World Cup: Lundqvist let in 3 stinkers in a row vs europe

[Patriks7]

Overrated? He's probably just tired from carrying the Rangers on his back for so many seasons.

 

[Sorey*]

Without Hank in the group stage, we wouldn't even be in the semifinals. Far from being an issue.

how do you know? Markstrom was in great form. Lundqvist got the call based on past reputation.

 

[CanadienShark]

He's really not overrated. He's been an elite goalie for more years than anyone else in the league. He has ups and downs like anyone else, but he's more or less consistently elite. You're extrapolating a crazy point from a tiny sample size here.

I don't think they all were stinkers but he's getting a reputation of being bad in big games.

He's actually one of the more "clutch" goalies in big games.

 

[Sorey*]

He's really not overrated. He's been an elite goalie for more years than anyone else in the league. He has ups and downs like anyone else, but he's more or less consistently elite. You're extrapolating a crazy point from a tiny sample size here.

He let in 4 out of 15 shots vs Slovakia in quarterfinal olympics 2010.

I guess he likes yielding goals to slovakians.

 

[gqmixmaster]

Lundqvist is just not a big game goalie

 

[CanadienShark]

He let in 3 out of 15 shots vs Slovakia in quarterfinal olympics 2010.

I guess he likes yielding goals to slovakians.

Alright, he's probably not a good goalie then.

 

[Sorey*]

Lundqvist is just not a big game goalie

sweden hadnt beat the russians in 12 years, in comes markstrom and gives a stable impression. Then he is benched.

 

[aufheben]

sweden hadnt beat the russians in 12 years, in comes markstrom and gives a stable impression. Then he is benched.

Didn't Lundqvist face like ~70 shots in the first two real games?

 

[Sorey*]

Didn't Lundqvist face like ~70 shots in the first two real games?

he played pretty good vs team NA, however finland posed no real threat offensively, most shots were weak shots from the perimeter. Markstrom could had played as well there.

Coming in to the tourney, everyone saw that lundqvist wasnt in his best form. But since he is glorified in sweden, no one dares to bench him.

 

[Nithoniniel]

how do you know? Markstrom was in great form. Lundqvist got the call based on past reputation.

We can't know, but it's a safe bet considering the quantity and quality of chances against. A performance on that level shouldn't be expected of anyone, regardless of form.

Markström, good form or no, isn't exactly a world beater. He's spent a career showing promise only to fail to sustain it. It would be a different case if we had the goaltending depth that Canada or the US have, but even then it would be misdirected blame. If you demand the goalie on the superior team to constantly bail them out, then he's not the problem.

he played pretty good vs team NA, however finland posed no real threat offensively, most shots were weak shots from the perimeter. Markstrom could had played as well there.

Coming in to the tourney, everyone saw that lundqvist wasnt in his best form. But since he is glorified in sweden, no one dares to bench him.

The bolded is false. Shot location data shows a completely different picture.

Lundqvist wasn't our starter because of reputation, but because he's for many years been a goaltender on multiple tiers above any challenger. He's a top tier NHL starter, whereas no other goaltender has managed to keep a job as a starter of any kind. Markström was second this tournament, and hasn't relegated even a mediocre starter like Miller to the backup role yet.

 

[983 others]

Loser?

His Stanley Cup rings speak for themselves, [MOD]

 

[aufheben]

he played pretty good vs team NA, however finland posed no real threat offensively, most shots were weak shots from the perimeter. Markstrom could had played as well there.

Coming in to the tourney, everyone saw that lundqvist wasnt in his best form. But since he is glorified in sweden, no one dares to bench him.

Pretty good? lol

Loser?

His Stanley Cup rings speak for themselves, [MOD]

It's a discussion related to international play and he's won a Gold medal with Sweden. So...no.

 

[Sorey*]

We can't know, but it's a safe bet considering the quantity and quality of chances against. A performance on that level shouldn't be expected of anyone, regardless of form.

