In article <[log in to unmask]>, Andrew Brecher
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
> In article <[log in to unmask]>,
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> >3) It seems logically inconsistent to note in one sentance that
> >Brush 'bolted like lightning,' yet, in another, claim that Brown
> >has a 'considerable skating advantage.'
>
> Perhaps Brown's skating advantage caused them to become more tired?  I
> dunno.  I doesn't seem inconsistent to me.  The Brush goal was one
> incident at the end of a long, long game.  One incident never proves or
> disproves anything.
>
> >For the 45693479th time, Princeton and Brown were evenly matched.
> >The Tigers prevailed in part because Konte was unbelievable in goal,
> >in part because they may have been better conditioned and thus
> >able to prevail in the 82nd minute of their fourth game in a week,
> >and in part because, for the first time in team history, they
> >believed that they deserved to win. Princeton and Brown played
>
> I agree with all of this, plus: Parsons's off night; tight, controlling
> defense (especially in game 1); slightly better scoring opportunities (in
> a 1-goal game, the smallest differences matter).
>
> >five games this year, Princeton won three (out of four at
> >Meehan). I realize I'm starting to sound like a broken record,
>
> I am still amazed that all five games were one-goal games (not counting an
> empty-netter).
>
> >but the utter denial of some of the Brown posters is making
> >me regret that I've ever said anything nice about a deserving
> >hockey team.
>
> What denial?  If any Brown fan here said that Princeton didn't deserve to
> win, I must have missed it.  What are you getting upset about?  Relax,
> it's just a mailing list.  We can have differences of opinion without
> getting
> angry, can't we?
>
> --
>
> - Andrew Brecher ([log in to unmask])  <insert disclaimer here>
 
   Andrew has the right idea here. For the 45693479th time, no Brown fan
ever said Princeton didn't deserve to win the series. What we have argued,
and quite importantly, is that Princeton likes to hold sticks, lay their
sticks across chests, and basically play "clutch and grab" hockey. That is
quite different from the har checking game that Brown plays.
 
   Brown ended up in the box most of the time retaliating to all of the
penalties that Geoff Howell from the Trenton Slimes pointed out in his
post. Brown is definitely faster and more skilled. That doesn't mean guys
like Kelly or Masters are not, etc. Referees have to recognize the
difference between grabbing and holding sticks, an art the Tigers have
down to a science, and a clean hard hitting game.
 
   Paddy Thompson could have saved a goal for Brown in game 1, but, since
he has been playing with Gaudet for so long, opted to try and move with
his man. He got beat. Bad choice, but Gaudet and Cahoon just have
different ideas about how the game of hockey should be played.
 
   I think Gaudet's is a lot purer, and when AW and Geoff Howell talk
about going to intramural games instead of varsity games, they certainly
demonstrate that their technical knowledge of reading stats etc. is good,
but that they don't know a thing about how the game is played.
 
   Kudos from me to Konte. I hope he goes far. Forward Scott Bradford from
Brown could have ended the game twice in OT, but Konte came up big. He won
the game, not Brush.
 
   Most of all, this debate grows tiresome as do the posts of Geoff and
Adam. I think there are more fans who clearly understand that Princeton
loves to hold sticks, and uses the strategy to compensate for a lack of
speed. I would never argue that Mike Traggio and cohorts are angels, but
the TIgers have them beat on eluding referees with "clutch and grab"
tactics. Princeton beat Brown. I can accept that. They deserved the win.
More power to them. I don't know why Geoff and Adam are getting so upset.
It's just a mailing list. Get over it guys - after all, you are going to
Lake Placid.
 
   This is it for me on this subject. It's been a pleasure, Adam and Geoff.
 
--> Martin Small