Princeton

[MattS]

McCarron's goal was from my angle pretty nifty looking. I would have loved to see a replay of it.

That goal was really set up by some great play and then an excellent pass by Ferlin. I'm almost certain the way the goal was announced Ferlin was not credited with the second assist, but checking the box score today I see that he now has been. In my mind he's at least as responsible for that goal as McCarron is.

On another note, no one has commented on the really gruesome cut Freschi had after the pileup that led to the penalty shot. He seemed to not realize how badly he was cut until his teammates told him about it. He must have taken a skate blade to the neck, as he had what looked like a very clean, very sharp cut that must have been at least six to eight inches long on his neck. It was ugly. We were really pleased to see him return with a large bandage covering the wound. Hoping he'll heal quickly, and that it looked a lot worse than it was, because it looked terrible.

I agree that Ferlin's was instrumental to McCarron scoring that goal.


I forgot about that cut on Freschi. I didn't notice anything until he came skating over to show the refs (blood running down his neck) and they basically took a quick look at him and just waved him away. BS on their part.

[andyw2100]

I forgot about that cut on Freschi. I didn't notice anything until he came skating over to show the refs (blood running down his neck) and they basically took a quick look at him and just waved him away. BS on their part.

I'm not sure why Schafer sent him over to show the refs his cut. It was pretty obviously from a skate blade, and not the kind of thing that any player could or would have done intentionally. Watching the replay, my best guess is that it was actually Iles' skate that cut Freschi, but it could have been anyone's. Edit-Thinking a little more about it, perhaps Schafer thought that the refs might want Freschi in the penalty box, and sent him over to show them that he needed to be off the ice to have his injury dealt with. In which case their waving him away would have been exactly what they should have done.

And if it makes you feel any better, I think when O'Brien (the ref that we had both nights) skated over to the Cornell bench before the game tonight it looked like he asked Schafer, "How's the kid's neck?" and then responded "Good." to whatever Schafer had said (which I'm guessing was something like "fine" or "OK" but I can't read lips very well when all I can see is the back of someone's head.)

[Josh '99]

I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

I don't know, this makes The System sound like it deserves the capital letters. Cornell plays pretty basic defensive hockey. It's a modified left wing lock and a puck possession cycle in the offensive zone, with (for reasons that I have not understood since Doug Murray graduated) an umbrella power play. In the defensive zone the team is also playing pretty basic hockey - they're really not doing anything fancy at all beyond elevating shot blocking to an art form. All of these patterns have been around for a long time, and if executed correctly by a team with sufficient talent they can be very effective even against top notch freewheeling offenses that feature a few better, faster players. Cornell's problem has been a mixture of poor execution and talent disparity (those Yale teams were more talented, top to bottom, than the comparable Cornell teams - the team with Nash/Nash/Greening all leaving and ending up in the pros was probably the closest to the top Yale team of that recruiting cycle, but Cornell's second line was totally outclassed).

In terms of the talent problem, I think it's affecting Cornell in a way that's a little bit different from the way we usually talk about it. Cornell can no longer field a very efficient team of decent players and dominate the ECAC, because the rest of the league is just better than it used to be. From what little I've been able to see in recent years Cornell has gotten better talent over time, but the improvement has not been as fast as what we've seen with the other ECAC contenders (who seem to be light years ahead of the 2002-2006 span when Cornell was at its peak). Yes, some of Cornell's recent teams have under-performed (particularly last season) but probably not by as much as people seem to think, because the pre-season fan assessment of Cornell's talent level always seems to me to be much greater than the actual performance players exhibit on the ice. The fans inevitably blame the coaches, and they could be right, but given the quality of the coaches and the program's results over this span I'm a lot more comfortable betting that the fans are the ones who got it wrong.

