Fish N Fowl 11/11/23

[arugula]

I was also surprised (at least in the first period) how easily the Harvard forecheckers (even the smaller guys) were winning puck battles and muscling us around, seemingly out-"Cornell-ing" us. Here's Schafer's take on the power play efforts, from the Sun recap:

"I thought the power play for the first time this year got selfish," Schafer said. "[They] didn't really move the puck around and open up seams and lanes ... all they wanted to do is just solely shoot pucks."

Castagna is on his way to driving me nuts with his dithering and over passing and stick handling.

I mentioned to someone last night that Castagna is reminding me a bit of the Tony Romano experiment, although he can usually at least get the puck into the zone and not automatically turn it over/fall down in the neutral zone like I recall Romano doing frequently.

Very interesting that Schaf seems to want more passing.  I felt like they had many opportunities they passed up to pass more.  The pointmen would swoop around and around and do nothing.   Volume shooting is not the worst thing if you crowd the net. Goals don't need to be pretty.  

Just back from breakfast.  Castagna was in the next booth with Dad lecturing him about his board work.  Poor kid.

[ugarte]

Certainly need to practice 5x3 more often...

i was going nuts that there were no efforts to set screens or pass to someone positioned back door. we got shots off but nothing challenging.

Last night was my third in person game of the season. I also watch a ton of NHL and too often forget the yawning gap in skill level between the NHL and the NCAA.  So the idea of back door passes, screens, and basketball style cutting is likely too much to ask.  My complaint was that the players, at least a lot of them, seem to think they can do those things. As a result, while we outshoot everyone, we should have even more shots.  Seeing Ondrej try to nutmeg five feet from the net was insane.  Castagna is on his way to driving me nuts with his dithering and over passing and stick handling.  Some of the young D too. We should play a very direct game like Bancroft does. Shoot the damn thing, create a rebound and go to the net. 2-3 of the goals last night were scored that way.

Then how come we give one up to BU every time we play them? It's not a complicated thing to think that someone should be trying to position themselves for a screen, deflection or tap-in when the puck is circulating around the perimiter. There's more to life than an open look at the net.

At the same time, for the love of god every time we DID get the goalie out of position with an open net screaming for a goal whoever was closest to it couldn't control the puck. This is less a criticism of the players, since it was often bouncing or on edge, but a desperate plea with the universe to flatten the puck for us.

[BearLover]

Despite the disappointing weekend I still feel like the team is ahead of my expectations.  For a team with so many first year players playing key roles I have seen plenty of instances where it feels like these guys have been in the system for years.  The lost weekend was definitely a team effort.  I generally believe that the hallmark of successful Cornell teams is their straight ahead mentality.  I saw way too many soft backwards plays in all three zones this weekend that are a departure from that process.  The one that sticks out to me the most was in the second period last night where Wallace entered the zone with some room during a change and instead of at least skating it to the corner to wait for reinforcements he sent a blind backhand drop pass to the center of the ice to a waiting Harvard player.  Most of the evening our D men lost foot races to spots or to the puck.  That happened to Stanley on the first goal and unfortunately to Suda all night.  On the second Harvard goal three Big Red players went to the puck carrier and the goal scorer had a free lane to the net.  Shane stood tall later in the game but I think he'd like at least one of those first two back.  I like Bancroft's game but he too had his try-to-do-too-much moment when on a power play he tried to enter the zone one on four during a line change and the turnover from the impossible play went back the other way for an easy clear.  My last point goes back to Friday.  They had a two on oh and a two on one where they didn't register a shot on goal.  Plenty to work on but I see a lot of potential up and down the lineup.  Can't wait to see what they learn from this.

Wow, this is probably the most substantive post I have ever read on ELynah. Please keep posting here.

I agree with others who have said the freshmen don't yet understand how to play within the system. Lots of selfish plays. Some of them almost work (didn't a Castagna solo effort ping off the crossbar yesterday?) but most of them result in a lost possession. We're going to be stuck with 7+ freshmen in the lineup this year, so hopefully they can adjust and understand that the hero ball that worked in junior hockey doesn't work at this level.

This is not an NCAA tournament team right now. Maybe we can get there by the end of the season, but it is going to take significant maturation. The talent is far too raw at the moment.

[Swampy]

I also watch a ton of NHL and too often forget the yawning gap in skill level between the NHL and the NCAA.  So the idea of back door passes, screens, and basketball style cutting is likely too much to ask.  My complaint was that the players, at least a lot of them, seem to think they can do those things.

