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.