The second problem is either execution or margin for error, depending on how you look at things. A defensive style of play with its entire offense predicated on puck possession coming out of the corners simply can't afford to make any mistakes that lead to cheap goals for faster opponents, or even the kind of mistakes that lead to moderate increases in puck possession for the other side (to say nothing of the monster puck possession swings every one of Cornell's breakout attempts seemed to give to Yale). Back in 2008, when everyone was calling for Schafer's head and it was the end of the world as we know it, Cornell's primary problem was positioning - they'd take a bad line and get beaten to the puck or take dumb penalties or just have too many guys behind the net. In more recent years the primary problem seems to be passing - it's awful, at least when compared to the best teams in the league (Yale). That's why the breakout suffers, and that's why Cornell keeps giving the puck back to those teams. Cornell has been playing with fire with its passing since, basically, 2006. I think the Big Red got away with it against all but the best (again, Yale) because they had periods of strong special teams (at least on the kill, but even one or two seasons on the PP as well) and pretty consistent positional execution, but eventually the wheels came off the bus. Consider last year a perfect storm of badness for Cornell - poor passing led to loss of possession, stupid penalties gave opponents even more opportunities, and awful special teams ensured that opponents took full advantage while Cornell just couldn't generate any easy goals.

To the extent that it's impossible to improve the team's passing and special teams play within the context of the system Cornell has today I guess I agree that the system is the problem, but I just don't see how those things (with the possible exception of the umbrella) are inextricably related, at least not in terms of on-ice execution.

In news that appears to be irrelevant to this thread, I guess Cornell beat Princeton.

Age, can you bring back the +1 feature so I can give this post a +1?

[billhoward]

Came someone tell me honestly was de Swardt brings to the ice? He has always looked slow to me.

It's a solid defensive-enforcer name. Sounds like the son of a South African mercenary.

[Trotsky]

Came someone tell me honestly was de Swardt brings to the ice? He has always looked slow to me.

It's a solid defensive-enforcer name. Sounds like the son of a South African mercenary.

Speaking of, the UNO announcers mentioned that during one of those games there were two South African-born players on the ice at the same time.  (The UNO roster doesn't list anybody's hometown as SA, so not sure who they meant.)

[Trotsky]

I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

I don't know, this makes The System sound like it deserves the capital letters. Cornell plays pretty basic defensive hockey. It's a modified left wing lock and a puck possession cycle in the offensive zone, with (for reasons that I have not understood since Doug Murray graduated) an umbrella power play. In the defensive zone the team is also playing pretty basic hockey - they're really not doing anything fancy at all beyond elevating shot blocking to an art form. All of these patterns have been around for a long time, and if executed correctly by a team with sufficient talent they can be very effective even against top notch freewheeling offenses that feature a few better, faster players. Cornell's problem has been a mixture of poor execution and talent disparity (those Yale teams were more talented, top to bottom, than the comparable Cornell teams - the team with Nash/Nash/Greening all leaving and ending up in the pros was probably the closest to the top Yale team of that recruiting cycle, but Cornell's second line was totally outclassed).

In terms of the talent problem, I think it's affecting Cornell in a way that's a little bit different from the way we usually talk about it. Cornell can no longer field a very efficient team of decent players and dominate the ECAC, because the rest of the league is just better than it used to be. From what little I've been able to see in recent years Cornell has gotten better talent over time, but the improvement has not been as fast as what we've seen with the other ECAC contenders (who seem to be light years ahead of the 2002-2006 span when Cornell was at its peak). Yes, some of Cornell's recent teams have under-performed (particularly last season) but probably not by as much as people seem to think, because the pre-season fan assessment of Cornell's talent level always seems to me to be much greater than the actual performance players exhibit on the ice. The fans inevitably blame the coaches, and they could be right, but given the quality of the coaches and the program's results over this span I'm a lot more comfortable betting that the fans are the ones who got it wrong.

The second problem is either execution or margin for error, depending on how you look at things. A defensive style of play with its entire offense predicated on puck possession coming out of the corners simply can't afford to make any mistakes that lead to cheap goals for faster opponents, or even the kind of mistakes that lead to moderate increases in puck possession for the other side (to say nothing of the monster puck possession swings every one of Cornell's breakout attempts seemed to give to Yale). Back in 2008, when everyone was calling for Schafer's head and it was the end of the world as we know it, Cornell's primary problem was positioning - they'd take a bad line and get beaten to the puck or take dumb penalties or just have too many guys behind the net. In more recent years the primary problem seems to be passing - it's awful, at least when compared to the best teams in the league (Yale). That's why the breakout suffers, and that's why Cornell keeps giving the puck back to those teams. Cornell has been playing with fire with its passing since, basically, 2006. I think the Big Red got away with it against all but the best (again, Yale) because they had periods of strong special teams (at least on the kill, but even one or two seasons on the PP as well) and pretty consistent positional execution, but eventually the wheels came off the bus. Consider last year a perfect storm of badness for Cornell - poor passing led to loss of possession, stupid penalties gave opponents even more opportunities, and awful special teams ensured that opponents took full advantage while Cornell just couldn't generate any easy goals.