Markström, good form or no, isn't exactly a world beater. He's spent a career showing promise only to fail to sustain it. It would be a different case if we had the goaltending depth that Canada or the US have, but even then it would be misdirected blame. If you demand the goalie on the superior team to constantly bail them out, then he's not the problem.

Markstrom is on the rise, he found his game last season after years of injuries. The talent has always been there. He is 26 years old and entering his prime. Would markstrom let in 3 softies vs europe? No one knows, but probably not.

I would been fine with lundqvist if the goals he let in was tough goals to save. But all three of them were savable.

It's a discussion related to international play and he's won a Gold medal with Sweden. So...no.

he won a gold with forsberg, sundin, zetterberg, alfredsson and lidstrom on the team.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Markstrom is on the rise, he found his game last season after years of injuries. The talent has always been there. He is 26 years old and entering his prime. Would markstrom let in 3 softies vs europe? No one knows, but probably not.

Thing is, what you describe is just narrative. It's a theory.

What we do know is that in recent years up until this point, Lundqvist blows Markström out of the water in terms of level of goaltending and consistency. There's really no reason to expect Markström to outperform him. And no, that Markström looked good in a couple of exhibition games doesn't qualify as a good reason.

Of course not saying that Markström wouldn't have done it even better, just that:

1) Pointing at this as the crucial factor is just wrong.
2) There was no real argument for Markström over Lundqvist going into the tournament, except extremely short term form, and that has never been as influential a factor as overall ability.

I would been fine with lundqvist if the goals he let in was tough goals to save. But all three of them were savable.

Considering your posts on the subject before the tournament, I doubt it. You've been pushing the "Markström over Lundqvist"-agenda all along.

 

[aufheben]

Markstrom is on the rise, he found his game last season after years of injuries. The talent has always been there. He is 26 years old and entering his prime. Would markstrom let in 3 softies vs europe? No one knows, but probably not.

I would been fine with lundqvist if the goals he let in was tough goals to save. But all three of them were savable.


he won a gold with forsberg, sundin, zetterberg, alfredsson and lidstrom on the team.

Good teams win things? Nah...

 

[Sorey*]

Thing is, what you describe is just narrative. It's a theory.

What we do know is that in recent years up until this point, Lundqvist blows Markström out of the water in terms of level of goaltending and consistency. There's really no reason to expect Markström to outperform him. And no, that Markström looked good in a couple of exhibition games doesn't qualify as a good reason.

Of course not saying that Markström wouldn't have done it even better, just that:

1) Pointing at this as the crucial factor is just wrong.
2) There was no real argument for Markström over Lundqvist going into the tournament, except extremely short term form, and that has never been as influential a factor as overall ability.



Considering your posts on the subject before the tournament, I doubt it. You've been pushing the "Markström over Lundqvist"-agenda all along.

considering sweden won over mighty russia with markstrom yes. I dont see any wrong with that agenda.

at the end of the day, markstrom won 1 out of 1. Lundqvist won 1 out of 3.

 

[McDonagh27]

Good teams win things? Nah...

I know right? Hasek won his cups wit Red Wings teams sthat only had about 10 HOFers on it. Dryden carried a bunch of sad sack rosters to cups.

On HFBoards, Lundqvist is probably the most underrated goaltender of all time. Chokes in big games...have you seen his stats in game 7s? Price is constantly praised as the better goalie, so where are his cups?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/a...-is-the-greatest-game-7-goaltender-in-history

 

[aufheben]

considering sweden won over mighty russia with markstrom yes. I dont see any wrong with that agenda.

at the end of the day, markstrom won 1 out of 1. Lundqvist won 1 out of 3.

Well if you just said that to begin with I wouldn't have argued!

 

[Crosbyfan]

He is worse than Tommy SALO

Wasn't Salo's fault. That was a tough shot to track...and Botswana had a good Team that year...very underrated Team

 

[Tomas W]

bad game, happens to even the best. move on.

Weak goals I agree. Of course he wasnt the only one to underperform.

Sweden need to step it up for next tournament.

