Cornell at Yale Post Game Thread

[Josh '99]

You may just be saying there's more obstruction because you just got done watching Yale play a game.  That's some serious clutch and grab right there.

I answered part of my own question about SHGs.  (Speaking of Yale.)  In the playoff series at home vs. Yale in the spring of 2002, Doug Murray scored a SHG the first game and Travis Bell scored a SHG (which was also an ENG) the second game.  I suspect you'd have to go further back than I can conveniently find box scores to find the last time we had a single player score two SHGs in a weekend.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:

 He was at the blue line against the boards with a defender on him and hit the side of the net.  UAA's tying goal was great.  The Wisconsin Denver game was exciting as well.  The Dish is worth every penny.[/q]

Add in RPI's last-ten-seconds Freakout win, and it was quite a night on the dish.

[billhoward]

Yale was better Saturday than Princeton Friday but both teams were not very good. Maybe it would have been a decent contest if Yale still had Chris Higgins (this would be his senior year), but then he'd be skating in on Dave LeNeveu. Talk about domination: There were a couple times where Cornell was pinpoint-passing at will around the Yale zone, two, three, four unmolested passes, and you had to look up at the scoreboard to see if there was a Yalie in the penalty box that you forgot about. Not a lot of times, but enough to remind you there were two levels of teams here.

If only Cornell can continue practicing against the four remaining RS weak opponents what happened these last two days: creating opportunities with forechecking takeaways and semi-breakaways that lead to goals ... in addition to the traditional puck control game that has lots of pretty passing but not always resulting in goals. The weekend was six special teams goals, four regular strength goals.

Cornell came close to having two man-short goals on a single penalty kill at Yale. Downs (I believe) came close a few seconds after Iggulden's goal. That leaves Iggulden 20 short of John Madden's NCAA record at Michigan but he’s picking up the pace, and he’s only one SHG off the 2004-05 lead. Now every time Iggulden is out on the ice on a penalty kill, two or three things happen: the opponent worries about Cornell/Iggulden getting a breakaway (good), the fans think about it (okay, too), and perhaps Cornell thinks just a little, teensy-weensie bit about making up for the shortfall of the previous two seasons and possibly repositions its defense ever so slightly for that possibility. That's the way it felt at Yale, at least.

Two stupid penalties cost Cornell the shutout. How often does Cornell get called for a too-many-men-on-the-ice call (first goal)? And Chris Abbott going off for interference in the offensive zone with a minute left, that may have been some private score he was settling. Yale did miss a wide-open net early in the third that would have been the legitimate, McKee-loses-another-shutout-late goal.

Yale and Princeton both had 10 minutes of penalties called against them, but Yale was a more, ah, sportsmanlike team. If the ECAC announces an all-elbows team, Princeton's Ian McNally will be a unanimous first-team selection at forward. One wonders how opponents see Cornell; it’s human nature to equate “big” with “goon” regardless of whether the hard hits are clean hits. We sat behind a couple young (age ~5) girls who sat front row and when Bitz put a hit on a Yalie, the plexiglas flexed mightily and the girls nearly dove under the seats. Pretty good entertainment value for $11 a head.

Topher Scott was a delight to watch. His PPG off a pass from Moulson was so nice. He does take a lot of hits, bounces right back, and must lead Cornell in the number of times he has to rearrange the helmet so the part you see out of faces frontwards once again. He got slammed into the offensive corner boards hard in the third, not enough to merit a boarding call against Yale, and as he shrugs himself back and rearranges his helmet, there was something of a smile or grimace that passed between Scott and the ref watching all this to make sure Topher's eyeballs both focused in the same direction, as if for Scott to say, "I know I’m on my own in the land of the giants, and I’m okay, really.”

One weekend is not a long-term trend, but Moulson is doing a great job setting up other scores (three times) instead of scoring. And these were genuine, Moulson-really-worked, not the pass to the passer who gets it to the goal scorer passes.

Cook was so solid on defense. The defense didn't miss Pokoluk *this weekend* too much but that may be a different story facing Harvard in the ECAC title game, say. Varteressian was out for Yale. I believe he got dinged blocking a Princeton (PP?) shot Friday. McLeod played, came close to scoring at least once, and also got called for one penalty. For those on the O'Byrne threat-or-menace watch, he got called just once (but it did gave Yale a half minute of 5x3) and also got the assist on goal 5, the nice hard shot by Knoepfli that came just eight seconds into the Cornell 5x3 PP. Mike Schafer was in attendance but didn’t last the whole game. He looks about the same - zero emotions - whether he’s happy, sad, or dying from the flu.

