At 7:05 PM 12/16/95, David M. Josselyn wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Mike Machnik wrote:
>Good, yes. Again, my contention was that the team's dominance circa
>1986-1989 was due largely to Hrivnak, Pion, and Vesey-- all three unusual
>recruiting situations to start with, and players with clearly so much
>more talent than any that had played for Merrimack before or since that
>Anderson's contribution to that team's success is questionable.
 
I don't know about that - Legault, Cornforth, and Danny Gravelle are just
three players who have played since 1988 and who were at least as good as
those three.
 
>Parker, on the other hand, takes players like the utterly run-of-the mill
>Doug Friedman and turns them into worldbeaters. Those kids would do
>ANYTHING for Parker. That's what he creates in his locker room and in his
>practices.
 
Again, as I am sure BU followers will agree, that atmosphere has only
existed since BU became truly dominant over the last five years.  Friedman
also doesn't quite qualify as a worldbeater.  And with Blaise recruiting,
it has been possible to bring into the fold players who fit in well with
the stars and were happy playing their role.  A lot is possible when you're
winning.  Parker took some criticism in the 1986-89 time frame when BU was
perceived to be underachieving.
 
>The players do *NOT* feel that way about Anderson. They respect his
>integrity. That's about it.
 
I haven't heard enough to make me believe this is true.  I have heard of
unhappy players, but these were often players who were not getting the job
done.  It didn't seem any different to me from when I was at RPI and
Northeastern...it's not atypical for players who are not playing well to
blame the coach.
 
I still find it interesting that despite this lack of respect the players
are supposed to have, Merrimack still has a record of 8-1-13 in their last
22 overtime games - only one loss.  Not many other teams can claim a record
even close to that.  They just don't lose when OT comes around.  I don't
think that happens without the staff deserving some credit.
 
>> This seems contradictory to me.  Volpe is an obstacle for him, yet even
>> with a DivI rink, he wouldn't fare much better?
>
>Better, yes. Much better, no. Not enough to push MC past sixth in the
>standings.
 
I'll just note that this is a disagreement we have that can only be settled
in one way: if Anderson is given the new facility and the right commitment
from the school.  Until or unless that happens, you and I will have to
continue to disagree, which is okay.  I'm just saying this to point out
that if it wasn't already clear to other people :-), we aren't going to
resolve this here and now.
 
>But I can think of one that has not been saved by a new rink-- one that
>also has institutional resources far beyond MC's. Look at Boston College.
>They've been uncompetetive (relatively speaking) for nearly three
>seasons. All since Ceglarski left.
 
Yes, that's a good point: minus the rink and commitment, Anderson's teams
have still fared better than BC over the last few years.  Imagine how much
better they'd have done given what BC has had.
 
>> Volpe is also only one piece of the puzzle as you know.  Merrimack has
>> trouble attracting even regular students because of the lack of other
>> on-campus facilities.  The campus is dead on the weekends because the kids
>> leave - there's nothing to do.  Potential recruits look at this and then
>> they see what UNH has, or the Boston schools, or any of the ECAC schools.
>
>Now that excuse I don't buy.
 
I brought this up not to talk about the lack of student interest but to
point out the difference in on-campus facilities as compared to other
schools.  If Merrimack loses regular students in part because of the lack
of facilities, it stands to reason that they lose student-athletes for some
of the same reasons.  I believe the lack of student interest has a little
to do with the team not winning and a little to do with the school not
marketing the team to its own students.
 
>The kids leave because MC draws still primarily from New England. Kids
>who can go home on the weekends do. (Especially when the school is not in
>an urban environment like Boston or in an area where there aren't a wide
>enough selection of bars that don't card minors.
 
The makeup of the students has changed in recent years.  In the mid-80s,
when student attendance at MC games soared (and they were winning),
students were also staying on campus on weekends.  This is a whole
different topic that we could write volumes on, but suffice it to say that
things are different now and more students leave on the weekends now than
before.  That is the challenge, to keep the students there and involved in
the school on weekends.
 
>The student center is a sound financial decision-- unlike the science
>building. It's an expenditure that serves the greatest portion of MC's
>community, rather than catering to a special interest-- science majors--
>that are largely nonexistent at MC anyway. However, the rink is seen by
>many current students and alumni as catering to another special
>interest-- the hockey team and its fans.
 
That's true.  But it's also why it is important that the rink is only one
component of the student center, quite an ambitious project in scope and
cost.  It's reasonable to assume that it will be possible to bring back the
students who attended games 8 years ago if they are given other reasons to
stay on campus.  And, if the team is winning and marketed well.
 
>However, unless Prez. Santagati is planning on serving free beer to
>minors, a new center isn't going to stop the pathetic complaining about
>there being nothing to do.
 
