clarkson @ cornell, ecachl second round chatter

[calgARI '07]

[quote Liz '05]
I don't.  I'm starting to feel like that's Ari's standard response (no offense, but you have said it about four times very recently), and it's not necessarily true.  What about Harvard at Lynah?  Harvard is a good team, and we didn't play well enough to beat them - in fact, we made some stupid decisions that probably cost us the game.  You say we were injured?  Okay, how about the game at Dartmouth?  This year's ECAC co-champs killed us in an ugly, ugly affair back in November.  We haven't played consistently good hockey against anyone.

I welcome Clarkson mostly because its fun to see them for the third year straight in the playoffs at Lynah (even though I won't be there).  daredevilcu, please get as much of your band there as posible, because it's fun to yell at you  I still think, though, that Clarkson is NOT in our best interest (see: Clarkson 3, Cornell 1, 2/10/06), and that Quinnipiac (who we beat twice, once by a score of 6-0) was.[/quote]

You bet they played well enough to beat Harvard.  The game was even until Cam Abbott took the major and then the game was pretty much sealed.  I don't see what your point is regarding the blowout at Dartmouth.  That game was in November.  Last year's team played I think their worst game at Dartmouth in November.  Cornell also lost to Union in November.  It's easy to just say that they haven't played consistnetly well against anyone, but it's far more complicated than that.  This team rises to the occasion in big games.  Far and away the two biggest games they played in this year were the Colgate ones and they happened to play their best hockey that weekend, all without O'Byrne and Pokuluk.  Clarkson is very underrated and in my opinion the best team in the ECACHL not in the top four.  This is the playoffs, and I really don't think it's good for the team to play a team that they are going to blowout.  Clarkson is very underrated and is a team that grinds and battles, making them the perfect opponent for a Cornell team that has really thrived in those types of games over the last two years.  Have they played some bad games this year?  Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is.  So they didn't get up for the game at Hanover in November and haven't gotten up for a handful of other games.  My point is that they have gotten up and played their best hockey when the game has the biggest ramifications and they are playing the tough, grind-it-out teams.  Something tells me Clarkson in the playoffs will fall into the latter group.  Yes, I've said it about four times, but it has been pertinent each time and is even more so for the coming weekend.

[billhoward]

[quote Drew]I too, am excited because it is Cornell/Clarkson. I still see the Clarkson team as a year or two away from making a real run.  The team is young and has not learned to win on the road, as of yet. They need to learn how to play in a hostile evironment, none better than Lynah.  If we win, it will be big upset, if we lose I see it as "tempering of the sword" for the upcoming years.  I hope the games are as competitive as in the past.
Cheers! - Drew[/quote]
Drew, if you don't get there in person, let's see how cheerful you are trying to watch the CSTV webcast. On that, Cornell and Clarkson fans who don't attend will likely be united in their opinions.

[Trotsky]

[quote calgARI '07]My point is that they have gotten up and played their best hockey when the game has the biggest ramifications and they are playing the tough, grind-it-out teams.[/quote]

The RPI game is the big exception, but in that case you really can make a good argument for injuries influencing the outcome, and Cornell actually played well -- they just couldn't crack Lange.

Mike Schafer is the Chuck Norris of ECAC playoff coaches, and he will have the team ready to play.  But they aren't invulnerable -- the losses to Princeton in '99 and Clarkson in '04 were cases in which the team desperately needed wins, was in the position to secure them, and failed to do it.  In the latter case, at least, the team was loaded with talent.

Cornell v Clarkson in the ECAC playoffs:

1966 F L
1970 F W
1971 S L
1973 S W
1976 Q W
1977 C W
1985 C W
1986 F W
1988 Q L
1989 Q W
1992 S W
1995 Q L
1997 F W
2000 P W
2004 Q L
2005 Q W

[Liz '05]

[quote Trotsky][quote Liz '05]We haven't played consistently good hockey against anyone.[/quote]

Colgate might disagree.[/quote]

I knew someone would mention that.  Maybe I should've said consistently good hockey against any set of opponents where the set contains more than one opponent.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote KeithK]It's simple.  If we beat Clarkson then it was the best possible opponent because it might help our RPI/PWR and prepare us for the next round.  If we (knock on wood) lose next weekend then it was an unlucky break and it would've been better to draw someone lower.[/quote]

If we beat Clarkson in three games, it'll be fine for ECAC purposes, but the PWR-obsessed can lament that we hurt our ratings compared to the sweep that would have been more likely against a weaker opponent.