Yale's announced 3486 sellout was closer to full than Princeton's announced 2922 sellout. This is not the same thing as a 3836 sellout at Lynah where you can't get in just showing up at 6:45 and buying standing room at the door and if you got in you wouldn't find an empty seat. If you look at team attendance, you’ll see Cornell is the only team at 100.0% home attendance for the year. There are a dozen teams with more total attendance (bigger rinks), led by Wisconsin, and a half-dozen with >100.0% attendance, but that must have to do with how many standing-room attendees get counted. (Clarkson and St. Lawrence, the North Country teams USCHO loves so much for atmosphere, are in the mid-seventies on average for the season.) http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance.php

The Yale whale, Ingalls Rink, continues to be a beautiful piece of architecture outside and not bad inside although some of the pieces are pretty frayed. It's hard to believe Ingalls and Lynah are the same era (1958). Yale got the better deal architecturally although what goes on inside Lynah is more fascinating. The dual Yale Zambonis get the ice resurfaced faster so there’s a few more minutes for the water to freeze before players come back out. Two Zambonis is less of a hit on Yale’s endowment than one Zamboni on Cornell’s. You also could go deaf in short order inside Ingalls if you had (and used) season tickets.

Incredible turnout by Cornell fans. Love that Cowbell. Love the Big Red Band. Older non-Cornell fans bristle when the Cornell fans raise their voices for the "rockets' *RED* glare" part of the anthem but it does remind the home team that visitors have come calling. (Yale unlike Princeton only played one national anthem.) “This is our house!” always sounds great to hear on the road. And it’s great to see, too, when the team raises its sticks in salute to the fans on the way off the ice. Road hockey games are one of the best bonding experiences that embrace three generations of Cornell hockey fans.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:
I answered part of my own question about SHGs.  (Speaking of Yale.)  In the playoff series at home vs. Yale in the spring of 2002, Doug Murray scored a SHG the first game and Travis Bell scored a SHG (which was also an ENG) the second game. [/q]

Wow, I'm not sure it ever registered that that was a SHG, since I've been thinking of Murray vs Yale and Baby vs Q as the last two shorties before the drought.

[Beeeej]

Ah... a whole weekend off to pack up before my move!!  :-D

Beeeej

[ugarte]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:[Yale] made some great passes, but I have a hard time believing that Cornell had a brand new offense in a week when they couldn't do that for years.[/q]The passing was as crisp as hell the night before also. I know that I am suffering from a misrepresentative sample, but I've seen Cornell play bad teams on this trip before and I was very impressed with how they played.

[q]They weren't playing their game at all tonight until the last 5 to 7 minutes. Which is fine cause they were taking the openings that Yale gave them, but we were letting Yale skate it and get men in on net much more than we usually do.[/q]Yale had a few chances but all of the good ones came during the sluggish start to the third period. Mostly Cornell opted to let Yale pass it around the perimeter while allowing NOTHING to get to McKee and NOBODY to even attempt to set up in front. And then, inevitably, Cornell would tap the puck behind the Yale point man and start a rush for Modelski. It wasn't crunching but it was stifling. Yale didn't stand a chance.

Despite the USCHO report, the first Yale goal was hardly tic-tac-toe. The first pass was lofted over the net to a player that had to glove it at the height of his reach. The second pass was lemonade made from a lemon. He dropped the puck onto his stick and made a perfect pass to a waiting Boucher. McKee didn't have a chance. I'm not even sure that Cornell was really trying very hard on the last Yale PP (and I can't say that I blame them). McKee didn't have a chance on that goal either.

[q]And if we can't agree on that one, then trust me that there was no one remotely touching Sawada when he dove for that puck, and the ref called a penalty anyway.[/q]I'll trust you -- since I was behind the opposite goal -- but I could swear that I saw Sawada's skate get hooked as he was stepping out to go after the loose puck.

[ugarte]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:McKee looked uncomfortable at times but was generally good when he had to be.[/q]I don't know what this means, Ari. Did he have a look on his face that indicated he needed to pee? He gave up 2 PP goals on the weekend - neither of which he had a prayer of saving. Otherwise, nothing was even close. (OK, Mole misssing the empty net was close, but McKee was hung out to dry on that play.)

I sat right behind him for three periods. His positioning was excellent, his glove hand was quick and he never wavered when what little pressure Princeton and Yale could muster developed. What would have made him look more comfortable?

[TimV]

Thanks Bill.:-D

[calgARI '07]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:

 [Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote:McKee looked uncomfortable at times but was generally good when he had to be.[/Q]
I don't know what this means, Ari. Did he have a look on his face that indicated he needed to pee? He gave up 2 PP goals on the weekend - neither of which he had a prayer of saving. Otherwise, nothing was even close. (OK, Mole misssing the empty net was close, but McKee was hung out to dry on that play.)