 

[Slimmy]

He also let in 3 goals on something like 15 shots against Slovakia in Vancouver. The guy is a loser.

Yeah, such a loser with his Olympic Gold medal. Who gives a flying **** about the World Cup?

 

[Slimmy]

considering sweden won over mighty russia with markstrom yes. I dont see any wrong with that agenda.

at the end of the day, markstrom won 1 out of 1. Lundqvist won 1 out of 3.

At the end of the day, Lundqvist is the better goal tender. There's no question about that.
The win agianst Russia was a behemoth of a defensive effort. The loss against NA was hardly on Lundqvist. He was the main factor for us getting that point that took us to the semis in the first place. There was nothing but praise for Lundqvist in the game thread that day. Are you disputing that? Overall, Lundqvist only had one bad game and that one is as much on the team infront as it is on him. Get the **** out with your garbage.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Didn't Lundqvist face like ~70 shots in the first two real games?

I think the number was 81 saves in the last two games before the Europe game.

And talking about "stinkers". Allow me to laugh. Sure, Gaborik's goal was kind of weak, but he wasn't beat cleanly. He was kind of unlucky that redirection somehow squeezed through. Saving a redirection in the middle of a repositioning isn't exactly a "stinker". That Gaborik got so little power on it fooled him I think. Yes, Gaborik, a veteran NHL sniper. If he would've saved it, the commentators would've yelled "great save!" for managing to keep the puck out in the middle of a lateral move. So how can it be a stinker when he allows it? Ridiculous. A stinker would've been if he was beat cleanly on the shot. He wasn't.

As for the second goal, he saved the initial shot, where Tatar shot it with Strålman as a screen. He then sprawled to try to take away the bottom of the net, but Tatar managed to lob it, which was a great effort by him from that distance, considering if he had any power on it, it would've gone over the net. That was a Hasek trademark move btw. Any praise on Tatar's effort on that lob? No, just terrible by the goalie I guess. Duh! But oh, he didn't glove it cleanly? You try gloving a puck from Tatar with a defenseman as a screen and see how easy it is.

And the third goal in OT, again, he saves the initial shot, which again wasn't easy to make. In fact, it was a nice slide by Lundqvist. Maybe he shouldn't have gone behind the net to stop the puck and get out of position, sure, but basically every goalie in the NHL will try to slow down the puck when they can. In the long run, it is the correct move to make. Again, it was a good heads up play by the Euro by the boards and Tatar was managed to get his skate on the rebound. What should Lundqvist have done? Gloved the puck with his pad?

The only initial shot he didn't save was Gaboriks and both the other goals were tough initial saves. Summarizing that as "three stinkers" is the stinker. But sure Sorey, go ahead, you're free to believe Markström is better than Lundqvist. Maybe Markström should be the starter for New York and Lundqvist should battle for the starting position with Miller in Vancouver. Sure. Go ahead, start that trade proposal on HF and see how many agree with you.

All this crying on Lundqvist because Sweden lost is kind of ridiculous. No, scratch "kind of". It is ridiculous. Sweden didn't play nearly as good as they should have. They didn't create nearly enough offensively and that was one of the main points of the swedish coach after the game, naturally. Hedman and Strålman also struggled to keep track of their players. Hedman wasn't the same after the charley horse he received from Komarov's cheap shot, which could've destroyed his knees if Hedman wasn't so lucky.

That's where they lost the game. Lundqvist didn't play great, but he didn't play terrible either. He had an alright game, which should've been enough if the team played up to their own standards, which they never did. Hence the 81 saves in the first two games. Shaky defense in the later part of the tournament and bad offense throughout, how exactly is that on the shoulders of the goalie? Or is Lundqvist expected to stand on his head every game, for his team to win a game on the national team as well now and not just in New York?

If Markström was the starter, Sweden wouldn't even have been playing the semi final in the first place. Such a weird way to show any form of gratitude. But I forgot, Markström is the best swedish goalie in the NHL.

 

[Nordic*]

Lundqvist sucked, but so did 90% of the team.