Cornell-Yale Post Game

[Omie]

Nice win. Lots of good scoring chances even though we were outshot. Scrivens was solid in goal.

Jason's Three Stars of the Game:
1st Scrivens
2nd Greening
3rd R. Nash

[oceanst41]

Unfortunately the best analysis of this game I can offer is Redcast > All-Access.

[Trotsky]

Good win -- conference, road and Ivy.  ::banana::

[sah67]

[quote Omie]Nice win. Lots of good scoring chances even though we were outshot. Scrivens was solid in goal.

Jason's Three Stars of the Game:
1st Scrivens
2nd Greening
3rd R. Nash[/quote]

Thanks for taking the post-game thread away from the game-thead starter, former roomie ::smashfreak::

 10 seconds before I started my own too.

[Omie]

Apologies... see you at MSG.

[sah67]

A strong finish by Scrivens despite his 1st period shakiness...will Schafer nix the rotation and reward him with another start tomorrow night, or give Davenport another crack at it?

Brown came to play tonight, putting 5 past Dekanich.  We better have our offense up to speed tomorrow night, especially since Rosen can be a tough nut to crack.

At least they took the hint about stupid penalties from the Quinny game...only 2 penalties all game!  When was the last time that happened?
Last year at Yale, the two teams combined for 83 minutes on 25 penalties.  

Just a tiny bit more civilized this time, even if Smith missed some obvious calls, with both teams combining for only 12 minutes on 6 penalties.

[whatthe?]

Sorry, the game thread listed Yale's goal as EAG.  What does that stand for?

[Chris 02]

[quote whatthe?]Sorry, the game thread listed Yale's goal as EAG.  What does that stand for?[/quote]

EAG=Extra Attacker Goal

[whatthe?]

Thanks Chris. ::doh::

[Cop at Lynah]

Dekanich was not in goal for Colgate

[sah67]

[quote Cop at Lynah]Dekanich was not in goal for Colgate[/quote]

Whoops my bad.  No wonder then.

[amerks127]

It's nice to see that Cornell was only took 4 minutes in penalties, a steep drop from our 22 mins/game average.  Sounds like the played a pretty solid game overall.

For those at the game, I have a few questions:

1) How did the PP look?  0-4 on the night.

2) Cornell only had 4 shots in the first, and 5 in the second.  Does that tell the whole story of the offense, or did we actually have so few chances?  I know Mike Devin ripped one off the post.

3) How were the breakout plays tonight?  As many turnovers as we've seen so far, or did there appear to be some improvement?

Nice to get the ECAC and Ivy win tonight.

[calgARI '07]

Back from the game.

This is a much different Cornell team than we have seen the last several years.  The depth in talent is just not there as it has been.  Still, I liked what I saw tonight.  The coaching staff has gotten back to basics, really focusing on details all over the ice, specifically in the defensive zone.  The coverage in the D zone was very good and Cornell was very effective in clogging up the middle.  There were still several occasions where Cornell got bottled up in their own end with the blueline's general inability to make good decisions coming out of the zone.  Still, this team worked harder tonight than they did in almost any game last season.  The team was a lot easier to cheer for tonight than they were last season because they battled hard and really tried to do all the little things necessary to win.

As a whole, the game was pretty close though I would give Cornell a slight edge in play and good scoring chances.  They were a little cleaner in their own end though as I mentioned before, really struggled at times to move the puck effectively out of the zone.  The team was better in transition and gaining speed through the neutral zone than I expected so that was a big positive.  Under Alain, Yale has become an extremely physical team and that was again evident tonight.  Cornell's players really had to pay the price physically but they seemed willing to do that and make that sacrifice.  

I have always been a big critic of Scrivens but tonight was definitely the best I have seen him play.  He has gained considerable confidence and has improved in both his major deficient areas from last season - quickness and mental sharpness.  He was a lot more active in the net tonight and made some smart plays to block passing lanes from around the net.  As well, he did a good job of making himself big but remaining mobile. I thought he helped out the defense in setting up the puck off of dump-ins though he was a lot smarter and more decisive in knowing when to leave the net to play the puck.  As mentioned earlier, the team did a really great job in front of him, letting him see the puck, but also taking away the good shooting lanes as well as picking up men around the net.

