PGT: Game 2 - Europe vs Canada - Canada wins the 2016 World Cup of Hockey

rubco55

Registered User
Feb 15, 2016
287
49
Toronto
Kopitar was cussing going off the ice, Kopitar is not a guy who complains about refs call.

It was a weak call.

Oh...so because Kopitar is cussing and as you say, that he never does :sarcasm:, it's a weak call...first of all Kopitar is a human being, not a robot, so his attitude will change depending of the circumstances and it could very well be that he was mad at himself for taking a penalty so close to the end of regulation. Second, look at the play, he put his arms around Perry and brings him down, in the NFL it's a tackle, in the NHL that's holding 100% of the time.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,261
1,655
Chicago, IL
I would expect any of the Canadian lines to beat the Koptar line in possession considering the two team's rosters. Not only offensive lines but the support they receive from the D as far as possession is concerned. Which is the essence of my point. Looking stricty at game 2, at least, the way the game was played, the amount of shots and scoring chances Canada had relative to what theyve proven capable of in other games, against teams supposedly better on paper than europe, Europe deserves a lot of credit, especially considering they were not simply defending they were also creating offensively.

Considering Kopitar played 24 minutes, had a considerable offensive presence as far as im concerned, and played against most if not all Canadian lines throughout the game if my memory serves me well, he is one that deserves a large amount of this credit.

Definitely agree about Kopitar, he was great for the whole tournament, not sure if they're annoucning an AS team, but if they are he should be on it.
 

JaegerDice

The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
Dec 26, 2014
25,278
9,602
Certainly would expect the Toews line to have more possession, especially when you consider the Dmen as well. Looking at how all Team Canada lines did against the Kopitar line would provide some better context (which I think I saw someone start to do by mentioning the Crosby line).



Size of square = TOI of matchup
Color share = Possession %
Contrast = Total events per minute

Obviously, when evaluating possession, deployment should be taken into account as well:

 

Sensinitis

Registered User
Aug 5, 2012
15,936
5,526


Size of square = TOI of matchup
Color share = Possession %
Contrast = Total events per minute

Obviously, when evaluating possession, deployment should be taken into account as well:



When evaluating possession, there are many other factors that you did not mention that should be taken into account as well. Factors that I have numerously mentioned by now.
 

hammerwielder

Registered User
Jan 6, 2008
205
0
Canada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DpS0kekqE8

Check carefully that change around 0:30. Too many men IMO. Gimmick tournament ending with goal against the rules :D

That could have been called, as Canada gained a distinct advantage. There is no question that Marchand was trying to get on to get into the rush, and that only after he started to come over the boards did the behind-the-play forward start for the bench. The changing forward was at least 12 feet away when Marchand hit the ice. Having said that, if you watch any NHL game, the officials give that kind of leeway, and even more, routinely on line changes on the fly so long as the changing player is well out of the play. Harry Neale had a great term for on the fly line changes in the NHL that is no doubt now politically incorrect; he called them "a Chinese fire drill". LOL. It was a proper non-call based on how rule 17 is actually interpreted by the officials. I see your point, though, and had actually concluded before seeing your post and after seeing the replay that Canada probably got away with one.

As for your comment that it was a gimmick tournament, yes it was, but only because of the joke teams, including "Team Europe", which should never have been a team, let alone played in the final. So it was poetic justice that they got eliminated in this way. Maybe that was your point too, and if so I agree.
 

hammerwielder

Registered User
Jan 6, 2008
205
0
Canada
That could have been called, as Canada gained a distinct advantage. There is no question that Marchand was trying to get on to get into the rush, and that only after he started to come over the boards did the behind-the-play forward start for the bench. The changing forward was at least 12 feet away when Marchand hit the ice. Having said that, if you watch any NHL game, the officials give that kind of leeway, and even more, routinely on line changes on the fly so long as the changing player is well out of the play. Harry Neale had a great term for on the fly line changes in the NHL that is no doubt now politically incorrect; he called them "a Chinese fire drill". LOL. It was a proper non-call based on how rule 17 is actually interpreted by the officials. I see your point, though, and had actually concluded before seeing your post and after seeing the replay that Canada probably got away with one.

I have to revise this. Looking at the whole replay, Couture was interfered with by Tatar as Tatar was crashing into the Canadian zone on the power play and Pietrangelo had retaken possession. Couture was therefore down and out near the Canadian net as Toews took off the other way, with only Bouwmeester in tow as the other Canadian forward had been hauled down. An interference penalty should have been called on Tatar and the delayed call would have enabled Marchand to get onto the ice. In any case, since Couture had been taken completely out of the play, Marchand was entitled to some leeway in getting on to replace him and give Canada a second forward. So there was no too many men infraction, and in fact if anything there should have been an interference call on Tatar. It was a good goal.
 

WeAre

Registered User
Sep 20, 2014
237
39
Canada won something? What is this world cup? We europeans never heard of it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad