Canada blows it AGAIN!!!

[flybynite77]

Being the best in sport dominated by one-nation reaks of American inward thinking with such sports as American football and basketball (no offense to the yankees here, but you guys do have a very self-sustained sporting culture).

Nobody else plays American football. CFL aint the same game, and a lot of the players are Americans there anyway. NFL Europe is like 90-95% American players with NFL teams or trying to catch on.

Your NBA analogy though is a valid one. Personally I'd find us winning a gold medal with our best players more rewarding as the competition level in the world increases. Probably won't really see that for another 10-15 years though.

I'd love to see a baseball world cup though.
USA
Japan
South Korea
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Puerto Rico
Mexico
Venezuela

You could even see our little territory Puerto Rico, beat us there

 

[Spankatola Jamnuts*]

Look at it this way, in 2005 we won't have Meltdown Fleury in the nets.

Yeah, that'll help. Never mind wondering how the hell Kesler found himself all alone in front with half an hour to bat the puck in, or how O'Sullivan found so much room late in a tie game.

Team USA's chances came on mind-boggling defensive breakdowns, and I'm pretty sure MA Fleury didn't cause any of them. Canada absolutely collapsed in the 3rd.

But hey, giving the kid a gay little nickname and blowing it off will at least allow you to ignore the real problems and remain in denial about the rest of the team.

 

[Enoch]

Congrats to USA, they played an awesome tournement and they were diserving to be up there with Canada. But unfortunatly for them, they didn't won the game, Canada lost it. Canada was dominating and the game was theirs, but lucky goals cost them the victory.

I'm proud of our boys anyway, they played an awesome tournement and they gave us great holydays moment. Congrats to them all and let's hope that next year will be ours.

And btw, it is Canada 6th medal in a row, no bad, hey?

BS. No one dominated the first period, in fact I would ventur ethat the U.S. took advnatage of the Canadiens nervousness quite a bit in the first. We will call it a tie. In the second period, Canada clearly had the edge, but they did get a magnificent save from MAF that would have put the game at 2 - 2. They later scored a goal and had some good PP chances including a 5 on 3. Edge Canada. The third period was all U.S.A. They came out to win, and took it to the Canadiens who couldn't handle the U.S. D-men pinching in, in the final attempts to score. Edge U.S.

In other words, Canda got outplayed in the only period that counts, the third period, and lost the game. They did lose the game, but they were also beat soundly by the U.S.A. Each team had good chances, the U.S. just came out on top. Quit being a sore loser, and whining that the Canadiens handed the gold to the U.S., because quite simply they didn't. THey were just outplayed when it counted.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

The US was a more mature team and I think they were better able to handle their nerves of this important game. I was concerned with the age of Team Canada. But, this team will be more experienced heading into next year and it will only be a matter of time before Canada wins another gold medal. Exhibit patience my fellow Canadians..

It's amusing to me that age is being used as the reason Canada lost. Is that really why a two goal lead was given up in the 3rd?

Heck, even O'Sullivan's parents were cheering for Canada! Canada, if its any consolation to those with the sour grapes, is the most influential hockey nation.

First of all, who cares who John O'Sullivan cheers for. The guy is a loser plain and simple. Second, why would O'Sullivan's mom cheer for Canada? She's an American! Do you have any proof of this?

 

[Frenzy31]

I am not sure why Canadians are so upset. Yes, you lost the game w/ a 2 goal lead in the 3rd, but the team did have a good tournament. You are dealing w/ 18 and 19 yrs. old (w/ exeption of the Crosby), they will make mistakes, shoot, even pros make mistakes on a regular basis - guys have off games, periods and shifts. It happens.

Canada still won Silver. Not shabby at all. Congrats should go out to both teams on the tournament, not finger pointing.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I'm an American that didn't care too much who won the game. If anything I was rooting more for Richards & Carter than anything else.

IMO Canada was the better team for more of the game.

The US did a better job converting on their scoring chances.

Montoya was clearly better than Fleury, and not just because of the winning goal.


The US won because Fleury was not good, and because when they had their chances to blow the game open Tambellini, Paille, Crosby & Getzlaf (twice) couldn't finish. Otherwise it's a 4 or 5-1 lead and the game is over.

 

[Enoch]

The US won because Fleury was not good, and because when they had their chances to blow the game open Tambellini, Paille, Crosby & Getzlaf (twice) couldn't finish. Otherwise it's a 4 or 5-1 lead and the game is over.

Same could be said for both teams. That is what a goalie is there for. It could have easily been 2 - 2 late in the second, rather than 2 - 1, 3- 1. Fleury played good saver for the last goal, as did Montoya. Thats the position they play. They are the most important piece on the ice, and if team A's goalie is better than team B's with comprable talent on the ice........i'm going to give team A the edge (the U.S. in this game) every time.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Same could be said for both teams. That is what a goalie is there for. It could have easily been 2 - 2 late in the second, rather than 2 - 1, 3- 1. Fleury played good saver for the last goal, as did Montoya. Thats the position they play. They are the most important piece on the ice, and if team A's goalie is better than team B's with comprable talent on the ice........i'm going to give team A the edge (the U.S. in this game) every time.

I disagree that Fleury was good save for the last goal.

I thought the 1st goal (wraparound) was soft. I also the the 3rd goal was very stoppable.

 

[iagreewithidiots]

yankee this

Being the best in sport dominated by one-nation reaks of American inward thinking with such sports as American football and basketball (no offense to the yankees here, but you guys do have a very self-sustained sporting culture).

Thats not entirely true. Football is certainly dominated by Americans. Everyone in the world loves football, we just like a different kind. I think lack of outside interest is why the NFL is dominated by Americans.

Basketball though is having greater numbers of Europeans enter the league every year. The days of the dream team are over. As is US domination.

Baseball has plenty of Japanese and Dominicans. Baseball isnt dominated by the US at all.

So really sports domination by one nation doesnt reak of American inward thinking at all.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Thats not entirely true. Football is certainly dominated by Americans. Everyone in the world loves football, we just like a different kind. I think lack of outside interest is why the NFL is dominated by Americans.

Basketball though is having greater numbers of Europeans enter the league every year. The days of the dream team are over. As is US domination.

Baseball has plenty of Japanese and Dominicans. Baseball isnt dominated by the US at all.

So really sports domination by one nation doesnt reak of American inward thinking at all.

Of course a lack of interest by those outside the U.S. in American football is why it's dominated by Americans! We have a Real Men of Genius sighting here folks! It's an American invented sport that has really never been exported, except to Canada, and the CFL is a variation. As for basketball, the Dream Team concept IS still alive, if the very best American players participate. Baseball is diverse, but the vast majority of MLB players are American, look up the statistics. You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

 

[Stephen]

Yeah, I remember him costing you each of the past seven years...

Obviously you're going to be biased towards your own prospect. But what you're not acknowledging is the fact that Fleury was expected to be a difference maker in this tournament. Canada had a young team and Fleury was an NHLer on loan, a godsend. Instead, the team plays like a juggernaut throughout the whole tournament, masking the fact that Fleury has been inconsistent and at times shaky.

Hockey is a 60 minute game, but the USA won it with a 15 minute effort. Money goalies will let in all but the most important goals. You watch a guy like Brodeur at work, and he will never let in the backbreaking goal. Al Montoya demonstrated this in the USA nets. When Canada slipped for the first time in the tournament, Fleury couldn't bail his team out. I've seen great goaltending from guys like Marc Denis in this tournament, who bailed out his team when they needed it. I've seen Curtis Joseph hung out to dry by his team, and he's come out with 60 save wins. Basically the only time he was called upon to meet a serious challenge, he surrendered 3 goals in the last 15 minutes of play.

Last year, Fleury was great throughout the tournament. Against the Russians, he couldn't be the difference maker, surrendering two very quick goals late in the third.

Being a great goalie has a lot to do with timing: don't let in goals late in the third period. Against good competition, Fleury has folded twice late in games. He's still an elite goalie prospect with a lot of skill, but he has a lot of flaws to work out still.

 

[punchy1]

I agree with the thinking that said that Fluery were supposed to be the difference maker in this tourney and as he has been called possibly the greatest young goalie of all time, I think that if he is to be called that the he *should have* been able to play up to those standards and didn't.

He isn't to blame totally for the loss, he was just supposed to be the ringer that really made team Canada be able to beat the less talented Americans and, in my opinion, the way he were mismanaged in Pitts by having to play in the NHL when he wasn't ready for it and therefore lost all of his great skills in an attempt to try and survive at the highest level of hockey in the world and that is why he struggled in the tourney and why it will take some time in the minors to undue to damage that were done in the NHL.

He is still a great young goalie but like many many before him who were rushed into service to play behind less than average teams only to lose thier confidence, he will need to go down now, and spend some time trying to regain the game that earned him the hype. After the way he played in this tourney, he looked less then average and certainly weren't the best goalie there.

 

[Stephen]

I don't see any physical flaws in Fleury's game. The main problems I see with him is that he could be better positionally and rely less on his reflexes, and the biggest problem of all is his mental game. Rushing him to the pros has robbed him of the chance to refine the technical aspect of his game.

I'm not sure if a 'mental toughness' is what's missing, but he doesn't seem to be able to really focus and close out an important win. When Fleury was flopping around in the third period, he looked like he didn't know what he was doing. He didn't look like he was in control of the situation.

I don't blame Fleury entirely for the loss, but I think a lot of blame should be given to him because of what he was expected to do.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I don't blame Fleury entirely for the loss, but I think a lot of blame should be given to him because of what he was expected to do.

So, a lot of the blame should go to Fleury because of what *people expect*?

Yeah, that makes sense...

What we're seeing here is a couple of anal-retentives who buy all the hype on every damn player on the planet and then are let down the MINUTE a player makes a mistake.

I'll wager a lot of the freaks who are moaning right now are the same people who had completely nonsensical expectations from Lehtonen last year, then started to cry when Fleury outplayed him, then appointed Fleury the new messiah.

It's sad.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Your last sentence says it all, which is why the American team EARNED the win. Sure Canada blew it, because they thought 45 minutes of hard play was enough, it wasn't. So, IMO the team who plays a full 60 minutes is the team DESERVING of the win. The American team played with nothing to lose, while the Canadians played to not lose with a two goal lead.

Just because Canada didn't bury the game when they SHOULD have doesn't mean the Americans didn't earn the win.

I agree, but this doesn't mean we should hold the Canadian team blameless for what happened in the third period. Absolutely the Americans deserve the win - but Canada should have deserved it.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Canada didn't blow it, the USA earned it. They're simply better.

 

[Stephen]

So, a lot of the blame should go to Fleury because of what *people expect*?

Yeah, that makes sense...

What we're seeing here is a couple of anal-retentives who buy all the hype on every damn player on the planet and then are let down the MINUTE a player makes a mistake.

I'll wager a lot of the freaks who are moaning right now are the same people who had completely nonsensical expectations from Lehtonen last year, then started to cry when Fleury outplayed him, then appointed Fleury the new messiah.

It's sad.

I've never been one to put Fleury on a pedestal.

I'm just saying as someone who is brought in to be a money goalie and a difference maker, Fleury failed miserably. It's not just the people who hype him, as a high draft pick and an NHLer on loan, he was supposed to excel. He failed to bail his team out, and that makes him a disappointment. He deserves a big piece of the blame.

 

[John Agar]

Didn't get to wade in yesterday, so...

today I will say congratulations to Team USA. A well deserved victory. They kept their cool & played "their" game.

Canada on the other hand showed their inexperience and layed back some and were not aggressive in the 1st 10 minutes of that 3rd period. Their nervouseness and lack of confidence showed in their miscues that led to the goals/breaks the USA got; the US buried the chances given. Canada got their chances and didn't bury them.

Fleury was not comfortable the whole tournament and this was widely observed; Durochers should have had the guts to put in our "backup" at any time.

Canada's forwards were by-and-large (excuse the pun) extremely impressive as a whole; next year looks very promising.

