On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Mark Lewin wrote:
 
>
> My comments: first let me vent on the LSSU style of play. I don't
> believe that hockey should be a non-contact sport. I don't like
> the fighting but I like a hard hitting, hard checking, defensive
> style. What I didn't like about LSSU tonight was their cheapness
> and their petty viciousness. On numerous occasions, they would throw
> cheap cross checks aginst RPI high across the neck in the corners. On
> numerous occasions, you could see the Lakers watching for the refs
> to turn away from them and throw cheap punches or elbows against
> RPI players along the boards. I am a veteran of 30 years of watching
> college hockey and I know this happens all the time but tonight it just
> happened too much. I'm known for giving an opposing team the benefit
> of the doubt but this happened so often tonight that it really
> soured my opinion of the LSSU hockey program.
 
I have to disagree with your asssessment of LSSU.  LSSU was physical, they
play more of a Western style which we in the ECAC are unaccustomed to
watching.  I thought it was great hockey to watch, RPI finally had a team
who would play physical hockey with them.  Unfortunately the Engineers
showed they didn't have the mettle and patience to win the battle.  If
anything LSSU played a less hitting game then the old Laker teams.  You
want to see cross checks take a look at the videotape of the second period
of the Maine/LSSU Championship game.  Although this seems strange to say,
I think Noeth's whistle-happy first period encouraged both teams to take
even more advantage of the rules.  Since you knew Noeth was going to call
the penalties it made sense to try and goad the other team into taking a
penalty-- and what better way than a little elbows here and there, and
some nice business against the boards.
 
  And the sad part is that Lake State didn't need to play like that.
> They had the speed and the size to have won the game by playing
> it straight.  I thought that RPI and LSSU matched up well on offense
> but the defense made the difference. The Laker defensemen used their
> speed and strength in digging the pucks out of the corners and
> getting the pucks up to their breaking forwards. This style kept the
> RPI defensemen back on their heels after several breakaways in the 1st
> period. Only some brilliant stops by Prekaski kept the scoring down.
> By the 2nd period, RPI defensemen had to play back to prevent the
> breakaways and left the forwards in deep to fend for themselves.
 
I think you just offered your own counterpoint--LSSU's speed created
problems for the RPI D's.  There were quite a few occasions when the RPI
defensemen would  line themselves up to take the body, only to find out
the LSSU body wasn't there.  Or when they finally made their move to take
out the LSSU forward they would already have the puck in deep in the RPI
zone.  I don't think I say a Laker forward stood up on the blue line all
night.
 
>
> In addition, the Laker defense used their muscle to keep the slot clear
> in front of Galatiuk. He let up a lot of dangerous rebounds but the
> Laker defense kept the RPI forwards tied up so they couldn't get off
> any quality rebound shots.
 
Yes.  How many times was the Engineer trailer held up before he could make
it to the front of the net?
 
 >
> Despite the cheapness of LSSU, they were the better team tonight and
> deserved to win the championship.
 
Take out your first phrase, and you sum up the game perfectly.
 
And you could add that the Engineers simply cannot figure out how to win
against the quality teams.
***************************************************************************
Brian Morris                 RPI Engineers--
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.