Brown 3 Cornell 3 Final OT

[DeltaOne81]

Murphy is usually dreadful, last night I thought he was only poor.

Chips '03 brings up a great one that I totally forgot about... the Hornby hit. Actually, from my perspective, it didn't look like the player ducked enough, and Horny did actually cross-check him to the head, and then kinda got flipped over. When you complain about stuff like that, you blow your credibility.

As for the first goal/no-goal... I was looking direct on to it, so I had no sense of depth, but the place it hit I swore it bounced into the upper corner and right back out.

I honestly didn't see the Gleed thing. I hope the guy's alright, he's been coming along real well.

Oh, and by the way, the Bitz comparison to Baby grows scarier by the day... he did several of those strong-arm-the-man-to-the-goal things, and he's really really good at them. He is pyscho good for a freshman.

[tml5]

The first goal didn't look in.  You don't have to take my word for it, though - the red light didn't come on, and the Cornell players didn't even break stride.  Usually, at least one of the guys on the ice will start to raise his arms if the puck goes in the net.  Murphy may not have had a great angle on that one, but nobody gave him any reason to believe that the puck went in.  It sounded like it hit Danis in the face, too.

The second goal was clearly in.  I was just about to yell "that's a goal" when Murphy blew the whistle and started pounding on the top of the net.  It looked to me like it hit the back bar and bounced down and away.

Murphy's penalty calling was weirdly inconsistent, but I didn't notice any bias against Cornell.  I thought the number of penalties called on each team was about right, although that was mostly from borderline calls making up for big missed calls.  Since everyone was getting away with the big things, it's not much of a surprise that the game got a little bit out of hand.  Overall, I thought the game was reasonably well officiated, by ECAC standards.

Cornell played a heck of a game.  They were finishing their checks, skating through Brown players like they weren't there, and just looked physically dominant on the ice.  The power play was a thing of beauty, the PK was generally pretty good, although they did have some communication breakdowns, and they generated a ton of chances even strength that a lesser goalie wouldn't have touched.  Give Danis credit - he gave up some big rebounds, but he also stopped some top quality scoring chances.

This team reminds me an awful lot of the 2000-2001 team that averaged 2 goals per game - both for and against.  That team lost a bunch of close games where it outshot and outmuscled the opposition, played stifling defense, and lost or tied because of an inability to finish and one or two defensive zone mistakes.  The reason that team was winning more (home) games than this year's team?  More experienced goaltending.  Give McKee a year (or two) - he'll be damn good.  He actually reminds me of a freshman Matt Underhill - he makes some mistakes and gives up a few bad goals, but has good size and quickness.  If he works as hard as Underhill did, he's got a shot at being a very good college goaltender, and maybe even posting All-American numbers.

[Eric \'04]

Yeah, but except for the fights in the 3rd period and the BS hooking call in OT, I though that they were doing a decent job or at least better than usual.

[jtwcornell91]

One of the guys who got revenge on Volonnino wrote:
- Gleed continues to do well; undoubtedly, he's earned his place on the starting line.  He's come a long way.

Gleed's best moment had to be after he'd broken his stick, when, stickless, he checked the puck carrier into the wall by the benches and completely out of the play.  Don't need a stick to do that!
:-)

[Josh '99]

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:
Gleed's best moment had to be after he'd broken his stick, when, stickless, he checked the puck carrier into the wall by the benches and completely out of the play.  Don't need a stick to do that!
:-)

And then grabbed a stick off the bench and continued the shift.  :-D

[Will]

Josh Herman '99 wrote:

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:
Gleed's best moment had to be after he'd broken his stick, when, stickless, he checked the puck carrier into the wall by the benches and completely out of the play.  Don't need a stick to do that!
:-)

And then grabbed a stick off the bench and continued the shift.  :-D

Absolutely true.  Gleed's performance in the past two or three games continues to amaze me, and I'm happier for it.  I like it when players surprise me like that; it reminds me that I don't know everything there is to know about this sport (or, more appropriately, that I don't know anything :-D ).

[Báby_Fan]

didn't see this mentioned yet but this was Schafer's post-game comment in the Ithaca Journal wrapup today...


[Q]But we can't dig ourselves (a two-goal) hole. We have to get better goaltending than we got tonight if we are going to be more successful.[/Q]

[Lowell '99]

Is anybody else embarassed that sections D and E vociferously chanted "overrated" at the end of the game?  Arguably, that cheer is inappropriate at any time.  In a tie game, it's demeaning to our own team.  "You must really suck if you tied us!"  Come on.

[ugarte]

Lowell Frank '99, '03 wrote:

Is anybody else embarassed that sections D and E vociferously chanted "overrated" at the end of the game?  Arguably, that cheer is inappropriate at any time.  In a tie game, it's demeaning to our own team.  "You must really suck if you tied us!"  Come on.

I disagree, Lowell.  Overrated doesn't mean "you suck," it means ... "you are overrated".

Coming into the weekend USCHO and USAT rated Brown #12; INCH rated Brown #7(!).  We weren't ranked in either poll and it sounds like we controlled play against Brown (even though the game ended in a tie).  An overrated chant seems entirely appropriate.  Certainly more appropriate then yelling "sucks" when Cornell is losing, by your logic.

[dss28]

Anyone else noticing that there's no recap on uscho about this game?

[ugarte]

dss28 wrote:

Anyone else noticing that there's no recap on uscho about this game?

True, but there is a recap at http://cornellbigred.ocsn.com/sports/m-hockey/recaps/120503aaa.html

[dss28]

Yeah, I read that one... it just strikes me as odd that uscho doesn't have one.

[Beeeej]

They don't always have someone at every game to write a recap.  For instance Adam, who might normally have written the recap, was elsewhere.

Beeeej

[Lowell '99]

But at the same time, there's the inherent implication that being beaten by Cornell is something that would not happen to a *truly* good team (which, of course, it could).  Sure, I see your point when you are strictly talking about standings in the polls, but I still think it's a subtle insult to our team.  

So I admit to being somewhat biased against this cheer, but I think my biggest problem with it in this case was its use in a tie game.  While there are "good ties" and a come-from-behind tie against a top 15 team certainly qualifies, I've never thought a tie on home ice is something the Lynah Faithful should be pounding their chests about, even a little bit.

[Chips \'03]

Hey Lowell,

Scooooorrrreeeeboard.