it's a real good way to start things off.
I would generally agree. I also thought that Greening looked good in the second half of the game or so. Also, is it just me or does Scrivens just lie down on the ice, or flail around when he doesn't know where the puck is? He made one very nice save like that and gave me heart palpatations the other 15 times. Still, can't argue with results.
Just a general thought that the freshmen looked like the belonged out there. Nice to see and as they improve I think this team could be very good.
[quote ansky629] Also, is it just me or does Scrivens just lie down on the ice, or flail around when he doesn't know where the puck is? He made one very nice save like that and gave me heart palpatations the other 15 times. Still, can't argue with results.[/quote]
It's the same way he's played for the last 2 years...and the source of much of the Scrivens vs. Davenport debates on here during the 06-07 season.
The 43 saves is the (very probably (http://www.tbrw.info/weeklyUpdates/cornellShutouts.html)) second-most in a win for Cornell since the 1940s, and third-most that I have any definite record of.
Schafer-coached teams have a majority (6 of 11) of the 1-0 wins in Cornell history.
Good start. Watching in White Plains agrees with the wallet -- $3 drafts!
Nice game. On the upside, we used our size effectively (Princeton looked real small on TV) and played well defensively with many blocked shots up top. Down side, not much going on offensively with very chances in front of the net and very little commitment to cycle the puck in the corner until someone could work free. Overall, can't argue with the result and a good start to build upon. See ya in the Q tomorrow night!
I thought Princ got shots off but I sure didnt think they got 43 on goal. too bad on the late offsides, sure looked good on my Tivo, but once he mad the pass he should have let up..
a little too much lazy passing, but much better coming thru center than Princ just not enough of it..
What an awesome game! Post-game beers at Triumph == very cool!
Getting lost on back roads around Princeton and almost winding up in New Brunswick instead of I-295 South towards Philadelphia == NOT cute...
Some general observations:
This may be the fastest Cornell team I've seen. There were lots of times when Princeton tried to break down the wing and our d-man got back easily to pinch the attacker into the boards.
We definitely out-hit Princeton, especially in open ice. A lot of Princeton players wound up on their asses. No so much for us.
Once we got the puck into their zone we controlled it pretty well, although we didn't always get the puck on goal. We did a decent job of clogging up the neutral zone. I also thought our PK did well.
OTOH, we did a miserable job in our own zone. If Princeton dumped it in, the only way we were able to clear was when they let us, either on a change or by only sending in one forechecker. Most of Princeton's shots came when they forechecked, got the puck back to the point, and had plently of time for a good shot.
Overall, a great win against a good team. But we need to improve our play in our zone.
A strength of this team is depth. There are guys who will be fighting for playing time that would've easily been 2nd liners on many teams of the past 15 years. Few "A" talents, but a TON of "B" talents across the board. If that first line emerges to be as dominant as they could be, I'll really enjoy watching this team.
(http://cdn-1-service.phanfare.com/images/1388773_2961991_52166543_WebSmall_4/Image-1388773-52166543-2-WebSmall_0_d93709448b06244635e53282f9d1b7fe_1)
Big Red celebrates Tylor Mugford's goal in one of the more densely packed corners of Baker Rink. Announced attendance was sellout-plus. Isn't it Princeton grads helping America making the numbers work on the federal bank bailout, too?
Good thing Cornell brought fans or Hobey Baker Rink would've been really empty. And this was your defending ECAC champion Princeton Tigers. Charitably, let's call it 1,500 that were there. The official Princeton box scores says 2,117 attended vs. a capacity of 2,092. By the way, if you bought a hockey ticket, you got in free to the Friday night Penn-Princeton football game.
As for the game: Whenever I see a Cornell hockey game played in the afternoon hours, it doesn't seem so exciting. Maybe because a lot of 4 p.m. games mean you wound up in the tournament consolation match. Two periods of scoreless hockey didn't help.
I was about to write that I thought the defense did a good job blocking shots and Scrivens probably wound up with 20 saves, 25 tops. Eeek! 43 got through to him in addition to the blocked shots? Ouch. Is it possible that in additon to some nice saves, Scrivens was out of position on a couple shots and the dramatically difficult saves that followed shouldn't have been that tough? But you have to feel better and better about Scrivens as Cornell's goalie. I thought the initial take on him, three years ago, was that he brought some additonal depth to the goaltending corps. Now he's leading it, and solidly.
Cornell looked pretty rugged and fierce in the Princeton zone desite no goals to show for it other than the shot that beat Kalemba and that wasn't off any set play. From my angle, maybe Kalemba was wee bit out of position, maybe he hadn't come out far enough, and maybe he just didn't get his glove into position. So, one mistake from a good goalie did in the Tigers.