The US in summation played their game in the final stanza - Canada did not - "bad breaks will beat the team that doesn't make their own."

Very little difference between these two teams; both could have won. Kudos to both. Both 1st rate hockey nations.

 

[Oilers Chick]

Some great posts here, but many of you are missing one crucial point here as far as Team USA goes....chemistry. What I mean by this is that some of Team USA's "core players" are returning players, such as Zach Parise and Ryan Suter. They know each other well.

Also, Suter plays with Likens regularly on Wisconsin's power play, and they played together on Team USA's power play. Coincidence?

Brady Murray regularly plays with Zach Parise on UND's "Money Line" (aka "Brady Bunch Line"), again they were paired up in the WJC.

Now, because I'm not all that knowledgeable about who plays with which CHL team, I don't know how much "prior existing chemistry" there was on the Canadian squad.

 

[John Agar]

In response to not knowing CHL prior...

Some great posts here, but many of you are missing one crucial point here as far as Team USA goes....chemistry. What I mean by this is that some of Team USA's "core players" are returning players, such as Zach Parise and Ryan Suter. They know each other well.

Also, Suter plays with Likens regularly on Wisconsin's power play, and they played together on Team USA's power play. Coincidence?

Brady Murray regularly plays with Zach Parise on UND's "Money Line" (aka "Brady Bunch Line"), again they were paired up in the WJC.

Now, because I'm not all that knowledgeable about who plays with which CHL team, I don't know how much "prior existing chemistry" there was on the Canadian squad.

chemistry, lots, as many of Canada's players had played for Canada's Under-17 and Under-18 program and had succeeded on the international stage. One more year of experience overall for the US on average did make a difference I would say though.

 

[Oilers Chick]

chemistry, lots, as many of Canada's players had played for Canada's Under-17 and Under-18 program and had succeeded on the international stage. One more year of experience overall for the US on average did make a difference I would say though.

Aside from international play, do any of them currently play on the same team? same line?

 

[John Agar]

Meech & Phaneuf only...

Aside from international play, do any of them currently play on the same team? same line?

on defense for the Red Deer Rebels in the Western Hockey League.

 

[Crosbyfan]

BS. No one dominated the first period, in fact I would ventur ethat the U.S. took advnatage of the Canadiens nervousness quite a bit in the first. We will call it a tie. In the second period, Canada clearly had the edge, but they did get a magnificent save from MAF that would have put the game at 2 - 2. They later scored a goal and had some good PP chances including a 5 on 3. Edge Canada. The third period was all U.S.A. They came out to win, and took it to the Canadiens who couldn't handle the U.S. D-men pinching in, in the final attempts to score. Edge U.S.

In other words, Canda got outplayed in the only period that counts, the third period, and lost the game. They did lose the game, but they were also beat soundly by the U.S.A. Each team had good chances, the U.S. just came out on top. Quit being a sore loser, and whining that the Canadiens handed the gold to the U.S., because quite simply they didn't. THey were just outplayed when it counted.

"Beat soundly"? I thought the US earned their breaks and deserved to win but "beat soundly"? Thats as silly as saying the third period is the only one that counts. (oh yeah, you said that to)

 

[eyeofthetiger]

"Beat soundly"? I thought the US earned their breaks and deserved to win but "beat soundly"? Thats as silly as saying the third period is the only one that counts. (oh yeah, you said that to)

Shulda! Woulda! Coulda! Sixty minutes of hockey is required to win Championship Games. There is no ONE person to blame...shoulda let in less goals (Fluery) they woulda won the gold... shoulda scored more goals (offence) they woulda won the gold... shoulda controlled the game in their own end (defence) they coulda won the gold...shoulda played 60 minutes of hockey, not 40... they coulda won the gold...shouldn't have sat on the lead....but the Canadians still played great hockey for the most part and were in a position to take home the GOLD. Seems to me they thought they had the game going into the third...too complacent and no desperation until it was too late...oh well there's always next year.

 

[punchy1]

Right said mate. Perfectly put. Hey mods, close the thread and let this be the final word on it. ( )