Steven Thompson wrote:
>Subject: the perplexing nature of Brown's play
>
>Does anyone have any comments or feedback as to the play of the Brown
>University team.


I can tell you my impressions of the Cornell-Brown game which was in many
senses a better game to watch than Harvard the night before because Brown
played a good game.  The stayed with their game plan and it is easy to see
how they have beaten nationally ranked teams in low scoring games.  They
play real sound defense that does not make many mistakes.  The play with a
lot of movement and pressure defensively and offensively.  Their defensive
pressure resulted in frequent good break outs and they had good flow
through center ice and into the offensive zone.  They got fewer shots than
Harvard the night before but they got good shots and better offensive
movement than Harvard had.  Defensively they allowed Cornell no where near
as much penetration as Harvard and limited us to fewer shots than we had
against Harvard 27 versus 35.  Of course we did out shoot them 27-15 and
shut them out 2-0 but they were in the game all of the first period, most
of the second and played hard in the third.  Great goaltending by LeNeveu
took away some quality shots--they had their chances but in the final
analysis they did not have the offensive tools to pull it out against
Cornell's defense and goaltending.  Brown has good speed, quickness and
skills on all 4 lines to play their game plan at a fast pace.  Harvard the
night before played 3 lines most of the time and was clearly wearing down
by the middle of the second.  Brown is definitely a bit small on average
with perhaps too many smaller players on the ice and Cornell really
dominated the board grinding and hitting but it was not a huge factor in
the game.  Both teams displayed outstanding penalty kills.  The difference
was while Brown kept us from scoring and getting many high quality shots on
power play we mostly did not let them in the offensive zone with the puck
did not hardly allow them any shots on their power play.   This may be an
illustration of Browns skill limits.  They may be a team that is in essence
four good fourth lines but no first line.

We opened strong pouring it on in the first period outshooting them 13- 2
but we did not score and they shut us down on three power plays.  We had a
lot of shots but not many high quality close in shots that would be
required to beat the only other goalie in the league with a save % that
compares to Cornell's two goalies.

In the second period the shots were about even but we scored two
goals.  The first goal came when we got the Brown defense a bit unsettled
and Ladouceur got a puck behind the net before the defender and quickly fed
right in front to Matt McRae who was speeding down the slot to one time it
home from such close range I was worried about a crease violation.  Very
quick play with perfect timing on the feed and shot.  Late in the period we
locked it up.  Wieckowski was in close crashing the net (a bigger team may
have been able to check him) whacking away when his shot? pass? rebound?
bounced off freshman defender Jeremy Downs for his first goal.  Schafer
seems to always have the defenders pinching up the boards or down the slot
if there is an opening and that is exactly what Downs was doing practically
at the goal mouth.

The third was pretty uneventful.  Brown tried hard but both teams played
excellent defense and had flawless goaltending.  Again the loosing team
started a scrum with seconds remaining and even got an "instigator" penalty
but it was not as serious as the Harvard scrum the night before.

You probably should not read to much into a road loss to Colgate.  Colgate
has come together into a pretty solid young team when I saw them and a loss
to them is not an embarrassment.  Brown has looked better on the ice to me
than their win loss record would indicate for the last couple of seasons
but maybe they just play good hockey against Cornell when I see them.  I
think they are well coached and play together as a team in a style of
hockey that is fun to watch with a lot of movement.  In terms of their
players they seem to have good speed, quickness and stick skills but they
seem a bit small on average and may lack the shooting polish to finish off
the opportunities they create.