Cornell vs. Clarkson, game 1 postgame

[nr53]

really Rich S, all you have to do is say "I wasn't there, I really don't know enough to have a straight opinion on the game". Don't worry, it won't hurt that badly in fact its actually good to have that ego balloon popped every once in a while (my grades ensure mine is never close to full so I can attest to this :-P). If you can't formulate an answer to "what did you think about the game" 3+ hours after it ended, just toss in that towel and leave it at that.

[Omie]

But you don't have a view except that we don't share yours, if you at least express your view/opinion of the game then we'd be alright but you just say "you are wrong" without backing it up.

[Rich S]

"Attacked"?  "Insulted harshly"?

Those are overstatements for sure on your part.

I was surprised he'd offer such a one-sided analysis of a tight 2 OT game.  But again, I'm probably using my own standards in my local sportwriting so maybe it's not fair of me to expect him to do anything more than throw Leggio a nod.

What if Clarkson, despite having been so severely outshot, won on a great individual effort on one of their few shots in OT?  

Or on a fluke goal that a cornell D man kicked past McKee in OT ?
Would that have altered the tenor off his comments?  I wonder if he'd have said in effect, "We dominated them, we had goals waved off, they got lucky."

[billhoward]

One team dominated. A key player kept the other team close. Mistakes and opportunism tied the game. Better team could have lost. Better team won.

[Rich S]

Beeej,

Thanks.  

Your math leaves something to be desired.  A big % of my posting is in responding (defending?) to inane, tasteless, and often inaccurate comments directed towards me and the Clarkson team and program. You guys critize me incessantly and that must be acceptable to you.

But if I do the same, it ticks you guys off.  That's odd.

I neither expected nor asked for praise of "everything" Clarkson did right.  But he only mentioned the goalie.  To not mention anything else that they must have done right to take a rightfully highly favored team to 2 OTs is absurd.

I'm making a long road trip tom'w if indeed I can go.  Another road trip to your section isn't in the cards.  You know where to look for me if you like.

[Rich S]

I don't recall saying "you are wrong" without offering backup.  What are you referring to?

[Beeeej]

[quote Rich S]I was surprised he'd offer such a one-sided analysis of a tight 2 OT game.[/quote]

Not every game that goes to OT has necessarily been "tight."  Few who were there tonight - including, I dare say, the dozens of Clarkson folks - would claim the Golden Knights played as well as the Big Red.  Nearly twice as many shots by Cornell, enormous differential in time spent in the offensive zone.  Take away two dumb-as-a-post defensive giveaways, it's a 3-1 game that barely raises the pulse rate.

Obligatory Praise of Opponent: That Clarkson capitalized on those giveaways, and that Leggio played a very, very good game, were the high points for your boys.*

But "tight" this game was not.

Beeeej

*Rule 1(d): All cheers must contain praise for Laing Kennedy.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Rich S]"Attacked"?  "Insulted harshly"?

Those are overstatements for sure on your part.[/quote]

"would it kill you to acknowledge that just maybe those goalies played well..."

"Give the other guys some credit in a tight game. Or can't you see that?"


I dunno. Coming from a guy who just gave his honest assessment of a game - one which is naturally coming from a Cornell persepctive - your insults to him were completely uncalled for. I'm not saying you insulted him personally, but rather than stating a disagreement calmly, you outright insulted his opinion and attacked his ability to evaluate the game.


[Q]I'm probably using my own standards in my local sportwriting so maybe it's not fair of me to expect him to do anything more than throw Leggio a nod.[/Q]

I don't think it is fair to expect more than that. Throwing the other team a nod is called sportsmanship. Praising them just ain't gonna happen. Do you really want me to go to the Roundtable and find the thread from after the Clarkson beat Cornell at Cheel a few weeks back? If a person or two threw a Cornell player or two a nod, that's about all I could possibly expect.

If they didn't even do that, that's fine, its their board.


Meanwhile, its nearly 4 hours later. And your full opinion on this game seems to be that our opinion is wrong. Without actually expressing an opinion of your own. If you're so sure we're wrong and biased, so what is your (totally unbiased, I'm sure) view of the game, so that we can discuss it. Seriously, I'm honestly asking.

[Beeeej]

[quote Rich S]I'm making a long road trip tom'w if indeed I can go.  Another road trip to your section isn't in the cards.  You know where to look for me if you like.[/quote]

Honestly?  I'm rather surprised and put off by your response to my friendly invitation, and can't imagine why you'd think I would accept yours instead.

Or perhaps you don't really think I would, since you didn't give any description of yourself anyway.

Enjoy the game.

Beeeej

[Rich S]

I've never liked that "better team lost" concept.  If the winner is defined by the one that had the most goals or runs or whatever, doesn't that make them "better" by the only measure that really matters?

For example, IF a hockey game winner took advantage of three defensive miscues to win 4-3 after trailing 3-1,  doesn't that make them the "better" team by definition despite having been outshot by a wide margin?

