Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:15:39 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Your analysis is right on. I didn't see the whole game, but watching
Michigan on TV over the course of the year showed that same style of
play. Sometimes it got them in trouble. I don't expect their style
will change against Clarkson. We'll just have to see if Clarkson has
an answer.
Even if my team (Maine) isn't in it, it's a great time of year, isn't
it. Great hockey. Great game.
On Mar 29, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Bob Griebel wrote:
> I was hoping to see some impressions of the Michigan-Niagara game.
> This is the first college game I've attended since the NCAA
> championship in Columbus and I don't trust my impressions. I
> merely thought Michigan played safely and patiently, not
> particularly aggressively, with the understanding that not making
> mistakes over 60 minutes would bring a win based on having better
> horses and depth. That pretty much worked and Niagara's only goal
> with about 4 minutes left came on the type of chance opportunity
> that should statistically occur once or twice in a game, but not
> often enough to beat the top seed.
>
> Niagara had outshot Michigan by 4-2 in the first 16-minutes.
> Midway through the second period, shots were 19-4 in Michigan's
> favor. The Wolverine's second goal (Kevin Porter's first of four)
> was a beauty. Michigan's two misses on an open net before Porter
> stole the puck and bagged his fourth were not.
>
> It'll be interesting to see whether Michigan's style is different
> against Clarkson tonight.
>
> Bob Griebel
|
|
|