Game analysis

[ugarte]

I posted this, more or less, on USCHO, but I thought that this crowd should take a look also.  It is a bit rambling, but how much am I expected to edit a hockey forum post?

First, because it has to be first, the goal call should not have been reversed. But I mean that literally. I have now watched the play dozens of times, and I can't tell anything. If the ref said no goal, it should have stayed no goal. The call on the ice was goal, and that is how it should have stayed. But the past is the past, and that's that. With 45 minutes to go and a tie game, that hardly ended it for Cornell.

The first reaction to this game here was that the Big Red laid an egg in the biggest game of the year. I have to disagree. I thought that Cornell played a damn good game, and outplayed UNH for some very long stretches. In the final accounting, the Paolini post and the Ayers face-save on Baby during the 6x5 were all that stood between Cornell and victory - despite the wave-off of the Palahicky goal.

As for the goals Cornell did score, Vesce's was the product of some great goal mouth positioning. Tough to do by such a little guy. And the appropriate amount of celebration when a goal leaves you down two halfway through the game. Appropriately understated. (Horst's reaction was also spot-on jubilant. He earned the right to pump his arms.) I still have to watch the Abbott goal again to see how it developed. It just happened out of nowhere. Chris Abbott did a great job of reining in a pass that trailed him, and firing it to the far post. Ayers didn't have a chance.

Of course LeNeveu also stopped some great chances that UNH generated, and UNH could have easily had 5 or 6 against a lesser goalie. (By the way, am I the only person that noticed that,given the low number of shots that each team generated, the percentage of shots that were quality scoring opportunities was very high.)

UNH had the upper hand for a lot of the game as well (duh. . .), and when they got their chances they cashed in. The Horst goal was the product of some great checking, positioning and ice vision. And from a cobbled together fourth line at that. Umile should be very proud of the way those kids put that play together. This goal, by the way, took advantage of what I see as Cornell's most pronounced defensive weakness - a tendency to leave the slot open when mucking along the boards. Mankato kept crashing the net, and if they kept their sticks down could have had a lot more quality SOG in the opening round.  (The second most-pronounced defensive weakness?  A few times a game, Cornell will make a lazy blind clear from in deep, and put it right on the tape of an opposing player.  Cost us a goal in Princeton, and scared me a few times against Mankato and BC.)

The first Saviano goal was also the result of some great tape to tape passing. It felt like Saviano had the puck on his stick for an eternity before he roofed it. Great play. The second Saviano goal was soft. Great sniping by Saviano, but that short side just shouldn't be open at all. Sigh.

I thought that the reffing was quality all around. My quibbles? Obviously the reversal, but that is just a matter of replay review policy. The on ice call was really impossible to make with any confidence. The Abbott hooking call against UNH was tickytack. The Moulson interference was a bad call - clearly pushed into Ayers. (You could say it cost Cornell, because of Saviano goal #2, but that wasn't really a prototype PP goal. Just a nice shot when LeNeveu did not have his usualy perfect positioning.)

Murray roughing and Hynes highstick were both good calls.

Overall, I think Cornell played a very good game, and while disappointed with the result, I was not disappointed with the play.

Great job by UNH, and I will be rooting for them in the finals. If you are going to lose, lose to the champs. (And one of my best friends here in NYC is a Badger, so I have to root against Minnesota.)

[Jeff Hopkins \'82]

After stewing about it for two days, I'll add my comments:

1) After the tip-in, I knew immediately that they were reviewing the high stick tip-in.  I was in the upper deck, above the goal, and could not see the angle.  

2) My thoughts about the called off goal was that this was karma for the BC wave-off.

3) Unfortunately, the team stopped playing for the rest of the period and part of the second.  It was clear that the wave-off really took the wind out of their sails, and UNH took advantage of it.

4) I was actually happy with the on ice officials.  The three guys I was with (all SLU grads) and I all thought the game was one of the best refereed games we've seen this season.  They let them play and called only what they needed to call.

5) I remember making a comment to my friends that I was surprised at how little hitting there was in the game.  The tempo was mostly our style, but we didn't hit as much as we usually do.