I sat right behind him for three periods. His positioning was excellent, his glove hand was quick and he never wavered when what little pressure Princeton and Yale could muster developed. What would have made him look more comfortable?[/q]

He just had trouble handling some rebounds at times, moreso than usual.  That is just of note because that would be costly against better teams.  It's weird how he is not even remotely aggressive.  He barely leaves the goal line.  He almost entirely relies on his reflexes.  Just a unique style in a time of more aggressive goaltenders.  I think McKee is outstanding and the best goalie I have seen at Cornell since Eliot.  But over the years, I have always questioned Cornell's goaltenders in the playoffs:  Eliot against Lake Superior, Underhill against UNH, LeNeveu against UNH, and McKee against Clarkson.  So I am awaiting McKee's performance come playoff time and deep into the playoffs.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
Yale had a few chances but all of the good ones came during the sluggish start to the third period. Mostly Cornell opted to let Yale pass it around the perimeter while allowing NOTHING to get to McKee and NOBODY to even attempt to set up in front. And then, inevitably, Cornell would tap the puck behind the Yale point man and start a rush for Modelski. It wasn't crunching but it was stifling. Yale didn't stand a chance.

Despite the USCHO report, the first Yale goal was hardly tic-tac-toe. The first pass was lofted over the net to a player that had to glove it at the height of his reach. The second pass was lemonade made from a lemon. He dropped the puck onto his stick and made a perfect pass to a waiting Boucher. McKee didn't have a chance. I'm not even sure that Cornell was really trying very hard on the last Yale PP (and I can't say that I blame them). McKee didn't have a chance on that goal either.[/Q]

Unfortunately you contradict yourself a little here. You say cornell didn't let anyone set up in front, but on that power play "he made a perfect pass to a waiting Boucher", who was open in front. Its just one example, but Cornell D shouldn't be allowing Boucher behind the defense with the ability to get a shot off like that. There should be a Dman between him and the net and the Cornell D should block his stick from getting to the puck by getting theirs there first. Now, it was just one example, which you saw  better than I, so perhaps its a bad example. But there were a number of times the Yale guys were open in front, had the puck ever gotten to them.

[Q][Q2]And if we can't agree on that one, then trust me that there was no one remotely touching Sawada when he dove for that puck, and the ref called a penalty anyway.[/Q]
I'll trust you -- since I was behind the opposite goal -- but I could swear that I saw Sawada's skate get hooked as he was stepping out to go after the loose puck.[/q]
The other guy's stick was in the general vicinity of his skates, but he wasn't touched. Even had he been touched, he was already intentionally diving forward of his own choice. There was a distinct discussion going on in "Aisle 11" after that call about how horrible it was, moments after the call.

Don't get me wrong, Cornell played the game they were given against a bad team who gave it to them, but its not the way we usually play. On one hand, its good to see us be able to adjust to a different style successful for a night, but I'd rather see us impose our will on the other team. We got away with it cause Yale is bad. If we got in a run-and-gun, tick-tack passing, breakaway game against a Wisconsin, Denver, CC, BC, etc, I'd fully expect our asses to be handed to us.

[kaaren]

[Q]TimV Wrote:

 Thanks Bill. [/q]



Ditto.  :-)

[ugarte]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]ugarte Wrote:
Mostly Cornell opted to let Yale pass it around the perimeter while allowing ... NOBODY to even attempt to set up in front. ... made a perfect pass to a waiting Boucher. [/Q]
Unfortunately you contradict yourself a little here. You say cornell didn't let anyone set up in front, but on that power play "he made a perfect pass to a waiting Boucher", who was open in front. [/q]
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Boucher had been "waiting" for about a second and a half. And it was on the power play. And the puck had just taken a very strange trip - lofted three feet over McKee's head and likely to end up against the end boards. I don't think Yale had nearly the opportunities that you do.

That said, our argument sounds like:
"Cornell is great, despite last night."
"Bullshit! Cornell was great last night."

It isn't much of a dispute, really.

[Trotsky]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) [/q]

They have left me helpless to a red marauder,
They all come to the headland to witness and assist against me.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
That said, our argument sounds like:
"Cornell is great, despite last night."
"Bullshit! Cornell was great last night."[/q]
Fair enough

[Cornell95]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

They have left me helpless to a red marauder,
They all come to the headland to witness and assist against me.[/q]

For the rest of you who only took 2 Freshman Writing Seminars... that is Walt Whitman

:-)