Steve Twombly writes:
>I would like to congratulate Mike Machnik on a superbly
>written, informative, and 100% accurate article written
>about last night's Lowell - Merrimack showdown.
 
Thanks, I just call it as I see it.  At least one mistake I did make,
however -
 
+The win was Lowell's 9th straight over their Merrimack Valley rival.
 
It was their 7th straight, with a 9 game unbeaten streak (8-0-1).  It
is still true that Lowell has gone more than 373 minutes since they
last fell behind Merrimack in a game.
 
I may soon write an article about the death of the once exciting
Lowell-Merrimack rivalry.
 
>1st-  The Merrimack goaltending was the worst I've seen
>      by any team this year, and by far the worst I've
>      see Martin LeGault play ever.
>      Case in point:  Goal by Dartch - Blue Line, no screen.
 
Bad goal.  Unfortunately he has been beaten to that side (glove, high)
more times this season than I would have expected.
 
>                      Goal by Golden - 30 feet away, no screen.
 
Yes, there was - his angle was blocked by a teammate on the ice.
 
>                      Goal by Campbell 30 feet away, maybe a screen.
 
Definitely a screen.  I watched all the goals on tape when I got home.
 
>                      Goal by Salsman  Puck sat in crease for 3 seconds
>                                       before LeGault saw/missed it.
 
But he did have about 4 people lying on top of him or near him as he
tried to recover.
 
>This was very unusual for a guy who was picked as one of the top goalies
>in hockey east, if not the nation.  He now has one win (I don't think
>wins vs. Canadian teams should count, but that's a different show)
 
Legault didn't have a good game and has not played as well as I had
expected, but he only gave up one goal I would definitely mark down as
a bad one.  Yet, he seemed to lose his concentration for a stretch in
the second period, and Lowell might have been able to score several
more goals than they did.
 
And when I say Legault hasn't played as well as I expected, what I
mean is that there has been about one goal a night that I thought he
should have stopped.  It's not like he is suddenly a sieve.  But after
the way he played last year, including a stretch of about 7 straight
games in which he allowed a total of 12-13 goals, *none* bad, it is
surprising to see him beat on an average of once a night on a goal he
should have had.
 
That one goal a night also makes a difference when your team is not
one that scores a lot.  But it is also magnified when your team cannot
score a lot.  Good goalies, of which Legault is one, do allow a bad
goal here and there and if their teammates can make up for it, people
forget about the bad goals allowed.  Legault is not the main reason
Merrimack is struggling.  There isn't one, in fact.  He's not played
as well as I bet even he thinks he should be playing, but the same can
be said for a number of other players.
 
Merrimack needs to have everything finally come together.  Most of the
time, goaltending and defense have been pretty decent (maybe a bad
goal a night, as I said), but scoring has been nonexistent or
untimely.  Last night, scoring was a little more timely, and had
Legault not allowed that bad goal and the defense done its job a
couple of other times, they might have won a 3-2 game.  They are a
team that has no room for error.
 
>3rd - Fillion played a good game in net.  He let in a deflection goal, which
>he didn't have much chance on, and a couple of other goals that some goalies
>would've had, some wouldn't.  Bottom line, he's 4-0-1.
 
That's my assessment too.  He didn't stand out, nor did he win the
game on his own.  I noticed that WNDS gave him the player of the game,
maybe because you could not really find a single Lowell player to give
it to.
 
>4th - Merrimack's big defensemen didn't impress me one bit.  They can hit,
>but if you're talking offensive moves/awareness, MacKenna is a joke.  He got
>the puck at his own blue line and tried to bring it up ice many times, and
>skated head down into traffic, losing the puck most every time. He also looked
>very slow and awkward.
 
Well, I have said several times that one of the problems is that there
is no offense from the blueline such as Cornforth and Hodge provided.
However, I think McKenna is getting a bad rap here...first of all, it
is not his job to lead the charge from the blueline, but he's one guy
who I really sense is trying to do all he can to turn things around.
And his playmaking and stickhandling is much improved over last year,
even though last night, I agree, wasn't one of his better nights.  He
did make a very nice play through center ice to Kesselring for a
shorthanded bid.  Check the tape of the Northeastern game for several
examples where McKenna showed how he is really coming into his own
offensively.
 
And how about this...McKenna was on the ice for three goals for and
one goal against.  That's all three Merrimack goals scored.  And the
one goal against was the bad one Legault let in from the blue line -
certainly not McKenna's fault.  You cannot ask for much more from the
man.  He's doing all he can.
 
Still, if you expect to see flashy play and lots of points from
Merrimack's defensemen, you're not going to get it...their job is to
help keep the puck out of the net.  Overall, they have done a pretty
good job of that.  Despite the record, Legault still entered last
night's game with one of the best GAAs in HE.  That proves my point,
especially since I think Legault can play better than he has.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                 [log in to unmask]           [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93
*****      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.