I guess you're more cynical than I am. :-)
 
[my question about highly touted players who didn't live up to the billing]
>Highly touted by the media guide.
 
When has the media guide ever not said such things about the players?  I
can go through dozens of other teams' media guides from the last few years
and pick out scores of players who had much said about them as freshmen and
didn't live up to it.
 
>Cooper Naylor, "projected as a scorer
>who will develop skills well." Became a defensive specialist a la Brendan
>Locke and now, Chris Davis.
 
Naylor was a perfect example of a player who took several years to develop
his offensive talents.  Unfortunately, until recent years, that has been
the only type of player Anderson has been able to get - project players.
 
The real question is, what players has Merrimack had a real chance at and
ignored, who then went on to star for other teams?  I don't know of any.
That would be the best evidence that his recruiting has been subpar.
 
>Kris Porter, this year, was highly touted by the coaching staff in
>conversations with alumni.
 
It's still too early to rate Porter.  Despite his early rough start, you
have to agree that the last 2 or 3 weeks, he has developed into a player
closer to what people expected he'd be.  I was amazed that after 5 or 6
games, people were writing this kid off for good.  But with Kesselring
hurt, Porter earned his way into a spot on the top line, which didn't miss
a beat with Porter in Kesselring's spot.  Let's talk again at the end of
the season and see if Porter is still not getting closer to what you
thought he would be.
 
>Anderson must think enough of Rob Beck that he made him a captain (
>because MC, unlike schools like BU, do not have teammates elect captains)
>and as yet he's been a disappointment, to say the least.
 
BTW, this is not unusual, coaches picking captains.  I seem to recall at
least one school where the players were allowed to vote for captains but
the coach quietly made the final call.  Besides, I haven't seen any players
passed over for captain who deserved it more.
 
>With the
>exception of Mark Cornforth, none of Anderson's captains since 1988 have
>emerged as leaders. In fact, the closest thing today's team has to a
>mature leader is a player who "wasn't good enough to play" two years ago
>and was benched in a game at UNH after scoring a goal.
 
I'm not sure who you mean here though I have an idea, but what about
McKenna?  Still, I agree that one thing they do need is more leadership
from upperclassmen.  Beck sometimes shows it, but I believe he can do
better.  Yet, no one else has stood up to fill that role either.  You don't
have to be a captain to be a leader.
 
>> I've also seen many players come in as freshmen and look like they didn't
>> belong in DivI.  By the time they were juniors and seniors, they had become
>> integral parts of a team that was at least competitive in DivI.
>>
>I'd argue that MC has been at least competetive on the whole. In
>particular games against particular teams, yes. But not on a regular
>basis. The efforts they put out playing BU would have been enough to beat
>UMass-Amherst and UMass-Lowell. But it wasn't there those games.
 
I'll definitely agree with this.  The inconsistency in effort has been more
pronounced this season - when I said that there were not many times I was
disappointed in their effort over the last 7 years, I meant to add that
most of those times have come this year thus far.  I suspect the team
itself is not satisfied with the overall effort it has given this season.
So, their challenge is to change that after Christmas.
 
[Manny Fernandez]
>Gee, you're right. I wonder why other DivI coaches weren't gambling on
>him. Maybe they knew or expected something Ron didn't?
>
>The last part of that story, from the friend of a player who had been on
>teams with Fernandez, was that nobody up north expected him to go to MC.
>He used MC's offer to get the deal he wanted from Laval.
 
Possibly true.  But it wouldn't be the first time a player has used MC or
another school in that way...nor did it mean he was absolutely guaranteed
to get that deal.  It was worth the risk, especially when we're talking
about trying to land players who were overlooked for one reason or another.
 
It comes back to the idea of being able to get top recruits because they
want to come to Merrimack.  You believe it is because of the coach; I
believe it is because of a myriad of other factors.
 
[Cornforth]
>He had to be out there because there was nobody behind him.
 
Agreed!  And because he had to play, it helped him get better defensively.
That's exactly what I said happened - you said he didn't improve while at
Merrimack.
 
>On a team
>that by your own admission "couldn't put the puck in the ocean,"
>Cornforth's offensive skills were consistently stunted and discouraged by
>Anderson--
 
If so, then he nonetheless displayed those skills many, many times contrary
to what he was being told.  And if he was discouraged from playing that
way, why was he always the one put out there in the final minutes to lead
the rush and carry the puck deep into the zone to try to create scoring
chances?  Unless Anderson changed his style late in the game when they were
behind in a close game or in overtime...which is still the mark of a coach
who knows his players' abilities and how to use them in the right
situations.
 
>...a coach who despite his vocal support of solid defense, still
>can't teach a retreating defenseman to take his man at the blueline
>instead of fifteen feet into his own zone.
 