The most beautiful goal I've ever seen since I started watching college hockey, was a drop pass from Doug Ferguson to, I believe, Mike Doran at a holiday tournament around 1967 in Boston. On a breakaway, Doug faked a shot and got the goalie moving one way, but actually dropped the pass to a trailing Doran, who put the puck in the open side of the net. The opponent was, IIRC, some school from Michigan and a recent NC. The goal won the game.

In fact, goals assisted to the back door of the net were commonplace during the Harkness years. So, I don't think this is too much to ask of today's players. The problem seems to be that opponents and defenses are better. Or, to put it differently, the gaps between teams are smaller.

Cornell may be more talented, but with small tolerances, everything needs to be more precise. This year's team is not there yet and may never be. So, it relies on other things, like slap shots from the point or opportune rebounds. Not that there's anything wrong with such things, but I do believe the better college teams do make use of backdoor passes, screens (and subtle picks), and well-practiced cuts.

[Trotsky]

The most beautiful goal I've ever seen since I started watching college hockey, was a drop pass from Doug Ferguson to, I believe, Mike Doran at a holiday tournament around 1967 in Boston. On a breakaway, Doug faked a shot and got the goalie moving one way, but actually dropped the pass to a trailing Doran, who put the puck in the open side of the net. The opponent was, IIRC, some school from Michigan and a recent NC. The goal won the game.

http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1967/box19661217.pdf

[billhoward]

I heard some Section M (behind the visitor bench) complaints about officiating. Schafer was not happy with the officiating, but that's, ah, not an uncommon situation.

If defense of "it's almost all our fault":

* The puck giveaway on our own blue line and ensuing goal 60 seconds in was a killer. We both got 2 goals after that.
* We hit a crossbar or pipe with a clang louder than the Cornell band tubas  
* We could not convert 1:45 on two-up hockey

[RichH]

Certainly need to practice 5x3 more often...

i was going nuts that there were no efforts to set screens or pass to someone positioned back door. we got shots off but nothing challenging.

Last night was my third in person game of the season. I also watch a ton of NHL and too often forget the yawning gap in skill level between the NHL and the NCAA.  So the idea of back door passes, screens, and basketball style cutting is likely too much to ask.  My complaint was that the players, at least a lot of them, seem to think they can do those things. As a result, while we outshoot everyone, we should have even more shots.  Seeing Ondrej try to nutmeg five feet from the net was insane.  Castagna is on his way to driving me nuts with his dithering and over passing and stick handling.  Some of the young D too. We should play a very direct game like Bancroft does. Shoot the damn thing, create a rebound and go to the net. 2-3 of the goals last night were scored that way.

The thing that drove me nuts is that the winning goal was more of a Cornell-style goal and not a Harvard-style goal. Back in the more lean-talent  years, desperation time meant we had to pack 3-4 players within 5 feet of the crease and then get the puck pinballing around there and maybe fall on an opponent or two. Eventually a carom could slide in. That's what they did. Harvard worked harder in the tighter corners & crease situations. As the clock ticked down, CU kept the puck far away and tried to blast through traffic.

[RichH]

* We could not convert 1:45 on two-up hockey

It's not that we couldn't convert that upsets me. It's that we didn't come close.

[Trotsky]

The thing that drove me nuts is that the winning goal was more of a Cornell-style goal and not a Harvard-style goal.

The whole game was like that.  We switched sweaters: Cornell was faster and quicker and Harvard was gumming things up and slowing the pace down.

[jtwcornell91]

Harvard sweaters with ugly font, particularly the numbers.

They looked like they were made of white electrical tape.

[billhoward]

The winning goal was the one Harvard scored 60 seconds in. After that, both teams traded goals twice.

[edit add:] Here, the goal that broke our back. To me, Cornell never recovered. No, not in the statistical meaning, since it was the third and final goal that ensured victory, thus the rules-official GWG.

[upprdeck]

wouldnt the winning goal be the one that puts them ahead for good?

[Chris '03]

wouldnt the winning goal be the one that puts them ahead for good?

As I understand it, the gwg is the goal that is decisive (4th goal in a 4-3 win) even if it wasn't the one that put them in the lead for good. In a 4-3, the gwg would be the fourth regardless of the order of scoring. It's how sometimes an eng can be a gwg.

Some box scores report the goal that put a team up for good as "last lead".

[upprdeck]

I do see that the have now settled on the goal that means enough to win..