Bill writes:
>     On rec.sport.hockey, Thomas Kalla referred to the end of this game as
>    "a scandal", and while I'm not sure I'd go that far, I can see where
>     people might think there was some sort of fix on.
>
>     After the game, Taylor explained his decision by saying, "We tried to
>     break even.  We would rather lose by two goals instead of three."
>     Sorry, Coach, but to me, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
>     Losing by three to a tough Canada team, having stayed relatively close
>     all the way, would have looked a damn sight better than losing by
>     *five* and practically gift-wrapping a couple goals at the end.  To
 
You're right, Bill, 7-4 would have looked better than 9-4, but how was
Taylor to know Canada would get those extra two goals?  His job is to
do the best he can with his team, and even if they might lose, I'm glad
he tried to make the game as close as possible.  USA is on its way up in
the hockey world, not yet a gold-contender, but if USA could have scored
another goal or two it would have been a morale-booster for future USA
efforts, especially with the Canada Cup coming up.  I sure would have
rather had my team lose a close game and use it as something to build
on in the future.
 
I agree with you that Taylor was not trying to throw the game to Canada,
and I am incensed at those (Mr Kalla especially, since he was so vocal)
who declared that he was.  Though I tried to keep my reply to his civil,
it's still the first time I have flamed someone in longer than I care to
remember.  I have no problem with someone questioning whether something
is underhanded.  But Mr Kalla flat-out declared that USA conspired with
the Canadians to try to throw them the gold.
 
It is convenient that people overlook so many important factors here:
 
1) USA would certainly NOT want to throw a game to its second most
   bitter rival (if you consider USSR to be first).  This is something I
   could NEVER see happening.
2) Taylor would never risk his international coaching career by doing such
   a thing.  Perhaps people not familiar with him don't know any better,
   but as Bill says, he is very respected in US hockey circles, and no
   observer of Yale or US hockey would put any credence in such ideas.
   If anything, Taylor, knowing that Canada needed to win by 5, surely
   was aware that if his team did allow two more goals after he pulled
   the goalie, he would be the object of much speculation at the least.
   Yet he still chose to try to help his team to the best finish he could.
3) USA could have gained a bronze by beating Canada.  I find it impossible
   to believe they could have played much of the game trying to win, then
   suddenly decide to throw it to Canada by 5 goals.
4) If USA really DID want to let Canada win by 5, why put Vanbiesbrouck
   back in after Fleury's empty-netter?  Why not leave him on the bench?
5) Even if 4 goals was too much, 3 would have still gained USA a tie and
   that would have enabled USA to both end the WC with a tie against a
   bitter rival and hurt Canada's medal chances.  I think that would have
   been more satisfying than allowing Canada to win the gold.
6) Crazier things have happened than a team scoring three goals in the
   final minute or even half-minute.  Just over a year ago, Merrimack led
   AIC 6-3 with under a minute left and ended up tied, 6-6.  The final
   goal came at the buzzer.
7) With Canada scurrying to score two more goals, there was always the
   possibility that USA would get some golden chances to score on a team
   that wasn't thinking defense.
8) USA-Canada was played BEFORE Sweden-USSR.  There was no way to know
   the outcome of that game.  As it turned out, the USA-Canada result
   was irrelevant.
 
As for the power play and pulling the goalie with 2:12 left, some coaches
are reluctant to make such a move when on the man advantage.  They'd
rather get the goal and then call the goalie to the bench.  Maybe you
and even I would have opted to pull him then, but that wasn't how he
wanted to play it out.  Arguable, sure, but I don't think it supports
any conspiracy theory.
 
I also don't think this detracts from the fine performance by Team USA
in this tourney.  Some people may think it does, but I challenge them
to refute the points I've made above and to produce evidence of a
conspiracy.  Otherwise, they're just blowing off a lot of hot air.
 
Finally, I want to thank you, Bill, for your great job of posting WC
updates.  Most of the WC postings didn't make it my way until after
your mail did, so it was much appreciated.  I'm glad to see the up-and-
coming American stars do well and I think it signals the continued rise
of USA hockey.  Wayne Gretzky said that the team he fears most in the
upcoming Canada Cup is USA, not the Soviets.  While I don't expect a
gold from USA in the Canada Cup, I think they'll do well and maybe
make a run at second-place with their full lineup in place.  I will
also be looking forward to the 92 Olympics.  I still believe the 1988
team should have fared much better than 7th; it was easily the most
talented team the US has iced in an Olympics.  Next year's team should
rival 88 in quality, and if they are properly prepared for international
play, I think they will make us proud.
 
This is my first attempt at posting to the list from home, something I
will be doing more of when my term at Apollo ends at the end of May, so
I hope it works ok.
==========================================================================
Mike Machnik             [log in to unmask]    samsung!hubdub!nin15b34
NORTHEASTERN HUSKIES: 1988 Beanpot & Hockey East Champions
MERRIMACK WARRIORS: 1993 Hockey East Champions
NCAA Hockey -> Fire on Ice!
==============================cmk=========================================