Then they learned this on their own?  Because when they do play well,
invariably they are stepping up at the line - and more often than not, they
are doing this.  See the two UNH games and the BU games for proof.  The
question is, what does it take for them to do this all the time?  Is it
really the coach's fault, or are the players just not good enough or
consistent enough to always play this way - and are they sometimes unable
to do this because the opponent is just too good at finding a way around
that (see two Maine games this year)?
 
[more on Cornforth with Bruins as opposed to MC]
>There's no
>pressure on him. He doesn't have to worry about making mistakes or being
>the goat-- like he did at Merrimack, where his bench coaches were
>constantly reminding the team of what NOT to do-- without ever telling
>what *to* do to win.
 
I'll strongly disagree with this - that things are different now than when
he was at MC.  Two days ago, I was at the Bruins-Florida game at the
FleetCenter.  Cornforth played *one* shift all game.  In the first period,
he backed off an opponent who scored - the goal was partly his fault and
partly Lacher's - and Cornforth never played the rest of the game, even
when his team was up 5-1 in the third.
 
Players who do the job play...that's how it is on almost any team at any
level.  If at MC they are worried about making mistakes and getting
benched, it is because Anderson knows enough to play the players who are
getting the job done.  I can tell from game to game almost every player who
will be benched in the third period, if there are any, based on how the
game is going.
 
I also don't agree with the idea that he constantly tells his players what
not to do - the idea of negative coaching.  I thought of this last year
during the BU quarterfinal when one forward didn't pick up his man which
resulted in a good scoring chance, and as he skated to the bench, Anderson
went over, said a few words to him, then clapped him on the back and sent
him right out on his next shift.  Maybe he said, "You're a stiff! Don't do
that again!" and then clapped him on the back, but somehow I don't believe
it. :-)
 
[Hrivnak]
>I wonder why he chose Merrimack. Hmm. Care to shed any light, Mike?
 
I can't, because I don't know.  That was before my time, for one thing.
 
>> Hrivnak certainly was a key, because he gave them DivI quality goaltending.
>> Yet, he also allowed 8 goals in five periods against Northeastern...and he
>> didn't score any of the seven goals Merrimack racked up in 26 minutes to
>> come back and win.
>>
>Without Hrivnak they don't even get a bid to play Northeastern.
 
Probably true, but we're talking about whether the win over NU was luck,
and because Hrivnak had a subpar series and the team scored 10 goals, I
don't think he was much of a factor in the win.
 
>> >Key player #2: Jim Vesey.
>>
>> 95 points in one year was impressive, even if much of it was against
>> DivII-III teams.  But if I recall, he was quiet against Northeastern.  It
>> was the other players who did most of the scoring in that series.
>
>Yup, like Jocko Magadini. The winner was his first goal. NU keyed on
>Vesey and freed up the rest of the team.
 
NU was good enough that they weren't going to lose by keying on one player
like Vesey.  They had just come off of a win against a Maine team that had
a ton of more talent than MC had, and they shut down virtually all of
Maine's stars.
 
>> And, however he landed all of those players, the fact remains that he still
>> got them.  Sometimes you get lucky and nab one or even two overlooked
>> players who turn out to be very good.  Never more than a handful.
>
>Just my point. He got his handful on that team. By luck. That's all. It's
>been really quiet since.
 
Again, I feel the climate was quite different then with regards to being
able to build a good team out of overlooked players.  It isn't possible
now, and not only has Anderson not been able to do it since then, neither
has anyone else.
 
>You're right, they did. But that was the spirit of those players
>individually in a playoff situation and they don't validate Anderson's
>job as a coach.
 
If you take that series by itself or even both NCAA series, you're right.
But there have been too many other times when they've displayed a similar
intensity and determination.  When other coaches and people who know the
game like Bob Norton say that Anderson's teams come to play and don't quit,
then either they are wrong and don't know the game, they are patronizing
him, or they know of which they speak.
 
>The performance of a team in meaningless,
>middle-of-the-season, non-conference games, they show a coach's real
>stripes.
 
I don't know about that.  I can list a lot of well-respected coaches whose
teams have struggled in midseason nonconference games.  And we're only
talking about a handful of such games with regards to MC, because their
nonconference record has been quite good since joining DivI, albeit against
competition that overall did not measure up to HE.
 
>MC didn't win that game fueled by tired cliches. Bobby Jay always did
>like those standup, midice hits-- it was his speciality. :) Anderson
>didn't teach him that.
 
Neither did he teach McKenna to hit the way he does.  But where was Bobby
Jay while NU was building an 8-3 lead in the series?
 