Other thoughts:
-- The brothers Nash are indeed good. Riley seems to be playing on a different level from the rest of the ECAC some shifts. Although he's not perfect. From where I sat, on one play, 100 feet from the net, it appeared that Riley, who was about 8 feet from the net (and may have had a better view than me), had the net open to the near side and he waited a couple milliseconds to see if a better angle presented itself. It didn't ... and no goal once he shot.
-- A couple times Brendon Nash collected the puck off a Scrivens rebound near the Cornell crease, calmly moved it back and forth 1, 2 or 3 times on his stick, apparently waiting for a Cornell forward to move into a clear zone for a breakout pass. I think that's skill and chutzpah rather than risk-taking.
-- Love Greening's speed. He's playing on that same level as Riley Nash.
-- Usually we got stronger as the game goes on. Here I thought we played okay in the first without mounting much of an offense, peaked in the second, and tapered off in the third (the only period where we scored). The shots bear that out by period (Princeton then Cornell): 8-3, 15-10, 20-6.
-- The freshmen didn't look that bad.
-- We dodged a couple bullets, such as the 5-on-3 at the very end of the second / start of the third, and a nearly open Cornell net (midway through the third) where the Princeton attacker from 10 feet turned 270 degrees not 90 degrees to bring fire on the Cornell net, and then shot wide to the far side. Phew!
-- We had a couple perfect centering passes from the corner into and out of the slot in front of Kalemba, marred only by the fact that there was no one from Cornell standing in the slot.
-- I didn't see Princeton's stud forward, All-East Lee Jubinville, until the second period, but I may have missed shifts he took in the first. Was he out there then? Later, he looked good but not spectacular.
-- I sat a couple rows behind the Cornell bench. (Actually the rink is so small the most you can sit behind the Cornell bench is four rows.) Mike Schafer seemed pretty calm given his, ah, expressive tendencies in other years. He did, however, stick around after the game to offer the referees a couple thoughts (photo below) on, perhaps, either on one of the penalties called against Cornell or the was it/wasn't it offsides on the Riley Nash near breakaway.
A year ago we looked back at some of the early- and mid-season if-only games where, if we hadn't frittered away a lead or a tie, we would have had a better seeding going into the ECACs. This could be one of those if-only games for Princeton. You outshot the other guys more than 2-1 and don't even have a tie to show for it?
Game start at 4 pm was a real bummer for younger Cornell alums working in NY or Philadephia who can't just tell the boss they have better things to do. Ran into JerseyGirl at a business event Thursday and she was not happy with that early start that precluded her being at the game. Bet there were others suffering the same fate.
OK, on to Quinnipiac where we should theoretically have a less skilled opponent than we had in Princeton. But I'm betting T.D. Banknote (Bankworth? Bankrupt?) Center will be a lot closer to full (3,000) than Baker.
(http://cdn-1-service.phanfare.com/images/1388773_2961991_52166544_WebSmall_4/Image-1388773-52166544-2-WebSmall_0_a5051d33f4ce9d161530def4a857b89a_1)
Mike Schafer shares postgame pleasantries with referee Bob Ritchie. Schafer has a whiteboard marker (not visible this photo) in his hand, in case, perhaps, he wants to diagram how he saw the play. Or maybe they're just caucusing on what's the best puppy for Malia and Sasha to take to the White House.
[quote sah67][quote ansky629] Also, is it just me or does Scrivens just lie down on the ice, or flail around when he doesn't know where the puck is? He made one very nice save like that and gave me heart palpatations the other 15 times. Still, can't argue with results.[/quote]
It's the same way he's played for the last 2 years...and the source of much of the Scrivens vs. Davenport debates on here during the 06-07 season.[/quote]
I thought Scrivens played very well, and there was only 1 "big rebound" that he didn't control. Even though he did spend some time "flailing", he seemed to be in control and in good position (i.e. not much wandering out of the net).
There were quite a few shots from the point in which he had to fight through a lot of bodies to see and I was (pleasantly) surprised that he was able to keep them out of the net.
Maybe I have gotten used Scrivens style in goal, because no heart palpatations here in in Central IN. :).
Just watched the game on the DVR. I thought we played well, especially for an opener against the defending champs. Hard to imagine we were outshot 2-to-1; I thought quality chances were about even.
Certainly, a lot to be optimistic about. We have a nice blend of skill and grit, and better overall balance than in the last couple of seasons.
