Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 12 Dec 1994 12:30:59 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>>
>> Why the hell was Masotta in goal vs. Princeton.(It makes no sense)
>>
>It was Dan Fridgen's plan to start Brian Masotta in goal all along. Like any
>good coach (Remember Bowling Green's goalie flaming?) when you have two
>legitimate goal tenders, you play both, not just the "hot" one. Masotta has
>had the unfortunate experience of ZERO defense in front of him when he
>has played. You really can't blame him.
>
>>
>> The overall RPI team isn't strong enough to support a weak goalie.
>> This is evidenced by their need to depend on Tamburro to pull them
>> out of defensive disasters(as witnessed during the Clarkson game).
>>
>You're right, they're not strong enough. But the answer ISN'T to rely on your
>hot goalie. They NEED a kick in the teeth every now and again. There's FIVE
>guys in front of the goalie the opposition has to get through... THEY need to
>pick up their game or they WILL LOSE not matter who's in goal!
>
>RPI's played over expectation this year, and sometimes over their head. They
>don't have the depth, or an incredable standout. Like Maine who is
>showing BU that hockey is a TEAM sport, RPI's gonna have to play with a team
>attitude to win and we should enjoy the wins we get.
>
>Jim Chalfonte
>[log in to unmask]
[Some things om9itted above]
I've noticed that RPI's defense (and the whole team) plays well when they
have confidence in the goalie, and really poorly when they don't. I agree
with Jim, both goalies need experience, and the team needs confidence in
both goalies.
On the other hand, I was quite surprised at how well Princeton played here
in Cornell. They looked like a solid team, and may be underestimated.
Nate Robinson, RPI '94
|
|
|