[Trotsky]

[quote Liz '05][quote Trotsky][quote Liz '05]We haven't played consistently good hockey against anyone.[/quote]

Colgate might disagree.[/quote]

I knew someone would mention that.  Maybe I should've said consistently good hockey against any set of opponents where the set contains more than one opponent.[/quote]

How about a set of 11 opponents?  Cornell was the only team in the conference with a winning road record this year.

[RichH]

[quote Trotsky]
How about a set of 11 opponents?  Cornell was the only team in the conference with a winning road record this year.[/quote]

We play road games?  ;-)

[calgARI '07]

[quote Trotsky][quote calgARI '07]My point is that they have gotten up and played their best hockey when the game has the biggest ramifications and they are playing the tough, grind-it-out teams.[/quote]

The RPI game is the big exception, but in that case you really can make a good argument for injuries influencing the outcome, and Cornell actually played well -- they just couldn't crack Lange.

Mike Schafer is the Chuck Norris of ECAC playoff coaches, and he will have the team ready to play.  But they aren't invulnerable -- the losses to Princeton in '99 and Clarkson in '04 were cases in which the team desperately needed wins, was in the position to secure them, and failed to do it.  In the latter case, at least, the team was loaded with talent.

Cornell v Clarkson in the ECAC playoffs:

1966 F L
1970 F W
1971 S L
1973 S W
1976 Q W
1977 C W
1985 C W
1986 F W
1988 Q L
1989 Q W
1992 S W
1995 Q L
1997 F W
2000 P W
2004 Q L
2005 Q W[/quote]

Definitely agree with you.  Although vulnerable, I believe that this group of players has shown tremendous growth in character since that 2004 playoff series to the point where they really do thrive in these types of situations.  This week's column is all about that actually.

[Liz '05]

[q][q]I don't.  I'm starting to feel like that's Ari's standard response (no offense, but you have said it about four times very recently), and it's not necessarily true.  What about Harvard at Lynah?  Harvard is a good team, and we didn't play well enough to beat them - in fact, we made some stupid decisions that probably cost us the game.  You say we were injured?  Okay, how about the game at Dartmouth?  This year's ECAC co-champs killed us in an ugly, ugly affair back in November.  We haven't played consistently good hockey against anyone.[/q]

You bet they played well enough to beat Harvard.  The game was even until Cam Abbott took the major and then the game was pretty much sealed. [/q]

Well, we didn't beat Harvard.  Cam made a stupid decision, and we lost any and all momentum we had.  I blame that on our not playing well enough to 1) avoid the penalty in the first place and 2) regain the momentum lost and the goals scored against us as a result of that penalty.

[q]I don't see what your point is regarding the blowout at Dartmouth.  That game was in November.  Last year's team played I think their worst game at Dartmouth in November.  Cornell also lost to Union in November.[/q]

My point is that we had our worst game this season against Dartmouth, a pre-season favorite for good reason and a team that Schafer voted to win the league.  Even coming immediately after Harvard, how could it NOT have been a big game?  For you to argue that November's results don't matter (because it's at the beginning of the season?) is silly - just like in PWR, it's still this season and it still matters.

[q]It's easy to just say that they haven't played consistnetly well against anyone, but it's far more complicated than that.  This team rises to the occasion in big games.  Far and away the two biggest games they played in this year were the Colgate ones and they happened to play their best hockey that weekend, all without O'Byrne and Pokuluk.[/q]

Fair enough.  I probably shouldn't have gone for the unqualified statement.

[q]Clarkson is very underrated and in my opinion the best team in the ECACHL not in the top four.  This is the playoffs, and I really don't think it's good for the team to play a team that they are going to blowout.[/q]

Difference of opinion, I think.  I'm pretty confident we can continue to beat Q, and thus make it to Albany.  I'm not at all confident that we can beat Clarkson in a 2 of 3 series.  I'd like to win the ECACs.

[q]Clarkson is very underrated and is a team that grinds and battles, making them the perfect opponent for a Cornell team that has really thrived in those types of games over the last two years.  [/q]

I'm not sure whether we are less dominant this year because of others' recruiting and improvement or our shift away from battles in the corners and along the boards, but I feel like Cornell just hasn't managed to grind and battle enough this season.  Are we still capable of consistently coming out on top in those games?

[q]Have they played some bad games this year?  Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is.  So they didn't get up for the game at Hanover in November and haven't gotten up for a handful of other games.  [/q]

And those games have not been solely against weak competition.

[q]My point is that they have gotten up and played their best hockey when the game has the biggest ramifications and they are playing the tough, grind-it-out teams.  Something tells me Clarkson in the playoffs will fall into the latter group.  Yes, I've said it about four times, but it has been pertinent each time and is even more so for the coming weekend.[/quote]

[Liz '05]

[quote Trotsky] Cornell was the only team in the conference with a winning road record this year.[/quote]

Really?  I didn't know that.  Yay Cornell!

