Just a few comments to add here...I just saw this after getting up late
following our 3:30 am arrival back from Troy, and have to get ready to go
back to NY for the holiday (and then on to Ottawa for the National Capital
Tournament).
 
Brian Morris writes on INFO-HOCKEY-L:
>Hockey is a 60 minute game.  The young RPI Engineers learned the lesson the
>hard way last night.  After dominating play the first two periods, in fact
>playing their best hockey of the young season, the Engineers fell prone to
>a couple of mistakes which  gave Merrimack the opportunity to climb back into
>the game.  The result--a very unsatisfying 2-2 tie.
 
It seemed to me that the result was fitting given the way the game went.
RPI was probably less happy with the result since they carried a 2-0 lead
into the third and a few major mistakes resulted in the tie.
 
>A sparse crowd at the Fieldhouse realized quickly that this was going to be a
>strange night of hockey.  It only took the sight of Harry Emmian and Pierre
>Belanger, apparently on a reunion tour, to remind the crowd that they should
>they should moderate their expectations for the game.
 
I gave these guys the benefit of the doubt from the start, but I was
disappointed with the way they called the game.  They were consistent,
however - consistently not good.  At times it looked like they would let
the teams play, only to suddenly call a penalty on something that had been
let go earlier.
 
>After a close skating
>initial five minutes, Belanger whistled Rochon and Poirer on matching minors--
>for hooking and holding the stick.  Most of the crowd looked at the rafters,
>and then each other to discover why the penalties were called.
 
I didn't have a real problem with this call.  Rochon was definitely holding
Poirier's stick, and Poirier probably got the call for hooking when he
tried to pull his stick away.
 
>At 16:19, with the RPI offense setting up in the Merrimack zone, Jon Pirrong
>takes a hard shot through a forest of large Merrimack bodies.  Legault sees it
>all the way, but St. Hilaire is given an opportunity to poke at the rebound.
>Legault again makes the save, but this time Jean Francois Gosselin deposits his
>rebound opportunity in the goal, at 16:19, with Pirrong and St. Hilaire r
>receiving assists.
 
This was an example of one of the few defensive breakdowns for Merrimack in
the game.  If there is a problem Merrimack has had defensively, it has been
faceoff coverage.  They were unable to adequately cover the RPI forwards
off the draw, allowing Gosselin his rebound goal.
 
>After trading penalties, resulting in a 4 on 4, Merrimack makes its major
>offensive stab of the period.  Scoville intercepts the puck at center ice and
>goes on a breakaway.  Mike Tamburro however poke checks the puck away before
>Scoville can get his shot off.
 
Scoville, a freshman D with only one goal, was not one of the guys that
Merrimack would have wanted to have this chance.  He had trouble containing
the puck and Tamburro sensed this, coming out to poke it away before
Scoville could rein it in and slip it past him.
 
>The period then winds down with RPI holding a
>1-0 advantage.
 
Surprising thing was that Merrimack outshot RPI 13-5 in the first.  I felt
it was rather evenly played.
 
>And to add to the Merrimack distress, the Harry and
>Pierre show strikes at 5:51, whistling Claudio Peca for...taunting.
 
Quite an unusual call and perhaps a Pierre classic.  This was a call I have
not seen before.  And it did not come after a goal or anything.  No one
seemed to know why it was called.
 
>Emmian intervened at the 12:02 mark calling a 5
>minute major on O'Connor for hitting from behind.  At the time it seemed a li
>little surprising, in light of the gravity of the offense, but the penalty s
>only stoked the Engineer fires further.  For the next 5 minutes RPI allow
>Merrimack only one shot, putting on a clinic on penalty killing.
 
There were a couple of things worth noting about this major power play.
First, while Merrimack put on some good pressure in the opening minute,
once RPI was able to clear the puck, they effectively stood up the
Merrimack forwards at the line and didn't allow them to gain the zone
again.  I could sense RPI gaining confidence and momentum with each broken
rush.
 
Also, back to the officiating, there were three times that RPI committed
what I felt were blatant penalties that were overlooked by the referees.
It did seem as if they were reluctant to put RPI down by two men.
 
>And of course
>broadcaster Mike Machnik correctly summarized the action noting "Merrimack has
>a lot of trouble with their power play", a master of understatement.
 
Jayson noted that "Merrimack's power play has struggled for the last two
minutes," to which I added, "It has struggled for the last two *months*."
 
>The period would wind down without further score, but not without further m
>mystery.  At 19:48 Merrimack coach Ron Anderson calls a time-out.  I would
>welcomne Mike's perspective on the strategy.  Perhaps it was intended as a
>wake-up call for the third.
 
Although I failed to ask about this after the game, it seemed to me that
Anderson might have seen something that he wanted to take advantage of in
RPI's defensive setup.  And Merrimack set up for the draw with the two
wingers in the slot, rather than flanking the center.  It almost paid off,
as Merrimack was able to gain the puck and center it, but it went just wide
of Rob Beck for what would have been a quality scoring chance.
 