>What I guess I'm trying to do is very difficult-- separate out how much
>credit and blame are due the players and the coaches for a team's success
>(or lack thereof). Some patterns that his teams repeat that seem to be
>ill-advised continue today. His defensemen back away and play the puck.
>His forwards try to dominate play on the boards, leaving noone in front.
 
I think you're taking the times that they have played this way and giving
the impression that this is standard.  We have to sit and watch a game
together sometime so you can point out when this happens, and I can point
out when they do the opposite. :-)
 
>His teams sit on slim leads with a 1-2-2- forecheck and his forwards
>wonder what the heck he's doing.
 
What is the alternative when the 1-2-2 combined with patiently waiting for
your chances got you the lead in the first place and your team is not going
to blow out the opponent anyway?
 
>> >Great coaching is what Parker's teams do. They win regularly,
>> >methodically, mechanically. They don't let teams back into games, They
>> >don't let up. (Recent games vs. MC notwithstanding).
>>
>> Interesting point.  BU doesn't let teams into the game or back into the
>> game...except for Merrimack.  January 13, 1995; February 24-25, 1995; March
>> 12, 1995; December 8-9, 1995.  All close games, one MC win, two others in
>> which BU seemed to have it in hand and MC fought back.
>>
>Given MC's performance in DivI, perhaps they don't take MC seriously...
>like NU did. Again, not exactly a credit to Anderson... what's he doing,
>lulling the opposition into a false sense of security?
 
Six straight times?  I could see BU not taking MC seriously in the first of
those six.  Not in the next five after they had been beaten at home.  If BU
is coached as well as you say they are (and I agree that they are), why
would they not take MC seriously for six straight games in less than a
year's time?
 
Merrimack is also the only team this year that has fought back from a
blowout situation against BU to make the game close and threaten a tie.  I
think it is a real stretch to suggest that BU took all of those other
opponents seriously enough to maintain the large lead, but not MC.
 
>Well, there's another thing. BU can keep talented assistant coaches. We
>can't. We needed Scotty McPherson.
 
Not Anderson's fault...it was the school that couldn't match UMass's offer,
not Anderson.
 
>> If he is given that chance and things still don't change, then I will be
>> disappointed, but I will admit my mistake.  But I don't think that would
>> happen.
>>
>That depend on how soon the rink is built. If it's a wait until 1999, I
>doubt he'll get his chance.
 
I'll still say, talk to me at the end of this season or during next season.
The current team has all of the characteristics of a team that is close to
turning its record around and making some waves.  They may not be a HE or
NCAA contender next year, but I consider them to have a great chance at
having a very good season compared to the last 6-7 years.  Of course, I
know I am more optimistic than some people. :-)  But I have also seen a lot
of improvement over the years.  A perfect example is that MC-BU games are
no longer a foregone conclusion.
 
>> Except for the coaching question, I tend to agree with you.  They were
>> good, but you cannot separate that from the person who built and coached
>> them.
>
>I guess I'm taking an average of all his teams to judge him. If he was so
>good he could put together that team with the same rink, why not now?
 
Because the climate was different then with the smaller number of DivI
programs and the larger number of scholarships MC had to give.  I do
believe he has had to learn how to recruit differently in a way that he did
not have to do before, a way that is necessary to be competitive in HE.
The last few years have shown that he has learned in that players who have
come in have usually been able to make an impact as freshmen.  The freshmen
of the last few years didn't have to play because there were enough other
players who could have played, but those freshmen were good enough to step
in immediately.  And that included players who were courted by other DivI
teams too.  The team is unquestionably better than it was in the first few
years of HE.  I might be inclined to agree with you if this was not the
case.
 
The problem is that they're still not as good as some people want them to
be.  I want them to be better, too, but I understand why things are the way
they are, although I am disappointed with the start to this season.
 
>And
>if that team really was a fluke, then how can you use its performance to
>prove he's a good coach?
 
If it was, then you're right.  So I look at the effort they have given
under the circumstances they have had to deal with.  I am probably happier
with that effort than you.
 
>Either way, it's a truism that you should change a losing game. I think
>maybe it is a little past the time when Ron and Merrimack College hockey
>should part ways amicably.
>
>If MC's teams fare no better from now until the new rink is built, I
>doubt the parting will be that amicable.
 
Given the current situation, a coaching change would make little difference
not only because the status quo would still be maintained, but also because
the chance of luring the type of coach you seem to want would be very
small.  You mention Parker a lot, but a Parker would never come to work
here under the same conditions Anderson has had to deal with.
 
As I said at the top, the only way this will ever really be resolved is if
he is given the commitment and new facility and then allowed to show what
he can do.  Otherwise, we will just have to agree to disagree, which as I
said, is ok with me!
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                   [log in to unmask]            *HMM* 11/13/93
>> Co-owner of the College Hockey Lists at University of Maine System  <<
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.