>Meanwhile, on the other end, Rogles certainly was playing solid but he didn't
>face ANY tough shots. Brown obviously thought that his glove was weak and
>every shot was up into the top right corner, Rogles' glove side. And every
>time it came, Rogles caught it. I don't want to downplay Rogles' effort, but
>Brown simply couldn't get past the solid Clarkson defense and when they did
<they didn't manage to put a hard shot on net. And as the game went on it
>got even worse for Brown as Clarkson simply dominated the neutral zone and
>kept the Bears out of the attacking zone.
>In the third period Finch continued his excellent play and kept it close down
>the stretch. In fact, in the last five minutes he faced several tough shots
>including one that he just kicked his leg out on to keep it from entering the
>net. If it hadn't been for O'Brien's stupid mistake, Brown might have only
>been down by one goal and then gone into OT when they tied it up on an
>excellent effort by their team with the goalie pulled. Clarkson managed to
>get an empty netter with about 4 seconds left to finish it off.
>So why am I pissed? If it isn't obvious by now, it's because I don't think
>Rogles deserved the MVP and more importantly, I think it should have gone to
>Finch of Brown. If it hadn't been for Finch, Brown would never have even had
>a shot. But as it was, Finch kept that game from becoming a blowout and if it
>hadn't been for one silly mistake, it could have been an OT game. Clarkson,
>on the other hand, didn't have a standout. They played solidly as a team.
>In fact, I think Clarkson put in one of the best team efforts I've ever seen,
>or at least one of the best in a long time. But no one on that team stood
>out as an MVP, certainly not Rogles.
>I can understand Rogles getting the MVP for his play over TWO games, but even
>so, what about Finch?? He played a great game against Harvard and then a
>simply dazzling one against the Golden Knights. And yet, the media, in their
>infinite wisdom, felt that someone on the winning team HAD to get the MVP (or
>maybe I'm wrong and it's actually a rule somewhere. Something like "Following
>the championship game, a Most Valuable Player (MVP) shall be chosen from the
<winning team". If that is the case, someone please point it out to me and I'll
>shutup.). Of course, the obvious choice, by virtue of the score, would be
>Rogles if an MVP had to be chosen from the winning team.
Well, take it easy dan. It's the ECAC TOURNAMENT MVP not the ECAC
Final Four MVP. The award was justly given to Rogles for his performance
in the four games of the ECAC tournament. I don't know how Finch did
in Providence (okay, I believe) but Clarkson would not have won Game
2 vs SLU without his heroics. If my memory serves correct, Rogles made
something like 102 saves on 110 shots in the 4 games. That's a 2.00
GAA and .930 save percentage. Not exactly horrible. Now, you could argue
that Finch was more deserving (i'd have to have seen the Brown-Yale
games) but certainly not by saying Rogles was dog meat.
Again Dan, it's the TOURNAMENT MVP not the game MVP. I definitely
agree that Finch was the first star of the Final. But the ECAC
Tournament MVP is not given to the first star of the championship game.
You seem to want to think that ripping on Rogles is somehow going to
prove your point that Finch was better. That's the wrong way to approach
it. I can certainly see how an argument for Finch could be made but
not solely by saying Rogles sucked. Give Rogie a little credit.
And remember, it was TOURNAMENT MVP not game MVP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bri Farenell CLARKSON HOCKEY: 1993 ECAC CHAMPS!
[log in to unmask]
ECAC and AHL contact for rec.sport.hockey
Adirondack Red Wings, Calder Cup Champs: '81 '86 '89 '92
Clarkson hockey, ECAC Tournament Champs: '66 '91 '93
Glens Falls High School Hockey, Division II NY State Champs: '90 '91
Congrats to the best player in the ECAC Tournament: Chris Rogles
|
