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
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bill Fenwick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Bill Fenwick <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 20 Feb 1995 17:05:01 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
Mike Greenberg writes:
 
>As far as saying that Bandurski hadn't improved dramatically, last year was
>my first year watching the Red, so I didn't know how he was previously.  I
>noticed that he had some weaknesses, and toward the latter part of the
>season I trusted Skazyk more.  I just think that McCutcheon should not have
>used Elliott as much when he knew he had two able veterans (although able
>may be up in the air).
 
Veterans or no, neither Bandurski nor Skazyk was able to play consistently
enough last year to be relied on.  Six of the last eight games of the 93-94
season saw a goaltending change, sometimes more than once.  (Remember that
mess at RPI?)  Whoever was in goal would usually play okay one night, and
in his next start would fall apart.  This lack of consistency is more than
likely the main reason Elliott was "rushed" into service this year.  This
is not like the situation a few years ago that someone else has cited, when
Parris Duffus rode the bench behind Corrie D'Alessio and Jim Crozier.  Those
two were established and consistent college goaltenders, and Parris may not
have been ready anyway (the few times he saw action, he did not look too
impressive, though that was probably more a function of him not getting
much practice/playing time).  McCutcheon apparently felt this year that a
raw Elliott was better than either of the two goaltenders he already had,
and I frankly wouldn't argue that point with him.
 
>>Any college player has a "right" to quit his team if he doesn't believe
>>he's being given enough credit as an individual, or if he has philosophical
>>disagreements with his coach, but that sort of choice doesn't get a lot of
>>my respect.  There's a reason that it's called a hockey TEAM.
>
>I think that's a good argument for why Jiri Kloboucek shouldn't have quit.
 
Jiri's situation was completely different.  He wants to play in his native
Czech Republic next year, and for some reason in order to do that, he had
to play a certain number of games over there this year.  He did so over
Christmas break, which made him ineligible for the rest of the season.  True,
he might not have done that if he were seeing a lot of ice time, but then
again, he might still have preferred to keep himself eligible to play in
his home country.  (Again, I don't know why he had to play there this year
to be permitted to play next year, but that's apparently what the situation
was)
--
Disclaimer -- Unless otherwise noted, all opinions expressed above are
              strictly those of:
 
Bill Fenwick                        |  Send your HOCKEY-L poll responses to:
Cornell '86 and '94.5               |  [log in to unmask]
LET'S GO RED!!                                                  DJF  5/27/94
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million type-
 writers, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare."
-- Blair Houghton

ATOM RSS1 RSS2