To the extent that it's impossible to improve the team's passing and special teams play within the context of the system Cornell has today I guess I agree that the system is the problem, but I just don't see how those things (with the possible exception of the umbrella) are inextricably related, at least not in terms of on-ice execution.

In news that appears to be irrelevant to this thread, I guess Cornell beat Princeton.

This was a wonderful post. Another virtual +1.

The other reason we've been getting away with it has been goaltending.  Andy's numbers haven't been as impressive as his predecessors, but he is clearly a very solid netminder.  Last year avoided being a perfect storm because we didn't have the unthinkable happen.  Actually, don't even think about that; the abyss looks into you.

[CowbellGuy]

Speaking of, the UNO announcers mentioned that during one of those games there were two South African-born players on the ice at the same time.  (The UNO roster doesn't list anybody's hometown as SA, so not sure who they meant.)

Zahn Raubenheimer was born in Praetoria (like you really had to ask).

[Trotsky]

Speaking of, the UNO announcers mentioned that during one of those games there were two South African-born players on the ice at the same time.  (The UNO roster doesn't list anybody's hometown as SA, so not sure who they meant.)

Zahn Raubenheimer was born in Praetoria (like you really had to ask).

I did have to ask.  "Zahn Raubenheimer" is however one of the coolest names ever.

[KenP]

I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

I don't know, this makes The System sound like it deserves the capital letters. Cornell plays pretty basic defensive hockey. It's a modified left wing lock and a puck possession cycle in the offensive zone, with (for reasons that I have not understood since Doug Murray graduated) an umbrella power play. In the defensive zone the team is also playing pretty basic hockey - they're really not doing anything fancy at all beyond elevating shot blocking to an art form. All of these patterns have been around for a long time, and if executed correctly by a team with sufficient talent they can be very effective even against top notch freewheeling offenses that feature a few better, faster players. Cornell's problem has been a mixture of poor execution and talent disparity (those Yale teams were more talented, top to bottom, than the comparable Cornell teams - the team with Nash/Nash/Greening all leaving and ending up in the pros was probably the closest to the top Yale team of that recruiting cycle, but Cornell's second line was totally outclassed).

In terms of the talent problem, I think it's affecting Cornell in a way that's a little bit different from the way we usually talk about it. Cornell can no longer field a very efficient team of decent players and dominate the ECAC, because the rest of the league is just better than it used to be. From what little I've been able to see in recent years Cornell has gotten better talent over time, but the improvement has not been as fast as what we've seen with the other ECAC contenders (who seem to be light years ahead of the 2002-2006 span when Cornell was at its peak). Yes, some of Cornell's recent teams have under-performed (particularly last season) but probably not by as much as people seem to think, because the pre-season fan assessment of Cornell's talent level always seems to me to be much greater than the actual performance players exhibit on the ice. The fans inevitably blame the coaches, and they could be right, but given the quality of the coaches and the program's results over this span I'm a lot more comfortable betting that the fans are the ones who got it wrong.

The second problem is either execution or margin for error, depending on how you look at things. A defensive style of play with its entire offense predicated on puck possession coming out of the corners simply can't afford to make any mistakes that lead to cheap goals for faster opponents, or even the kind of mistakes that lead to moderate increases in puck possession for the other side (to say nothing of the monster puck possession swings every one of Cornell's breakout attempts seemed to give to Yale). Back in 2008, when everyone was calling for Schafer's head and it was the end of the world as we know it, Cornell's primary problem was positioning - they'd take a bad line and get beaten to the puck or take dumb penalties or just have too many guys behind the net. In more recent years the primary problem seems to be passing - it's awful, at least when compared to the best teams in the league (Yale). That's why the breakout suffers, and that's why Cornell keeps giving the puck back to those teams. Cornell has been playing with fire with its passing since, basically, 2006. I think the Big Red got away with it against all but the best (again, Yale) because they had periods of strong special teams (at least on the kill, but even one or two seasons on the PP as well) and pretty consistent positional execution, but eventually the wheels came off the bus. Consider last year a perfect storm of badness for Cornell - poor passing led to loss of possession, stupid penalties gave opponents even more opportunities, and awful special teams ensured that opponents took full advantage while Cornell just couldn't generate any easy goals.

