>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>>
>>         Why the hell was Masotta in goal vs. Princeton.(It makes no sense)
>>
>It was Dan Fridgen's plan to start Brian Masotta in goal all along.  Like any
>good coach (Remember Bowling Green's goalie flaming?) when you have two
>legitimate goal tenders, you play both, not just the "hot" one.  Masotta has
>had the unfortunate experience of ZERO defense in front of him when he
>has played.  You really can't blame him.
>
>>
>>         The overall RPI team isn't strong enough to support a weak goalie.
>>         This is evidenced by their need to depend on Tamburro to pull them
>>         out of defensive disasters(as witnessed during the Clarkson game).
>>
>You're right, they're not strong enough.  But the answer ISN'T to rely on your
>hot goalie.   They NEED a kick in the teeth every now and again.   There's FIVE
>guys in front of the goalie the opposition has to get through...  THEY need to
>pick up their game or they WILL LOSE not matter who's in goal!
>
>RPI's played over expectation this year, and sometimes over their head.  They
>don't have the depth, or an incredable standout.   Like Maine who is
>showing BU that hockey is a TEAM sport, RPI's gonna have to play with a team
>attitude to win and we should enjoy the wins we get.
>
>Jim Chalfonte
>[log in to unmask]
 
[Some things om9itted above]
 
I've noticed that RPI's defense (and the whole team) plays well when they
have confidence in the goalie, and really poorly when they don't.  I agree
with Jim, both goalies need experience, and the team needs confidence in
both goalies.
 
On the other hand, I was quite surprised at how well Princeton played here
in Cornell.  They looked like a solid team, and may be underestimated.
 
                                                Nate Robinson, RPI '94