Better at capitalizing on the other guys errors?  Better at finishing than the team that controlled play and got 55 shots?   Better because their goalie held them in and gave them a chance to come back?

And if the losing team played poorly on D to make that many mistakes that led to so many cheap goals, how can they say they were the better team?

[nr53]

A few points I'll make to try and get this "postgame" thread back on topic...

1) The Clarkson shot in OT right after the first disallowed goal that pretty much rolled a few inches across the top of the crossbar almost gave me a heart attack

2) I don't think anyone else mentioned this but I hope Glover is ok and back tomorrow

3) For his ~50 save performance, Leggio was pretty far out of position on a few almost goals, my favorite of which was a pass that Pegoraro(?) slid under Leggio from behind the goal line that unfortunately went right to a Clarkson player in the crease (a step or two in front of a Cornell player) who passed it to Leggio for the cover. Probably a bad description but whatever, it was cool to me :-}

4) The Slapshot from Pegoraro (again, I think...) that went up over the goal but bounced off the glass back over to the front and would have made one of the coolest goals ever but Leggio reacted in time to stop it.

5) The diving call on Cayer was one of the most deserving penalties I've ever seen.

edited to fix my grammer before someone calls me on it:-P

[RichH]

[quote Rich S]
It's about discussing hockey.[/quote]

Thank you.

Please read what you wrote again.

Drew, daredevilcu, Dartmouth Ben, ursaminor, ttnorm, Nostradamus, etc. are all opposing fans who are welcomed and respected members of this community.  They post about hockey.  Sure, they interject some things about their lives or fan behavior, but for the most part, they contribute to the discussion about hockey.  And I value that greatly because they often provide a different viewpoint, or insights to players and fans around the league/nation.  We don't always agree or see eye-to-eye, but they are valued here.  Dissenting opinions don't start wars with those folks.

You don't give viewpoints.  Your main reason of coming here to me seems to be to knock us down several pegs, no matter what.  Instead of being a fan, you play some twisted bad-cop role you've invented whose job it is to defeat this community using antagonizing insults and reflected phraseology.  You rarely talk about hockey itself.

Maybe you get off starting these fights...who knows?  Maybe you hate the Cornell faithful so much, you swore to go on a crusade of hate until we're eradicated from the internet.  I can't get into your head.  But I do know that you've had a few good moments here interspersed with all the nasty ones.  If you took more time to talk about hockey constructively instead of incessantly attacking our fanbase with "you aren't so great" vitriol all the time, there wouldn't be so much animosity towards you.  Many of us here are very sick of the "you started it" game you play, when you're just as at fault, if you could only see past your own biases.  You're very firm in your mission of painting yourself as the only outsider here giving "balanced" viewpoints and accusing us of being intolerant, but you know as much as anyone here that you could be a good contributor to this forum.  I just don't see any viewpoints or hockey discussion...mostly insults and behavioral snarkiness.

That was the point of all this, and I apologize to everyone if I annoyed you with my persistance.  I told myself last year after I called him a dick that I was done dealing with this.  I'll stop tonight before someone makes a sandbox for me.

http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,1072

Let's talk some hockey.

[Beeeej]

[quote Rich S]I've never liked that "better team lost" concept.  If the winner is defined by the one that had the most goals or runs or whatever, doesn't that make them "better" by the only measure that really matters?

For example, IF a hockey game winner took advantage of three defensive miscues to win 4-3 after trailing 3-1,  doesn't that make them the "better" team by definition despite having been outshot by a wide margin?

Better at capitalizing on the other guys errors?  Better at finishing than the team that controlled play and got 55 shots?   Better because their goalie held them in and gave them a chance to come back?

And if the losing team played poorly on D to make that many mistakes that led to so many cheap goals, how can they say they were the better team?[/quote]

It's semantics, and I don't think your alternative concept is an improvement.

The day Princeton beat Denver earlier this season, they played better than Denver.  But I have no qualms about saying "the better team lost."  The winning team, however, won - as did the team that played better that night.  That still doesn't make Princeton a "better team" than Denver.

Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and again.  Doesn't make him a better truffle pig than the one who finds truffles every day except the day the blind one did.  Just means he had a better day.

Beeeej

[Beeeej]

[quote nr53]The diving call on Cayer was one of the most deserving penalty I've ever seen.[/quote]

Yeah, he's a terrible actor.

Obligatory Praise of Opponent: A fine dancer, though.

Beeeej

[Rich S]

Beeej,

Why would you be put off?  Did my wording offend you?

What makes my invitation less friendly than yours?  You guys on this board engage in banter that is less than "friendly" all the time.

At beyond 2 am, I wasn't giving a lot of thought to whether or not you'd accept.  No description?  I don't think you'll have trouble finding me, even without anything as distinctive as a lot of pins.

But here ya go...about 5' 9", brown hair with a fair amt of gray covered in part by one Clarkson hockey hat or another and a Clarkson sweatshirt or sweater.  I have no idea right now.

Ah who knows...maybe I'll walk over, we'll see how it goes.

Look out Beeej, someone's gonna accuse us of flirting again.  :-D