To the extent that it's impossible to improve the team's passing and special teams play within the context of the system Cornell has today I guess I agree that the system is the problem, but I just don't see how those things (with the possible exception of the umbrella) are inextricably related, at least not in terms of on-ice execution.

In news that appears to be irrelevant to this thread, I guess Cornell beat Princeton.

This was a wonderful post. Another virtual +1.

The other reason we've been getting away with it has been goaltending.  Andy's numbers haven't been as impressive as his predecessors, but he is clearly a very solid netminder.  Last year avoided being a perfect storm because we didn't have the unthinkable happen.  Actually, don't even think about that; the abyss looks into you.

My only real question to the team and coaches is are the players in as good shape as they can / should be?  I remember hearing about the extra conditioning the team did in 2003-4, and not coincidentally those teams were strong for all 6+ periods they played each weekend.  Am I simply being nostalgic or is this a valid perception -- how fit is the team?

[RatushnyFan]

I did have to ask.  "Zahn Raubenheimer" is however one of the coolest names ever.

Here is the Canadian translation........Rob Zamuner

[Trotsky]

My only real question to the team and coaches is are the players in as good shape as they can / should be?  I remember hearing about the extra conditioning the team did in 2003-4, and not coincidentally those teams were strong for all 6+ periods they played each weekend.  Am I simply being nostalgic or is this a valid perception -- how fit is the team?

The impression they've given is that they burned an enormous pile of tuition, er, cash on fitness equipment.  They didn't look gassed at UNO, where they put up a comeback win, and the shots differentials have been horrible in all periods (-8, -20-, -14).

[css228]

My only real question to the team and coaches is are the players in as good shape as they can / should be?  I remember hearing about the extra conditioning the team did in 2003-4, and not coincidentally those teams were strong for all 6+ periods they played each weekend.  Am I simply being nostalgic or is this a valid perception -- how fit is the team?

The impression they've given is that they burned an enormous pile of tuition, er, cash on fitness equipment.  They didn't look gassed at UNO, where they put up a comeback win, and the shots differentials have been horrible in all periods (-8, -20-, -14).

I once again pulled out the Occam's Razor explanation. The teams we've beaten aren't that good. The team we lost to is. We also got fairly lucky, getting severely outplayed at 5v5, Therefore, we're probably not that good. Simplest explanation is usually the truest.

[Trotsky]

My only real question to the team and coaches is are the players in as good shape as they can / should be?  I remember hearing about the extra conditioning the team did in 2003-4, and not coincidentally those teams were strong for all 6+ periods they played each weekend.  Am I simply being nostalgic or is this a valid perception -- how fit is the team?

The impression they've given is that they burned an enormous pile of tuition, er, cash on fitness equipment.  They didn't look gassed at UNO, where they put up a comeback win, and the shots differentials have been horrible in all periods (-8, -20-, -14).

I once again pulled out the Occam's Razor explanation. The teams we've beaten aren't that good. The team we lost to is. We also got fairly lucky, getting severely outplayed at 5v5, Therefore, we're probably not that good. Simplest explanation is usually the truest.

We'll test the predictive value this weekend, or at least get some more info on the actual rank ordering of teams.  My guess:

0 points ... disappointment
1 ... expectation
2 ... happiness
3 ... bliss
4 ... probable hallucination

[David Harding]

The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads.   They played The System to a "T".    The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well.    That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box.   Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

It's possible the increase in penalties is due to the game being called more tightly -- that if the 2003 squad were playing with today's rules and interpretations, they'd be going to the box more too.  But that would not explain the rash of what appear to be emotional, pointless offenses after the play that have resulted in GMs and DQs.  Hopefully that has been corrected since "it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

You're not wrong.   But, this team still takes a lot more lack-of-discipline penalties than the early 00's teams.

I've commented before about the earlier Schafer players dropping their arms down by their sides & skating away from the scrums.  Not these guys.   They've gotta get right in there, push & shove, and mouth off.   I'm very confident in saying that there is a lot more of that garbage by the CU team today than there was 10-15 years ago.   That stuff leads to penalties.    These players need to learn to shut up & skate away.

If the fans can't or won't intimidate the opponents, then the players have to pick up the slack.

[billhoward]

If the fans can't or won't intimidate the opponents, then the players have to pick up the slack.

+1 Awesome post. Bring back the eLynah Like button button.