Ken Pavelle wrote:
 
> > For a team that seems to rely on garbage goals, it was odd that the Big
> > Red don't seem to set a forward up in front of the net.  Everyone spent
> > most of the time on the perimeter.  Even when they were digging for the
> > puck on the boards, no one was set up to take a centering pass.
>
> You don't understand the game if you think Cornell was relying on "garbage"
> goals.  All year (and several before), Cornell has played faster teams.
> They don't have Hobey candidates who can dazzle you with their soon-to-be-nhl
> moves.  Instead, they play with heart.  Dump and chase.  Work the puck until
> you get an opportunity.  This was the second time I saw Miami play Cornell,
> and I'm still impressed at how quickly they can move from defense to offense.
> Cornell's strategy was to play a clean, hard-hitting physical game to keep
> Miami from utilizing their speed advantage.
 
This is pretty much what I meant by garbage goals.  It's not derogatory;
Phil Esposito made it to the Hall of Fame picking up the garbage.  And
the whole strategy of digging it out of the corners requires someone in
front of the net to bang home the pass or pick up the rebound.  Cornell
had no one there most of the time when they had the puck in the
offensive zone.
 
Miami, on the other hand, did not play nearly as well as they have other
times I've seen them.  They weren't tremendous in Minneapolis in
December, but they at least had a game plan.  On Saturday, they made the
transition to offense quickly, but often forgot to bring the puck with
them.
 
> It seemed like when Cornell went up 2-1 with about 10 minutes left in the
> SECOND, they started to play pre-vent defense.  They kept defensemen back,
> preventing any Miami odd-man rushes.  It's a very conservative defenseive
> mindset, and it can work, but Cornell started doing it way, way too early.
> I agree with you here: the best defense being a good offense.
 
But Cornell was turning down odd man rushes even earlier than this.
There were two notable examples in the first period.  Besides, holding
defensemen back behind the play has little to do with two forwards not
pressing the advantage.
 
> I completely disagree.  Cornell played a high-energy, hard-hitting game.
> Just because there weren't 63 breakaways doesn't mean the game was "low-
> energy".  I think this game showed why ECAC defensive stats are generally
> near the top of the list.
 
All I can say was that we watch different hockey most of the year.  In
no way, shape or form would this have been considered hard-hitting if it
were a WCHA game.  That stated, the image I tried to convey was that I
think Cornell did this on purpose.  The whole plan seemed to be to put
Miami to sleep, and it worked.  As a by-product, it almost did the same
thing to me.
>
> > North Dakota - Cornell
>
> How many things did the Big Red have against them for this game?
>   - UND was fresh
>   - UND was home team
>   - UND saw Cornell play Saturday, and was able to match lines
>   - UND is a better team.
 
It has always seemed to me that the team that had the bye is at a
disadvantage early in the game.  Witness what happened to Clarkson.  It
often takes a period to work out the kinks. (Michigan focused very hard
on avioding this, since it's what Minnesota did to them last year.)
Cornell did not try to press this advantage.
 
> > Jason Elliot was named to the all-tournament team.  I'd have to say that
> > this mostly reflected the fact that none of the goalies looked
> > particularly good this weekend.
>
> Dude, you can't have it both ways.  If a team that's "so inferior" was able
> to beat one team, and keep another at bay for 40:00, I think there might
> be a reason.  Through five periods, Elliot gave up 4 goals.  The sixth period,
> he played with no defense in front of him.  Elliot was hot.  No one can deny
> that both teams had many, many chances, but couldn't score.  If his performance
> didn't deserve MVP, I don't know what would.
 
One, I wouldn't say that Cornell was an inferior team to Miami,
certainly not based on what I saw this weekend.  Two, I would credit
their success to total team defense.  They all played defense very well,
and saved Elliot's bacon on a number of occasions.  The cost of this was
that they were never able to generate much offense.  They only had about
two or three good even-strength scoring chances against North Dakota and
the power play looked absolutely brutal about half the time.
 
Elliot left some huge rebounds, particularly in the first period against
Miami.  The Redskins resolutely refused to take advantage and Cornell
defensemen were able to clear the puck.  The Cornell team played very
hard and disciplined and should feel good about the kind of defense they
played.  But to be a real threat, Mike Schaefer is going to have to
tweak his system some in order to generate more punch.  It's only his
second year, so I'd consider his Cornell team a work in progress.  If
he's as good as a lot of people seem to think, he'll make the
adjustments.  But it's not there yet.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.