The timeout was unusual in that I don't think I have seen the normally
conservative Anderson call one in such a situation.  I was surprised that
he used it at that time in a close game when it might have been needed
later on.  Of course, if the centering pass had been on the mark and Beck
had scored, he would have looked like a genius. :-)
 
>  And if it was--it worked.  To this point Merrimack
>had generated almost 0 offense, and their big defensemen McKenna and Jokopin
>were invisible.
 
I have to take issue with this!  We felt both big men played superbly.
They were rarely beaten and generated a few rushes, especially earlier in
the game.  They used their long reach to poke the puck free a number of
times in the defensive zone and start rushes going the other way.
 
There was also a sequence on an RPI power play in which Merrimack produced
two straight great bids - a breakaway, and a 3x1, but only Tamburro stopped
them.  After tying the puck up following the 3x1, he was clearly quite
upset with his team's inattention to defense.
 
>To this point RPI had skated as satisfying a game as one could
>imagine.
 
On the other side, Merrimack had done pretty well defensively - and not
allowed RPI that much in the way of offense either.  It was certainly a
defensive battle.  Tamburro was the difference after two periods, with RPI
being outshot to that point 23-17.  If he hadn't stopped those shorthanded
rushes along with a couple of other bids, it could have been a tie game
after two.
 
>The seasoned Merrimack team, hardened by all those HE battles, quickly turned
>around the game as the third period, literally, opened.  At 00:11 Merrimack's
>Larouche gets Merrimack's first goal, on a shot to the right of goalie Mike
>Tamburro. While the shot didn't seem that impressive, Tamburro's concentration
>may have been affected by the poor pass that Merrimack's Poirer intercepted.
>Kesselring also receives an assist.
 
RPI got caught up ice on this play early in the period and it cost them.
The three sophomore Warrior forwards clicked well here, with Poirier
passing to Kesselring who carried behind the goal line and fed Laroche
alone in front for an easy goal.  Can't blame Tamburro on this one.
 
>Legault proceeds to built the Merrimack momentum as he handles a Rochon slap
>shot at 1:53, and Merrimack takes the attack down-ice as Jakopin manages to
>pass the puck after he is dumped deep in his own end.  After Beck touches the
>puck Rajean Stringer puts the puck on net.  Tamburro misplays the puck off his
>pads, and the puck is knocked into the net.  Beck and Jokopin receive assists.
 
Beck originally was credited with the goal, as he was the intended
recipient of the Stringer pass.  I felt Tamburro was trying to either slide
over to cover the pass or perhaps break up the play.  Either way,
Stringer's pass, which was off the mark, wound up hitting the inside of
Tamburro's pads and went in.  But the key may have been that Beck was
uncovered and so was a real threat to score if he had gotten the puck.
 
>Having tied the score, Merrimack draws on its experience to change the
>game >into
>the kind of contest it wanted--close checking, hold-up-the-forward play.
 
Once the game was tied, it switched back to the style of the first period
which probably favored Merrimack - they continued to play good defense and
waited for their chances to attack.  I wouldn't say they were happy with
the tie on the road (afterwards several players said they felt this was a
game they could have won), rather they tried to prevent a loss.
 
Best bid may have come from RPI freshman wing Matt Garver on the power play
late.  Off some nice passing, he got the puck down low on what would have
been a goal if he had pulled the trigger as soon as he received the pass.
But he didn't, giving Legault time to get over.
 
Gosselin impressed me for the Engineers - in fact, I thought most of the
rookie forwards played well and showed good skating and playmaking
abilities.  They'll only get better.  And Rochon, the best offensive
defenseman on either team, was always involved in the play and had a good
two-way game.
 
>Mermimack is smart team.  But I have to admit their total dearth of offense
>surprised me.
 
Shouldn't have after my reports thus far. :-)
 
>I am not sure how Merrimack will be able to move up in the HE
>standings unless the defenseman decide to play a more offensive style.
 
On the other hand, they have allowed only two goals in each of their last
three games, and have gone 2-0-1 - against two teams with some pretty good
snipers.  The comment afterwards was, "We'll win some games if we keep
playing that way."
 
Merrimack's success against UNH came not when the defensemen stepped up
into the play, but when they patiently waited for chances and then scored
on them.  They did not score on some of those chances last night - credit
Tamburro for that.
 
The thing with the defensemen getting more offensive-minded is, I worry
about the danger on defense that may result.  The forwards did not convert
their chances and that was more of a factor.  You have to play to your
strength, which for Merrimack is strong defense...for the most part, they
did that.  There is no Cornforth or Hodge this year, thus the offense from
the blueline really isn't there.
 
>Of
>course that will take away from their impressive physical play, but without any
>skilled snipers, their offense must rely on odd man rushes to score.  I would
>like to have seen how they managed to score on a suddely ordinary looking New
>Hampshire team last weekend.
 
RPI also played much better defensively than UNH did.  There were not as
many good chances for Merrimack.
 
>Their scoring prowess at the Fieldhouse would seem
>to cause some concern for their coach Ron Anderson.
 
It's definitely a concern...but as long as they allow only two goals a game
(RPI did not score over the final 33:54), it won't take much to win.
 
Happy Thanksgiving everyone, and please be careful if you're driving...
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                   [log in to unmask]            *HMM* 11/13/93
>> Co-owner of the College Hockey Lists at University of Maine System  <<
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.