Here's something else that I've never seen before: At the end of the game, Schafer stood at the door and fist-pumped each of the players as they left the ice.
This team knew how big a game this was.
What else is there to say about this game other than Ben Scrivens' shoulders must be tired from carrying a heavy load? As the team exited the ice, Schafer saved his biggest smile and pat for Scrivens, and from my behind the goal vantage point, many of his 43 saves looked pretty impressive. Not as impressive as the freshman who fit right in.
However, Cornell seemed to get the bounces in this game in the defensive zone in terms of shots. When it came to clearing the puck, the team looked pretty freakin terrible. Princeton is a pretty good team and they anticipate well, (though clearly they are not top-10 worthy) but Cornell just happened to capitalize on one of its few opportunities of the night while Princeton could not. I was still very much troubled by the breakout neutral zone play, especially in the first period. The team seemed to come on more in the second, where shots were more even, but Princeton again dominated play in the third. The area that really hurt us last season and has carried over is the rush. Few of the defensemen seem comfortable stick handling through the neutral zone, while tape-to-tape passes continue to come at a premium. I'd be interested in seeing the turnover stats for the game. Nonetheless, the team frequently sacrificed their bodies and never really gave Princeton any superb scoring opportunities. One two-on-one rush that was knocked away was all. Good 5x3 kill to open the 3rd period, and they threw their weight around on the boards effectively too.
This team will not score a lot of goals. As I've seen at my time at Cornell, Schafer makes every player understand their role within the system. Each player has a specific responsibility. If they continue to buy into it, the team will be very effective.
Otherwise just a few quick things to note. Krueger played very well and his physicality has definitely picked up. I continue to be impressed by Locke Jillson's play, though it may simply be a factor of playing top line. Ari pointed out last year that Schafer would take Nash and Greening off the ice after a very short and effective shift for the checking line, and I noticed more of that tonight. It'd be nice to see more ice time for them, but given that Cornell won tonight, it's not really my place to second-guess the coach.
The preseason ECAC rankings, so far, don't seem to be a good indicator of where teams are playing. RPI beat Sucks tonight, Cornell beat Princeton, Dartmouth beat Onion, and Gate beat Quin, It's the first weekend and I'm already anxious to see how things play out.
Last thought is that this was the first time I saw the two-man referee system work well. Harry Dumas is a veteran ref with a lot of time spent in the AHL, so perhaps that contributed, but the refs called the game consistently between them. They judged the play with the same standard, and the ref 150 feet from the play did not call penalties 7 feet in front of the other referee.
See you in Hamden tomorrow. Hopefully we can close out our toughest road trip positively.
Sorry, I was in my first year at law school last year and didn't get to see too many games so I guess Scrivens' style is not as familiar to me. I got Redcast this year (how is that service, by the way) so at least my break from Cornell hockey was only one year.
Let's Go Red!
Next:
(http://www.elynah.com/media/misc/fighting_deerticks.png)
[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]OTOH, we did a miserable job in our own zone. If Princeton dumped it in, the only way we were able to clear was when they let us, either on a change or by only sending in one forechecker. Most of Princeton's shots came when they forechecked, got the puck back to the point, and had plently of time for a good shot.[/quote]On the flip side, I thought a LOT of Princeton's shots were of this variety and Scrivens had time and room to see most of them. Keeping shots to the outside makes Scrivens's work easier.
Your Fighting Deerticks poster is gorgeous. Note that if this were Ohio State, it would be The Fighting Deerticks.
Want to see more excessive use of color? Check out the official Quinnipiac website. Their website designer must have been told until pain of loss of scholarship to use every color from the box of 64.
(http://cdn-1-service.phanfare.com/images/1388773_2963857_52196134_WebSmall_2/Image-1388773-52196134-2-WebSmall_0_56d4de3b31ae721d11e05c1eba01a019_1)
http://www.quinnipiacbobcats.com/HomePage.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=17500&KEY=
... but, heck, the athletic complex is pretty nice. And it's only about a mile or two off campus, on a hilltop. I think Quinnipiac is moving the senior dorms up there. Nothing like splitting a small college campus in half for the sake of giving upperclassmen a view (almost) of Long Island Sound.
The old style is back perhaps, with the slog-it-out defense. It was so boring, seeing those teams of the early 2000s winning 2-1 or 1-0. Boring, boring, boring. Made for boring ECAC title games and boring NCAA appearances.
If Schafer can take the team to overachieving heights with hockey that won't make the ESPN highlights reel, well, okay.
If we tie a couple 1-1 games or lose it 2-1, we're going to wish Cornell hockey and Justin Milo had worked out something that kept him in Ithaca. OTOH, imagine where we'd be if Riley Nash had opted for a one-and-out Cornell career.