[RichS]

[quote calgARI '07][quote Liz '05]
Clarkson is very underrated and in my opinion the best team in the ECACHL not in the top four.  This is the playoffs, and I really don't think it's good for the team to play a team that they are going to blowout.  Clarkson is very underrated and is a team that grinds and battles, making them the perfect opponent for a Cornell team that has really thrived in those types of games over the last two years.[/quote]

Ari,

This year Clarkson has NOT been a consistently grinding or battling team.  They lost the game I saw at Princeton last month specifically because they did not "battle" enough.  The playoff games vs Princeton were a different story because they did battle, or as Coach Roll put it, "we played a complete game."

This team has a large group of finesse and skilled forwards but few physical types.  The same can be said of the D with Brekelmans being the only big hitter of the bunch that sees the most ice time.

Their weakness, which has accounted for a lot of their inconsistency is that they have not played enough of a physical or grinding type of game.  That is what the coaches have been referring to when they have expressed displeasure with the "effort."

That effort has improved down the stretch and obviously they need to display more grit and physical play at Lynah or risk getting run out of the place.

[calgARI '07]

[quote RichS][quote calgARI '07][quote Liz '05]
Clarkson is very underrated and in my opinion the best team in the ECACHL not in the top four.  This is the playoffs, and I really don't think it's good for the team to play a team that they are going to blowout.  Clarkson is very underrated and is a team that grinds and battles, making them the perfect opponent for a Cornell team that has really thrived in those types of games over the last two years.[/quote]

Ari,

This year Clarkson has NOT been a consistently grinding or battling team.  They lost the game I saw at Princeton last month specifically because they did not "battle" enough.  The playoff games vs Princeton were a different story because they did battle, or as Coach Roll put it, "we played a complete game."

This team has a large group of finesse and skilled forwards but few physical types.  The same can be said of the D with Brekelmans being the only big hitter of the bunch that sees the most ice time.

Their weakness, which has accounted for a lot of their inconsistency is that they have not played enough of a physical or grinding type of game.  That is what the coaches have been referring to when they have expressed displeasure with the "effort."

That effort has improved down the stretch and obviously they need to display more grit and physical play at Lynah or risk getting run out of the place.[/quote]

Sorry, I don't know them that well, but I wasn't really calling it their identity as a team, but pointing out that they have played with that identity the last two years.  I think they were more of a skill and skating team the last two years as well, but they managed to really battle in the playoffs against Cornell and actually the games at Cornell in the regular season as well.  They really seem to get into the intense atmosphere at Cornell.  Again, don't know a ton about them as a team except that they have given Cornell a lot to handle at times the last two years while having a lot more skill than the teams around them in the standings.  Additionally, even if Clarkson has not been consistently battling, something tells me they will this weekend.

[calgARI '07]

[quote Liz '05]

Well, we didn't beat Harvard.  Cam made a stupid decision, and we lost any and all momentum we had.  I blame that on our not playing well enough to 1) avoid the penalty in the first place and 2) regain the momentum lost and the goals scored against us as a result of that penalty.

My point is that we had our worst game this season against Dartmouth, a pre-season favorite for good reason and a team that Schafer voted to win the league.  Even coming immediately after Harvard, how could it NOT have been a big game?  For you to argue that November's results don't matter (because it's at the beginning of the season?) is silly - just like in PWR, it's still this season and it still matters.

[/quote]

Of course in the PWR or in the final standings, the game in November mattered, but something that happened four months ago is hardly significant to what the team is capable of now as far as what they do on the ice.  And it works both ways.  I think that the team played one of its best games of the season in their first game against Michigan State.  But when I think about what Cornell can do over the next couple of weeks, I think a lot more about what they did against Colgate a month ago than what they did against Michigan state five months ago as an indicator.  Yes, it is still significant aside from the PWR, etc., but really not that much.  
Regarding the Harvard game, I still don't understand your point.  Cornell was playing decent hockey, although not as well as they did the night before, and was in a position to win that game.  The Abbott play drastically changed the complexion and badly hurt Cornell's chances at winning that game.

[billhoward]

Post-post-post. Do you guys have classes or anything? All we could do was stare out the window when a lecture got dull. I envy you. Except for the papers got coming due.

[Beeeej]

Speaking of which, RichS, I'd be pleased to meet you in person and shake your hand at some point during the weekend.  You're a hell of a hockey fan.

Beeeej