I don't want to get in a long debate, mainly because I do not understand
everything about the Merrimack situation and the people involved. I'll
simply respond to points from my outside view and hope they spark some
discussion. I will however stand by my comments that Anderson has done a
bang-up job this season, so far.. and that is the key.
At 03:44 PM 2/21/97 -0500, David M. Josselyn wrote:
>Why? If a team never better than sixth and quite often last suddenly plays
>better, why does the credit go to the coach who has been there the whole
>time?
It does in my book when the coach has always been working with leftovers
from the other top schools in the league. Merrimack is *never* going to be
a hockey power with their current situation, they will have good runs and
bad runs. But the history you site below is for the most part accurate, but
to me seems to suggest that the coach does deserve some credit.
>The story of Merrimack's turnaround has very little to do with Ron
>Anderson. In fact, it began in the period when Anderson's renewal was still
>very much in doubt.
Terrific point. Again, as I said at the start I do not know everything
there is to know about the MC situation so I will yield to others. But I'd
be interested to know if the players didn't rally around the fact that
Anderson's future was in jeopardy. Maybe they didn't care, but certainly
the news of his renewal has not slowed them down.
>Merrimack has gotten 1) good goaltending --partially because Legault and
>Thibeault were platooned the first time ever. Several of "us" have
>advocated this since the two of them were freshmen. Mike M. will remember
>that. The one loss in the past six games was the one game Legault made two
>successive starts, I think-- I'm sure Mike will correct me if I'm wrong.
>Unfortunately, I've seen fewer games this semester than in any year since
>1988, which is ironic given how well they are playing. :)
Hey, maybe you should stop watching them altogether! :-)
Another good point. I'm a big supporter of coaches adapting to the hand
they are dealt. In 1994-95 Legault was the better goalie, he deserved to
play the majority of the minutes. Last year, there were high expectations
for him and both he and Thibeault struggled -- directly resulting in the low
finish IMHO.
Neither played brillantly to start this season, and to his credit Anderson
tried all kinds of differnent things to get them going. The defense
eventually gelled in front to a degree and helped them. The goaltending
situation may not be totally to Anderson's credit but it isn't something
that detracts from the job he's done either.
>2) Better offense. What forecheck are the guys using now? Is it the same
>1-1-2 we've been watching for 8 years, or not? I don't think so. The few
>games I've seen have been very wide-open, which suits a Merrimack squad
>that for the first time in many years is much longer in offensive talent
>than defensive talent. Arguably the best defenseman, Darrel Scoville has
>excellent offensive instincts. John Jakopin has played part of the year at
>forward. Steve McKenna did not return.
This is where I must disagree. Players like Scoville, Cohen and now even
Philbin are recent recruiting jobs by Anderson and his staff. The last year
or two has seen Anderson put together terrific recruiting classes for
Merrimack. He deserves credit for that IMHO.
It is difficult to recruit at Merrimack, even more so because they rushed
their jump to Division I and Hockey East. It takes time to establish
something, and from what I can see Merrimack has slowly improved their
recruiting each of the last few years.
What about Rob Beck, didn't Anderson bench him earlier this year (maybe I am
thinking of someone else, Laroche?). Regardless, Beck has been motivated by
something has has Rejean Stringer (another recent Anderson recruit) and
don't forget the J-L-K line that has been so good. Somebody had to put that
combination together.
The talent is improved but someone had to work with that talent, after they
got that talent and someone had to find the right combinations.
It wasn't as if Anderson threw 19 kids on the ice and started winning, it's
been a long road this year and they have turned it around. Merrimack has
had bad starts like this before, why was this year different? Was it
because of the mid-season benchings? Did Anderson light a fire under some
people? Is it because of other reasons?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but when I look at the
turnaround it isn't just in one area, it is everyone playing better. I
think that even if you disagree that Anderson is worthy of coach of the
year, you have to give him some credit for that.
I think the Merrimack administration did and that is why he received an
extension.
>If Merrimack tanks from here on end, do you blame the long-abused Anderson,
>or the players?
I would blame both, but I would not be shocked either. It takes time to
"learn how to win." Remember last year when MC was losing all those one and
two goal games, now those are turning into victories. You have to take
success in steps though, and MC is still learning how to win. I don't
expect to see them winning the Hockey East title, but I think you'll see
them at the FleetCenter. To me, that is a success for Anderson and Merrimack.
Anderson knew how to win in Division II, so if his team tanks it then he
deserves some of the blame because he's not a rookie coach who is wet around
the collar still. To a large degree it is the coach's responsibility to
make sure the players don't tank it and keep them focused.
Like I said in my original post, my evaluations are based on "right now".
MC could lose tonight to Northeastern and that might change everything. MC
might go to the Hockey East finals and almost assure Anderson a coach of the
year award. We don't know what is going to happen, but I still think the
award is Anderson's to lose -- and he could still do that.
---
Deron Treadwell ([log in to unmask])
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
