ME-HOCKEY Archives

The Maine Hockey Discussion List

ME-HOCKEY@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
The Maine Hockey Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:23:21 -0500
Reply-To:
The Maine Hockey Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
From:
Jacob Metzler <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
Jake wrote:
>>-Doyle was fine on Friday ...
>> when goalie isn't at his very best ...
>>-Team has to be sharper to help off-night by goalies

Wayne wrote:
>
>   Does not compute.

What Jake meant but didn't clarify because he was typing fast is that the goalies have set a very high bar with their play to this point and when one plays "well" but not "great" it seems to fans like he played "poor" and not "well".  I don't know
if that makes sense but the point is because we are accostumed to seeing 1-2 goals against all season, a big 5 stands out, but when whitehead broke down the tape, he felt Doyle played "well" (as opposed to great), there were some odd-man rushs off
"fancy" plays by the forwards and that led to several of the goals.

The point is, play tough d, don't try to do too much on the "style" side of things and the goalies will continue to be solid.  But if you hang them out to dry on odd-man rushs then they are bound to get beat like they did in game one of the MC
series.  Maybe that explains things better?!

-jake

ATOM RSS1 RSS2