One last thing...

Go Blue!!!!  I hate the freakin' WCHA and their anti-eastern fans.

JH

JH

[dadeo]

My only question is i wonder why we didnt take very many shots from the point like we used too.  Baby had SOOO many good open looks and didnt shoot... ( I sat right behind the goal).  Vesce was amazing as usual though.  
The thing I hated most, (besides the PSAs) was the amount of time I was shouting "LETS PLAY HOCKEY"  silly NCAA

PS - I couldnt tell either if it was a high stick even though it was right in front of me

[Rico]

Im sorry but..

Karma for the BC wave off? that was clearly not a goal. This one was not clear in any sense.

When we get pushed into the goalie, and then have a penalty called.. I dunno.. I dont think missing things equally counts as good officiating.

Sorry to go off, but. yeah

[Jeff Hopkins \'82]

The one thing that's sure in hockey is that there will be bad calls.  My point was, over the course of a season you sometimes get the breaks and  sometimes you don't.  This was our turn to be on the short end of the stick.

Move on.

JH

[Lisa \'92]

I also was disappointed with the lack of intensity and fire for the remainder of the 1st period after the disallowed goal and for the 1st half of the 2nd period.  There also seemed to be lack of concentration.  We skated a lot slower to the puck, had some guys out of position on defense, passing wasn't as crisp as it usually is, etc.  The disallowed goal deflated them, and they took way too long to recover from it.  

LeNevue was likely to have an off game at some point.  It's too bad it happened in the Frozen Four.  He still made a lot of stops most goalies wouldn't make, but I was surprised at a couple of goals that he let in.  

Ayers was very impressive.  If we hadn't been playing against such a strong goalie, I think we would have overcome basically taking 1/2 the game off.  

Of course, if the goal hadn't been disallowed, it would have been a totally different game.  We would have been playing with a lead, but more importantly, we wouldn't have gone through the stretch of deflation and probably would have continued dominating the game.  

Everybody seems to offer an opinion about that shot, so I'll offer mine, too.  I was sitting in Section 307, which was the upper deck, blue line on the opposite end of the ice.  Obviously I didn't get a good look at it in person.  However, I taped the game and watched the "goal" when I got home.  I did my best to view it objectively, and I even had someone with no Cornell ties look at it.  We both felt that it was inconclusive and they shouldn't have overturned the call on the ice.  Oh, well.  That's sports.

I'm annoyed that I spent all of the time and money to travel to Buffalo (from Maryland) just to have the team basically take 1/2 the game off.  I know they're human, but there's no way they should have been deflated for so long after the goal was disallowed.  If we had given our best effort, I would be able to deal better with the fact that we lost.  

With that said, I'm still very proud of this hockey team.  The way we battled non-conference opponents this year proves that the ECAC deserves respect.  I always smile when I think of the BU coach's comment that we played more physically with them than any team they've faced in years (or something along those lines).  No matter what people might say, the ECAC can play hockey.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with this team next year.  Obviously there will be a lot of changes.  Has anybody heard if LeNevue will stay in school?  I hope he doesn't jump to the NHL.

[Mike Nevin \'87]

I really can't buy into the idea that this team took half a game off, or even that they really were that deflated when the goal was disallowed.  I think the real difference was the way that UNH played from the disallowed goal until they scored on the PP.

They (UNH) generated some great chances before their first goal on their first power play, and did a good job disrupting the D and getting turnovers in the Cornell end.  Good quick teams have been able to get good chances.  Harvard did it in the last 2 games.   Yale had good chances at the Whale, BC had chances.  UNH became unleashed by the no-goal, and was fortunate enough to bury more than the average number of chances.

Then they decided to back way off, and just play defense.  I thought that was a terrible coaching decision on their part that almost cost them the game.  They won by a diving head save.

[jd212]

[Q]Then they decided to back way off, and just play defense. I thought that was a terrible coaching decision on their part that almost cost them the game. They won by a diving head save.[/Q]

And the TV announcers specifically said, UNH better not sit on this lead against this team, because they will give them a run for their money. And they practically did, too