[quote billhoward]Good thing Cornell brought fans or Hobey Baker Rink would've been really empty. And this was your defending ECAC champion Princeton Tigers. Charitably, let's call it 1,500 that were there. The official Princeton box scores says 2,117 attended vs. a capacity of 2,092. By the way, if you bought a hockey ticket, you got in free to the Friday night Penn-Princeton football game.[/quote]
Bill, nice pics. Any more?
[quote billhoward]The old style is back perhaps, with the slog-it-out defense. It was so boring, seeing those teams of the early 2000s winning 2-1 or 1-0. Boring, boring, boring. Made for boring ECAC title games and boring NCAA appearances.
If Schafer can take the team to overachieving heights with hockey that won't make the ESPN highlights reel, well, okay.
If we tie a couple 1-1 games or lose it 2-1, we're going to wish Cornell hockey and Justin Milo had worked out something that kept him in Ithaca. OTOH, imagine where we'd be if Riley Nash had opted for a one-and-out Cornell career.[/quote]
I've never found an ECAC Title game or NCAA appearance particularly boring. I also don't think 1-0 or 2-1 games are by definition boring.
I also think it's quite early to write this team off as being as offensively impotent as the teams of '01 and '02.
Since no one mentioned it, I'd just point out that Collins looked quite good as well. Didn't notice him quite as much in the preseason games, but I think he'll make a nice impact.
[quote Chris '03][quote billhoward]The old style is back perhaps, with the slog-it-out defense. It was so boring, seeing those teams of the early 2000s winning 2-1 or 1-0. Boring, boring, boring. Made for boring ECAC title games and boring NCAA appearances.
If Schafer can take the team to overachieving heights with hockey that won't make the ESPN highlights reel, well, okay.
If we tie a couple 1-1 games or lose it 2-1, we're going to wish Cornell hockey and Justin Milo had worked out something that kept him in Ithaca. OTOH, imagine where we'd be if Riley Nash had opted for a one-and-out Cornell career.[/quote]
I've never found an ECAC Title game or NCAA appearance particularly boring. I also don't think 1-0 or 2-1 games are by definition boring.
I also think it's quite early to write this team off as being as offensively impotent as the teams of '01 and '02.[/quote]
Chris, I think you're making Bill's point for him, as I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
[quote Josh '99][quote Jeff Hopkins '82]OTOH, we did a miserable job in our own zone. If Princeton dumped it in, the only way we were able to clear was when they let us, either on a change or by only sending in one forechecker. Most of Princeton's shots came when they forechecked, got the puck back to the point, and had plently of time for a good shot.[/quote]On the flip side, I thought a LOT of Princeton's shots were of this variety and Scrivens had time and room to see most of them. Keeping shots to the outside makes Scrivens's work easier.[/quote]
Fair point. But in the 3rd period they started working their screens better (or our guys forgot not to screen) and that's when Scrivens earned his pay.
And regaqrding attendance, the rink really did seem half empty when the game started. One of my friends noted that the 4 PM start really did a number on attendance. He said it was a Princeton plot to keep the Cornell fans out of the rink. But by the third period it was three-quarters full, and I'd say better than half of those were the Faithful. However, in terms of volume, it was no contest. Unless their miserable (amplified) pep band was playing some God-awful pre-1980 crap, the arena was Lynah south.
And one more complaint: It took me almost an hour to get from the parking garage to Nassau Ave. A football game starting at the same time the hockey game was ending is a very bad thing.
[quote billhoward]
I was about to write that I thought the defense did a good job blocking shots and Scrivens probably wound up with 20 saves, 25 tops. Eeek! 43 got through to him in addition to the blocked shots? Ouch.[/quote]
In today's Ithaca Journal piece, Brandon Thomas writes that Cornell blocked 34 shots. Seems like both the D and the G did a helluva job blocking shots.
thats why i question the save totals.. hard to see 34 blocks and 43 saves and then all the shots that didnt go on net as well.. between the times we had the puck and the few shots they got on PP they would have avg 2 shots minute for the rest of the game..
[quote upperdeck]thats why i question the save totals.. hard to see 34 blocks and 43 saves and then all the shots that didnt go on net as well.. between the times we had the puck and the few shots they got on PP they would have avg 2 shots minute for the rest of the game..[/quote]What's typical for blocked shots? On the face of it, 77 total shots (43 on goal, 34 blocked) sounds insanely high, but I'm not used to blocked shots being reported. Maybe there often are high 20's, low 30's in a game?