--- Greg Ambrose <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> [UNH History Lesson]

Thanks.  One example I might take mild exception to is Krog, who I think could play in a telephone
booth.  I thought he was better than others in confined areas, but a LOT better on open ice.  The
others I defer to your much more informed view.
>
[. . . ]

> My observation is that there is clutching and grabbing on the big sheet,
> maybe not as much as on the small sheet, but it is there.  After all, most
> teams' north/south game is played in the middle of the rink. Where it makes
> a difference is on power plays. It's a lot easier to maintain control of the
> puck on a sheet with wide corners like those at the Whit than on small
> bandboxes like the one UNH played on last night at Merrimack.

I mentioned my son hated playing point on the power play on big ice, because it was more width to
cover to prevent icing.  However that was a summer league, so the power play wasn't particularly
organized.  I suspect one reason that a power play can maintain control of the puck is that they
can spread out farther, so if the PK concentrates, as most do, on protecting the slot, the PKers
have farther to go to contest possession.  I personally don't care that much for power plays; the
play is too static, and for the most part played on only a third of the ice.  My worry is that on
big ice, some teams would start to play that way even strength -- conceding the perimeter and
contesting only the middle.


> I will say that speed still makes a big difference and, through the years,
> UNH's speed has allowed them, by and large, to succeed at the Whit
> (123-30-15) since it opened.

An interesting statistic would be UNH's away record big ice/small ice.  If there's a disparity,
and if the sample size is large enough, that may indicate that their game and personnel are better
suited to big ice or small ice.

> I'd hate four on four and, let's face it, the player's union would never go
> for it.

Agreed on the second point, but I'd be interested to know why you don't like 4:4.

> At 200 x 85, today's rinks have 17,000 square feet of ice surface. A
> 200 x 100 would have 20,000. Don't you think that the extra 3,000 square
> feet just might make a difference?

This question isn't all that conjectural.  Is it your observation that the 3000 square feet makes
a difference?

Clay



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com