HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@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:
College Hockey discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Charles Baldwin Harvard <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 6 Dec 1993 09:21:29 -0500
Reply-To:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
I watched both of Harvard's games this weekend, and have a few quick remarks,
although the reporting has been very good.
(My views are admittedly partisan.)
 
Harvard vs. Union
- Union has a lot of character, which I attribute somewhat to strong coaching
(former Harvard captain Kevin Sneddon is assistant coach :-). While Harvard
consistently outplayed and outskated Union, there was never any sign of the
Dutchment letting up.
- Both teams were guilty of inconsistent defensive play--in fact, I saw this
in both games this weekend, with RPI being just as cupable. These no-look, Paul
Coffey-style outlet passes are bad, but so are the aimless, give-it-to-the-
other-team passes. I mean, everything can't be perfect, but it seemed
particularly aggravated.
- Harvard's domination of play was limited by an inability to put the puck
away: they continue to be very tentative in front of the net. With their
ability, they should and could have made the score higher (sorry Union fans).
They easily carry the puck, but lack snipers.
- All of Harvard's injured players were back, and I was impressed by freshman
Ashlin Halfknight, who I had missed seeing in the game versus Brown. On the
other hand, mountainous freshman Ethan Philpott did not play in either
weekend games. Whether this is due to injury or demotion (he was a liability
in the Brown game), I don't know.
 
Harvard vs. RPI
- Remember, my views are partisan, but frankly, I was not impressed with RPI.
I haven't seen them play any other games this season, but they looked sloppy
and slow to me. The score was more like Tripp Tracy 4-Neil Little 3, with
Tracy letting in some very easy ones--not helped by poor coverage by the
Harvard defense. I don't wish to be flamed by RPI fans, but seriously, from
where I sat, the puck remained in the RPI defensive zone for almost the
entire second and third periods, during which Harvard generated 36 shots (48
on the game). That the score wasn't different seemed to me to be more Neil
Little and Tripp Tracy's fault. Also, I give the RPI defense credit for
jamming up the slot pretty well, and I was boggled by Harvard's refusal to
shoot, and refusal to rush the net. They would wheel about, skate around
RPI players, and then continue skating. The net, the net! I would yell. There
they were, down 4-2, a minute and a half left, goalie pulled, dominating the
play (RPI didn't score on the empty net--almost 2:00 minutes worth--because
they barely touched the puck during the period), and what does Harvard do?
Pass, pass, skate around RPI's zone. I mean sure, RPI's jamming the slot well,
but at this point in the game, why not try shooting the darn thing? They
finally did, and lo and behold they scored, but far too late. I mean, they had
a ton of shots, many of which were from the perimeter, but quite a few from
point blank range, but frankly, it could have easily been 60 or so shots from
what I saw of the territorial advantage, if Harvard had played it that way.
- I think part of this is that Neil Little looked just excellent. He gave no
angles, nothing to the the incoming forward. Tracy on the other hand flopped
about, lost his stick, etc. He reminds me of Chuckie Hughes.
- I'm not saying that Harvard looked great, no, but they consistently outskated
RPI. Sure, RPI led the whole game, but it was often by a single goal, and many
of the goals came off of breakdowns by Harvard and then poor play by Tracy--
again, not intended as an insult to RPI, but as a comment that I didn't see
their forwards carrying the puck, but rather I saw largely opportunistic play
(nothing wrong with this, but some of these forwards on RPI are very skilled--
Majic, et al., but they didn't seem coordinated in attack, but waited for the
breakdown). If Little weren't such an excellent positional goalie, things would
have been different, based on the territorial and shot advantage (at least from
my point of view).
- But, one can also argue that this is the sign of a talented team: they win
even when they play poorly. Fair enough, and RPI does have a lot of talent.
They'll go a long way.
 
Sandy Baldwin

ATOM RSS1 RSS2