Yale only has that one line and they were neutralized for the most part.  For some reason, Alain matched them with Cornell's top line rather than going up against the very slow Scali line.  By the third period, Alain moved to that matchup and that was the only time they generated sustained pressure the entire night.  That being said, I was pleasantly surprised by the fourth line of Nichols-Scali-Fontas.  They certainly aren't pretty but they generally held their own.  Like the entire team, they really played within themselves, something last year's team rarely ever did.

Riley Nash was an NHL first round pick and certainly looked like one tonight.  He has incredible skills in tight and sees the ice very well.  He is always looking to create with the puck and often was able to create chances out of nothing.  He has an awkward stride but has deceiving quickness.  As he becomes more comfortable and his linemates adapt to his level of thinking, he will be getting points every game.

I have no clue what Schafer is doing with the powerplays. Neither unit moves the puck particularly well and it is unclear what purpose either unit is serving.  I don't know what the objectives are for either.  What are their options?  What plays are they trying to use?  What individual player strengths are they utilizing?  Why on earth are Seminoff and Krantz not on either unit.  Seminoff is the steadiest and smartest defenseman and proved to be a good powerplay guy last year while krantz has the best open ice speed and the hardest shot on the team not to mention he is the best blueliner at getting pucks through to the net.  No clue why Krueger gets a sniff of powerplay time.

Was really impressed with Barlow tonight.  He has brought a work ethic and a better overall sense of the game to match his high skill level.  He has also improved his open ice speed.  Switching him to the top line and moving Sawada down was a good move for sure.  

No superstars on this team (except Nash eventionally) but no passengers either.  There is more of an identity this year than there was at any point last year.  These guys are a lunch pale, hardworking, detail-oriented team that is going to keep things simple all over the ice.  Because of the relatively low expectations for the team this year, this is a team that doesn't have much to lose.  They play hard and are very mindful of the smaller parts of the game that are needed for success.  There will be no easy wins this year.

[Beeeej]

I really can't add much to or improve on what Ari said.  This was a great, hard-fought, close game, and a joy to watch.  This group of kids wants to work hard and wants to work together - as they continue to click together, I think it's going to be a real pleasure.

Oh, and whoever was counting the shots on net was on crack.  We had easily 20-30% more shots than they credited us with.

[billhoward]

Our defense is pretty good and will get better with the return of the other Nash. Reminiscent of those early 2000s clubs that won a lot of games 2-1. Only this team is one I'm not sure is ready to score more than one goal in some games. And I'm not sure how reminscent the D will be when we play top tier teams. Here's hoping.

Exception to the strong defense thought: Our defense (all five skaters on the ice, not just the D) allowed Yale two or three powerful attacking flurries when it was a crapshoot whether they'd score or not. Yale came up empty every time. Those were unsettling.

Yale owned the first ten minutes.

We could not break out well early on.

We only had five shots on goal at the midway point of the game. Others say we had more game total shots on goal than the 19 credited to us (vs. 25 for Yale); I thought that was about right.

We didn't take many penalties (one plus a too-many-men).

Our PP (0x4) is not very effective yet except it's a great four-corner stall when we're protecting the lead, as Cornell showed in controlling play from 4:00 left in the third to 2:00 left. Except for a Yale clear out of play that brought the puck back into the Yale zone, Cornell didn't allow the puck out of the Yale end. One other PP highlight: Joe Devin, I believe, almost cut the pipe in half with a slapshot that bounced out not in.

Greening is a heads-up player. Riley Nash played well, too; he was the one who was in front of the net when a Son of Yale misplayed the puck and let it dribble in Nash's direction. Scrivens and or the defense played well. It was disappointing he lost the shutout; without woofing on his future, he's probably not going to leave Cornell with a whole string of shutouts and to lose one with 6 seconds to go is a downer. I'd much rather the game have ended 1-0, which better reflected that we got lucky tapping home a Yale misplay in the first and then just hung on.

Also: There was nobody home at the game. No Yale fans. Hardly any Cornell fans. (But still more Cornell fans than Yale, or so it seemed.) The "Red!" shout during the anthem was the most raggedy-assed Cornell cheer in years. No Cornell pep band. It was nice hearing the Yalies in our section gripe about there being more Cornell than Yale fans. If Yale announced more than 2,000, it's a typo. (Officially, they announced 3,180.)

Ingalls Rink still unbearably noisy, still very attractive relative to Lynah, and of the same age. Yale, remember, used Eero Saarinen; we used Ralph Quonset, I think. And yes, Mark, it is almost as big as the old Lynah at 3486 stated capacity.