>[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